Do you want to be OUTRAGED?!?!? Attorneys General of liberal US states changed the definition of "sex" to indulge the trans activist cult in the school bathroom Title IX case women just lost!

submitted by BEB from ag.ny.gov

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]VioletRemi 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Women there should stop using those bathrooms and start going home, and being late to lessons or work. Chaos and companies loosing money would be enough to cancel that. Sadly majority of women would not act that radically, and other way those asshead politicians would not learn. As they are ignoring feelings of women anyways.

[–]BEB[S] 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My suggestion is that we all request an escort into a public bathroom or locker room.

For instance, at the gym, tell the receptionist that we feel unsafe now that men are allowed to self-identify as women and come into the locker room and request that they accompany us as we change into and out of our gym clothes.

At a shop, ask the manager to accompany you into the bathroom for the same reason.

At schools, if your child is scared (and I would have been) ask for a school personnel to accompany your child into the locker room, etc.

If even a few thousand women did this, and made it clear to the Powers That Be why they were doing it, after awhile, corporate/political/WOKE USA would lose its virtue-signaling patience, and reinstate women's sex-segregated spaces.

[–]VioletRemi 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sadly I am not from USA, so can't really share those ideas with women there, but people need somehow to hear what you are saying, as many people need some push or some ideas to start acting, even if they are ready to act and disagree with politics.

And most likely majority of women doesn't even know about something so sinister to be hapenning at all.

[–]SanityIsGC 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are these places required by law to provide an escort?

[–]BEB[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think so, but, in the US, they would probably be liable if someone was injured on their property. Any US lawyers to weigh in here?

In any case, American companies (used to be) all about customer service, so if a woman politely expresses her concerns about formerly single sex spaces, a company would probably try to accommodate her.

The only thing corporations, while they mouth pablum about "diversity" and "inclusion" truly care about is their profit.

So let's make nuisances of ourselves and demand escorts. Many women, no matter what their politics, would join us because OUR FEAR IS REAL.

[–]our_team_is_winning 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

<That experience demonstrates that ensuring transgender people have access to public facilities consistent with their gender identity—including access to common restrooms—benefits all, without compromising safety or privacy, or imposing significant costs. >

It does NOT benefit ALL. It benefits ONLY those with this sexual fetish. "Without compromising safety" !?!?!?!?!?

You cannot legislate against REALITY. Fact. The court cannot rule that the sun goes around the earth. The court cannot rule that the earth is flat (though there are those who believe it).

[–]BEB[S] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Numerous US Attorneys General from "liberal states" filed an amicus brief in favor of transgenders in the Florida transgender bathroom/ Title IX case that we women just lost (Drew Adams v. The School Board of St. Johns County, Florida)

Here's the outrage - these educated lawyers who, as Attorneys General, are some of the top law enforcement officers in their states, claim that the definition of "sex" in Title IX did not mean "biological sex" and instead has changed to include mumbo jumbo fairy GENDER words.

I was around before Title IX and I and everyone else who was sentient back then can tell you that Title IX had NOT ONE FUCKING THING TO DO WITH GENDER IDENTITY. It was in regards to biological sex, because NO ONE knew or cared about GENDER IDENTITY back then.

Quote from the amicus brief:

“Such discrimination is not authorized by Title IX’s implementing regulation permitting “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” 34 C.F.R. § 106.33. Defendant wrongly asserts that the term “on the basis of sex” unambiguously permits segregation of the enumerated facilities exclusively on the basis of “biological sex.” Initial Brief of Appellant (“App. Br.”) at 35 (emphasis altered). But neither Title IX nor its implementing regulations define “sex” in terms of biological sex; and present-day understandings of sex recognize that a person’s status as male or female is based on a variety of physiological and psychological traits that do not necessarily equate to external genitalia or the assignment of a particular sex at birth.58 Title IX should not be read to ignore these developments.59 “

GET ANGRY. SPEAK OUT. CALL YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE if they signed this, AND GIVE THEM HELL.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't understand, OP. This appears to be a joint court filing - an amicus brief perhaps - made in 2019 by AGs of numerous states in support of particular case.

In their arguments, these AGs may have "changed the definition of 'sex' to indulge the transactivist cult" as you say. But did the court in its final ruling also change the definition of sex as these AGs did too?

Can you maybe add text to your OP to explain for those not up on all the details & intracacies of the case? And link to the ruling of the court? Thanks.

[–]BEB[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The case this amicus brief was filed was Drew Adams v. The School Board of St. Johns County, Florida

A TIF had sued her school district under a Title IX claim for the right of a student to access the bathroom that aligned with their gender identity. She won her case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in early August (2020)

The issue at stake is if Title IX's definition of "sex" means solely "biological sex" or includes "gender identity."

The Attorneys General of a number of liberal US state (18? someone can count if they want) filed an amicus brief that I quoted in the OP, which states that the definition of "sex" has changed to:

"present-day understandings of sex recognize that a person’s status as male or female is based on a variety of physiological and psychological traits that do not necessarily equate to external genitalia or the assignment of a particular sex at birth"

A dozen major corporations also filed an amicus brief in support of changing the Title IX definition of "sex" to include "gender identity."

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/florida-teen-wins-transgender-rights-suit-federal-court-n1236287

I would want a lawyer to step in and explain at this point what this actually means in terms of US law, but suffice it to say that the Attorneys General of a number of US states now believe that the word "sex" as written in Title IX, now legally includes "gender identity."

This means that these learned and extremely powerful Attorneys General are fine to erase women as a distinct legal category under a law, Title IX, that was specifically written to protect women from discrimination in education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

As I've mentioned, some of the laws that protect women in the US are on the basis of "sex" as is Title IX. That the transgender lobby is not only winning court cases so that those laws include "gender identity" under "sex" but that the Attorneys General of a significant number of US states are now claiming that the legal definition of "sex" has changed to include "gender identity" should frighten every American woman and every one who cares about American women.

In effect, (and again, lawyers please correct me if I'm getting this wrong) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has decided what the Equality Act also hopes to accomplish, which is to change the legal definition of "sex" to include "gender identity." My thought is that becuase a higher court has already ruled favorably on the "gender identity" issue, it will make the Equality Act, if it is signed into law by Biden, that much harder to overturn. And again, lawyers please weigh in especially if I'm wrong.

[–]our_team_is_winning 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is total BS because first they tell us "gender is fluid" -- ok, then it is like FASHION. Sex is immutable. You can butcher a body and fill it with hormones in imitation of something it's not, but you still have not changed the person's sex. You can issue the person with false feel-good paperwork, but again, still the sex they were at birth. Language manipulation makes me sick. Within each of the two sexes there are many "identities" --- Libertarian, mother, birdwatcher, romantic, artist, fighter, jazz fan -- we don't make laws based on those things. Can I identify as 16 so I can pay the child's price ticket and save some money? But I FEEL like a teenager! I'm DRESSED like one! If I listen to Billie Eilish and make Tik Tok videos, aren't I more of a teenager than most teens? Put 16 on my license! I want those under-18s discounts!

[–]Complicated-Spirit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The government is made up of men. They don’t care if a TIF is entering their bathroom because they pose no threat to them. The relatively few women in government are either accompanied by bodyguards everywhere anyway, so it’s no concern to them, or, if they’re self-hating Republicans, too interested in banning abortion and forbidding gay couples to adopt children than to really give a shit if men in dresses are entering women’s restrooms. If they’re allowed in women’s prisons, Republican women don’t care - all prisoners gave up any and all of their human rights and dignities the moment they allegedly committed their crimes, women included.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, some Republican women in Congress have stood up for women on these issues. I'm thinking of Debbie Lasko of Arizona, but I know there are others.

There are Republican men in Congress and in state legislatures who have also stood up for women on these issues, even putting forward legislation that would protect women and women's sports.

Whereas every single Democrat in the US Congress supports the Equality Act, which takes a sledgehammer to women's rights, safety and privacy and sports.

And, AFAIK, Republicans in the California state legislator are the only ones standing up for women on these issues. The GOP man who represents Irvine, I can't remember his name, has stood up against the Democratic-backed bill that would allow men to self-identify and be housed in women's prisons, as have other Republicans. I can't think of one Democrat (but I could be wrong) who is supporting women on these issues.

[–]our_team_is_winning 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The government is made up of men.

Largely true, but some of the most rabidly vocal supporters of men in women's spaces are other women. In my own small sample size, I have yet to find a male friend or acquaintance who is cool with this, but I've lost two formerly close female friends over it. Women will stab other women in the back on behalf of men. I had a friend gushing to me about Elizabeth Warren -- the woman comes out and states her pronouns. I do not trust most women on this, sadly.

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In Wokeville, there are many males who are fine with the destruction of women's spaces and sports. The Misogyny of the Left. It's been there from when I can remember. Not that the Right is not misogynist too, it's just that Lefty bros pride themselves on their feminism.

But, like you, I have encountered a particularly vicious hostility towards "TERFs" from young, well-educated women, especially in politicians' offices. The irony is I'm almost positive these TWAW-spouters consider themselves feminists.