In many areas, such as laws and job listings, there seems to be an ever-increasing list of things people, government, company, or organization does not discriminate against, such as religion, gender, race, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, etc. And as we find new things to not like about each other, we add to the list, usually with at least some people disagreeing about whether anything new needs to be added.
So, instead, why don't we just say something like "does not discriminate on the basis of identity"? That would cover everything, including things we haven't thought of yet, and I can't really think of a reason why we would need to retain the ability to discriminate against some unforseen future identification.
Sure, there are times when a person's values or perspectives do no align with that of the group that they may potentially join, but that's not so much discrimiation as, say, not fulfilling the requirements of the job. And that would only be if the person actively goes against what is being asked of them, wouldn't it? I've seen a job listing for a reaserch assistant asking for someone with a preference for "conservative feminism." That's not discrimination against actual feminists, is it? I don't think so since it's asking for someone who supports a particular perspective because that's what they're going to be working on. It makes sense to me, just as requiring someone working in a warehouse to be able to lift 50 lbs isn't descrimination because it's something relevant to what they're going to be doing.
Or am I missing something here about why we need to explicitly state what characteristics of identity can not be discriminated against, implying other things can be?
