Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Catholic sisters in New York sue state over ‘preferred pronouns’ mandate

85 replies

IwantToRetire · 10/04/2026 19:53

The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne have filed a lawsuit against the State of New York, claiming that new gender identity requirements for nursing homes violate their constitutional rights and would force them to act against their Catholic faith.

In a statement, Mother Marie Edward, the congregation’s superior general, said: “We Sisters have taken care of patients from all walks of life, ideologies and faiths. We treat each patient with dignity and Christian charity. We have never had complaints. We cannot implement New York’s mandate without violating our Catholic faith.”

The lawsuit argues that the law compels the sisters to “act against central, unchangeable and architectural teachings of the Catholic faith”. It adds, “The implications are so much greater than whether to utter the words ‘he’ or ‘she’. Indeed, to demand that a Catholic deny another’s sex is to require him or her to affirm another religious worldview.”

The sisters also argue that the law is applied unevenly. The complaint notes that facilities operated by the Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Scientist are exempt, as the statute does not apply to those “whose teachings include reliance on spiritual means through prayer alone for healing”. This, the sisters contend, amounts to unconstitutional discrimination between religious groups.

Full article at https://thecatholicherald.com/article/new-york-sisters-sue-state-over-preferred-pronouns-mandate (behind paywall and not on archive.ph)

New York sisters sue state over ‘preferred pronouns’ mandate

Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne sue New York State, arguing ‘preferred pronouns’ rules force them to act against their Catholic faith

https://thecatholicherald.com/article/new-york-sisters-sue-state-over-preferred-pronouns-mandate

OP posts:
LilyYeCarveSuns · 12/04/2026 08:42

@IwantToRetire "The arrogance of thinking a care giver has no rights and should not only provide services but negate their own sense of their self."
It's really interesting to track where trans rights activism shows up. By which I mean, which fights trans activists chose to engage in.
I've only ever done a 2 week placement in a nursing home but I remember there was a male resident there who needed full care, a hoist to lift him from bed to shower chair to wheelchair. He was verbally abusive to carers, including really vile sexually explicit stuff. He was discussed every single handover, the balance between providing him with the safe, effective care he was entitled to vs the 100% legit expectation of a carer that she not be exposed to sexual harassment in her workplace. IMO they managed the balance pretty well, but who knows in the longer term how much burnout he caused or how neglected he ended up.
It's just notable to me that a setting that was already site of tension, around women's boundaries and dignity, is place where the trans activists have showed up.

GenderlessVoid · 12/04/2026 10:34

Here's the complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York (so federal court, not NY state court)

https://catholicbenefitsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/01-2026-04-06-Verified-Complaint-and-Exhibits-A-C.pdf

According to the complaint

"The statute enumerates a list of eight actions constituting unlawful discrimination. It is discrimination for an LTCF [long term care facility] or its staff to:
a. “deny admission to a long-term care facility, transfer or refuse to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharge or evict a resident from a facility”;
b. “deny a request by residents to share a room”;
c. “where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity, unless at the transgender resident’s request”;
d. “prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident has taken or is taking hormones, has had transition-related surgery, or is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming”;
e. “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns, even if the resident is not present”;
f. “deny a resident the right to wear or be dressed in clothing, accessories, or cosmetics that are permitted for any other resident”;
g. “restrict a resident’s right to associate with other residents or with visitors, including the right to consensual expression of intimacy or sexual relations, unless the restriction is uniformly applied to all residents in a nondiscriminatory manner”; or
h. “deny or restrict a resident from accessing appropriate medical or nonmedical care, or provide medical or nonmedical care, that unreasonably demeans the resident’s dignity or causes avoidable discomfort.” Id.

  1. The Mandate thus prohibits Rosary Hill Home and its staff from assigning patients to rooms by biological sex, prohibits segregating restrooms by biological sex, requires the use of patients’ preferred pronouns even when the patient is not present, and requires allowing patients to cross-dress"

They're suing under 42 USC 1983, which is a law that allows individuals to seek damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees when their constitutional rights are violated.

"Across seven independent constitutional grounds, New York’s Mandate demands that the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne abandon their religious beliefs or abandon their 125-year mission of mercy to the dying poor. The Constitution permits neither. This Court should declare the Mandate unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs and permanently enjoin its enforcement against Plaintiffs."

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Declare that the Mandate violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as applied to Plaintiffs, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home, and their respective agents, employees, and clinical contractors;
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Mandate against Plaintiffs, the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home, and their respective agents, employees, and clinical contractors;
C. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law, including 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and
D. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just."

.Paragraphs 59-67 explain how the law's requirements violate their beliefs.

https://catholicbenefitsassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/01-2026-04-06-Verified-Complaint-and-Exhibits-A-C.pdf

LoudBlueSeal · 12/04/2026 10:55

Thanks, GenderlessVoid.

Wow, so the nuns have no right what so ever to assign patients beds or bathrooms according to sex (according to NY mandate). It has to be done by gender.

And there is no requirement - not hormones or lived experience - other than the word of the patient that their gender identity is 'female'. Any male could say he is a she and the nuns would be 'wrong' for not putting him in the women's ward.

How is that respectful to the women patients? As well as the nun's beliefs.

EyesOpening · 12/04/2026 14:45

CruCru · 12/04/2026 07:14

If I’ve got this right, the letters to the nuns about “potential violations” didn’t refer to this. The nuns’ lawsuit points out that under the law they are expected to accommodate patients’ desire for extramarital relations. I hope very much that this is a theoretical point - I’ve had both parents be extremely unwell (my father died, my mother is now recovered). I can’t imagine cancer patients in a hospice wanting to sleep with each other.

TBF is does say “unless such conduct is uniformly restricted.” which I’m assuming it is.

RhannionKPSS · 12/04/2026 17:53

Mischance · 11/04/2026 16:40

Firstly that is an unfounded non sequitor about Canada, and secondly there is no evidence that their policies are related or not related to religion or it's absence.
Just wild unsubstantiated statements.

The presence of religion in places like Iran is far more damaging and there is evidence for this; and the christian leader of the USA can hardly be held up as an example of the benefits of religion. The presence of fundamentalist christianity in the US is far more damaging than anything Canada has been able to come up with.

Canada is a bin fire and it’s almost beyond repair

OP posts:
MissConductUS · 13/04/2026 00:48

IwantToRetire · 12/04/2026 22:41

Not sure if this is good or bad for the Sisters - the Daily Mail is now reporting on the situation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15726639/catholic-nuns-dying-patients-new-york-gender-jailed.html

I think it won't make any difference. The issue is now in the Federal court system. Awareness of the issue in the UK might garner them some moral, or possibly financial, support, but the suit is being paid for by the Catholic Benefits Association.

On the other hand, exposing the absurdity of the law is good thing for everyone.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 13/04/2026 01:01

Mischance · 11/04/2026 10:23

Well, whatever their or my views they should not be wasting money on law suits but should be getting on with caring for the sick or whatever their calling dictates.

That’s exactly what they’re trying to do. To care for seriously ill patients in conditions of privacy and dignity, to keep vulnerable women safe from sex predators and prevent men having intimate access to unconsenting women.

What a disgrace that even when women are dying, they’re still expected to be available for use by men.

IwantToRetire · 13/04/2026 01:53

MissConductUS · 13/04/2026 00:48

I think it won't make any difference. The issue is now in the Federal court system. Awareness of the issue in the UK might garner them some moral, or possibly financial, support, but the suit is being paid for by the Catholic Benefits Association.

On the other hand, exposing the absurdity of the law is good thing for everyone.

You are probably right in terms of the actual situation, court action etc..

I meant more that as usual in the UK only the right wing media reports on issues impinging on women's rights.

Which means probably many who would be supportive or shocked wont be aware of this type of forced "group think".

OP posts:
NotAtMyAge · 13/04/2026 18:18

Mischance · 11/04/2026 17:11

You can't get mych more anti science than religion!

Or gender identity ideology, for which there is no scientific proof whatsoever. It is a belief, not a scientific fact, and a belief I and many others don't share.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page