Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are still missing it...while some showers may be slightly closed off mine are not at my 24 Hour Fitness...I shower there everyday as I workout in the early AM before heading to the office. Further, a locker room is a place where people have felt comfortable briefly exposing themselves to people of the same sex. You want to take away that expected right and now we have to think about that looney across from us as we drop our towel for that moment. There really is no argument here...this is as simple as it gets.
Exactly! There are a LOT of people who apparently will not admit that single-sex multiple occupancy showers are actually quite common in places designed to accommodate a lot of people. I'm pretty confident in positing they're the sedentary percentage of the population.
The lawsuit that informed consent posted didn't say that the transgendered man in question ever walked around naked in the locker room or bathroom. Someone found out that on his school records he was labeled as a "female" and so that "bothered" them. He had been in the locker room many times without incident.
Wow! That is a HUGE mischaracterization of the case. You didn't read the ruling at all, did you?
Quote:
"On November 16, 2011, the campus police issued a citation to Plaintiff for disorderly conduct because he used the men’s locker room. Despite receiving this citation, Plaintiff continued to use the men’s locker room. On November 21, 2011, Plaintiff received a second citation for disorderly conduct for using the men’s locker room. During this confrontation, Campus Police Chief Kevin Grady informed Plaintiff that, if he continued to use the men’s locker room, he would be arrested and taken into custody.
On November 28, 2011, Jacob W. Harper, Coordinator for the UPJ Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution, issued an interim persona non grata against Plaintiff, barring him from the Sports Center due to his continued use of the men’s locker room. Additionally, on November 21, 2011, Harper notified Plaintiff that disciplinary charges had been filed against him and that he was required to attend a disciplinary hearing on November 23, 2011, which was subsequently rescheduled for December 2, 2011. Plaintiff received a second citation for disorderly conduct for using the men’s locker room. During this confrontation, Campus Police Chief Kevin Grady informed Plaintiff that, if he continued to use the men’s locker room, he would be arrested and taken into custody.
On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff again used the men’s locker room.
On December 2, 2011, at a disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff was found guilty of three charges resulting from alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct, and was instructed that he was not to use any male locker rooms or restroom facilities on campus.
As a result of the findings at the disciplinary hearing, several sanctions were imposed against Plaintiff, including a required counseling assessment, disciplinary probation for approximately one year, and exclusion from all male-designated campus facilities until Plaintiff graduated from UPJ.
Nevertheless, on December 7, 2011, Plaintiff used a men’s restroom in the Wellness Center to change his clothes, and Campus Police confronted Plaintiff, informing him that he was not to use any men’s restrooms on campus."
...and on and on and on, until the FTM trans who was still anatomically female was expelled. The expulsion was upheld by Federal Court, as previously noted:
Quote:
"This case arises from Plaintiff Seamus Johnston’s allegations that Defendants discriminated against him based on his sex and his transgender status(1) by prohibiting him from using sex-segregated locker rooms and restrooms that were designated for men. Although the parties have submitted lengthy briefs and have advanced numerous arguments, this case presents one central question: whether a university, receiving federal funds, engages in unlawful discrimination, in violation of the United States Constitution and federal and state statutes, when it prohibits a transgender male student from using sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms designated for men on a university campus. The simple answer is no."
(1) Plaintiff was born a female but identifies as a transgender male."
Wow! That is a HUGE mischaracterization of the case. You didn't read the ruling at all, did you?
...and on and on and on, until the FTM trans who was still anatomically female was expelled. The expulsion was upheld by Federal Court, as previously noted:
All quoted passages are from the Federal Court ruling: http://www.utimes.pitt.edu/documents...tonOpinion.pdf
What I said was the truth. Nowhere in your link did it say the transgendered man walked around naked in the shower/locker room. It also did state he had been in the locker room without incident over 5 times before someone found out that he was labeled as a female on his school records. They told him to go and change the information on his school records and that would alleviate the issue. He didn't.
From your link:
Quote:
While enrolled as a student at UPJ, Plaintiff consistently used the men’s restrooms
on campus. (Id. ¶ 42). During the spring 2011 semester, Plaintiff enrolled in a men’s
weight training class, which was attended only by men. (Id. ¶ 43). Plaintiff used the
men’s locker room for the men’s weight training class throughout the spring 2011
semester Plaintiff again enrolled in a men’s weight training class for the fall 2011 semester, and again began using the men’s locker room. (Id. ¶ 45). Plaintiff used the
locker room approximately five times between the end of August and mid-September
without incident.
Please note that Spring semester is Jan-May, so the Plaintiff used the locker room multiple times for approximately 5 months without incident during that time period.
Quote:
However, on September 19, 2011, Plaintiff met with_________, Executive
Director of Health and Wellness Services at UPJ, who informed Plaintiff that he could no
longer use the men’s locker room. On September
26, 2011, J__________, UPJ Vice President of Student Affairs, informed Plaintiff that
“he would be allowed to use the men’s locker room if his student records were updated
from female to male.”
Quote:
On September 29, 2011, _____________, UPJ Registrar,
informed Plaintiff that, in order to change the sex designation on his student records,
Plaintiff must provide either a court order or a new birth certificate reflecting Plaintiff’s
current gender.
Quote:
On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff registered a complaint with
__________, UPJ President, to protest his exclusion from the men’s locker room. ________responded by a letter dated October 21, 2011, confirming that, in order for
Plaintiff to have access to the men’s locker room, he must officially change his gender in
UPJ’s records by presenting a court order or birth certificate.
Quote:
In October 2011, Plaintiff began reusing the men’s locker room, using the locker
room six times between October 24, 2011, and November 14, 2011, without incident.
Following this passage is when yours begins in regards to the citation.
Earlier in your link it was already stated about the Plaintiff the following:
Quote:
Beginning in 2009, as part of Plaintiff’s transition to living as a male, he “amended
his identity documents and records to reflect his male gender identity.
In
2010, Plaintiff obtained a common law name change to “Male Name
Johnston.” In October 2011, Plaintiff amended the gender marker to male on
his Pennsylvania driver’s license. In July 2011, Plaintiff registered with the
Selective Service. In February 2012, Plaintiff amended the gender marker to male on his United States passport. In November 2013, Plaintiff amended the
gender marker to male in his Social Security record.
Please note, I blanked out names as I don't want them searchable on this forum. However, the Plaintiff started attending school in 2009 according to the brief. He also used the locker room 5 times prior to them finding out he was born a woman and then they took actions to stop him.
As was stated by your earlier and in the brief, he lost the case because transgender is not a protected class. Also, he did not do as they asked him to do and update his birth certificate to read as "male" instead of "female." If he had, then he wouldn't have had an issue. He should have changed it IMO. So I am not arguing that he should have won or that he did win the case, I am stating, per your document that he used the locker room without incident and that it did not say he walked around naked in the locker room, which it did not. The only issue was that someone found out that he was listed as a "female" on his records and told him to update them. He did not and instead decided he shouldn't have to play by those rules/request and ignored them and used the locker room anyway. So he got himself into trouble over it. After filing this suit, or prior to, it looks like he did update his records per the quote above where in 2012 and 2013 he updated his passport and other records. If he'd done this in 2010 and 2011, he wouldn't have had a problem in the locker room.
What I said was the truth. Nowhere in your link did it say the transgendered man walked around naked in the shower/locker room. It also did state he had been in the locker room without incident over 5 times before someone found out that he was labeled as a female on his school records.
The university investigating the incidents "found out" she had applied to the university and was registered as a female AFTER the campus police had been called multiple times to eject the FTM but still anatomically female student from various men's multiple occupancy campus restroom/locker room facilities.
Quote:
[FTM but still anatomically female student] lost the case because transgender is not a protected class.
Exactly. Neither PA State Law nor Federal Law protects anyone on the basis of gender identity.
So... when are all these idiotic performers and companies going to boycott PA, the other 32 states, and even the entire U.S. for that matter?
As was stated by your earlier and in the brief, he lost the case because transgender is not a protected class. Also, he did not do as they asked him to do and update his birth certificate to read as "male" instead of "female." If he had, then he wouldn't have had an issue.
Actually, it would STILL be an issue because to change one's sex on their birth certificate in PA, as in many states, requires an MD's statement that the person had in fact completed sex-reassignment surgery. The PA student in question had not completed such surgery.
Please stop making BS up and posting it as if it were real.
Actually, it would STILL be an issue because to change one's sex on their birth certificate in PA, as in many states, requires an MD's statement that the person had in fact completed sex-reassignment surgery. The PA student in question had not completed such surgery.
Please stop making BS up and posting it as if it were real.
You are the one making up BS (as always it seems lol).
I actually agreed with you that transgendered is not a protected class and that I felt he should have lost his case and you are acting like I was not.
All I said (which is true) is that this case is not based on the transgendered man walking around the shower/locker room naked.
You are the one making up BS (as always it seems lol).
Not at all.
Exactly what makes you think the FTM trans student at issue in the PA case would have been able to get an amended BC to state a different sex, as the university requested? She had NOT undergone sex-reassignment surgery and therefore was INELIGIBLE to change the sex on her BC.
So, as I said... STOP making up BS and posting it.
The university investigating the incidents "found out" she had applied to the university and was registered as a female AFTER the campus police had been called multiple times to eject the FTM but still anatomically female student from various men's multiple occupancy campus restroom/locker room facilities. Exactly. Neither PA State Law nor Federal Law protects anyone on the basis of gender identity.
So... when are all these idiotic performers and companies going to boycott PA, the other 32 states, and even the entire U.S. for that matter?
The red is incorrect from your own post. There was only one incident where the campus police was stated to have removed the transgendered male from the locker room. It was not based upon him walking around naked and anatomically female. It was based upon the knowledge that his records said he was born a female.
You should review your own posts/links in greater depth. And again, I agree that he should have changed his documentation especially and he would not have had a problem as he would have been legally a male. Transgender is NOT a protected class on any level as far as I am aware so that is not in question either.
The fact remains that no one has had an issue with a transgendered person walking around naked in the shower. You and others worried about this occurring IMO have some warped mindsets due to this sort of situation would be extremely rare based on there being only a very small minority of transgendered persons in the country anyway and the fact, as stated earlier, that the trans person is the one who faces the highest risk of issues, either legally, discrimination based, or violence based if they are found ro be a transgendered person who is not anatomically changed.
If someone has legal documents that state they are a male or female then I don't see why there would need to be a problem. If they don't, like the transgendered male in your example, then they should have a problem and IMO they should take the necessary steps to get their legal identity in order. To change one's legal gender identity, they do not have to actually change their genitalia. It is a legal process. They can be "legally" male or female and in the eyes of the law, legality is what matters, not what's in your pants.
Exactly what makes you think the FTM trans student at issue in the PA case would have been able to get an amended BC to state a different sex, as the university requested? She had NOT undergone sex-reassignment surgery and therefore was INELIGIBLE to change the sex on her BC.
So, as I said... STOP making up BS and posting it.
Again you are making up something again lol.
This will be my last post to you since I know how you like to cut/paste people's quotes with one sentence and act like that was all they said (seems you are one track minded).
People have and can change their gender identity on legal documents and make themselves legally a different gender. The brief said that the transgendered man in your link updated his passport to "male." A passport is a legal identification document, one that can be used in lieu of birth certificate. If he is labeled a male on his passport and submits that to organizations as proof of identity, they do not require he submit his BC and therefore he is legally a male.
Look at an I9 form and the identification needed. The passport can also be used to obtain a driver's license whereas all you need is the passport for identification. If he submits a male passport to the BMV he will be labeled, legally, as a male on his license. He changed his identity with the social security administration to male per the brief. As of 2013, after he updated his passport, legally, he is a male. They would never have known nor would they have a legal case if he had gotten all that done prior to his issues at the PA school.
No, it is not. Read the Federal Court ruling. The student's actual documented gender wasn't investigated until AFTER one or more citations had been issued by campus police.
Quote:
If someone has legal documents that state they are a male or female then I don't see why there would need to be a problem.
An amended BC was requested by the state university and could not be supplied, because the FTM trans student wasn't actually anatomically male and was therefore barred from men's multiple facility restrooms/changing/locker/shower rooms on campus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly! There are a LOT of people who apparently will not admit that single-sex multiple occupancy showers are actually quite common in places designed to accommodate a lot of people. I'm pretty confident in positing they're the sedentary percentage of the population. 
