How about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which provides additional protections and services for women who are in domestic violence situations. Things like access to free rape exams, legal representation etc.
Shouldn’t need to exist as women only. Should exist for anyone in a domestic violence situation/rape exams/legal representation etc. Why would it be treated any different. It’s either illegal or not. Why help someone more than another just because their gender/sex?
I’m not personally a lawyer. Also, I’m Australian and our discrimination laws don’t allow the laws to discriminate on the basis of protected qualities like sex, religion, age, sexual identity/orientation and intersex status.
Maybe some laws (I.e. protective laws) should apply more specifically to trans people though, I’m not sure what sort of awkward legal situations can arise by every law applying equally to every person.
What would they protect for them? Harassment is harassment, and a hate crime is a hate crime. If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group being singled out out of prejudice
Are you saying the law shouldn’t recognise trans people as a group? They should be just men or women (of their identification) in the eyes of the law?
Lets say a trans person breaks the law and goes to prison. Should a trans man go to a man’s prison (where they will face statistically higher rates of abuse), or should the law provide some nuance in this situation?
“If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group” were my words. Why was your first question that I thought they weren’t considered a group of people?
Laws should be written for people. Punishments for crimes are dictated separately for the most part. They just put max/min fines and incarceration times.
If you get a DUI it doesn’t say in the law you get up to twelve months in a women’s/men’s jail, it just says jail. The particulars of how the incarceration is dealt with is usually decided elsewhere (hopefully by the judge) while gender identity is stillprotected class in the U.S. Will it be for much longer, I’m not sure, I hope it is though.
I recognize that you consider them a group of people. But I am trying to understand your position. It sounds like you want the law to be blind to trans people/men/women, because any laws pertaining to a singular gender would be discriminatory.
Surely you can’t be speaking for all countries, though, when you say that it’s up to the judge? I would have thought that some countries would handle these things as a matter of law. In that case, wouldn’t it make sense to have a law for transgender people that’s different for men and women and trans people,?
In Australia, for example, it seems that trans women go to men’s prison; resulting in negative outcomes for the inmate. Perhaps a law in Australia would prevent that from happening?
How about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which provides additional protections and services for women who are in domestic violence situations. Things like access to free rape exams, legal representation etc.
Shouldn’t need to exist as women only. Should exist for anyone in a domestic violence situation/rape exams/legal representation etc. Why would it be treated any different. It’s either illegal or not. Why help someone more than another just because their gender/sex?
I’m not personally a lawyer. Also, I’m Australian and our discrimination laws don’t allow the laws to discriminate on the basis of protected qualities like sex, religion, age, sexual identity/orientation and intersex status.
Maybe some laws (I.e. protective laws) should apply more specifically to trans people though, I’m not sure what sort of awkward legal situations can arise by every law applying equally to every person.
What would they protect for them? Harassment is harassment, and a hate crime is a hate crime. If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group being singled out out of prejudice
Are you saying the law shouldn’t recognise trans people as a group? They should be just men or women (of their identification) in the eyes of the law?
Lets say a trans person breaks the law and goes to prison. Should a trans man go to a man’s prison (where they will face statistically higher rates of abuse), or should the law provide some nuance in this situation?
“If the motivation was to hurt trans people in general it should be a hate crime just like any other group” were my words. Why was your first question that I thought they weren’t considered a group of people?
Laws should be written for people. Punishments for crimes are dictated separately for the most part. They just put max/min fines and incarceration times.
If you get a DUI it doesn’t say in the law you get up to twelve months in a women’s/men’s jail, it just says jail. The particulars of how the incarceration is dealt with is usually decided elsewhere (hopefully by the judge) while gender identity is stillprotected class in the U.S. Will it be for much longer, I’m not sure, I hope it is though.
I recognize that you consider them a group of people. But I am trying to understand your position. It sounds like you want the law to be blind to trans people/men/women, because any laws pertaining to a singular gender would be discriminatory.
Surely you can’t be speaking for all countries, though, when you say that it’s up to the judge? I would have thought that some countries would handle these things as a matter of law. In that case, wouldn’t it make sense to have a law for transgender people that’s different for men and women and trans people,?
In Australia, for example, it seems that trans women go to men’s prison; resulting in negative outcomes for the inmate. Perhaps a law in Australia would prevent that from happening?