65
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

The court ruled that such a ban on the “promotion of gender ideology” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” ran clearly afoul of equal protection on transgender status and also violated the separation of powers which provided their funding: “As one other court considering the Gender Order explained, the Court “cannot fathom discrimination more direct than the plain pronouncement of a policy resting on the premise that the group to which the policy is directed does not exist.” PFLAG II, 2025 WL 685124, at *23.”

They ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination while stating that it is also likely unconstitutional by violating the separation of powers. The latter is just a supporting point made in the ruling.

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
65 points (100.0% liked)

Transgender

832 readers
2 users here now

Overview:

The Lemmy place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.


Rules:

  1. Keep discussions civil.

  2. Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.

  3. No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.

Shinigami Eyes:

Extension for Quickly Spotting Transphobes Online.

Shinigami Eyes

spoiler iphone: unofficial workaround to use extension Install the Orion browser then add the extension. :::

Related:[email protected]

[email protected]


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS