Indoctrination / DoublethinkTranswoman deemed "unquestionably female" in court case against Hobby Lobby; three-judge panel denies that "sex is immutable" - Bloomberg

submitted by reluctant_commenter from (bloomberg.com)

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 30 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 0 fun31 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How can you defend against discrimination for people who are same sex attracted if you can't even define what sex is?

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly!!! This is a huge issue that will threaten rights for same-sex-attracted (LGB) people.

Also, just wanted to say, I see many of your comments on my posts and I appreciate them, they're very common-sense. :)

[–]julesburm1891 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Can we acknowledge that a transwoman going to work for Hobby Lobby and just happening to sue them for a bunch of money is oddly convenient considering they’re a very publicly Christian and conservative company?

[–]justagaydude123 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We can't even acknowledge Yaniv suing 10 different women for not waxing his balls.

[–]julesburm1891 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Omfg. Was it actually 10 different women?

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

Just like the cake incident.

[–]GreykittymommaMagical lady 💜 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This man is an opportunist. Now he gets to cry that a Christian company doesn't want him flaunting his weird ass around. Hell, they don't even list Halloween as a holiday on the website. Just stay away from there. Really sad I have to defend crappy Hobby Lobby but damn use some common sense.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't fucking stand lawyers (and judges) because they do this shit where they define everything as some abstract legal construct.

I know (not all lawyers) but I've run into this in other situations.

[–]MyLongestJourney 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They couldn't hire a biologist to explain the concept of biological sex to the judges?

Edit. The company was willing to let the trans woman use the female facilities,even if they were maleunder the condition they had bottom surgery aka had removed their male organs. But that was not enough for the ladypenis crowd.

[–]julesburm1891 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

…so the company with a reputation for not wanting to compromise on its values suggests a reasonable compromise and TQ+ flipped? Being yoked to people like that is why acceptance rates for LGB people are declining.

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

Indeed. I think eventually this narcissistic woke movement,will lead to major backlash on all civil rights fronts,especially the racial,biological sex and sexual orientation/GID sufferers ones because of it's other human's rights violating views and actions.

[–]SnowAssMan 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Literally sexist. They need to be called trans-men.

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

Sometimes I want to refer to them that way-- transgender-identified men-- but I know most people might mix it up with "transmen" (which are women who identify as transgender).

Maybe we just need to start doing it anyway.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaclownfish is a clown or a fish? || Febfem 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have yesterday discussion about transman in one lesbian group, and it was very confusing discussion until I realized that by "transman" they mean trans-identified male who pretends to be woman, and they thougth that transwoman is a woman who pretends to be man. Some of them thought that transwoman is homosexual transsexual male who pretends to be woman, thought.

People outside of this debate are very confused and have no idea about the discussion at all, and that all is achieved by this confusing change of meaning of words by gender ideology activists. Same was done previously by scientologists. So people outside of debate would be thinking they are speaking about one thing and that it is a good thing, but in reality scientologists would be speaking about opposite thing and it is a bad one - just because they reversed meaning of some common words inside their cult.

[–]linda_senora 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to a lawyer named Camilla Taylor, for Lambda Legal:

'It will have big ramifications in all kinds of aspects of life — in education, in business, in gyms and sports,' Taylor said. 'It’s indicative of applying nondiscrimination principles to sex-segregated areas. It makes clear that gender identity determines sex.'

Another good reason to despise lawyers and judges.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaclownfish is a clown or a fish? || Febfem 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And american court system is "precedent based". So they can use this case as proof that men are women in other cases, without even taking details into consideration.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

archive link (edited): https://archive.is/JcMFX

shared from: https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1426781734964809730

This is really important. Gender identity ideology is forcing its way into the U.S. legal system, with no basis in scientific evidence whatsoever.

From the article:

The unanimous three-judge Second District panel rejected Hobby Lobby’s argument that a person’s sex is an immutable condition.

Nothing in the Illinois Human Rights Act suggests supports the company’s argument, Justice Mary Seminara-Schostok wrote for the panel, which also included Justices Kathryn Zenoff and Ann Jorgensen. ...

"Hobby Lobby’s argument that female status is somehow immutable is belied not only by the Act," Schostok wrote, "but also by its own conduct."

I can't fathom that no one will challenge this kind of ruling. It's blatantly pseudoscientific.

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 7 fun11 insightful - 6 fun12 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

I missed the part in bio where xy = female

[–]hufflepuff-poet 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was the lol I needed 😭 Thanks for the sanity!

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

Anytime. :) sigh

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am overdue for preparing an analysis of the legal landscape of this stuff, at least in the U.S. It’s a Herculean task though. The Bostock majority opinion which became federal law in 2020 absolutely did not prohibit employment discrimination based on “gender identity.” It held that “because of . . . sex” in Title VII necessarily encompasses “sexual orientation” and “transgender status.” It did not even mention “gender identity.” “Gender identity” was only mentioned by Justice Alito in passing in his dissent.

The majority opinion did not define “transgender status.” Justice Gorsuch and his clerks were made more than aware of the concept of “gender identity” and it was specifically not included in the opinion and a majority of justices signed on to that opinion when they could have written concurring opinions if they wanted to recognize “gender identity.” They specifically chose not to. It follows that “transgender status” does not mean “gender identity.”

Not to mention the opinion took care to recognize the steps that plaintiff Aimee Stephens (MtF) took to transition. Hardly a matter of simple self-identification without anything more.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is the stuff that makes me think we los already

[–]usehername 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We can still win this.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No way. We can fight back against this. Most of the public still don't know about this. Whenever I talk to straight people, they just haven't even heard of most of these issues.