On the Basis of Sex
9/12/19 - Chase Strangio, an activist for trans rights and a staff attorney at the ACLU, talks about the Supreme Court cases that we should all be outraged about. The government wants to redefine the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against transgender Americans, people in queer relationships, and anyone who doesn't fit a tidy definition of male and female. The Court takes up oral arguments on October 8.
Do you know about or are you planning a protest to support trans and queer Americans as this case moves forward? Please send us details via direct message or email callyrgf at gmail dot com
Transcript below.
Listen on Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Overcast | Pocket Casts | Spotify.
CREDITS
Producer: Gina Delvac
Hosts: Aminatou Sow & Ann Friedman
Theme song: Call Your Girlfriend by Robyn
Composer: Carolyn Pennypacker Riggs.
Associate Producer: Jordan Bailey
Visual Creative Director: Kenesha Sneed
Merch Director: Caroline Knowles
Editorial Assistant: Laura Bertocci
Design Assistant: Brijae Morris
Ad sales: Midroll
LINKS
Follow the ACLU’s work on behalf of LGBTQ Americans (and all of us) at the Supreme Court
Chase Strangio’s op-ed for NBC that lays out the cases challenging Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Aimee Stephen’s op-ed in the Washington Post: ‘I was fired for being transgender.’
Follow R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes vs. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at SCOTUSblog
Follow Chase Strangio on Twitter
TRANSCRIPT: ON THE BASIS OF SEX
[Ads]
(0:15)
Aminatou: Welcome to Call Your Girlfriend.
Ann: A podcast for long-distance besties everywhere.
Aminatou: I'm Aminatou Sow.
Ann: And I'm Ann Friedman. On today's agenda we are talking to Chase Strangio who is a really incredible activist for trans rights and he's also a staff attorney at the ACLU. He and I had a conversation about a couple of cases that the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on just a few weeks from now that will have really, really serious implications for the way employees are able to express their gender in the workplace.
[Theme Song]
Aminatou: Hi Ann Friedman.
Ann: Hi Aminatou Sow.
Aminatou: [Laughs] How's it going over there?
Ann: You know, getting by. Getting by. Like truly that is the most accurate answer I have for you. What about you?
Aminatou: I feel like you stole my answer. [Laughter] It's been a tough week over here.
Ann: We're still here.
Aminatou: Like my favorite nurse at the hospital always says, she's like "That's a lot for one baby to carry." And I'm like thank you for calling me a baby.
Ann: Aww! I love that. That's so tender. [Laughter]
Aminatou: It really is but I also think she thinks I'm nine years old.
(2:00)
Ann: I'm going to be a little grateful for her for a second. That's so nice.
Aminatou: Oh my god, shout-out to Nurse Christine, the best. Well when our bodies are not betraying us and we feel better about everything else one of the things I'm excited about is going on tour.
Ann: Yes, this fall.
Aminatou: This fall. Mere weeks away in fact. Mere weeks away. Where are we going Ann?
Ann: We're going to Churanno.
Aminatou: Yes! She said it right!
Ann: Detroit, Denver, Austin and Houston, Texas.
Aminatou: Woo! All ticket information is at callyourgirlfriend.com/tour. I will say that historically, not to pat ourselves on the back but I will pat ourselves on the back, our shows are hella fun. Bring a friend. Bring more than one friend. Come have a good time with us. A good time will be had by all guaranteed.
Ann: Yeah. We will see you like so, so soon.
Aminatou: Also I have to say the merch is fire so, you know, if you're down for some limited-edition merch definitely come to the live show.
Ann: Oh yeah. Thank you for bringing up merch because I had like a quick note about that too. So we have this very popular hat in our current merch run which says "The scam is structural." It's like a very cute denim cap that has proven extremely popular. Like we only ordered -- so some backstory about CYG merch is that we're a teeny, tiny operation. Like we don't take out loans or lines of credit to fund new products. We basically are just like what do we have in the bank and what can we make with that and then sell it. Like we're the most financially conservative outfit you have ever seen. And therefore we didn't know how this hat was going to sell. We've never made a hat before and we only ordered 30. [Laughs]
Aminatou: Wait, this is our first hat?
Ann: Wait, this is our first hat and the hat proved very, very popular. So not only did the first run of 30, our next two conservative restocks of 100 also sold out. And so now we're in the process of like okay, we are going to stretch ourselves and reorder a ton more and also put that lovely scam is structural design by our assistant designer Brijae Morris who is great, we're going to put that design on some other things too. But all of this is to say I'm just letting listeners know if they've been frustrated because they can't get their hands on a hat that it's coming and the reason it's slow in coming is because we are a teeny, tiny busy. We are not Amazon and we move a little slower and a little smaller.
(4:20)
Aminatou: Okay, I'm going to speak for the frustrated listener because . . .
Ann: Wow.
Aminatou: As one of them, Ann, I have also not received a hat and any time I see someone post one online I'm so jealous I want to claw inside the phone but also hundreds of thousands of people listen to this show! Can we get a hat please?
Ann: Okay, well listen, hundreds of thousands of people may listen but like our ability to gauge what they want to buy is not -- I mean we are not doing sophisticated audience buying research as if merch is our core business. Our core business is a podcast so we are not always full aware. [Laughter] We're not always fully aware of what our listeners actually want to buy. Like we've done surveys and sometimes that's an indication but truly the level of popularity of this hat is a delightful surprise but a surprise nonetheless. And also P.S. mine just arrived yesterday so it's possible that it's sitting in your mailbox.
Aminatou: Wow, you got a hat and I haven't gotten a hat? Who do I have to call at this podcast that I'm the third owner of to get my merchandise?
Ann: Carlyonce Knowles. You know who to call. Come on. [Laughter]
Aminatou: The hat is flames. I can't wait for everyone to get it. Thank you Ann, Carly and Brijae for all your hard work.
Ann: Ugh, wow, 180. I'm loving it.
Aminatou: Listen, you know me. I only complain because I love.
(5:45)
Ann: Okay, so let's actually do our core business which is the podcast. [Laughter]
Aminatou: Aminatou has left the chat. I came here to get a denim dad hat.
Ann: Oh my god.
Aminatou: Also, wait, before we move on from the hat though remember how I always say that my head is too big for hats?
Ann: Yes, I've heard you say this.
Aminatou: Because that's true. Like I have never found a baseball hat that fits my big head and hair. But a really kind CYG listener from Australia actually sent me this weird thing on Amazon that like stretches your hats.
Ann: Oh.
Aminatou: And so I ordered it and I will report back about whether I can stretch this hat into submission because if that is the case it's going to be a very exciting fall for me.
Ann: I mean and that is the exact reason why we are making -- like putting that scam is structural design on other things because we want to be responsive to people who are just like not into hats or whose heads are not compatible with the standard baseball hat. We are really trying hard to make some more options too.
Aminatou: Wow, queens of inclusivity.
Ann: Small-moving, small batch queens of inclusivity.
Aminatou: [Laughs] I love it. Artisanal merch shop. Okay.
Ann: Artisanal, yes. Okay, core business. So on today's agenda we are talking to Chase Strangio who is a really incredible activist for trans rights and he's also a staff attorney at the ACLU. He and I had a conversation about a couple of cases that the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on just a few weeks from now that will have really, really serious implications for the way employees are able to express their gender in the workplace. And that means yes, trans employees for sure, and he'll explain sort of stories at the heart of these cases that the court is hearing. But it also means any of us and the gender stereotypes we do or don't conform to and how we dress and the pronouns we use and all the various ways we live at our jobs and out in the world. Basically like the Trump administration is trying to do some horrible things to the civil rights act and attorneys like Chase are valiantly standing in their way.
(8:02)
Aminatou: Ugh, this is so frustrating's not even the word. It's so cruel because the Trump administration has taken so many steps to legalize anti-trans discrimination. The obsession is not lost on all of us who are paying attention but just how shortsighted and mean and awful it is is something that it's just like that is going to stay with me for a really long time.
Ann: Yeah.
Aminatou: Because there is no reason to be wasting anybody's time doing this. There's no reason to use like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to basically enact new kinds of discrimination that I think we're all agreed should not be there.
Ann: Right. And I'm going to read a little segment here. Chase wrote an opinion piece that we'll link to in the show notes for NBC News in which he really explains the stakes I think really well. He writes "A ruling in their favor," their being the Trump administration, "A ruling in their favor could drastically change workplace protections for all women whether or not they are LGBTQ and anyone who does not conform to the administration's preferred gender norms. That could include men with long hair, women with short hair, men who are primary caretakers of children or parents, women who wear pants, and women who work outside the home or are the primary breadwinners. It's almost as if the Trump administration is arguing that if trans people might get protected from employment discrimination then it is best that there be no protections for anyone which actually may be their endgame."
Aminatou: Ugh.
Ann: Same. Same. I was -- yes, same.
Aminatou: I know, but Ann, you know, the thing about this too that is frustrating is this is why it's so important for everyone to be paying attention. A lot of things that usually affect trans people are relegated to like oh, this is trans people problems. Even the fact that there is not a steady stream -- like the media is not banging the steady stream of hey, this is dangerous. This is bad. This is not great. It really illustrates that point for me. It's like this happened with the trans ban in the military. It's happening now with the Supreme Court cases. And that quote so succinctly explains why everyone should be paying attention because it's not just about one thing; it really is about policing how everyone lives their lives. But also trans people shouldn't have to stand up for their rights alone. Like that is ludicrous and it's ridiculous and it's really offensive. I am just really hoping that over the next couple of weeks we start talking and hearing more about this because it's very dangerous.
Ann: Agreed. So let's listen to Chase Strangio give us all of the details.
[Interview Starts]
(10:48)
Ann: Chase, thank you so much for being on the podcast today.
Chase: Thank you so much for having me.
Ann: I have to start by asking you about this case that is set to be argued in front of the US Supreme Court on October 8th and I would love to hear you kind of tell me what is at stake in that case.
Chase: Yeah, so there are actually three cases that are going to be heard by the United States Supreme Court on October 8th. And the central question in the cases is is it discrimination under federal law, specifically under Title VII which prohibits discrimination because of sex, to fire someone because the person is LGBTQ.
So all of these cases came up through the courts in instances where an employer fired someone and the only reason for the firing was either because the employee is gay or because the employee is transgender. So these are not cases where you have some factual dispute about were you a good employee or a bad employee. This is a straight legal question about is it illegal to fire someone just because they're LGBTQ? And so . . .
Ann: A clear-cut case of bigotry. [Laughs]
(12:00)
Chase: Yes, exactly. You can look at it -- yeah, exactly. These are not . . . these employers are saying "Yes, it is because you are trans. I do not like trans people."
Ann: Totally.
Chase: And so the question the court is going to have to answer is is it illegal under federal law to fire someone solely on that basis? And the way this is coming up is under Title VII. It's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. And for many, many years LGBTQ workers have been able to get protections under this law. So this is not a new concept. This is actually -- and especially for trans folks this is how we've been getting legal protections for decades.
So the court is now going to decide as a final matter can we be protected under federal law as it exists today? And the stakes are enormous for two reasons. The first is that these are the protections that we have and have relied on for so many years not just in the workplace but also in the context of housing, schools, healthcare, credit, and other areas of federal law that prohibit discrimination because of sex. So for LGBTQ people what is on the line is truly the wholesale range of protections that we rely on to survive. So that's one thing is this is the largest in my view LGBTQ case to come before the court in my lifetime and probably ever.
Ann: Yes.
Chase: The second reason why I think everyone should be really focused on this case is that it is really sort of intuitive and sort of necessary to understand sexual orientation and transgender status discrimination as being because of sex. So the lower courts for example have for many years said "Yeah, obviously it's because of sex when you fire someone for changing sex or because they are attracted to someone of the same sex. It's really impossible to conceptualize it any other way."
(14:10)
And I think because the Trump administration and the employers defending these firings know that the only way that they can really get the court to defend their position is to roll back sex discrimination protections for everyone. And so they're doing this in a way that I think should really scare us all. The argument that they're making is that well it's not really sex discrimination if you discriminate against men and women. And so what they're saying is that . . .
Ann: Sorry, I shouldn't laugh at that but also yeah. [Laughs]
Chase: The whole point of the statute is that it protects the individual and the employer can't target an individual worker because of their sex or their sex stereotypes. And so what is happening is the Trump administration and the employers are pushing for this understanding of Title VII that says no, no, we can fire people for sex stereotypes as long as we fire women for not conforming to sex stereotypes and men for not conforming to sex stereotypes.
And that is so dangerous because the way that particularly cisgender women have achieved more but clearly not enough sort of quality in the workplace is because we've prohibited employers from enforcing stereotypes like oh, women have to be mothers and stay at home. Or women have to dress in a certain way, or women can't be assertive. That is the nature of the entire canon of sex discrimination law and that is what they're asking the courts to roll back in these cases. So it is alarming not just for LGBTQ people but all workers.
Ann: I'm really struggling to understand how that's not a violation of the Civil Rights Act. In my head I'm like so they're basically saying okay, everybody has to conform to some rigid rules and therefore it's no big deal for anyone? Maybe you can say it a different way because I'm still not quite getting it.
(16:05)
Chase: One of the reasons you're not getting it is because it really doesn't make a lot of sense. They're essentially arguing well if we do two things wrong then it's right, you know?
Ann: Right.
Chase: You know, it's like two wrongs do make a right is sort of the fundamental argument that they're putting forth. And it is hard to understand because it's so counter to what we have come to understand as sex discrimination. And partly that's because the Supreme Court in 1989 in a case called Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ruled that it was discrimination because of sex under Title VII to refuse to promote a woman because she was seen as too aggressive and masculine.
So the court ruled many years ago that this is precisely what constitutes discrimination because of sex under Title VII. And the occasion of these cases is in many ways allowing a very conservative justice department and a very conservative set of employers to ask for a new rule for the context of employment that will roll that back in some fundamental ways and say the only way you can violate Title VII is if you discriminate against men as a class as compared to women as a class. So if you had a policy that said we won't hire women, sure, that would violate the law. But if you said women have to go home at 5 to take care of their children but in turn men have to stay after 5 because they're the primary breadwinners that wouldn't violate Title VII because you're enforcing sex stereotypes against both -- quote-unquote "both" -- sexes. So it's a very binary, very rigid, and very constrained understanding of the law. And if this is a successful argument then it doesn't just hurt LGBTQ people; it hurts everyone.
(17:55)
Ann: I'm struggling to stay in this conversation without going into a rage blackout honestly. Tell me . . .
Chase: And I think that is the exact correct response and one of the things that concerns me is that we've sort of slept on these cases in part because we're dealing in a moment of crisis when there's so much going on and it's so hard to even stay on top of all of the horrible things that are happening with respect to civil rights and just basic human survival needs. But over the course of the last five years the people who are now leading the government have systematically been pushing these arguments in court and now they're at a point where they have the backing of the federal government and they have a federal judiciary that is more sympathetic and we could be seeing a wholesale transformation of things that happen very quickly because we didn't understand the stakes.
Ann: Okay. We're going to take a quick break and then we'll be right back with more from Chase Strangio.
[Ads]
(21:50)
Ann: When you talk about this making it in front of what is now a reconstituted and very conservative Supreme Court what are we looking at here? In terms of what . . . I don't want to ask you to crystal ball it but like what are the kinds of things that are going to come up in terms of the arguments? Is this going to be like are we really arguing what are little boys made of, what are little girls made of, like retro-grade stuff like that?
Chase: Yeah, I mean I think there's sort of two things that are happening here. So in the lower court the justice department did sort of make this case that men and women are inherently different and should be treated differently in the workplace. Like we need to accept the differences -- the "differences" between the sexes. And that is very much part of what is going on here. I think we're going to hear a lot during the arguments and we've seen a lot in the briefing about how sex is binary, it is determined at birth, it is tied definitionally to reproduction, and because of that we need to account for it in a variety of ways in the workplace by treating men and women differently. And that is in some ways an argument that is designed to cast LGBTQ people out of public life. I mean that is very much one of the primary goals but I think we would be foolish to think it is their sole goal.
Because very much we're seeing elsewhere in this administration the desire to systematically surveil and control people's bodies. The bodies of anyone who can become pregnant. Obviously they have an agenda of restricting access to reproductive healthcare. They have the desire to systematically control and surveil the bodies of immigrants, of all people of color.
(23:42)
So I think we can see this fixation on sort of definitionally categorizing people in these discrete and sort of "biological" ways that is very much tied to an agenda of control and the elevation of the autonomy and power of some at the expense of others. And so it's easy to say this is just a case about trans people or this is just a case about LGBT people. And sure Congress can fix it. Title VII was just meant to protect cisgender, heterosexual people, end of story. And I think that's the sort of simplistic way to look at this. What I think is actually going on is that this is the moment where some really conservative norms are being pushed through the courts and I fear that people won't notice until it's too late.
Ann: Right. Also I can't help but think about that one of the first things you said was the context for this which is we are dealing with an assault on the rights and freedoms of a large swath of people who live in this country from a lot of different directions. And I'm curious when you look at for example a lot of the different cases that you've been involved in that have to do with trans rights at the state level and other things happening nationally like the military ban is it a coordinated, concerted effort? Is it just kind of like people with the same ideology are all coming into power at the same time? I have some questions about how the dots all connect here.
Chase: Yeah. I mean I think that it's like a both/and situation that it is very strategic and a lot of the people who have this strategy have sort of come into power at the same time and those are related and happening at once.
So one of the things that we've seen from the Trump administration since day one is a systematic attack on trans people in particular. So Trump, you know, is inaugurated in January of 2017. By February Jeff Sessions and Betsy DeVos focus on rescinding Title IX guidance to protect transgender students. Soon after that you have Trump tweeting the military ban in July of 2017. In 2018 you start to see other federal agencies begin to set their sights on trans people and redefining sex under federal law with the goal of excluding trans people definitionally from protection. And in the last few months alone we've seen efforts from the Trump administration to roll back protections for trans people in the context of healthcare, in the context of shelter access, and of course they're continuing to push these arguments about Title VII and employment through the federal courts.
(26:28)
In part this is the elevation of people whose careers were defined by these very arguments. So one of the things that I point to is the fact that in our litigation over HB2 in North Carolina for example which was the anti-trans law that passed that state's legislature in 2016 the individuals who were defending HB2 on the side of the state of North Carolina are now leading the charge in various ways at the federal government.
So the person who defended UNC for example to defend HB2 is Noel Francisco. Noel Francisco is the solicitor general of the United States now which means he is the person making these arguments to the Supreme Court defending this trans-exclusionary definition of sex under Title VII. And so these same people have been elevated to positions of power in part because they held these positions.
And the reason why I think trans people are so centrally situated as a target within the sort of GOP attacks on basic human rights is that we sort of pose a threat inherently in their mind that people like Vice President Pence for example have a very particular vision of society that centers on controlling the bodies of women subordinate to their husbands. And that notion is dependent on constructing the idea of sex and sex bodies in a particular way that trans people feel very threatening to.
(28:15)
And so part of situating that notion of the family and in turn that notion of society is expelling people who do not fit. And trans people are a very obvious example of people who do not fit. And so it is both essential to the vision of society that a lot of people in power currently have to expel trans people and I think by extension LGBTQ people too and it is also true that this has been a set of strategies and things that have been in the works for a very long time that have been happening at the state level during the Obama years and we're now seeing federalized through people who are now in power in the Trump administration.
Ann: Right. And speaking of people who are now in power, so the justices who are going to hear these arguments, I mean do we know something about where their leanings are on this question based on how they've voted in the past or public statements they've made? I don't want to ask you to just tell me how's it going to go but that's truly what I'm wondering when I hear you describe this kind of pipeline all the way up to the federal level and when I think about who is now installed on the court.
Chase: Yeah. So I think one thing before answering that question is this is a moment too to take stock of the unbelievable power of the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular. And this is obviously something that has been very much in the background of very political conversation over the past five years which is the Supreme Court matters and it matters a lot and the people on the court have an unbelievable amount of power. And they're appointed for life and that is also true of federal judges in the lower courts.
(30:00)
And the Trump administration has completely transformed the federal judiciary and has pushed through so many judicial appointments that are going to impact our lives for generations and I think that is something that I hope every single one of us takes stock of and thinks about every time we cast a vote in any presidential election because this matters. And the right is incredibly effective at centering and prioritizing the courts.
Now when it comes to the Supreme Court in particular these are nine human beings who have the power to decide almost everything in our lives in many ways and this is not a favorable court for civil rights and sort of survival of people who are not white, cisgender, heterosexual men. And that's just a fact.
Now does that mean we're definitely going to lose? No it doesn't. I think there's a good chance we could win in part because we have a very straightforward, textual argument that the law was written and it used the word sex and it says you cannot discriminate because of sex against an individual employee. And there is a very straightforward, textual reading and in theory textualism is a conservative approach to the law.
And so just as one example Justice Scalia who was not known as this sort of progressive leader on the courts, which would be an understatement, wrote a unanimous opinion for the court essentially in another Title VII case called On Call which was about whether or not same-sex sexual harassment was prohibited under Title VII. And what Scalia said was essentially it does not matter what the lawmakers who passed Title VII in 1964 intended to cover with the law because they wrote a broad statute and it is our job as the court to apply the broad words of the statute as they are written. And harassing someone regardless of whether that harassment is between people of different sex or the same sex and even if sexual harassment was in no way contemplated at the time Title VII was passed that is still within the plain text of the law.
(32:15)
So there is a highly conservative way to rule for us which would be the way that Scalia ruled for the plaintiff in On Call for a unanimous court. So I would say, you know, if Scalia was on the court I would say we'd have a good chance. If you're going to be a strict textualist we should win. Now it doesn't' always work out that way because sometimes people reverse-engineer positions based on the outcomes that they want. And I think there is reason to believe that conservative justices don't want to have the law protect LGBTQ people. So that is the sort of reality that we're dealing with.
I do think this is RBG's legacy. RBG brought sex discrimination cases as a litigator. This really is a continuation of her life's work. The question that is now before the court is are we going to continue to recognize that the broad words of our civil rights statues apply broadly? Or are we about to enter an era in which we are starting to seriously and quite dangerously roll back the protections that we've relied on for many years?
So that's sort of what's happening before a changing court and as always there's no way to know how they're going to rule. And so hopefully we can see at least, you know, a narrow victory that just holds the line for what has been. And then we can do the work as advocates to ensure that we continue to have and demand robust protections and expansive protections from all aspects of government.
(33:55)
Ann: Yeah. You brought up RBG and I find myself thinking about a thing -- a clip that I watched in the documentary about her where she basically says justices consider precedent and interpreting all of these . . . they're interpreting the law and cases and things like that but there is also a role for culture and what is happening in the world outside the courtroom or outside their chambers. And she kind of used that as an example to say that it does matter to show up and protest or to show that there is a groundswell of belief in one way or another. And I'm curious about -- I know one reason why we wanted to talk to you is we didn't feel like this case was creating that in this moment, right? And I wondered if you had thoughts for the folks who are listening about where their energies could possibly go given that they are not one of the justices sitting on the bench hearing this case and actually deciding what can we do to kind of create an environment in which we encourage the direction that we want this to go in.
Chase: Yeah, I think this is incredibly important for people to understand which is that even though litigation happens in the courtroom legal change happens in the streets. And so let me explain because there's sort of two aspects of this. The first is sort of grounded in the fundamental limitations of the law which is we can only do so much with a legal system that is inherently conservative. So even when we win in Congress, even when we win in court, in order to ensure that we truly win we need to build power and community and we need to hold lawmakers and others in power accountable.
(35:45)
So we only win in any meaningful way if all the sort of types of organizing and pressure points are working in concert together. So a win at the Supreme Court is useless without a movement behind it to ensure that the sort of understanding of the law that is adopted by the court is actually implemented in people's daily lives which requires both the dissemination of information through organizing as well as base and power building to ensure that people are able to survive long enough to even access their rights and feel empowered to push back when their rights are taken away from them. So there is a role to play every single day outside of legal work and legal work is inherently conservative and so we have to think of it as just one limited tool in a toolbox of sort of making meaningful, transformative change.
And then the second aspect of legal change that is sort of fundamentally played out on the streets, especially when it comes to cases at the United States Supreme Court, is that as much as nine individuals are going to be deciding the issue ultimately those nine individuals are human beings. They are human beings who reside in the world. They look out from the court and see a set of cultural and political realities that they cannot extricate their thinking from.
So what that means is that if we do nothing between now and October 8th and now and whenever they decide this case then the message we're sending is nobody cares. And that message will then come through in whatever legal opinion they write because they are inevitably, you know, sort of seeped in culture as much as everyone else.
And sure I think judges and people who sort of talk about the law in an academic sense like to talk about it as a science. It is not a science; it is an interpretive method to achieve political outcomes. And I would argue that many things about science are that too but that's a digression. But that ultimately it is our responsibility as human beings who are engaged in the outcomes of decisions that people in power make to show how those decisions impact our ability to survive or not.
(38:08)
And so it is incumbent on all of us I believe between now and October when the case is argued and then between now and whenever it is decided sometime before June of 2020 to make noise to say no, we will not stand for a court that strips rights away from people. We will absolutely not sit quietly by while the court debates whether it is lawful to fire people, whether we should be enforcing gender stereotypes in the workplace, so sit and do nothing is incredibly dangerous and will impact an ultimate opinion that is written taking away people's rights.
And so some of the ways people can show up are just talking about it. Talk about these cases. Educate yourself about these cases. Being informed and mobilizing, whether it's having a rally on October 8th in D.C. or in your hometown, whether it's sharing on social media and creating a groundswell of attention and knowledge about these cases that then translates into media coverage, it translates into people talking to their friends and families, talking about it in class, talking about it with friends. Those things make a difference. That's something that people should internalize as a way where they have agency and power to influence what's happening in places that seem completely inaccessible.
Ann: Right. Like we cannot influence maybe the direct outcome, like literally the decisions made, but we can definitely make sure that everybody is aware that this is happening. We can be talking about it. And I really do think that one of the upsides of this super connected social media era is we can kind of place some pressure on people in positions of cultural power to say this is something we're all paying attention to. I really appreciate that. Before I let you go I want to ask if there is a place you recommend our listeners go for further information about what's at stake or to tap into what the ACLU is organizing or planning around this case or just to learn more.
(40:05)
Chase: Check out aclu.org. We're counsel on two of the cases. One is the EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes which is a mouthful but if you just Google Aimee Stephens, A-I-M-E-E Stephens, she was the transgender woman who was fired. She is our client. She is who we are defending at the Supreme Court. You will be directed to our website where there is tons of information about the cases then if you follow us on Twitter or Instagram @ACLU there'll be information about not only Aimee Stephens' case but the two sexual orientation cases as well that are going to be argued on October 8th. So that's a good place to just find information and background as well as information about rallies and other things that are happening leading up to October 8th.
And for anyone who is able to come to D.C. there will be a huge presence outside the Supreme Court and that's another way that people can physically show up. Because the other thing is this is the first transgender civil rights case ever heard before the United States Supreme Court. It is a day we will remember and we want to show that the trans community had more people defending them outside the court that day than the other side had saying we shouldn’t exist.
And so people can show up if they're able. People can organize rallies in their hometown. There's a lot we can do both to send the message that this matters both to the individuals who are watching who need to see that, the LGBTQ folks in particular, but also to the people in power who need to see that we have allies by our side.
Ann: Yes, absolutely. Chase thank you so much for taking the time to be on the podcast.
Chase: Thank you for all you're doing and covering.
[Interview Ends]
(41:45)
Ann: Ugh. So, so much to think about and also so much to do.
Aminatou: Bust out all of the protest supplies because if something has ever called for a protest this is it.
Ann: Right. And I think it's worth noting that after Chase and I talked about this I did a quick Google to be like okay, is someone in the city where I live planning a protest? Or is there a place I can physically show up? And I'm going to be honest that I did not come up with a link to a Facebook page or a local ACLU group's invitation to a designated protest area. And so all of that is to say I don't -- I'm not saying definitively those planned protests do not exist but I'm also saying that maybe it's kind of on us to get it together and show up even if there's not an easy thing to RSVP to.
Aminatou: If you know of a protest please let us know. If you do not let's all work on planning one because October 8th, right around the corner.
Ann: Right. And like Chase mentioned if you are in D.C. there's usually a gathering at the Supreme Court on the day of oral arguments. That's an amazing option if you are in that area. But yeah, in the meantime we are going to be paying attention to other opportunities to show up. And in the meantime we can also be talking about this and make this a big deal in the online spaces where we spend so much of our time and energy.
Aminatou: See you at the protests boo-boo.
Ann: See you at the protests, on the Internet, and in the workplace. I actually won't see you in the workplace. I don't know what I'm talking about. I work from home, although I am wearing pants today.
Aminatou: Ann you are currently at your workplace.
Ann: Luckily I work in a workplace where the protections for gender identity are pretty robust.
Aminatou: You can find us many places on the Internet: callyourgirlfriend.com, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, we're on all your favorite platforms. Subscribe, rate, review, you know the drill. You can call us back. You can leave a voicemail at 714-681-2943. That's 714-681-CYGF. You can email us at callyrgf@gmail.com. Our theme song is by Robyn, original music composed by Carolyn Pennypacker Riggs. Our logos are by Kenesha Sneed. We're on Instagram and Twitter at @callyrgf where Sophie Carter-Kahn does all of our social. Our associate producer is Jordan Baley and this podcast is produced by Gina Delvac.