In England the notes have changed a few times so maybe it is time to honour someone else
Answer and Explanation:
1. The state of New York can claim that they are within the rights defended by the bathroom bill (since this law allows the restriction of transgender people to bathrooms that are not determined by their gender of birth) and that the decision was made to maintain the safety of cisgender people.
2. I would recommend that the family look for facts that prove that this measure does not promote the safety of anyone, as there have never been cases of attacks by transgender individuals on cisgender individuals in public bathrooms, on the contrary, this measure causes insecurity for transgender individuals. , since there are countless cases of attacks on these individuals due to prejudice, homophobia and intolerance. In addition, the family may claim that the bathroom bill also advocates allowing transgender individuals to access toilets that match their gender identity, as a measure of security and promoting equality.
Answer:Official filing with the Secretary of State
Explanation:
Answer:
faulty eyewitness testimony.
Explanation:
its less likely to be a problem in trials involving more serious crimes such as murder.
the malleable nature of human memory and visual perception makes eyewitness testimony one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.
