So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

[altmin]

not US, but UK supreme government severely restricts trans rights.

UK supreme court ruling on legal definition of woman ‘brings clarity and confidence’, says government – live

Judges say definition of women and sex in Equality Act 2010 act refers to biological women and biological sex

www.theguardian.com

Five judges from the UK supreme court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women.

It could have far wider ramifications by leading to much greater restrictions on the rights of transgender women to use services and spaces reserved for women, and spark calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policy-making on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said.

 

[superrific]

The example that I've used several times, because it really reflects a change in the entire country, is the diversity in Congress. Congress, like clockwork, has gotten more and more diverse in every election.

Are you aware that Congress is subject to one of the most stringent DEI laws around? It's called the Voting Rights Act. The reason that there's diversity in Congress is that the law literally requires it.

So I'm glad you brought that up, as salient and important. It undermines your entire argument. Like literally, you have nothing because you just made the argument for us. LOL.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you aware that Congress is subject to one of the most stringent DEI laws around? It's called the Voting Rights Act. The reason that there's diversity in Congress is that the law literally requires it.

So I'm glad you brought that up, as salient and important. It undermines your entire argument. Like literally, you have nothing because you just made the argument for us. LOL.

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

 

[lawtig02]

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

This might be one of the most unintentionally illuminative posts I've ever seen on this board. It almost perfectly captures the difference between punishment as a motivator (conservatism) vs. incentive as a motivator (classical liberalism).

 

[superrific]

The reason there's diversity in Congress is because a) non-white people are running for office and b) people are voting for non-white candidates.

There's nothing requiring non-white candidates to run and there's nothing forcing people to vote for non-white candidates.

Right. But the law creates opportunities for those non-white candidates because it mandates the creation of majority-minority districts. So it makes it easier for minority candidates to win. That was an explicit goal of the legislation when it was passed. It was explicitly noted in Thornburg v. Gingles, which laid out the framework for the operation of law.

What you just described is a change that was brought about by decades of affirmative action. Like, if you wanted to argue that affirmative action is unhelpful, you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example.

LOLOLOLOLOLOILOL

 

[ZenMode]

Right. But the law creates opportunities for those non-white candidates because it mandates the creation of majority-minority districts. So it makes it easier for minority candidates to win. That was an explicit goal of the legislation when it was passed. It was explicitly noted in Thornburg v. Gingles, which laid out the framework for the operation of law.

What you just described is a change that was brought about by decades of affirmative action. Like, if you wanted to argue that affirmative action is unhelpful, you couldn't possibly have chosen a worse example.

LOLOLOLOLOLOILOL

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

Either way, yes, there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

 

[superrific]

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

You thought wrong. Just give up, dude. You are so far out of your league here that it's comical. This is even more hilarious than your claim about non-justiciability. You literally undermined your own case because you don't know basic facts. And again, there's nothing wrong with you for not knowing voting rights laws. Just appreciate your limitations.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, with bipartisan support. The case Thornburg v. Gingles was decided in 1986, by the conservative Rehnquist court. Two years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed the concept of majority-minority districts and required Alabama and Louisiana to redraw districts.

So yeah, it's Democrats. LOL. And of course, the reason that we have a voting rights act is that white people were obsessed with race. It's always been white people obsessed with race. The reason race is important in America is white people, and in particular conservative white people.

 

[4thgenheel]

there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What you're describing sounds like what is normally referred to as 'packing', which I thought was disallowed.

Either way, yes, there is a Democratic obsession with race and, as I mentioned before, tinkering and "fixing" racial issues that often don't exist.

When it's well meaning liberals that do it, it's ensuring that minorities have adequate representation. When it's devious conservatives that do it, it's a nefarious plan to gerrymander themselves into power. It ends up being the same thing.

That is how we got North Carolina's twelfth Congressional district by the way. Mel Watt, who was Harvey Gantt's campaign manager and very political connected, wanted a safe and secure district. He got it, Republicans were more than happy to help him do it.

 

[superrific]

When it's well meaning liberals that do it, it's ensuring that minorities have adequate representation. When it's devious conservatives that do it, it's a nefarious plan to gerrymander themselves into power. It ends up being the same thing.

It's not remotely the same thing. One of them is the result of a landmark civil rights law passed pursuant to Congress' power under the 14th Amendment clause 5, (The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article), to rectify historical injustice and ongoing discrimination.

Naked political gerrymandering is required by no law and has no salutary purpose. It isn't created by federal statute; it has basically no defenders (just people who say that legislatures can do it, which isn't the same as saying it's good); and it's done with an eye to gaining majority control when no majority exists. Next time black people hold 80% of a state's seats while comprising 40% of the population, then we can talk.

Not sure why you are so against the rule of law or the constitution, but whatever. If the Pubs want to get rid of majority-minority districts, they can do so through legislation.