The argument is

Not any more than it already is illegal. Telling a person how they have to behave or dress based on their assigned sex is pretty clearly sex discrimination, but just like they argue “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU OR LOGIC” with the Civil Rights Act they could make the same argument with the ERA.

The law literally does say what the Obama administration interpreted it to say. Their bullshit is just that because it doesn’t say it clearly enough they can pretend it says something else.

This would not be happening if Trump had lost the election.

I believe you consciously think that you don’t use singular they in ordinary conversation but I don’t believe that you actually don’t use it. It’s literally been standard for hundreds of years and you can find examples of it in Chaucer and Shakespeare, and I very much doubt you would notice that when reading without…

You don’t seem to understand either position very well, which isn’t surprising since you present them as overly-simplistic strawmen.

When you pull a woman over, don’t demand to call her husband and ask what punishment he’ll give her for her infraction.

Hey, remember when the president wasn’t a racist three-year-old? That was nice.

But you said “if” they were required to, so I assumed it covers a scenario where there was a change in the policy. Clicking through to the link, it says if “asked or ordered to”, which seems to gloss over a substantial distinction.

“A Police Federation survey has found that 55% of officers would carry firearms if required to”

I legit stopped inviting a friend to my place because he insists on bringing this kale salad he makes to my place every time and I feel like I have to eat it to be polite.

A lot of people came here for Jessica Rabbit’s vagina and are leaving very disappointed.

Easter is named after a Germanic goddess, but it’s usually considered the most important Christian Holiday. Halloween has a name reflecting Christian influence, but usually isn’t considered particularly Christian. The name isn’t particularly relevant.

Christmas is mostly secular, and many of the traditions associated with it predate Christianity and are otherwise not particularly Christian-y.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the rules for case assignment for relative pronouns are different from the rules of case assignment for personal pronouns. That is, you accept “that’s me,” but you reject “the person whom it is,” although the roles of “me” and “who(m)” are the same in both phrases.…

I was born with a dick and now I’m gay. Coincidence? I think not.

I’m talking about the pronoun’s role in the relative clause (predicative complement). Not its role in the matrix clause (subject).

I know, but I don’t know why they didn’t post it with this one (which also oddly seems to talk about the issue as if it weren’t a follow-up).

Would you favor the latter sentence in a written work? That seems like poor judgment.

It’s not clear because of the lighting in the video but if you look at the screenshots it’s very plainly and obviously an intentional dick.