Most Americans (71%) Oppose Transgender Agenda

Society is just passing you by. I can't imagine how scary it must be.

 

I'm arguing that most women do NOT want biological males in women's bathrooms/locker rooms. Not sure why you're struggling so much to understand that.
Said another way...it's who BIOLOGICAL women want to see in bathrooms/locker rooms with them.

 

Most establishments where I live are developing gender neutral bathrooms, so this issue is probably not going to be a legislative boom for the Republican party unless they decide to politically go against gender neutral bathrooms.

The extreme sense of threat and sense of being attacked as a woman by transgender people is something I can comprehend. You’re not losing your facilities or your right to pee.

 

I am kind of struggling because I am a biological woman and I’ve explained my opinion as a biological woman. I don’t think you’re a biological woman, but you’re trying to present your opinion as what the majority of biologic women think. I’m questioning how this is a valid argument. No offense but that’s part one. Part two, I question why are you telling me as a biological woman that I should be comfortable with people who look like men using my bathroom?

 

Roe was determined to be unconstitutional in 1992 by the Supreme Court. So it was 19 years. And a previous court made this ruling. Factually speaking, you're getting a lot of stuff wrong. Roe was gutted decades ago.

 

I know you’re not a one issue voter. And I don’t think abortion rights are so important to you that you wouldn’t vote for somebody running on a federal abortion ban despite your defense of state state rights in this thread.

 

I don't care what you think.

 

They asked her for her definition, not a rundown in what people think.

I don't have to find sources because the truth of the matter wasn't the issue for Jackson. She no doubt understood the matter, obvious or not to us, could come before the Court.

Face it. The question was a petty attempt to discredit her.

 

Correction. I am not uncomfortable with this person using a women’s restroom

 

I am asking why you are uncomfortable with a person who looks like a woman, using a woman’s bathroom. Why does it make you uncomfortable?

 

I never said you should be comfortable with people who look like men using my bathroom. Why are you trying t claim I have? Are you trying to be disingenuous on purpose???
My opinion is based on the number of parents who've said their girls are not comfortable with biological boys sharing the same locker room. I'm basing my opinion based on my wife and daughter not being comfortable with biological men changing in front of them in a locker room. It's ok that I have opinion, correct?

 

She dodged the question out of fear of cancel culture hitting her. And she successfully discredited herself when she said you need to be a biologist to define "woman." For the fifth? time now, you still have not explained under what legal doctrine she'd be prevented from issuing a ruling on a subject if she provided ONE definition of a word. So I'll take this as your concession and move on.

 

Which might make women even more concerned.

 

I would venture to guess a bearded biological woman is the exception to the rule. Hell, her beard is thicker than mine...haha

 

That's a nonsense analysis, suggesting that this last Thomas ruling was meaningless.

Sorry, but you are fully aware that is not the case.

 

I don't understand you rargument.

What do you think that individual is going to do that would be objectionable?

 

I am left wondering why some do not understand precisely why the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe. The majority supported Miss. law. That's all there is to it. There was finally a case, Dobbs vs. Jackson's Women's Health Organization that broke the camel's aching back. Btw, for those who don't know, the Constitution never mentions abortion.

 

Concern about .05% Americans?

 

Let me help clear any confusion. Here's what happened:

1. Supreme Court created a "decision," that was more of a piece of legislation, that generated a trimester framework that dictated what rights exist within each trimester. There was no law for any of this. They pulled this all out of a hat. They had strongly defined regulations for each trimester and set up a system by which abortion rights existed until 1992. During this time, the states were challenging Roe since the regulations created were based on nothing at all. And states wanted more rights to intervene in abortion within their states.

2. In 1992, the Supreme Court held that the entire trimester framework created under Roe had no legislative/constitutional background and was wrongly decided. However, they wanted to uphold abortion for fear of the impact it would have. So they threw out virtually all of Roe and tossed every regulation into the dumpster. They created a new standard, viability, and gave states more rights to intervene pre-viability.

Thus, Roe was dismissed in 1992. The right to an abortion was continued, but for different reasons and with different standards. We had been living under PP v Casey for decades now. There was no longer a trimester framework, and the strict scrutiny standard was dropped.

The outcome was similar in that abortion access was continued, but for completely different reasons and with completely different regulations and processes. It was a compromise decision that was left on murky legal standing due to the poor decision of Roe.

You should educate yourself on abortion rights and the history before introducing the arguments in unrelated threads. Congress never passed an abortion law. Also, Roberts authored the Dobbs majority decision, not Thomas; perhaps some bias is showing. I'd suggest heading over to appropriate threads to learn more.

 

I am not being disingenuous.

Tracing the conversation back to 633 and LangleyMan at 647, and me at 652 and then on, I am trying to get you to realize, if you’re arguing for trans women to use a men’s restroom and for trans men to use a women’s restroom, then you are arguing for people who look like men to be in a woman’s restroom.

In post 651, you say, that’s one hell of a beard on a biological woman. Maybe you didn’t realize Langley’s point. He says, “I don’t think most women would feel comfortable with this person in their bathroom.” Were you second guessing what a trans man looks like?

You’re not addressing the consequences of saying a f2m trans should be in a women’s restroom. F2m trans don’t look like women. Yeah, they have beards, flat chests, muscle construction like bio men, Some of them even have medically constructed penis, but if they’re born female they should go to the women’s room? Is that what you’re arguing for?

 

Roe built on earlier cases in which the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy protected an individual’s rights to reproductive autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court struck down a ban on the use or sale of contraceptives to married couples because it violated the constitutional right to privacy. In another case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court extended this fundamental right to contraception to unmarried people. Eisenstadt elaborated on the right to privacy as “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id. at 488. Protecting access to abortion effectuates vital constitutional values, including dignity, autonomy, equality, and bodily integrity.

[A piece from https://www.reproductiverights.org/...ion-for-the-Right-to-Abortion-Fact-Sheet2.pdf]

There is a significant history of the SC recognizing reproductive rights and privacy.

Denying these rights is not an acceptable direction on these grounds. Beyond that, we KNOW from existing law that the lives and healthcare of women are routinely put at risk by the laws that result from government interference in the healthcare decisions of women.

The right wing calls out for "freedom".

THEN, they write laws against women simply having access to healthcare, and FULLY ignoring the rights of privacy and bodily autonomy.

 

No, ALITO wrote the majority opinion.

And, I named Thomas, because I was referring to Thomas - who wrote a concurring opinion.

This ruling denying abortion rights was a travesty brought on by a partisan political court interested in remaking our society - not just in terms of abortion, but throughout issues of reproductive rights as has been noted by Thomas.

 

Abortion "rights" is one of those issues where people support the result, and they make excuses for the process. Even if you actually believe that the Constitution mentions abortion, there is no rational basis for the creation of a trimester system by the Court. None. If the Court believed the Bill of Rights supports abortion, they would have made that ruling and allowed Congress to create the law. But, they were unwilling to do so and decided to make the law on their own. It is an incredible example of judicial overreach. People who are surprised it was eventually overturned don't understand how our government is supposed to work.

 

Lots of new info is bs

 

You can't support rights to privacy and reproductive autonomy (as the SC has done as noted above) and then write laws against personal bodily autonomy.

Plus the laws as written are an assault on women's healthcare. They ARE doing actual damage to women. This is not in question.