Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

Only 3 Easy Payments of $19.95

Trans isn't even recognized as a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause (United States v. Skrmetti) so why would the Supreme Court rule that you MUST allow someone to play in a gender segregated sport based on what they identify as?

People out here like WOW SUPREME COURT BAD, HOW COULD THEY

georgia

@georgia@netzsphaere.xyz remote

@feld I'm seeing a lot of outrage based on Thomas's opinion that being trans isnt an immutable characteristic

Only 3 Easy Payments of $19.95

@feld@friedcheese.us remote

@georgia it's hard to swallow but he's not wrong. A not insignificant number of people de-transition which means it's obviously not an immutable characteristic.

It sucks but it's true.

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@feld @georgia I'm not trying to attac trans people but its just obviously also true that you literally can't know without talking to a person, and then you can't derive intent why someone says they are, why they transitioned, or why they detransitioned. if you can frame this as an immutable characteristic that would be insanely weird

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@sun @feld @georgia
"religion" is deemed a protected characteristic

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@ageha @feld @georgia no one claims it is immutable, religion is considered an extremely strong social concept that has to be accommodated, which was definitely true at least when the country was founded.

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@sun @feld @georgia
point was that "immutable" ought to be irrelevant to the discussion. of the things considered protected characteristics in the states, the majority change over time (religion, age, pregnancy, familial status, disability, veteran status). even "race" (socially derived categorisation dependent on zeitgeist) and "genetic information" (subject to chromosomal loss, other mutations, donor or other foreign cells proliferating, etc) are things that change with time. the only one on the list that doesn't is "national origin"

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@sun @feld @georgia
※ strike that first "national origin", sorry

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@feld @georgia @sun
what the actual ruling turns on is the fantasy of a "biological sex", which it asserts is not a cultural invention of the past 5 years or so (in it's current terminological form, bit over a hundred in spirit) but a fact of the universe across cultures throughout history, and one so powerful that "the benefit 'that natural testosterone provides to male athletes is not diminished
through the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones' "

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@ageha @feld @georgia I tried to, in a different place, make an appeal to that that I knew you would appreciate, but I think your position on it is way further toward unclassification than any reasonable society or government at this scale could adopt

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@sun @feld @georgia
don't even mean actual reality here but the historically perceived reality, which, even in the legal context, disagrees with them

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@ageha @feld @georgia I don't think even the 1919 USA can come back, though. please believe, I would like a world where a woman acts and dresses like a man, there's no law that says she can't and her sheer force of will makes people accept her as one.

Replying to @sun@shitposter.world

バツ子（犬育てマニア

@ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu remote

@sun @feld @georgia
what i mean is that, going back hundreds of years ago, there were legal debates over what a person's sex is (because that mattered in the context of marriage and inheritence and such). and those decisions were made looking at physical layouts and social contexts, not mystical essences, and sometimes by necessity came to fuzzy conclusions. that was both common and legal understanding historically, and this ruling is a retcon

Replies

Replying to @ageha@tomo.airen-no-jikken.icu

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@ageha @feld @georgia for the record I am not defending or accusing the ruling, this is an incredibly muddy topic though and you can expect the supreme court to flip a lot on it and I don't think you can even take all that precedent and make a coherent legal theory anyway

Replying to @sun@shitposter.world

Q.U.I.N.N.

@icedquinn@blob.cat remote

@sun @feld @georgia @ageha > the courts mirror the politics of the party that installed them

absolutely gobsmacked

Replying to @icedquinn@blob.cat

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@icedquinn @feld @georgia @ageha generally but not absolutely. but they at least do make arguments you can test

Replying to @sun@shitposter.world

Q.U.I.N.N.

@icedquinn@blob.cat remote

@sun @feld @georgia @ageha whom can test them?

thomas et all can literally write "pee pee poo poo goo goo gaga" as the ruling and literally nothing changes compared to writing 500 pages of pseudo english drivel.

Replying to @icedquinn@blob.cat

Blurry Moon

@sun@shitposter.world remote

@icedquinn @feld @georgia @ageha I mean you can evaluate if they're a good argument, you can't do anything bout it lol

Replying to @sun@shitposter.world

Q.U.I.N.N.

@icedquinn@blob.cat remote

@sun @feld @georgia @ageha i took a few pokes at that the first time i saw people setting their hair on fire about it. even some of the basic words ("immutability") don't even mean anything; it traces to court precedent that was supposed to mean "something true about a person that they had no control over" redefined over the years as "whatever the judge caste decrees" which is basically the meaning of all words they use.

the documents are basically worthless at the SCOTUS level.