Sexual Orientation Discrimination Carried to New LIGHTS

Published on

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Carried to New LIGHTS; Woman Who’s Sexual Orientation is For a Chandelier Filed Complaint

Know more about Russia than your friends:

Get our free ebook on how the Soviet Union became Putin's Russia.

Q1 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Woman Discriminated Bssed On Her Sexual Preference

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 16, 2020) - A woman filed a complaint that she was discriminated against, and held up to ridicule based upon her sexual orientation or preference, because she allegedly married a chandelier.

She claimed that "her sexual orientation is an attraction to objects," arguably recognized in academia as "objectum sexual," and that she was only "in a relationship, not a marriage" with a chandelier style light fitting.

Fortunately her claim of sexual orientation or preference discrimination was rejected because the category covered only "people who were attracted to people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both," and that the "complainant was not legally able to marry the chandelier and it would not be legally discriminatory to prevent such a marriage."

But what might happen to similar complaints in the future?

This is a dramatic - but not necessarily unusual - example of what can happen when people try to illogically extend legal definitions, and give words in statutes or regulations entirely new meanings based largely upon unusual views of the world, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has won over 100 cases of sex discrimination.

Cervical Tests

For example, transgendered [M2F] individuals with a penis but no vagina have been asked to have medical tests on their nonexistent cervices, while transgendered [F2M] persons with a vagina and cervix will not be offered such tests by medical authorities, under new guidelines which appear to place lives at risk and encourage a physically impossible medical exam on organs which simply do not exist, notes Banzhaf.

And, carrying this absurdity to its totally illogical conclusion, a patient with a penis and a full beard was apparently offered a cervical test because, despite his clearly masculine appearance and style of dress, he registered himself as being gender neutral.

These are just some of the legal complications which can result when definitions and/or their consequences are unreasonably extended by lawyers or bureaucrats, says Banzhaf, who is a supporter of equal rights for transgender students, but does not advocate Pap tests on M2F transsexuals who do not have vaginas.

While these examples from the United Kingdom stretch credibility, and may even seem comical to some, they can have serious consequences, says Banzhaf.

Lives At Risk

A member of Parliament pointed out that "this NHS effort to be politically correct is putting the lives of women who claim to be men at risk" because they will not be advised to have routine pap smear and mammogram tests in order to diagnose cancer while it still be treatable.

He also said that the new policy was "wasting the time of men who claim to be women by offering them tests for organs they do not have."

But a so-called "trans health adviser" claimed that this now policy was required.  He reportedly argued that offering cervical tests could be uncomfortable for "trans masculine people" who are biological women as it could offend how they perceive themselves.

He also asserted that words and references to the biological organs of men and women "can trigger feelings of gender dysphoria in the transgendered."