283
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed up a chance to intervene in the debate over bathrooms for transgender students, rejecting an appeal from an Indiana public school district.

Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.

In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom. The appeal came from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Indianapolis.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 144 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Why would anyone care where people go the bathroom? Where do you think transsexuals have been going all these years? What nonsense.

[-] RedSeries@lemmy.world 88 points 9 months ago

Hey! I appreciate your support, trans rights are human rights!

In the future, could you please use transgender instead of transexual? The latter is a really dated term and ties a gender and societal issue to sexuality. While they may be closely associated, they're not the same thing and any little bit helps break that association.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 88 points 9 months ago

I've proven I can't remember this kind of stuff, but I'll try.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

That’s how it’s done, people.

[-] RedSeries@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago

That's all anyone can ask of you. It's appreciated!

[-] TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago

Good on you for working on it though!

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Cogency@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Seconded, transgender is more accurate and how we describe ourselves.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

The one exception is older trans folk who use that label because it is the one that resonated with them when they were figuring themselves out. Despite the label's history with transmedicalism some of the elders are not down to have their identities questioned by us younger folk and their experiences are valid.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They have a whole ~~fantasy~~ conspiracy they've cooked up where we're sneaking in to women's restrooms to do human trafficking and dark web revenge porn and shit.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

And that's the typical projection of the conservatives who revealed that they would do that if they had the ability.

[-] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 7 points 9 months ago

If a trans man sneaks into the boys room, everybody in the room spontaneously turns gay.

If a trans woman sneaks into the girls room, it’s a lesbian orgy.

I don’t make the facts.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

They don’t think we’ve been around for years.

[-] TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

I'm reading this super awesome book called "before we were trans" That kind of goes over the history of gender non-conformity and transgender identities. It's fucking amazing

[-] schwim@reddthat.com 11 points 9 months ago

I don't have anything to back it up but I think it's a large group's correlation between trans/gay == pedophilia. When I was a kid, my mom(southern baptist republican) didn't differentiate between gay people and illegal sexual activity like molestation(this was in the 80s). If my mom had been told that a guy that viewed himself as a girl wanted to use the girl's restroom, she would have immediately decided it was because he wanted to do something terrible to the girls.

I think the main reason for that is because her God told her gay people were going to hell.. It made it easy for her to view them as evil.

[-] PapaStevesy@midwest.social 11 points 9 months ago

They don't believe transexuals exist.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Worse: they are expending huge amounts of tax dollars over the right to act in a discriminatory way.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] flyboy_146@lemmy.world 74 points 9 months ago

In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom.

So, meanwhile, transgender individuals win. At least that's something. 👍🏻

With any luck, this will hold untill the rest of the nation follows suit.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

Only in those circuits where the court has allowed students to use the bathroom of choice. There are several circuits that voted to deny this. Your rights now depend on where you live in the country until either the SCOTUS one days takes it up or some sort of Title IX changes force it.

[-] BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

With this court the country might be better off without them weighing in. Those fucks are likely to make it so the whole country has even more hostile laws.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 55 points 9 months ago

Wouldn't want to reveal any bigotry during an election year.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 25 points 9 months ago

Have you ever seen an election year?

Revealing the bigotry is basically the point. Trump talked about immigrants poisoning the blood of the country and it made him more popular.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Pretty sure they don’t give a shit about revealing bigotry when ever they feel like it. In fact it’s a feature for the right

[-] Salix@sh.itjust.works 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I wish there were more non-gendered restrooms.

The one's I've been to usually has shared sinks and has stalls that fully enclosed, as in you can't look under the stall. Most restrooms in the US, you can see under the stall in front and from an adjacent stall.

And the urinals is usually in a separate area of the restrooms.

[-] Wahots@pawb.social 5 points 9 months ago

This, these are the best bathrooms anyways. I'd rather not listen to someone on the phone with someone else while using the restroom, lol. Animals, man.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

If the lower courts are divided, isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to make it clear?

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 17 points 9 months ago

They kinda have made it clear though. By rejecting the appeal, they're saying that the 7th Circuit Court's decision stands.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Except the ~~Fourth~~ Eleventh Circuit went the other direction with an almost identical Florida school policy, so the question of "Is it ok under the US Constitution for schools to force transgender students to use a particular bathroom?" has a different answer depending on where you live, which is the exact kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to deal with.

e; Whoops, had the wrong court and wrong case. That's been updated now, but for the record here's the older case I had been linking to

https://www.courthousenews.com/11th-circuit-rules-florida-schools-transgender-bathroom-policy-unconstitutional/

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Except that they aren't overriding the other courts, so really they are saying that it's up to every circuit to set their own standard.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 months ago

Typically, yes. Now, not so much.

They're saving all their energy for the upcoming craziness if/when Trump is elected President while in prison.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] maness300@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom.

Why is it only focusing on 1 gender?

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Probably because the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a transgender boy.

The case originally required John R. Wooden Middle School in Martinsville to allow a seventh-grader identified only as A.C. to have access to the restroom while litigation continued.

[-] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Of course it's southern indiana. 100‰ regressive region bordering 100% regressive states.

I hate my state.

[-] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Always think its odd they want someone like this or this in the women's washroom...

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that they want to force trans people to de-transition, go back into the closet, and hopefully kill themselves. The pain and aggravation caused by these stupid bathroom laws is quite literally the point.

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The cruelty is the point… They don’t want us to exist

It’s really fucking stressful being under a bathroom law. There aren’t correct choices. It’s supposed to be either committing a misdemeanor or getting the shit kicked out of you.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
283 points (96.4% liked)

News

23259 readers
3519 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS