Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) NewsFlash SCOTUS rules 6-3 that workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Gender, Supreme Court, Transgender, sexual orientation, Donald Zarda, LGBT  
•       •       •

6618 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

728 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-15 12:32:00 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]

Depends on their gametes


So you will require them to use the men's bathroom?  Because every one of those people is male.  Ok, they have breasts, vaginas and the like, but they're XY

Feel free to inform them of that.  I'm sure you'll be very popular.
 
2020-06-15 12:33:18 PM  

trappedspirit: At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.


Let's see, only a subset of people are ok to fark men/women? How do you select that subset? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
2020-06-15 12:33:51 PM  
Cheers to good news for once!
 
2020-06-15 12:34:38 PM  

Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?


No, the protections apply for all. You simply cannot be discriminated on the basis of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation.

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
2020-06-15 12:35:07 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch

Which wasn't relevant to the post at all.  The conversation was about sexual classification of individuals with varying morphology.  What they can produce through sexual reproduction is separate issue.  If I were to suddenly stop producing sperm, I wouldn't cease to be a straight man.  It wouldn't change my sex, my gender, nor my sexuality.  Nor would finding out I was actually XX.

But if you're switching topics, as of 2010, there have been at least 11 cases of child-producing fertility in true hermaphroditic humans cited in scientific literature.  So yeah, two sperm producing people can product a human.  And have.

Objective reality IS a biatch.


He's relying on children's literature from the 70's for his position on intersexed people.  I don't think scientific journals on reproductive biology are his speed.
 
2020-06-15 12:35:09 PM  

HumanSVD: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

No, the law created by Congress didn't mention them and that it should have clearly in the first place. It's up to Congress to make amendments and vote on them in addition to laws.


As Gorsuch says, the law did already cover them, because it says not to discriminate on the basis of sex. The plain text of the law makes it illegal to discriminate on these matters.

Your judicial activism is trying to claim that it didn't. Thankfully, 6 of the justices saw through that.
 
2020-06-15 12:36:27 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

*RED BUZZER NOISE*

Incorrect.  And incredibly ignorant of the basics of biological science.

Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate


No.  Because XX can result in a person who physically develops as male, and fathers children.  XY can produce a person who physically develops as a female, and can mother children.  You're basing your views on the statistically dominant ideas taught to you in 4th grade, and your knowledge stops there.  There's something fascinating that in today's world - where one has access to entire libraries of information on human biology, anatomy, physiology, and organic chemistry - there are still people that can be this wrong.

Gender and sex are separate.  And BOTH are demonstrably not binary.  Among a sizable portion of the population, there is a significant disconnect between the bits between their legs, the chromosomes they carry, and the juices flowing in their bodies, and their ability to contribute to reproduction.  There are many people with a penis who have XX chromosomes, or XY with a vagina.  There are some that have both.  There are some with XXY (Klinfelters and non-Klinefelters), XYY, XXXY, XXYY, XO, and other combinations as well.  And they have varying levels of fertility.

Many have completely disparate sexual or genital development from their general physical appearance, looking completely one sex, but their genitals identify them as oppositely - and they can participate in having children.  Then you have to add in issues like Turner's syndrome, the wide varieties of hermaphroditism - which have about 5 variations in humans with dozens of defined subtypes with different physical consequences - and fertility.  Then we move to developmental abnormalities that create different hormonal profiles that are as different from typically male and female as those are from each other.

We can then move onto non-hormonal developmental disorders that alter genitalia, gender expression, and physical development.  More of those than can be reasonably listed here.  After all of this, we can begin to talk about what gender you feel you are, and how you think of yourself.  And this is just about how one views themselves.  We haven't even begun talking about how you relate to others - sex drives, what you're attracted to, etc.  That's an entirely new layer of extra complication.

It's incredibly easy to make it a binary classification when you're part of the majority where things "line up" between sex and gender and the statistical populations.  But you're closed-minded and uneducated if you think that's how it is for everyone.  You see what you see on a clothed person, but have no clue about what's going on between their legs or in their bodies.
 
2020-06-15 12:36:51 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.


which ones?
 
2020-06-15 12:36:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

"Plenty", like there are "plenty" of climatologist that think man affecting climate change is a myth.  It's easy to find quacks that support your pet zoological theories.  The overwhelming number of biologists and psychologists would laugh at what you wrote.  Especially your incredibly simplistic (and quite wrong) assertion about the history of sexual reproduction.

Behavioral biology would categorize what you wrote in the same place physicists put geocentrism and steady state cosmology.  You're crowing two hundred year old social theory that got destroyed by evidence before any of us were born.

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Depends on their gametes

What's amusing is that you'd start stammering the first time you were presented a population of people with XY chromosomes that physically would be identified as female in every way.  Or vice versa.  There's not a single unified relationship between chromosomes, sex organs, physical morphology, and gender psychology.  What you see in the world around you is what people socially present.  What you don't know is how that relates to the genes they carry, the hormones in their system, their mental construct, nor the dangly bits between their legs.

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.

Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch

What does that have to do with intersex people


That right there tells me you dont understand bio
 
2020-06-15 12:36:59 PM  
HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?
 
2020-06-15 12:39:25 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.


So are you
 
2020-06-15 12:41:19 PM  

jake_lex: CrazyCurt: Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.

I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.


10 is too much.

Appointed people need to be recycled as often as people are elected.
 
2020-06-15 12:42:37 PM  

Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?


https://www.sss.gov/register/
 
2020-06-15 12:42:45 PM  
and why the fark don't any articles list exactly who voted for and against it. That's why you write a farkING ARTICLE you assholes, so people don't have to do other research
 
2020-06-15 12:42:58 PM  
Will Lindsey Grahm cite this decision when a majority of his bosses vote to fire his ass in November?
 
2020-06-15 12:43:06 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you


You're skipping several posts where I explain exactly how you're factually incorrect, and you're just arguing by assertion saying "no, you".
 
2020-06-15 12:43:11 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


Oh they're losing their farking minds right now. XD

Conservatives not thinking their cunning plans all the way through.  Also: water wet, sky blue.
 
2020-06-15 12:44:10 PM  

HumanSVD: Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?

No, the protections apply for all. You simply cannot be discriminated on the basis of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation.

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against. But I wouldn't hold my breath.


Show us the case where a straight white cis male is being discriminated against and not defended?
 
2020-06-15 12:44:11 PM  

HumanSVD: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

No, the law created by Congress didn't mention them and that it should have clearly in the first place. It's up to Congress to make amendments and vote on them in addition to laws.


So, basically the same argument as the gun grabber who insists that the Second Amendment should only protect single shot muzzle loading weapons, as that's all that existed when it was written.
 
2020-06-15 12:45:06 PM  

This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/


I'm also not American.
 
2020-06-15 12:48:12 PM  

This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/


No they take gay cis men too
 
2020-06-15 12:48:27 PM  

HumanSVD: Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?

No, the protections apply for all. You simply cannot be discriminated on the basis of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation.

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against. But I wouldn't hold my breath.


you poor dear.
 
2020-06-15 12:50:45 PM  

Christian Bale: This is wayyyyyyyyyy more important than gays in the military or gay marriage. But for some reason those got all the push and publicity.


Considering all the legal ramifications of marriage, I am going to call that out as BS. From financial (pensions, medical insurance, taxes, inheritance) to personal (medical decisions), to legal (spousal privilege) the implications of marriage are massive.

Yeah, a lot of these can be contractually obtained (a medical power of attorney, for example) but many can't (if your employer doesn't want to cover your "partner" because they aren't a "spouse" you can't force them to and there is no way to obtain spousal privilege without a spouse) that can be quite expensive and they are individually far easier to contest than a marriage.
 
2020-06-15 12:51:33 PM  

NotThatGuyAgain: Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)

Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.


Anyone else really hoping the denouement to this story was "and then I kicked him in the crotch"?

You know... Matt Gaetz style.
 
2020-06-15 12:52:24 PM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:54:10 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Can't we just pay some gay guy to do it? I'd bet Kavanaugh would be down after a few Schlitz's
 
2020-06-15 12:56:05 PM  

Murkanen: This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/

I'm also not American.


"Passing" isn't just for Black people
 
2020-06-15 12:56:52 PM  

This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/


There have been plenty of people that challenge that, but since it has effectively no impact in modern society otehr than a need to file some paperwork it isn't exactly a priority.

Also it is currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation​al​_Coalition_for_Men_v._Selective_Servic​e_System)
 
2020-06-15 12:57:37 PM  

madgonad: Thomas speaks extremely infrequently (but more often in recent years)


He doesn't have Scalia pulling his strings anymore. He took on the role of Senior Gigantic Asshole in the wake of that death.
 
2020-06-15 12:57:47 PM  

dywed88: Christian Bale: This is wayyyyyyyyyy more important than gays in the military or gay marriage. But for some reason those got all the push and publicity.

Considering all the legal ramifications of marriage, I am going to call that out as BS. From financial (pensions, medical insurance, taxes, inheritance) to personal (medical decisions), to legal (spousal privilege) the implications of marriage are massive.

Yeah, a lot of these can be contractually obtained (a medical power of attorney, for example) but many can't (if your employer doesn't want to cover your "partner" because they aren't a "spouse" you can't force them to and there is no way to obtain spousal privilege without a spouse) that can be quite expensive and they are individually far easier to contest than a marriage.


Also, how many gay people wanted to be married and couldn't?  Millions?

How many have been fired over the last decade in states that didn't already have them as a protected class?  Dozens?
 
2020-06-15 12:58:37 PM  

Murkanen: This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/

I'm also not American.


We draft people who aren't Americans yet.
 
2020-06-15 1:00:14 PM  
33.3% repeating thinks that's o-farking-kay?
 
2020-06-15 1:01:12 PM  

BKITU: madgonad: Thomas speaks extremely infrequently (but more often in recent years)

He doesn't have Scalia pulling his strings anymore. He took on the role of Senior Gigantic Asshole in the wake of that death.


He is truly what a disassociated asshole looks like
 
2020-06-15 1:03:28 PM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: espiaboricua: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Please elaborate.

it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference. See Kavanagh's magisterial dissent.

LesterB: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.

What if the account is honest, but reality is a sad satire? <galaxy brain>

flondrix: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.

More's the pity. If Trump had handled Covid-19 better, this 'social justice' nonsense would never have taken root, and he'd be romping to a win. As it is he's a coin toss. Although in a better world, he'd be down in the polls against "Iron" mike Bloomberg...

spongeboob: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

You could always pray for their swift deaths

That seems unreasonable. They could just resign, take Kagan, Ginsburg, and Solomeyer with them, so Trump/Pence/McConnell can appoint their replacements with true, constitutional jurisprudence.


This guy spent two months posing as a centrist democrat who wanted Bloomberg to win the primary as the best chance of defeating Trump.

Imagine being this guy.  Being so incredibly stupid as to not even make another account to play his edgelord games after the first one flamed out.  Being so empty that somehow this is how you decided to spend your spare time.  Waking up, logging onto the vastness of the internet and using those incredible resources to do... this.
 
2020-06-15 1:08:18 PM  

This text is now purple: flondrix: This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.

Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"

I'll throw out a counter-hypothetical.

If sex and gender are the same, then under Title IX, gay women must compete against men, and vice-versa.

Figure skating will never be the same.


So, when you were born, did they take out your nuance during circumcision?
 
2020-06-15 1:10:30 PM  

radiosteele: Supreme Court Wrecking Ball - June 15th

Takedown #1 - Sanctuary City Appeal DENIED

Takedown #2 - Current TFA

Takedown #3 - Blue Lives Don't Matter As Much

Takedown #4 - We're Gonna Get The Guns

Takedown #5 - Let's Keep Helping Puerto Rico

Jesus, Donald is getting his ass handed to him today.....


I'm not sure #3 hurts Donald. It's about qualified immunity, and we want that changed, so a denial of cert is status quo.

Also, #4 is only 1 of 10 cases they're considering. Don't start sucking each others' dicks yet.
 
2020-06-15 1:11:45 PM  

Chevello: vygramul: Chevello: vygramul: Chevello: So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.

Well, look at Andrus v. Texas before you rush to that conclusion.

I said "complete." There are many different levels of asshole available to the other 6.

Well, by that reasoning, Kavanaugh siding with Roberts and the Liberals in the death penalty case means he's not complete.

Only a complete one would vote that it's OK to fire someone because their gender option is not one of two choices. They may vote sensibly on other things, but still, the completeness is complete.


Granted.
 
2020-06-15 1:12:29 PM  
I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."
 
2020-06-15 1:13:42 PM  

pueblonative: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.

But if you want some chuckles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-ne​ws/3855734/posts


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww, the little brats at Free Republic are pissed because their opinion of the LGBTQ+ community has been sent to the gallows.

Fark that lot.
 
2020-06-15 1:14:42 PM  

likefunbutnot: NeoCortex42: They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend

I mean, that's a legitimate view, but that also fundamentally calls to question the role of the Supreme Court. Their whole job is to decide the implications of laws as written. If he feels that way about things like Brown v. Board of Education or Obergefell v. Hodges, cases where law was transformed overnight because of the opinion of learned justices, what is it he thinks the justices are supposed to be doing?


Here's the way I'm looking at it, from what I've read so far:
The majority chose to turn Title VII a little on its side and look from a new point of view.  If, for example, an employer fires a man for having sex with a man but wouldn't fire a woman for having sex with a man, then the employer is discriminating against the male employee based on his sex.

The dissents refuse to contemplate that interpretation of the law as written, that congress intended to restrict employment discrimination based on whether you are a man or a woman and sexual orientation is distinct from that intent. Alito says it matter-of-factly, Kavanaugh goes a step further and says "it should be this way and Congress should amend the statute to include sexual orientation as a protected class, but it's not and they haven't."

As far as comparing it to Brown or Obergefell, those were constitutional issues dealing with how government has to deal with citizens. This case dealt with interpreting legislation that dealt with how private employers deal with employees, and how protected classes are defined. Two different animals.

My personal beliefs hold that this is the right decision, but strict "role of the court" types are gonna do what they're gonna do.

And I could be way off on all of this, I'm just a small-city firehouse lawyer.
 
2020-06-15 1:15:16 PM  

flondrix: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

If sex is binary, fungi must have allocated at least 15 bits to the definition:
Why This Fungus Has Over 20,000 Sexes

Granted, animals don't get quite as weird as fungi...
[Fark user image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]

[Fark user image 660x926][Fark user image 660x926]
She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.


One of those examples makes "Finding Nemo" really... um...
Well, just do not think about it too long.
 
2020-06-15 1:15:39 PM  

vygramul: radiosteele: Supreme Court Wrecking Ball - June 15th

Takedown #1 - Sanctuary City Appeal DENIED

Takedown #2 - Current TFA

Takedown #3 - Blue Lives Don't Matter As Much

Takedown #4 - We're Gonna Get The Guns

Takedown #5 - Let's Keep Helping Puerto Rico

Jesus, Donald is getting his ass handed to him today.....

I'm not sure #3 hurts Donald. It's about qualified immunity, and we want that changed, so a denial of cert is status quo.

Also, #4 is only 1 of 10 cases they're considering. Don't start sucking each others' dicks yet.


My guess is the LGT decision was in exchange for kicking the guns down the road

#3 is a punt too they may want things to calm down some so they don't look like administering cop-style jusice
 
2020-06-15 1:16:09 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch

Which wasn't relevant to the post at all.  The conversation was about sexual classification of individuals with varying morphology.  What they can produce through sexual reproduction is separate issue.  If I were to suddenly stop producing sperm, I wouldn't cease to be a straight man.  It wouldn't change my sex, my gender, nor my sexuality.  Nor would finding out I was actually XX.

But if you're switching topics, as of 2010, there have been at least 11 cases of child-producing fertility in true hermaphroditic humans cited in scientific literature.  So yeah, two sperm producing people can product a human.  And have.

Objective reality IS a biatch.


Especially to MAGAts that claim to know everything but have shut out the resources to know everything because knowing everything destroys the bullshiat little world they inhabit.
 
2020-06-15 1:18:04 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 1:20:23 PM  

Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


Kavanaugh?? Really.  Well, not *totally* unexpected, I suppose.  And Gorsuch went WITH the liberal wing????

That's it.  Time to crack open your neighbor's skull and feast on the goo inside.
 
2020-06-15 1:20:56 PM  

Murkanen: This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/

I'm also not American.


Claim your backyard has oil.  We will come along, freedomize it for you, and claim it.

Oh, and absorb you if you want to do the paperwork.

But do not forget the oil.  Oiiiilllll....
 
2020-06-15 1:23:39 PM  
So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?
 
2020-06-15 1:24:19 PM  

DarnoKonrad: tyyreaunn: He technically isn't wrong -

No he is technically wrong for fark's sake.  Can you create different rules for the sexes when it comes to employment?  The answer is farking NO.  Which means you can't fire women for farking a woman unless you're also firing men for farking women.  That's what *technically* means.


The logic is clear and concise.


Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to explain to anyone here that the CRA's original interpretation didn't include LGBT rights, as interpreted by the courts and the public at large.

But, if you're convinced your interpretation is correct, then explain this: the CRA passed in 1964.  If it always included LGBT rights, then how come it took 50 years for lawsuits claiming violations of the CRA due to LGBT issues to start winning in courts?
 
2020-06-15 1:24:29 PM  

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Basically they want to claim this decision is illegitimate because it somehow adds to Title VII when it doesn't
 
2020-06-15 1:25:15 PM  

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Prop up their own worldview in their heads, and if they can muddy the waters for people who either haven't made up their mind or don't know the biological science, even better for them.
 
Displayed 50 of 728 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.