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.
What does that matter? What they know is that they don't want a person with a penis changing and showering with their minor daughters, and vice versa.
And I question the legality of forcing minor children into this scenario. I do not understand why those who support this move by Obama do not see this huge glaring issue with this new policy.
And I question the legality of forcing minor children into this scenario. I do not understand why those who support this move by Obama do not see this huge glaring issue with this new policy.
Exactly. They clearly haven't thought it through. In most states, when that scenario occurs on school grounds and/or if the victim is a minor, it's FELONY indecent exposure. A sex crime. For which an offender must register as a child sex offender FOR LIFE.
They clearly haven't thought it through. In most states, when that scenario occurs on school grounds and/or if the victim is a minor, it's FELONY indecent exposure. A sex crime. For which an offender must register as a child sex offender FOR LIFE.
What a mess.
ETA: Wonder what the policy will be in college dorms (e.g. room assignments)? Having a college aged daughter made me think of it.
But it is a consequence that has not been accounted for with Obama's new decree. So what's the answer then? Because Obama's decree makes this a very real possibility and likely occurrence.
Haha I'm reminded of the dire warnings of fire and brimstone if gay marriage was instituted.
ETA: Wonder what the policy will be in college dorms (e.g. room assignments)? Having a college aged daughter made me think of it.
There was a federal court ruling in 2015 on this regarding a public university in PA. Maybe it will help...
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."
Regardless of which side you're on for this issue, since when does Obama get to make laws or control who gets federal funding? That's Congress' job not his.
Public schools are like crack addicts, hooked on federal funding. They don't know how to function without it. That's the bigger problem that needs to change.
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.
