US Supreme Court refuses to hear school’s transgender toilet case

[ShagMeRiggins]

I saw this mentioned on the Wi Spa threat part 2 and rather than derail thought I’d start a new thread.

Links in next post.

Link to Washington Post article:

[[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-transgender-bathroom-gavin-grimm/2021/06/28/e51b47e6-d815-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html]

Link to a brief explanation of how/why Supreme Court decides to take cases:

judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

Link to an explanation of the 14th amendment to the constitution, which factors in the original judgment:

constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv

Two things strike me.

First, from the article in the post, it cites a case upon which the appeals court judgment was made but that case specifically stated the 14th amendment basis was for work and excluded the decision from addressing toilets, locker rooms, etc. This appears to have been ignored.

Second, with all the hoo ha about Trump loading the court with Republicans, you’d think the court would have rolled out the red carpet for this case on a wave of conservative glory, but they haven’t. This reassures me because it indicates that—regardless of assumed political leanings—I believe the justices take law and precedent exceptionally seriously and act accordingly.

The judge referred to concerns about having the opposite sex use sex-based spaces as “ fantastical fears and unfounded prejudices”.

@peadarm

The judge referred to concerns about having the opposite sex use sex-based spaces as “ fantastical fears and unfounded prejudices”.

Tell that to the women and little girls in the Wii Spa.

I also found it interesting that the school offered a private loo (the school nurse’s) as an alternative but that was deemed unsuitable.

I can understand how it might make someone feel “othered” if a person believes they belong in a certain place and have to budge over, but I don’t really accept that going to a private loo had a significant impact to learning, which was stated (I paraphrase). I’d be curious what proof was offered for that assertion.

The damage this female has done to other females by pursuing this case will be seen for years to come. It’s not females being allowed access to male spaces that’s the problem. This ruling sets a precedent that males can access female spaces. Did this person ever once stop to think that it was about more than them?

Considering how much has been written about the Supreme Court having been turned far right, and how gender critical views come from the far right, it is surprising that a court that apparently leans strongly to the conservative side these days would be minded to support gender identity over sex.

@nauticant

Considering how much has been written about the Supreme Court having been turned far right, and how gender critical views come from the far right, it is surprising that a court that apparently leans strongly to the conservative side these days would be minded to support gender identity over sex.

Is it though? Much of gender ideology is very conservative. Pink for girls/Blue for boys. If you're a girl who fancies another girl you must really be a boy etc... There's a reason it's popular in Iran.

I heard somewhere that one of the judges on the Supreme Court was extremely risk averse, favoured unanimous decisions and therefore was reluctant to apply anything but the most narrow considerations.

Would that apply here? Sorry, I cannot read the link.

I was just being a little naughty OvaHere and showing how the prevailing trans activist narratives don't fit together for this case.

@nauticant

I was just being a little naughty OvaHere and showing how the prevailing trans activist narratives don't fit together for this case.

Sorry that went over my head

Ova your head, as it were?

@NotBadConsidering

The damage this female has done to other females by pursuing this case will be seen for years to come. It’s not females being allowed access to male spaces that’s the problem. This ruling sets a precedent that males can access female spaces. Did this person ever once stop to think that it was about more than them?

They never think about anyone other than themselves. They are narcissists to a man (and woman).

In this case, the female was putting herself at risk by wanting to use a male toilet. In preventing her from doing so, the school was protecting her. Except she's clearly too dim to see it.