Surprise Surprise

[Kiera]

Despite years of Trump bashing Conservative court rules:
(NYTimes Katelyn Burns  Jun 15, 2020, 2:10pm EDT)

The Supreme Court has given trans people
reason to hope again
The Court’s favorable ruling on LGBTQ rights came when
the trans community was at rock bottom.

Aimee Stephens dies at 59

Also: J.K. Rowling's not so radical defense against TERF allegations

. . concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning . . ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment

What is now described as "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria"

[Antisthenes]

Don't read too much into Monday's decision. This issue was a very narrow ruling of statutory interpretation.It is also a win for conservatives who cling to a textualist approach to reading both legislation and the Constitution. Given this Court's make up,  it is an bad sign for future cases. Consider, for instance, the constitutional right to privacy, which protects reproductive choice. The same priciple Gorsuch used to rule in our favor can and probably will be used to strike down gun control and womens productive rights. Strict textualism bodes very poorly for future decisions that are champions of liberal rights.
This was a win for us, but Gorsuch textualist approach that garnered this win also is very concerning in future decisions. Gorsuch even alluded to the fact by noting his reasoning in his opinion. Had it been worded differently, civil rights just as easily could have suffered another blow. Textualism saved us here, but I fear what will happen in future decisions based on this philosophy of understanding the Constitution.

[Dena]

This could become another Roe vs Rade as the same type of reasoning was involved. The way the law was written you could drive a truck through the hole and that is exactly what the court did in their decision. As time changes, values change and views change. The reasoning used in this decision isn't the same as when the law was written. Transgender wasn't known and for the most part, transsexuals and homosexuals were in the closet and out of sight. The issue at the time was woman's rights driven by the woman's liberation groups which was what the law was intended to address. Woman were discriminated against in the work place and the law was an attempt to address that problem. What should have been considered is what was in the mind of the people who passed the law and not how the words can be twisted to fit another issue that wasn't an issue at the time.

We have something similar that has played out for years with the second amendment. The intend of the law was to provide a means through local Militias to overthrow the government should it no longer obey the constitution. Modern arguments suggest the national guard which can be controlled by the federal government covers the second amendment so private ownership of firearms is no longer necessary. Do you think that a government will use a military force to throw it's self out of power? The other argument is that we should be limited to flintlock as that was what was available when the constitution was written. We are to remove a dictatorship using modern firearms with flintlocks?  When making this type of decision, you really need to view it from all points of view.

If they don't want to hire you or they want to fire you, they can do it anyway. They need only say not qualified or no longer have a need for your services. As long as they don't put it down on paper, you have no proof. It's easy enough to do and I probably have lost two jobs because of it. The solution is to change the hearts and minds of people so the law isn't needed. Beside that, I don't think I would want to work for somebody who would mistreat people in that manner.

[Complete]

It never ceases to amaze me how men, lawyers and politicians can so convolute a subject as to so completely obscure the fundamental flaw in their arguments that l begin to see how easy it is to get lost in a forest of trees, or in this case words.
The fundamental flaw in this entire word salad is the now acceptable conflation of sex and gender.
We are not blowfish boys and girls...
and others

[Elisabeth]

It never ceases to amaze me how men, lawyers and politicians can so convolute a subject as to so completely obscure the fundamental flaw in their arguments that l begin to see how easy it is to get lost in a forest of trees, or in this case words.
The fundamental flaw in this entire word salad is the now acceptable conflation of sex and gender.
We are not blowfish boys and girls...
and others

From your brief comment that's hard for me to decipher, it seems to be you think all this is a bad thing? Would you please care to elaborate? I'm interested in hearing your opinion fleshed out.

Thanks

[Kiera]

. . the now acceptable conflation of sex and gender.

      Idk gotta agree with Elisabeth the ruling seems quite clear and simple to me in conflating sex with gender doesn't that only mean Equal Protection Under the Law and, being forced to pick a side between either male or female presentation, there would be no such thing as "them or they" anymore even if it is  "original birth sex" that remains static as "valid"?

In other words wouldn't this also cover non-op transvestites as well? Would think a one exception consistency would have to be the keyword there . .

        Overall very happy, don't need "gun control" lol shoot who ya want in self-defense (moreso than just bad gov't) but suffer the consequence and, as far as abortion goes, perhaps a compromise might be in order like only if both parties involved are known (otherwise "No") and can agree?

It takes two to make a child so . .

(note my url is changing!)

[zirconia]

Hi, Kiera

Thanks for the links... I found Rowling's interesting.

As for abortion... don't you think requiring recognition of the father and getting his permission just might create some pretty dicey situations?

[Kiera]

. . requiring recognition of the father and getting his permission

      How "dicey"? If the woman doesn't want the child then perhaps the father does? I know, at least in Georgia, that most all pregnancy/childbirth expenses are 100% state-funded so wouldn't 9 months inconvenience be a small price to pay for an entire lifetime of/by another? Also know in North Carolina that a single new mother MUST identify the father prior to obtaining any "welfare benefits" with the state then pursuing "child support" reimbursement whether she agrees to it or not . .

       Doesn't THAT make more economic sense than simply REWARDING overly dependant women for bad behavior, having even more babies? Or, worse yet, abortion(s)? No known father means No child-support means No welfare which, if "no means" at all == newborn can be taken away?

      So why not apply the same consequential logic when it comes to potentially protecting an unborn child? If both mother & father don't want the unborn life then I say fine, end the future life but sterilize both irresponsible parties so it doesn't happen again? A price everyone pays (equal opportunity) for total "sexual freedom" . .

 . . but that's assuming the guy is also given the "my body/my life choice" in the first place?

Has contraceptive gone wrong? Oh well . . if gotta play might pay but anything would be better than No Consequences at all!!

[Complete]

From your brief comment that's hard for me to decipher, it seems to be you think all this is a bad thing? Would you please care to elaborate? I'm interested in hearing your opinion fleshed out.
Thanks

Please forgive my lack of clarity. My point is quite simple, really. Sex is not gender. This ruling conflates the two.

[zirconia]

How "dicey"? If the woman doesn't want the child then perhaps the father does?

What I had in mind was mainly rapes.
Perhaps by an unknown perpetrator.
Or someone known who might offer his consent in exchange for dropping charges.

[Antisthenes]

Opinion. Any conversation that involves who, what how, and when a woman has an abortion is a man's conversation. Not his body, so should not be his choice. The subjugation of how women move through their lives is a question that shouldn't be allowed to be asked, much less legislated. If SCOTUS wants to rule on something it should be to determine a time frame for when a zygote attains status as a human. For argument, let's say after the 45th day of gestation since a heart beat can't be detected at this point. This gives a woman dominion over her body and her future. If she fails to make a decision and take appropriate action, then the onus is on her. But at least she's given the opportunity to determine her destiny as any man would. Women should not be punished for choosing not to engage in parenthood. Just because men and women fuck doesn't mean if a pregnancy should occur that a woman is obligated to gestate, nurse, feed and raise the product of that fervent moment in perpituity. Would this arrangement pleasr the evangelical Right? I think not. Hence the reason Roe vs. Wade exists. It needs tweaking, but not eradication.

[Maddie]

Opinion:
Men matter too. And they are part of the baby, and as it is, they have no right to even know if someone is pregnant with an unborn child created with material from them too.  There are males who would take on the responsibility and raise their children if the mother doesn't want children in her life.  (Maybe the absent mother could then pay child support.  That sounds kind of fair doesn't it?)

Opinion:
To protect the the women who have been raped, abused, have specific health risks, are bored by the men they sleep with, or even just not shown proper entertainment, worship and respect; any and all  pregnant woman should be allowed an abortion....by signing off that they need it for a REASON, and with ZERO need to name names or show any evidence.  But they should have to sign off for a specific reason, other than " it's my body and women matter and men don't".  Again, to protect those in danger, ZERO proof should be required.  An honor system that would only mean as much as the signers personal ethics.  For all time, it will be between them and their own concience to live with their signed statement that would remain a permanent record (for them) of them being truthful or a liar.

Women should have the right.  But the simple all-encompassing argument that "it's my body" is sick.  You can't argue against it because it's absurd.  A symptom of the manipulative forces at work destroying masculinity, families, and eventually... anyone who will stand up and think.

[Antisthenes]

.  But the simple all-,encompassing argument that "it's my body" is sick.  You can't argue against it because it's absurd.   

What is it that's absurd? That women's bodies are theirs and that they're not brood mares for men? I'll argue that point all day long. 😊

[Maddie]

Clearly.

There is no arguing that yes, females carry the babies of this species.
Does that fact necessarily mean the men should have no right in the reproduction of generations?
Can't there be a little more accountability in the ending of unborn life?

Brood mares???

I said it's absurd because in order to win an argument, one can put up a fact that cannot be disputed, which somehow is supposed to automatically win or end the argument, even though it ignores the rest of the debate. 
To me, its not that different than the absurdity of someone saying they're right for no reason but that "God said so'
One is based on science, the other on faith, both are dogma and neither really address what's going on, except to establish an unassailable argument.

I would prefer not to debate about God with a Greek philosopher

[Antisthenes]

Then we will agree to disagree. You have shared your opinion and I have shared mine.

[Complete]

I didn't realize this was about abortion. I thought it was about gay/trans rights

[Antisthenes]

I didn't realize this was about abortion. I thought it was about gay/trans rights

I had made a reference to how Gorsuch's ruling used for us in Civil rights could have textualism come back and bite those hoping for a decision on womens reproductive rights and Maddie wanted to address that issue as well. So we were just hashing out our feelings on that football. :-)

[Elisabeth]

Please forgive my lack of clarity. My point is quite simple, really. Sex is not gender. This ruling conflates the two.

And that's bad because?? Your answer is inadequate. Explain why this is problematic in your opinion.

Is is because it doesn't specifically state it only applies to passing androphilic post-operative transsexual women that meet your standards or that it applies to everything-under-the-sun transgender whatevers?

Certainly you can make it more clear why you have a problem with this decision. I still don't get where you're coming from.

Thanks.

[Kiera]

I didn't realize this was about abortion.

Sorry lol we DIGRESSED Complete  . . and I decided it more prudent, in the interests of forum détente, to post any *reasonable suggestions / alternatives* to an outright BAN on Trump's regular survey questionnaire instead!

Brood mares???

(Broodmare is 1 word btw . . a very intelligent creature "used for breeding. A horse's female parent is its dam . . an uncastrated adult male horse is stallion a castrated male is a gelding." and it's obvious, beside perhaps Maddie and I, that nobody here likes children . . also known as a rug rat or breast milk hound)

[Complete]

And that's bad because?? Your answer is inadequate. Explain why this is problematic in your opinion.

Why is it incumbent upon me to explain why you have a problem? Perhaps you should explain how you see sex and gender as the same when they are clearly different.
Nevertheless, since you seem intent on making this your line in the sand, consider this.
In many jurisdictions, including the U.K., and far too many liberal/"progressive" US states, a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate (or equivalent in the US), and be a woman in the sight of the law.