Shiftless2
Well-known member
If you disagree with those statements instead of stating your unsupported opinions please provide evidence in the form of peer reviewed articles in legitimate medical and scientific journals.
What to call this thread?
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Shiftless2
Well-known member
“Rady Children’s Health has chosen to violate its merger agreement and California law in response to the Trump Administration’s illegal campaign against providers of gender-affirming care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Rady flagrantly disregarded its legal obligations by unilaterally deciding to preemptively comply with the Administration’s demands and cease medically necessary care for roughly 1,450 patients. We will not allow Rady to violate its obligations to its patients and the State. We will fight to uphold the law and ensure Californians can access gender-affirming care without facing unfair roadblocks.”
I use my own personal experience, and found obvious fault with the proposed argument.
Neither of those would at all be aided by "peer reviewed articles in legitimate medical and scientific journals".
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So you admit it's just your uneducated opinion - claims pulled out of your nether regions - nothing backed by facts, science medicine, or anything meaningful.
Oh come on, there is no academic agreement, and personal experience is the most definitive when it comes to something like this.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So you're saying you pulled your claims out of your nether regions and are unable to support them. Glad you admit it.
Seems to me you each recognize these distinctions among male / female / other / non include more than one criterion.
It's not only genital configuration.
It's not only XX or XY.
etc.
The appeal of simple, clear distinctions is obvious. It facilitates local pub distinctions such as an illustration of trousers vs a skirt on the facility door.
By page #68 of this thread what seems clear,
out of a human population of over 8 Billion, it's more complicated than convenient binary distinction.
It's not only genital configuration.
It's not only XX or XY.
etc.
The appeal of simple, clear distinctions is obvious. It facilitates local pub distinctions such as an illustration of trousers vs a skirt on the facility door.
By page #68 of this thread what seems clear,
out of a human population of over 8 Billion, it's more complicated than convenient binary distinction.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Promise?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Court rules against anti-trans Christian teacher who demanded right to misgender students
An appeals court ruled that Kimberly Polk's religious beliefs didn't give her license to ignore district policy or harm trans kids
In 2020, Kimberly Ann Polk applied to become a substitute teacher in the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. She was hired in 2021 with the understanding that she could be called to fill in anywhere in the district, and there were no complaints about her performance that first year. She did the job and planned to keep doing it.
When the 2022-2023 school year began, she had to complete some basic training modules online, including one that reminded subs of the school board’s policies. One of them concerned transgender students: The board policy made clear that all teachers should respect students’ gender identities, use their preferred names and pronouns, and keep that information confidential like they would any medical issues.
Polk refused to e-sign the paperwork that said she accepted the policy. She cited her “sincerely held religious beliefs… based on .....
Court rules against anti-trans Christian teacher who demanded right to misgender students
An appeals court ruled that Kimberly Polk's religious beliefs didn't give her license to ignore district policy or harm trans kids
www.friendlyatheist.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
More on #1,349
A Win for Trans Students — and for Safer, More Inclusive Schools
In some really good news, a federal appeals court has ruled that a public school policy requiring teachers to use students’ chosen names and pronouns does not violate the First Amendment.
The case came from Maryland, where a substitute teacher sued after being told she was required to respect students’ pronouns as part of her job. She argued that doing so conflicted with her religious beliefs. But the court ruled that the policy is neutral, applies to all teachers equally, and is a legitimate part of professional responsibilities in a public school.
In other words: respecting students’ identities is not a violation of free speech or religious freedom.
This matters so much because trans and gender-expansive kids, being called by the right name and pronouns isn’t a political issue — it’s about dignity, safety, and mental well-being. Schools are one of the most important places where young people should feel seen and protected, not debated or erased.
At a time when trans students are being targeted by so much harmful legislation and rhetoric, this ruling is an important reminder that:
• Inclusion is not radical.
• Affirmation is not unconstitutional.
• And protecting trans kids is not only compassionate — it’s supported by the law.
A Win for Trans Students — and for Safer, More Inclusive Schools
In some really good news, a federal appeals court has ruled that a public school policy requiring teachers to use students’ chosen names and pronouns does not violate the First Amendment.
The case came from Maryland, where a substitute teacher sued after being told she was required to respect students’ pronouns as part of her job. She argued that doing so conflicted with her religious beliefs. But the court ruled that the policy is neutral, applies to all teachers equally, and is a legitimate part of professional responsibilities in a public school.
In other words: respecting students’ identities is not a violation of free speech or religious freedom.
This matters so much because trans and gender-expansive kids, being called by the right name and pronouns isn’t a political issue — it’s about dignity, safety, and mental well-being. Schools are one of the most important places where young people should feel seen and protected, not debated or erased.
At a time when trans students are being targeted by so much harmful legislation and rhetoric, this ruling is an important reminder that:
• Inclusion is not radical.
• Affirmation is not unconstitutional.
• And protecting trans kids is not only compassionate — it’s supported by the law.