I hate it when judges and other people refer to minority groups as "protected classes." No, the protected class is the basis for the discrimination against those minority groups, not the groups themselves.
-
Show this thread
-
We are all protected by protected classifications. They make discrimination against anyone on the basis of those classifications illegal. That's why they're good.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @JoeDunman
Yes, and. Enh? :shruggie: I both get exactly what you're saying and think it's totally reasonable to say that sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws protect LGB people and gender identity nondiscrimination laws protect trans people.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
I'm speaking mostly as a civil rights teacher in eastern Kentucky. Emphasizing the full scope really diminishes the initial gut-reaction hostility to these protections.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeDunman @chrisgeidner
A lot of folks really have no idea how these laws work at all. All they see are headlines saying "law protects LGBT" and they think it is some kind of special treatment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeDunman
Yeah, I definitely remember a point when I was like, “Only describe things as providing sexual orientation protections,” bc, yes, that’s what they are (in that case). But, I think the purpose is to protect those who are most often discriminated against, so, it fits ...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
I acknowledged in my thread that the practical effect is mostly one-sided, and it's not *wrong*, but it's not particularly helpful, either. Again, as an educator, not as somebody already hip to the efforts and the language.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoeDunman
Journalists also educate, and I’ve learned over time how overly legalistic language can decrease the knowledge people are taking away from articles — or even scare them away altogether. I think it’s a balancing act. Sometimes, you need to do both.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @JoeDunman
It seems pretty doable to write "Smallville passed a law saying that employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. This means people cannot be fired because they are gay or because they are straight."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oathofbrutus @JoeDunman
Thanks. I know. I've written about 3,000 articles doing so.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
(Also, I literally wrote, "Sometimes, you need to do both," in the tweet to which you were replying.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.