Gorsuch applies Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to Title VII, of Civil Rights Act 1964

I don’t know what that means, but I do kinda like the smell of fresh paint.

Why go through the effort to get a partial answer instead of just finding out my gender and having the full answer?

I’m not sure how your hypothetical applies to legal aspects of the opinion.


That was roughly the facts of one of the cases. And the theory of the decision could be summarized as “if you are going to fire a man for wearing a dress, and not fire a woman for the same behavior, that is sex discrimination”

1 Like

Gorsuch wrote this opinion in such a clever way that it’s honestly kind of impressive. It’s done in such a way that any future Court would have to tiptoe through the minefield of the CRA to undo it, which nobody wants to do.

This is literally the most important legal victory for LGBT rights in American history, handily beating out striking down sodomy laws and gay marriage.


There’s no “narrative.” Sexual preferences gel in the brain around age five and what combination of nature or nurture it is is up for debate, but it’s definitely both.

1 Like

So “born that way” is no longer the narrative. Ok. Got it.

I made no claim that disputes your post. I simply answered whatshisname when he posed a hypothetical question asking how you would tell if the hypothetical person was heterosexual or homosexual. You guys say “nature AND nurture” so I said I would look for part that is “nature” - the part that you claim is genetic - in the hypothetical person’s DNA.

That seemed to throw a monkey wrench into whatshisname’s little gotcha post. So it’s cool they called out the big guns now …
. @TommyLucchese to come and try to set things right.

Your response was a little on the absurd side and wouldn’t actually determine if I was 100% gay or not unless you checked my DNA to see my sex at which point you might as well have not wasted your time on a DNA test and instead just looked at me and my beard.

Hey @TommyLucchese, congrats on being the… ::checks notes::. … “big guns”.

1 Like

if I have your dna, i can check biological sex and - according to the narrative - the “born that way” genes for homosexuality. Yours was a hypothetical question. So why should I be concerned about wasting my hypothetical time?

So face it… I solved your riddle.

And tell us again… you think a beard means what?

by the way… I’m curious - given your knowledge of progressive science why you think “females” and “men” are mutually exclusive? Or is the language that you are using betraying your own disbelief in the progressive absurdity that men can be female?

Well I try.

1 Like

What do you want? Most of this ■■■■ is formed before you even have reliable memories, the person it happens to certainly doesn’t have any choice in the matter.

1 Like

that’s fine. I only proposed in the hypothetical riddle that whatshisname posed to use just the biological part to answer his question. I have no problem speaking your lingo and going along with the narrative when I’m conversing with you people.

It wasn’t riddle. The answer was supposed to be obvious. :man_shrugging:

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone Bono is transgender. In my post I said “for the sake of this argument let’s assume my gender matches my biological sex”.

Gorsuch’s opinion is based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, i,e, that part which makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The first question which comes to my mind is, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?

Perhaps you can shed some light on this fundamental question.


you are on a roll, dude.

Here’s is an XY person who identifies as a woman.

and another

You got me, I’m actually a woman with polycystic ovary syndrome. Good job.

BTW, did you actually read/watch those posts you linked? Those are both biological females, XX.

Ever hear of thalidomide?

Make you pull your pants down and show your wee-wee? :sunglasses:

people on that side of the fence like to cut theirs off. Remember Private Bradley Manning?