by meagain on January 10, 2025 8:48 am
It is not for me to say, Donna. I don't pretend to not having innate biases. Most of my life there was no such thing as transgender as far as anyone was aware. However, the arguments are well laid out in the following:
Conclusion
The acceptance of a constitutional right to bodily privacy in one’s partially clothed body was not inevitable. Until 2002, only a single circuit court had affirmatively recognized the right. However, a combination of increased cross-sex monitoring in prisons — largely due to sex discrimination litigation under Title VII — and a steady weakening of prisoners’ rights coincided with a widespread acceptance of the premise that people have a constitutional right not to be viewed in a state of undress by members of the opposite sex. More recently, courts have relied on the acceptance of this premise in prisoners’ rights cases to find that the right does, indeed, exist. And cisgender students have tried to harness the right to prevent school districts from allowing transgender students into sex-segregated spaces aligning with their gender identities.
The increasing adoption of the right leads to interesting questions about what, exactly, the right entails. While courts have been somewhat vague about the scope of the right, most seem to agree that it is fairly broad and is implicated whenever one person views another in a state of undress. While a broad right sensibly recognizes the genuine privacy interest people have in their partially clothed body, courts have articulated a number of factors that go to whether invading this right is permissible; all of these point toward allowing trans-friendly bathroom policies. Most courts have also, either implicitly or explicitly, found that this right is sex-based. A sex-based right is problematic not only because it constitutionalizes a nudity taboo, essentializes sex at the expense of other forms of identity, and disproportionately harms transgender children, but also because judicial policing of sex is messy and difficult. Courts should not get in the business of saying who is — and who is not — a man or woman. By rejecting the notion of a sex-based constitutional right to privacy in one’s partially clothed body, they won’t have to.
harvardlawreview.org
by HatetheSwamp on January 10, 2025 8:55 am
"It is not for me to say, Donna. I don't pretend to not having innate biases."
Apparently, and obviously, nor innate empathy, nor sympathy.
by Indy! on January 10, 2025 7:28 pm
The obvious answer is unisex everything, but the Brown Shorts' end of the political spectrum is afraid of nudity.
As po says, fascistic and disgusting...