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

[Silhouette]

Setting the Record Straight: North Carolina Law Protects Everyone's Bodily Privacy

Public restrooms are places where women and girls may shower, change their clothes, handle personal grooming issues, and take care of many other private matters unique to females. Many people are uncomfortable merely discussing these topics, so imagine the discomfort when women have to do such activities with males present. Women and girls shouldn’t be forced to conduct these private activities in a confined space with male strangers present....

Consider especially that girls and women who have been sexually abused will suffer the additional trauma of being compelled to engage in their most intimate activities in the immediate company of male strangers. No one is saying that every man who struggles with sexual identity issues is a predator. No one. But the mere presence of men in what should be a private, safe space like a bathroom can trigger serious psychological and emotional trauma for women and girls who have been sexually abused. That is simply unacceptable.

Well the cards have been called on the table and the sleeves are rolled up. North Carolina is demanding the Fed clarify how a man who thinks he is a woman has dominant rights to women and girls' expectation of intimate privacy behind doors marked "women" above them. The Fed is demanding North Carolina accept their ad lib to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as "irrefutable interpretation". Yet nowhere in the 1964 Act does it discuss men who are experiencing delusions.

The Fed will ask the Court to put in place a stay that allows men to use the women's intimate hygiene retreats. North Carolina will counter that it's far more compelling to put in place a stay on the Fed's demand instead, since women's expectation of intimate segregated privacy behind a door marked "women" is far more compelling a safety and rights issue than a tiny group of men who are delusional. The power of historical prevalence and protection of women and girls will and should outweigh the extremely new notion that "men are women".

Anything less would be a perversion of justice and a suppression of the civil rights of women and girls.

 

[bucs90]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

I you're a little nuts there. Typical for a right winger.

 

[Silhouette]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

I you're a little nuts there. Typical for a right winger.

No, he just understands how legal precedent works. The lady of justice wears a blindfold for a reason. If you can pretend you are another gender, it would be discrimination to disallow the pretending of any other non-real situation. It would, in the purest legal sense. bucs90 is absolutely right about what he says.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

I you're a little nuts there. Typical for a right winger.

No, he just understands how legal precedent works. The lady of justice wears a blindfold for a reason. If you can pretend you are another gender, it would be discrimination to disallow the pretending of any other non-real situation. It would, in the purest legal sense. bucs90 is absolutely right about what he says.

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

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Silhouette]

Loretta Lynch needs to make one simple decision: "What's more important? The protection of the rights of women and girls or the protection of the nonexistent "rights" of delusional men." It's that simple. In her own words:

This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms. This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them –

~Attorney General Loretta Lynch

I'm glad Loretta Lynch agrees that the dignity and respect of actual women and girls to their expectation and reliance upon privacy in their segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word "women" by the door, deserve protection. Especially those actual women and girls (people born with wombs) who have been sexually assaulted by men exactly when they were intimately vulnerable.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Loretta Lynch needs to make one simple decision: "What's more important? The protection of the rights of women and girls or the protection of the nonexistent "rights" of delusional men." It's that simple. In her own words:

This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms. This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them –

~Attorney General Loretta Lynch

I'm glad Loretta Lynch agrees that the dignity and respect of actual women and girls to their expectation and reliance upon privacy in their segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word "women" by the door, deserve protection. Especially those actual women and girls (people born with wombs) who have been sexually assaulted by men exactly when they were intimately vulnerable.

Can you name a single time that a transgender person molested ANYBODY in a woman's restroom?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

1. There is no such thing as "transgender people". They don't exist. There are mental conditions that are called "transgender" but no people that actually are both sexes or who ever will be actually the opposite gender they were born. It's impossible.

Their behaviors don't override the rights of women to expectation of segregated privacy in their intimate hygiene retreats denoted by the word "women" by the door. Sorry. Behaviors don't have civil rights. People born with wombs do. You knew your cult would take their bullshit too far one day. That day has arrived. Men pretending to be women do NOT dominate actual women and girls' rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Their behaviors don't override the rights of women to expectation of segregated privacy in their intimate hygiene retreats denoted by the word "women" by the door. Sorry. Behaviors don't have civil rights. People born with wombs do. You knew your cult would take their bullshit too far one day. That day has arrived. Men pretending to be women do NOT dominate actual women and girls' rights.

Believe what you want.but don't be surprised when you lose.

 

[Silhouette]

New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982). Look it up. It is a case law that says if someone's "civil right" (trannys don't have them, it was made up as an extension of the 1964 Act which never even remotely contemplated "rights" for men pretending to be women) interferes with the well being either mental or physical of a child, that "right" is not allowed to be exercised to the child's demise. Girls use the women's room. If allowing men in these intimate hygiene retreats alarms or distresses girls in any way, shape or form, "tranny rights" are immediately legally suspended. So says New York v Ferber.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

1. There is no such thing as "transgender people". They don't exist. There are mental conditions that are called "transgender" but no people that actually are both sexes or who ever will be actually the opposite gender they were born. It's impossible.

Their behaviors don't override the rights of women to expectation of segregated privacy in their intimate hygiene retreats denoted by the word "women" by the door. Sorry. Behaviors don't have civil rights. People born with wombs do. You knew your cult would take their bullshit too far one day. That day has arrived. Men pretending to be women do NOT dominate actual women and girls' rights.

So you think a firm statement from you will make an entire class of people disappear? Sorry, but if someone could just be wished into the cornfield, you would have been gone before now. Yes they exist, and they will be allowed their rights as a person. Sorry if you don't like that.

 

[HenryBHough]

It IS, after all, hard to distinguish a standard-issue liberal male from a somewhat butch female.

 

[Silhouette]

So you think a firm statement from you will make an entire class of people disappear?

It's not a mere statement from me. It is an empirical, repeatable, peer-reviewable observation of stark facts that anyone can see. There is no class. The Court cannot find that a man imagining he is a woman was anticipated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a protected class. And if they can, I cannot WAIT to see the written justification. It truly will be a remarkable feat of wordsmanship given what's at stake that is far far more compelling and completely germane to the 1964 Act: the rights of women and girls to their privacy in intimate hygiene retreats.

Remember, there are not just going to be sharp lawyers on the Fed side. North Carolina will have their team on deck and a vastly larger tome of case law to back up their stance.

 

[Silhouette]

100% in favor of placing the stay to favor women and girl's privacy.

 

[novasteve]

If liberals think it's okay to mandate the denial of reality and play along with delusions, the governor of NC should self identify as the US attorney general and dismiss the lawsuit. Liberals would be hateful bigots if they didn't play along.

 

[novasteve]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

I you're a little nuts there. Typical for a right winger.

No, he just understands how legal precedent works. The lady of justice wears a blindfold for a reason. If you can pretend you are another gender, it would be discrimination to disallow the pretending of any other non-real situation. It would, in the purest legal sense. bucs90 is absolutely right about what he says.

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

If NC wins then I'm going to start identifying as a lower tax bracket, since tax brackets are social constructs and I will accuse the IRS of bigotry and will get the DOJ to defend my civil rights if the IRS objects.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

There was no issue with TG's being kicked out of the ladies' rooms. TG's have been using the restroom of their choice without issue. It was a nonissue. The wording of the law is broad and vague. Men who say they feel like a woman would be allowed into the ladies' room. There is no requirement to look like a woman, dress like a woman, be on hormones or be under a doctor's care. If any woman objects, she's a homophobic bigot who will be sued.

It was working just fine before. Kaitlyn Jenners were using the bathroom of their preference without issue. This whole thing was a waste of money to create a law to fix a nonproblem, just to get in an FU to women who were not opressing anyone and showing no disrespect. Why? I'm starting to think it is just to create hostility and division.

 

[BULLDOG]

If the Obama Regime wins this one.....it opens the door for all of us to identify as any general or race or ethnicity or age we want.

ALL labels of race, gender, age, ethnicity will be voided.

Statutory rape will no longer be a legal charge since a 35 year old man can just "identify" as a 16 year old.

I you're a little nuts there. Typical for a right winger.

No, he just understands how legal precedent works. The lady of justice wears a blindfold for a reason. If you can pretend you are another gender, it would be discrimination to disallow the pretending of any other non-real situation. It would, in the purest legal sense. bucs90 is absolutely right about what he says.

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

If NC wins then I'm going to start identifying as a lower tax bracket, since tax brackets are social constructs and I will accuse the IRS of bigotry and will get the DOJ to defend my civil rights if the IRS objects.

That's not how it works dumb ass.If it was,I would be on your side.