The US Debate

Debate 1: Trans advocates vs. Gender Critical Feminists in UK

• GCFs allege conflicts of interest between trans women and cis women
• don't want to share spaces and resources whose purpose (on their view) is to protect and advance cis women

Debate 2: Trans advocates vs. Conservatives in the US

US Background

1. Sex, race, religion, are explicitly stated protected categories in federal anti-discrimination laws (affecting employment, education, housing, the military, etc.) but not gender identity or sexual orientation. 
2. The Equality Act, passed in the House May 2019, would add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected categories (not passed by Senate)
3. The Supreme Court is considering whether gender identity is already logically implicit in existing anti-discrimination law. 
4. President Obama interpreted federal prohibitions on sex discrimination so they were applicable to trans people in the areas of education, employment, healthcare, housing, and the military. New rules and policies were issued.
5. President Trump has been withdrawing these Obama-era protections (details here). We will focus on: military ban, healthcare.
6. On a state level: 28 states prohibit some forms of discrimination against trans people
7. On a city level, there are more protections:  city ordinances.

Healthcare 

• Why does Trump administration want to roll back protection from discrimination in health care? What conservative arguments are made to support the roll back?

• Alleged: a conflict of interest between religious providers and trans patients
• Example of such conflict: Dr. Rod Story vs. patients of Dr. Geoff Stiller

• Are there conservative philosophers making a religious liberty argument? 
• Political scientist at conservative think tank: Ryan T. Anderson

Religious Liberty Argument 

1. We are all entitled to religious liberty.
2. Religious liberty must include the freedom to avoid involvement with medical gender transitions.
3. Anti-discrimination laws protecting trans patients would inevitably limit the religious liberty of these providers.   
4. The providers' interest in religious liberty takes priority.  THEREFORE,
5. There shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws protecting trans patients.

Premise 1--discuss

Premise 2--discuss

Premise 3

• Title VII protects against discrimination in employment based on religion. 
• There are other laws that give religious providers a right of refusal.  Relevant info here and here.
• Could there be anti-discrimination laws but also religious exemptions? 

Premise 4, consider in light of:

• Peter Singer--Principle of equal consideration of interests
• John Rawls--veil of ignorance
• Martha Nussbaum--all capabilities (and individuals) matter

Military Ban

• sympathetic portraits of 4 trans military members in Guardian article
• Ryan T. Anderson argument