Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very complex issue that in my opinion will be a long time coming before SCOTUS would take the it up, if ever.
The Idaho law was immediately blocked by a Federal Judge, and then the 9th circuit decided to take it up. Although still waiting for a decision it does not look good for the state based on lack of evidence that was presented.
Yup, even before the law took effect there is already a lawsuit in the works!
What I'm curious about, other than your position on this matter, is how you think it will play out in the courts.
Do you think it will rise to the Supreme Court of the US... and if so when?
And do you think it will be upheld or struck down... and on what grounds?
I’m not an expert- I have dealt with genes when my grand was born. It’s very complex stuff. I can say how children are born with issues and abnormalities and maybe things go haywire with the sex issue, but it’s evident things do go wrong. Let the kids be who they are- and help them achieve their best. Why hurt them?
Seems foolish in light of Bostock v. Clayton County.
Narrow decision.
Quote:
"They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today," Gorsuch wrote, "but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today."
I'll weigh in now.
I believe this WILL rise to the level of the Supreme Court.
I think that if males who choose to be recognized as females, with all the rights and priveleges of females, are GIVEN that recognition by governments, i.e. are so recognized on their Driver Licenses, (altered) Birth Certificates and Passports, they should be treated as females fully and be allowed to compete with all females in sports competitions, scholarships and any 'female only' spaces such as Lesbian festivals, spas, Correctional Institutions, etc.
I also believe that the legal argument vs De Santis will be based on the 'equal protection of the law' clause, of that handy little catch-all 14th amendment, though I am not certain how.
Lawyers are clever creatures so it will be interesting.
I also believe that Scotus will SUSTAIN the law 9-0 and thereby nullify the base assumption that males who 'transition' are full and equal members of the class of adult females... i.e. WOMEN.
And then the whole ideology that advocates for this absurd and scientifically false premise, will come tumbling down like the house of cards that it is.
The ridiculous lengths we've gone to in order not to hurt anyone's fee-fees has painted us into a corner and we can't actually go all the way with this. We need to start walking things back to a LOGICAL point and just accept that people can't actually change their sex/gender, biology is real, and while we can certainly make some discrimination laws and regulation we can never change reality. Magical thinking can only take you so far.
The unspoken truth though is that nobody really thinks people can change their sex and everyone knows there are 2 sexes, but politically you can use things like this to grab power and that's all that's all this has ever been about. If you don't understand that you need to wake up. Sadly we the people are the pawns and just get run over willy nilly by those playing the game.
Yes, but the precedent set that gender identity and orientation are part of the "sex" protected class makes it an easy argument.
I disagree. I don't think that the Supreme Court will strike down that law. Laws preventing women and men from serving on the same teams generally are also discriminatory, but there are valid policy reasons for doing so and no one seriously would argue that Clayton County mandates coed teams, etc. I think even Neil Gorsuch would agree that there is a legitimate government interest in the fairness of ensuring that people who are physically stronger as a result of their birth sex, etc., are not unfairly advantaged and, thus, unfairly disadvantage others, on account of their gender identity.
I disagree. I don't think that the Supreme Court will strike down that law. Laws preventing women and men from serving on the same teams generally are also discriminatory, but there are valid policy reasons for doing so and no one seriously would argue that Clayton County mandates coed teams, etc. I think even Neil Gorsuch would agree that there is a legitimate government interest in the fairness of ensuring that people who are physically stronger as a result of their birth sex, etc., are not unfairly advantaged and, thus, unfairly disadvantage others, on account of their gender identity.
There are no laws preventing men and women from serving on the same teams as far as I know.
I fact, I remember a couple of years ago, a girl won a law suit to play on the football team.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
