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.
The student in question is NOT a "she." The student is anatomically male, imposing his presence in girls' changing/locker/shower rooms in which MINOR girls are present in various stages of undress including nakedness.
MINOR girl students are uncomfortable with his presence, and the male student cannot even get his female friends to agree to change into and out of gym/clothes/swimsuits and/or shower in his presence. That should be telling you something.
Furthermore, the anatomical male's presence in the girls' facilities under such circumstances violates indecent exposure and/or voyeurism sex crime laws.
Expect more lawsuits filed against the Obama Admin. The IL case is just the tip of the iceberg.
This post shows the real problem. The Feds say the individual is a "she". You will not accept that. And there is the problem in all its glory.
And it is an interesting one. Is there some generic requirement that we accept the self declaration of anyone? No certainly not. But certain things are accepted that way. Religious affiliation for instance. So is this to be one of those? Apparently so if the Feds get to set the path. At this point those disagreeing will have to resort to legislation to block it.
This post shows the real problem. The Feds say the individual is a "she". You will not accept that. And there is the problem in all its glory.
I'm not the one who matters. It's his fellow minor cisgender female students who do not want to change/shower in his (an anatomical male) presence. Not even his female friends will agree to do so voluntarily.
Quote:
Is there some generic requirement that we accept the self declaration of anyone? No certainly not. But certain things are accepted that way. Religious affiliation for instance.
Nope. Not religious affiliation. SSM wedding cake/catering/flowers/photography religious objection debacle ring a bell?
Quote:
So is this to be one of those? Apparently so if the Feds get to set the path. At this point those disagreeing will have to resort to legislation to block it.
I disagree. There is no situation in which self-declaration is accepted as authentic. I can't just say I'm 67 years old and start getting SS checks and Medicare. I can't just say I'm Black and get a government grant for a Black small business startup, or register for a Pigford Settlement payout. Etc., etc.
Furthermore, there isn't even any legislation that supports this. It's not even a lawful edict (much like several other of Obama's decrees). Sen. Al Franken (MN-D) tried for 5 years to pass such legislation, though, including when Reid and the Dems had the Senate, and couldn't get such legislation to pass.
100 or more girls wait to use 5 changing stalls in the few minutes before and after PE class that they're allowed to change?
I just don't see how that works. You do the math and tell me how that's possible.
Additionally, there are still no curtained stalls in the multiple occupancy swimming or gymnastics locker/shower rooms. Both classes/sports require the complete removal of one's clothes to change into and out of a swimsuit/leotard.
Read the lawsuit. This is all documented.
Not a she. He's an anatomical male. No proof whatsoever has been produced that he's actually transgender. No reason why he can't use the boys' facilities like the rest of the anatomical males.
You make the assumption that 100 girls will wait for private stalls. If all girls need private stalls, then it is the duty of the school to provide that. If girls are fine with changing in open locker rooms, that is their choice.
Transgender girls are a "she," and I will be addressing them as such. So please stop trying to "correct" that.
Would it be okay for girls to change in the boys locker room? I am sure you would be fine with a transgender girl being beaten, raped, or murdered in a boys locker room too just to prove your point.
I'm not the one who matters. It's his fellow minor cisgender female students who do not want to change/shower in his (an anatomical male) presence. Not even his female friends will agree to do so voluntarily.
Nope. Not religious affiliation. SSM wedding cake/catering/flowers/photography religious objection debacle ring a bell?
I disagree. There is no situation in which self-declaration is accepted as authentic. I can't just say I'm 67 years old and start getting SS checks and Medicare. I can't just say I'm Black and get a government grant for a Black small business startup, or register for a Pigford Settlement payout. Etc., etc.
Furthermore, there isn't even any legislation that supports this. It's not even a lawful edict (much like several other of Obama's decrees). Sen. Al Franken (MN-D) tried for 5 years to pass such legislation, though, including when Reid and the Dems had the Senate, and couldn't get such legislation to pass.
The seven protected classes for housing are Race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, Religion and familial status are pretty much self declared.
The gay wedding cake dealt with state law on public accommodations. Says a business can't discriminate and there is no religious out for doing so. That decision would support a transgender's rights.
You make the assumption that 100 girls will wait for private stalls.
Have I not already quoted the lawsuit stating that not even the "self-identified" transgender's female friends will agree to voluntarily change/shower with him in their presence?
Quote:
Transgender girls are a "she"
Based on what? He's anatomically male. If I say I'm a purple and yellow striped unicorn, does that make me one? If I say I'm President Obama, can I just come in and take over the WH, no questions asked?
Quote:
Would it be okay for girls to change in the boys locker room?
Anatomical girls? No. That's already been covered in PA federal court:
Quote:
"...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.
Footnote: Plaintiff was born a female but identifies as a transgender male"
Have I not already quoted the lawsuit stating that not even the "self-identified" transgender's female friends will agree to voluntarily change/shower with him in their presence?
Based on what? He's anatomically male. If I say I'm a purple and yellow striped unicorn, does that make me one? If I say I'm President Obama, can I just come in and take over the WH, no questions asked?
Anatomical girls? No. That's already been covered in PA federal court: http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net...nstonVPitt.pdf
No, that is something from the ACLU, the transgender girl in question is fine with changing in privacy stalls.
Yes, we get it, you don't like the definition for transgender and refuse to accept it.
No, that's a Federal Court ruling in reference to a state university in PA. I posted the link. Transgenders who are still anatomically one gender cannot use the facilities of the opposite gender. And no loss of federal funding can result from that anatomically-based sex-segregation.
Quote:
the transgender girl in question is fine with changing in privacy stalls.
How does he (remember, anatomical male, no proof whatsoever of transgenderism other than his "say so") get to the private stalls without passing through the girls' locker/shower room in which girls are in various stages of undress?
That's a documented item in the lawsuit.
Quote:
Yes, we get it, you don't like the definition for transgender and refuse to accept it.
What's the definition? Only one's "say so?"
I "self-identify" as Obama. According to your logic, that means I should be given full access to the WH and full authority to rescind all his unlawful EOs and edicts.
You make the assumption that 100 girls will wait for private stalls. If all girls need private stalls, then it is the duty of the school to provide that. If girls are fine with changing in open locker rooms, that is their choice.
Transgender girls are a "she," and I will be addressing them as such. So please stop trying to "correct" that.
Would it be okay for girls to change in the boys locker room? I am sure you would be fine with a transgender girl being beaten, raped, or murdered in a boys locker room too just to prove your point.
There is an in between option - a separate single user gender neutral facility. That is a solution that meets everyone's NEEDS - minor students NEED to not be forced to see someone remove their clothes, or remove their own clothes, in front of someone they view as a different gender than themselves. That is a need for the developing child's emotional comfort. The transgender child WANTS to change clothes with people they consider their own gender. Why should the transgendered child's wants supersede the needs of the vast majority of biological girls in the school.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
There is an in between option - a separate single user gender neutral facility. That is a solution that meets everyone's NEEDS - minor students NEED to not be forced to see someone remove their clothes, or remove their own clothes, in front of someone they view as a different gender than themselves. That is a need for the developing child's emotional comfort. The transgender child WANTS to change clothes with people they consider their own gender. Why should the transgendered child's wants supersede the needs of the vast majority of biological girls in the school.
That was offered in Dist 211. Both the self-identifying as female transgender but still anatomically male student and the Obama Admin rejected that as a solution.
From the students' and parents' lawsuit against the Obama Admin:
Quote:
District 211 provided Student A with several private facilities to change his clothes for physical education and athletics from the fall of 2013 through January 14, 2016.
Student A expressed dissatisfaction with the private arrangements.
In response to Student A’s complaints, District 211 provided different options and installed lockers, mirrors, and other equipment in the private rooms for Student A’s use.
When Student A complained about changing alone, District 211 offered to put lockers in the restroom adjoining the PE locker room so Student A could invite his friends to change with him.
Student A spoke with several friends but no girls would agree to change with him.
The transgender student then filed a complaint with the DOE OCR.
The transgender student and the Obama DOE OCR Admin subsequently forced the full access for self-identifying transgenders to all facilities policy that Dist 211 currently has and that ALL public schools throughout this country have to have, as described in the Obama Admin letter to all public schools, or they will lose their federal funding.
The Obama Admin letter to EVERY public school in America:
Quote:
"A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so."
Keep in mind that there is NO federal law that supports this edict, and in fact a Federal Court in PA ruled exactly the opposite:
Quote:
"...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.
Footnote: Plaintiff was born a female but identifies as a transgender male"
Again, a Federal Court ruled that this wasn't acceptable for college-aged students, but the Obama Admin forced this down to every K-12 public school in this country based only on their "say so."
No, that's a Federal Court ruling in reference to a state university in PA. I posted the link. Transgenders who are still anatomically one gender cannot use the facilities of the opposite gender. And no loss of federal funding can result from that anatomically-based sex-segregation.
How does he (remember, anatomical male, no proof whatsoever of transgenderism other than his "say so") get to the private stalls without passing through the girls' locker/shower room in which girls are in various stages of undress?
That's a documented item in the lawsuit.
What's the definition? Only one's "say so?"
I "self-identify" as Obama. According to your logic, that means I should be given full access to the WH and full authority to rescind all his unlawful EOs and edicts.
The ACLU is also involved in the case as well. I would have figured you knew that. Your statement is false and only founded on your own opinion rather than any court rulings.
Your unwillingness to accept someone who is transgender makes this useless because no definition will satisfy you. That is also why your strawman argument that you now self identify as Obama is just ridiculous.
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.
