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: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:21:55 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 4/28/2024 6:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
> 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.
I am commenting on what the law is, not what advocates argue the law
should be.
>>>>> 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.
Showers almost certainly fall within the exceptions.
>> 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.
I'm not advocating anything. I am describing what the law is.