Discussion:
The Supreme Court's latest punt has big implications for the make-believe "transgender" voyeur rights
(too old to reply)
Perverts KICKED to the CURB!
2017-03-07 11:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Obama Pretend Society gets another KICK IN THEIR TEETH! Way
to GO President TRUMP!

It could have been the case to decide one of the big remaining
battlegrounds for LGBTQ rights.

But on Monday, the US Supreme Court announced it would delay its
hearings in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., pushing the
case back down to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
decision means that the Supreme Court won’t hear — or rule on —
a case involving trans rights and nondiscrimination protections
for now, leaving trans people across much of the country without
explicit legal protections from discrimination for the time
being.

The case focused on the story of Gavin Grimm, a trans teenager
in Virginia who tried to use the boys’ bathroom in his school
when the Gloucester County School Board told him he could only
use the girls’ or unisex bathroom. But the Supreme Court sent
the case back down to the Fourth Circuit Court after the Trump
administration rescinded an Obama-era guidance that protected
trans people and let them use the bathroom for their gender
identity in federally funded schools. Trump’s decision vacated
one of the key legal questions — about the Obama
administration’s view — in the case and the Fourth Circuit
Court’s previous ruling, leading the Supreme Court to ask for a
redo.

Bathrooms have become a big battleground for trans rights in the
past few years. Access to the right bathroom is something that a
lot of people take for granted, but it’s a big deal for trans
people.

“This wasn’t just about bathrooms. It was about the right to
exist in public spaces for trans people,” Grimm recently told
me, quoting trans actress Laverne Cox. “Without the access to
appropriate bathrooms, there’s so much that you’re limited in
doing. If you try to imagine what your day would be like if you
had absolutely no restrooms to use other than the home, it would
take planning. You would probably find yourself avoiding
liquids, probably avoiding eating, maybe [avoiding] going out in
public for too long at a time.”

Bathrooms are also part of a broader debate about
nondiscrimination protections for trans people. The argument is
that trans people should be allowed to use the correct bathroom
because they are protected under Title IX, which bans sex
discrimination — and, advocates argue, since trans
discrimination is rooted in beliefs about what people of certain
sexes should be like, should also ban trans discrimination. This
was the legal debate that the Supreme Court had a chance to get
into — but the Court punted on Monday.

The case could have filled a big gap in civil rights laws
Under most states’ laws and federal law, trans people aren’t
explicitly protected from discrimination in the workplace,
housing, public accommodations, and schools. This means that a
person can be fired from a job, evicted from a home, kicked out
of a business, or denied the correct bathroom facility just
because an employer, landlord, business owner, or school
principal doesn’t approve of the person’s gender identity.

LGBTQ advocates argue, however, that federal civil rights law
should already shield trans people from discrimination.

The argument: Discrimination against someone based on their
gender identity is fundamentally rooted in sex-based
expectations. For example, if someone discriminates against a
trans woman, that’s largely based on the expectation that a
person designated male at birth should identify as a man — a
belief built on an idea of what a person of a certain sex
assigned at birth should be like. So since federal civil rights
laws, such as Title IX, ban sex discrimination in the workplace,
housing, and schools, they should ban discrimination against
trans people in these settings as well.

This isn’t just a wild interpretation by LGBTQ advocates;
there’s legal precedent for it. Joshua Block, an American Civil
Liberties Union attorney working on Grimm’s case, cited a 1998
Supreme Court case, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc.,
in which the Court unanimously agreed that bans on sex
discrimination prohibit same-sex sexual harassment. Same-sex
sexual harassment was not something the authors of federal civil
rights laws considered, but it’s something, the Supreme Court
said, that a plain reading of the law protects.

“Oncale says that’s irrelevant whether [Congress] contemplated
it,” Block told me. “That’s not how laws work. This is literal
sex discrimination. Whether or not that’s what Congress was
focused on doesn’t make it any less a type of discrimination
covered by the statute.”

The Supreme Court was given the opportunity in Grimm’s case to
decide whether this interpretation will stand up — and
potentially extend explicit civil rights protections to all
trans people. But after Monday, the Court’s final ruling will
now have to wait, leaving trans people unprotected at the
federal level for the time being.

The counterargument to trans access to proper bathrooms is a myth
Underlying this entire issue is a big myth about trans people,
nondiscrimination laws, and bathrooms.

According to opponents of trans access to proper bathrooms,
letting trans people use the bathroom for their gender identity
would pose a public safety risk. They claim that if trans people
can use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, men
will take advantage of such policies to disguise themselves as
trans women and sneak into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms to
sexually assault or harass women.

But even if trans people are allowed to use the bathroom for
their gender identity, sexual assault remains illegal. So a
legal deterrent to deviant behavior already exists.

There’s also no evidence that nondiscrimination laws — and other
policies that also let trans people use the bathroom for their
gender identity — lead to sexual assault in bathrooms and locker
rooms. In two investigations, Media Matters confirmed with
experts and officials in 12 states and 17 school districts with
protections for trans people that they had no increases in sex
crimes after they enacted their policies.

Experts say LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws do not lead to sexual
crimes in bathrooms.
Media Matters
Conservatives usually counter that there are examples of men
sneaking into women's bathrooms to attack women. But as
PolitiFact reported, none of the examples cited in the US
happened after a city or state passed a nondiscrimination law or
otherwise let trans people use the bathroom or locker room for
their gender identity. Instead, these seem to be examples of men
doing awful things regardless of the law — which has,
unfortunately, happened since the beginning of civilization.

One example is a case in Toronto, Canada, which now has a
nondiscrimination law, in which a man disguised himself as a
woman and attacked women in shelters. But the attacks happened
months before Ontario (Toronto's province) protected trans
people in a nondiscrimination law. So the law couldn't have been
the cause.

Still, the myth has persisted, trickling up in some way or
another all the way to legal battles over federal laws. And it’s
a big reason Grimm’s case even climbed up to the Supreme Court
in the first place.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/6/14828042/supreme-court-
transgender-bathrooms-gavin-grimm
Jeanne Douglas
2017-03-07 22:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Perverts KICKED to the CURB!
The Obama Pretend Society gets another KICK IN THEIR TEETH! Way
to GO President TRUMP!
What does 45 have to do with Supreme Court decisions?
--
JD


"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-03-08 05:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Perverts KICKED to the CURB!
The Obama Pretend Society gets another KICK IN THEIR TEETH! Way
to GO President TRUMP!
What does 45 have to do with Supreme Court decisions?
In this case, Trump played a key role.

Gavin (the transgender boy) lost in district court. But, the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals held in his favor based on on a letter from
Obama administration that interpreted Title IX. Trump rescinded that
letter, thus undercutting the logic of the 4th Circuit's opinion.
Perverts KICKED to the CURB!
2017-03-10 04:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Perverts KICKED to the CURB!
The Obama Pretend Society gets another KICK IN THEIR TEETH! Way
to GO President TRUMP!
What does 45 have to do with Supreme Court decisions?
Simple. If the Supreme Court decision was erroneous, one uses a
.45 to correct the error.

In this case there was no SCOTUS decision and it was not
necessary to employ a .45 on any of the mentally ill cross-
dresser perverts.

Let them die of AIDS naturally.

Loading...