Davin News Server

On 4/25/2024 4:36 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:43:49 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/24/2024 4:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:57:22 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2024 5:43 PM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Arguing the Biden administration’s decision to include gender identity
>>>>> in Title IX will harm women, conservative groups have vowed to work to
>>>>> reverse the “administrative fiat” in the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many argue Biden’s Education Department lacks the authority to rewrite
>>>>> the 52-year-old federal law to redefine sex to include sexual
>>>>> orientation and gender identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> “This regulation is an assault on women and girls,” stated Betsy
>>>>> DeVos, education secretary under President Donald Trump, in a post on
>>>>> X.
>>>>>
>>>>> “It makes it a federal requirement that boys be allowed in girls
>>>>> bathrooms in elementary schools. It makes it a federal requirement
>>>>> that men be allowed to play women’s sports, putting their safety,
>>>>> privacy and competitive opportunity at risk. And it makes it a federal
>>>>> requirement that feelings, not facts, dictate how Title IX is
>>>>> enforced,” DeVos stated."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.thecollegefix.com/conservatives-prep-lawsuits-as-bidens-title-ix-rewrite-to-include-gender-identity-condemned/
>>>>
>>>> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was interpreted by SCOTUS (in an
>>>> opinion written by Gorsuch) to mean that discrimination on the basis of
>>>> sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace discriminates on
>>>> the basis of sex. This interpretation of Title IX mirrors that logic.
>>>> For example, you can't deny admission to a school because someone is gay
>>>> or trans. Prior to this regulation, you could under federal law.
>>>>
>>>> Also, this regulation does not imply that boys must be allowed to use
>>>> the girls' bathroom or men must be allowed to compete in women's sports.
>>>> Prior to this regulation, neither was permitted even though both treat
>>>> boys/men differently than girls/women. Privacy, safety and the integrity
>>>> of women's sports justified treating the sexes differently. It may also
>>>> be the case under the new regulation that denying trans women access to
>>>> the woman's bathroom or women's sports are also justified.
>>>
>>> The writer of the article disagrees with you, as well as many others.
>>
>>  From the fact sheet that summarizes the revised rule:
>>
>> "The rule prohibits discrimination and harassment based on sexual
>> orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics in federally
>> funded education programs, applying the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s
>> ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County." (Bostock is the decision I
>> referenced above, written by Gorsuch).
>>
>> "The final regulations clarify that a school must not separate or treat
>> people differently based on sex in a manner that subjects them to more
>> than de minimis harm, except in limited circumstances permitted by Title
>> IX. The final regulations further recognize that preventing someone from
>> participating in school (including in sex-separate activities)
>> consistent with their gender identity causes that person more than de
>> minimis harm. This general nondiscrimination principle applies except in
>> the limited circumstances specified by statute, such as in the context
>> of sex-separate living facilities and sex-separate athletic teams.  The
>> final regulations do not include new rules governing eligibility
>> criteria for athletic teams."
>>
>> https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-final-rule-factsheet.pdf
>>
>> In your opinion, when the government forbid schools from denying
>> admission to trans students is that a bad thing because it normalizes a
>> mental illness?
> 
> You're starting on a faulty premise.  What schoot has denied admission
> to trans students?

I forgot. This troll won't answer hypotheticals even though they are 
standard fare in legal analysis.

But let's take the real situation from Bostock. A funeral parlor owner 
fired a trans worker. SCOTUS held the owner violated Title VII which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. In your 
opinion, does this application of Title VII normalize a mental illness?

> The changes are about twisting Title IX to require
> schools to allow biological men into women's spaces and vice-versa.
> The debate  is about preserving the rights of ALL.

As noted in the fact sheet above, the regulation does not require 
schools to do what you claim it does.