Victory to LGBT+ activists as Supreme court declines hearing on transgender bathroom case

We are going to see a ton of gyms get ran out of business. Their customers will stop coming and they will no longer be a viable option. Go figure... .women/girls are not a fan of having penises in their locker room.

It may be a good time to invest in companies that make home gym equipment.

 

This is the second time you falsely projected a position on me. If you want to know what I think or how I see things, you can always ask and I will tell you. My comparison is fair as the action is identical. Can you address what I actually said?

If exposing ones penis to women and children is now acceptable, what about those who have been convicted, placed on the sex offender registry, and have had to answer the big question on job applications?

Should their convictions be expunged or should there be a double standard making transgenders "preferred citizens" enjoying protection from the same penalties?

 

Fair enough - I won't make assumptions again about your views.

As for your suggestion that a transgender individual using a woman's bathroom is exposing their penis to women and children, can you explain to me how that happens in a public women's bathroom?

 

Lets go with locker rooms, steam rooms, and saunas for the sake of discussion.

 

That's very different, but I would think that a transgender individual would not be exposing themselves in public. Afterall, it is a part of themselves to which they don't relate. I'm not an expert though...

 

I did not come to the forum for an expert, just a polite discussion on what the experts are doing. I have no issue with people using the restroom of choice and understand the predicament businesses are in.

My only issue is the double standard. My question to you is if exposing ones penis is now acceptable, should it be acceptable for all or just some?

 

Once again, why the hang up with 'exposure'? It doesn't happen in women's bathrooms and is likely not going to happen in saunas or locker rooms.

 

So I'm reading this:
The decision to not hear arguments in Gloucester County School Board v Grimm means that a lower court ruling that found such policies to be unconstitutional as well as in violation of federal Title IX protections will stand. [The Independent]

So does that mean the court is saying boys can be a woman just by believing they are woman and thus are unconstitutionally discriminated against because others know they really aren't woman? Say goodbye to women's sports in THAT state.

 

My "hang up" is with equal protection under the law. Why do you continue to dodge that? The worst thing that can happen is that we disagree. What say you?

 

Mate, I'm not dodging anything. You want to discuss equal protection under the law, and none of my posts (to which you responded) were about that. I'm sure others would like to discuss it with you though...

 

You're the one hitting the "reply" button. It was a simple question relevant to the topic.

 

Your revisionist history is interesting. But whatever. I'll stop replying going forward.