The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Resolved: Discrimation against a transgender employee is "sex discrimination" under the CRA.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Marktnt has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 179 times Debate No: 108014
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance only. I will start the affirmative in round two.

Assume the following:

1. An American employee is fired by an American employer covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
2. The employer fires the employee soley because the employee is transgender. Let's make this employee a trans male (female to male) who has taken testosterone for some time and looks like a short, bearded, balding man with a deep voice.
3. The firing does not have any religous basis. We will only be addressing the question of whether this firing is "sex discrimination" under Title VII, not whether there might be some other defense (like a religious liberty defense).

I hope the challenger has some familiarity with the legal and social issues involved but this may be difficult judging by the comments thus far.


I am against this idea I guess I can't argue my point now you said the first round is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1


Darn, I was swept away this weekend and need to run to work in 5 minutes. I will make a quick argument because I will not be back in place within 9 hours.

Two predicates:

1. In the case of Oncale v. Sundale SCOTUS said that the CRA of 1964 was to be applied beyond its original intent, in that case male on male sexual harrassment.
2. In the case of Pricewaterhouse v. Hopkins, SCOTUS held that it is unlawful to require people to fulfill sexual stereotypes. In that case, a woman was not promoted because she was not feminine enough.

Two arguments:

1. "But for" argument: If you fire a transmale, for example, because you believe he is "really" female, you would not have taken that position but for the chromosonal sex of the employee, e.g. XY.
2. Stereotypes: Trans folk do not fit the stereotypes of their chromosonal sex. This fully implacates the Pricerwaterhouse case.
3. Sex v. gender: Sex is far more complicated than we can imagine. It means more than chromosones or genetalia. Nature loves complexity and all kinds of intersex conditions exist. Gender identity is in the brain, biologic, and therefore is part of sex. I would elaborate on this if I had the time.

For further support, see the EEOC ruling in Holder v. Macey and the 11th Circuit opinion in Glen v. Brumby. That opinion was written by a potential SCOTUS appointee of Trump, Pryor, but he did not get the slot after conservative media emphased Glen v. Brumby.

Sorry for the short answer but I'll do better. I didn't think I was going to draw an opponent and had not been looking. Hopefully, that is enough to be getting on with.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
Perhaps as is briefly mentioned. The employee is FIRED FOR APPEARANCE. There you might have something.
Still, if an employee presents an unkempt appearance in the work place, I dont care your sex, your a detriment to the work place ... in this case I would certainly fire your fanny. And legally so. Being homosexual doesn"t EARN you special privileges, abide by the rules that everyone ELSE is held to or your GONE.
Course the Wise employer will, have all necessary documentation that shows, appearance failures not in keeping with the initial Counseling provided to the employee, which stipulates that they are mandated to abide by all work place appearance, and conduct throughout their employ or that termination may result.
After that ... one counseling statement and warning of termination if failure to correct promptly, resulting in a second counseling and termination for repeat offense within a thirty day timeframe. With a stipulation added that continued lapses in appearance standard shall constitue pattern of conduct violation and termination. And the employee can certainly be fired AND not eligible for unemployment!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
Obviously the point and debate is as moot as it is make believe.
FAR to many assumptions. In a free work environment people CAN BE FIRED at will. To accuse the employer of sex discrimination is a normal claim made by the fired employee, based on total presumption. Your arguement therefore is predicated on a misconception entirely.
You have to PROVE that was the reason ... to blatantly stipulate that IS THE REASON, would be the action of a Stupid employer indeed!
Thus the debate is nonsence as no one can side with such a stupid employer. Might i suggest a debate without an AGENDA please!
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 5 months ago
so now all of a sudden gender is sex

Posted by hwp460 5 months ago
I would debate you but I believe it is discrimination. I just don't feel it should be.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.