Feds warn employers can be punished for failing to use preferred transgender pronouns, restrooms

EEOC's landmark new regulatory guidance elevates gender identity as a protected class under discrimination laws like race, sex and religion.

https://justthenews.com/govern...referred-transgender

In landmark guidance, the federal commission created to fight racial and sexual discrimination declared Monday that employers that fail to use a worker's preferred pronoun or refuse them the chance to use the restroom of their choice will be engaging in prohibited harassment.

The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission published the new harassment guidelines Monday after voting along partisan lines on Friday to approve them, even in the face of opposition from nearly two dozen red states. Three Democrat appointees approved the rules while two Republicans opposed them.

The new document elevates gender identity as a protected class under discrimination laws like race, sex and religion.

Prohibited harassment includes "repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering) or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity,” the new regulatory document declared.

Job Creators Network, one of the nation's leading small business groups, decried the new guidance

"The Biden administration's new guidance on transgender employees is yet another example of executive overreach by unaccountable bureaucrats," Job Creators Network CEO Alfredo Ortiz said. "The guidance is a solution in search of a problem, as the overwhelming majority of employers already provide their employees with a respectful working environment, no matter what their backgrounds.

"While the Biden administration is focused on using the correct pronouns, small businesses are suffering under the weight of resurgent inflation, high energy costs, and a credit crunch due to Democrats' bad policies. Rules about how to treat transgender employees amount to another headache for employers at the worst possible time," he added.

The guidance offered a hypothetical example of the sort of conduct that will be prohibited in workplaces going forward.

"Chloe, a purchase order coordinator at a retail store warehouse, is approached by her supervisor, Alton, who asks whether she was 'born a man' because he had heard a rumor that 'there was a transvestite in the department.' Chloe disclosed to Alton that she is transgender and asked him to keep this information confidential," the regulatory document states. "After this conversation, Alton instructed Chloe to wear pants to work because a dress would be 'inappropriate,' despite other purchase order coordinators being permitted to wear dresses and skirts.

"Alton also asks inappropriate questions about Chloe’s anatomy and sexual relationships. Further, whenever Alton is frustrated with Chloe, he misgenders her by using, with emphasis, “he/him” pronouns, sometimes in front of Chloe’s coworkers. Based on these facts, Alton’s harassing conduct toward Chloe is based on her gender identity," the document states.

EEOC Chairwoman Charlotte A. Burrows argued the changes were necessitated by the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton decision in 2020 that found that a company would be in violation of Title VII anti-discrimination laws if it fired a worker “simply for being … transgender.”

But 20 Republican state attorneys general told the EEOC last November that the agency's efforts to impose restrictions on pronouns and bathrooms were not authorized by the ruling or by any action of Congress. “Bostock gives no license to these and other of EEOC’s novel proposals," the attorneys generals wrote.

Don’t hire the freaks in the first place and you won’t have to fire them later. Simple. Also as an employer, make prospective employees listing social media a requirement for hire. Decide later whether you want to hire them or not. Nobody is required to say why they aren’t hiring someone. If they don’t like it, or refuse to comply? Apply elsewhere.

I’ll bet the federal hires for sensitive positions still require a list of your social media; how ironic is that? They can deny certain people employment based on criteria, but expect businesses not affiliated with government to adhere to guidelines they themselves don’t subscribe to.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Why would you employee someone who derives pleasure from confusing children?

that is exactly what's going on, confusing, scaring...it's messed up

^^^ In spite of the numerous prior similar instances, I can't wrap my mind around this level of insanity. Is there any chance this is a parody?

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
^^^ In spite of the numerous prior similar instances, I can't wrap my mind around this level of insanity. Is there any chance this is a parody?

Guaranteed not a parody. These people are nuts and think they’re in the right to threaten violence against anyone opposing them.

I no longer have any sense of humor about this depraved horseshit.

https://twitter.com/EndWokenes.../1791159876967624784

^^^^^^^^^that’s nothing more than propaganda to condition society to change the culture.

^^^^

So style is the ultimate arbiter?

This kind of stuff used to be very clever yet not so subtle satire.

The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields.

A federal court just took a sledgehammer to parental rights

https://www.washingtonexaminer...mer-parental-rights/

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Wednesday in a case arising from Montgomery County, Maryland, that will have broad and devastating implications for parental rights.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel ruled that parents who send their children to school in the Maryland county are not entitled to a religious exemption allowing them to opt their children out of certain lessons involving LGBT content. The majority was written by a George W. Bush-appointed judge who was joined by a Biden appointee. An appointee of former President Donald Trump dissented in the case.

The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of parents of various faith backgrounds who objected to a series of LGBT storybooks in elementary school classrooms. The school district had granted an opt-out for such lessons but withdrew it in 2023. After a district court ruled against the parents, an appeal was brought to the 4th Circuit, which affirmed the lower court ruling.

In the majority opinion, the court said the parents had failed to provide a sufficient body of evidence to indicate that their children would be subjected to indoctrination that would run contrary to their religious beliefs.

“We understand the Parents’ contention that the Storybooks could be used in ways that would confuse or mislead children and, in particular, that discussions relating to their contents could be used to indoctrinate their children into espousing views that are contrary to their religious faith,” the court said. “But none of that is verified by the limited record that is before us.”

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is already vowing to appeal the court’s ruling.

“The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,” said Eric Baxter, the organization’s vice president and senior counsel. “That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency. Parents should have the right to receive notice and opt their children out of classroom material that violates their faith. We will appeal this ruling.”

The implications of this ruling are dire. Montgomery County Public Schools has explicitly stated that parental rights do not extend to the classroom, even if the classroom instruction violates the religious beliefs of the family. Effectively, the teacher has replaced the parent as the child’s primary educator.

Public schools are funded with public dollars and are therefore subject to the First Amendment’s protections for the free exercise of religion, a right that includes the ability to raise one’s children according to the tenets of one’s faith.

By siding with the school district, the 4th Circuit panel has spit on this right and raised serious questions about what rights, if any, parents have over their children when they attend public school. The next court that hears this case must reverse this intolerant ruling as soon as possible.

In the past, queers were burned, stoned, tortured and executed!
Here's to the good ol' days!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sgalczyn,

quote:

“The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,”

The parents can control the entire district. They just need to get control of the school board. Of course that would involve showing up, making an effort, and getting more than 10% of the voters off of their butts and out to the polling locations on election day.

I get the complaint, but complaining won't accomplish anything.

A) Its fairly clear that the Death Cult is rapidly getting itself installed as the official religion.

B) No one has any concern about maintaining the Republic, at this point. A large portion if not the majority of religions in the US prohibit homosexuality.

C) Killing public schools is probably the first step in the Restoration of the Republic.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

“The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,”

The parents can control the entire district. They just need to get control of the school board. Of course that would involve showing up, making an effort, and getting more than 10% of the voters off of their butts and out to the polling locations on election day.

I get the complaint, but complaining won't accomplish anything.

True but the hard part, at least here is getting intel on the people running, sometimes there just isn't much you can find on the person, their politics, are they DEILGTBQMNOPQRS or MAGA

Canadian Security Intelligence Service suggests those who oppose gender ideology are a 'violent threat' in Canada

In its annual report for 2023 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) says that Canadians opposed to gender ideology are a possible “violent threat.”

The annual report states, "CSIS assesses that the violent threat posed by the anti-gender movement is almost certain to continue over the coming year and that violent actors may be inspired by the University of Waterloo attack to carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology agenda."

While saying that the “anti-gender movement” poses a “significant threat to Canada’s national security, the report then admitted, “While the movement may collectively hold extreme views, CSIS assesses that only a small portion of adherents are willing to engage in serious violence.”

The spy agency could only cite the example of former University of Waterloo student Geovanny Villalba-Aleman, who stabbed two students and a professor in a Gender Studies class in June 2023 as evidence the supposed threat to Canadian security.

The agency categorizes opposition to radical “gender-affirming care” such as sex changes for minors as potentially embracing what it calls “Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism” or RMVE.

CSIS tabled its report to the House of Commons on May 7 and in addition to the usual security threat suspects, the spy agency suggests Canada is fertile ground for “exposure to entities espousing anti-gender extremist rhetoric” who “could inspire and encourage serious violence against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, or against those who are viewed as supporters of pro-gender ideology policies and events.”

CSIS put antisemitism alongside anti-LGBTQ sentiment and claimed, “Anti 2SLGBTQIA+ and antisemitic rhetoric is spreading widely through social media and online forums among domestic RMVE adherents, increasing the risk of extremist violence against these communities, and placing youth vulnerable to RMVE propaganda at a higher risk of becoming radicalized on online platforms. Charismatic RMVE leaders in Canada continue to use international events to amplify their propaganda to radicalize and recruit vulnerable individuals while encouraging both domestic acts of violence and international travel to conflict zones. Consequently, CSIS assesses that RMVE actors will continue to pose a domestic threat to Canada in 2024.”

The report then suggests that RMVE actors can join forces with Individually Motivated Violent Extremists (IMVE). “The anti-gender movement falls within the gender/identity driven violence category of IMVE and is defined as the ideological opposition to the socio-cultural shifts that are represented by the integration and acceptance of gender theory, including acceptance of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.”

CSIS then suggested that Canadians having issues with gender ideology are driven by “beliefs stemming from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has frequently inserted himself and his government into the provincial education sphere and demanded that gender ideology be protected in the school system and that parental rights are superseded by gender fluidity in the classroom. On Thursday, he again insisted that New Brunswick should change its policy of parents having the right to know if their children want to change their pronouns.

As part of its “2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan," the Trudeau government has awarded $1.1 million on a “purge fund” that targets “hateful” parents opposing gender ideology and LGBTQ indoctrination.

The contract was given to Cossette Communications on July 26, 2023 “to develop, manage a 2SLGBTQ+ Anti-Stigma awareness and marketing campaign aimed at targeted segments of people.”

It’s looking like 1938 Germany in Canada….

quote:

True but the hard part, at least here is getting intel on the people running, sometimes there just isn't much you can find on the person, their politics, are they DEILGTBQMNOPQRS or MAGA

That's why I personally coordinated all of our major political parties to co-host a meet the candidate night for all of our municipal (non partisan) elections.

You get the candidates out in public to introduce themselves and answer questions.

It's up to us. If we want to make changes we need to be the tip of the spear. I get your complaint. I had the same one. Then I did something about it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
[
CSIS then suggested that Canadians having issues with gender ideology are driven by “beliefs stemming from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious interpretations, conspiracy theories, or a generalized fear of sociocultural change.”

”

Just throw some fancy words into a reason, should be enough to make it work. Bunch of morons, the ones that have these problems are the promotors of it. With the old school population dying off, there won't be any stopping it, or anyone that cares.