XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/eleventh-circuit-rejects-transgender-students-challenge-to-bathroom-policy

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Transgender Student’s Challenge to Bathroom Policy


On December 30, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit handed down a major opinion in in Adams v. School Board of St.
Johns County, Florida. The court ruled 7-4 against a statutory and constitutional challenge of a transgender student to a district policy requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological
sex. Given the countervailing decision of the Fourth Circuit in G.G. v. Gloucester County, there is now a conflict in the circuits that could
prompt a Supreme Court review. The Court expressly stated that it was
not ruling on this question in its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton
County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).


Adams brought the challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by
Chief Judge Bill Pryor and Judges Newsom, Branch, Grant, Luck, and
Brasher. Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor each wrote dissenting opinions.

The court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida. Judge Timothy Corrigan enjoined the
policy and awarded $1,000 in compensation to Adams. Corrigan’s decision
was particularly notable in his interpretation of the word “sex” under Title IX, which the Eleventh Circuit ultimately rejected (as discussed
below).

What happened next was interesting. A divided appellate panel affirmed
the district court over a dissent from Chief Judge Pryor. Adams ex rel.
Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 968 F.3d 1286, 1292 (11th Cir.
2020). The Court then explained:

“After a member of this Court withheld the mandate, the panel majority
sua sponte withdrew its initial opinion and issued a revised opinion,
again affirming the district court over a revised dissent but on grounds
that were neither substantively discussed in the initial panel opinion
nor substantively made by any party before the district court or this
Court.2 Adams ex rel. Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 3 F.4th
1299, 1303–04 (11th Cir. 2021); id. at 1321 (Pryor, C.J., dissenting).
We then granted the School Board’s petition for rehearing en banc and
vacated the panel’s revised opinion. Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of
St. Johns Cnty., 9 F.4th 1369, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021).”

Judge Lagoa begins the majority opinion by describing the dispute as
involving “the unremarkable—and nearly universal—practice of separating school bathrooms based on biological sex.” In analyzing the “straightforward” claims, Lagoa laid out the facts and holding:

“Adams, who identifies as a male, argues that the policy violates
Adams’s rights because, as a transgender student, Adams cannot use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex with which Adams identifies. Which
is to say, Adams argues that by facially discriminating between the two
sexes, the School Board’s bathroom policy also necessarily discriminates against transgender students. We disagree with Adams’s theory that
separation of bathrooms on the basis of biological sex necessarily discriminates against transgender students.”

On the Equal Protection question, the court ruled that intermediate
scrutiny applies to the case and that the district needs only show that
the policy (1) advances an important governmental objective and (2) is substantially related to that objective. Miss. Univ. for Women, 458 U.S.
at 724. The court found both criteria satisfied because the policy

“is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away
from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex
in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of
the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur.”

On the Title IX issue, the court held that the statute allows schools to provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

“That is exactly what the School Board has done in this case; it has
provided separate bathrooms for each of the biological sexes. And to accommodate transgender students, the School Board has provided
single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms, which Title IX neither requires nor prohibits. Nothing about this bathroom policy violates Title IX.
Moreover, under the Spending Clause’s clear-statement rule, the term “sex,” as used within Title IX, must unambiguously mean something other than biological sex—which it does not—in order to conclude that the
School Board violated Title IX. The district court’s contrary conclusion
is not supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “sex” and provides ample support for subsequent litigants to transform schools’
living facilities, locker rooms, showers, and sports teams into
sex-neutral areas and activities. Whether Title IX should be amended to
equate “gender identity” and “transgender status” with “sex” should be
left to Congress—not the courts.”

Judge Lagoa went further in a separate concurrence:

Affirming the district court’s order and adopting Adams’s definition of “sex” under Title IX to include “gender identity” or “transgender status” would have had repercussions far beyond the bathroom door. There simply is no limiting principle to cabin that definition of “sex” to the regulatory carve-out for bathrooms under Title IX, as opposed to the
regulatory carve-out for sports or, for that matter, to the statutory
and regulatory carve-outs for living facilities, showers, and locker
rooms. And a definition of “sex” beyond “biological sex” would not only cut against the vast weight of drafting-era dictionary definitions and
the Spending Clause’s clear-statement rule but would also force female student athletes “to compete against students who have a very
significant biological advantage, including students who have the size
and strength of a male but identify as female.” Id. at 1779–80. Such a proposition—i.e., commingling both biological sexes in the realm of
female athletics—would “threaten[] to undermine one of [Title IX’s]
major achievements, giving young women an equal opportunity to
participate in sports.” Id. at 1779.

Judge Jordan takes issue with the analysis and, while agreeing that intermediate scrutiny applies, finds a clear violation of the
Constitution, noting an inherent contradiction in the policy:

“The School Board did not allow Drew Adams, a transgender student, to
use the boys’ bathroom. As explained below, however, the School Board’s policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’
bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as
male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy
concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be
justified by administrative convenience. And when intermediate scrutiny applies, administrative convenience is an insufficient justification for
a gender-based classification.”

Judge Wilson attacked the medical claims of the district in a separate
dissent and suggests that it is based on the indeterminacy of gender at
birth:

“Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy, however,
is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at
birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In
other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption
is both medically and scientifically flawed. After considering a more scientific and medical perspective on biological sex, it is clear that
the bathroom policy’s refusal to accept updated medical documentation is discriminatory on the basis of sex.”

In her dissent, Judge Jill Pryor rejected the accommodation of a gender
neutral bathroom:

Each time teenager Andrew Adams needed to use the bathroom at his
school, Allen D. Nease High School, he was forced to endure a
stigmatizing and humiliating walk of shame—past the boys’ bathrooms and into a single-stall “gender neutral” bathroom. The experience left him feeling unworthy, like “something that needs to be put away.” The reason
he was prevented from using the boys’ bathroom like other boys? He is a transgender boy.

…

To start, the majority opinion simply declares—without any basis—that a person’s “biological sex” is comprised solely of chromosomal structure and birth-assigned sex. So, the majority opinion concludes, a person’s
gender identity has no bearing on this case about equal protection for a transgender boy. The majority opinion does so in disregard of the record evidence—evidence the majority does not contest—which demonstrates that gender identity is an immutable, biological component of a person’s sex.”

It is a fascinating set of opinions (which also includes a dissent from
Judge Rosenbaum). With the conflict with the Fourth Circuit, it would
make for an ideal basis for the Court to consider the constitutional and statutory issues by granting a petition for writ of certiorari.

The accommodation of the gender neutral bathroom makes this policy
particularly interesting for review. While some would argue that this
amounts to a gender version of “separation but equal,” the district
sought a middle position on the controversy. However, much turns on the definition of “sex” under Title IX.

Adams and others relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). That case involved employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, and Justice
Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 decision that it is impossible to
discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or
gender identity without discriminating based on sex. (Justices Thomas,
Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented).

However, the Court expressly stated that it was not ruling on this issue:

“Under Title VII, . . . we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker
rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is
whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that
individual “because of such individual’s sex.”

The Biden Administration, however, has issued a Notice of Interpretation through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that
it will enforce Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of
sex to include: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (2) discrimination based on gender identity.

Here is the opinion: Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 11:08:49 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/eleventh-circuit-rejects-transgender-students-challenge-to-bathroom-policy

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Transgender Student�s Challenge to Bathroom Policy

On December 30, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit handed down a major opinion in in Adams v. School Board of St.
Johns County, Florida. The court ruled 7-4 against a statutory and >constitutional challenge of a transgender student to a district policy >requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological
sex. Given the countervailing decision of the Fourth Circuit in G.G. v. >Gloucester County, there is now a conflict in the circuits that could
prompt a Supreme Court review. The Court expressly stated that it was
not ruling on this question in its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton >County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Adams brought the challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the >Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, � 1, and Title IX of the >Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. � 1681 et seq.

Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by
Chief Judge Bill Pryor and Judges Newsom, Branch, Grant, Luck, and
Brasher. Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor each wrote >dissenting opinions.

The court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida. Judge Timothy Corrigan enjoined the
policy and awarded $1,000 in compensation to Adams. Corrigan�s decision
was particularly notable in his interpretation of the word �sex� under
Title IX, which the Eleventh Circuit ultimately rejected (as discussed >below).

What happened next was interesting. A divided appellate panel affirmed
the district court over a dissent from Chief Judge Pryor. Adams ex rel. >Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 968 F.3d 1286, 1292 (11th Cir.
2020). The Court then explained:

�After a member of this Court withheld the mandate, the panel majority
sua sponte withdrew its initial opinion and issued a revised opinion,
again affirming the district court over a revised dissent but on grounds
that were neither substantively discussed in the initial panel opinion
nor substantively made by any party before the district court or this
Court.2 Adams ex rel. Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 3 F.4th
1299, 1303�04 (11th Cir. 2021); id. at 1321 (Pryor, C.J., dissenting).
We then granted the School Board�s petition for rehearing en banc and
vacated the panel�s revised opinion. Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of
St. Johns Cnty., 9 F.4th 1369, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021).�

Judge Lagoa begins the majority opinion by describing the dispute as >involving �the unremarkable�and nearly universal�practice of separating >school bathrooms based on biological sex.� In analyzing the
�straightforward� claims, Lagoa laid out the facts and holding:

�Adams, who identifies as a male, argues that the policy violates
Adams�s rights because, as a transgender student, Adams cannot use the >bathroom that corresponds to the sex with which Adams identifies. Which
is to say, Adams argues that by facially discriminating between the two >sexes, the School Board�s bathroom policy also necessarily discriminates >against transgender students. We disagree with Adams�s theory that
separation of bathrooms on the basis of biological sex necessarily >discriminates against transgender students.�

On the Equal Protection question, the court ruled that intermediate
scrutiny applies to the case and that the district needs only show that
the policy (1) advances an important governmental objective and (2) is >substantially related to that objective. Miss. Univ. for Women, 458 U.S.
at 724. The court found both criteria satisfied because the policy

�is clearly related to�indeed, is almost a mirror of�its objective of >protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away
from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex
in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of
the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur.�

On the Title IX issue, the court held that the statute allows schools to >provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

�That is exactly what the School Board has done in this case; it has
provided separate bathrooms for each of the biological sexes. And to >accommodate transgender students, the School Board has provided
single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms, which Title IX neither requires nor >prohibits. Nothing about this bathroom policy violates Title IX.
Moreover, under the Spending Clause�s clear-statement rule, the term
�sex,� as used within Title IX, must unambiguously mean something other
than biological sex�which it does not�in order to conclude that the
School Board violated Title IX. The district court�s contrary conclusion
is not supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word �sex� and >provides ample support for subsequent litigants to transform schools�
living facilities, locker rooms, showers, and sports teams into
sex-neutral areas and activities. Whether Title IX should be amended to >equate �gender identity� and �transgender status� with �sex� should be
left to Congress�not the courts.�

Judge Lagoa went further in a separate concurrence:

Affirming the district court�s order and adopting Adams�s definition of
�sex� under Title IX to include �gender identity� or �transgender
status� would have had repercussions far beyond the bathroom door. There >simply is no limiting principle to cabin that definition of �sex� to the >regulatory carve-out for bathrooms under Title IX, as opposed to the >regulatory carve-out for sports or, for that matter, to the statutory
and regulatory carve-outs for living facilities, showers, and locker
rooms. And a definition of �sex� beyond �biological sex� would not only
cut against the vast weight of drafting-era dictionary definitions and
the Spending Clause�s clear-statement rule but would also force female >student athletes �to compete against students who have a very
significant biological advantage, including students who have the size
and strength of a male but identify as female.� Id. at 1779�80. Such a >proposition�i.e., commingling both biological sexes in the realm of
female athletics�would �threaten[] to undermine one of [Title IX�s]
major achievements, giving young women an equal opportunity to
participate in sports.� Id. at 1779.

Judge Jordan takes issue with the analysis and, while agreeing that >intermediate scrutiny applies, finds a clear violation of the
Constitution, noting an inherent contradiction in the policy:

�The School Board did not allow Drew Adams, a transgender student, to
use the boys� bathroom. As explained below, however, the School Board�s >policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys�
bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as
male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy >concerns as Drew, the School Board�s bathroom policy can only be
justified by administrative convenience. And when intermediate scrutiny >applies, administrative convenience is an insufficient justification for
a gender-based classification.�

Judge Wilson attacked the medical claims of the district in a separate >dissent and suggests that it is based on the indeterminacy of gender at >birth:

�Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy, however,
is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at
birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In
other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended >documentation because a student�s sex does not change. This presumption
is both medically and scientifically flawed. After considering a more >scientific and medical perspective on biological sex, it is clear that
the bathroom policy�s refusal to accept updated medical documentation is >discriminatory on the basis of sex.�

In her dissent, Judge Jill Pryor rejected the accommodation of a gender >neutral bathroom:

Each time teenager Andrew Adams needed to use the bathroom at his
school, Allen D. Nease High School, he was forced to endure a
stigmatizing and humiliating walk of shame�past the boys� bathrooms and
into a single-stall �gender neutral� bathroom. The experience left him >feeling unworthy, like �something that needs to be put away.� The reason
he was prevented from using the boys� bathroom like other boys? He is a >transgender boy.

�

To start, the majority opinion simply declares�without any basis�that a >person�s �biological sex� is comprised solely of chromosomal structure
and birth-assigned sex. So, the majority opinion concludes, a person�s
gender identity has no bearing on this case about equal protection for a >transgender boy. The majority opinion does so in disregard of the record >evidence�evidence the majority does not contest�which demonstrates that >gender identity is an immutable, biological component of a person�s sex.�

It is a fascinating set of opinions (which also includes a dissent from
Judge Rosenbaum). With the conflict with the Fourth Circuit, it would
make for an ideal basis for the Court to consider the constitutional and >statutory issues by granting a petition for writ of certiorari.

The accommodation of the gender neutral bathroom makes this policy >particularly interesting for review. While some would argue that this
amounts to a gender version of �separation but equal,� the district
sought a middle position on the controversy. However, much turns on the >definition of �sex� under Title IX.

Adams and others relied upon the Supreme Court�s recent decision in
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). That case involved >employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, � 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq, and Justice
Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 decision that it is impossible to
discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or
gender identity without discriminating based on sex. (Justices Thomas,
Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented).

However, the Court expressly stated that it was not ruling on this issue:

�Under Title VII, . . . we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker
rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is
whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or >transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that
individual �because of such individual�s sex.�

The Biden Administration, however, has issued a Notice of Interpretation >through the U.S. Department of Education�s Office for Civil Rights that
it will enforce Title IX�s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of
sex to include: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (2) >discrimination based on gender identity.

Here is the opinion: Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida

You and your freak trannie friends should hold it in until you get
home. You have a double whammy; you're both a he/she and a gook. Those
are two fucked-up things to be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

Loose Cannon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 11:08:49 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/eleventh-circuit-rejects-transgender-students-challenge-to-bathroom-policy

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Transgender Student’s Challenge to Bathroom Policy


On December 30, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit handed down a major opinion in in Adams v. School Board of St.
Johns County, Florida. The court ruled 7-4 against a statutory and
constitutional challenge of a transgender student to a district policy
requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological
sex. Given the countervailing decision of the Fourth Circuit in G.G. v.
Gloucester County, there is now a conflict in the circuits that could
prompt a Supreme Court review. The Court expressly stated that it was
not ruling on this question in its 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton
County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).


Adams brought the challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, and Title IX of the
Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by
Chief Judge Bill Pryor and Judges Newsom, Branch, Grant, Luck, and
Brasher. Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor each wrote
dissenting opinions.

The court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida. Judge Timothy Corrigan enjoined the
policy and awarded $1,000 in compensation to Adams. Corrigan’s decision
was particularly notable in his interpretation of the word “sex” under >> Title IX, which the Eleventh Circuit ultimately rejected (as discussed
below).

What happened next was interesting. A divided appellate panel affirmed
the district court over a dissent from Chief Judge Pryor. Adams ex rel.
Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 968 F.3d 1286, 1292 (11th Cir.
2020). The Court then explained:

“After a member of this Court withheld the mandate, the panel majority
sua sponte withdrew its initial opinion and issued a revised opinion,
again affirming the district court over a revised dissent but on grounds
that were neither substantively discussed in the initial panel opinion
nor substantively made by any party before the district court or this
Court.2 Adams ex rel. Kesper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 3 F.4th
1299, 1303–04 (11th Cir. 2021); id. at 1321 (Pryor, C.J., dissenting).
We then granted the School Board’s petition for rehearing en banc and
vacated the panel’s revised opinion. Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of >> St. Johns Cnty., 9 F.4th 1369, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021).”

Judge Lagoa begins the majority opinion by describing the dispute as
involving “the unremarkable—and nearly universal—practice of separating
school bathrooms based on biological sex.” In analyzing the
“straightforward” claims, Lagoa laid out the facts and holding:

“Adams, who identifies as a male, argues that the policy violates
Adams’s rights because, as a transgender student, Adams cannot use the
bathroom that corresponds to the sex with which Adams identifies. Which
is to say, Adams argues that by facially discriminating between the two
sexes, the School Board’s bathroom policy also necessarily discriminates >> against transgender students. We disagree with Adams’s theory that
separation of bathrooms on the basis of biological sex necessarily
discriminates against transgender students.”

On the Equal Protection question, the court ruled that intermediate
scrutiny applies to the case and that the district needs only show that
the policy (1) advances an important governmental objective and (2) is
substantially related to that objective. Miss. Univ. for Women, 458 U.S.
at 724. The court found both criteria satisfied because the policy

“is clearly related to—indeed, is almost a mirror of—its objective of >> protecting the privacy interests of students to use the bathroom away
from the opposite sex and to shield their bodies from the opposite sex
in the bathroom, which, like a locker room or shower facility, is one of
the spaces in a school where such bodily exposure is most likely to occur.”

On the Title IX issue, the court held that the statute allows schools to
provide separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex.

“That is exactly what the School Board has done in this case; it has
provided separate bathrooms for each of the biological sexes. And to
accommodate transgender students, the School Board has provided
single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms, which Title IX neither requires nor
prohibits. Nothing about this bathroom policy violates Title IX.
Moreover, under the Spending Clause’s clear-statement rule, the term
“sex,” as used within Title IX, must unambiguously mean something other >> than biological sex—which it does not—in order to conclude that the
School Board violated Title IX. The district court’s contrary conclusion >> is not supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “sex” and >> provides ample support for subsequent litigants to transform schools’
living facilities, locker rooms, showers, and sports teams into
sex-neutral areas and activities. Whether Title IX should be amended to
equate “gender identity” and “transgender status” with “sex” should be
left to Congress—not the courts.”

Judge Lagoa went further in a separate concurrence:

Affirming the district court’s order and adopting Adams’s definition of >> “sex” under Title IX to include “gender identity” or “transgender >> status” would have had repercussions far beyond the bathroom door. There >> simply is no limiting principle to cabin that definition of “sex” to the >> regulatory carve-out for bathrooms under Title IX, as opposed to the
regulatory carve-out for sports or, for that matter, to the statutory
and regulatory carve-outs for living facilities, showers, and locker
rooms. And a definition of “sex” beyond “biological sex” would not only
cut against the vast weight of drafting-era dictionary definitions and
the Spending Clause’s clear-statement rule but would also force female
student athletes “to compete against students who have a very
significant biological advantage, including students who have the size
and strength of a male but identify as female.” Id. at 1779–80. Such a >> proposition—i.e., commingling both biological sexes in the realm of
female athletics—would “threaten[] to undermine one of [Title IX’s]
major achievements, giving young women an equal opportunity to
participate in sports.” Id. at 1779.

Judge Jordan takes issue with the analysis and, while agreeing that
intermediate scrutiny applies, finds a clear violation of the
Constitution, noting an inherent contradiction in the policy:

“The School Board did not allow Drew Adams, a transgender student, to
use the boys’ bathroom. As explained below, however, the School Board’s >> policy allows a transgender student just like Drew to use the boys’
bathroom if he enrolls after transition with documents listing him as
male. Because such a student poses the same claimed safety and privacy
concerns as Drew, the School Board’s bathroom policy can only be
justified by administrative convenience. And when intermediate scrutiny
applies, administrative convenience is an insufficient justification for
a gender-based classification.”

Judge Wilson attacked the medical claims of the district in a separate
dissent and suggests that it is based on the indeterminacy of gender at
birth:

“Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy, however, >> is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at
birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In
other words, the policy presumes it does not need to accept amended
documentation because a student’s sex does not change. This presumption
is both medically and scientifically flawed. After considering a more
scientific and medical perspective on biological sex, it is clear that
the bathroom policy’s refusal to accept updated medical documentation is >> discriminatory on the basis of sex.”

In her dissent, Judge Jill Pryor rejected the accommodation of a gender
neutral bathroom:

Each time teenager Andrew Adams needed to use the bathroom at his
school, Allen D. Nease High School, he was forced to endure a
stigmatizing and humiliating walk of shame—past the boys’ bathrooms and >> into a single-stall “gender neutral” bathroom. The experience left him >> feeling unworthy, like “something that needs to be put away.” The reason >> he was prevented from using the boys’ bathroom like other boys? He is a
transgender boy.

…

To start, the majority opinion simply declares—without any basis—that a >> person’s “biological sex” is comprised solely of chromosomal structure >> and birth-assigned sex. So, the majority opinion concludes, a person’s
gender identity has no bearing on this case about equal protection for a
transgender boy. The majority opinion does so in disregard of the record
evidence—evidence the majority does not contest—which demonstrates that >> gender identity is an immutable, biological component of a person’s sex.”

It is a fascinating set of opinions (which also includes a dissent from
Judge Rosenbaum). With the conflict with the Fourth Circuit, it would
make for an ideal basis for the Court to consider the constitutional and
statutory issues by granting a petition for writ of certiorari.

The accommodation of the gender neutral bathroom makes this policy
particularly interesting for review. While some would argue that this
amounts to a gender version of “separation but equal,” the district
sought a middle position on the controversy. However, much turns on the
definition of “sex” under Title IX.

Adams and others relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). That case involved
employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq, and Justice
Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 6-3 decision that it is impossible to
discriminate against a person based on their sexual orientation or
gender identity without discriminating based on sex. (Justices Thomas,
Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented).

However, the Court expressly stated that it was not ruling on this issue:

“Under Title VII, . . . we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker
rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is
whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or
transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that
individual “because of such individual’s sex.”

The Biden Administration, however, has issued a Notice of Interpretation
through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that
it will enforce Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of >> sex to include: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (2)
discrimination based on gender identity.

Here is the opinion: Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida

You and your freak trannie friends should hold it in until you get
home. You have a double whammy; you're both a he/she and a gook. Those
are two fucked-up things to be.

Mangina, I am a normal man, and it is immoral for you to call me a
gook.

In other news, a couple will be expecting another baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSwF9ZiYaVw

What a beautiful family!

The same can not be said about your character, for your character is hideous!

You are a Nazi.

As a Nazi, you are, above all else, a craven coward.

You are afraid to compete with others as equals because you know you
can not measure up.

You are afraid of your own inadequacy, so you want to murder your
betters.

You are afraid of the truth, so you want to murder those who would
tell it.

You are afraid of history, so you want to murder the past, to wipe
out the knowledge of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of National Socialism.

Finally, you are afraid of the power of educated, informed adults.
Freedom of choice terrifies you… which is why you choose minor children
as sexual partners. You can not interact with competent adults in a consensually sexual way. You need to be able to impose yourself on a
helpless victim, be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a mental
hospital.

That is what you are, a Nazi, and there is nothing polite or honest
about it.


Michael

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:45:51 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

Loose Cannon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 11:08:49 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/eleventh-circuit-rejects-transgender-students-challenge-to-bathroom-policy

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Transgender Student�s Challenge to Bathroom Policy >>>

Here is the opinion: Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida

You and your freak trannie friends should hold it in until you get
home. You have a double whammy; you're both a he/she and a gook. Those
are two fucked-up things to be.

Mangina, I am a normal man, and it is immoral for you to call me a
gook.

Right away you've lied twice. You are neither normal nor a man. I call
you a gook because you are a gook. What else should I call you, slope?

In other news, a couple will be expecting another baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSwF9ZiYaVw

What a beautiful family!

Posting bestiality smut like that should be a criminal offense

The same can not be said about your character, for your character is
hideous!

You are a Nazi.

Thank you

As a Nazi, you are, above all else

I knew that already but thanks for admitting it.


"You on the other hand are a gook. As a gook, you belove everything
but jews. There's nothing lower than a jew"

- Christopher Morton

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

On Wed, 25 Jan 23 21:21:33 UTC, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay neo-nazitard, whined again:

<FLUSH the abysmally stupid gay neo-nazitard's latest sick crap>

--
Loose Sphincter about his predilection:
"Foreskins, and only foreskins. That's my life."
MID: <5qopicpl2kogolncj5rj9q1c0g459m4m7a@4ax.com>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa
XPost: soc.culture.israel, alt.bible.prophecy

Loose Cannon wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 18:45:51 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

Loose Cannon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 11:08:49 -0800, Michael Ejercito
<MEjercit@HotMail.com> wrote:

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/31/eleventh-circuit-rejects-transgender-students-challenge-to-bathroom-policy

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Transgender Student’s Challenge to Bathroom Policy


Here is the opinion: Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida >>>

You and your freak trannie friends should hold it in until you get
home. You have a double whammy; you're both a he/she and a gook. Those
are two fucked-up things to be.

Mangina, I am a normal man, and it is immoral for you to call me a
gook.

Right away you've lied twice. You are neither normal nor a man.

I am a normal man.

I call
you a gook because you are a gook. What else should I call you, slope?

You call me a normal man!

In other news, a couple will be expecting another baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSwF9ZiYaVw

What a beautiful family!

Posting bestiality smut like that should be a criminal offense

Nithing, there is no bestiality nor smut; there is heterosexuality, matrimony, and pregnancy!

Now here is Keren's mother.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnzgzdctzJN/

The same can not be said about your character, for your character is
hideous!

You are a Nazi.

Thank you

As a Nazi, you are, above all else

I knew that already but thanks for admitting it.

"You on the other hand are a gook. As a gook, you belove everything
but jews. There's nothing lower than a jew"

- Christopher Morton

Chris never wrote that.

He so totally dominated you and humiliated you!

You are a nithing- homo sapiens by birth, subhuman BY CHOICE. The
key word is CHOICE. You were born with the same human nature as the
rest of us. Your CHOICES made you a nithing.

Bill explains what nithings are.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9446

Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that
knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that
person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s
psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known
that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the
argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all
humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is
worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the
English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE”
describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a
word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or
nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity. Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a
term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic
supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize
Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have
come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the
dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human
beings.
nithings

Nithing or niding was more than a common insult, because Scandinavian culture required its subject to fight a duel with the accuser or
become an outlaw: totally devoid of rights, honor, and even
recognition as a human being. Per the Wikipedia entry,

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [= Anglo-Saxon
earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by
obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all
known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused
was expected to kill the accuser at once. …If the accused did not
retort by violent attack yielding either the accuser to take his words
back or the accuser’s death, he was hence proven to be a weak and
cowardly nithing by not retorting accordingly.

A nithing was devoid of all human rights, and he was considered the
enemy of civilized humanity: a perfect depiction of Islamic
supremacists. The word therefore strips the enemy of all humanity, and
degrades him to the status of a wolf or strangler (per Scandinavian
tradition) or a virulent disease like the Black Plague. Black Plague
is a deadly and contagious disease whose vector consists of plague-
carrying rats, while the Green Plague of militant “Islam” is a deadly
and contagious ideology that is spread by bipedal rats: nidings or
nithings, non-humans that raise violent hands to all of civilized
Humanity.

The immediate consequence of being proven a nithing was
outlawing. The outlawed did not have any rights, he was exlex (Latin
for “outside of the legal system”), in Anglo-Saxon utlah, Middle Low
German uutlagh, Old Norse utlagr. Just as feud yielded enmity among
kinships, outlawry yielded enmity of all humanity.[63] …”Yet that is
but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the
kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind.”

The actual definition of a nithing is somewhat more involved and
complex, and it gets into sexual perversions and zoomorphical
transformations (Loki’s transformation of himself into a mare to have
sexual intercourse with a stallion, and thus beget Odin’s horse
Sleipner is probably an example), but the following line is pertinent:
“The nithing used its malicious seid magic to destroy anything owned
and made by man, ultimately the human race and Midgard itself[6], due
to its basically unlimited envy, hate, and malice that were nith.”

"Destruction of everything owned and made by Man” (the Palestinians’ destruction of the greenhouses in Gaza comes to mind immediately) and “unlimited envy, hate, and malice” describe militant “Islam”
perfectly, and further underscore the application of nithing or niding
to describe it. The propensity for mindless destruction also appears
in Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker series, in which a supernatural
enemy is known as the Unmaker: a personification of evil that is the
total antithesis of God the Creator.

The Unmaker is the main antagonist in Orson Scott Card’s
alternate history/fantasy series The Tales of Alvin Maker. Never
directly confronted, it is a supernatural force that breaks apart
matter and aims to destroy and consume everything and everyone. …To
make something is to oppose the Unmaker, but a point often made is
that this is futile. By natural law the Unmaker can tear down faster
than any man can build.

This also is an outstanding definition of militant “Islam” or Islamic supremacy: an ideology that seeks to destroy everything into which it
comes in contact, and with which no reason, negotiation, or compromise
is possible.

In summary, a nithing or niding is the enemy of Civilization, a
subhuman (through its behavioral choices, and emphatically NOT due to
its racial or ethnic origin) monster with total hatred and malice
toward all human industry and arts, and worthy of nothing but
extermination like any virulent disease. This is the word we will now
apply to Islamic supremacists and their enablers, and we encourage
others to do likewise.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.bible.prophecy, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.israel
XPost: uk.legal

On Mon, 20 Mar 23 19:22:36 UTC, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay neo-nazitard, IMPERSONATING his master Peeler, whined again:

I am wonderfully hungry!

In that case gook, EAT SHIT!!

I doubt he, or anyone else (except for neo-nazi scum like you), enjoys what
you enjoy, shiteating neo-nazi scum.

--
Loose Sphincter about his passion:
" I love eating the Shit out of Poor Helpless Dumb Goran Razovic! LOL"
MID: <ajftsc9mb16l8v86a9mi95f63g8lh3rpm3@4ax.com>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, talk.politics.misc, alt.christnet.christianlife
XPost: alt.bible.prophecy

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:38:33 -0400, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married
gay neo-nazitard, now FORGING as BTov, whined again:

In the meantime, checkl out this picture.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_C36KR-7zB0/frame0.jpg


Michael

What the fuck is with the size of that gook's head? He's definitely
some kind of retarded freak. This cheerleader obviously is feeling
sorry for the deformed creature.

LOL Poor miserable gay neo-nazitard can't understand that those whom he considers "inferior" are actually superior to him! Loose Sphincter, it
ALWAYS has been like that and ALWAYS will be like that. Learn to accept it!
LOL

--
Loose Sphincter about his passion:
" I love eating the Shit out of Poor Helpless Dumb Goran Razovic! LOL"
MID: <ajftsc9mb16l8v86a9mi95f63g8lh3rpm3@4ax.com>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: soc.culture.israel, uk.legal, alt.bible.prophecy
XPost: uk.legal, aus.politics

Peeler wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 23 13:53:47 UTC, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay neo-nazitard, whined again:

Those jew bitches are disgusting!

http://gawker.com/woman-accused-of-seducing-teen-neighbor-is-infamous-all-1702308807

The 23-year-old Florida woman arrested Monday for allegedly having sex
with her 15-year-old neighbor was accused in 2012 of having sex with
at least two dogs.

STILL no proof that she was Jewish, after you've been posting your identical lies for years already, you lying and forging piece of neo-nazi shit?

Neo-Nazis like Loose Cannon are the biggest liars in history!


Michael

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, talk.politics.misc, alt.christnet.christianlife
XPost: alt.bible.prophecy

Peeler wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:38:33 -0400, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay neo-nazitard, now FORGING as BTov, whined again:

In the meantime, checkl out this picture.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_C36KR-7zB0/frame0.jpg


Michael

What the fuck is with the size of that gook's head? He's definitely
some kind of retarded freak. This cheerleader obviously is feeling
sorry for the deformed creature.

LOL Poor miserable gay neo-nazitard can't understand that those whom he considers "inferior" are actually superior to him! Loose Sphincter, it
ALWAYS has been like that and ALWAYS will be like that. Learn to accept it! LOL

Here is Khoa and Keren's YouTube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU-ZXqhx1xjsxO1ftXJELdg

1.25 millions subscribers! And no wonder, for they are a shining
example of heterosexuality, just like the Bowies were!


Michael

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.support.diabetes, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.christianlife XPost: uk.legal, talk.politics.guns

On Fri, 31 Mar 23 01:16:10 UTC, Loose Sphincter, the unhappily married gay neo-nazitard, IMPERSONATING his master Peeler, whined again:

what do you get when you cross a nigger with a gorilla?

...a dumber gorilla.

You would STILL be dumber than any of the three of them, you abysmally
stupid, gay neo-nazi whore!

--
Loose Sphincter about his passion:
" I love eating the Shit out of Poor Helpless Dumb Goran Razovic! LOL"
MID: <ajftsc9mb16l8v86a9mi95f63g8lh3rpm3@4ax.com>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)