Are humans who identify as non-humans a suspect class?

[Mr. Reactionary]

If someone who is a human and a citizen of the United States claims to be a non-human, an "alterhuman", an "otherkin", or some similar form of "trans speciesism" does this rise to the level of suspect class under federal civil rights law entitling the claim to special civil rights protections?

I dont see how it does, but apparently many on this forum seem to. What is the legal justification for this argument?

[Ferguson97]

I don't see why it wouldn't just be an extension of gender/sex being a protected class.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't see why it wouldn't just be an extension of gender/sex being a protected class.

Could you please elaborate? I still dont understand how anyone could have this viewpoint but its been presented to me as a given without need of any explanation. Like how can a human say they arent a human and be taken seriously?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If a human being identifies as a non-human animal (say a deer or a cow, ad arguendo) and that identification is recognized as valid and legally protected, would that mean people would have the right to kill and eat them?

[Mr. Reactionary]

     If a human being identifies as a non-human animal (say a deer or a cow, ad arguendo) and that identification is recognized as valid and legally protected, would that mean people would have the right to kill and eat them?

There is no logical endpoint to this "self-expression" nonsense. Any human who says they are non-human is both factually wrong and in need of serious counseling.

[NewYorkExpress]

If this idiotic theory reaches a courtroom, it'll be the dumbest moment in any American Court since this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/01/13/iowa-courts-david-ostrom-requests-trial-combat-swords-settle-dispute/4456079002/

[Ferguson97]

I don't see why it wouldn't just be an extension of gender/sex being a protected class.

Could you please elaborate? I still dont understand how anyone could have this viewpoint but its been presented to me as a given without need of any explanation. Like how can a human say they arent a human and be taken seriously?

Well, now you're asking a separate question. Whether or not they should be taken seriously by society is an entirely different manner than whether or not they should be entitled to certain legal protections.

For example, if tomorrow I started a religion that proclaimed Tom Sellick and Kirsten Dunst to be the creators of the universe - most people would rightfully mock me for holding such an absurd belief. But that wouldn't changed the fact that firing me for holding those beliefs would be a violation of my first amendment rights.

If you want to debate the merits of that religious belief, or in your example, whether or not someone's belief that they are an otherkin, then that's a different debate.

You need to establish that otherkin belief is somehow fundamentally different from other gender identity (including that of people like you and me, whose biologicals sex matches their gender identity) in order to argue that they would not be entitled to the same protections that make it illegal to fire someone for being gay, a woman, or a Pagan. "I think it's weird" does not suffice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are contexts, like employment discrimination, where protections for furries/otherkin/whatever would actually make some degree of sense, yes, but it would be better grounded in protections based on mental health issues. I'm not sure where the argument for extending sex and gender protections in this direction comes from.

[politicallefty]

     If a human being identifies as a non-human animal (say a deer or a cow, ad arguendo) and that identification is recognized as valid and legally protected, would that mean people would have the right to kill and eat them?

What happens in a first contact event with fully sentient beings?

[Mister Mets]

I don't see why it wouldn't just be an extension of gender/sex being a protected class.

Could you please elaborate? I still dont understand how anyone could have this viewpoint but its been presented to me as a given without need of any explanation. Like how can a human say they arent a human and be taken seriously?

Well, now you're asking a separate question. Whether or not they should be taken seriously by society is an entirely different manner than whether or not they should be entitled to certain legal protections.

For example, if tomorrow I started a religion that proclaimed Tom Sellick and Kirsten Dunst to be the creators of the universe - most people would rightfully mock me for holding such an absurd belief. But that wouldn't changed the fact that firing me for holding those beliefs would be a violation of my first amendment rights.

If you want to debate the merits of that religious belief, or in your example, whether or not someone's belief that they are an otherkin, then that's a different debate.

You need to establish that otherkin belief is somehow fundamentally different from other gender identity (including that of people like you and me, whose biologicals sex matches their gender identity) in order to argue that they would not be entitled to the same protections that make it illegal to fire someone for being gay, a woman, or a Pagan. "I think it's weird" does not suffice.

There are explicit legal protections for religion, so for the comparison to work, the argument would have to be that otherkin is a form of religious expression.

The question seems to be about the legal basis for hypothetical decisions.

One wrinkle would be the fourteenth amendment, with the idea that protections granted in one area should be accepted elsewhere, although you would still need some local legislature to provide employment protection or whatever to otherkin.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If a human being identifies as a non-human animal (say a deer or a cow, ad arguendo) and that identification is recognized as valid and legally protected, would that mean people would have the right to kill and eat them?

What happens in a first contact event with fully sentient beings?

     In most jurisdictions I am aware of, killing and eating them does seem to be a legal option. In California the statute for murder explicitly applies to human beings, per Penal Code Section 187(a). Mind you there are also protected animal species, hence why I said they claim to be a deer or a cow and not something like a migratory bird that would entitle them to legal protections.

[Benjamin Frank]

Is this the new moral panic?