That is the original text. Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
Title IX protects against discrimination based on sex, which to me reads as innate characteristics or needs. That doesn't read to me like you can sex-swap, either via pretending, hormones, and/or through surgeries that only superficially change primary sex characteristics... and then create all sorts of drama, and claim discrimination if people around you want to get on with whatever academics or sports or business without catering to your special T/Q physiological or linguistic needs or preferences.
The sexual orientation categories we generally use only exist as a pair of the person's own gender and the gender to which they are attracted. Therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation is inherently discrimination based on sex (really gender, but the law typically uses sex) because a change in sex would change their orientation.
But that's probably not what happens in practice. More affirmative action and diversity quotas is the likely outcome.
> Wild that being against that is a popular enough sentiment that it can appear at the top of the comments on a HN thread.
It don't think that's too popular on HN. It probably appears at the top only due to recency.
It's probably more popular among the general population of the US, which is kinda what matters.
So you are not even sure what Title IX does and are instead basing your desire for repeal on "probably" and "likely"?
I'm talking about the current executive order. What's there to evaluate except "likely"s and "probably"s?
My support for repealing parts of the civil rights laws is mostly based on Richard Hanania's argument about how it lead to wokeness.
Ok, so there was no point in responding to you.
Maybe, as your comment had little content (except showing contempt). But there might be a point in reading Hanania's argument: https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
Yes, that's indeed what I think.
> already so set in their ways that there is no point to debate the issue.
So I'm not allowed to use words with negative connotations (or have values different than yours) lest I be deemed "set in my ways"?
It is not just a word with negative connotations. It is that you revealed your definition of the word as purely negative. Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
It is. I'm not sure in what sense that would be a revelation though.
> Ask a person how they define "woke" and they will reveal a lot about their politics.
Well, yes, we probably have different politics.