Ugh yeah that is so annoying the inconsistency of the trans. So trans means you utter magic words and then you literally change both sex and gender. And if a woman says exactly that, that it's wishful thinking to change sex, we are told to (violence ahead!!)
But then you go to one of these butcher doctors and they'll say shit like "this is a female who needs a double mastectomy" and nobody bats an eye that the female in questionnis called a female.
A nightmare for them?
About time, given the nightmare they have made of everyday life for so many others.
I cannot believe the ink and effort wasted on trying to propose that the Constitution protects males who want to cheat in female sports.
Seriously. I often think about what else I would have learned or what new skill I'd have if I didn't have to spend so much time writing to congress members asking for my daughter to enjoy the rights I enjoyed as a kid like no men in the changing rooms of my rec center and no boys on my soccer team. Fuck them forever for this shit.
hahahahahaha
And Duncan is a sitting federal judge, a profession that has historically been treated with obsequious regard by law schools, and one that the justices themselves belong to.
WHAT?!! A law school holds judges in high regard?!!! Surely not! Justices belong to their own profession??? Whatever next!
He's wrong in his conclusions, though. The worst outcome for transactivists is for everyone to slow down. Because every second they delay, transactivists alienate a thousand more people. If those judges are newly peaked, the worst thing transactivists can do is give them time to learn more. :)
This is so true. I've watched SO many people go from "yeah I mean 'she' maybe shouldn't be in women's sports before taking hormones, but I'll always respect pronouns" to "get that man out of women's spaces NOW" over the course of a few months and it has always been TRAs or trans people who push them from one position to the other. It was for me.
TRAs always shoot themselves in the foot eventually. They just can't contain the crazy.
Someone else said all other, actually oppressed groups are actually sympathetic when you know them. Whites befriend blacks and vice versa and see they are just humans. Most people who meet their first gay or lesbian are astounded that they're just normal people and not pink feather wearing leather weirdos.
And then there's the AGPs. People go in pro trans, meet their first AGP and immediately become terfs lmao
Yup they push people away themselves. It happened to me too. Then they dare to turn around and say people like us have been brainwashed by the right, LOL what? How could I be brainwashed by people whose media I never read, listen to or watch?
Funny how the right haven't managed to change my mind on any other topics.
No TRAs, it was all your behavior, 100% you that pushed me away.
Then they dare to turn around and say people like us have been brainwashed by the right, LOL what? How could I be brainwashed by people whose media I never read, listen to or watch?
Even if you did read rightwing media ... they do not attempt to brainwash anyone on that front. They know that stating the truth is sufficient.
The Bablyon Bee satire articles on trans are pretty much just repeating what transactivists say, and what happens, except that they translate TRA newspeak into normal language.
"Woman kneels before man to celebrate women's day" - that's what happened, in plain terms.
"An important sign your baby is trans is that you want it to be trans" ... just putting plainly what TRAs only imply. After all, it is universally accepted to trans babies because the scratchy wool blanket they didnt't like happened to be pink, or blue.
So true. The right also misses the mark. They think your personality should match your sex. The left thinks your sex should match your personality. I just think they're both wrong lol
Oh my god , I can’t believe Supreme Court justices are members of the legal profession as judges. That is so biased !
it may be the stupidest sentence I've ever read on vox, and that's saying something. imagine thinking 'this is a sentence that will educate my audience' and writing that.
It would be just a wee bit satisfying if it turned out that the trans activists who were so rude to a very very conservative judge were the very thing that peaked the supreme court into protecting women's sports.
The government does discriminate depending on the requirements. So age in some instances. With sex, strict scrutiny is a double edged sword. It helps women & gay people, so they are not discriminated against in certain (not all) jobs or instsnces due to sex. But the law cannot pretend there are no differences. Males CANNOT get pregnant. Males ARE stronger, & physically have an advantage in sports. Single sex spaces in certain cases have a conflict of rights which recognizes other aspects. So strict scrutiny should not be used. This may affect some cases where women are discriminated against too. As far as requiring courts to use pronouns, that would not fall under sex discrimination. What it would do is enshrine self id & gender ideology as fact. It would compel others who see it as lying to lie. Gender identity has to make it's case. The binary nature of sexual dimorphism should be the default as it is the fact. It is also compelled speech to require others to defer to WHATEVER someone else FEELS even when it goes against their own "lived experience". Eg. A rape victim should not be compelled to recognize her male rapists as a female or use terms like "her".
Numerous legal scholars have opined on the differences between women and men, physically, reproductively, etc, and how that plays out in regard to legislation, etc.
"Nevertheless, if one of the most consequential transgender rights cases that will ever be decided by the Supreme Court were decided hastily, that could be bad news for trans people."
Make this Spring a memorable one - stop the trans train on a dime. Saww-wwy, all over now!
Here's a picture of this pedo.
One of the linked articles is equally ridiculous and infuriating: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21067634/trump-judge-transgender-cruel-kyle-duncan-united-states-varner
United States v. Varner is not one of those cases. The main thing at stake in Varner is whether three judges will treat a woman with courtesy or with needless cruelty.
Two of them chose the latter option.
The case involves Kathrine Nicole Jett, a trans woman who is incarcerated in a federal prison. (Jett does not appear to use the name “Varner,” but for the sake of clarity, this piece will refer to her case as United States v. Varner because that is the only name the courts have assigned to it.) Jett made a couple of requests from the federal judiciary relating to her transition from male to female. She asked that her name be changed on certain court documents from “Norman Keith Varner” to “Kathrine Nicole Jett,” and that judges hearing her case refer to her as a woman and use feminine pronouns.
Having a man in womanface stand before them and being asked to use female pronouns will show these judges just how ridiculous and woman-hating this whole nonsense is.
I’d like to see the Supreme Court define “trans” in the first place as any sort of legitimate class at all. As it stands now, it’s an umbrella term for true believers (like the religious), grifters (like Dylan Mulvaney), opportunists (pedophiles and other sex offenders) and committed fetishist/misogynist cross dressers (most TRA tims). The confused adolescent TIFs are the sacrificial ‘benign’ PR team that act as a buffer for the creep males to the public, like Jammidodger. Throw in a few gay men and there’s the whole team.
If gender dysphoria isn’t a prerequisite, and surgery isn’t a prerequisite, what exactly is trans? Tell me what other group has heightened protection in law without the basis of some immutable characteristic or stage of life state such as age?