> it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population.
I wonder how you are measuring 'damage'? Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment? I'm really struggling to understand the logic here.
> I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status,
You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments behind them are all public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
> Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes ... the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm
Or ... here's another explanation–you may not have fully understood the history of the relevant laws, why the existing protected classes reached that status, and mistakenly believe that other classes were not considered. Fortunately, you have plenty of opportunity to educate yourself if interested.
> “First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is”
Why do you believe this matters to the discussion? Some may say the same about gender identity, which is only just being understood, yet that lack of scientific understanding has not prevented it from being a protected class.
> “Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment?”
It’s juvenile that you seem to think that a certain class has to “suffer as much as” some other class before the characteristic defining that class might be seriously considered for protected status. It reminds me of the inanity in Berlin local politics about which of various holocaust victim groups get the best real estate for memorials. Nobody is talking about totalling up exact amounts of suffering of this group or that. But it is quite telling to me that you’d rather be dismissive of possible suffering of a large cohort like introverts than to engage with the point.
> “You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments“
You didn’t read my comment above, where I specifically mentioned I’m not interested in the legal process that led to this, rather the entirely separate sociological and philosophical parts that people seem to use to justify protection of one type of characteristic but not others.
> “I'm really struggling to understand the logic here.”
> Why do you believe this matters to the discussion?
It matters because we can't just go around making laws based on whatever we feel like. Laws need to be about equity and need to be supported by evidence. Otherwise we can make a law saying that left-handed people are not allowed to use public washrooms, because they might not be able to use the facilities properly and make a mess.
> Some may say the same about gender identity ... lack of scientific understanding has not prevented it from being a protected class.
Some may say that. Some also say that vaccines are just a money-making scheme by pharma companies, or a potential cause of autism. But the people who actually studied it–i.e. doctors–don't. The American Medical Association is committed to informing policymakers of their current science-based understanding of gender as a spectrum: https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/gender...
> It’s juvenile that you seem to think...
The factors that you associate with introversion and correlate with suffering in open office plans haven't even been scientifically established. In fact, scientifically there is doubt that the factors that people normally associate with introversion are actually about introversion. Given this lack of evidence, I don't know how you can make such a strong claim that introverts are discriminated against in offices, especially in a thread about already-established discriminatory practices.
But if you feel so strongly about it, absolutely no one is stopping you from writing up a post and submitting it to HN.
> I’m not interested in the legal process that led to this, rather the entirely separate sociological and philosophical parts
The legal process used the sociological and philosophical factors to arrive at the discrimination judgments. Law doesn't just appear out of thin air–it's based on human factors. That's why I pointed you to those sources in the first place. They cover all that. If you're really interested, please go ahead and read them.
First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-th... ). Medically speaking, it's not considered to be a disability. For conditions that are medically considered as disabilities, the relevant US law already covers accommodations: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm
> it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population.
I wonder how you are measuring 'damage'? Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment? I'm really struggling to understand the logic here.
> I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status,
You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments behind them are all public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
> Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes ... the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm
Or ... here's another explanation–you may not have fully understood the history of the relevant laws, why the existing protected classes reached that status, and mistakenly believe that other classes were not considered. Fortunately, you have plenty of opportunity to educate yourself if interested.