No, meeting the desires of citizens is not an important government interest for the meaning of the test.
Anyone who wants to use a bathroom and is denied access on account of their sex.
Interesting article, apparently the laws for Title IX funding passed by a GOP congress explicitly protect gender identity, there’s no ‘reading it into the law’. The Media Is Lying About Why North Carolina Is Being Sued
Heh–I just came here to post that exact article. So I’ll post some quotes instead:
And from a 2015 guide to receiving Title IX funding, issued by the DOE:
This seems slam-dunky to me.
Yes, I think it’s interesting that some of the earlier discussion in this thread was whether gender identity was protected based on judicial opinions, but it doesn’t look like it’s a matter of whether precedent for including gender identity as a protected class exists or not. You don’t need judicial precedent saying ‘this applies to X’ when the statute itself explicitly says that it applies to X in the first place.
I addressed this in the other thread in which you posted this.
Worse, he was trying to use hypotheticals to show how confusing SSM would be instead of actually looking at real cases that showed how courts dealt with the exact issues of his hypotheticals.
It would be like me going into a thread and saying “But what if someone married outside of their race? WHAT THEN!!!”
But I didn’t realize during those previous exchanges that UltraVires is jtgain. Lightbulb moment.
Woah. Thanks for that–I didn’t realize either.
I would have just bypassed your post, but since you put it into two threads I’ll address it. You declared your interpretation of the terms in the statutes, but I don’t agree with your interpretation and it’s not backed by anything other than ‘you think so’, so I don’t cnsider the point ‘addressed’. You’re one of the people who clearly have a severe bias on this topic, that I’ve spent time arguing with before then decided it wasn’t worth the time, so I’m not going to go back and forth on this with you.
And many of those women don’t even look very masculine. This disturbs me enough that I’m not going to NC for any reason. This law should be struck down on the grounds it causes civil unrest and endangers a significant proportion of the population. These things never happened before the law was passed.
Why hasn’t anyone challenged the oh-so-obviously discriminatory law that only persons believed to be men have to sign up for the draft?
And why can’t people petition to have their sex legally changed? I can have my name legally changed from what is on my birth certificate, something that presumably my parents put much thought into. Why can’t I have my sex changed, something that presumably was registered after a casual glance at external baby genitalia by a doctor? They don’t perform chromosomal tests or check the internal organs before they fill out the birth certificate; it’s an entirely subjective opinion of one person based on highly limited information.
Still, they seem to do a quite reliable job – they get over 99% correct.
It is rare, but it happens often enough there should be a legal way to fix what is on your birth certificate re: sex.
Largely because there hasn’t been a draft since 1973, so no one has any particular reason to push to get the law changed. It’s basically just a minor paperwork hassle, that would get multiple challenges immediately if they tried to make a draft today. There’s already a bill moving through congress to require women to register for selective service, so it really makes no sense for someone to hire lawyers for it.
Your quotes show why it’s not a universal slam dunk. Those protections are only for institutions receiving funding under the acts in question. UNC, for example, has to offer protection according to Title IX. A private business, like a coffee shop near campus, doesn’t.
In the realm of unintended consequences for the bill’s proponents, they seem to have created a situation where the only way to comply with both current state law and federal law is to not accept federal funds under acts that include gender identity protections. Ooops. I wonder how much federal funding that would cost the state.
I sufficed with a link earlier, but since you’ve now falsely asserted that my position was not based on anything other than ‘you think so’, I’ll repost it here.
The fact alone that the DOJ didn’t make that claim in their letter should be enough to give pause, to anyone who actually read the DOJ letter. But if anyone bothered to look up the text of the “gender identity” definition cited in the law they would see the same. The article quotes from the law and gives it as “gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code)”.
Now you can look that up (here, for example) and it says "(4) the term “gender identity” means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics". So it’s very clearly not referring to how a person self-identifies, which is the claim the DOJ is putting forth. (The apparent purpose of that clause was to protect someone who was discriminated against based on the perception that they were a woman even though they were not.) More importantly, to the extent that a state can define a person based on their birth certificate (which is not addressed in the statute) then such a person being forced to use the bathroom which aligns with that status is not subject to “discrimination” any more than someone else with the same birth certificate.