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: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:37:16 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 4/29/2024 4:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:21:55 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Was the employee demanding to shower with women?
No.
>>>>>>> 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.
>
> Show that it does. You seem to be arguing a position without knowing
> the answers. Aircraft carrier on the way!
We can't know for sure until someone brings a case, but it would shock
me if showers weren't included in the exception.
>>>> 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.
>
> You've repeatedly advocated for the trans movement so please don't
> play dumb now.
I have not advocated for trans people using showers.