If you want some tortuous legal reasoning, have I got a treat for you.
On the basis of potential pregnancy
Comments
8 responses to “On the basis of potential pregnancy”
-
Christ on a bike, Cody made Michaelia Cash seem sane.
Dunno if Cody is a ALP member, but she is appointed (I think) by an ALP Government, so I suppose justifies trotting out the infamous quote from a frustrated ALP Leader.
When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now, all I see are the dregs of the middle class. When will you middle class perverts stop using the Labor Party as a cultural spittoon?
– Kim Beazley Snr to an ALP State Conference, circa 1970.
-
Sorry, I thought I put the right tags for a quote in, appears not. Apologies.
-
Well, sure, he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Israelis’, but he has the right to have babies.
-
No worries Swan Alien. Did I put them in the right place?
-
That’s not as crazy as it sounds. I think the unstated assumption is that the trans woman “passes,” and the employer believes the candidate is actually a woman. The employer asks the interview question, “do you intend to have children?” and the candidate says “yes.” The employer believes the candidate is female, and would be pregnant to have those children. The candidate doesn’t get the job, solely on the basis that the employer doesn’t want a woman in the job, because she might get pregnant. Remember, the employer believes the candidate really is a woman. It’s seldom true that trans women can “pass” so well that people don’t recognize that they are men, but the hypothetical assumes that the employer believes the candidate is female. The only reason he wasn’t hired is that the employer doesn’t want to employ women who could get pregnant. That’s an unlawful reason under the anti-discrimination statute. The trans woman has been discriminated against on an unlawful basis. He should be able to sue, as much as a woman could sue for the same unlawful decision not to hire.
-
Hmm yes I see what you mean, but it looks as if the legislator considers it a reply to a question she didn’t ask.
-
There’s also the issue that a large percentage of the population doesn’t know what the terms “trans man” and “trans woman” mean (with or without the space, whatever), since they’re extremely confusing.
-
Yeah, that argument is the ‘reasonable’ position, maddog1129, but she cannot make that point without talking about ‘passing’ and acknowledging that there is a biological distinction between women and TWs. Both of these are heresy in the modern trans movement, and thus she is confined to trying to mount a defense while staying within the Approved Language Model for trans issues. Amusing, in a pathetic way.
Leave a Reply