Title IX is being changed to include "orientation"

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,151
57,911
1
I am not sure how this can be adjudicated, to be honest. If I am a 100% dude and get bad grades, I can now accuse the professor of discriminating against me because:
  • I am a dude
  • I am a dude identifying as something that is not a dude
  • I am a dude who was really not a dude but in denial so my professor discriminated against me
My heart goes out to any person anywhere on the spectrum of dude, chick, gay, straight. But Title iX was based on categories. It seems to me there are no categories anymore. It is kind of a free for all.

 

87 Penn St8

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2009
838
1,072
1
Chester County, PA
We basically are going through a major time of social upheaval in our country. While some interest groups are getting what they believe is "right", no single group can be considered happy with everything. Forthcoming SCOTUS announcements will send us into further chaos.

Just another day in America 2022. Inorder to have "winners", there will be "losers" and given the state of our nation, nobody will go quietly. Both sides are proud to RESIST each other...it's gonna get messier
 
  • Like
Reactions: blmr31

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,893
10,367
1
I am not sure how this can be adjudicated, to be honest. If I am a 100% dude and get bad grades, I can now accuse the professor of discriminating against me because:
  • I am a dude
  • I am a dude identifying as something that is not a dude
  • I am a dude who was really not a dude but in denial so my professor discriminated against me
My heart goes out to any person anywhere on the spectrum of dude, chick, gay, straight. But Title iX was based on categories. It seems to me there are no categories anymore. It is kind of a free for all.


Almost exactly two years ago, after the Supreme Court's Bostock decision shoehorning the now very broad concept of "sexual orientation" into Title VII, I did a post predicting that it would set the stage for the government to apply the same criteria to Title IX.

And here we are...
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,151
57,911
1
Almost exactly two years ago, after the Supreme Court's Bostock decision shoehorning the now very broad concept of "sexual orientation" into Title VII, I did a post predicting that it would set the stage for the government to apply the same criteria to Title IX.

And here we are...
I think we are all against discrimination. But these were put into place to protect women and give them access to things that men enjoyed that women didn't. We have, basically, decided that there is no longer a definition of sex. It is simply a state of mind. How can you define and legally protect a state of mind?
 

PSUPride1

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2003
12,688
12,910
1
I think we are all against discrimination. But these were put into place to protect women and give them access to things that men enjoyed that women didn't. We have, basically, decided that there is no longer a definition of sex. It is simply a state of mind. How can you define and legally protect a state of mind?
Well said. Disgraceful. That loser Michigan governor calls women menstruating people. And of course our new justice couldn't define a woman. The left has become an absolute joke and we have to turn the country upsidedown to accommodate the 1%. The left destroys everything they touch and we see it in every facet of our lives
 

PSU Blue

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
7,595
388
1
I think we are all against discrimination. But these were put into place to protect women and give them access to things that men enjoyed that women didn't. We have, basically, decided that there is no longer a definition of sex. It is simply a state of mind. How can you define and legally protect a state of mind?
"State of mind" is the key to your post. If you like people of the same sex, knock yourself out and have fun. If you don't know what sex you are, you need mental help.....and there is nothing wrong with seeking mental help, especially if it will lead to happiness.
 

NC2017

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2015
1,797
2,416
1
I am not sure how this can be adjudicated, to be honest. If I am a 100% dude and get bad grades, I can now accuse the professor of discriminating against me because:
  • I am a dude
  • I am a dude identifying as something that is not a dude
  • I am a dude who was really not a dude but in denial so my professor discriminated against me
My heart goes out to any person anywhere on the spectrum of dude, chick, gay, straight. But Title iX was based on categories. It seems to me there are no categories anymore. It is kind of a free for all.


The sooner this all collapses the better I'll feel
 

NC2017

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2015
1,797
2,416
1
It eventually will collapse, because what's happening now is going to harm the original intent. However, by the time that it does, the damage will have been done.

I hope so. Our entire system of government is being run by a corrupt geriatric oligarchy, beholden to themselves, not their constituents.

 

bvillebaron

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,710
3,891
1
It eventually will collapse, because what's happening now is going to harm the original intent. However, by the time that it does, the damage will have been done.
The unfortunate part is that all of this is undermining the gains made by girls and women because of Title IX. Because that statute mandated equal number of scholarships in men’s and women’s sports a number of colleges dropped smaller men’s programs. Now there is an uneven level playing field because of those who insist the transgender males can participate in women’s sports. Regardless of how you feel about transgenders, males, particularly those who have gone through puberty have distinct physical advantages over females. Nothing quite like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 

heckmans

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2006
6,537
3,267
1
Well said. Disgraceful. That loser Michigan governor calls women menstruating people. And of course our new justice couldn't define a woman. The left has become an absolute joke and we have to turn the country upsidedown to accommodate the 1%. The left destroys everything they touch and we see it in every facet of our lives

Last week: I can't define a woman. I'm not a biologist.
This week: I am absolutely certain, biologically speaking, that an unborn baby is not a person, and deserves no protections under the Constitution.
 

PSUPride1

Well-Known Member
Apr 24, 2003
12,688
12,910
1
Last week: I can't define a woman. I'm not a biologist.
This week: I am absolutely certain, biologically speaking, that an unborn baby is not a person, and deserves no protections under the Constitution.
Yup. I was wondering how our new justice would rule since she can't define a woman either. If those lunatics take control of the court God only knows what the insanity they would rule on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,151
57,911
1
Last week: I can't define a woman. I'm not a biologist.
This week: I am absolutely certain, biologically speaking, that an unborn baby is not a person, and deserves no protections under the Constitution.
Suddenly "my body my choice" is back in vogue while for the last three years if you didn't get vaxxed you were fired. Not only that, censored.
 

86Engineer

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2015
462
453
1
Suddenly "my body my choice" is back in vogue while for the last three years if you didn't get vaxxed you were fired. Not only that, censored.

I'm pretty sure the bolded part didn't happen everywhere. In any case, in my previous jobs, employment requirements included (but were not limited to):
drug testing
physical
psych evaluation
security clearance
cognitive testing

You still have a choice in who you work for....and employers have a choice in who they hire.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,151
57,911
1
I'm pretty sure the bolded part didn't happen everywhere. In any case, in my previous jobs, employment requirements included (but were not limited to):
drug testing
physical
psych evaluation
security clearance
cognitive testing

You still have a choice in who you work for....and employers have a choice in who they hire.
Many hospital workers got fired, as did airline pilots. In fact, the hospital workers case in Houston went to the supreme court where the employers right to demand such was upheld. Locally, I have two friends who were fired at the Cleveland Clinic for refusing the vax. A pilot friend of mine did it under duress



 

87 Penn St8

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2009
838
1,072
1
Chester County, PA
Many hospital workers got fired, as did airline pilots. In fact, the hospital workers case in Houston went to the supreme court where the employers right to demand such was upheld. Locally, I have two friends who were fired at the Cleveland Clinic for refusing the vax. A pilot friend of mine did it under duress



Without politicizing the inevitable "My body, my choice" paradigm shift, I generally see one as an internal issue and the other as a potential external one...meaning if a person is pregnant the only way she may impact me could be taking up more space in an allotted seat on a plane or on a Beaver Stadium bench. Potentially transmissable germs are different. Defining what is or isn't alive and/or the moral and financial repercussions of deciding other people's lives is not something I choose to want to wade into. It feels l8ke everything in the US right now can be a circular argument without compromise- so why bother? Eventually (hopefully) cooler heads will prevail...
 

bvillebaron

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,710
3,891
1
I'm pretty sure the bolded part didn't happen everywhere. In any case, in my previous jobs, employment requirements included (but were not limited to):
drug testing
physical
psych evaluation
security clearance
cognitive testing

You still have a choice in who you work for....and employers have a choice in who they hire.
None of that involved mandating the injection of a chemical into your body as a pre-condition of employment or continued employment. And I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated and boosted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
108,151
57,911
1
Without politicizing the inevitable "My body, my choice" paradigm shift, I generally see one as an internal issue and the other as a potential external one...meaning if a person is pregnant the only way she may impact me could be taking up more space in an allotted seat on a plane or on a Beaver Stadium bench. Potentially transmissable germs are different. Defining what is or isn't alive and/or the moral and financial repercussions of deciding other people's lives is not something I choose to want to wade into. It feels l8ke everything in the US right now can be a circular argument without compromise- so why bother? Eventually (hopefully) cooler heads will prevail...
I appreciate your comments but your assumption is that the fetus is not a person and has no rights (even to life itself). In all other legal issues, an unborn baby is considered a person. For example, if someone runs a redlight while drunk and t-bones a pregnant woman who loses the baby. Why is that unborn baby considered a person yet the mother (with no conversation with the father) can abort a fully healthy 8.5 month baby just because she wants to?

That is what makes abortion so difficult. I am for 90 days from conception and then you are out of luck. There are plenty of remedies to not get pregnant today. There are even day after pills (I am not sure where they stand with this ruling). At the end of the day, we have to balance the rights of people. In this case, the born and the unborn.
 

86Engineer

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2015
462
453
1
None of that involved mandating the injection of a chemical into your body as a pre-condition of employment or continued employment. And I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated and boosted.

My memory isn't as good as it used to be, but I don't recall you being there, and I know for sure bodily fluids were extracted from me in various ways.
 

heckmans

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2006
6,537
3,267
1
Without politicizing the inevitable "My body, my choice" paradigm shift, I generally see one as an internal issue and the other as a potential external one...meaning if a person is pregnant the only way she may impact me could be taking up more space in an allotted seat on a plane or on a Beaver Stadium bench. Potentially transmissable germs are different. Defining what is or isn't alive and/or the moral and financial repercussions of deciding other people's lives is not something I choose to want to wade into. It feels l8ke everything in the US right now can be a circular argument without compromise- so why bother? Eventually (hopefully) cooler heads will prevail...

Responding calm and rationally here....

1. COVID had/has a death rate similar to below the flu for a huge swath of the population. If the vaxx works, then those who are at greater risk, should get the vaxx. Not really understanding how a 23yo, (let along a 5yo) for example, with a statistical 0 risk from COVID being mandated to get vaxxed matters to anyone. If you are vaxxed, and the vaxx works, you should not care about the status of anyone else.

2. The world is full of laws based on common sense morality and the concept of not injuring others. It is clear, scientifically, that there is no difference between a newborn and an unborn baby late in pregnancy. To say you don't want to wade into morality, regarding the death of a person that cannot speak, IMO is problematic. If you want to debate about things in the first trimester, for instance, fine, but the defense of unfettered late term abortion, (and not saying you are doing this) is illogical, and criminal.

Summarizing my assessment of your statement: It's potentially okay to mandate a medical treatment with no long term efficacy/safety data to combat a disease with a 95% overall survival rate (and near 0 for healthy/working age or younger) because it spreads via respiration, but when it comes to the definitive ending of a human life, it's personal and not something that should really be debated. In one case, there is a small chance of death. In the other, a 100% chance.

Humbly, and I guess this is where the debate really starts and finishes. The P-C side sees an unborn baby as less-than-human and therefore undeserving of any rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd submit that OB science and technology like ultrasounds make the 'clump of cells' and 'not a person' arguments increasingly hard to make.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for the rational discussion.
 

heckmans

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2006
6,537
3,267
1
I'm pretty sure the bolded part didn't happen everywhere. In any case, in my previous jobs, employment requirements included (but were not limited to):
drug testing
physical
psych evaluation
security clearance
cognitive testing

You still have a choice in who you work for....and employers have a choice in who they hire.

The feds tried real hard. There was the OSHA mandate for companies with 100+ employees and the Executive Order mandate for companies that do government contracting, even for individuals that don't interface with the government. It even applied to people who could document that they had recovered from the disease. Even after being struck down as unconstitutional, the administration urged companies to retain mandates as a condition of employment. Most companies, doing a CYA analysis, kept mandates in place. While you are technically correct, the level of compliance from employers made it a defacto prerequisite of employment for a huge swath of the population. The choice became 'If you work' vs 'who you work for'.
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
779
1,924
1
Without politicizing the inevitable "My body, my choice" paradigm shift, I generally see one as an internal issue and the other as a potential external one...meaning if a person is pregnant the only way she may impact me could be taking up more space in an allotted seat on a plane or on a Beaver Stadium bench. Potentially transmissable germs are different. Defining what is or isn't alive and/or the moral and financial repercussions of deciding other people's lives is not something I choose to want to wade into. It feels l8ke everything in the US right now can be a circular argument without compromise- so why bother? Eventually (hopefully) cooler heads will prevail...
Do you believe that those who received covid shots and even multiple boosters are unable to get covid and unable to spread covid?
 

Agoodnap

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2015
3,284
4,611
1
Everyone wants to define when an unborn becomes a person from the time of conception. I propose that everyone works backward on the typical timeline from the time of birth. Do this with small increments like minute by minute and tell me when an unborn is not a person. If you look at an unborn in this manner it becomes very hard to distinguish.
 

87 Penn St8

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2009
838
1,072
1
Chester County, PA
To the poster who wishes to engage in discussion...I'm in....I think you point out a good place to start. But the problem in my view is most have such hardened stances that there really is no room to discuss in most cases.

I purposely didn't comment one way or the other on the value or recognition of either life or choice. My opinion is mine...yours is yours....and today most don't know or care what mine or yours is. So much legal stuff gets down to the "reasonable person" decision base...but when sides disagree to the point where neither respects conflicting views what is "rational/reasonable?" I appreciate the real attempt to discuss. I'm on vacation today and have found it impossible to not hear this same discussion all weekend. What I hear is upsetting regardless of which side people are falling on.

When discussing we often don't know what life circumstances people have faced that form their outlooks. Maybe in my life I have chosen one way or the other for a daughter who was medically assumed at very high risk for Downs Syndrome early in the pregnancy. So maybe I've actually walked the walk, cried the tears, done the math and figured out how we would adjust our lifestyle /careers/caregiving responsibilities to accommdate that circumstance if it were to have occurred.

The overwhelmingly large amount in the conversation have not. So many never have to actually face some realities...but are willing to foist their opinions on others. In that way Covid and vax IS similar. A person I know was making fun of a customer in a store the other day for choosing to wear a mask. But given their own opinions about vaxing and choice, how would the masked person be personally impacting them? They weren't, but this young man most certainly did not see how twisted his logic was given his opinions of personal choices.

I understand the rationale and values stated above re time/law etc. Read Hammarabis Code...punishments are higher for those who injure a pregnant woman. Really neat stuff for the time. They actually put a financial value on different stages a maturity. Yes...there is legal precedent and always has been.

In my opinion, the financial realities of raising children is a part of the puzzle that many unsuspecting young women are simply ignorant to- and taxpayers in general are unsympathetic to historically supporting. In my job I encounter many teen mothers and count a number as almost 2nd daughters. Each is unique but often the stories follow a pattern. Rarely is the father involved in any way with the lives of the children. Often these girls forgo legal actions to provide money in order to completely disassociate the father from the children. Happy families are not the norm, but occasionally it does work out that way. More typically the young mother works their tail off to make as best of a go as they can whilst living with their parents if they allow. Their dating pool is significantly compromised as many don't want a pre-made family. I know amazing success stories- but endless struggle is more commonplace.

As for direct impact upon others...they are different circumstances with different potential ramifications that relate to how an individual(s) condition may infringe upon others' freedoms. The last few years socially and politically have brought out the worst in American "freedoms." Round and round we will go....is it rude for someone with pink eye to knowingly go out in public and touch things? Is it illegal? If I get pi k eye and end up in worse circumstances due to my own condition which was unknown to the original perpetrator does that make it worse?

Bottom line to me is that the law has changed. People lived before 1973 and will live after 2022. There will be ways that people circumvent laws...as there always is. My wife was un unexpected pregnancy. Her grandmother tried to ship her mom to Cuba for an abortion. Luckily for me she didn't. The societal angst that we will go through as a national is more likely going to be a bitter pill all around. I personally no longer have a daughter, my wife is over the hill, and I got a vas as soon as possible. My son may be impacted directly by this...we'll see.

As a human being I hope for the best outcomes for everyone- and yes that includes fetuses- but see nothing but animosity in play on this issue...
 

heckmans

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2006
6,537
3,267
1
Everyone wants to define when an unborn becomes a person from the time of conception. I propose that everyone works backward on the typical timeline from the time of birth. Do this with small increments like minute by minute and tell me when an unborn is not a person. If you look at an unborn in this manner it becomes very hard to distinguish.
For sure. I always ask this.
Is it okay to terminate a 1 yo? Of course not.
is it okay to terminate a 1 minute old? Of course note.
Is it okay to terminate a baby one minute before birth? There is no biological difference between 1 minute before and 1 minute after birth. Most people concede, no

So if one's position is that a 'clump of cells' exists early during pregnancy, then it is incumbent upon the P-C crowd to define when "personhood" is conveyed. Of course, it is impossible to do so, and that is why the P-C crowd vehemently pushes a right to terminate right up until the moment of birth. If they concede that a baby is a baby and has rights endowed by the Creator, at any point in the womb, it's hard to logically defend the P-C position.
 

The Kid Twist

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2021
458
490
1
The sooner this all collapses the better I'll feel
There is comedian on the Greg Gutfeld show named Jamie Zillow. He had a great opening line last week. Hi my name is Jamie, I have a penis. I am looking to hang on to it and I love VAGINA!!! I want to use that opening line at work so bad but I woudl be in HR in two minutes!! Great line!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

bvillebaron

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,710
3,891
1
My memory isn't as good as it used to be, but I don't recall you being there, and I know for sure bodily fluids were extracted from me in various ways.
Reading comprehension not one of your strong suits I see. My post addressed chemicals being INJECTED INTO your body.
 

86Engineer

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2015
462
453
1
Reading comprehension not one of your strong suits I see. My post addressed chemicals being INJECTED INTO your body.

I know what you said, which is why I mentioned my bad memory....but at this point I am positive that you weren't there.
 

Latest posts