The dilemma of feminists... They want people to believe that females are just as strong and capable as males, but they also want special protections for females against males in competition.
they wanted "fair" now they got it -- they'll just have to take ass kicking as their consequence until they realize how stupid they were about the reality of TWO gender -- and one being generally, no always, stronger
Move to Portland though and o got a shot with those boys
PAY ATTENTION, PEDES, CUZ I'M GONNA LEARN YOU GOOD...
Contact your states' AGs, and petition them to file First Amendment violations with SCOTUS to overturn this EO and put an end to this gender fluid identity crap. YES, you read correctly, First Amendment.
First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. If your sacred, foundational texts only recognize that God created males and females as distinct and discrete biological entities, then the federal government has no authority to compel you to believe otherwise. None.
Moreover, the First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech, meaning federal government has no authority to either compel you to use or punish you for refusing to use terms with which you disagree, including bullshit genders or even gender fluidity, since terms convey concepts which you reject as part of your beliefs. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that speech cannot be compelled, AND, this is important, frens, it recognizes no distinctions between speech and beliefs per this regard----even children cannot be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance to our flag if they don't believe in what it endorses, so we cannot be compelled to accept governmental imposition of pronouns or concepts with which we disagree...that would be finding people guilty of thoughtcrimes, ideas which challenge government imposed ideology so as to reshape our reality by suppressing opposition to them.
GET TO THIS, PEDES. It would compel the SCOTUS to strike down this EO as being unconstitutional, and also make void Pelousi's new rules abolishing terms which denote gender and relationships because they regulate speech, which is illegal. The SCOTUS cannot rule otherwise without negating or reversing it's OWN legal precedence, including Roberts's OWN rulings. (Read the article linked above.)
As a 15 year old softball and basketball player, this really hurts my heart.
The dilemma of feminists... They want people to believe that females are just as strong and capable as males, but they also want special protections for females against males in competition.
Then comes Big Mike.... any girl will def have no chance
Yup. Randy savage or equivalent is gonna join the women's s wrestling league and just fuck up everybody
they wanted "fair" now they got it -- they'll just have to take ass kicking as their consequence until they realize how stupid they were about the reality of TWO gender -- and one being generally, no always, stronger
Move to Portland though and o got a shot with those boys
I fukin hate this bitch. we can not lay down on this fake ass potato. every day he'll continue to break this country
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech
PAY ATTENTION, PEDES, CUZ I'M GONNA LEARN YOU GOOD...
Contact your states' AGs, and petition them to file First Amendment violations with SCOTUS to overturn this EO and put an end to this gender fluid identity crap. YES, you read correctly, First Amendment.
First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. If your sacred, foundational texts only recognize that God created males and females as distinct and discrete biological entities, then the federal government has no authority to compel you to believe otherwise. None.
Moreover, the First Amendment guarantees you the right to freedom of speech, meaning federal government has no authority to either compel you to use or punish you for refusing to use terms with which you disagree, including bullshit genders or even gender fluidity, since terms convey concepts which you reject as part of your beliefs. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that speech cannot be compelled, AND, this is important, frens, it recognizes no distinctions between speech and beliefs per this regard----even children cannot be compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance to our flag if they don't believe in what it endorses, so we cannot be compelled to accept governmental imposition of pronouns or concepts with which we disagree...that would be finding people guilty of thoughtcrimes, ideas which challenge government imposed ideology so as to reshape our reality by suppressing opposition to them.
GET TO THIS, PEDES. It would compel the SCOTUS to strike down this EO as being unconstitutional, and also make void Pelousi's new rules abolishing terms which denote gender and relationships because they regulate speech, which is illegal. The SCOTUS cannot rule otherwise without negating or reversing it's OWN legal precedence, including Roberts's OWN rulings. (Read the article linked above.)