The new law only concerns gay and bi, NOT trans.

Tom

I thought it was based on "sexual orientation"? Pretty sure that it would be viewed as applicable to trans people as well (even if some would argue that being trans is not a sexual orientation per se).

"It includes comments made on television, messages posted on social media, and discrimination against gay or bisexual people in public venues like restaurants or movie theaters.

Lawmakers initially included wording in the bill to protect transgender people, but the Council of States, Switzerland’s higher parliamentary chamber, rejected it on the basis that the criteria were too vague."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/w...sultPosition=1

Tom

It can't. There's currently no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Research has consistently failed to find any, at least.

No, the article is simply a thought experiment designed to get a reaction, otherwise known as trolling.

You're quoting a selective precis from an American newspaper article. Forgive me if I don't accept that as a definitive reference point about what is or is not protected by the new initiative.

Where are those who argued that "sexual orientation is on a scale".

I think the debate isn't about tolerance but about how to define "sexual orientation" so it is efficiently protected. Everybody agrees on tolerance here.

So show me something that states otherwise.

Tom

Er, no, it's you who's making a claim, it's up to you to support it. Just saying "prove me wrong" doesn't prove you right.

"Come proposto dal governo e dalla maggioranza del parlamento, i votanti si sono espressi in modo chiaro questa domenica a favore di una protezione dal profilo penale contro le discriminazioni e le aggressioni legate all’omo-, etero- o bisessualità di una persona o di un gruppo di persone. "

No mention of trans or other, just gay, straight and bi.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/ita/votazio...nale-/45544698

Tom

That's ok because if you are trans, you are going to be either gay, straight, or bi too.

Also in answer to Ace1's question/statment to Tom

No, I don't think it OK.

Because, believe me, the sexual orientation and with whom one want to have an intimate relationship, is the last thing on a transgender person's mind!

Transgender and Intergender people were on purpose omitted from the text in the vote last Sunday. They are still not protected by law!

https://www.humanrights.ch/de/mensch...etzesaenderung


Relevant citation from the article :

...but a no to gender identity

"However, the Federal Council firmly opposed the inclusion of the criterion of gender identity. As a criterion that is too "indeterminate", the Federal Council believes that it could "lead to an extensive interpretation and prove problematic in terms of the predictability of criminal law". For this reason, the Federal Council recommends that this "criterion, the scope of which is not sufficiently predictable" be dispensed with in the amendment. The Council of States has endorsed this view, thereby preventing comprehensive protection of the LGBTI community.

This confirms what the 2014 report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) had already shown: namely that Switzerland does not yet take the problems in this area sufficiently seriously. According to the organisation Transgender Network Switzerland (TGNS), personal discrimination is widespread. The IGC-NR itself also points out in its reports that transident or intersexual persons and groups are often confronted with the same discriminatory acts as homosexual and bisexual persons. A Pink Cross report published in May 2018 even points to an over-representation of trans victims in the cases of violence identified in the period 2016-2017"

__________________
Voluntary SWISS shoe -horn to Expats since 1999, do I get a medal now?

I think the key is that regardless of a trans person's actual sexual or gender identity, they will almost always be perceived as bi or gay in one way or another, so any discrimination based on that is covered.

It's what's in the motivation of the discriminator that's important, not whether their assumptions are correct or not.

Having worked with many transgender people (three in one office once), I can categorically say that you are wrong and transgender people have relationships, quite often long-term ones, just like anyone else.

Obviously, as with anyone else -straight, gay or whatever - there are individuals who do not want relationships.

Exactly!
One of my old clients was the diversity trainer for a UK government department. Absolutely fascinating woman to talk to, and she could talk the back legs off a donkey! She's transitioned in the '90s after a moderately successful music career in the '80s when it was almost fashionable to present an androgynous and asexual persona. That had been her 'cover'. The one constant in her life was her adoration of Alice Cooper & Vincent Furnier, partially because of his ability to maintain dual personalities, and she was attracted to both of them.

Where did I say transgender people don't have relationships??

Nonsense, why can't they be straight?

Anyway, it's still legal to make rude comments about their being trans and to otherwise discriminate based on that.

Tom

"Because, believe me, the sexual orientation and with whom one want to have an intimate relationship, is the last thing on a transgender person's mind!"

I read that as the last thing on their mind was having a relationship.
I suppose you could read it as they have lots of relationships but they don't care with whom they have them!

Sorry but IMO it's badly worded.

And for the former part, I disagree too. Sexual orientation does appear to matter - at least for the people I know.

Ok, ok it is a case of sender/receiver misunderstanding! Let's agree on it being badly worded, English is not my first language.

It is certainly NOT what I meant to express with it, on contrary!

It's how it is perceived. Bigoted folk will tend to assume the original gender, i.e. a M2F is still going to be thought of as a man and therefore her "straight" relationship with a man is perceived as gay, but conversely if she had a relationship with another woman that would then be regarded as gay as well. There's no consistent logic.

You're right, though, there is no specific protection for trans people. A much more difficult area and I can see why they dropped it.

Everybody's the same, just different wrapping paper.