From: Josh Rosenbluth <noway@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Joe Biden normalizes mental illness via executive order
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:19:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 4/27/2024 6:39 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:00:24 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
{snip}
>> 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.
That's not what Gorsuch said. He concluded firing the trans worker
violated Title VII because it discriminated on the basis of sex, where
sex is the traditional biological definition.
>>> 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.
Again, from the fact sheet:
"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."
USA Today correctly described the general nondiscrimination principle,
but left out the exception.