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.
Nope. Merely that nothing in the letter changes the likelihood of a female student being attacked.
I disagree.
THIS is what happens when men "claiming" to be transgender are allowed into girls'/women's facilities:
A male sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender attacked girls/women as young as age 5 at Toronto women's shelters over a span of 12 years.
What's the plan to prevent that, or similar, here in US schools? There's no definitive identification of who is or who is not transgender. What's the criteria to identify someone as such? Merely someone's "say so" about themselves? And who is monitoring access to girls'/women's multiple occupancy restroom/locker/shower room facilities to make sure that only those who actually ARE transgender are admitted to the facilities? Will there be guards at each entrance the entire time such facilities are open?
Given that newly introduced REALITY, any sexual predator male with an exposure fetish can now just stroll right into the girl's/women's multiple occupancy locker/shower room, strip down to nothing, and if he "says" he's "transgender," no girl/woman can do a thing about it except to submit to indecent exposure ...or leave. And similarly, there's no way to stop male voyeur sexual predators from watching girls/women undress or shower under the same circumstances. All they have to do is "say" they're "transgender" and all's good; no one can challenge their right to be there.
How many more additional girl/woman victims of sexual predators exploiting this "policy" will it take for you all to back off?!? How many MORE women have to suffer? How many is enough?
1? 10? 100? 1,000?...
How many more girls/women have to be victimized before this BS is stopped? Why risk 51% of the population's safety to appease 0.3% of the population? I would REALLY like any of you to answer those questions.
Do you NOT see how misogynistic your demands are? Why DEMAND girls/women expose themselves to male sexual predators posing as transgenders just so that 0.3% of the population can use the restroom of their choice, which they have already been doing anyway?
How INCREDIBLY selfish of many of you to demand that there be EVEN MORE victimization of women. And the women among you being OK with setting up other girls/women for sex crime victimization this way? Makes me sick to my stomach. /puke
Freaking about nothing? Toronto couldn't stop a man who "claimed" to be "transgender" to access girls'/women's facilities from sexually attacking girls and women as young as 5 years old over a span of 12 years.
That's what happens when a government looks the other way when men victimize girls and women because they favor the 0.3% of the population who are transgender over the 51% who are girls/women.
So you are saying the man wasn't arrested? Who was there to guard the door to inspect everyone who entered? The laws are still the same and what he did was still illegal, even if he claimed to be a woman.
Let me know when you are able to refute that, though I will accept your copy and paste post as being an admission that you are wrong.
Who was there to guard the door to inspect everyone who entered? The laws are still the same and what he did was still illegal, even if he claimed to be a woman.
Exactly. Letting men "claim" to be women with no proof whatsoever required leads to exactly what happened in Toronto: The "fake" transgender who was actually a male sexual predator was given free rein and free access to girls'/women's facilities to attack girls and women as young as 5 years old for 12 years.
THIS is what happens when men "claiming" to be transgender are allowed into girls'/women's facilities:
A male sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender attacked girls/women as young as age 5 at Toronto women's shelters over a span of 12 years.
What's the plan to prevent that, or similar, here in US schools? There's no definitive identification of who is or who is not transgender. What's the criteria to identify someone as such? Merely someone's "say so" about themselves? And who is monitoring access to girls'/women's multiple occupancy restroom/locker/shower room facilities to make sure that only those who actually ARE transgender are admitted to the facilities? Will there be guards at each entrance the entire time such facilities are open?
Given that newly introduced REALITY, any sexual predator male with an exposure fetish can now just stroll right into the girl's/women's multiple occupancy locker/shower room, strip down to nothing, and if he "says" he's "transgender," no girl/woman can do a thing about it except to submit to indecent exposure ...or leave. And similarly, there's no way to stop male voyeur sexual predators from watching girls/women undress or shower under the same circumstances. All they have to do is "say" they're "transgender" and all's good; no one can challenge their right to be there.
How many more additional girl/woman victims of sexual predators exploiting this "policy" will it take for you all to back off?!? How many MORE women have to suffer? How many is enough?
1? 10? 100? 1,000?...
How many more girls/women have to be victimized before this BS is stopped? Why risk 51% of the population's safety to appease 0.3% of the population? I would REALLY like any of you to answer those questions.
Do you NOT see how misogynistic your demands are? Why DEMAND girls/women expose themselves to male sexual predators posing as transgenders just so that 0.3% of the population can use the restroom of their choice, which they have already been doing anyway?
How INCREDIBLY selfish of many of you to demand that there be EVEN MORE victimization of women. And the women among you being OK with setting up other girls/women for sex crime victimization this way? Makes me sick to my stomach. /puke
These leftists don't give a "you know what" who suffers as long as their psychotic ideological fetishism is satiated.
Good point . This issue may have 'gone nationwide' in 2016, but became an issue in California with a state law that passed in 2013 (AB 1266).
Are schools in California to follow the letter of AB 1266 or the letter of the Obama administrations new letter?
In other words, re the Supremacy Clause, does the Obama administration's new letter carry the same weight as a federal statute?
^^^^^ No response from the member I asked. Anyone else know if the Obama administration's letter carries the same weight as federal statute re the above?
Exactly. Letting men "claim" to be women with no proof whatsoever required leads to exactly what happened in Toronto: The "fake" transgender who was actually a male sexual predator was given free rein and free access to girls'/women's facilities to attack girls and women as young as 5 years old for 12 years.
False, it is still illegal for what he did and he was arrested for that. No one said "oh, you are a woman, keep doing what you are doing" because what he was doing was illegal. He wasn't allowed to even be in the women's locker room to begin with, so no he didn't have any free access anymore than he already had.
It happened for 12 years because he wasn't caught, not because he claimed he was transgender. He only claimed to be transgender when he was caught and the police still arrested him and he was still charged for a crime.
You seem to gloss over all of this because it doesn't fit with your incorrect story.
^^^^^ No response from the member I asked. Anyone else know if the Obama administration's letter carries the same weight as federal statute re the above?
It is an advisory letter. No statutory weight. But it says they may consider suing you if you don't conform. Than again they may not.
Off hand it will be virtually impossible to get sued unless the locals manage to mug some transgender kid.
False, it is still illegal for what he did and he was arrested for that.
Why, as a male, was he even allowed admittance to women's facilities to begin with? Why is it that you want women to be sexually attacked before you'll admit letting men into women's facilities just because they "claim" to be transgender (with no proof whatsoever required) further endangers girls/women?
How many more additional girl/woman victims of sexual predators exploiting this "policy" will it take for you all to back off?!? How many MORE women have to suffer? How many is enough?
1? 10? 100? 1,000?...
How many more girls/women have to be victimized before this BS is stopped? Why risk 51% of the population's safety to appease 0.3% of the population? I would REALLY like any of you to answer those questions.
Do you NOT see how misogynistic your demands are? Why DEMAND girls/women expose themselves to male sexual predators posing as transgenders just so that 0.3% of the population can use the restroom of their choice, which they have already been doing anyway?
How INCREDIBLY selfish of many of you to demand that there be EVEN MORE victimization of women. And the women among you being OK with setting up other girls/women for sex crime victimization this way? Makes me sick to my stomach. /puke
It is an advisory letter. No statutory weight. But it says they may consider suing you if you don't conform.
Hasn't the federal government also threatened to withhold federal funding from schools that don't comply? That's what happened in the IL School District case.
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.
. This issue may have 'gone nationwide' in 2016, but became an issue in California with a state law that passed in 2013 (AB 1266). 
