112

74 comments

[–] goneharolding 70 points (+70|-0) Edited

I hate to be a wet blanket, but: ”The Court upheld the provision in the law that requires nursing homes to place transgender patients in rooms that match their gender identity.”

So, you still have to put the old man who thinks he’s a woman in the women’s ward, you just don’t have to call him ‘ma’am.’

It feels big that any court in California is reconsidering any of this, but it’s aggravating that they ruled against that part on free speech grounds but left the material problem intact. Way to piss off everyone, geez!

And what about women’s right to privacy??? It’s terrifying how that argument seems to have just disappeared from the discourse.

Edit: formatting

[–] remquarqk 14 points (+14|-0) Edited

So, you still have to put the old man who thinks he’s a woman in the women’s ward, you just don’t have to call him ‘ma’am.’

This has got to be a stepping stone though. And decent precedent for further battles down the line. If you're not required to call the man a ma'am, that surely leads to a violation of women's privacy like you hinted at, since it isn't just about surface level speech and it actually goes deeper into what you're actually thinking when you refuse to call the man a she. There's definitely a bunch of contradictions waiting to be picked apart here.