Davin News Server

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:00:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:

>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.

Hang on there:  You participate in only one sick subject (and advocate
its acceptance) but I"M the troll.

Damn "Josh", this is why you have no credibility.

>
>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?

Actually yes because remember it's "gender" not sex.  That's what the
advocates keep telling us.

>
>> 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.

Perhaps you should contact US today and ask them to issue a
retraction:

"LGBTQ+ students will be guaranteed protection under the law if they
are discriminated against for their gender identity or sexual
orientation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/04/20/biden-title-ix-rules-explained/73385946007/

That wording  has holes so big you can float an aircraft carrier
through them.


Oh and I don't see an answer on why this is the only subject you'll
comment upon.  It's a reasonable question.