From: NoBody <NoBody@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: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:37:42 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:19:48 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>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.
But that flies in the face of what the advocates themselves say. You
libs need to pick a definition and stick with it.
>
>>>> 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."
>
Aircraft carrier approacheth! Men who claim to be women can shower in
women's facilities despite the objections of same women.
>USA Today correctly described the general nondiscrimination principle,
>but left out the exception.
You're sick "Josh" and advocate violating the rights of all women.
Society has been turned on its head.