Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Problem with Gorsuch’s Ruling
I posted this in Epstein’s post, but the thread is dead. So far, the assertion is that Gorsuch used the definition of “sex” in a manner that wasn’t appropriate. It occurred to me (and thank you, @saintaugustine — I wouldn’t have gotten here without you) is that he changed how “discriminate” is used.
[The reason why Gorsuch’s premises] are off is because it assumes that there is, in the nature of one’s sex, absolutely nothing that differentiates it from its opposite.
Gorsuch’s opinion is absolutely based on a wrongful (biologically) premise that there is no distinction between male and female.
He takes the CRA, that says you can’t discriminate, and effectively states that discrimination means telling the difference between two things.
Now that is a legitimate definition of the word “discriminate” but it should be quite clear that that was never the intended use of the word in the original law.
There is a reality that he is forcing the population to accept that is a bald faced lie: that there is absolutely no difference between a man and a woman.
It is not true. A man is different than a woman. A homosexual marriage is completely different from a heterosexual marriage. Gay couplings (sex) are fundamentally different from heterosexual couplings.
Nowhere in the law do we refuse to acknowledge that men and women are different. But Gorsuch’s ruling forces us to act as if they are not differentiated in the least.
That’s my case in a nutshell.
Published in General
Sorry, I’m not quite following.
You’re plugging in an example of an argument using the form, right?
Who is Person C in this argument?
I don’t know
I also accepted a premise that I didn’t need to when stating that. Drew made me realize I missed something.
I was being tongue in cheek. The court is person C. It’s not perfect. I was just mocking the Phillip’s case some more.
It’s not that the sexes are interchangeable. It’s that sex was part of the basis for the decision (i.e. a violation of the CRA) whereas the professions in Augustine’s example were not. Even if they had been, though, it’s not illegal under the CRA to discriminate based on profession or on the appropriateness of punching.
Exactly. The Catholic church is in violation of the CRA for not ordaining women. And if we think there won’t be a lawsuit coming from the “social justice” Catholics, just wait.
Always a good answer! Yay Socrates!
I’m wondering this: If there must be a generalization about every member of a sex for the CRA to apply, what actually is said generalization in the behavior that falls under CRA according to Bostock and Phillips?
But if not, then how is discrimination supposed to be categorized as being on the basis of sex?
The biggest issue when you have a “broad” law might be refusing to recognize other realities. A lot of which comes from various theories such as if 50% of a college math department is not women, then ipso facto the college must be guilty of illegal discrimination. If you then show them a math test for hiring in which men score much higher than women, they say the test is guilty of illegal discrimination. And so forth. No one is allowed to be rational or to perceive reality any more.
According to what argument was that the case?
So either you think a premise was wrong, or else the argument was not formulated precisely enough for you.
That is entirely irrelevant. No one imagined the Al and Bob argument to have anything to do with CRA.
It was just an argument fitting a pattern of reasoning.
I think that’s basically right. We’re not allowed to notice that men and women are different. Dennis Prager has been warning about the elimination of the sexes for as long as I’ve been listening. The CRA started this and Gorsuch put the last nail in the coffin.
Yes and if a woman with young kids is applying, then she’s interested in doing the job too. The employer might be skeptical just as he might be skeptical that a woman likes or is good at math.
I’m not sure what you mean by “soft tossed”, but I didn’t say it was true. I said it was a generalization. Besides, you don’t speak for women. I’ve known some women you themselves have said that women don’t like math.
Also, I think it was way more common to believe that (and worse) back in 1964. So should that be allowed by the CRA unless Congress specifies?
Off topic, but would you be surprised to learn that girls’ poorer comparative math performance appears related to low ferritin levels due to menstruation? Little Miss Antrhope’s (female) integrative medical doctor and (male) hematologist have both noted it.
Turns out biological differences affect cognitive function. Huh, whodathunk?
Says you. I wish there were a law we could consult instead of your (or some judge’s risk assessment).*
* That’s only for sake of this discussion – in practice I’d probably be ok with you making these decisions. Mostly anyway. ;D
I don’t think that is correct. There might be a bona fide physical requirement for the garbage job*, but to the extent that a woman can satisfy them then discrimination is a violation if a woman applies. Your notions of what women prefer do not enter into it according to the CRA.
*Since I’ve been working from home, I see from my home office window the garbage truck go down the street collecting the trash. There is a woman on the crew and lemme tell you that she doesn’t do much; in fairness neither does he male partner. Wheel the can to the truck, get it on the lift, press the button, wheel the can back to the curb once it’s empty.
Oh that’s not surprising. I have a degree in math and my reasoning skills tank severely during pms and early cycle.
It’s like my brain is fractured and I can’t follow one thought to the next.
I agree there are real differences! You don’t have to justify your preferences, certainly not to me. I share most of you’re preferences I’d bet. However, you do have to justify according to the CRA if you’re basing employment decision on your preferences. Your preference doesn’t matter as much as it should – which is a problem with the CRA itself and not with me or Gorsuch or category errors.
Indeed. How long will the first amendment protect religious exemptions?
I’ll stick with “I don’t know” as my official answer. My guess is that applying generalization to an individual is only one flavor of CRA violation.
I’m not sure application of CRA goes that far, but I agree that we’re in that range. And we shouldn’t be.
Seems obvious to me, but I’m not sure how to answer.
Oy vey, with the precision again!
Something was wrong with your example. I don’t particularly care which part. I do know that I’m not looking for additional precision.
Just we misogynists! Who knows what strange mysteries science will uncover related to high levels of testosterone in teenaged boys. ;D
Oh geez! I didn’t know you were a math major. I swear I didn’t pick that particular generalization to push your buttons.
Well, from what everyone says, it seems to be the same sort of argument as Jim and Jill.
But it’s a bad argument.
Do you at least think that the Jim and Jill argument is a fairly good approximation of Gorsuch’s reasoning?
And do you think that # 84 captures the pattern of reasoning?
There could be more to jobs like that, such as even wheeling the container over requires strength that many women don’t have, and they may also be more subject to injuries – including, but not limited to, repetitive-stress injuries – meaning loss of work days which could cost the employer both for paid time off and paying someone else to fill in, perhaps at overtime rates.
If this decision is sound, as you believe it is, then it does go that far.
If we can’t acknowledge reality, then the law is useless.
But, it’s actually a bigger effect than just when girls are on their period. Girls’ math performance starts to drop off (on average) at the age they begin menses. Ferritin levels measure iron stores, not just blood levels, and while your iron blood level may drop when you’re menstruating, your ferritin level is probably less affected over spans of time than in other women, making your (and my engineering brain) relatively “male” in comparison to most women.
In other words, if we’re generalizing, women are less competent than men in math. You’re on the end of the female spectrum and it’s not just society imposing limits on women. It’s biology.
Of note, chemotherapy also adversely affects math ability, but in both men and women, boys and girls.
One of the odd observations in my admittedly small school was that a majority of the math majors were girls. To cap that, a lot of them were blonde.
I thought it was funny at the time, and your comment reminded me of that.
But if you over generalize in streamlining applicants, you run amok with the CRA… but only if a woman notices and complains.