Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
shall7

Women Owned Small Business

Recommended Posts

Shall7,

Some real women object to Bruce/Caitlyn's claiming of woman status -- some objected when she won some woman-of-the-year award, asking is there no real woman that could win but a former man wins the woman-of-the-year award?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

Shall7,

Some real women object to Bruce/Caitlyn's claiming of woman status -- some objected when she won some woman-of-the-year award, asking is there no real woman that could win but a former man wins the woman-of-the-year award?

You make a great argument, but ultimately I think we are on a path for the courts to decide who is eligible for "women only" awards (including contracts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ji, your statement concerning gender identification is too broad.  There is no Federal law on this subject yet.  Therefore, this is still largely a local issue that is left to the states.  Some states, like California have adopted the policy you list.  However, others have not.  Thus, you have to look to state law for how this plays in a particular state.

Shall, the judge's order is based on California law.  Similar orders may not be issued in other states.

For the WOSB program, we will need clarification as to what congress meant when it enacted the statutes relating to WOSBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ji, can you tell us what congress meant when it used the word "women" in the statute?  If so, that would end the debate over who is a woman and eligible to participate in the program if she meets the other program requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ji20874 said:

We already know the intent of the Congress regarding WOSB set-asides.  

There was also a point in time when it was the "known intent" of lawmakers that only white men counted towards congressional representation (Article V) and that all others (excluding women) would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

There was also a time when it was "known intent" that women did not have a say in Democracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent of the Congress was clear in those cases -- and in those cases, the Congress changed its mind and it and the states amended the constitution to memorialize its new intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shall7:

Quote

[Y]ou cannot question a person's sexual identity (case in point, Caitlyn Jenner is a woman in the eyes of the law because she says she is).

That sentence fragment contains two statements in separate independent clauses: 1) you cannot question a person's sexual identity; 2) Caitlyn Jenner is a woman in the eyes of the law because she says she is.

You provide no support for the first statement, and you appear to cite a People Magazine article in support of the second. Both statements are false. Do some reading. Start with these:

Tomchin, Bodies and Bureaucracy: Legal Sex Classification and Marriage-Based Immigration for Trans*People, California Law Review (June 2013).

Quote

At birth in the United States, almost every infant is classified as male or female on a birth certificate based on genital appearance. This initial sex marker creates a “legal sex” that will be the default for how future government bureaucracies and sex-specific laws will classify and control each person. The original birth certificate also carries with it the expectation that the baby will become either a boy or a girl and then grow up to be either a man or a woman. Trans* people challenge these expectations through their very existence.

Some jurisdictions in the United States continue to treat the “legal sex” designated by the birth certificate as permanent. However, most governments and administrative bureaucracies in the United States now treat the birth certificate sex designation as a rebuttable presumption requiring specified (but widely varying) evidence to overcome. These requirements for recognition are generally illogical, inconsistent, and unattainable for most trans* people. As a result, many trans* people end up with conflicting sex markers on their identity documents. This regime of a legal sex designated at birth directly harms the most vulnerable and unfairly distributes life chances. [Footnotes omitted.]
DuBois-Need and Kingery, Transgendered in Alaska: Navigating the Changing Legal Landscape for Change of Gender Petitions, Alaska Law Review (December 2009), which provides an as-of-the-date-of-publication overview of state law with regard to gender identity.
 
Quote

Over the past several decades, the law has evolved considerably in the area of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) rights. This Article focuses on the specific legal arguments surrounding legal change of gender for transsexuals and draws from current social science and general constitutional principles for guidance. [Footnote omitted.]

Spade, Documenting Gender, Hastings Law Journal (March 2008).

Quote

We are witnessing a period of great controversy and law reform about issues of identity documentation and identity verification. In the last few years, both the passage of the Real ID Act.

There are many such articles. This is a complicated field of law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

shall7:

That sentence fragment contains two statements in separate independent clauses: 1) you cannot question a person's sexual identity; 2) Caitlyn Jenner is a woman in the eyes of the law because she says she is.

You provide no support for the first statement, and you appear to cite a People Magazine article in support of the second. Both statements are false. Do some reading. Start with these:

Tomchin, Bodies and Bureaucracy: Legal Sex Classification and Marriage-Based Immigration for Trans*People, California Law Review (June 2013).

DuBois-Need and Kingery, Transgendered in Alaska: Navigating the Changing Legal Landscape for Change of Gender Petitions, Alaska Law Review (December 2009), which provides an as-of-the-date-of-publication overview of state law with regard to gender identity.
 
 

Spade, Documenting Gender, Hastings Law Journal (March 2008).

There are many such articles. This is a complicated field of law. 

Very complicated, I agree.  My personal opinion is that a person's gender at birth is what should matter but my personal opinion is irrelevant.  I only started this conversation to highlight how the WOSB program may become compromised in such an ironic way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, shall7 said:

There was also a point in time when it was the "known intent" of lawmakers that only white men counted towards congressional representation (Article V) and that all others (excluding women) would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

No, no, no!!! As ratified, Article I, Section 2 (not Article V), said in part:

Quote

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons...

As ratified, the original Article V said, in part:

Quote

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

No, no, no!!! As ratified, Article I, Section 2 (not Article V), said in part:

As ratified, the original Article V said, in part:

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Too hasty, sorry oops!  Should have just said Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Too hasty, sorry oops!  Should have just said Constitution.

Maybe you shouldn't have said anything, since your description of what the Constitution said was inaccurate.

Quote

There was also a point in time when it was the "known intent" of lawmakers that only white men counted towards congressional representation (Article V) and that all others (excluding women) would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

The passage from the Constitution that you tried to paraphrase, Article I, Section 2, made no mention of including only white men in the count, included Indians who were taxed in the count, and did not exclude women from the count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free persons + indentured servants - indians not taxed + .6(all other persons)

Remember the order of math operations:

  1. multiply and divide from left to right
  2. add and subtract from left to right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit my incorrectness.  Without referencing the Constitution, it is my opinion that the WOSB program is at risk of losing its intended purpose without a firm definition of a woman.

That is all I am trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What if the woman never gets reassignment surgery but is only doing hormone therapy?  Surgery is a little more of a solid argument than hormone therapy is but again we are in the gray area.  I think the solution to this gray area is a new Small Business Program that covers everything (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual...etc.)

Without doing so, any man can simply lie and claim to be a WOSB and no one will want to question him out of fear of being labeled a bigot and being insensitive to his/her sexual identity.

 

Responding to Shall7:

Does the hormone therapy affect the chromosomes?  I don't think so, but I could stand some education here.

Also, I think I'd question him/her.  I could stand a few bigot-labelings.  It would keep me humble.
 

Quote

 

There was also a point in time when it was the "known intent" of lawmakers that only white men counted towards congressional representation (Article V) and that all others (excluding women) would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.

There was also a time when it was "known intent" that women did not have a say in Democracy.

 

Not challenging your overall point regarding the injustices of the past, but the 3/5 compromise is counter-intuitive.  If you were an abolitionist at that time, you would have preferred 1/5 or 0/5 representation for slaves as they could not vote.  The purpose of negotiating the fraction downward was to limit the amount of representation slave states had in the House of Representatives.  If this is not the case, I yearn for correction!

Ultimately, this will all go to court and it will be settled- enraging half the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jason Lent
17 hours ago, apsofacto said:

Responding to Shall7:

Does the hormone therapy affect the chromosomes?  I don't think so, but I could stand some education here.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask35

Quote

No amount of surgery, hormone injections or anything else will change someone's DNA from a man's to a woman's (or vice versa).

As you know, for humans, sex is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome -- humans with an X and a Y chromosome are male and those with two X chromosomes are female. No current (or probably future) technology can replace a chromosome in all of our trillions of cells.

In fact, it probably wouldn't matter if they did. The genes on the Y chromosome sort of get the ball rolling for becoming a male. Once that has happened, the system can go on indefinitely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Gender is removed from official documents, then what?  "Self-identification" is becoming more literal than anyone realized.

Gender neutral passports move a step closer to reality after Labour backing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gender-neutral-passports-move-a-step-closer-to-reality-10123734.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×