💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

Not Dr. Evil · Sobota o 20:49

Lentil Soup powiedział(a):
The specific complaint letter to the EEOC can be read here: Link | Archive

If you read very carefully, the ACLU disprove their own case.

"No reason was given for the termination."

Instead, the ACLU asks the court to gaze deep inside their crystal ball and find some unlawful discriminatory intent where none was actually stated or implied.

Colress · Sobota o 21:35

Lentil Soup powiedział(a):
Probably an uncommon opinion, but I can't help but be a bit sympathetic and I'm sure that the ACLU thought that they hit the jackpot with this case. I've seen so many TIMs larp having this specific condition that I am rather taken aback to see a pooner who (allegedly) has it. I do find it interesting that they chose to go the EEOC route with this considering that the head under the current administration is very unsympathetic to troonery.

Yeah, I hate troons as much as the next person, but this pooner was just trying to go along with what her chromosomes said she was. Still stupid to bring a baseless case to the ACLU but I can definitely see what she was trying to do.

Izdaja Slika · Sobota o 21:55

Lentil Soup powiedział(a):
There's an interesting new EEOC case coming out of Florida that was filed with the help of our beloved ACLU
Link | Archive

In short, a teacher with Turner's Syndrome (XY chromosomes but developed superficially female) who had transitioned to live as a man was fired from their job while in a probationary period and they have alleged that it was due to transphobic complaints from a parent. The publicly available complaint doesn't list the alleged proof from the parent so it's unknown exactly what it was. Bostock is specifically being cited for this one.

I don't see a claim of Turner's syndrome. Women with Turner's don't have XY chromosomes.

Stabby_Pencil · Niedziela o 06:48

Izdaja Slika powiedział(a):
I don't see a claim of Turner's syndrome. Women with Turner's don't have XY chromosomes.

Yeah isn't Turner's the one with XO or a half X chromosome? The ACLU is hilariously incompetent for these people.

Izdaja Slika · Niedziela o 07:07

Stabby_Pencil powiedział(a):
Yeah isn't Turner's the one with XO or a half X chromosome? The ACLU is hilariously incompetent for these people.

It's not clear what the condition is from the court documents. It's not Turner's because Turner's doesn't have a Y chromosome.

It could be 46, XY with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). Such individuals are genetically male and have internal testes, but have a female phenotype. However, even this DSD would not confuse any casual observer. A person with CAIS would look like a normal woman (but would be infertile and would not menstruate).

Lentil Soup · Niedziela o 07:47

Izdaja Slika powiedział(a):
I don't see a claim of Turner's syndrome. Women with Turner's don't have XY chromosomes.

That was my bad, it was Swyer's syndrome. It's mentioned in the first link:

This includes conditions like Swyer’s Syndrome, in which people with XY chromosomes may be born with external anatomy that appears stereotypically female and are therefore assigned female at birth.

Etaoin Shrdlu · Wczoraj o 05:47

And that's the reason the "assigned ___ at birth" language being used to describe trannies is stupid. They co-opted it from intersex people and other weird genetic abnormalities.

Aero the Alcoholic Bat · Wczoraj o 06:02

Etaoin Shrdlu powiedział(a):
And that's the reason the "assigned ___ at birth" language being used to describe trannies is stupid. They co-opted it from intersex people and other weird genetic abnormalities.

Interesting. The impression that most get is that the trans movement pulled it out of their ass, but that it once had a perfectly legitimate use among those with DSDs?

Etaoin Shrdlu · Wczoraj o 06:07

Aero the Alcoholic Bat powiedział(a):
Interesting. The impression that most get is that the trans movement pulled it out of their ass, but that it once had a perfectly legitimate use among those with DSDs?

Correct.

Yet another thing trannies have ruined.

Not Dr. Evil · Wczoraj o 10:27

Review was granted today.

The Supreme Court is likely to ban states from trooning out "run away" kids behind their parents backs,

Partnership for Ethical Care v. Ferguson

Stabby_Pencil · Wczoraj o 10:39

Not Dr. Evil powiedział(a):
Review was granted today.

The Supreme Court is likely to ban states from trooning out "run away" kids behind their parents backs,

Partnership for Ethical Care v. Ferguson

Would this also effect foster kids? Because a lot of foster kids are getting trooned out.

UncleTusky · Wczoraj o 19:39

Stabby_Pencil powiedział(a):
Would this also effect foster kids? Because a lot of foster kids are getting trooned out.

Doesn't look like it. Here is the question the petitioners (parents suing the State of Washington) are raising with SCOTUS:

Whether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision making role as to “gender transitions” of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.

And here is the directly troon related law law (emphasis mine):
RCW 13.32A.082:

b)(i) If a licensed overnight youth shelter, or another licensed organization with a stated mission to provide services to homeless or runaway youth and their families, shelters a child and knows at the time of providing the shelter that the child is away from a lawfully prescribed residence or home without parental permission, it must contact the youth's parent within 72 hours, but preferably within 24 hours, following the time that the youth is admitted to the shelter or other licensed organization's program. The notification must include the whereabouts of the youth, a description of the youth's physical and emotional condition, and the circumstances surrounding the youth's contact with the shelter or organization. If there are compelling reasons not to notify the parent, the shelter or organization must instead notify the department.
(....)
(c) "Compelling reasons" include, but are not limited to:
(i) Circumstances that indicate that notifying the parent or legal guardian will subject the minor to abuse or neglect as defined in RCW 26.44.020; or
(ii) When a minor is seeking or receiving protected health care services.
(d) "Protected health care services" means gender-affirming treatment as defined in RCW 74.09.675 and reproductive health care services as defined in RCW 74.09.875.

The other laws deal with medical privacy, including adolescents' ability to refuse release of medical information to their parents for any or no reason, so long as there is no imminent threat to self or others, and doctors' ability to waive parental notification in their professional judgment.

So if SCOTUS rules in favor of the parents it will probably remand (send back) the case to the appeals court with instructions to say the parents have standing to challenge the laws, at which point the law's constitutionality would be fair game. Since this is being phrased as "do parents have the discretion to decline gender treatments, even if Child Services is recommending the opposite" extending it to "parents have no discretion and must decline gender treatments" seems like a stretch. The FTC litigation against WPATH seems like a better avenue for that since it is attacking the underlying medical guidance as fraudulent.

AnOminous · Dzisiaj o 02:56

Nero Fiddled powiedział(a):
She knew the rules.
If she is indeed intersex (I have my doubts) she was documented as female as she looked like a female and should have carried on that way and not rocked her own boat and then cry about her feet getting wet.

If you have XY chromosomes you're a man, period.

Izdaja Slika powiedział(a):
I don't see a claim of Turner's syndrome. Women with Turner's don't have XY chromosomes.

The claims contradict in the case of this person. No Y chromosome, you're a woman.

It could be a lie but it could be typical journoshit.

Not Dr. Evil · Dzisiaj o 10:11

In a 6- 3 decision, SCOTUS rules that troons do not have a right to access women's spaces under Title IX.

"b) The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (“sex” is “an immutable characteristic”). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women."

West Virginia v. BPJ

The troons couldn't even get the Jackson Sotomayor vote on Title IX.

Sinner's Sandwich · Dzisiaj o 10:14

Not Dr. Evil powiedział(a):
In a 6- 3 decision, SCOTUS rules that troons do not have a right to access women's spaces under Title IX.

"b) The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (“sex” is “an immutable characteristic”). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women."

West Virginia v. BPJ

Another biological reality plane hit the tranny towers!!

The 3 shitlibs that voted against reality itself are fucking retarded and need to off themselves.

Not Dr. Evil · Dzisiaj o 10:22

"Men are not women." - Clarence Thomas

broken chyron · Dzisiaj o 10:24

Not Dr. Evil powiedział(a):
In a 6- 3 decision, SCOTUS rules that troons do not have a right to access women's spaces under Title IX.

"b) The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (“sex” is “an immutable characteristic”). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women."

West Virginia v. BPJ

The troons couldn't even get the Jackson Sotomayor vote on Title IX.

Wyświetl załącznik 9212174

YES! Knew this was coming, but still so relieved it's finally here.

As much as lefties are going to melt down over this, they should actually be grateful because now their Dem candidates aren't going to be weighed down by this incredibly unpopular issue. I know a lot of moms through playdate groups and swim lessons who are as anti-MAGA as they come, but still refuse to vote for any democrat on board the tranny-train. Now they can safely vote blue without worrying their daughters are going to have to compete with brickhons or get exposed in the locker room.

Not Dr. Evil · Dzisiaj o 10:26

broken chyron powiedział(a):
YES! Knew this was coming, but still so relieved it's finally here.

Big Al is losing his shit over "men are not women."

Lentil Soup · Dzisiaj o 10:26

Not Dr. Evil powiedział(a):
In a 6- 3 decision, SCOTUS rules that troons do not have a right to access women's spaces under Title IX.

"b) The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context. See, e.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (“sex” is “an immutable characteristic”). In addition, the Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of the inherent physical differences between biological men and biological women."

West Virginia v. BPJ

The troons couldn't even get the Jackson Sotomayor vote on Title IX.

Wyświetl załącznik 9212174

Wasn't Strangio counsel on this one?
Total Strangio Defeat :story:

Not Dr. Evil · Dzisiaj o 10:30

Here is Kyle whining about the end of lurking in the women's bathroom.

💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

Not Dr. Evil

Colress

Internet Explorer Summer

Izdaja Slika

Stabby_Pencil

Will stab with pencils

Izdaja Slika

Lentil Soup

Now with extra bay leaf

Etaoin Shrdlu

Aero the Alcoholic Bat

I need to pee real bad

Etaoin Shrdlu

Not Dr. Evil

Stabby_Pencil

Will stab with pencils

UncleTusky

AnOminous

Any road will take you there.

Not Dr. Evil

Sinner's Sandwich

Not Dr. Evil

broken chyron

Not Dr. Evil

Lentil Soup

Now with extra bay leaf

Not Dr. Evil