How North Carolina Will Respond To Fed's Request For Stay: Re Tranny Lawsuits

[Silhouette]

So then...Supreme Court stay issued in favor of preserving the status quo on behalf of the 17 million rape survivors behind the door marked "women"? Or men playing pretend so they can get behind that door? Which do you think Bulldog?

I assume you've read what Justice Ginsburg said about the matter in the 1970s? Justices don't like to eat their words and look like they were lying and leading the public incrementally astray by so doing. Love to see her interviewed about the excruciating details of her "evolution" on her position....lol..

 

[BULLDOG]

So then...Supreme Court stay issued in favor of preserving the status quo on behalf of the 17 million rape survivors behind the door marked "women"? Or men playing pretend so they can get behind that door? Which do you think Bulldog?

I assume you've read what Justice Ginsburg said about the matter in the 1970s? Justices don't like to eat their words and look like they were lying and leading the public incrementally astray by so doing. Love to see her interviewed about the excruciating details of her "evolution" on her position....lol..

If it were a case of men playing pretend so they can get behind that door, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. If a man intends to rape a woman in the bathroom, no law will keep him from going through that door. This is about transgenders, not rapists.

 

[Silhouette]

If it were a case of men playing pretend so they can get behind that door, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. If a man intends to rape a woman in the bathroom, no law will keep him from going through that door. This is about transgenders, not rapists.

It's not about either actually. It's about the WOMEN RAPE SURVIVORS behind the doors you insist men must have access to. Their PTSD triggers. They are baring themselves behind those doors marked "women" remember? This isn't about access to the same drinking fountain or restaurant counter.

There is no such thing as a "transgender". All there are, are men playing pretend. For these men playing pretend, you will sift them out from other self-diagnosed men in which way precisely?

 

[mdk]

I love that Sil suddenly gives a shit about rape survivors b/c she thinks she can use them to harm LGBT community. Same old song and dance.

 

[BULLDOG]

If it were a case of men playing pretend so they can get behind that door, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. If a man intends to rape a woman in the bathroom, no law will keep him from going through that door. This is about transgenders, not rapists.

It's not about either actually. It's about the WOMEN RAPE SURVIVORS behind the doors you insist men must have access to. Their PTSD triggers. They are baring themselves behind those doors marked "women" remember? This isn't about access to the same drinking fountain or restaurant counter.

There is no such thing as a "transgender". All there are, are men playing pretend. For these men playing pretend, you will sift them out from other self-diagnosed men in which way precisely?

You're free to spout that crap, but you are wrong. You don't get to decide that an entire class of people, even if it is a small class, doesn't exist.

 

[Silhouette]

You're free to spout that crap, but you are wrong. You don't get to decide that an entire class of people, even if it is a small class, doesn't exist.

Hey, 17 million people is no small class of people! Those women account for a pretty good chunk of the female population.

I'm sure there are more people incapable of dealing with reality (men who look between their legs and still insist they're "women"). Nobody wants to discriminate against the mentally disabled here. It's just that only women may go behind doors marked "women"; especially when many of them are rape survivors and the activities behind those doors involve them baring intimate parts of their bodies.

The men who are unfit to deal with reality are going to have to find some help to adjust to what they actually are in order to put this bathroom thing to rest.

Found a way yet to sift out which self-diagnosed man is "a real tranny" and which isn't? You realize at some point, MDs are going to have to testify and vouch for putting rape victims at risk for immediate bouts of PTSD if they find a man in their bathroom or showers.

 

[Skylar]

So then...Supreme Court stay issued in favor of preserving the status quo on behalf of the 17 million rape survivors behind the door marked "women"? Or men playing pretend so they can get behind that door? Which do you think Bulldog?

I assume you've read what Justice Ginsburg said about the matter in the 1970s? Justices don't like to eat their words and look like they were lying and leading the public incrementally astray by so doing. Love to see her interviewed about the excruciating details of her "evolution" on her position....lol..

Laughing......you're offering us legal predictions *again*? Sil, there is no expectation of privacy in a bathroom save in the stalls. And those are single use only. You can pretend otherwise, tell yourself otherwise, make up whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you like on the topic....

....the fact remains that there is no expectation of privacy in a bathroom save in the stalls.

And you're really babbling about Supreme Court 'stays' again? Didn't you learn your lesson that you don't know what the **** you're talking about with your *perfect* record of failure regarding Obergefell? Every time you told us what the Supreme Court was going to do, what they 'really meant' with a ruling, what they were going to do, you were comically, laughably wrong.

In fact, every legal prediction you have ever made has been a similar joke of perfect failure.

But this time it different, huh?

 

[Skylar]

You're free to spout that crap, but you are wrong. You don't get to decide that an entire class of people, even if it is a small class, doesn't exist.

Hey, 17 million people is no small class of people! Those women account for a pretty good chunk of the female population.

Sil, Transgender women have been using ladies rooms for decades. If their unination caused 17 million instances of PTSD's in rape victims, they already would have.

Yet they didn't

You're again offering us your imagination as fact, your pseudo-legal gibberish as the law. And neither are.

 

[Skylar]

I love that Sil suddenly gives a shit about rape survivors b/c she thinks she can use them to harm LGBT community. Same old song and dance.

Its like when Sil suddenly pretends to give a shit about kids......but only if she thinks it lets her hurt gay people. The moment a child can't be used to hurt gays......they're beneath Sil's contempt.

I don't expect her to treat rape victims much better.

 

[Skylar]

If it were a case of men playing pretend so they can get behind that door, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. If a man intends to rape a woman in the bathroom, no law will keep him from going through that door. This is about transgenders, not rapists.

It's not about either actually. It's about the WOMEN RAPE SURVIVORS behind the doors you insist men must have access to. Their PTSD triggers. They are baring themselves behind those doors marked "women" remember? This isn't about access to the same drinking fountain or restaurant counter.

There is no such thing as a "transgender". All there are, are men playing pretend. For these men playing pretend, you will sift them out from other self-diagnosed men in which way precisely?

Transgender women have been using ladies rooms for decades. Why then haven't there been 17 million reported cases of PTSD triggers from rape survivors each and every year among those many decades?

Perhaps because you don't know what the **** you're talking about?

 

[Silhouette]

I only know of men and women. I have no idea whatsoever what a "transgender woman" is?? There are men and men pretending to be women. Is that what you mean by "transgender"? Because you'd better be clear about what you mean. Loretta Lynch has to get really clear about it since there's a lawsuit commanding her to do just that.

Which MDs does your side have lined up to testify that "men are actually women"? Will the MDs take full responsibility for any man they send into a woman's showering area just because he says he "feels like a woman trapped in a man's body"? Will they have to have ID cards with MDs signing off? Which MD would accept that kind of liability when 17 million women behind doors marked "women", baring themselves, are rape survivors? Do doctors want to lose their practice? Their home? Lawsuits for putting a rape victim at risk would really make a jury angry at the defendant(s) I'd think....

 

[Skylar]

I only know of men and women.

And no law nor court bases any decision on what 'you know'. Again, Sil......your imagination is legally irrelevant. As is your personal opinion. Yet you bizarrely keep citing both as some legal standard.

I have no idea whatsoever what a "transgender woman" is?? There are men and men pretending to be women. Is that what you mean by "transgender"? Because you'd better be clear about what you mean. Loretta Lynch has to get really clear about it since there's a lawsuit commanding her to do just that.

Um, Sil....'lawsuits' don't command a thing. Courts do. And there's no court 'commanding' Lynch to do a thing regarding your imagination.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Again, transgender women have been using the ladies room for decades. If their urination caused 17 million PTSD 'triggers' among women who have been raped......why didn't they?

That you don't know what a transgender woman is doesn't change the stark lack of the nonsense you've imagined.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Has anyone actually READ Obama's "non order?" What happens when a 7th grade boy being a 7th grade boy decides he wants to take a shower with the girls after gym class? All he has to do is say the magical words "I identify as a girl" and the school presumably can't prevent him from doing so.

God damned some of you liberals need to stick your head in an oven.

 

[Silhouette]

Lynch and the court will be required to clarify how a man pretending to be a woman "is a woman". Drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on that one:

The rape survivors and North Carolina will demand that clarification.

 

[Skylar]

Lynch and the court will be required to clarify how a man
pretending to be a woman "is a woman".

Laughing....'will be required'? Your record of accuracy in predicting legal outcomes is zero. You've literally never been right.

Making your latest assurances about non-existent court orders that you imagine will exist......just more pseudo-legal gibberish.

Do you ever get tired of not knowing what the hell you're talking about?

 

[gallantwarrior]

North Carolina will lose. None of the things Bucs claims will happen.

The only way the lawyers fighting for North Carolina will lose is if the Justice Department can clarify how a man pretending to be a woman is the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act inclusion. Otherwise, any behavior at all could claim they have a civil right to do "x" and demand that others play along. Lawyers know about precedent even if you don't. And don't think North Carolina's lawyers are going to be sleeping on the job. Loretta Lynch has her work cut out for her. She cannot define how a man pretending to be a woman "is actually a woman" in the purest legal sense that would allow him to essentially violate the civil rights of ACTUAL women and girls (some of which who have been sexually assaulted by men, as pointed out in the OP) behind doors marked "women" (words have meaning, those born with a womb) for their most intimate hygiene activities.

Loretta Lynch and her team are fucked. I know enough about law to know if one civil right faces off with another, especially where children are involved (girls in the ladies room), children's rights and protections physically and mentally, are dominant. See "New York v Ferber (USSC 1982) for this key point on legal case law precedent.

The difference is that the right is portraying this as an effort for all men to be able to enter women's restrooms. It is not. It's about trans gender people who have committed to living as a woman.That commitment and behavior is easily identified, and anyone who doesn't fit that criteria is not effected by the laws. It does not make it legal for a man to decide to put on a dress today to gain access to women's restrooms,but go back to living as a man tomorrow.

I've heard and read lots of opinions that agree that any male who has committed himself to living as a woman, i.e. has undergone the surgical self-mutilation that renders his male genitalia nonexistent, should be admitted to the facilities designated for females. Men lacking the self confidence in their fancied feminine gestalt to make that commitment can damned well continue to use facilities suited to their anatomical endowments. To allow anatomically intact males to utilize facilities designated for females is an abuse of women and girls. Apparently the left doesn't give a fig about the rights and protection of actual females. How about it, ladies? Are you willing to sacrifice yours, or other females', privacy and protection just to accommodate some guy/boy who may, or may not, be a "woman" and not a predator?

 

[Skylar]

North Carolina will lose. None of the things Bucs claims will happen.

The only way the lawyers fighting for North Carolina will lose is if the Justice Department can clarify how a man pretending to be a woman is the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act inclusion. Otherwise, any behavior at all could claim they have a civil right to do "x" and demand that others play along. Lawyers know about precedent even if you don't. And don't think North Carolina's lawyers are going to be sleeping on the job. Loretta Lynch has her work cut out for her. She cannot define how a man pretending to be a woman "is actually a woman" in the purest legal sense that would allow him to essentially violate the civil rights of ACTUAL women and girls (some of which who have been sexually assaulted by men, as pointed out in the OP) behind doors marked "women" (words have meaning, those born with a womb) for their most intimate hygiene activities.

Loretta Lynch and her team are fucked. I know enough about law to know if one civil right faces off with another, especially where children are involved (girls in the ladies room), children's rights and protections physically and mentally, are dominant. See "New York v Ferber (USSC 1982) for this key point on legal case law precedent.

The difference is that the right is portraying this as an effort for all men to be able to enter women's restrooms. It is not. It's about trans gender people who have committed to living as a woman.That commitment and behavior is easily identified, and anyone who doesn't fit that criteria is not effected by the laws. It does not make it legal for a man to decide to put on a dress today to gain access to women's restrooms,but go back to living as a man tomorrow.

I've heard and read lots of opinions that agree that any male who has committed himself to living as a woman, i.e. has undergone the surgical self-mutilation that renders his male genitalia nonexistent, should be admitted to the facilities designated for females. Men lacking the self confidence in their fancied feminine gestalt to make that commitment can damned well continue to use facilities suited to their anatomical endowments. To allow anatomically intact males to utilize facilities designated for females is an abuse of women and girls. Apparently the left doesn't give a fig about the rights and protection of actual females. How about it, ladies? Are you willing to sacrifice yours, or other females', privacy and protection just to accommodate some guy/boy who may, or may not, be a "woman" and not a predator?

So how many girls and women have been attacked in public bathrooms by transgender women?

Just round to the nearest zero for us.

 

[Silhouette]

What's a "transgender woman"? I don't understand the dialect you are using. Please clarify.

 

[Skylar]

What's a "transgender woman"? I don't understand the dialect you are using. Please clarify.

Look it up. If you are so ignorant of the topic that you don't even know what a transgender woman is......then you're clearly not prepared for this conversation.

 

[Silhouette]

What's a "transgender woman"? I don't understand the dialect you are using. Please clarify.

Look it up. If you are so ignorant of the topic that you don't even know what a transgender woman is......then you're clearly not prepared for this conversation.

The conversation is about clarity. So please clarify. You have to make the subject of the legal arguments very clear before a decision can be rendered. And you say I'm ignorant! I know that much about law at least.

Tell us EXACTLY what a "transgender woman" is? Also, tell us who diagnosed that condition and why, EXACTLY?

See how easy this is?