The key wording in Bostock, from Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion:
"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."
This comes pretty close to conflicting with the legal requirement for employers and others to establish single-sex spaces and categories, for example separate bathrooms under 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i)): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-J, and of course Title IX's protections for girls' and women's sports.
By this logic, firing a man for the "action" of constantly going into the women's bathroom is discriminatory, since a woman wouldn't get fired for doing so.
I don't think Gorsuch et al meant to do that, but I also think they treated the trans aspect as an afterthought and didn't think through the implications thoroughly. If they had they would have put a disclaimer in the opinion clarifying this. As it stands, the trans privilege activists will seize on this as justification for essentially eliminating single-sex facilities and categories, until the Court summons the courage to make it clear that sex =/= gender.
This is why I don't use the word "transexual" with any seriousness. It doesn't really exist. A man on hormones, in dresses, after surgery (even if he passes, and very few do) is still a man. Sex is binary and immutable, so it cannot be changed.
What these men are suffering from is delusion. They didn't enter a special category under the law through their mental illness, clothing, or surgeries. They should be discriminated against due to their irrational beliefs and mental illness. Nobody would argue that a schizophrenic who thinks he's Napoleon should be able to force others to call him Napoleon and teach in front of a classroom of children. He's not Napoleon. He's mentally ill and should receive treatment for his mental illness.
Same with these men. The origin is just male delusion. None of it should be taken seriously. This is the only approach that will work because granting this even the slightest acquiescence opens the floodgates of crazy, and then it cannot be stopped.
To make it worse, they're now starting to argue that the guy who thinks he is Napoleon is simply "neurodivergent", which of course is an identity that must be protected from "discrimination".
Tbh, how is it any less crazy to allow schizophrenics to force others to call them Napoleon or Genghis Khan under the "neurodivergent" umbrella if a man in a dress gets to play women's sports? It's just a slippery slope
The key wording in Bostock, from Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion:
"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/#tab-opinion-4261583
This comes pretty close to conflicting with the legal requirement for employers and others to establish single-sex spaces and categories, for example separate bathrooms under 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i)): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-J, and of course Title IX's protections for girls' and women's sports.
By this logic, firing a man for the "action" of constantly going into the women's bathroom is discriminatory, since a woman wouldn't get fired for doing so.
I don't think Gorsuch et al meant to do that, but I also think they treated the trans aspect as an afterthought and didn't think through the implications thoroughly. If they had they would have put a disclaimer in the opinion clarifying this. As it stands, the trans privilege activists will seize on this as justification for essentially eliminating single-sex facilities and categories, until the Court summons the courage to make it clear that sex =/= gender.
This is why I don't use the word "transexual" with any seriousness. It doesn't really exist. A man on hormones, in dresses, after surgery (even if he passes, and very few do) is still a man. Sex is binary and immutable, so it cannot be changed.
What these men are suffering from is delusion. They didn't enter a special category under the law through their mental illness, clothing, or surgeries. They should be discriminated against due to their irrational beliefs and mental illness. Nobody would argue that a schizophrenic who thinks he's Napoleon should be able to force others to call him Napoleon and teach in front of a classroom of children. He's not Napoleon. He's mentally ill and should receive treatment for his mental illness.
Same with these men. The origin is just male delusion. None of it should be taken seriously. This is the only approach that will work because granting this even the slightest acquiescence opens the floodgates of crazy, and then it cannot be stopped.
Brilliantly said!
To make it worse, they're now starting to argue that the guy who thinks he is Napoleon is simply "neurodivergent", which of course is an identity that must be protected from "discrimination".
Tbh, how is it any less crazy to allow schizophrenics to force others to call them Napoleon or Genghis Khan under the "neurodivergent" umbrella if a man in a dress gets to play women's sports? It's just a slippery slope