you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB[S] 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Last September, HRC announced that it was shifting its focus to transgenders. Ha, ha, ha - who are they trying to kid? - HRC's focus has been on transgenders, not gays and lesbians, for years.

What worries me about the Supreme Court is that the justices seem to want to try to not seem behind the times, like with the recent Bostock case - some of the conservative judges bent over backwards IMO to accommodate the trans insanity. So that Amy Coney Barrett will only go as far as "physiological male" and not say "biological male" worries me.

I also read that Ginsburg would have probably ruled in favor of gender in the upcoming cases, as would the other female liberal judges. I'm guessing the justices are surrounded by young, Queer Theory-influenced clerks, who misrepresent the sex vs gender argument, as Trans Maidens tend to do.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So that Amy Coney Barrett will only go as far as "physiological male" and not say "biological male" worries me.

imo, this is going even further though, since TRAs will argue that their trans-identification is innately biological. There is no refutation for "physiological" (i.e. "your body is male, period"), which also pigeonholes them by secondary sex characteristics.