Judge rules transgender people are protected, keeps hold on troop ban

[miketx]

Yeah the wackos are out in force demanding they be allowed to eat, drink and be Mary.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Gee, no surprise that he ignored this. lol


So this person is perfectly sane, no mental/body/gender issues, and we must support/accept/play along with their 'truth' and if we don't, if we point out that this person DOES suffer from mental/body/gender issues, WE'RE bigots? GFY. Seriously.

Transgender woman Eva Tiamat Medusa removes ears and nose to become 'dragon lady' | Daily Mail Online

It is perfectly normal and healthy for an individual who in good faith and good conscience believes that who he is as a person – his feelings, thoughts, and self-perception – is inconsistent with his birth gender, and seeks express himself in accordance with the gender he identifies and is comfortable with.

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gee, no surprise that he ignored this. lol


So this person is perfectly sane, no mental/body/gender issues, and we must support/accept/play along with their 'truth' and if we don't, if we point out that this person DOES suffer from mental/body/gender issues, WE'RE bigots? GFY. Seriously.

Transgender woman Eva Tiamat Medusa removes ears and nose to become 'dragon lady' | Daily Mail Online

It is perfectly normal and healthy for an individual who in good faith and good conscience believes that who he is as a person – his feelings, thoughts, and self-perception – is inconsistent with his birth gender, and seeks express himself in accordance with the gender he identifies and is comfortable with.

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

 

[Lysistrata]

It's such a shame that we can't tailor the rest of society to only include the people whom we like and approve of. Doggonit! Remember that each and every one of us probably has a "shit list."

 

[Zoom-boing]

Gee, no surprise that he ignored this. lol


So this person is perfectly sane, no mental/body/gender issues, and we must support/accept/play along with their 'truth' and if we don't, if we point out that this person DOES suffer from mental/body/gender issues, WE'RE bigots? GFY. Seriously.

Transgender woman Eva Tiamat Medusa removes ears and nose to become 'dragon lady' | Daily Mail Online

It is perfectly normal and healthy for an individual who in good faith and good conscience believes that who he is as a person – his feelings, thoughts, and self-perception – is inconsistent with his birth gender, and seeks express himself in accordance with the gender he identifies and is comfortable with.

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

Your remark was nothing more than you projecting your inane shit onto me, expecting me to what ... argue from that? Typical leftist m.o. Period. smh

 

[BULLDOG]

Gee, no surprise that he ignored this. lol


So this person is perfectly sane, no mental/body/gender issues, and we must support/accept/play along with their 'truth' and if we don't, if we point out that this person DOES suffer from mental/body/gender issues, WE'RE bigots? GFY. Seriously.

Transgender woman Eva Tiamat Medusa removes ears and nose to become 'dragon lady' | Daily Mail Online

It is perfectly normal and healthy for an individual who in good faith and good conscience believes that who he is as a person – his feelings, thoughts, and self-perception – is inconsistent with his birth gender, and seeks express himself in accordance with the gender he identifies and is comfortable with.

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

Your remark was nothing more than you projecting your inane shit onto me, expecting me to what ... argue from that? Typical leftist m.o. Period. smh

Whut? You're the one who wanted to belittle an entire group because you found one member of that group who was nuts. I was just seeing if your blanket judgments applied to all groups, or just the ones you don't like.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Gee, no surprise that he ignored this. lol


So this person is perfectly sane, no mental/body/gender issues, and we must support/accept/play along with their 'truth' and if we don't, if we point out that this person DOES suffer from mental/body/gender issues, WE'RE bigots? GFY. Seriously.

Transgender woman Eva Tiamat Medusa removes ears and nose to become 'dragon lady' | Daily Mail Online

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

Your remark was nothing more than you projecting your inane shit onto me, expecting me to what ... argue from that? Typical leftist m.o. Period. smh

Whut? You're the one who wanted to belittle an entire group because you found one member of that group who was nuts. I was just seeing if your blanket judgments applied to all groups, or just the ones you don't like.

^ more projection.

People who believe they are a different gender, or species, or should have a limb removed, or are anorexic, etc suffer from a form of body and/or gender dysphoria. They need compassion, professional mental help, support. But your ilk cheers them on, tells them mutilating their bodies by lopping off bits, adding bits, and injecting hormones of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives is 'normal', and call those who don't lock/step with that insanity the cruel ones.

<blink, blink>

 

[BULLDOG]

You think every trans gender person does that? I've seen right wingers with swastikas tattooed on their forehead. Are all right wingers Nazis?

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

Your remark was nothing more than you projecting your inane shit onto me, expecting me to what ... argue from that? Typical leftist m.o. Period. smh

Whut? You're the one who wanted to belittle an entire group because you found one member of that group who was nuts. I was just seeing if your blanket judgments applied to all groups, or just the ones you don't like.

^ more projection.

People who believe they are a different gender, or species, or should have a limb removed, or are anorexic, etc suffer from a form of body and/or gender dysphoria. They need compassion, professional mental help, support. But your ilk cheers them on, tells them mutilating their bodies by lopping off bits, adding bits, and injecting hormones of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives is 'normal', and call those who don't lock/step with that insanity the cruel ones.

<blink, blink>

So you think accepting someone as they are is more cruel than belittling and degrading them. How Trumpian of you..

 

[Lysistrata]

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

 

[theHawk]

Good news.

Judge rules transgender people are protected, keeps hold on troop ban

A federal judge in Washington ordered Friday that a halt to President Trump's transgender troop ban remain in place, saying that the government must prove its order "was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype."

Why it matters: In addition to keeping its injunction in place, the judge overseeing the case said that transgender people represent a "protected class" and, as such, that President Trump's ban will have to meet the legal standard known as "strict scrutiny."

There is no such thing as “transgendered”. You’re either a male or female to the military, and should be held to those standards. Males don’t just get to wimp out and pretend to be a female to pass physical fitness tests. It’s been that way forever. You don’t get to cry “discrimination” because you want to change the rules to conform to your mental illness.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

Gender identification is not a choice. XX - girl. XY - boy. Deal with it privately. Don't expect society to accommodate your insanity.

 

[theHawk]

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

Gender identification is not a choice. XX - girl. XY - boy. Deal with it privately. Don't expect society to accommodate your insanity.

These nutcases can’t deal with reality. They are biology deniers.

 

[JoeB131]

When did he become “Jennifer”, before or after he rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel?

Oh, I'm sure after. But obviously, he didn't wake up one morning and put on a dress. He was probably that way for years and hid it.

And you know what, he still did his job.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

14th Amendment, Sec. 1. Arbitrary designation of a "protected class" elevates the status of members of that designated class above that of non-members.

The SCOTUS erred in permitting them. Eventually a case will arise to cause the Court to revisit the decision.

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

 

[JoeMoma]

When did he become “Jennifer”, before or after he rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel?

Oh, I'm sure after. But obviously, he didn't wake up one morning and put on a dress. He was probably that way for years and hid it.

And you know what, he still did his job.

So he did his job as a man, not as a fake woman. That’s the way it should be. What happens after they serve is their own business, not the military’s.

 

[JoeB131]

By crying “bigotry” over such nonsense, those on the left wrong have rendered it and related terms meaningless, and made it nearly impossible to credibly call out genuine bigotry when it may appear.

Dude, you've been flipping out for four posts because of Transgenders, when it has no effect on your life.

 

[JoeB131]

So he did his job as a man, not as a fake woman. That’s the way it should be. What happens after they serve is their own business, not the military’s.

Or she did her job pretending to be a man when inside she was a woman.

You see, I really don't have a dog in the fight on this Transgender thing, I just love how absolutely fucking nuts it makes you wingnuts.

 

[skookerasbil]

The less mental cases in the military the better

 

[skookerasbil]

So he did his job as a man, not as a fake woman. That’s the way it should be. What happens after they serve is their own business, not the military’s.

Or she did her job pretending to be a man when inside she was a woman.

You see, I really don't have a dog in the fight on this Transgender thing, I just love how absolutely fucking nuts it makes you wingnuts.

Lol.... hate to break it to you s0n but a vast majority of the population thinks these people are mental cases.