Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can see that, eh? Interesting.Unfortunately I can see Pervert Bill 'Slick Willy' Clinton striding into the women's bathroom with a huge smile on his face while singing Shania Twain's song, 'I Feel Like a Woman', pausing long enough to say to himself out loud, "Thanks, Barry..."
You'd finally have someone to talk to.Judge in Texas temporarily blocks Obama's transgender rules for schools
Odd you left the most important part out.Well it will keep kids from getting raped in bathrooms for a while
And the 17 million women rape victims sure to relapse into PTSD if they had to shower or undress or relieve themselves in the presence of deranged men as a matter of "law"...
Hmm..posters like mdk and Skylar seem to not be aware of it; so I include it to remind them what we're actually talking about.Yes....deranged men. Thank you for pointing out the obvious we all know.
Hmm..posters like mdk and Skylar seem to not be aware of it; so I include it to remind them what we're actually talking about.Yes....deranged men. Thank you for pointing out the obvious we all know.
Does that mean you had separate bathrooms at home?Use the bathroom of the sex you were born as. Period. This political gay BS needs to be stopped in its tracks.
Did you have a constant flow of strangers through yours?
Wait....dont answer that.
....lol... good one...same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
Well in Obergefell, they discussed how they were drawing off numerous lower court findings that you know "gay marriage is cool". I can find the page and paragraph if you challenge me. So the upper Court looks to the lower ones to justify its findings in some cases; of that we have proof. And then there's the sticky problem you still haven't addressed, about Justice Ginsburg (the senior looney left judge) who made a public statement in an interview that even though the 1964 Civil Rights Act made men and women equal, it by no means meant they share a bathroom or shower together in public.
Then there's the problem of men self-diagnosing that they "are a woman trapped in a man's body". See, self-diagnosis isn't a big weighty bit of evidence in a court of law. You need witnesses, preferably professionals to back up your claims. And here's where it gets really sticky. Any MD who comes out and says "John Doe is really Jane Doe" without any empirical evidence to make that claim, puts himself, and more importantly, his insurance company at risk when John Doe enters the communal women's showers at the pool and suddenly in the moment self-diagnoses as a man again and rapes one of the gals standing next to him buck naked. Not that any deranged man could be expected to do such a thing...purely hypothetical of course.
And then there's the matter of teenage boys who are already sort of deranged on the best of days...how many will claim they are "girls trapped in a boy's body"? Often these trannies are still attracted to women. For instance, many transgender dudes stay married to their wives after they get the help of an "MD" to amputate their otherwise healthy organs to play-act being a "female" (which of course they never are and the MD tells them this in writing before surgery as a disclaimer)....where was I? Oh, right, teenage boys. Ha. I know some loggers who were talking about this topic the other day and they were laughing gales of laughter, and a bit chagrined that these issues weren't solid when they were in high school. In unison they declared they would've made up being "a girl trapped in a boy's body" just to get a shot at the girls' shower room.
And as if all that weren't enough, there's the issue of the 17 million women rape victims who would be thereafter legally FORCED to share intimate disrobing areas with deranged males...and the PTSD they would suffer...and the lawsuits that would follow...etc. etc. etc. In short, letting self-diagnosed deranged males share intimate disrobing spaces with women is a FRIGGIN' LEGAL NIGHTMARE. Not to mention a complete embarrassment and a symptom of cultural insanity. I'd imagine upon the passing of such a law, the terrorists around the world would go into overdrive with new and undeniable proof that "America is the infidel!!". Even the Roman Catholic Church's more radical members might say to them.."you know, we're thinking you may have a point here.."...
So, your cookie-cutter "slam dunk" case of "deranged men vs women rape victims' PTSD" (ultimately that will be the case's essence) isn't such a quick win. And of course as the case makes its way Up, you will become appraised of that in writing...
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
I'm not going to discuss this with you further, dear. you have an unhealthy obsession. I can't change that for you. Only you can change you.
And I'm not going to waste my breath anymore in trying to explain how our court system works and why you're wrong.
but that's ok....have a good day.
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
Well in Obergefell, they discussed how they were drawing off numerous lower court findings that you know "gay marriage is cool". I can find the page and paragraph if you challenge me. So the upper Court looks to the lower ones to justify its findings in some cases; of that we have proof. And then there's the sticky problem you still haven't addressed, about Justice Ginsburg (the senior looney left judge) who made a public statement in an interview that even though the 1964 Civil Rights Act made men and women equal, it by no means meant they share a bathroom or shower together in public.
Then there's the problem of men self-diagnosing that they "are a woman trapped in a man's body". See, self-diagnosis isn't a big weighty bit of evidence in a court of law. You need witnesses, preferably professionals to back up your claims. And here's where it gets really sticky. Any MD who comes out and says "John Doe is really Jane Doe" without any empirical evidence to make that claim, puts himself, and more importantly, his insurance company at risk when John Doe enters the communal women's showers at the pool and suddenly in the moment self-diagnoses as a man again and rapes one of the gals standing next to him buck naked. Not that any deranged man could be expected to do such a thing...purely hypothetical of course.
And then there's the matter of teenage boys who are already sort of deranged on the best of days...how many will claim they are "girls trapped in a boy's body"? Often these trannies are still attracted to women. For instance, many transgender dudes stay married to their wives after they get the help of an "MD" to amputate their otherwise healthy organs to play-act being a "female" (which of course they never are and the MD tells them this in writing before surgery as a disclaimer)....where was I? Oh, right, teenage boys. Ha. I know some loggers who were talking about this topic the other day and they were laughing gales of laughter, and a bit chagrined that these issues weren't solid when they were in high school. In unison they declared they would've made up being "a girl trapped in a boy's body" just to get a shot at the girls' shower room.
And as if all that weren't enough, there's the issue of the 17 million women rape victims who would be thereafter legally FORCED to share intimate disrobing areas with deranged males...and the PTSD they would suffer...and the lawsuits that would follow...etc. etc. etc. In short, letting self-diagnosed deranged males share intimate disrobing spaces with women is a FRIGGIN' LEGAL NIGHTMARE. Not to mention a complete embarrassment and a symptom of cultural insanity. I'd imagine upon the passing of such a law, the terrorists around the world would go into overdrive with new and undeniable proof that "America is the infidel!!". Even the Roman Catholic Church's more radical members might say to them.."you know, we're thinking you may have a point here.."...
So, your cookie-cutter "slam dunk" case of "deranged men vs women rape victims' PTSD" (ultimately that will be the case's essence) isn't such a quick win. And of course as the case makes its way Up, you will become appraised of that in writing...
I'm not going to discuss this with you further, dear. you have an unhealthy obsession. I can't change that for you. Only you can change you.
And I'm not going to waste my breath anymore in trying to explain how our court system works and why you're wrong.
but that's ok....have a good day.
Translation: jillian is a bit overwhelmed by the facts of the case and can't get her head around the mammoth opposition facing her cult's "transgender" or "T" faction of "LGBT". It's OK jilly....give it awhile. Acceptance takes time..
your sociology, your science and your assessment of the law are all incorrect.
Know anybody like this?your sociology, your science and your assessment of the law are all incorrect.
Please be more specific. Given the thoroughness to which I've addressed my arguments, your simplistic blanket statement falls flat on its face. Specifics to each of my points or accept defeat on those points.
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
Well in Obergefell, they discussed how they were drawing off numerous lower court findings that you know "gay marriage is cool". I can find the page and paragraph if you challenge me. So the upper Court looks to the lower ones to justify its findings in some cases; of that we have proof. And then there's the sticky problem you still haven't addressed, about Justice Ginsburg (the senior looney left judge) who made a public statement in an interview that even though the 1964 Civil Rights Act made men and women equal, it by no means meant they share a bathroom or shower together in public.
Then there's the problem of men self-diagnosing that they "are a woman trapped in a man's body". See, self-diagnosis isn't a big weighty bit of evidence in a court of law. You need witnesses, preferably professionals to back up your claims. And here's where it gets really sticky. Any MD who comes out and says "John Doe is really Jane Doe" without any empirical evidence to make that claim, puts himself, and more importantly, his insurance company at risk when John Doe enters the communal women's showers at the pool and suddenly in the moment self-diagnoses as a man again and rapes one of the gals standing next to him buck naked. Not that any deranged man could be expected to do such a thing...purely hypothetical of course.
And then there's the matter of teenage boys who are already sort of deranged on the best of days...how many will claim they are "girls trapped in a boy's body"? Often these trannies are still attracted to women. For instance, many transgender dudes stay married to their wives after they get the help of an "MD" to amputate their otherwise healthy organs to play-act being a "female" (which of course they never are and the MD tells them this in writing before surgery as a disclaimer)....where was I? Oh, right, teenage boys. Ha. I know some loggers who were talking about this topic the other day and they were laughing gales of laughter, and a bit chagrined that these issues weren't solid when they were in high school. In unison they declared they would've made up being "a girl trapped in a boy's body" just to get a shot at the girls' shower room.
And as if all that weren't enough, there's the issue of the 17 million women rape victims who would be thereafter legally FORCED to share intimate disrobing areas with deranged males...and the PTSD they would suffer...and the lawsuits that would follow...etc. etc. etc. In short, letting self-diagnosed deranged males share intimate disrobing spaces with women is a FRIGGIN' LEGAL NIGHTMARE. Not to mention a complete embarrassment and a symptom of cultural insanity. I'd imagine upon the passing of such a law, the terrorists around the world would go into overdrive with new and undeniable proof that "America is the infidel!!". Even the Roman Catholic Church's more radical members might say to them.."you know, we're thinking you may have a point here.."...
So, your cookie-cutter "slam dunk" case of "deranged men vs women rape victims' PTSD" (ultimately that will be the case's essence) isn't such a quick win. And of course as the case makes its way Up, you will become appraised of that in writing...
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
The link to Obergefell is here, in case you want to actually make a substantive post rebutting what I said: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfYeah, the federal court didn't argue any of that shit.
You must be citing the federal court ruling that you imagined rather than the one that actually exists.
same thing I said.... low level texas judge who will be reversed.
Based on what exactly? And please be specific. Will you cite Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)?
based on what? do you understand how our judicial system works....trial level judge refuses to apply the precedent set by the high court....trial level judge gets reversed either at the circuit level or supreme court....7th circuit case doesn't outclass the supreme court.,,,you seem confused.
Well in Obergefell, they discussed how they were drawing off numerous lower court findings that you know "gay marriage is cool". I can find the page and paragraph if you challenge me. So the upper Court looks to the lower ones to justify its findings in some cases; of that we have proof. And then there's the sticky problem you still haven't addressed, about Justice Ginsburg (the senior looney left judge) who made a public statement in an interview that even though the 1964 Civil Rights Act made men and women equal, it by no means meant they share a bathroom or shower together in public.
Then there's the problem of men self-diagnosing that they "are a woman trapped in a man's body". See, self-diagnosis isn't a big weighty bit of evidence in a court of law. You need witnesses, preferably professionals to back up your claims. And here's where it gets really sticky. Any MD who comes out and says "John Doe is really Jane Doe" without any empirical evidence to make that claim, puts himself, and more importantly, his insurance company at risk when John Doe enters the communal women's showers at the pool and suddenly in the moment self-diagnoses as a man again and rapes one of the gals standing next to him buck naked. Not that any deranged man could be expected to do such a thing...purely hypothetical of course.
And then there's the matter of teenage boys who are already sort of deranged on the best of days...how many will claim they are "girls trapped in a boy's body"? Often these trannies are still attracted to women. For instance, many transgender dudes stay married to their wives after they get the help of an "MD" to amputate their otherwise healthy organs to play-act being a "female" (which of course they never are and the MD tells them this in writing before surgery as a disclaimer)....where was I? Oh, right, teenage boys. Ha. I know some loggers who were talking about this topic the other day and they were laughing gales of laughter, and a bit chagrined that these issues weren't solid when they were in high school. In unison they declared they would've made up being "a girl trapped in a boy's body" just to get a shot at the girls' shower room.
And as if all that weren't enough, there's the issue of the 17 million women rape victims who would be thereafter legally FORCED to share intimate disrobing areas with deranged males...and the PTSD they would suffer...and the lawsuits that would follow...etc. etc. etc. In short, letting self-diagnosed deranged males share intimate disrobing spaces with women is a FRIGGIN' LEGAL NIGHTMARE. Not to mention a complete embarrassment and a symptom of cultural insanity. I'd imagine upon the passing of such a law, the terrorists around the world would go into overdrive with new and undeniable proof that "America is the infidel!!". Even the Roman Catholic Church's more radical members might say to them.."you know, we're thinking you may have a point here.."...
So, your cookie-cutter "slam dunk" case of "deranged men vs women rape victims' PTSD" (ultimately that will be the case's essence) isn't such a quick win. And of course as the case makes its way Up, you will become appraised of that in writing...
The link to Obergefell is here, in case you want to actually make a substantive post rebutting what I said: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfYeah, the federal court didn't argue any of that shit.
You must be citing the federal court ruling that you imagined rather than the one that actually exists.
Skylar, read the link for the USSC Ruling on Obergefell and instead of just trolling with ad hominems, provide substance for your points. Try something new today!
