Thank you! Thank you very much. I do my best.
It doesn't look like that to me
Your words belie your claim
That is just misdirection. Autism has nothing to do with any of this
That position is irreconcilable with mine. Toilets, bathrooms, restrooms and changing rooms are now, always have been, and always should be sex-segregated safe spaces. The tide is turning against your position.
Absolutely no-one making this claim anyway.
You and theprestige do not have the luxury of playing dumb. You both know goddamned right well that SC decisions pack a lot of punch beyond their immediate matter. Justice Gourch even mused about the ramifications in his opinion, saying "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today" while acknowledging that it was not the immediate matter before the court.
Who is “they”? The plaintiffs, who lost. He is mentioning an argument they used in order to try to avoid the decision the court reached. And he is DISMISSING that argument. He says that the current ruling means nothing of the sort.
Then your interpretation is fairly unique in the English speaking world. That you claim apparent ignorance in not understanding that SC decisions have applications beyond their immediate matter remains a strong criticism of your opinions.
Which I already said. Thank you for the repetition. The court has not chosen to hear on a case involving the specific matter. That does not mean that their rulings cannot be cited and extrapolated beyond the case before them. Indeed, that's what they *do*.
I claimed nothing of the sort. I am telling you that your interpretation of Gorsuch's words is wrong. Here is a fuller quote from the ruling:
You still aren't getting it. Trial courts don't have a choice to not hear cases. And even at the trial court level, there are no such cases.
In principle, it could be. But that's speculation about future interpretations of the law. The law can effectively change based on court rulings (see, for example, Roe v. Wade). In principle, sure, such changes in the future are possible. But as of now, your interpretation of the law is wrong.
Gender discrimination in employment. Not in bathrooms. You don't seem to grasp that not all forms of discrimination are equivalent.
He can cite whatever the ◊◊◊◊ he wants to, that doesn't make him right. And Biden's EO was overturned by Trump's EO. You wouldn't accept that as evidence that the CRA does allow bathroom sex segregation, would you? So why do you expect me to interpret Biden's EO as evidence? It isn't. It's an act of politics, not legal reasoning.
Yes, and that is boilerplate language. The UK ruling had the same type of language, insisting that it wasn't even defining what a woman *was*, yet that's exactly precisely what was extrapolated from it.
Oh Jesus Christ, we are talking about SCOTUS. Yes, they absolutely, unequivocally choose what cases they will hear.
And the majority can see it coming, knowing full and well that the court will likely interpret it in the same spirit.
And you seem not to understand that by expressly saying gender falls under sex protections in the CRA, that it will with overwhelming liklihood be interpreted to do so more broadly.
It ain't my speculation, Jackson. It's that of virtually the entirety of legal scholars, because the wording extrapolates beyond the instant matter to blanket interpretation (with explicit and specified exceptions for extenuating circumstances, such as you state in Title IX below)
Explicit carveout is explicitly carved out in black and white, for reasons of physical fairness in competition.
I accept that anything done by our current Chief Executive is done with utter contempt of law.
No. You made that restriction, not me, and you made it without justification. There is NO case law, not at the Supreme Court level OR the trial court level, which indicates that sex segregated bathrooms violate the Civil Rights Act. Remember, that's the actual claim that we're debating: whether the Civil Rights Act prohibits sex segregated bathrooms. The Supreme Court is only relevant to the extent that it proves or disproves that.
I never said the Supreme Court didn't. But trial courts don't. Which means that trial courts can't duck the issue, if it's an issue.
No. Gorsuch is addressing an argument that the defendant raised in the case, because that's what you're supposed to do in a ruling. You're supposed to address arguments made by both sides. The fact that he addressed the argument DOES NOT mean that the argument has merit.
That's really NOT what the ruling says. It says,
It doesn't matter. If sex discrimination is permissible, then it's permissible regardless of gender. If sex discrimination is not permissible, then it's not permissible regardless of gender. Sex segregation isn't permissible when gender isn't involved but suddenly impermissible when gender gets involved. All this ruling does is confirm that gender discrimination can include sex discrimination. If that sex discrimination is already covered by the CRA, then gender discrimination is also included. But nothing about this ruling extends the prohibition on sex discrimination any further than it already was extended to.
Nothing about what I'm saying has anything to do with how sweeping rulings can be. But you don't even understand what the ruling actually was.
The entirety of legal scholars think this decision opened the door to eliminating sex segregated bathrooms? You're going to need to back up that claim.
Hypothesis: If this were true, we'd see a plethora of ambulance-chasers bringing vast multitudes of cases against restaurants, city parks, baseball stadiums, and everywhere else, for big fat legal action paydays. We'd see a mad scramble of TRAs flooding the courts with easy and obvious test cases.
BBC report - Ciara Watkin
This is pretty much an acknowledgement by the CPS that legally, trans identified men are not women, since it looks like its against the law to conceal your biological sex from a potential sex partner.
There was a bit of a battle over the updating of the CPS guidance; the consultation in 2022 produced a large volume of responses, especially as it was originally titled Deception as to gender
or as highlighted in the consultation responseI mean, as if its not obvious. The victim must have put away plenty of beers for him to have not noticed
If only we had some sort of democratic process which might allow ordinary people to have some say over whether single-sex spaces must henceforth allow males into the (formerly) female areas.
e.g. ???
Has SCOTUS shown any interest in expanding the logic of Bostock to other areas?
They did not. The ban applies specifically to gender dysphorics, a DSM defined disorder, and it was determined that someone suffering from a diagnosed mental illness would lack the mental.discipline required in the armed forces.
Based primarily on age, not sex or gender, the court found.
I think so, but am currently detoxing from the discussion.
