Posted on 10/19/2016 1:18:39 PM PDT by Hojczyk
“High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” Gilbert wrote.
“A transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms,” he continued. “So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”
Yes, you read that correctly. “Cisgender” isn’t even a word, but it’s now in a federal court ruling. It’s a derogatory reference cooked up by the SJW to further separate people into pigeonholes and reinforce the idea that your biological makeup and DNA have no bearing on gender. This type of loaded language has no place in the courts, particularly since the Supremes have yet to weigh in on the subject.
It’s all part of a growing trend in the media, however. You may recall when a Charlotte newspaper declared that school age girls need to overcome their discomfort over seeing male genitals. The fact that many parents are rightly horrified by this is completely disregarded in SJW circles, but we are sadly seeing some judges taking these attitudes to heart.
It might be nice to hear the candidates take a firm position on this question before the election, particularly since one of them will be appointing Supreme Court Justices soon. Can someone with a Y chromosome and male genitals be a “girl” in the eyes of the law? And do school age girls need to “get over their discomfort” at seeing a penis in the school showers and locker rooms?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Send this to all women with kids??
Are they just making-up words now?
This is entirely the wrong perspective. We should assign kids to gym class based on their sex (their chromosomes - for liberals who are in doubt this is the phenotype as indicated by external genitalia), regardless of "gender" (what they think they are regardless of reality). Then we can argue that locker rooms and restroom use has nothing to do with "gender" and we are not rejecting their self image, just dividing based on a characteristic unrelated to their identity.
That way, those of the male gender born with a penis, and those who think they are of the female gender but were born with a penis, and those of the feline/canine species who were born with 23 chromosome pairs and a penis would all be in the gym class for the male sex. Their classmates of whatever "gender", regardless of what gender or species they think they are, would be in the class for the female sex. This isn't about identity, and the class should not argue or discuss identity; it's just about the sex chromosomes and external body configuration.
From Cisalpine Gaul.
“So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”
Whaaa? Please, crawl into a hole and die.
Go, Trump, GO!
“sex assigned at birth”
Anyone who says that is out of contact with reality.
“Are they just making-up words now?”
Words. Feelings. Law.
Roe v. Wade, 1972
Why they being' all prejuidiced and not given black homos names like '"crisco-gendered" they can use?
And everybody is just fine with it, it seems, being as how no one has expressed their opinion to the judge in a way she would understand.
Maybe we need to split this country in two. One side for Conservatives, one side for Liberals. Neither side interacts with the other. See the difference between the two in 20 years.
Isn’t insanity grounds for impeachment?
Likewise, male students need to “get over their discomfort” at seeing naked female bodies in the school showers and locker rooms. Oh, wait...
“Are they just making-up words now?”
Now? They’ve been doing it for 6.5 decades to my personal knowledge.
so, the judge is declaring that women (and girls) have no right to privacy.
“Cisgender”
Could an appeal be made on the basis of fabricating a gender name?
Patriots are reminded that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals with voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment, that amendment giving the feds the specific power to address sex-related issues only in the context of voting rights.
So not only is the misguided federal judge interfering in state sovereignty, but all that we’re predictably going to hear from the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress’s direction concerning this judge’s unconstitutional harassment of a sovereign state is crickets.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Quote:
“so, the judge is declaring that women (and girls) have no right to privacy.”
Tough. American women love them some Obama and Hillary so much they can suffer the consequences.
Overruled.
With prejudice.
Now I know why people in Trans-Alpine Gaul dressed differently than folks in Cis-Alpine Gaul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.