In saying that discrimination should be understood in a broader context because there are good and bad reasons for firing/demoting/hiring/promoting someone you are actually showing why it is important to understand context. Because there are individual circumstances as to whether a person is discriminated against we need to therefore understand each category such as women, race, religion etc and individual circumstance. If you begin to neutralize the language of each individual circumstance for each category that is discriminated against you run the risk of neutralizing the category as well.
Nope. Individual context doesn't matter. We only need to consider the good reasons to fire or not hire, we don't need to address the multitude of bad reasons. Did they perform their job well? Are you eliminating that position due to down sizing? If the answer to these is "Yes" and "No", respectively, then you don't get to fire the person. Understanding discrimination in broad terms like this let's us understand why it's bad to discriminate. Thinking in terms of individual context forces us to think there are special groups that deserve special rights. That's the
wrong reason to not discriminate.
I agree that as a general principle it is wrong to discriminate period but then we need to understand how that applies to context to be sure we get it right and that peoples rights are upheld in different situations because an argument may be possible to justify discrimination. For example a general principle would be that it is wrong to discriminate against fat people but in some situation it is OK such as for health reasons and certain jobs. Some airlines charge extra for obese people because they take more than one seat. This could not apply to race or religion. It is the same for gender in that some circumstances for women such as the gender pay gap only applies to women. So we need discrimination acts and rights. You will find that race, religion and Indigenous people have separate laws and rights as well.
Fat people on an airplane aren't being discriminated against simply for being fat, they're using two seats and being charged for two seats. Buffet style restaurants typically have cheaper prices for children and senior citizens, not because they're discriminating against all the other ages, but because those groups consume less food generally. I know that rights are listed out based on specific groups, I'm saying that's the wrong way to think about it. Humans are going to constantly fine new ways to discriminate, and we're going to have to keep adding to that list of protected classes instead of simply thinking about who deserves to keep their job.
The harms would be what I have been talking about the hard fought for rights such as the right to privacy and safe spaces.
Nope. Changing the language in that law you posted will have zero effect on privacy and safe spaces. This is the point I'm trying to get across. Acknowledging some areas that we can think about in terms of subjective genders
does not require us to then think about all contexts in terms of subjective genders. There is biological sex and there is gender. Sometimes, rarely, biological sex matters. When it doesn't, it doesn't matter if we go with subjective genders. Changing the semantics in the example of pregnancy you've provided
does not require us to do anything differently.
When you refer to the "rare instances where biological sex matters" being excluded from transgender inclusion this will not go down well for the transgender movement.
I don't care.
The problem is for transgender ideology based on subjective feelings biological sex does not matter when it comes to determining gender and they are not willing to include biological sex. Whereas most including myself accept that in some cases gender can be socially constructed and therefore we should not have a hard and fixed criteria.
So we should primarily uphold the traditional and factual definitions that incorporate biology as the main basis for gender and allow subjective ideas in some situations, But transgender ideology want it the other way around by making subjective definitions the main basis and factual definitions as non-existent or minimal.
Nope, not necessary. We can consider biological sex in some areas and gender in others. We can use reason and logic and data and statistics to determine which areas require us to consider biological sex.
Your pregnancy example doesn't hold up. It's nothing but semantics. In order to further your argument you have to keep pointing to other areas that there might be a problem, which means you don't have any reasoning to support the idea that anyone should really care if we say "someone who is pregnant" instead of "woman who is pregnant". You seem to think that if we give in to some areas, that means we have to give in to
all areas, and that's wrong. And thinking like that forces you to take things that are reasonable and argue that they are unreasonable.