Protected Class

A lot of energy has been expended lately over the issue of bathrooms and who can use them.  The often used argument against those termed “Transgender” is, parts are parts.  Proponents argue those parts need to go in the assigned bathroom, no matter what the feelings of the parts owner.  This is a huge grey area, and the term transgender covers way too many individuals to make this argument about parts.

I think the easiest way to fix this issue is to just make all public bathrooms unisex.  Let’s quit worrying about separation of the sexes, and his or her parts.  Then we have no argument!  After all, it is only about the parts.  The process is the same for all of us.

Maybe such a change would eliminate the trough.  Only the drunkest man can piss at those things anyway.

With all that said, my biggest concern over the debate is the continued expansion of the use of the term discrimination.  Frankly I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.   I do not care who marries who.  My only concern is that all those involved are consenting, and adults.

Does behavior make a person a protected class?  Now some of you reading this may disagree with me that sexual confusion, or preference is a behavior.  But why isn’t it?  Many argue that sexual preference is genetically predetermined.

Maybe it is.

But can we not apply that to many other behaviors?  Am I not genetically predisposed to alcoholism?  I do not have a generation in my family does not have at least one example of alcoholism.  There must be a genetic component.  If every generation in a family has a drug addict, does that mean that there is a genetic predisposition.  Obesity almost always runs in the family…genetics?

Or are all these learned behaviors?  Not the point of this article, but I need to be my own devil’s advocate.

By the way, there is now an argument in the news; Is obesity, and an employer’s decision concerning an obese person discrimination.

That is the crux of my argument.  How much do we continue to expand the protected classes?  Especially when we start extending protections to those based on their behavior.  Yes, the constitution extends, no…protects our inalienable rights.  Especially the rights of the minority.

We as the individual are the absolute minority.

But does the constitution protect behavior.  Sex preformed for any reason other than procreation is behavior.  Eating beyond need is behavior.  Getting high on anything other than a bright sun shiny day is behavior.  Should all these behaviors be protected?

If we keep extending protections to everyone who cries decimation, it will not be long before everyone is a member of a protected class.  That means that in this modern society of ultra-short hair, and hairy faces, I can seek protection because I want to continue to live the 80s long hair and clean-shaven look.  If an employer fires me, or refuses me employment because my hair extends to the middle of my back, I get to cry discrimination.

After all, having all my hair at fifty does make me genetically predisposed to show it off.

4 comments for “Protected Class

  1. Stark
    May 13, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Did you mean “..the argument is moot.”? Or were you making a joke about silence?

    • May 13, 2016 at 5:40 pm

      Again, that did not make the original post because I wasn’t sure I was using it correctly, much less spelling it right. I will whip something off in Word, then spend some time proofing it before pasting it into WordPress. From there, I agonize over it a little longer because then it goes public. By the time I hit Post, the article is rarely the same as the original.

      Thanks for keeping me real!

  2. Stark
    May 13, 2016 at 9:27 am

    Do you proof read this stuff?

    “By the way, that is now an argument in the news. Is obesity, and an employer’s decision concerning an obese person discrimination.”

    That sentence is screaming for a re-write.

    “Oh, what a house of cards we build…”

    You say you’re concerned with expanding the definition of ‘discrimination’ to include ‘behavior’. Then you say that some would argue that gender orientation is genetically predetermined. But you argue that it may not be – and what about alcoholism and obesity? Then this:

    “Or are all these learned behaviors? Not the point of this article, but I need to be my own devil’s advocate.”

    Yah, it IS the point of the article… by your own preamble!

    You cannot, fairly, disregard the key point as outside the scope of the argument, then subsequently trade on the logic of that argument. Didn’t you pay attention in your grad level philosophy classes?!

    “That is the crux of my argument. How much do we continue to expand the protected classes? Especially when we start extending protections to those based on their behavior” (Here begins the first of your logical infractions)

    “Inalienable rights” are those that cannot be given or taken away, e.g. the right to life and liberty. Therefore, by definition, they cannot be ‘special’ to minorities.

    “Sex preformed for any reason other than procreation is behavior.” For the sake of argument I’ll accept this, (although for the record it has issues.) So what? What does defining sex as behavior have to do with gender identity?

    The obese and the drug addict are not protected classes. Nor do I know of any legislation proposed or ongoing that will change this. These are self-serving argumentative softballs you’re tossing up so you can slam a homer… and here it is;

    “If we keep extending protections to everyone who cries decimation (sp?), it will not be long before everyone is a member of a protected class. That means…”

    I realize you’re not submitting this to the Harvard Law Journal. But if you’re gonna slap this stuff out there, well, prepare to defend thyself!

    Just keeping you honest. 🙂

    • May 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm

      In my defense, “By the way, that is now an argument in the news. Is obesity, and an employer’s decision concerning an obese person discrimination.” was probably right the first time I posted this. I through these up in a hurry because I lost three months worth of material when I blew up this site.

      Also, I never had a philosophy class. Two math classes, a writing class, and some economics courses, but not philosophy. I was an Network Administration major after all.

Leave a Reply