Men In Women's Bathrooms: Will Lynch Flinch? Will Ruth Stand By The Truth?

[Silhouette]

I hope Loretta Lynch watches this youtube before her team puts together its pleas for the stay they're seeking against NC. Over 17 million women are at immediate risk from Lynch's demands of experiencing trigger-PTSD upon encountering ANY man in their restroom or shower area.

And, I hope Justice Ruth Ginsburg remembers what she said about men & women & equal rights:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...
In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Who has dominant rights?

 

[Skylar]

I hope Loretta Lynch watches this youtube before her team puts together its pleas for the stay they're seeking against NC. Over 17 million women are at immediate risk from Lynch's demands of experiencing trigger-PTSD upon encountering ANY man in their restroom or shower area.

And, I hope Justice Ruth Ginsburg remembers what she said about men & women & equal rights:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...
In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Who has dominant rights?

This is the third third active thread you've created on the topic. Can you please stop spamming the board?

And of course, there's no expectation of privacy in a public restroom save in the stalls where the toilets are. Which are already single use.

Perhaps most relevantly......transgender women have been using ladies rooms for decades. If transgender women peeing causes 17 million cases of PTSD triggers among rape victims....

.......why hasn't it?

Oh, and this is the 72nd anti-LGBT thread you've created on this board.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't you want to see how USMB posters vote on the question?

Oh, and this is the 72nd anti-LGBT thread you've created on this board.

That little freedom of speech thing bothering you again Skylar-troll? Your last post was the 10,000th time you've trolled me on a thread. I think you have me beat on the spamming accusation.

 

[Skylar]

Don't you want to see how USMB posters vote on the question?

Is this gonna be another one of those 'votes' that you start hallucinating about? Like a poll about parents that you deluded babble about same sex marriage into?

 

[aris2chat]

I hope Loretta Lynch watches this youtube before her team puts together its pleas for the stay they're seeking against NC. Over 17 million women are at immediate risk from Lynch's demands of experiencing trigger-PTSD upon encountering ANY man in their restroom or shower area.

And, I hope Justice Ruth Ginsburg remembers what she said about men & women & equal rights:

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in 1975 that a ban on sex discrimination does not require unisex restrooms...
In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

Who has dominant rights?

Dominant?
First in Line

Parents with small children or disabled I let go before me

Why should bathrooms be so different from outhouses or pot-a-potties, you don't know who went last. Why do you care who is in the next stall?

If you go camping, do you care who used what tree?

Men and women swim together in almost nothing, why should showering be different?

People make a fuss out of something that should not matter. Once the stall door closes, why should anyone care about who is next to them? Sitting on a pot, not much to see.

In "Eyes Wide Shut" Nicole Kidman peed in the bathroom on camera and no one saw anything,.... till later in the movie. All this is a waste of time trying to argue about what is already reality.
Transgenders are not going to sit in the back of the bus or use separate fountains. Such prejudices should be in the past.

Stuff you bigotry in the pocket and leave it there, or better yet, flush it down the toilet.

 

[Silhouette]

How about men showering with women? Gonna make us all be "on the right side of history' on that one too? Even the 17 million rape survivors?

 

[Skylar]

How about men showering with women? Gonna make us all be "on the right side of history' on that one too? Even the 17 million rape survivors?

Laughing....so much for your 'votes by board members'.

 

[Silhouette]

What exactly is a "transgender woman" Skylar?

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is a "transgender woman" Skylar?

For fuck's sake, look it up. You can't even be bothered to do the most rudimentary research into your *own* topics. And if you don't even know what a 'transgender woman' is, how can you possible give us accurate legal predictions about the topic?

Sigh........Sil, seriously. Your imagination is not a legal standard. Nor is your willful ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

What exactly is a "transgender woman" Skylar?

For fuck's sake, look it up. You can't even be bothered to do the most rudimentary research into your *own* topics. And if you don't even know what a 'transgender woman' is, how can you possible give us accurate legal predictions about the topic?

Sigh........Sil, seriously. Your imagination is not a legal standard. Nor is your willful ignorance.

You know...you and Loretta Lynch are going to have to CLARIFY what a "transgender woman" is before these lawsuits are over. Might as well get started brushing up on your spin now. You're going to have to face the music sooner or later..

 

[Skylar]

What exactly is a "transgender woman" Skylar?

For fuck's sake, look it up. You can't even be bothered to do the most rudimentary research into your *own* topics. And if you don't even know what a 'transgender woman' is, how can you possible give us accurate legal predictions about the topic?

Sigh........Sil, seriously. Your imagination is not a legal standard. Nor is your willful ignorance.

You know...you and Loretta Lynch are going to have to CLARIFY what a "transgender woman" is before these lawsuits are over. Might as well get started brushing up on your spin now. You're going to have to face the music sooner or later..

Again, how can you possible make any legal predictions about transgender women....if you don't even know what a transgender woman is?

You've admitted you don't know what you're talking about. Which might explain why every legal prediction you've ever made -without exception- has been comically, laughably wrong.

See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

The lawsuits are about clarification of the term "transgender woman/man". North Carolina is as confused as I am and the rest of the world is. They are forcing Lynch to lay her cards on the table of EXACTLY (in painfully excruciating detail) how it is "a man can be a woman"; and, thereby, access the women's restrooms, lockers and showers along with real women. I imagine North Carolina, public schools across the country, and private enterprises, all of which will fall to the axe of how these cases come down, don't want rape survivors to be able to sue them. So, the Court will have to put its own ass on the line to protect all those entities from lawsuits from real, actual females who would predictably trigger into PTSD upon finding a male in their shower or restroom. All 17 million + rape survivors for the tiny few mental delusionist males.

It's only fair. And, the AG has her work cut out for her. You don't want to clarify what a "transgender female" is. But Lynch is being sued specifically for her to perform on that demand. Either the USSC is going to make her clarify that, or they will have to in her stead, or they're going to ask the American Public to ignore facts and instead accept that USSC decisions from now on will be made off of superstitions and cult dogma.

The language of the decision should be really fun to read. I'm especially looking forward to Justice Ginsburg's comments in light of the fact that she promised the world that equality didn't mean shared bathrooms or showers between the two sexes...

 

[Skylar]

The lawsuits are about clarification of the term "transgender woman/man". North Carolina is as confused as I am and the rest of the world is.

Then why in your entire argument regarding North Carolina's response to the Justice Department....did you never once mention this request for 'clarification'?

Simple: Because you just made that up. You blundered, admitting that you didn't even know what a transgender woman was. Making all your legal predictions regarding transgender women mere ignorant babble.....as by your own admission, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Back in reality, North Carolina didn't ask for 'clarification'. But summary judgement in the form of declaratory and injunctive relief. The State of North Carolina *never* asks for clarification on what a transgender woman is.

You hallucinated all of that. Or lied your ass off. One of the two. Either way, you've never so much as glanced at North Carolina's complaint for declaratory judgment. You have no idea what it says. And are merely making this shit up as you go along.

Sigh....as you always do. And your imagination isn't a legal standard, Sil. No matter what pseudo-legal gibberish you tell yourself.

So with your hallucination settled, there's still the elephant in the living room: how can you possible make any legal predictions about transgender women....if you don't even know what a transgender woman is?

They are forcing Lynch to lay her cards on the table of EXACTLY (in painfully excruciating detail) how it is "a man can be a woman"; and, thereby, access the women's restrooms, lockers and showers along with real women.

More pseudo-legal babble. None of that is ever mentioned in the North Carolina complaint. The phrase "A man can be a woman" appears no where in the complaint, in any capacity. You are literally citing yourself as the North Carolina complaint, hallucinating it as you go along.

And Sil......the Justice Department isn't going to be forced to do *shit* based on your hallucinations.

See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

Not a word about your clarification on what "transgender woman" means. Not a word about what Justice Ginsburg said about segregated bathrooms.

Let me know when your diversions are at an end and you want to step up and weigh in on what's going to happen with this case..

 

[Skylar]

Not a word about your clarification on what "transgender woman" means.

'My' clarfication? You're obviously confused. As you're the one who insisted that she doesn't know what a transgender woman is. You're the one that hallucinated a request for 'clarification on what transgender women are' in the NC complaint.

A 'request' that simply doesn't exist in the NC complaint. Try again. Starting with this question:

How can you possibly make accurate legal predictions about transgender women....if you don't even know what a transgender woman is?

Keep running.

 

[Silhouette]

What are we on now, like 10 requests that you clarify for me what you think a "transgender woman" is? And you have shirked that request the same number of times. You're right. You're so much more enlightened than me on that vernacular. So this is why I'm asking YOU to define it for me. You can't keep saying to someone who is asking you a question about "x", because they don't understand what "x" is, "You're IGNORANT! Why should I talk to you about "x" when you don't even know what it is?! That's just ignorant!!"

So, enlighten me. Enlighten all the readers here.

 

[Skylar]

What are we on now, like 10 requests that you clarify for me what you think a "transgender woman" is?

And still, you won't do the slightest research to inform yourself. Look it up. But you refuse. You won't even look at the standards recognized by North Carolina to change from male to female on a North Carolina birth certificate.

You're so committed to your own ignorance that you even hallucinated demands for 'clarifications for what a transgender woman is' in the North Carolina complaint that never existed.

The lawsuits are about clarification of the term "transgender woman/man". North Carolina is as confused as I am and the rest of the world is.

No, they're not. You hallucinated all of that.

So I ask again......for at least the 10th time, how can you possibly make accurate legal predictions about transgender women....if you don't even know what a transgender woman is?