Michigan @SpeakerBolger (USA)

Chelsea-Manning

House Speaker Jase Bolger is considering calls to add sexual orientation protections for gay residents to Michigan’s anti-discrimination law but questioning the need to include gender identity and expression language.

That means the transgender community may not be part of a potential Republican proposal to expand the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights act, but Bolger says they already have some protection.

The debate could prove a sticking point in the push to amend Elliott-Larsen, which Republican leadership may also try to pair with a Michigan version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Bolger noted a series of federal court rulings where transgender individuals won “sex stereotyping” cases on the grounds of sex discrimination, which is already part of Michigan law.

This is actually true, but watch transgender activists vilify this man anyway.

LGB not T_ Bolger questions need to add transgender protections to Michigan anti-discrimination law _ MLive.

4 thoughts on “Michigan @SpeakerBolger (USA)

  1. There are just too many examples of “gender identity” trampling on the rights of girls and women, and it just keeps getting more Orwellian all the time. (1.) As a woman, I strongly object to a male stealing my identity by referring to himself as a “woman”. I really don’t care what a man wears, if he is effeminate or not, or even if he calls himself transgender. Males are NOT female. It feels like a form or appropriation for a male to call himself “woman”. (2.) I’m opposed to men violating the privacy rights of women by demanding access to women’s restroom, locker rooms, women’s shelters, etc. Colleen Francis, Paula Witherspoon, and Christopher, “Jessica”, Hamrook all come to mind.

    “Bolger noted a series of federal court rulings where transgender individuals won “sex stereotyping” cases on the grounds of sex discrimination, which is already part of Michigan law.”

    It is true…

    “House Speaker Jase Bolger is considering calls to add sexual orientation protections for gay residents to Michigan’s anti-discrimination law but questioning the need to include gender identity and expression language.”

    There is no need to tack the “T” onto everything, and how many more examples of “gender identity” riding rough shod over the rights of girls and women do we need? Besides, there are far more women than men who claim “gender identity”.

  2. “House Speaker Jase Bolger is considering calls to add sexual orientation protections for gay residents to Michigan’s anti-discrimination law but questioning the need to include gender identity and expression language.”

    I’m not an attorney, but couldn’t transgender identified persons claim discrimination based on sexual orientation? I say include sexual orientation and leave out “gender identity” or “gender expression”. We know that sooner or later “gender identity” is going to be used to trample on the privacy rights of girls and women. We have seen it time and time again.

    “Bolger noted a series of federal court rulings where transgender individuals won “sex stereotyping” cases on the grounds of sex discrimination, which is already part of Michigan law.”

    Good point…..

  3. “Bolger noted a series of federal court rulings where transgender individuals won “sex stereotyping” cases on the grounds of sex discrimination, which is already part of Michigan law.”

    I argue that erasing the female sex as a distinct class of persons and replacing it with “gender identity” is the most odious form of sex discrimination. It’s sex discrimination on its face. The female sex exists in and of itself, and is not a collection of characteristics, mannerisms, mode of dress, and physical attributes that society deems appropriately “feminine”.

    In reality, states with “gender identity” or “gender expression” laws are codifying sex stereotypes into law. How is it even possible to talk about “gender identity” without dredging up sex based stereotypes? It’s impossible. Try doing it sometimes. Stereotypes based on any inherited or genetic trait such as skin color, physical disability, or biological sex are offensive.

    When a biological male states that he is a “woman”, or identifies as a “woman” what does this mean? He could say that he hates sports, likes art, enjoys wearing the color pink, and enjoys cooking or sewing . Does this make him a “woman’, or is he just a man who enjoys non-traditional dress and activities? Isn’t it possible that this male is really just a man who prefers activities traditionally associated with femininity? He might associate traditional “feminine” behavior with being a “woman”. As we all know, sex based stereotypes also apply to females. For example, girls are supposed to like dolls, dresses, and makeup. Girls who have short hair and prefer building blocks to dolls really can’t be girls. Society says that girls like X, and I like X, therefore I’m a girl. Our culture says that boys like Y, and I like Y, therefore I’m a boy. Isn’t this sexist on its face? This strikes at the heart of who really is a “woman” and who really is a “man”, and how society constructs the meaning of “girl” or “boy” and “man” and “woman”. Sex is a biological reality whereas “gender identity” is largely culturally defined.

    There is no logical and consistent way to completely ferret out the “gender identity” from cultural stereotypes of what constitutes socially acceptable masculine and feminine behavior. No matter what states with “gender identity” laws do and don’t do, they cannot prove that each and every man who identifies as as a “woman” isn’t doing so wholly or partly because of culturally based sex stereotypes.

  4. “Bolger noted a series of federal court rulings where transgender individuals won “sex stereotyping” cases on the grounds of sex discrimination, which is already part of Michigan law.

    This is actually true, but watch transgender activists vilify this man anyway.”

    Non-tradtional biological males can only do this if they don’t force people to believe the nonsense that they are really “women”. By claiming that they are “women” because they like to wear makeup, dress a certain way, have long hair, etc., they are engaging in a peculiar form of sex discrimination (sex stereotyping).

Comments are closed.