I have argued here many times [such as here] that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated in part, and that many people oppose gay rights, because of
a belief, grounded in experience, that those who say today that all they want is equal rights will say tomorrow that they deserve special preferences.
This fear seems to be prevalent in Vermont, where Gov. Jim Douglas has just vetoed a bill that “would have prevented discrimination against someone who had undergone a sex change or who was expressing a gender opposite to the one into which he or she was born.” According to Steve Cable of Vermont Renewal, the organization that was the proposed legislation’s primary foe,
“This bill has the potential of creating an environment of ‘affirmative action’ for cross-dressers and transvestites, which is a concept we vehemently oppose.”
Can anyone plausibly argue that this prediction was wrong? Come to think of it, aren’t admissions officers who claim to seek “diversity” negligent if they don’t give preferences to cross-dressers and transvestites?
The Massachusetts Supreme Court case that extended marriage to gay couples did not have a majority opinion, I believe, relying on two opinions to form the majority. One of these relied on the Massachusetts version of the Equal Rights Amendment, which, unlike the national version, was ratified.
Eugene Volokh had an entry on his blog titled “Phyllis Shlafly said it would be like this”.
Those of you in Michigan — are opponents of the MCRI using anti-ERA arguments? I would think they would.
One thing that would make tranny AA difficult to implement is that they are extremely uncommon in the population (I believe less than 0.1% of the population). If AA generally means to require a set of employees that reflects the local labor pool then the number of trannies any but the largest of employers should have is 0. Of course such mathematics may not deter some ambitious lawyer or EEO official from demanding that employers demonstrate a commitment to gender identity diversity.
There might be some people who say, “What’s the big deal? Sure, include them also.”
Here’s what happens, sure as sunrise: an employer tries to establish a dress code. Someone sues and claims that it discriminates against “gender identity expression.” The only people who really win from the suit are the lawyers… but in the future, employers will incur additional costs in trying to enforce their dress codes.