Not Quite Robust

From Time‘s analysis of the Jamal v. Saks case – particularly, from its analysis of whether it is “well-settled” that trans people are or are not covered under Title VII:

[T]he Saks’ case could go either way. Courts have ruled in conflicting ways on the issue, and despite Americans’ common belief that there is a federal law barring discrimination against LGBT people, no such statute exists. While 18 states have non-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation and gender identity (and three more cover just sexual orientation), Texas is not one of them. Consider same-sex marriage as a comparison: just because courts have been ruling in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, that doesn’t mean couples can get married in states where rulings on the issue are still pending.

“It is still not a settled question of law for the entire country and it won’t be settled until the Supreme Court addresses the issue,” says [Shannon] Minter.

While I don’t agree with all of Shannon’s legal analyses, when forced to choose between his and those rendered by a ‘retired’ doctor who thought it was a good political idea to primary the author of Maryland’s ultimately-successful trans rights bill last year while the bill was still working its way through the legislature, I’ll choose Shannon’s thoughts on what is “not a settled question of law” over that ‘retired’ doctor’s notion of “robust” trans rights every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a reply, but don't be a troll. Have a nice day!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s