Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on January 21, 2015, 03:18:07 PM
-
The degradation of America (in this case California) continues. On the bright side when Obama and Mooshell visit their Hollywood buddies they won't be so confused.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/01/california-city-prohibits-gender-specific-restrooms/
-
did obama pass the law? Or was it the liberal fvcksticks that reside in California?
-
did obama pass the law? Or was it the liberal fvcksticks that reside in California?
I guess you're not aware that in right wing imagination land Obama is a ruthless dictator who controls all aspect of life everywhere in the country
-
I guess you're not aware that in right wing imagination land Obama is a ruthless dictator who controls all aspect of life everywhere in the country
I used to live under the delusion that at least 50.1% of people in California, and thus their lib leaders & lib actions are just a reflection of what the voters there want.
*USED TO.
-
The degradation of America (in this case California) continues. On the bright side when Obama and Mooshell visit their Hollywood buddies they won't be so confused.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/01/california-city-prohibits-gender-specific-restrooms/
Good grief. Is this really necessary?
-
I really dont see why the need for neutral bathrooms...
you still have a dick? you use the men's room.. you have a vag.. use the women's room...
end of discussion... you dont like it... get a sex change
-
Good grief. Is this really necessary?
I dont think it is. But the people of california do. They're twisted and sick.
-
I really dont see why the need for neutral bathrooms...
you still have a dick? you use the men's room.. you have a vag.. use the women's room...
end of discussion... you dont like it... get a sex change
Homophobic post reported.
-
absolutely ridiculous.
we are living in strange times here folks...our current society is an aberration in the context of history and therefore wont last long, as it is an extremely unnatural state. all this weird shit will 'correct itself' one way or another before too long, society will move rightward to its more natural state and the these freaks will go back to the shadows where they belong. sorry libs, enjoy it while it lasts ::)
-
As usual, right wing "news" sources need to leave out important little details so that they can keep their brain dead followers (like the certified moron who started this thread) riled up and angry
West Hollywood's new law takes effect Thursday and gives businesses 60 days to scuttle gender-specific signs in restrooms intended for no more than one person In coffee shops with a men's and a women's bathroom, for example, that means both restrooms will become gender-neutral.
http://www.latimes.com/local/westside/la-me-gender-neutral-restrooms-20150115-story.html
-
absolutely ridiculous.
we are living in strange times here folks...our current society is an aberration in the context of history and therefore wont last long, as it is an extremely unnatural state. all this weird shit will 'correct itself' one way or another before too long, society will move rightward to its more natural state and the these freaks will go back to the shadows where they belong. sorry libs, enjoy it while it lasts ::)
We are definitely living in strange and interesting times, but I'm not sure we turn back the clock on most of this stuff. Assuming states retain freedoms, I think the best option for people might be to move to another state.
-
We are definitely living in strange and interesting times, but I'm not sure we turn back the clock on most of this stuff. Assuming states retain freedoms, I think the best option for people might be to move to another state.
it is only a small % of republicans that really want the states to retain rights. RINOs + Dems want more federal spending, more federal control over issues.
-
We are definitely living in strange and interesting times, but I'm not sure we turn back the clock on most of this stuff. Assuming states retain freedoms, I think the best option for people might be to move to another state.
yes, you need to find a state that will require an establishment with only single bathroom to require that only one gender be allowed to use that bathroom at all times. If you're a man and the bathroom is only for women then you either hold it or go piss in the alley
Isn't that one of the core principals upon which this country was founded
-
it is only a small % of republicans that really want the states to retain rights. RINOs + Dems want more federal spending, more federal control over issues.
Dude. Shut the heck up.
-
Dude. Shut the heck up.
great response there Mr. Moderator
-
great response there Mr. Moderator
common strategy to attack the messenger, not the message - when the message is 100% correct.
he feels the need to defend moderate repubs/RINOs nonstop, for some reason.
-
common strategy to attack the messenger, not the message - when the message is 100% correct.
he feels the need to defend moderate repubs/RINOs nonstop, for some reason.
even if not 100% correct or even if he doesn't agree he's violating his own rules
isn't this supposed to be a political discussion board
I could understand if your post was nothing more than the typical completely off topic racial slur/homophobic rant then telling you to shut up would make some sense
-
even if not 100% correct or even if he doesn't agree he's violating his own rules
isn't this supposed to be a political discussion board
I could understand if your post was nothing more than the typical completely off topic racial slur/homophobic rant then telling you to shut up would make some sense
:'(
-
:'(
I say let there be no rules and I'll tear you a new one every single day just like the good old days
but if you're going to have rules then at the very least the so called Mods should try to follow them
You know, lead by example and all that shit
-
I say let there be no rules and I'll tear you a new one every single day just like the good old days
but if you're going to have rules then at the very least the so called Mods should try to follow them
You know, lead by example and all that shit
I don't have a problem w no rules other than not taking this bs off this site and stalking others around the web. That's some creepy shit some of us have dealt w from stalkers
-
I don't have a problem w no rules other than not taking this bs off this site and stalking others around the web. That's some creepy shit some of us have dealt w from stalkers
:'(
maybe stop posting mens room selfies and talking about your gay fantasies all day long would prevent that
-
:'(
maybe stop posting mens room selfies and talking about your gay fantasies all day long would prevent that
So it was you wasn't it? Creeper.
-
So it was you wasn't it? Creeper.
only in your dreams queer
-
Had a feeling it was only going to be single person restrooms.
Its a better idea. If one is taken you can use the other. Some restaurants in No. Cal. have these.
Figures that some peeps would get their panties in a bundle over it.
-
Had a feeling it was only going to be single person restrooms.
Its a better idea. If one is taken you can use the other. Some restaurants in No. Cal. have these.
Figures that some peeps would get their panties in a bundle over it.
when you Google the story notice how many right wing sites leave out that salient detail
-
Had a feeling it was only going to be single person restrooms.
Its a better idea. If one is taken you can use the other. Some restaurants in No. Cal. have these.
Figures that some peeps would get their panties in a bundle over it.
You really think this is just about convenience for everyone and not pushing some agenda?
-
if its just for single person then its not a big deal in itself...but lets not pretend the leftists are going to be satisfied with that. everything just keeps getting dragged further and further left, and thats what people are concerned about
-
if its just for single person then its not a big deal in itself...but lets not pretend the leftists are going to be satisfied with that. everything just keeps getting dragged further and further left, and thats what people are concerned about
Agree. I don't think for one minute those folks are just trying some generic improvement of bathroom access. They have been doing some whacked out stuff in that state.
-
if its just for single person then its not a big deal in itself...but lets not pretend the leftists are going to be satisfied with that. everything just keeps getting dragged further and further left, and thats what people are concerned about
great idea and standard Republican operating procedure
let's ignore reality (notice how the original story left out a key fact) and instead imagine an ridiculous spin on reality and assume it's true or at least imminent and then get riled up about it
-
Get used to it because there is a resonating message of 'different but equal' that makes no logical sense. It appears that the message has women worrying now as a man claiming to be a woman psychologically can now enter a women's restroom. Many cities with liberal mayors have this law or are pushing it.
-
You really think this is just about convenience for everyone and not pushing some agenda?
What agenda?
That we should all be the same sex?
That male and female distinctions don't matter?
What?
It more convenient. Int he past, if i had to go, and the men's was occupied with some guy dropping a deuce, i would just go to the women's.
-
great idea and standard Republican operating procedure
let's ignore reality (notice how the original story left out a key fact) and instead imagine an ridiculous spin on reality and assume it's true or at least imminent and then get riled up about it
Sounds about right.
-
Sounds about right.
you see the same thing on this board every day
you can see it in this thread right now
-
What agenda?
That we should all be the same sex?
That male and female distinctions don't matter?
What?
It more convenient. Int he past, if i had to go, and the men's was occupied with some guy dropping a deuce, i would just go to the women's.
Don't you live in California? You haven't heard about this ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences? Numerous stories have been posted about it on the board.
-
Don't you live in California? You haven't heard about this ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences? Numerous stories have been posted about it on the board.
Wow, you actually believe that BS?
I do live in California. So far nothing has challenged my gender identity here. I am free to be the man i want to be.
Going to a non gender specific bathroom doesn't bother me nor does it make me question my gender identity. lol.
-
Wow, you actually believe that BS?
I do live in California. So far nothing has challenged my gender identity here. I am free to be the man i want to be.
Going to a non gender specific bathroom doesn't bother me nor does it make me question my gender identity. lol.
Obviously I don't mean they are trying to change your gender. I'm talking about the laws aimed at eliminating gender differences when it comes to education, sports, bathrooms, etc. Like these:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-law-allows-transgender-students-to-pick-bathrooms-sports-teams-they-identify-with/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/california-transgender-ballot-initiative_n_3926247.html
So when I see this new bathroom law, sounds like it's part of the broader effort to eliminate these gender differences. Would not surprise me if those folks over there try and eliminate actual references to "boys and girls." Or have they tried that already?
-
Obviously I don't mean they are trying to change your gender. I'm talking about the laws aimed at eliminating gender differences when it comes to education, sports, bathrooms, etc. Like these:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-law-allows-transgender-students-to-pick-bathrooms-sports-teams-they-identify-with/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/california-transgender-ballot-initiative_n_3926247.html
So when I see this new bathroom law, sounds like it's part of the broader effort to eliminate these gender differences. Would not surprise me if those folks over there try and eliminate actual references to "boys and girls." Or have they tried that already?
Alot of restaurants use fun symbols. One in Napa, Ca, a bakery/cafe, super good BTW, uses a Chocolate bar donut and a glazed donnut to show the differences.
Both those articles are about doing something with transgenders that's practical. NOT about getting rid of gender differences. Geez, you cant see the contradiction between what you claimed: "attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences" and California law makers trying to find a practical solution to transgenders in schools?
-
Alot of restaurants use fun symbols. One in Napa, Ca, a bakery/cafe, super good BTW, uses a Chocolate bar donut and a glazed donnut to show the differences.
Both those articles are about doing something with transgenders that's practical. NOT about getting rid of gender differences. Geez, you cant see the contradiction between what you claimed: "attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences" and California law makers trying to find a practical solution to transgenders in schools?
you're just not imagining hard enough
as John Matrix put it "lets not pretend that leftists are going to be satisfied"
Lets pretend something else instead and get all fired up.
Remember when Obama first got elected and the Repubs pretended that any day Obama would have the Black Panthers out to confiscate your guns.
Those dipshits couldnt hoard guns and ammo fast enough after that little fantasy
Pretending is a key element of the Republican mindset
-
Alot of restaurants use fun symbols. One in Napa, Ca, a bakery/cafe, super good BTW, uses a Chocolate bar donut and a glazed donnut to show the differences.
Both those articles are about doing something with transgenders that's practical. NOT about getting rid of gender differences. Geez, you cant see the contradiction between what you claimed: "attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences" and California law makers trying to find a practical solution to transgenders in schools?
Oh please. This isn't just about "transgender" people. It's about "GBLT" and "gender identity." GBLT includes transvestites (or cross dressers who aren't necessary "transgender"). "Gender identity" includes whatever gender a person thinks they are, on whatever day they think it. If you cannot see that those gender classifications (along with the articles I posted) are attempts to eliminate gender distinctions (at least as far as access and the law is concerned), then you're just being willfully blind.
-
Oh please. This isn't just about "transgender" people. It's about "GBLT" and "gender identity." GBLT includes transvestites (or cross dressers who aren't necessary "transgender"). "Gender identity" includes whatever gender a person thinks they are, on whatever day they think it. If you cannot see that those gender classifications (along with the articles I posted) are attempts to eliminate gender distinctions (at least as far as access and the law is concerned), then you're just being willfully blind.
The articles you posted were about transgender people, NOT about getting rid of gender differences as you claim the agenda is.
Even then so what?
I don't care what a person thinks they are on any given day. And i don't care that somethings that used to be gender specific aren't anymore.
Maybe you can give some examples of some I might give a shit about.
So far. living in non-gender specific California i haven't seen or experienced anything you are talking about.
-
The articles you posted were about transgender people, NOT about getting rid of gender differences as you claim the agenda is.
Even then so what?
I don't care what a person thinks they are on any given day. And i don't care that somethings that used to be gender specific aren't anymore.
Maybe you can give some examples of some I might give a shit about.
So far. living in non-gender specific California i haven't seen or experienced anything you are talking about.
I'm not trying to get you to give a rip. I could care less whether this subject interests you.
And no, the examples I provided were not limited to transgender. They relate to gender identity as well. From the second link:
"The bill, which is set to take effect on Jan. 1, allows students access to sex-restricted facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms based on the gender they identify with and to gender-restricted activities like sports teams."
-
Hey Bum,
What would you do if you were eating at a small restaurant or at a bar that had only one bathroom with this sign?
Would you violate you deeply held religious beliefs and shit your pants or would you take a quick look around and make sure nobody sees you and then use the bathroom
-
Shame on LA - but West Hollywood is fruitier than Del Monte..
-
Shame on LA - but West Hollywood is fruitier than Del Monte..
fuck yeah
if you only have one bathroom then you MUST only allow it to be used by either women or men
allowing either gender to use it is just fucking sick
-
btw - did anyone notice that our one and only Coach got snookered again
-
Hey Bum,
What would you do if you were eating at a small restaurant or at a bar that had only one bathroom with this sign?
Would you violate you deeply held religious beliefs and shit your pants or would you take a quick look around and make sure nobody sees you and then use the bathroom
lol
-
what if I'm a senator in an airport, thirsty for some toe-tapping fun... and I am interested in EITHER other man OR a transgender?
Is there a specific stall which allows me to choose from one of each, on either side of my stall?
That'd be very convenient.
-
what if I'm a senator in an airport, thirsty for some toe-tapping fun... and I am interested in EITHER other man OR a transgender?
Is there a specific stall which allows me to choose from one of each, on either side of my stall?
That'd be very convenient.
is this one of them i have a friend questions ) ;D
-
Had a feeling it was only going to be single person restrooms.
Its a better idea. If one is taken you can use the other. Some restaurants in No. Cal. have these.
Figures that some peeps would get their panties in a bundle over it.
in the link I posted they interviewed a restaurant owner who has multiple bathrooms and even he likes it because he said there were times when there would be a line for the mens room (for example) while the womens room was vacant so now either gender can use either room.......you know, probably just like every house in this country...including Bums.
-
I'm not trying to get you to give a rip. I could care less whether this subject interests you.
And no, the examples I provided were not limited to transgender. They relate to gender identity as well. From the second link:
"The bill, which is set to take effect on Jan. 1, allows students access to sex-restricted facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms based on the gender they identify with and to gender-restricted activities like sports teams."
So what? Still not an attempt to get rid of gender differences. Boys are still boys, girls are still girls physically no matter what. Now, when they outlaw gender specific gonads maybe so. But until then, more BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right
-
So what? Still not an attempt to get rid of gender differences. Boys are still boys, girls are still girls physically no matter what. Now, when they outlaw gender specific gonads maybe so. But until then, more BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right
Nonsense. Go read the definition of gender identity.
And my comments don't have squat to do with the "religious/conservative right."
-
So what? Still not an attempt to get rid of gender differences. Boys are still boys, girls are still girls physically no matter what. Now, when they outlaw gender specific gonads maybe so. But until then, more BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right
Damn, your ability to see a liberal conspiracy in ever little thing is getting a bit strange
The new law basically says if you have a "single user bathroom" in your establishment you have to make it available to everyone
West Hollywood's new law takes effect Thursday and gives businesses 60 days to scuttle gender-specific signs in restrooms intended for no more than one person In coffee shops with a men's and a women's bathroom, for example, that means both restrooms will become gender-neutral.
BFD
Isn't that basically the same thing that you do in your own home, even though you likely have multiple bathrooms
-
Nonsense. Go read the definition of gender identity.
And my comments don't have squat to do with the "religious/conservative right."
classic right wing imagination land
immune from fact
even very simple facts that a 4th grader could easily understand
-
How libs function from day to day is beyond me. Seriously some of the dumbest MFers on the planet. Hey fuckheads. This should have NEVER been an issue to begin with. Fuck.
-
How libs function from day to day is beyond me. Seriously some of the dumbest MFers on the planet. Hey fuckheads. This should have NEVER been an issue to begin with. Fuck.
Coach stands in front a door leading to the only bathroom and he sees this sign and can't figure out if he can go in or not
of course it's a single person bathroom with a lock on the door but still
it's a very confusing mixed message
what will he do?
-
Coach stands in front a door leading to the only bathroom and he sees this sign and can't figure out if he can go in or not
of course it's a single person bathroom with a lock on the door but still
it's a very confusing mixed message
what will he do?
Mumble under his breath 'liberal, the left, liberal liberals liberals left left liberal left' whilst stomping to the restaurant exit. He grabs a chair, jumps on, open restaurant door , jump off and proceed to leave. Before the door closes he turns around and squeal, 'You just don't get it do you!!' . And he's gone.
-
How libs function from day to day is beyond me. Seriously some of the dumbest MFers on the planet. Hey fuckheads. This should have NEVER been an issue to begin with. Fuck.
see, I'm cool with calling them idiots, misguided, selfish, entitled, evil, all that stuff.
But "dumb"? They've managed to convince 51% of the USA (actually 53% last election) to join them. They have a minority of people paying for lifestyles of majority of people. Not talking morality, but "dumb"?
And they have won 4 of th last 6 presidential elections easily. And two came down to a single contested state.
Dumb? Romney is a brilliant fcking man... he was beaten by "dumb" obama and "dumb" democrats?
See, you keep thinking they're dumb, but they're educated and they're getting their way. Stop underestimating them. Sun Tzu would laugh his ass off at your statement. You're a textboook example of underestimating an enemy that has cleaned your clock more often than not. Dumb? No.
-
Nonsense. Go read the definition of gender identity.
And my comments don't have squat to do with the "religious/conservative right."
What's nonsense? That's its still not an attempt to get rid of gender differences? Or that opposition to this sort of thing is populated by the conservative right? Or that the article is yet another attempt to rally the right wing retards?
Its a bathroom, FFS. lol
-
How libs function from day to day is beyond me. Seriously some of the dumbest MFers on the planet. Hey fuckheads. This should have NEVER been an issue to begin with. Fuck.
As low as hard core lib ideas are, they are still above birther in my book. So are retard, imbecile, dumb fuck and tool.
-
great idea and standard democrat operating procedure
let's ignore reality (notice how the original story left out a key fact) and instead imagine an ridiculous spin on reality and assume it's true or at least imminent and then get riled up about it
perfectly describes Dems' approach to Gun Control topics.
-
That seems to be SOP for alot of things in politics.
-
What's nonsense? That's its still not an attempt to get rid of gender differences? Or that opposition to this sort of thing is populated by the conservative right? Or that the article is yet another attempt to rally the right wing retards?
Its a bathroom, FFS. lol
You calling this "BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right" is nonsense.
So is failing to read and understand the definition of "gender identity." I challenge you to read it and tell me exactly what all of that definition means.
And so is failing to recognize the broader agenda of indoctrination on this whole subject. I'm not necessarily talking about the article that is the subject of this thread. As I said, when I see articles like this it looks like part of the overall agenda to eliminate gender differences and to redefine gender--not biologically, but by statute. Go read the definition.
I posted a few articles in a thread on here about the "Pono Choices" program in Hawaii, where among things, they are trying to teach little kids that the anus is a genital just like a vagina. That is twisted.
You guys in California (along with some other states) have also gotten rid of references to "husband" and "wife," and made the references gender neutral. I'm telling you the next thing you might see over there is eliminating references to "boys" and "girls." No, that isn't going to actually change someone's gender, but it's just like the statutory creation of a new gender classification, and like letting kids choose which gender they want to act like, what gender specific sports they want to play, the bathroom situation, etc.
All of this stuff is happening, so calling it "fear propaganda" is silly. What it all means at the end of the day is a legitimate question. I really don't know. Maybe nothing. But I doubt there are no consequences for our quest to normalize abnormality.
-
Coach stands in front a door leading to the only bathroom and he sees this sign and can't figure out if he can go in or not
of course it's a single person bathroom with a lock on the door but still
it's a very confusing mixed message
what will he do?
Im guessing he craps in his pants rather than use a liberal restroom?
-
You calling this "BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right" is nonsense.
An article like the one posted is.
So is failing to read and understand the definition of "gender identity." I challenge you to read it and tell me exactly what all of that definition means.
And so is failing to recognize the broader agenda of indoctrination on this whole subject. I'm not necessarily talking about the article that is the subject of this thread. As I said, when I see articles like this it looks like part of the overall agenda to eliminate gender differences and to redefine gender--not biologically, but by statute. Go read the definition.
My point is, that at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Boys are still boys and girls are still girls.
I posted a few articles in a thread on here about the "Pono Choices" program in Hawaii, where among things, they are trying to teach little kids that the anus is a genital just like a vagina. That is twisted.
Pono Choices is a sex ed course, not a legal statute to erase gender identity.
You guys in California (along with some other states) have also gotten rid of references to "husband" and "wife," and made the references general neutral.
So What? We often refer to wives or husbands as spouse anyway.
I'm telling you the next thing you might see over there is eliminating references to "boys" and "girls." No, that isn't going to actually change someone's gender, but it's just like the statutory creation of a new gender classification, and like letting kids choose which gender they want to act like, what gender specific sports they want to play, the bathroom situation, etc.
hmmm, smells like fear propaganda. If eliminate "boys" and "girls" our boys and girls might not know what they are? OMG!!!!!!!!!! Heaven forbid, we call boys and girls "Kids". SATAN has won!!!!!
All of this stuff is happening, so calling it "fear propaganda" is silly. What it all means at the end of the day is a legitimate question. I really don't know. Maybe nothing. But I doubt there are no consequences for our quest to normalize abnormality.
That's all it is: "Fear Propaganda". I don't doubt there will be issues and readjustments with some of these things. but at the end of the day its a bathroom and a boy is still and boy sand a girl is still a girl.
-
An article like the one posted is.
My point is, that at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. Boys are still boys and girls are still girls.
Pono Choices is a sex ed course, not a legal statute to erase gender identity.
So What? We often refer to wives or husbands as spouse anyway.
hmmm, smells like fear propaganda. If eliminate "boys" and "girls" our boys and girls might not know what they are? OMG!!!!!!!!!! Heaven forbid, we call boys and girls "Kids". SATAN has won!!!!!
That's all it is: "Fear Propaganda". I don't doubt there will be issues and readjustments with some of these things. but at the end of the day its a bathroom and a boy is still and boy sand a girl is still a girl.
lol. Ok. You don't want to read the definition of gender identity. You don't want to accept my challenge to tell me exactly what that entire definition means. You want to keep your head in the sand and try and make this about "Satan." lol. *shivers* Whatever.
-
lol. Ok. You don't want to read the definition of gender identity. You don't want to accept my challenge to tell me exactly what that entire definition means. You want to keep your head in the sand and try and make this about "Satan." lol. *shivers* Whatever.
I read the definition of gender identity.
I knew the definition of it before the thread.
You claimed there is an "ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences"
You then posted 2 links about transgenders, husbands and wives being called "spouses" and boys and girls being called "kids" and referenced a sex ed program. By definition kids can be boys or girls and spouses can be husband and wives.
You can't get rid of gender differences without getting rid of gender.
Calling boys and girls kids is meaningless, calling husband or spouses is meaningless and labeling bathrooms so both sexes can use then is meaningless. these do not mean that the evil twisted Libs are trying to make everyone one sex in the eyes of the law all the way down to their gonads.
Because regardless of your fears..... boys are still boys and girls are still girls.
-
I read the definition of gender identity.
I knew the definition of it before the thread.
You claimed there is an "ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences"
You then posted 2 links about transgenders, husbands and wives being called "spouses" and boys and girls being called "kids" and referenced a sex ed program. By definition kids can be boys or girls and spouses can be husband and wives.
You can't get rid of gender differences without getting rid of gender.
Calling boys and girls kids is meaningless, calling husband or spouses is meaningless and labeling bathrooms so both sexes can use then is meaningless. these do not mean that the evil twisted Libs are trying to make everyone one sex in the eyes of the law all the way down to their gonads.
Because regardless of your fears..... boys are still boys and girls are still girls.
I'm not going to get caught up in the hyperbole ("evil libs," Satan, etc.). I'm not afraid of anything.
But regarding gender identity, what exactly does it mean?
-
sick bastards in california. safe to say if you live in cali, you want to have sex with every gender, animal, and life form.
-
see, I'm cool with calling them idiots, misguided, selfish, entitled, evil, all that stuff.
But "dumb"? They've managed to convince 51% of the USA (actually 53% last election) to join them. They have a minority of people paying for lifestyles of majority of people. Not talking morality, but "dumb"?
And they have won 4 of th last 6 presidential elections easily. And two came down to a single contested state.
Dumb? Romney is a brilliant fcking man... he was beaten by "dumb" obama and "dumb" democrats?
See, you keep thinking they're dumb, but they're educated and they're getting their way. Stop underestimating them. Sun Tzu would laugh his ass off at your statement. You're a textboook example of underestimating an enemy that has cleaned your clock more often than not. Dumb? No.
The only truely dumb one here is our dimwit friend Joe. Not that he even begin to possess the awareness of seeing that.
-
The only truly dumb one here is our dimwit friend Joe. Not that he even begin to possess the awareness of seeing that.
Joe is the perfect sucker for right wing propaganda.
The story he posted left out THE KEY FACT that this only applies to single occupant bathrooms.
Basically the same rule that applies to any bathroom on any airplane now applies to single occupant bathrooms in West Hollywood.
It is interesting how Bum formed an opinion before having this key fact and now, apparently, since he has formed an opinion he is no longer considering any other facts and will just plow forward with his (no doubt pre-existing) hysteria over gender identity.
-
I'm not going to get caught up in the hyperbole ("evil libs," Satan, etc.). I'm not afraid of anything.
But you will claim there is a "ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences" and that this article is related to it.
But regarding gender identity, what exactly does it mean?
You read the definition and so did I. Are you having trouble understanding the definition?
-
But you will claim there is a "ongoing attempt to essentially get rid of gender differences" and that this article is related to it.
You read the definition and so did I. Are you having trouble understanding the definition?
I claim that when I read stories like this it sounds like it's part of the broader agenda of indoctrination and the attempt to eliminate gender differences. You don't see it. Everything in your eyes is fine. Good for you.
Regarding the definition, I actually am having trouble understanding the definition, especially as it relates to the workplace. Here is how we define it in Hawaii:
Hawaii defines “gender identity or expression” includes a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth.
What does the preceding definition mean to you?
-
Hey Bum - The "single occupant" bathrooms in West Hollywood are now just like the ones in every plane that you've ever flown on in your entire life
Why haven't you freaked out about the lack of gender specific bathrooms on planes?
-
I claim that when I read stories like this it sounds like it's part of the broader agenda of indoctrination and the attempt to eliminate gender differences. You don't see it. Everything in your eyes is fine. Good for you.
Broader agenda of indoctrination? And that's not fear propaganda? lol
Attempt to eliminate gender differences? To what end? In this case, to make bathrooms more convenient for everyone.....oh the SATAN in that!!!!
Regarding the definition, I am actually am having trouble understanding the definition, especially as it relates to the workplace. Here is how we define it in Hawaii:
Hawaii defines “gender identity or expression” includes a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth.
What does the preceding definition mean to you?
If you are having trouble understanding it why are you acting as if you know what it means?:
Nonsense. Go read the definition of gender identity.
You calling this "BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right" is nonsense.
So is failing to read and understand the definition of "gender identity." I challenge you to read it and tell me exactly what all of that definition means.
lol. Ok. You don't want to read the definition of gender identity. You don't want to accept my challenge to tell me exactly what that entire definition means. You want to keep your head in the sand and try and make this about "Satan." lol. *shivers* Whatever.
Try googling it. The definition is pretty straight forward.
-
Broader agenda of indoctrination? And that's not fear propaganda? lol
Attempt to eliminate gender differences? To what end? In this case, to make bathrooms more convenient for everyone.....oh the SATAN in that!!!!
If you are having trouble understanding it why are you acting as if you know what it means?:
Try googling it. The definition is pretty straight forward.
No it's not fear propaganda. Why are you so obsessed with Satan? Having nightmares or something? Watching too many scary movies? :)
Try Googling the definition I just posted?? What? I posted the actual definition. I'm asking you to tell me how you interpret that definition.
-
Bum is a great example of the absolute resolve of the far wing mindset to believe anything it wants to, no matter how absurd or contrary to facts
Seriously, can you imagine trying to have a rational conversation with someone like this is real life
You'd walk away shaking your head within a couple of minutes and wonder how the fuck people like him actually exist in the world
-
Bum is a great example of the absolute resolve of the far wing mindset to believe anything it wants to, no matter how absurd or contrary to facts
Seriously, can you imagine trying to have a rational conversation with someone like this is real life
You'd walk away shaking your head within a couple of minutes and wonder how the fuck people like him actually exist in the world
this is precisely how we feel about leftists ;D
-
No it's not fear propaganda. Why are you so obsessed with Satan? Having nightmares or something? Watching too many scary movies? :)
Try Googling the definition I just posted?? What? I posted the actual definition. I'm asking you to tell me how you interpret that definition.
brilliant conclusion
making a single occupant bathroom accessible to everyone is no doubt an insidious plot of fear propaganda by the good people of West Hollywood.
They fooled a lot of people with the cunning common sense law but they aren't fooling clever guys like Bum who really know what's going on.
-
this is precisely how we feel about leftists ;D
no shit
the only difference is you can't find examples of it other than in your imagination while we see real life examples of it every day from your side
-
No it's not fear propaganda. Why are you so obsessed with Satan? Having nightmares or something? Watching too many scary movies? :)
Fear of SATAN is the only explanation i come up with to explain the curmudgeon like behavior of some people when it comes to things like non gender specific bathrooms.
Attempt to eliminate gender differences? To what end? What's exactly is the Broader agenda of indoctrination?
Try Googling the definition I just posted?? What? I posted the actual definition. I'm asking you to tell me how you interpret that definition.
Try googling the definition of "gender specific" its pretty straight forward.
-
Fear of SATAN is the only explanation i come up with to explain the curmudgeon like behavior of some people when it comes to things like non gender specific bathrooms.
Attempt to eliminate gender differences? To what end? What's exactly is the Broader agenda of indoctrination?
Try googling the definition of "gender specific" its pretty straight forward.
I gave you a list of examples that all point to indoctrination and eliminating gender differences. You simply disagree with them. That's fine.
Why should I Google "gender specific"? I'm asking you to give me your understanding of the definition of "gender identity." I posted the definition of "gender identity" in Hawaii. How do you interpret that definition?
-
the sickos in Cali that voted for that sexual deviant Clinton are just giving us more of the same.
Is anyone surprised? Depraved.
-
I gave you a list of examples that all point to indoctrination and eliminating gender differences. You simply disagree with them. That's fine.
Why should I Google "gender specific"? I'm asking you to give me your understanding of the definition of "gender identity." I posted the definition of "gender identity" in Hawaii. How do you interpret that definition?
I don't interpret that one. Too long. I like the simple version on Google better.
-
I don't interpret that one. Too long. I like the simple version on Google better.
lol. Translation: you know precisely how ambiguous the definition is too, but don't want to talk about or concede that point.
No worries. :)
-
lol. Translation: you know precisely how ambiguous the definition is too, but don't want to talk about or concede that point.
No worries. :)
So you dismiss the definition on google by Wiki eh?
Translation: You need to use the overly stated definition in Hawaii because it gives you enough material to question it's directness and make a case to its ambiguity.
-
So you dismiss the definition on google by Wiki eh?
Translation: You need to use the overly stated definition in Hawaii because it gives you enough material to question it's directness and make a case to its ambiguity.
Wrong. We borrowed the definition used by numerous other states. It's not unique to Hawaii.
And I'm not looking for material. I'm simply reading the actual language, which I posted in this thread. But I get you don't want to acknowledge how ambiguous the definition is. Or the fact that we actually created a new gender classification by statute (not biology).
-
Wrong. We borrowed the definition used by numerous other states. It's not unique to Hawaii.
And I'm not looking for material. I'm simply reading the actual language, which I posted in this thread. But I get you don't want to acknowledge how ambiguous the definition is. Or the fact that we actually created a new gender classification by statute (not biology).
No, you want to use a long definition for your purposes. I do not.
How many other states subscribe to the definition Hawaii Uses? 2? 5? 20?
-
You calling this "BS drama and fear propaganda from the religious/conservative right" is nonsense.
So is failing to read and understand the definition of "gender identity." I challenge you to read it and tell me exactly what all of that definition means.
And so is failing to recognize the broader agenda of indoctrination on this whole subject. I'm not necessarily talking about the article that is the subject of this thread. As I said, when I see articles like this it looks like part of the overall agenda to eliminate gender differences and to redefine gender--not biologically, but by statute. Go read the definition.
I posted a few articles in a thread on here about the "Pono Choices" program in Hawaii, where among things, they are trying to teach little kids that the anus is a genital just like a vagina. That is twisted.
You guys in California (along with some other states) have also gotten rid of references to "husband" and "wife," and made the references general neutral. I'm telling you the next thing you might see over there is eliminating references to "boys" and "girls." No, that isn't going to actually change someone's gender, but it's just like the statutory creation of a new gender classification, and like letting kids choose which gender they want to act like, what gender specific sports they want to play, the bathroom situation, etc.
All of this stuff is happening, so calling it "fear propaganda" is silly. What it all means at the end of the day is a legitimate question. I really don't know. Maybe nothing. But I doubt there are no consequences for our quest to normalize abnormality.
Fucked up. It really is an outrage.
-
No, you want to use a long definition for your purposes. I do not.
How many other states subscribe to the definition Hawaii Uses? 2? 5? 20?
I don't want to use anything. I'm using the definition that applies to my state, which is used by many other states. I don't know the exact number, but it's probably around twenty or more. We often copy what other states are doing. This isn't unique to Hawaii at all.
-
absolutely ridiculous.
we are living in strange times here folks...our current society is an aberration in the context of history and therefore wont last long, as it is an extremely unnatural state. all this weird shit will 'correct itself' one way or another before too long, society will move rightward to its more natural state and the these freaks will go back to the shadows where they belong. sorry libs, enjoy it while it lasts ::)
X2. Well said.
Fcuking strange Times.
-
I don't want to use anything. I'm using the definition that applies to my state, which is used by many other states. I don't know the exact number, but it's probably around twenty or more. We often copy what other states are doing. This isn't unique to Hawaii at all.
So far, I have only found 2 others. Mass & Maryland.
"Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender"
This is describes it well for me.
-
So far, I have only found 2 others. Mass & Maryland.
"Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender"
This is describes it well for me.
What you quoted is from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
What is the definition you read in Mass and Maryland? (There are a lot more states with gender identity on the books.)
-
So when Strawman and Andreisdaman walk into a bathroom in W. Hollywood holding hands, one could sit and one could stand and really wouldn't make a difference.
-
What you quoted is from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
What is the definition you read in Mass and Maryland? (There are a lot more states with gender identity on the books.)
I know what i quoted was from wiki. Wasn't trying to say otherwise.
Mass and Maryland are the same as Hawaii. I was saying that i only found 2, so far, that share the same definition. And that i like the wiki definition better.
-
I know what i quoted was from wiki. Wasn't trying to say otherwise.
Mass and Maryland are the same as Hawaii. I was saying that i only found 2, so far, that share the same definition. And that i like the wiki definition better.
It's shorter, but I seriously doubt any of the other states have a definition that short. That's now how legislators write bills. They are often too long and confusing.
I cannot say the Hawaii definition is word for word what the other states have, but it's likely almost identical.
I'm sure I've posted about this on the board before, but having things like "gender related self image" (whatever the heck that means) is definitely problematic, particularly when you start talking about an employer discriminating against an employee on that basis.
-
So when Strawman and Andreisdaman walk into a bathroom in W. Hollywood holding hands, one could sit and one could stand and really wouldn't make a difference.
Once again Coach feels the need to remind us just how fucking stupid he is
These ordinance applies to SINGLE OCCUPANT BATHROOMS so your gay musings don't apply
-
Only on this board can you find right wingers so dumb as to feel threatened (and in Coach's case utterly confused) by this sign
-
I kinda dig watching girls pee.
-
Only on this board can you find right wingers so dumb as to feel threatened (and in Coach's case utterly confused) by this sign
Which one is you?
-
It's shorter, but I seriously doubt any of the other states have a definition that short. That's now how legislators write bills. They are often too long and confusing.
I cannot say the Hawaii definition is word for word what the other states have, but it's likely almost identical.
I'm sure I've posted about this on the board before, but having things like "gender related self image" (whatever the heck that means) is definitely problematic, particularly when you start talking about an employer discriminating against an employee on that basis.
So? And?
that only brings us back to this:
Your words....
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
Which one is you?
find a 3rd grader to read my screen name to you
-
So? And?
that only brings us back to this:
Your words....
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Actually it brings us back to your refusal to talk about the definition of gender identity and how you interpret the definition.
Turns out I did post about this years ago. Back then, you acknowledged how confusing the definition is:
I don;t see why it's complicated.
penis = man
vagina = woman
Why doe it get some complicated?
That's not what the definition says:
"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.
So it's not as simple as penis and vagina.
that's why i don't agree with it. in the military people with penises will have to dress like men and vice versa. that definition is for lawyers.
-
Mumble under his breath 'liberal, the left, liberal liberals liberals left left liberal left' whilst stomping to the restaurant exit. He grabs a chair, jumps on, open restaurant door , jump off and proceed to leave. Before the door closes he turns around and squeal, 'You just don't get it do you!!' . And he's gone.
I suspect he would stand there confused for a few hours watching both men and women going into the bathroom
As the urge to shit became too much to handle he would make a frantic phone call to Beach Bum who would warn him to not enter the bathroom or he will automatically be rendered gender neutral and then he will be legally required by the state to get gay married to an illegal alien
-
I really dont see why the need for neutral bathrooms...
you still have a dick? you use the men's room.. you have a vag.. use the women's room...
end of discussion... you dont like it... get a sex change
I see no need for gender specific restrooms.
-
I see no need for gender specific restrooms.
it really appears that the fact that we're talking about single occupant bathrooms is lost on these dipshits
every single plane they have ever flown in has gender neutral bathrooms
every little mom and pop restaurant, bar, bookshop, etc.. with a single occupant bathroom has a gender neutral bathrooms
watching Bum have a panic attack for 5 pages over gender identity given this specific set of circumstances is f'ng absurd
-
find a 3rd grader to read my screen name to you
Are you sure? Maybe you're just confused.
-
Are you sure? Maybe you're just confused.
As usual, the only one that is confused is you
-
I have two bathrooms in my gym. Both are "unisex". I don't expect anything else but one person at a time.
-
I have two bathrooms in my gym. Both are "unisex". I don't expect anything else but one person at a time.
So what are you bitching about?
-
So what are you bitching about?
Allen West told him to get mad
get mad first
ask questions later
or not at all
first step.... get mad
-
Allen West told him to get mad
get mad first
ask questions later
or not at all
first step.... get mad
Mad? Why would I be mad? It's just too damn easy to call out the utter stupidity of the left..."mad". Lol
-
Mad? Why would I be mad? It's just too damn easy to call out the utter stupidity of the left..."mad". Lol
Its almost too easy right Coach?
-
Its almost too easy right Coach?
Yep, easy
Coach came here and 'fooled' us all. See how easy he done that. That's because he's 'Right' and others are 'Left' and the 'Right' is well, right. The 'Left's is not 'Right' or right, so they're wrong.
Now that you've seen the extent of his world and intelligence, don't let him fool you again!
-
Yep, easy
Coach came here and 'fooled' us all. See how easy he done that. That's because he's 'Right' and others are 'Left' and the 'Right' is well, right. The 'Left's is not 'Right' or right, so they're wrong.
Now that you've seen the extent of his world and intelligence, don't let him fool you again!
I have been an idiot. Off course it all makes sense now.
Coach is not dumb he is smarter than all of us. Us simpletons cannot fathom his mighty intellect he is really that smart. I wish i was more like Coach.
-
Actually it brings us back to your refusal to talk about the definition of gender identity and how you interpret the definition.
Turns out I did post about this years ago. Back then, you acknowledged how confusing the definition is:
That's before i read the wiki one.
Now that i have "decided" on a definition...so what?
If all you have is to point out a murky definition while ignoring other more simple definition it explains why you still refuse to answer questions based on assertions you brought up:
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
That's before i read the wiki one.
Now that i have "decided" on a definition...so what?
If all you have is to point out a murky definition while ignoring other more simple definition it explains why you still refuse to answer questions based on assertions you brought up:
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
You decided on a definition? How exactly does that work? Actually, you're using something someone posted on the internet, rather than the actual definition enacted into law by a number of states. That's your attempt to avoid admitting how ambiguous the language is. But no worries. You already acknowledged it back when I first made a thread about it.
-
You decided on a definition? How exactly does that work? Actually, you're using something someone posted on the internet, rather than the actual definition enacted into law by a number of states. That's your attempt to avoid admitting how ambiguous the language is. But no worries. You already acknowledged it back when I first made a thread about it.
No its your attempt to distract and deflect from my point because you can't answer questions about it.
Your only hope is to get me to agree that the definition is confusing. I agreed with you then, but now I do not because the simple definition sums it up.
Why are you so afraid of the simple definition? Why do you refuse to answer my questions about YOUR statements?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Is it because when asked about them, your statements look like a conspiracy theory?
-
Beach is a lying coward and a hypocrite.
He cant answer your questions so he deflects like a little bitch.
I still cant get a response as to why he didnt serve.
Look at the MM/Sniper thread to see BB in action.
He is just pathetic.
-
No its your attempt to distract and deflect from my point because you can't answer questions about it.
Your only hope is to get me to agree that the definition is confusing. I agreed with you then, but now I do not because the simple definition sums it up.
Why are you so afraid of the simple definition? Why do you refuse to answer my questions about YOUR statements?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Is it because when asked about them, your statements look like a conspiracy theory?
They are attempting to eliminate gender differences, because "gender" is defined as something I saw in the movies once.
Actually I just made that up. Sort of like you avoiding a definition that's actually on the books in many states in favor of a one-liner you read on the internet, solely in an attempt to avoid having to discuss how problematic that definition is.
-
They are attempting to eliminate gender differences, because "gender" is defined as something I saw in the movies once.
Actually I just made that up. Sort of like you avoiding a definition that's actually on the books in many states in favor of a one-liner you read on the internet, solely in an attempt to avoid having to discuss how problematic that definition is.
Doesn't seem so problematic with the definition i provided.
You are still avoiding/deflecting. Your whole line of questioning is moot.
It would have made no difference if I said I interpret the Hawaiian definition of Gender Identity as: A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are.
So back, if you can, to the discussion about your assertions that may suggest a conspiracy:
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
Doesn't seem so problematic with the definition i provided.
You are still avoiding/deflecting. Your whole line of questioning is moot.
It would have made no difference if I said I interpret the Hawaiian definition of Gender Identity as: A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are.
So back, if you can, to the discussion about your assertions that may suggest a conspiracy:
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
What is moot is you accepting some definition that isn't even on the books. You are the one avoiding/deflecting. I asked about specific parts of the actual definition (and something someone posted on the internet). For example, what does "gender related self image" mean and how does someone discriminate against a person based on "gender related self image"?
-
What is moot is you accepting some definition that isn't even on the books. You are the one avoiding/deflecting.
No I am not. I answered you clearly. You just won't accept it for the reasons i listed.
I asked about specific parts of the actual definition (and something someone posted on the internet). For example, what does "gender related self image" mean and how does someone discriminate against a person based on "gender related self image"?
More attempts by you to avoid my questions and deflect.
Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
No I am not. I answered you clearly. You just won't accept it for the reasons i listed.
More attempts by you to avoid my questions and deflect.
Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
You're avoiding mine. One dodge deserves another. :)
Here is partly how California defines gender identity:
"In this introduction, we would like to emphasize that a person’s gender identity is that person’s sense of self regarding characteristics labeled as masculine, feminine, both or neither. An individual determines their own gender identity and the sole proof of a person’s gender identity is that person’s statement or expression of their self identification."
http://sf-hrc.org/compliance-guidelines-prohibit-gender-identity-discrimination
What the heck does "neither" mean when it cones to gender?? I don't expect you to answer, because you've got Wiki, so it's all good.
-
You're avoiding mine. One dodge deserves another. :)
Here is partly how California defines gender identity:
"In this introduction, we would like to emphasize that a person’s gender identity is that person’s sense of self regarding characteristics labeled as masculine, feminine, both or neither. An individual determines their own gender identity and the sole proof of a person’s gender identity is that person’s statement or expression of their self identification."
http://sf-hrc.org/compliance-guidelines-prohibit-gender-identity-discrimination
What the heck does "neither" mean when it cones to gender?? I don't expect you to answer, because you've got Wiki, so it's all good.
go back to my definition/interpretation of Gender identity:
"A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are."
So neither would mean: not male, not female. (other then)
quid pro quo
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
What is moot is you accepting some definition that isn't even on the books. You are the one avoiding/deflecting. I asked about specific parts of the actual definition (and something someone posted on the internet). For example, what does "gender related self image" mean and how does someone discriminate against a person based on "gender related self image"?
no one gives a fuck about gender
News Flash - if you use a gender neutral bathroom your gender remains exactly the same as before you used the bathroom
You've decided this story is about your fear of "gender" and perhaps people who identify as a different gender than how they were born and fuck it you're going to the story about that regardless of the facts
I suspect your issue with gender is part of your larger issue of gay people (even though they are different topics) and really having to acknowledge anyone who is different than you and who you don't personally approve of
Well, I got good new. It's not about that.
It's about making single occupant bathrooms more convenient
that's it
It's not the start of a revolution or a battle in the imaginary revolution you think it's underway
It's just about making it more convenient for everyone to take a evacuate their blander and bowels
-
go back to my definition/interpretation of Gender identity:
"A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are."
So neither would mean: not male, not female. (other then)
quid pro quo
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
I'm not going back to your definition, because your definition isn't what is on the books. You're still dodging.
Also, "other than" doesn't mean "neither," particularly the way you're trying to use it.
-
I'm not going back to your definition, because your definition isn't what is on the books. You're still dodging.
Also, "other than" doesn't mean "neither," particularly the way you're trying to use it.
What ever ::)
My definition is my interpretation. You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.
Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions. Run Forrest Run!
-
What ever ::)
My definition is my interpretation. You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.
Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions. Run Forrest Run!
why are you arguing with Bum over gender
you're letting him frame the narrative and giving credence to his ridiculous premise and as another person pointed out (which you well know) Bum likes to play these kind of games when he's got no leg to stand on. This will be an infinite loop if you choose to continue playing his game
-
What ever ::)
My definition is my interpretation. You asked for my interpretation and i gave it to you.
Thanks for proving you don't have the guts to answer my questions. Run Forrest Run!
Yawn. I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute. You ran away:
I don't interpret that one. Too long. I like the simple version on Google better.
lol
Keep your head in the sand. And your Wiki page handy.
-
Yawn. I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute. You ran away:
lol
Keep your head in the sand. And your Wiki page handy.
yeah Ozmo,
Don't you know there is a culture war going on and it won't end until the Libs have rendered everyone gender neutral
I think that's the story line of the next installment of The Terminator
-
RUN BB RUN!
Yawn. I asked for your interpretation of specific language contained in a specific statute. You ran away:
lol
Keep your head in the sand. And your Wiki page handy.
::)
"A person who sees themselves as other then the one they are."
I answered you clearly. You just won't accept it for the reasons i listed.
"Gender identity is a person's private sense, and subjective experience, of their own gender"
This is describes it well for me.
I have answered and you still have run from my questions. What are you afraid of BB?
-
RUN BB RUN!
::)
I have answered and you still have run from my questions. What are you afraid of BB?
I gave you a list of examples that all point to indoctrination and eliminating gender differences. You simply disagree with them. That's fine.
Why should I Google "gender specific"? I'm asking you to give me your understanding of the definition of "gender identity." I posted the definition of "gender identity" in Hawaii. How do you interpret that definition?
I don't interpret that one. Too long. I like the simple version on Google better.
:)
(http://conversationsofchange.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)
-
:)
(http://conversationsofchange.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg)
I answered your question, you run from mine. Now you are posting images.
::)
-
I answered your question, you run from mine. Now you are posting images.
::)
I'm about done going around in circles, but just to clarify: no, you did not answer my questions, as your own quote that I posted shows ("I don't interpret that one."). I'm not going to play the game where you avoid my question and want me to answer to yours. I think you're just trying to be argumentative.
-
I'm about done going around in circles, but just to clarify: no, you did not answer my questions, as your own quote that I posted shows ("I don't interpret that one."). I'm not going to play the game where you avoid my question and want me to answer to yours. I think you're just trying to be argumentative.
::)
No, you are running in circles away from my questions.
Your latest tactic is to quote an earlier post of mine ignoring the ones regarding answering your question after that.
RUN BB RUN!
-
::)
No, you are running in circles away from my questions.
Your latest tactic is to quote an earlier post of mine ignoring the ones regarding answering your question after that.
RUN BB RUN!
Your later posts only addressed the language you pulled off of Wiki, not the specific language I quoted that you refuse to interpret. But nice try.
-
Your later posts only addressed the language you pulled off of Wiki, not the specific language I quoted that you refuse to interpret. But nice try.
IMO its saying essentially the same thing. Only that the Hawaiian Definition which i have found, so far, only 2 other states who share the same one.
I don't interpret that one. Too long. I like the simple version on Google better.
So you dismiss the definition on google by Wiki eh?
Translation: You need to use the overly stated definition in Hawaii because it gives you enough material to question it's directness and make a case to its ambiguity.
I know what i quoted was from wiki. Wasn't trying to say otherwise.
Mass and Maryland are the same as Hawaii. I was saying that i only found 2, so far, that share the same definition. And that i like the wiki definition better.
That's before i read the wiki one.
Now that i have "decided" on a definition...so what?
If all you have is to point out a murky definition while ignoring other more simple definition it explains why you still refuse to answer questions based on assertions you brought up:
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
It might be hard for you to piece it all together while running from my questions. I sympathize. :D
So i will make it simple. The wiki definition coincides with my interpretation of the Hawaiian definition. I see the wiki definition as a simplified definition of the Hawaiian definition.
Is that good enough for you BB? Or will you run some more?
Do i need to re-post my interpretation of the wiki definition before you conveniently forget about it and try another stupid tactic?
-
conversation I had with a girl about just this topic. but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex. almost verbatim:
Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys. I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."
Her: "Why? you thnk they wanna fuck you?!! Ha! Ha!" (all her friends laugh too)
Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"
her: "Well that's a little different."
Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"
Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"
this is the world we live in now. no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.
-
IMO its saying essentially the same thing. Only that the Hawaiian Definition which i have found, so far, only 2 other states who share the same one.
It might be hard for you to piece it all together while running from my questions. I sympathize. :D
So i will make it simple. The wiki definition coincides with my interpretation of the Hawaiian definition. I see the wiki definition as a simplified definition of the Hawaiian definition.
Is that good enough for you BB? Or will you run some more?
Do i need to re-post my interpretation of the wiki definition before you conveniently forget about it and try another stupid tactic?
Dude. They are not the same. I asked about specific language from a statutory definition. The specific language was "gender related self image" (although I want to know what you think about the entire definition as well). The Wiki definition does not mention "gender related self image."
I asked that question years ago in the thread I created. I've asked that same question to a number of people over the years and no one has been able to tell me what it means and how an employer can discriminate against someone on the basis of "gender related self image." So when I asked you, I was asking the same question I've asked many other people. But you've already said (years ago) that it isn't clear.
Then I found some specific language from California, which includes a person having neither male nor female gender. I mean, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. What kind of twisted language is that? And what kind of twisted society are we creating?
In any event, I know you're not going to talk about the specific language of a specific statute. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to admit how confusing it is (like you previously did)? Don't know. Don't care.
-
Damn, your ability to see a liberal conspiracy in ever little thing is getting a bit strange
The new law basically says if you have a "single user bathroom" in your establishment you have to make it available to everyone
BFD
Isn't that basically the same thing that you do in your own home, even though you likely have multiple bathrooms
I don't get it. I live in Illinois. we have single occupant bathrooms. and they are already unisex. are you saying that in California there may be only 1 bathroom and it's only for women? or only for men?
-
conversation I had with a girl about just this topic. but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex. almost verbatim:
Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys. I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."
Her: "Why? you thnk they wanna fuck you?!! Ha! Ha!" (all her friends laugh too)
Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"
her: "Well that's a little different."
Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"
Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"
this is the world we live in now. no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.
this topic is about single occupancy bathrooms and not gym locker rooms
If you do actually shower at the gym then you've probably already showered around gay guys (just given basics odds)
The better reason for not showering at the gym is the horrible sanitary condition of most gyms bathrooms which often aren't much better than a gas station
-
conversation I had with a girl about just this topic. but we were talking about gym locker rooms going unisex. almost verbatim:
Me: "I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing i'm showering in front of a bunch of gay guys. I'd do it but I can't say it wouldn't bother me a little bit."
Her: "Why? you thnk they wanna fuck you?!! Ha! Ha!" (all her friends laugh too)
Me: "So you'd feel comfortable showering in front of a bunch of straight men?"
her: "Well that's a little different."
Me: "Why you think they wanna fuck you?!!"
Her (and I shit you not 2 of her friends): "That's so rude! You're an asshole!"
this is the world we live in now. no logic or any sense of fairness was had that day.
LOL! That is some absolute hypocrisy right there. And your question was spot on. It really isn't about sex. It's about privacy.
-
this topic is about single occupancy bathrooms and not gym locker rooms
If you do actually shower at the gym then you've probably already showered around gay guys (just given basics odds)
The better reason for not showering at the gym is the horrible sanitary condition of most gyms bathrooms which often aren't much better than a gas station
I know I'm just saying it reminded me of this conversation.
and yeah I have. and I've been hit on in the showers too. blatantly. like smiling at me and shaking his cock from side to side. if I wasn't such a sick fuck I would have been mortified. instead I thought it was funny. so I started smirking to myself. he sees me smiling. this mother fucker thinks i'm smiling because I like it. very weird and strange 30 seconds of my life.
that's why when I read stories of women being flashed and shit. my opinion is "shake it off. It was probably hilarious"
-
Dude. They are not the same. I asked about specific language from a statutory definition. The specific language was "gender related self image" (although I want to know what you think about the entire definition as well). The Wiki definition does not mention "gender related self image."
It doesn't specifically mention it but it does cover it when it says: "person's private sense, and subjective experience,"
I asked that question years ago in the thread I created. I've asked that same question to a number of people over the years and no one has been able to tell me what it means and how an employer can discriminate against someone on the basis of "gender related self image." So when I asked you, I was asking the same question I've asked many other people. But you've already said (years ago) that it isn't clear.
I said that before (and i stated why on this very thread) because i hadn't read the other definition
Then I found some specific language from California, which includes a person having neither male nor female gender. I mean, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. What kind of twisted language is that? And what kind of twisted society are we creating?
I don't think we are "creating any kind of twisted society". Is that your answer to my questions? i.e. "Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Some feel we should address realities with in our society to protect those people's rights.
In any event, I know you're not going to talk about the specific language of a specific statute. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to admit how confusing it is (like you previously did)? Don't know. Don't care.
Seriously? I live in California. I go to SF often. These days you don't need to go to SF to see some crazy stuff.
And why should i address the specific language when the wiki def sums it up well enough IMO?
Is all this a good enough answer from me Beach?
quid pro quo
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
I still don't understand the issue. whenever there's a single occupant bathroom at a gas station or a store around here, it has the sign with the man and the lady. what does it have in CA?
-
I don't get it. I live in Illinois. we have single occupant bathrooms. and they are already unisex. are you saying that in California there may be only 1 bathroom and it's only for women? or only for men?
the law basically says if the bathroom is single occupancy then you have to make it available to both men and women and it could apply whether you have multiple bathrooms in an establishment or just one. The key factor is single occupancy.
this is nothing new and certainly nothing to spend 6 pages pretending this about gender identity and some other horseshit (not talking about you) and then arguing semantics of a definition
-
the law basically says if the bathroom is single occupancy then you have to make it available to both men and women and it could apply whether you have multiple bathrooms in an establishment or just one. The key factor is single occupancy.
this is nothing new and certainly nothing to spend 6 pages pretending this about gender identity and some other horseshit (not talking about you) and then arguing semantics of a definition
ok yeah I don't see how anyone could oppose this. if there's a gas station with only 1 single occupant bathroom, they can't just say it's only for women. who the fuck is arguing against this?
-
So they have this where bears lives too?
What's the big deal?
Here's the deal: The article is fear propaganda.
-
I still don't understand the issue. whenever there's a single occupant bathroom at a gas station or a store around here, it has the sign with the man and the lady. what does it have in CA?
there is no issue....except inside Bums tiny little mind
the signs are the same here
you can see samples earlier in this thread
-
So they have this where bears lives too?
What's the big deal?
Here's the deal: The article is fear propaganda.
also on every single airplane that Bum has ever ridden on in his life
-
The degradation of America (in this case California) continues. On the bright side when Obama and Mooshell visit their Hollywood buddies they won't be so confused.
http://allenbwest.com/2015/01/california-city-prohibits-gender-specific-restrooms/
Yes, practical bathroom designation is part of the degradation of America!
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH
And the Tools march on!!!!
-
It doesn't specifically mention it but it does cover it when it says: "person's private sense, and subjective experience,"
I said that before (and i stated why on this very thread) because i hadn't read the other definition
I don't think we are "creating any kind of twisted society". Is that your answer to my questions? i.e. "Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Some feel we should address realities with in our society to protect those people's rights.
Seriously? I live in California. I go to SF often. These days you don't need to go to SF to see some crazy stuff.
And why should i address the specific language when the wiki def sums it up well enough IMO?
Is all this a good enough answer from me Beach?
quid pro quo
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
No, it's not the same language. But like I said, I get why you will not address it.
I have no problem with protecting people's rights. What I have a problem with is creating, by law (not biology) a new gender classification, or eliminating gender altogether, as the language from California that I quoted for you appears to be trying to do. And if you don't believe putting in your own state law that people if they choose to be can be "neither" gender isn't twisted, then we just see the world differently.
Or do we?
I don;t see why it's complicated.
penis = man
vagina = woman
Why doe it get some complicated?
Apparently it's a lot more complicated than that today.
-
also on every single airplane that Bum has ever ridden on in his life
So the Airlines, United, Southwest, Delta etc.. are in the broad agenda and indoctrination to erase gender identity in America?
-
ok yeah I don't see how anyone could oppose this. if there's a gas station with only 1 single occupant bathroom, they can't just say it's only for women. who the fuck is arguing against this?
Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of America
Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience. He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war
We are definitely living in strange and interesting times, but I'm not sure we turn back the clock on most of this stuff. Assuming states retain freedoms, I think the best option for people might be to move to another state.
You really think this is just about convenience for everyone and not pushing some agenda?
-
Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of America
Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience. He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war
yeah I gotta disagree with him then on this one. I just wanna go poo when I have to go poo.
-
yeah I gotta with him then on this one. I just wanna go poo when I have to go poo.
good luck convincing either Bum or Joe
btw - one of the early posts on this thread had a restaurant owner who had mens and womens bathrooms and he said this was a good thing because there would often be a line for one while the other one was completely vacant
again, just common sense shit but Bum apparently sees it as the front line of a culture war that he knows is being waged against people like him and of course Joe just thinks is a sign of the degradation of America.
That's the level of political discourse on this board
-
No, it's not the same language. But like I said, I get why you will not address it.
I have no problem with protecting people's rights. What I have a problem with is creating, by law (not biology) a new gender classification, or eliminating gender altogether, as the language from California that I quoted for you appears to be trying to do. And if you don't believe putting in your own state law that people if they choose to be can be "neither" gender isn't twisted, then we just see the world differently.
Or do we?
It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different. There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different. That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.
A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.
That's what these laws are about.
You seem to think they are part of a "Broader agenda of indoctrination". What do you mean be that?
Do believe we should be a free country BB?
And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
-
Coach is the person show started this thread and he thinks this is a sign of the degradation of America
Bum has chosen to ignore that obvious fact and pretend it's a sign of something (still not sure what but it's definitely "bad")
He doesn't believe it's just about common sense and convenience. He can see through that charade and knows it's really part of a culture war
Would have never pegged Bum as a CT'er.
-
It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different. There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different. That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.
A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.
That's what these laws are about.
You seem to think they are part of a "Broader agenda of indoctrination". What do you mean be that?
Do believe we should be a free country BB?
And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
Oh I'll be "dodging" your question as long as you continue to dodge mine. So we're probably at a stalemate there. :)
Regarding protecting people, that's not what this is about. We already have enough laws on the books to protect people. We didn't have to create a new gender (including no gender), then pass additional laws to address a newly created statutory gender classification. I don't think anyone is saying people don't need to be protected. Of course they do.
What we don't need to do is try and change biology by passing some law saying, for example, that the anus is a genital. Or that people can just choose to be no gender at all, whatever the heck that means, and the rest of society has to walk on egg shells.
In Hawaii, we already include sex and sexual orientation as protected classes in employment, housing, public accommodations, and hate crimes. We didn't need "gender identity," which only mucks things up with some convoluted definition. But that's what happens when we don't pump the brakes on this attempt to use pen and ink to change biology.
And regarding people choosing to live a certain lifestyle, I could care less what they choose to do. I did business with a guy via phone and internet several years ago. I wanted to refer some business to him the other day, so I emailed him and some wahine responded. It was him. He was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. Had a sex change. Changed his name. I told him he was good at work before his sex change and I'm sure he's still good now, and that I don't care what he does in his private life. I made the referral and didn't even tell the person they were dealing with was a woman who used to be a man. Saying all that to say I don't care about people's private lives.
-
Oh I'll be "dodging" your question as long as you continue to dodge mine. So we're probably at a stalemate there. :)
::)
I have answered you question over and over.
Forget about it, i am not longer interested in wasting my time with you.
-
::)
Forget about it, i am not longer interested in wasting my time with you.
Oh I'm crushed. :'(
-
Oh I'm crushed. :'(
::)
coward
-
*Yawn*
-
*Yawn*
RUN BB RUN!!!
-
:)
(http://blogs.dctc.edu/dctc-news/files/2011/04/run-570x356.jpg)
-
:)
(http://blogs.dctc.edu/dctc-news/files/2011/04/run-570x356.jpg)
coward is coward does.
RUN BB RUN!!!
-
:D
(http://www.wingclips.com/system/movie-clips/forrest-gump/run-forrest-run/images/forrest-gump-movie-clip-screenshot-run-forrest-run_large.jpg)
-
Yes, practical bathroom designation is part of the degradation of America!
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH
And the Tools march on!!!!
You just don't get it
Smart guys like Coach and Bum know what this is really all about
-
It wouldn't matter if i think its twisted or now, its just different. There are always people who are different; that's the reality we have lived in since the beginning of time and laws sometimes need to be established to protect the rights of people who want to be or are different. That's part of what makes us a free country and great one.
A free country where people can live and be who they want to be, whose religion isn't normal, whose life style isn't normal, whose race isn't normal and who's gender identity isn't normal can live here with equal rights protected under the law.
That's what these laws are about.
You seem to think they are part of a "Broader agenda of indoctrination". What do you mean be that?
Do believe we should be a free country BB?
And are you gonna answer these questions or just keep dodging them?
"Attempt to eliminate gender differences" "Broader agenda of indoctrination" To what end?
I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue. The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.
The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another. To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.
That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.
So, where is the line to be drawn? 'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?
Personally, I don't care much. I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over. But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.
-
poli board sucks big ol donkey dick lately.
rinos are scared to impeach, love amnesty, love min wage, and can't stop kneepadding romney.
libs know they are probably gonna win white house no matter what obama does in nxt 2 years.
conservatives are just tired of the shit here.
-
poli board sucks big ol donkey dick lately.
rinos are scared to impeach, love amnesty, love min wage, and can't stop kneepadding romney.
libs know they are probably gonna win white house no matter what obama does in nxt 2 years.
conservatives are just tired of the shit here.
Ya know I still luv you champ.
-
Well isn't everyone a fruitcake in cali anyway?
-
Ya know I still luv you champ.
;D
Well isn't everyone a fruitcake in cali anyway?
Cali is different from the USA. One dollar in Iowa is only worth 25 cents in Cali. A shitbag liberal in texas is known as a RINO in Cali. There are people that want to keep obama in office, who support amnesty, who love romney, actually calling themselves republicans under the cali doctrine. it's madness, but with a state that liberal, what do you expect?
-
I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue. The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.
The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another. To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.
That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.
So, where is the line to be drawn? 'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?
Personally, I don't care much. I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over. But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.
I don't get your "falls short" rationale
It works for single occupant bathrooms and that's all it was meant to address. As mentioned by a restaurant owner (or manager) in a video on the first page, he likes it even though he has multiple single user bathrooms because it eliminates lines at one while the other remains empty which has nothing to do with the gender related issues that Bum is struggling with.
I suspect the issue that Bum is dealing with is that he doesn't want to be reminded that transgendered people exist in the first place which is why he calls it "strange and interesting times" and muses about "turning back the clock"
-
I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue. The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.
The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another. To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.
That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.
So, where is the line to be drawn? 'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?
Personally, I don't care much. I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over. But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.
I'm with you on not giving much thought to who is in the next stall. When I was a kid, I didn't like using public restrooms. I grew up and got over it. A very popular upscale restaurant and bar here in Portland, has four restrooms. None of them has any designation. One uses which ever one comes available first.
Public restrooms at places with a lot of people, like a concert hall probably need a designation because women need stalls while most men get by using the urinals. Consequently, women's restrooms need to be somewhat larger then men's restrooms at such places. Some clever women can pee in a urinal, but that isn't a real common sight.
-
I think that probably goes to the heart of the issue. The basic argument would be framed as whether or not the State has an interest in regulating.
The argument that was put forth is that existing signs on restrooms would disenfranchise people who were born one sex, but identify with another. To avoid public embarassment, they want the signs removed or changed on individual bathrooms.
That argument kinda falls short though as transgendered people have to face that same choice when entering a multi-person restroom, which I would argue are just as prevelant - or more so - than individual use restrooms.
So, where is the line to be drawn? 'If' the State has an interest in ensuring that transgendered people do not feel embarassment when selecting a restroom to use, why can't the same logic be applied to multi-person restrooms?
Personally, I don't care much. I'll piss with a woman in the bathroom, and in the VERY rare case I shit in a public bathroom, I could care less who's in the next stall over. But, it certainly begs the question as to whether or not there should be any designation for any public bathrooms.
I am not so sure where the line should be drawn. I believe as societies continue to evolve there will be many times where they have go to far one way or another and adjustments are made. In this case, considering there are already many establishments through out the country that do this sort of thing i don't see it as a big deal, except maybe conflict over the toilet seats.
-
I'm with you on not giving much thought to who is in the next stall. When I was a kid, I didn't like using public restrooms. I grew up and got over it. A very popular upscale restaurant and bar here in Portland, has four restrooms. None of them has any designation. One uses which ever one comes available first.
Public restrooms at places with a lot of people, like a concert hall probably need a designation because women need stalls while most men get by using the urinals. Consequently, women's restrooms need to be somewhat larger then men's restrooms at such places. Some clever women can pee in a urinal, but that isn't a real common sight.
I think going overboard would be requiring all bathrooms in public establishments, like concert halls, airports, big restaurants etc., to be accessible for both men and women in a way that would cause all these bathrooms to be remodeled costing millions of dollars.
-
Some restrooms in Europe have restroom attendants, often it is a woman who is actually stationed in the men's restroom near the sinks. One restroom at a restaurant I was at in Koln, Germany where I had dinner was attended by a woman and her young son. No one seemed to take notice at other than to pay for a towel.
-
How the heck did this become a national issue overnight?
Obama Orders Public Schools to Open Restrooms to Transgender Students
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=38202540-7ac5-4922-977f-b1a696e17669&SiteName=Newsmax)
Image: Obama Orders Public Schools to Open Restrooms to Transgender Students A sticker reading "Keep Locker Rooms Safe" is worn by a person supporting a bill that would eliminate the state of Washington's new rule allowing transgender people to use gender-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings consistent with their gender identity, outside a Washington Senate hearing room at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
By Todd Beamon | Friday, 13 May 2016
The Obama administration on Friday ordered every public school district in the United States to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match the gender identity they have chosen.
"No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus," Education Secretary John King Jr. told The New York Times in a statement late Thursday.
"We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence."
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement accompanying the directive.
The order, signed by the Education and Justice departments, describes what school districts should do to ensure that no students are discriminated against.
It will not have the force of law, but carries an implicit threat: Schools not abiding by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid,.
The decree comes amid the administration's battle with North Carolina over transgender rights and is most likely to renew attacks by Republicans that the White House is involving itself in state issues.
The Justice Department and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory sued each other over the transgender bathroom law he signed in March.
The law requires transgender people to use the public restroom matching the sex on their birth certificate. The ordinance only applies to schools, universities, government buildings and highway rest stops.
"We didn't think there was a problem at all until the Democrats brought this up in Charlotte, North Carolina," McCrory, 59, a first-term Republican, told Jake Tapper Wednesday on CNN. "We didn't need a bathroom law. We never have asked for a bathroom law."
President Barack Obama condemned the law last month — and Lynch on Monday said it violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
"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," says the letter, a copy of which was provided to the Times.
Under federal law, a school must seek to "ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns," the letter states.
"As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students."
Once a child's parent or legal guardian indicates the individual's gender identity that "differs from previous representations or records," according to the letter, the child must be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced, according to the letter.
Schools may — though are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options for students who seek "additional privacy" for whatever reason, the letter states.
The Obama administration is including a 25-page document with the letter describing "emerging practices" currently in place in many schools around the country, the Times reports.
Those included installing privacy curtains or allowing students to change in bathroom stalls, according to the report.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-order-public-school/2016/05/12/id/728608/#ixzz48YPuOuqG
-
Texas Governor Vows to 'Fight Back' for North Carolina Law
By Tatum Guinn
May 13, 2016
DALLAS (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is vowing to help defend North Carolina's law on transgender restrooms — and hinting that a similar measure could be coming soon to his state.
Abbott, a former state attorney general, told delegates at the Texas GOP convention in Dallas on Thursday, "I am working with the governor of North Carolina, and we are going to fight back."
The U.S. Justice Department is suing North Carolina over its new law requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the gender on their birth certificates.
Texas Republicans have used the issue to delight conservatives, even though legislative action isn't likely until state lawmakers reconvene in January.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants the Fort Worth school district superintendent to resign over guidelines to accommodate transgender students.
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Greg-Abbott/105735009459445?source=whfrt&position=2&trqid=6284221613876021250
-
Texas Governor Vows to 'Fight Back' for North Carolina Law
By Tatum Guinn
May 13, 2016
DALLAS (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is vowing to help defend North Carolina's law on transgender restrooms — and hinting that a similar measure could be coming soon to his state.
Abbott, a former state attorney general, told delegates at the Texas GOP convention in Dallas on Thursday, "I am working with the governor of North Carolina, and we are going to fight back."
The U.S. Justice Department is suing North Carolina over its new law requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the gender on their birth certificates.
Texas Republicans have used the issue to delight conservatives, even though legislative action isn't likely until state lawmakers reconvene in January.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants the Fort Worth school district superintendent to resign over guidelines to accommodate transgender students.
https://www.facebook.com/topic/Greg-Abbott/105735009459445?source=whfrt&position=2&trqid=6284221613876021250
Good. Stop cow towing to the mentally ill and their insanity.
Also, LOL that a mentally ill man wanting to use the women's restroom is considered the biggest and most important "civil rights" fight of our time. What a joke.
Pathetic that this is even considered *insert professional victim group here" rights.
If you don't fight then it gets worse. The end result is normalization of pedophilia, among other things.
-
Trump and Hillary are going to be our choices and this is what we are talking bout?
FFS go to the bathroom that corresponds to your genitalia, regardless of how you feel or are dressed. Can we move on now?
-
Can't say I like this stupid liberal Gender neutral - Queers - Trannys -- are ok Crap at all.
Though if the Toilets are Single occupancy ones I don't see a problem with it.
The vast majority of Homes have Gender Neutral Loos
That the whole family use.
-
How the heck did this become a national issue overnight?
Once the NC state assembly made it a law, it became an issue for the nation.
It wasn't a problem before and now it's a big deal.
-
Once the NC state assembly made it a law, it became an issue for the nation.
It wasn't a problem before and now it's a big deal.
I read the bill and it doesn't sound controversial to me at all. You use the bathroom associated with your biological gender. What the heck is happening to this country?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwirrY3kgdjMAhVH0GMKHTuaAZoQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncleg.net%2FSessions%2F2015E2%2FBills%2FHouse%2FPDF%2FH2v1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF7zo_lmULsX18Rk_36kLyhYjrDZw
-
It just seemed a pointless law in the first place to me.
There was no need to bring it up really, which caused a backlash... LGBT rights are at the forefront and this kind of goes against it.
I just don't see why we needed this law made in the first place.
-
This is actually something I've raised for years as an issue. It is something that needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't be some kind of major national public policy issue.
-
I do recall you saying something about it previously.
I simply look at it as another thing that younger people care less about than older people.
As a whole, young people just don't see it as an issue or anything to have policy about.
-
I read the bill and it doesn't sound controversial to me at all. You use the bathroom associated with your biological gender. What the heck is happening to this country?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwirrY3kgdjMAhVH0GMKHTuaAZoQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncleg.net%2FSessions%2F2015E2%2FBills%2FHouse%2FPDF%2FH2v1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF7zo_lmULsX18Rk_36kLyhYjrDZw
Biological sex.
-
Once the NC state assembly made it a law, it became an issue for the nation.
It wasn't a problem before and now it's a big deal.
No shit - You'd think Bum of all people would be aware of how this became a national issue given that his party is the one that did it
-
All restrooms should be communal, which would solve the problem of which gender they cater to. People who are modest or embarrassed, be they males, females or derivatives thereof can use stalls with a doors or a urinal with high side panels between them. Everyone goes potty, it's not like it is something unusual to do.
-
All restrooms should be communal, which would solve the problem of which gender they cater to. People who are modest or embarrassed, be they males, females or derivatives thereof can use stalls with a doors or a urinal with high side panels between them. Everyone goes potty, it's not like it is something unusual to do.
What about showers or gym locker rooms? Should I be able to stroll in with the women and shower with them? I mean, we all shower as well. It's not like it is something unusual.
-
All restrooms should be communal, which would solve the problem of which gender they cater to. People who are modest or embarrassed, be they males, females or derivatives thereof can use stalls with a doors or a urinal with high side panels between them. Everyone goes potty, it's not like it is something unusual to do.
I hope you're joking. Didn't you mention having a daughter?
-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/13/will-not-yield-blackmail-says-texas-lt-gov-transgender-bathroom/amp/#
More liberal BS. 0.3% identify as transgender.
-
"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
-
"Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Jesus was talking about feeding the poor in those verses.
And yes, this country has lost its collective marbles.
-
Jesus was talking about feeding the poor in those verses.
And yes, this country has lost its collective marbles.
Jesus was talking about minorities in general, at least that's what I've always been taught.
Lepers, prostitutes, anyone that society deemed "unworthy".
-
https://www.facebook.com/patrioticfolks/videos/795674853902962/
-
Oh look. Coach getting more news from Facebook.
Shocking.
::)
-
Oh look. Coach getting more news from Facebook.
Shocking.
::)
That wasn't news. But for what it's worth...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/09/facebook-twitter-mobile-news/
If I take a link from let's say drudge that's on Facebook what difference does it make? It doesn't. Btw, I don't get all of my news from Facebook.
-
Trump supports letting people urinate wherever they feel comfy, and he's doubled down on it too.
So any repubs bitching about it, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe hilary will oppose it... most of you voted for her hubby anyway ;)
-
Trump supports letting people urinate wherever they feel comfy, and he's doubled down on it too.
So any repubs bitching about it, I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe hilary will oppose it... most of you voted for her hubby anyway ;)
So I guess you're voting Trump or is it Killary? Since you think Trumps a lib it shouldn't make a difference, right?
-
So I guess you're voting Trump or is it Killary? Since you think Trumps a lib it shouldn't make a difference, right?
I'm voting neither. Dos Equis is voting gary johnson, i may have to do that.
Trump = hilary. None of this "well, I guess it's the lesser of two evils..."
Trump's impulsiveness is perhaps just as dangerous as hilary's dishonesty, and their policies are identical.
-
So I guess you're voting Trump or is it Killary? Since you think Trumps a lib it shouldn't make a difference, right?
Although President Trump might be interesting.... he's a 911 Truther. Imagine how cute that'd be when his reckless ass starts talking about that.
Trump = impulsive chaos. He's proven he can't make "deals" very well at the govt level... Cruz duped him for delegates over and over again, and he still hasn't been endorsed by Paul Ryan.
-
Biological sex.
It should be that simple.
-
Jesus was talking about minorities in general, at least that's what I've always been taught.
Lepers, prostitutes, anyone that society deemed "unworthy".
I agree, although that doesn't mean we have to use the law to legitimize lifestyle choices.
-
What is the military going to do about this bathroom issue?
Disagreements slow Pentagon’s plan to allow transgender service members
By Dan Lamothe
May 15, 2016
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2016/05/logan.jpg&w=1484)
Air Force Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland is among the estimated 12,800 transgender service members waiting to see what the Pentagon does. (Photo courtesy Logan Ireland)
Months before Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said the Pentagon would take steps toward allowing transgender people to serve openly in the military, Army Staff Sgt. Patricia King last year became what she believes is the first openly transgender member of the infantry. While official Pentagon policy still forbids openly transgender personnel, her commanders have been supportive, she said. King even purchased a female dress Army service uniform, anticipating that she would be able to wear it soon.
“I made a decision that owning that uniform was important to me, and I believe that our leadership is going to do the right thing,” she said.
But four months after a deadline set Carter set for a working group to finish evaluating the change, transgender service members are still waiting. Officials say disagreements remain in the Defense Department about how to move forward, suggesting that the Pentagon isn’t close to wrapping up the review, let alone instituting any changes.
[Pentagon chief announces plan to allow transgender military service]
Peter Levine, who recently took over as the Pentagon’s acting personnel chief, said that Carter remains committed to pursuing the change, but added that it will likely take “months, but not large numbers of months” more to finalize details.
“If there was consensus on it, yeah, we would have done it,” Levine said. “But obviously there are different views from different officials in the services.”
He added: “We’re going to work through that . . . and we’re going to do it expeditiously so that we can do it in this administration. But it’s important that we not only do it, but do it right.”
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2016/05/patricia-king-225x300.jpg)
Staff Sgt. Patricia King became what she believes is the first openly gay transgender member of the infantry. (Photo courtesy Patricia King) Staff Sgt. Patricia King became what she believes is the first openly transgender member of the infantry. (Photo courtesy Patricia King)
The military is already in the middle of a historic transition allowing women to serve in all combat roles. And the Pentagon is grappling with transgender rights as the issue has gained attention in other parts of the country, including North Carolina, where the governor is facing off with the federal government over a ban on transgender people using bathrooms that don’t match the gender they were assigned on their birth certificates. The Justice Department ruled the law discriminatory last week, and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) sued the department Monday, accusing the federal government of “baseless and blatant overreach.”
Also on Friday, the Obama administration directed schools across the country to provide transgender students with access to suitable facilities.
The Pentagon’s decades-old policy considers transgender people to be sexual deviants, allowing the military to discharge them. The services — and later, Carter — decided last year to move that discharge authority to higher levels in the military, making it more difficult to force out transgender people. The lack of a new policy, however, continues to create complicated situations for transgender service members and their commanders.
In one case, Army Sgt. Shane Ortega, a transgender man, was required last summer to go to a uniform shop where he was stationed at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii with a senior enlisted soldier to obtain a female dress uniform in order to meet Army officials at the Pentagon to discuss transgender policy concerns, according to Ortega and Army officials.
Ortega said the incident showed “a real lack of leadership and a lack of human compassion” and demonstrated the level of discrimination and ignorance in the military about transgender people is huge.
“I had to go through this experience at a public time … and try on this uniform in a public space and basically be humiliated because everyone in the space is going to go, ‘Why is this male soldier trying on this female uniform?’ ”
Wayne Hall, an Army spokesman, said that service policy dictated that “the appropriate uniform” for Ortega was the female dress uniform because he enlisted as a woman in 2009. Ortega and Hall said that the requirement was eventually dropped and that Ortega was allowed to wear a more unisex camouflage utility uniform to the meeting.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/03/27/National-Politics/Images/20150326_14139KN1427429585.jpg&w=1484)
Army Sgt. Shane Ortega shaves at home at Wheeler Army Airfield on March 26, 2015, in Wahiawa, Hawaii. (Kent Nishimura/For The Washington Post)
The Palm Center, an independent think tank that researches issues of sexuality, has assessed that there are about 12,800 transgender service members in the military. That’s down from 15,500, due to reductions in the overall size of the military in recent years, said Aaron Belkin, the center’s director.
Dozens of transgender service members have come out to their units, but the Pentagon hasn’t released directives for such gender-specific issues as uniforms, grooming and bathroom usage.
The services, for example, have some dress uniforms that include skirts. They also allow different hair length for men and women and have different physical fitness requirements for men and women. For example, the Marine Corps requires pull-ups for men but not for women. The Army requires push-ups instead of pull-ups, but fewer for women.
Some transgender service members also have had transfers to new units put on hold while the Pentagon sorts out its plan. They are also waiting to see how the military will address health-care coverage. The Pentagon does not currently cover hormone treatment for gender dysphoria, the medical term for wanting to transition gender, but it published a notice in the Federal Register in February that it is considering covering nonsurgical care.
“People are certainly suffering,” said Belkin, who met with Pentagon officials to discuss his group’s research. “It’s really unconscionable that they would leave 12,800 in limbo like this.”
The transgender issue is part of a larger set of reforms Carter tapped a former naval officer and Iraq War veteran, Brad Carson, to carry out as acting undersecretary of personnel and readiness. But Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, faced a surprisingly difficult confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, at which Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), the chairman, and other members attacked Carson and his proposed changes.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2016/05/1260082-1024x683.jpg&w=1484)
Brad Carson, then the undersecretary of the Army, speaks to an Afghan service member in 2014. (Sgt. Antony S. Lee/Army)
The main target was his so-called Force of the Future plan, which promised to shake up the military service by, for instance, eliminating the military’s structured “up-or-out” promotion rules, which typically force someone who has been bypassed for a promotion to eventually leave the service.
“This initiative has been an outrageous waste of official time and resources during a period of severe fiscal restraints,” McCain fumed.
Carson and his top adviser, Morgan Plummer, announced their resignations a few weeks later. Carson declined to comment for this article, and Plummer could not be reached, but there are indications that they considered nearly all their work on the new transgender policy finished when they left. One of Carson’s last accomplishments before leaving was delivering an implementation plan to Carter on transgender policy, Politico reported last month.
One issue Carson did not consider settled was how long the Defense Department should require transgender people to wait after transitioning their sex before being allowed to join the military, according to a defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss Pentagon deliberations. The Army and Marine Corps advocated 24 months, while the Navy and Air Force thought 12 were sufficient, citing recommendations from medical professionals. Carson, perhaps trying to negotiate the land services down, recommended requiring a six-month wait, the defense official said.
During the daily briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said officials in President Obama's administration "welcome" Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's comments that seemed to express openness to abolishing the ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. (AP)
It’s unclear whether the military has resolved whether to help pay for the cost of surgery for transgender service members who request it. A Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Defense Department and first reported on by the New York Times last month found that repealing the ban on transgender service would have minimal impact on the force and lead to no more than 129 of the military’s million-plus troops seeking transition-related care each year.
Carter, speaking to an auditorium of Air Force Academy cadets Thursday, said that the only barriers that should prevent someone from serving are “practical issues that we can’t work through,” and he predicted that the Pentagon will soon wrap up its work on the change. He told reporters afterward that “there aren’t any hang-ups” preventing a new policy from being adopted and that the working group is doing a thorough job.
A transgender airman, Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland, said he was given an exception to a policy that allowed him to serve as a man during a deployment to Afghanistan’s Kandahar Airfield between October 2014 and May 2015. He said he’s now convinced that it’s not a matter of if the policy will change, but when.
“You’ve got to look at the bigger picture in the military,” he said. “We have bigger issues and world problems going on. It will change, and we’ll have full gender inclusion.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/15/disagreements-slow-pentagons-plan-to-allow-transgender-service-members/
-
Funny how we've been getting by just fine without putting a spotlight on who is using which RR, but suddenly the Fake-Issue Patrol has made it into the biggest public concern of all time.
What the f is wrong with us?
-
trump, obama, bernie, and hilary are all in SUPPORT of this
so repubs can get mad, but hey, your guy backs this.
-
More further proof that this transgender thing is blown out of proportion and utterly ridiculous. This is at the very bottom of the google page.
"Proud supporters of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia"
Why do they insist on shoving this down our throats (no pun intended) and keep making a non-issue....an issue? Even my gay clients and friends thinks it's ridiculous.
-
This whole thing seems very stupid.
Is there anyone here defending this? ...that a person should be able to use the restroom that he/she best identifies themselves with over what they actually are?
-
This whole thing seems very stupid.
Is there anyone here defending this? ...that a person should be able to use the restroom that he/she best identifies themselves with over what they actually are?
Trump/Obama are defending this.
The rest of us, well, I don't want a full grown man being able to share a restroom with my family females because of how he "feels" - because I think people will lie, and do it just to jerk off in ladies room.
But liberals like Trump, well...
-
Trump/Obama are defending this.
The rest of us, well, I don't want a full grown man being able to share a restroom with my family females because of how he "feels" - because I think people will lie, and do it just to jerk off in ladies room.
But liberals like Trump, well...
This is precisely why I said you're incapable of discussing or debating policy. This is your only retort in 98% of your posts.
-
This is precisely why I said you're incapable of discussing or debating policy. This is your only retort in 98% of your posts.
Because repubs aren't realizing that by electing a democrat - Trump - They are moving left on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, like this one.
It's like arguing about deck chairs on the titanic... handing the White House to Trump means your president will be okay with people with dicks using the ladies restroom because of how they feel.
But you still support him, right?
-
This whole thing seems very stupid.
Is there anyone here defending this? ...that a person should be able to use the restroom that he/she best identifies themselves with over what they actually are?
I believe I said this would happen years ago and was told by many on here it would never happen. A few back then said they wouldn't care even if it did.
-
I believe I said this would happen years ago and was told by many on here it would never happen. A few back then said they wouldn't care even if it did.
I might have been one of those who said he didn't care. I don't care too much now. If something inappropriate is going to happen in a bathroom, gender laws aren't going to stop it.
Its just stupid to make a law of it IMO.
-
I might have been one of those who said he didn't care. I don't care too much now. If something inappropriate is going to happen in a bathroom, gender laws aren't going to stop it.
Its just stupid to make a law of it IMO.
It is stupid to make a law of it... but then look why the law was made really?
Look at the ridiculousness of what it has turned into.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/woman-tells-horrifying-tale-of-being-stalked-in-target-bathroom-stall/
The nightmare scenario that everyone imagined when Target announced its inclusive bathroom policy has come true. A woman named Ellie DeLano has come forward to tell the story of how she was minding her own business, doing her business in a locked bathroom stall in a Target women’s restroom, when someone peeped through the gap in the door at her. The story has a bit of a twist ending, though:
The outer door opened, and someone came in. She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me.
I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre, even. This wasn’t a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren’t really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away, into one of the larger stalls.
I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out.
“Sorry about that,” she said. “But you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom now. I was making sure you were a woman.”
That’s right, the call is coming from inside your birth-gender!
Ms. DeLano has a lot of great questions for this creep in the rest of her piece, but I’m wondering what the plan was once she discovered a Chanel-clad Hannibal Lecter in the stall, ask for a courtesy flush? As DeLano points out, this sort of action isn’t actually driven by fear, it’s driven by ostentatious moralism. How long will it be before invading women’s privacy in restrooms is considered a form of religious liberty? It seems like we’re already there.
-
It is stupid to make a law of it... but then look why the law was made really?
Look at the ridiculousness of what it has turned into.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/woman-tells-horrifying-tale-of-being-stalked-in-target-bathroom-stall/
The nightmare scenario that everyone imagined when Target announced its inclusive bathroom policy has come true. A woman named Ellie DeLano has come forward to tell the story of how she was minding her own business, doing her business in a locked bathroom stall in a Target women’s restroom, when someone peeped through the gap in the door at her. The story has a bit of a twist ending, though:
The outer door opened, and someone came in. She walked past the three open stalls and stood directly in front of my door. Then she leaned over and placed her eye firmly up against the gap between the door and the frame and stared in at me.
I am not making this up. And let me tell you, it was awkward. Bizarre, even. This wasn’t a case of someone hoping all those occupied stalls aren’t really occupied. Mine was the only stall that was occupied. She deliberately stopped and stared in at me. My startled eyes met hers, and she moved away, into one of the larger stalls.
I got out of my stall as quickly as I could, and as I stood washing my hands, her voice called out.
“Sorry about that,” she said. “But you know, Target lets men and homosexuals use just any bathroom now. I was making sure you were a woman.”
That’s right, the call is coming from inside your birth-gender!
Ms. DeLano has a lot of great questions for this creep in the rest of her piece, but I’m wondering what the plan was once she discovered a Chanel-clad Hannibal Lecter in the stall, ask for a courtesy flush? As DeLano points out, this sort of action isn’t actually driven by fear, it’s driven by ostentatious moralism. How long will it be before invading women’s privacy in restrooms is considered a form of religious liberty? It seems like we’re already there.
It would seem to me that lady in stall had her privacy violated and that a past incident doesn't justify it.
-
I might have been one of those who said he didn't care. I don't care too much now. If something inappropriate is going to happen in a bathroom, gender laws aren't going to stop it.
Its just stupid to make a law of it IMO.
The fart left just need to make their final push for unisex bathrooms, locker rooms and showers and be done with it instead of this annoying ass small march
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13151551_10153664501676275_7785976076735876224_n.png?oh=a318149157833ec5204bdb3a0fcc6cb1&oe=57DBEB38)
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13151551_10153664501676275_7785976076735876224_n.png?oh=a318149157833ec5204bdb3a0fcc6cb1&oe=57DBEB38)
No problem what so ever.
-
No problem what so ever.
you don't regularly carry a weapon.
THose of us who do... we know that open carry is an asinine idea.
-
I hope you're joking. Didn't you mention having a daughter?
My daughter is a grown woman. She can handle herself pretty well. When she was a kid, she beat up the neighbor boy and sent him home crying to his mamma. She was date raped when she was fifteen by her longtime boyfriend. No restrooms were involved....friends who ignored her screams for help were largely responsible for what happened. Free flowing alcohol was also responsible. This happened at a party hosted by the son of a county judge. The rapist was expelled from school for harassing her. The fool thought she would still be his girlfriend. May he rot in hell!
If someone is up to no good, they don't need a restroom to do whatever it is they hope to do.
-
My daughter is a grown woman. She can handle herself pretty well. When she was a kid, she beat up the neighbor boy and sent him home crying to his mamma. She was date raped when she was fifteen by her longtime boyfriend. No restrooms were involved....friends who ignored her screams for help were largely responsible for what happened. Free flowing alcohol was also responsible. This happened at a party hosted by the son of a county judge. The rapist was expelled from school for harassing her. The fool thought she would still be his girlfriend. May he rot in hell!
If someone is up to no good, they don't need a restroom to do whatever it is they hope to do.
It would increase the opportunity for a victimizer to welcome himself behind closed doors with a would-be victim. It would make it easier for that to happen, with no clear benefit on any other front.
-
And I'm sorry about your daughter going through that, Prime.
But I'm sure you wouldn't want her to contend with weirdos in the can, especially when she was a little girl.
-
Eleven states sue over Obama administration's transgender directive
Published May 25, 2016
FoxNews.com
Texas and 10 other states filed suit Wednesday against the Obama administration over its directive on transgender student access to public school facilities, firing the first shot in what is likely to be a protracted and messy legal battle over that guidance.
The suit was filed in a Texas federal court in response to the directive handed down to schools earlier this month that said transgender students should be able to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit at a Wednesday news conference, saying the directives represent an attempt by the administration to rewrite the law.
“This represents just the latest example of the current administration’s attempts to accomplish by executive fiat what they couldn’t accomplish through the democratic process in Congress," Paxton said.
Joining Texas in the suit were: Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona's Department of Education, Maine Gov. Paul LePage, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah and Georgia.
“Defendants have conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights,” the lawsuit says.
Conservative states had vowed to defy the federal directive, calling it a threat to the safety of students. Texas' lieutenant governor has previously said the state is willing to forfeit $10 billion in federal education dollars rather than comply.
"President Obama has excluded the voice of the people. We stand today to ensure those voices are heard," Paxton said.
The directive from the U.S. Justice and Education departments represents an escalation in the fast-moving dispute over what is becoming the civil rights issue of the day.
While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights under the Title IX law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement when the guidlines were announced earlier this month.
The guidance was issued after the Justice Department and North Carolina sued each other over a state law that requires transgender people to use the public bathroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificate. The law applies to schools and many other places.
Supporters say such measures are needed to protect women and children from sexual predators, while the Justice Department and others argue the threat is practically nonexistent and the law discriminatory.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/25/eleven-states-sue-over-obama-administrations-transgender-directive.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
And I'm sorry about your daughter going through that, Prime.
But I'm sure you wouldn't want her to contend with weirdos in the can, especially when she was a little girl.
We all contend with "weirdos" from time to time, regardless of the location even if we don't know it. Many transgendered folks are obvious because of their appearance. This seems preferable to someone who looks normal and harmless but isn't, like Ted Bundy.
-
We all contend with "weirdos" from time to time, regardless of the location even if we don't know it. Many transgendered folks are obvious because of their appearance. This seems preferable to someone who looks normal and harmless but isn't, like Ted Bundy.
No, the 'weirdo' I'm thinking of is the grown man who would decide to follow a 10-yr-old girl into the restroom. If you don't think it would be a frequent occurrence with community restrooms (the idea you brought up, earlier) then you're kidding yourself.
-
No, the 'weirdo' I'm thinking of is the grown man who would decide to follow a 10-yr-old girl into the restroom. If you don't think it would be a frequent occurrence with community restrooms (the idea you brought up, earlier) then you're kidding yourself.
Is it a frequent occurance now? I seriously ask because laws don't stop crime. Creepers will always creep.
-
Is it a frequent occurance now? I seriously ask because laws don't stop crime. Creepers will always creep.
Yes, creepers will creep and that's why we can't enact insane ideas which can only help them along.
A man doesn't belong in a restroom with a young girl, and it couldn't be any more clear.
-
Yes, creepers will creep and that's why we can't enact insane ideas which can only help them along.
A man doesn't belong in a restroom with a young girl, and it couldn't be any more clear.
Do you see this as some kind of problem though? I mean, before, everyone was just minding their business using their bathroom, now you have some law... Why?
Why do you care what other people have between their legs?
I don't. This is a big red herring and you know it.
-
Do you see this as some kind of problem though? I mean, before, everyone was just minding their business using their bathroom, now you have some law... Why?
Why do you care what other people have between their legs?
I don't. This is a big red herring and you know it.
No, we don't need laws either way. It will only create problems.
Prime had some sort of fit earlier which caused him to envision "community restrooms" where a man could enter just as freely as a young girl, and that's not right.
No, IMO we leave everything as it has been. It's worked for us up to now, so let's not pretend we need to change it. We're on the same page, there.
-
No, the 'weirdo' I'm thinking of is the grown man who would decide to follow a 10-yr-old girl into the restroom. If you don't think it would be a frequent occurrence with community restrooms (the idea you brought up, earlier) then you're kidding yourself.
In many cases, you wouldn't send a ten year old to the restroom alone. Why take that risk? As mentioned, long before unisex restrooms, there were creeps/pedophiles. An older female or an older male using the appropriate restroom could be up to no good.
-
In many cases, you wouldn't send a ten year old to the restroom alone. Why take that risk?
Happens all the time, though. So..
As mentioned, long before unisex restrooms, there were creeps/pedophiles. An older female or an older male using the appropriate restroom could be up to no good.
I'd say that's all the information you need, in order to realize the problem would get worse with the type of restroom you've described.
-
Btw, Prime... I noticed you said "appropriate" when you described the restroom being used.
This is pretty basic stuff, I'm sure you can't deny.
-
Btw, Prime... I noticed you said "appropriate" when you described the restroom being used.
This is pretty basic stuff, I'm sure you can't deny.
Good catch! The assumption is that the restrooms I mentioned would be identified as men's or women's (gender specific) and not gender neutral. I've known more than a few women who will use the men's room in a pinch. Do men regularly use women's rooms? ....I am thinking they don't.
Most gender neutral restrooms today are for single use. It is rare, but some larger gender neutral facilities have privacy screens. I've not seen how these function, so I have no idea if they work or not.
Basically, restrooms are used for shitting and pissing and occasionally primping. These are not exactly sexually charged activities except to the folks who have these sorts of fetishes.
-
Happens all the time, though. So..
Shame on the parents! At least stand outside the door to insure no one else gets in. Most gender neutral, single use restrooms have locks on their doors.
-
Good catch! The assumption is that the restrooms I mentioned would be identified as men's or women's (gender specific) and not gender neutral. I've known more than a few women who will use the men's room in a pinch. Do men regularly use women's rooms? ....I am thinking they don't.
Most gender neutral restrooms today are for single use. It is rare, but some larger gender neutral facilities have privacy screens. I've not seen how these function, so I have no idea if they work or not.
Basically, restrooms are used for shitting and pissing and occasionally primping. These are not exactly sexually charged activities except to the folks who have these sorts of fetishes.
Those are hardly sexually-charged activities, true, but it doesn't seem to stop the pervs from hanging around restrooms (as you pointed out a few posts up).
No, I hadn't heard of the multi-use unisex ones. Are those being used in the states, that you know of?
-
And I'm trying to figure out any advantage to changing our long-held tradition with restrooms.
What is it, again?
-
And I'm trying to figure out any advantage to changing our long-held tradition with restrooms.
What is it, again?
I may have to agree with you. Depending on how many transgender folks there are, we may be overdoing this.
In my opinion some of the gyms I go to have ideal setups as do many restaurants. In the hallway to the men's and women's locker rooms are a couple of gender neutral/handicapped single use rest rooms that lock for privacy. Inside each respective locker room is a gender specific multi use restroom. Many newer restaurants have two gender neutral, single use restrooms. The one downside to these is that they don't have urinals so it's back to the problem of leaving the toilet seat up or down when you really don't want to touch it anyway. If you piss standing up with leaving the seat down, there is a strong chance you'll get pee on the toilet seat. If you lift it to pee, you probably will touch it twice.
I solved these problems when I was a kid by never using a public restroom. Eventually, I got over my phobia.
-
I may have to agree with you. Depending on how many transgender folks there are, we may be overdoing this.
In my opinion some of the gyms I go to have ideal setups as do many restaurants. In the hallway to the men's and women's locker rooms are a couple of gender neutral/handicapped single use rest rooms that lock for privacy. Inside each respective locker room is a gender specific multi use restroom. Many newer restaurants have two gender neutral, single use restrooms. The one downside to these is that they don't have urinals so it's back to the problem of leaving the toilet seat up or down when you really don't want to touch it anyway. If you piss standing up with leaving the seat down, there is a strong chance you'll get pee on the toilet seat. If you lift it to pee, you probably will touch it twice.
I solved these problems when I was a kid by never using a public restroom. Eventually, I got over my phobia.
I think they tried this and the transgendered complained that it was separate but equal...
-
I may have to agree with you. Depending on how many transgender folks there are, we may be overdoing this.
In my opinion some of the gyms I go to have ideal setups as do many restaurants. In the hallway to the men's and women's locker rooms are a couple of gender neutral/handicapped single use rest rooms that lock for privacy. Inside each respective locker room is a gender specific multi use restroom. Many newer restaurants have two gender neutral, single use restrooms. The one downside to these is that they don't have urinals so it's back to the problem of leaving the toilet seat up or down when you really don't want to touch it anyway. If you piss standing up with leaving the seat down, there is a strong chance you'll get pee on the toilet seat. If you lift it to pee, you probably will touch it twice.
I solved these problems when I was a kid by never using a public restroom. Eventually, I got over my phobia.
Yes, I agree we could be going overboard on both sides. The idea that a drag-queen/tranny or whatever (no disrespect to anyone) should be forced to use a restroom with males who may not "take kindly" to it, isn't realistic, either. Someone may point out that we have laws against assault, etc. to say it's covered and no problem -- but it's a little more complicated than that IMO.
I think we're on the same page with this one.
-
Yes, I agree we could be going overboard on both sides. The idea that a drag-queen/tranny or whatever (no disrespect to anyone) should be forced to use a restroom with males who may not "take kindly" to it, isn't realistic, either. Someone may point out that we have laws against assault, etc. to say it's covered and no problem -- but it's a little more complicated than that IMO.
I think we're on the same page with this one.
We are for sure. Just to be clear though, drag queens (transvestites) are different from transgender (transsexual) folks in that they usually like being the gender they are and therefore are not looking to change. Basically they are men who dress up in women's clothes. Transsexual folk actually believe their birth gender was wrong and want to change it.
As an adult, I'd have no problem sharing a public restroom with any of these folk, or with females for that matter. On the other hand, many children are impressionable. For most of those in our culture to be subjected to these anomalies at a young age could cause them some trauma and confusion. Note that other cultures have different views on this. Some impoverished 3rd world kid probably just goes to the bathroom wherever they are, disregarding those around them.
A digression: In much of Europe, beachwear is optional for children and somewhat optional for adults. On the beaches in France, grown women baring their breasts is not uncommon. Men often wear swimsuits that are as revealing as a bodybuilder's thong. (LOL) In cultures like these were nudity is no big deal, children are much less likely to be traumatized by it.
Depending on city ordinances, public nudity is not illegal (with provisions). This is the case in Portland, where I live and many other cities, such as San Francisco. Never the less, many folks are outraged by this and regularly complain about naked bike rides and parade nudity.
-
In cultures like these were nudity is no big deal, children are much less likely to be traumatized by it.
Children aren't traumatized by things unless they've been told that it is wrong or evil or something to be afraid of ahead of time. Children aren't born with cultural values. They must learn them from their parents. Children in this country aren't going to be traumatized by nudity or transgender or gay people unless they've already been conditioned by their parents to be traumatized by it.
-
We are for sure. Just to be clear though, drag queens (transvestites) are different from transgender (transsexual) folks in that they usually like being the gender they are and therefore are not looking to change. Basically they are men who dress up in women's clothes. Transsexual folk actually believe their birth gender was wrong and want to change it.
As an adult, I'd have no problem sharing a public restroom with any of these folk, or with females for that matter. On the other hand, many children are impressionable. For most of those in our culture to be subjected to these anomalies at a young age could cause them some trauma and confusion. Note that other cultures have different views on this. Some impoverished 3rd world kid probably just goes to the bathroom wherever they are, disregarding those around them.
A digression: In much of Europe, beachwear is optional for children and somewhat optional for adults. On the beaches in France, grown women baring their breasts is not uncommon. Men often wear swimsuits that are as revealing as a bodybuilder's thong. (LOL) In cultures like these were nudity is no big deal, children are much less likely to be traumatized by it.
Depending on city ordinances, public nudity is not illegal (with provisions). This is the case in Portland, where I live and many other cities, such as San Francisco. Never the less, many folks are outraged by this and regularly complain about naked bike rides and parade nudity.
I think they finally banned it in Berkeley and San Francisco (and some other places in Cali) but you're absolutely right, and it was said to be a common sight in some neighborhoods in those places. Certain individuals would make it a point to roam around naked on the sidewalks every day, as though they expected to be applauded for it.
-
I don't think we're concerned about people with legitimate intentions, using the restroom. That's sort of the reason we've let things be the way they've been, because there aren't any other ways of doing it other than having all single-use (which isn't always practical).
-
Children aren't traumatized by things unless they've been told that it is wrong or evil or something to be afraid of ahead of time. Children aren't born with cultural values. They must learn them from their parents. Children in this country aren't going to be traumatized by nudity or transgender or gay people unless they've already been conditioned by their parents to be traumatized by it.
You've got this right! Unfortunately, there are more than a few parents passing their hangups on to their kids. This is true for much many more situations than nudity and sexual identity issues. Who do you supposed conditioned/trained the Boston Marathon bomber brothers, Timothy McVeigh, Neo-Nazis and other hate based groups? Just as we pass our genes on to our children we also strongly influence how they think and act.
-
(http://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13308152_1397674433717083_6924780010517262996_o.jpg)
-
(http://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13308152_1397674433717083_6924780010517262996_o.jpg)
How true! ;D
-
(http://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13308152_1397674433717083_6924780010517262996_o.jpg)
lol. One of the reasons I don't use swimming pools. :)
-
Texas, 12 states to ask judge to stall Obama transgender bathroom order
Published August 12, 2016
FoxNews.com
Some 13 states led by Texas will ask a federal judge Friday to halt the Obama administration's order to allow transgender students in U.S. public schools to use the restrooms of their choice.
The hearing in Fort Worth is the latest in the battle between the federal government and various states opposed to the policy change. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor will hear arguments over the states’ request for a preliminary injunction to halt the Obama directive just weeks before school re-opens for the fall. It is not knowwn when the judge might issue a ruling.
The White House in May told the nation's public school districts that they must allow transgender students to use bathrooms matching their chosen gender identity or risk losing federal funding.
States responded with a joint lawsuit challenging the order.
"We will not yield to blackmail from the president of the United States," Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said at the time. "This goes against the values of so many people."
The other states involved are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, other states last month launched a similar suit to stop the new bathroom policy in public schools. They are: Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
The Obama administration's order followed a Justice Department lawsuit against North Carolina, which had passed a law requiring people in the state to only use public restrooms that correspond with their gender at birth.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement that there is "no room in our schools" for discrimination.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court put on hold a lower court's order that would have allowed a Virginia high school student who was born female but identifies as male to use the boys' restroom.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/12/texas-11-other-states-to-ask-judge-to-halt-obamas-transgender-bathroom-directive.html
-
Transgender: Obama To End Single-Sex Bathrooms on Federal Property
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-01-17-at-13.29.23-640x480-640x480.png)
by DR. SUSAN BERRY
18 Aug 2016
President Barack Obama’s deputies will insert a rule in federal regulations on Friday to prevent federal facilities from operating single-sex bathrooms.
The rule in the “Federal Register” of regulations will open up thousands of bathrooms in federally operated buildings to employees and visitors who claim on any given day to be “transgender” members of the opposite sex.
BuzzFeed reports it obtained a draft notice of the rule that was sent to federal agencies. According to the report:
In addition to the estimated 1 million federal civilian workers employed in those spaces, GSA spokesperson Ashley Nash-Hahn told BuzzFeed News, the rule will cover anyone who enters the facilities — from people visiting courthouses to those stopping in at Social Security offices.
“This includes all kinds of Americans,” Nash-Hahn said. “We wanted to make clear that a person can use facilities that match their gender identity, and we think that’s a good thing.”
Chai Feldblum, a progressive member of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), said the rule is of “great significance,” adding, “This type of requirement can change the default for what life is like for those federal employees and people who enter federal buildings.”
The rule states, “Federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity.”
The Obama administration has made bathroom use a focus of its latest drive to upend common-sense societal norms that men and women are different. Dismissing concerns for the safety and comfort of women and children, the Obama administration has used the same tactic of declaring their political goal to be a human rights obligation, just as militant LGBT lobbyists promoted same-sex marriage as a legal right.
In the wake of a new North Carolina law that protects the privacy and safety of women and children in public rest rooms, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a lawsuit against the state, alleging the law violates the civil rights of gay and transgender individuals to use the bathrooms of their choice.
Additionally, in May, the Obama administration issued a directive that all public schools must allow gender-confused students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms according to their preferred “gender identity” at any given time. As is often the case with Obama administration decrees, they are backed by threats to cut federal funding designated for school districts that oppose the policy.
One coalition of states – led by Texas – filed a federal lawsuit that argues the Obama administration has wrongly redefined “sex” to also include “gender identity.” Another group of states filed a similar lawsuit against the administration over the new bathroom directive.
Similarly, a group of Illinois parents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration after its school district opened up its bathrooms to gender-confused students without any notice to parents.
According to one study of the 2010 census, that population of transgender people amounts to 1 in every 2,400 Americans, or 0.03 percent of the adult population. Multiple polls show that Obama’s transgender policy is very unpopular.
Abortion business Planned Parenthood tweeted out its support for the new rule:
Yaaas @POTUS 🙌 The Obama Administration just made another push for advancing trans rights→ http://ppact.io/2bIe54U @Hegemommy
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/18/obama-administration-enact-rule-mandatory-bathrooms-based-gender-identity/
-
Supreme Court takes up transgender school bathroom case
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Fri October 28, 2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/supreme-court-takes-up-transgender-school-bathroom-case/index.html
-
Trump Administration Set To Rescind Protections For Transgender Students
The Obama administration tried to stop schools from discriminating based on gender identity.
By Amanda Terkel
02/22/2017
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/crop_0_0_4928_2811,scalefit_720_noupscale/58ac627c290000f616f27c72.jpeg?cache=vzh0160iwk)
Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Transgender teen Gavin Grimm sued the Gloucester County School Board after it barred him from the boys bathroom.
President Donald Trump’s administration is set to announce on Wednesday that it will no longer bar schools from discriminating against transgender students, rescinding a policy put in place by the previous administration.
In May, under President Barack Obama, the Departments of Education and Justice issued guidance mandating that any school that receives federal money must treat a student’s gender identity as his or her sex. Schools, for example, would therefore have to allow transgender individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity, rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.
The federal government said transgender students were covered under Title IX, the statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. There currently are no specific federal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. This interpretation has been on hold, however, after more than a dozen states sued the Obama administration and a judge issued an injunction in August.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was reportedly against rescinding the order and initially resisted signing off on it, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions pushed her to do so because both departments had to agree in order to move forward.
A draft of the letter, obtained by The Washington Post, said the new policy “does not diminish the protections from bullying and harassment that are available to all students.”
White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who confirmed that the administration is set to issue the guidance Wednesday, argued during his press briefing that Title IX does not apply to transgender issues because there was no discussion of gender identity when the statute was passed in 1972. Judges and justices, however, often interpret laws and the Constitution to apply to new issues that arise.
Spicer also argued that there were no disagreements between DeVos and Sessions.
The Trump administration’s announcement is the latest in its shift away from the protection of transgender rights that became a legacy of the Obama era. The new administration also recently announced it would not appeal the August ruling. Under Obama, the Justice Department tried to argue that the ruling should appeal only to the states that were part of the suit rather than to all states.
Trump has tried to portray himself as a defender of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community, pledging in his Republican National Convention speech that he would protect its members from terrorist attacks. The president has said, however, that he does not support marriage equality even though he considers the issue settled law because the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. During the campaign, Trump said he supported a North Carolina law that barred cities from putting protections for LGBTQ individuals in place. His administration has also been considering at least two anti-LGBTQ executive orders.
Spicer said Tuesday that the president considered transgender rights to be “a states’ rights issue and not one for the federal government.”
“I find it obscene that Mr. Spicer would characterize the well-being, the health and the very safety of transgender young people as an issue of states’ rights,” responded Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. “The fact is that no child in America should have their rights subject to their zip code.”
Transgender students experience a significant degree of bullying in school.
The majority of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey who were out or perceived as being transgender while in school (K-12) reported being verbally harassed (54 percent), physically attacked (24 percent) or sexually assaulted (13 percent) because they were transgender.
“I worry that in the backlash and response, people are forgetting that these are children who fundamentally just need to go to school and have a right to be educated and not being able to use the bathroom that accords with their gender identity has profound consequences on their ability to actually receive an equal education. I feel like the human face of this has gotten lost in this,” Vanita Gupta, who at the time was the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told The Huffington Post in December.
The Trump administration’s latest decision could also affect the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender teenager in Virginia who sued his school for the right to use the boys bathroom. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 28, and the rescinding of the federal guidance could give the court an excuse to throw it back to the lower court.
Ryan Reilly contributed reporting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-transgender_us_58ac4fe8e4b0a855d1d9d278?
-
Complete waste of time & $ issue.
Mental illness related issues are completely out of control.
Jeez How has society got into this ridiculous nonsense state.
-
Back when I was a boy, you only saw a man wearing a bunny suit on Easter.
Someone/ TPTB have this thing about making everyone equal & unisex.
Only we are not all equal or unisex.
Sadly a lot of people are buying into it or rather have fallen for the very subtle
On going brainwashing perpetrated by some governments & media in general.
-
Trust me, around where I live in N Ga., they are NOT buying into uni-sex bathrooms.
Excellent- good to hear. Long may that continue.
-
Back when I was a boy, you only saw a man wearing a bunny suit on Easter.
And even then you would've wondered what manner of man he is.
-
100% best retort ending this whole "sex is fluid" argument...
"How old are you?
a: "22"
"Why aren't you sixty?"
"why are you 22? what makes you 22? Why can't you be 60?"
</over>
-
Trump administration revokes Obama-era transgender bathroom guidance for schools
Published February 22, 2017
FoxNews.com
The Trump administration Wednesday revoked federal guidelines issued by former President Barack Obama that allowed public school students to use restrooms and other facilities corresponding to their gender identity.
A document submitted to the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General's office said that the Obama-era directive issued this past May did not "undergo any formal public process" or explain how the directive was "consistent with the express language of Title IX," the federal law outlawing sex discrimination in education and activities.
"This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said. "Schools, communities, and families can find -- and in many cases have found -- solutions that protect all students."
"Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”
In a letter to the nation's schools, the Justice and Education departments said the earlier guidance "has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms."
The agencies withdrew the guidance to "in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved."
Anti-bullying safeguards would not be affected by the change, according to the letter. "All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment," it said.
It was not clear what immediate impact the change would have on schools, as a federal judge in Texas put a temporary hold on the Obama guidance soon after it was issued -- after 13 states sued.
Even without that hold, the guidance carried no force of law. But transgender rights advocates say it was useful and necessary to protect students from discrimination. Opponents argued it was federal overreach and violated the safety and privacy of other students.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said President Donald Trump "has made it clear throughout the campaign that he is a firm believer in states' rights and that certain issues like this are not best dealt with at the federal level."
Conservative activists hailed the change, saying the Obama directives were illegal and violated the rights of fixed-gender students, especially girls who did not feel safe changing clothes or using restrooms next to anatomical males.
"Our daughters should never be forced to share private, intimate spaces with male classmates, even if those young men are struggling with these issues," said Vicki Wilson, a member of Students and Parents for Privacy. "It violates their right to privacy and harms their dignity."
However, the reversal is a setback for transgender rights groups, which had been urging Trump to keep the guidelines in place. Advocates say federal law will still prohibit discrimination against students based on their gender or sexual orientation.
Still, they say lifting the Obama directive puts children in harm's way.
"Reversing this guidance tells trans kids that it's OK with the Trump administration and the Department of Education for them to be abused and harassed at school for being trans," said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.
Activists protested the move Wednesday outside the White House. "Respect existence or expect resistance," read one placard.
Spicer denied media reports that DeVos, who has been criticized for her stance on LGBT issues, had opposed the change but was overruled by Sessions. Spicer said any disagreement was merely over wording and timing.
"There is no daylight between anybody," Spicer said, adding that DeVos was "100 percent" on board with the decision.
The Obama administration's guidance was based on its determination that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, also applies to gender identity.
While not legally binding, the guidance sent a warning that schools could lose funding if they did not comply.
Republicans pushed back, arguing that the federal effort was an example of Obama administration meddling in state and local matters. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick equated it to blackmail and said his state was ready to forfeit federal education money rather than comply.
Legal experts said the change in position could impact pending court cases involving the federal sex discrimination law, including a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender teen who was denied bathroom access in Virginia.
The justices could decide not to hear the case and direct lower courts to decide that issue.
In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Grimm said of the Trump action: "It's not positive. It has the possibility of hurting transgender students and transgender people. We're going to keep fighting like we have been and keep fighting for the right thing."
A patchwork of state laws could continue to emerge as a result of the change. Fifteen states have explicit protections for transgender students in their state laws, and many individual school districts in other states have adopted policies that cover such students on the basis of their gender identity, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. Just one state, North Carolina, has enacted a law restricting access to bathrooms in government-owned buildings to the sex that appears on a person's birth certificate. Lawmakers in more than 10 states are considering similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/22/trump-administration-revokes-obama-era-transgender-bathroom-guidance-for-schools.html
-
(https://i.redd.it/sn96gmxwimhy.jpg)
-
Teach Tolerance! :-X
https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/834745679394246658 (https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/834745679394246658)
-
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/02/23/ap_206091930882_custom-949bf7ea52891206e29564a55e74282574f978a0-s600-c85.jpg)
-
(https://i.redd.it/sn96gmxwimhy.jpg)
This is great.
-
(https://i.redd.it/wwxejvdaxphy.jpg)
-
Teach Tolerance! :-X
https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/834745679394246658 (https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/834745679394246658)
He sounds okay with a an older, mentally ill man waving his dick in his daughters face. Maybe touching her would be okay too? Tolerance, right?
Sounds like a pervert.
-
Majorities of Americans Want Bathrooms Linked to Biological Sex, Not Gender Identity
by Dr. Susan Berry
28 Feb 2017
Majorities of Americans support the traditional concept of biological men using men’s restrooms and biological women using women’s restrooms, says a newly released poll from Crux/Marist.
Additionally, the poll finds most Americans support the right of physicians and employers to choose not to perform or cover surgeries or treatments for the purpose of changing an individual’s sex.
According to Crux:
By a margin of almost 40 points, a majority of Americans – 66 percent to 27 percent – do not think “someone who is transitioning to become the opposite sex” should be allowed to use whichever showers or locker rooms they want.
By a margin of nearly 20 points, a majority of Americans have the same opinion about bathroom use (56 percent to 38 percent).
Eight in 10 Americans say doctors and other healthcare professionals should not be forced to be involved with operations intended to change someone’s sex, if they disagree with such procedures for religious reasons. Fewer than two in 10 disagree (18 percent).
And by a margin of 30 points (62 percent to 32 percent), Americans believe employers should be legally allowed to opt out of covering medical procedures intended to change a person’s sex on the basis of freedom of religion.
The survey was conducted December 12-13, 2016, with 545 U.S. adults participating using live telephone interviews. Results are statistically significant within 4.2 percentage points.
A recent Rasmussen survey found only 28 percent of Americans support the Obama-era policy that claims the federal government should decide bathroom policies for elementary and secondary schools in the United States.
The poll also found that only 38 percent favor “allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms of the opposite biological sex.”
As 36 percent surveyed supports local government setting the bathroom school policies and 28 percent states that state government should design the rules for transgender students, a total of 64 percent of Americans prefer not having the federal government create bathroom policy based on gender ideology.
A recent poll by a pro-transgender group at UCLA showed that only 23 percent of Americans think people should be allowed to switch their legal sex without any tests or approval by government agencies.
In an April Civitas poll in which younger children were the focus of questions, results showed that only seven percent of 600 North Carolinians strongly supported a judge’s demand “ordering girls and boys in public middle schools to share locker rooms, bathroom, and shower facilities.” Seventy-two percent of respondents strongly opposed the demand.
President Donald Trump announced last week he is rejecting former President Barack Obama’s May 2016 national K-12 school policy that allows a child’s choice of gender to supersede his or her actual biological sex. Trump has decided to return the issue to state and local governments, even though his administration has not announced whether it opposes the demand of transgender activists that “gender identity” should determine a person’s legal sex.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/28/majorities-americans-want-bathrooms-linked-biological-sex-not-gender-identity/
-
The way things have operated, traditionally, has been the only fair way to do things. It sort of covers everything, as to whether the person is using the restroom for what it's meant, rather than for unacceptable reasons. Most individuals who have used a public restroom not assigned to their gender, have done so for understandable reasons. And it isn't surprising that so few (if any) issues have come up over the decades, when it comes to these people.
No new laws on this, IMO. No matter what those laws could say, it'd probably be trouble.
-
you can't change your gender just like you can't change your age..
fcktards
-
you can't change your gender just like you can't change your age..
fcktards
Actually gender is not biological sex.
They are different. You can change genders, you can't change biological sex.
"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally."
-
Actually gender is not biological sex.
They are different. You can change genders, you can't change biological sex.
"Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally."
exactly.. fcktards..
anyone who thinks this is just moronic
gender = sex = chromosomes = you cannot change
-
exactly.. fcktards..
anyone who thinks this is just moronic
gender = sex = chromosomes = you cannot change
So medicine is full of fucktards.
Got it.
-
We'll no longer restrict ourselves with God and Nature, friends. That's SO yesterday! No need to believe your lying eyes anymore. We've evolved into supreme beings who call our OWN shots, you see. That means we get to create our own reality as we go!! Isn't that fun? And don't worry, we'll force it on everyone as a fully objective truth. That way it won't seem quite so crazy.
Seriously, though...
IDK if this is a true story, but it appears to have been reported by ABC a couple of years ago. Pretty sure I've seen it posted on GB before, too.
Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users
Facebook introduced dozens of options for users to identify their gender today - and although the social media giant said it would not be releasing a comprehensive list, ABC News has found at least 58 so far.
Previously, users had to identify themselves as male or female. They were also given the option of not answering or keeping their gender private.
User's can now select a "custom" gender option.
"There's going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world," Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.
Facebook will also allow users to select between three pronouns: "him," "her" or "their."
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit
abcnews.go.com
---
IMO this is like a bunch of children playing a game, while trying to make the rest of us respond by legitimizing it.
-
We'll no longer restrict ourselves with God and Nature, friends. That's SO yesterday! No need to believe your lying eyes anymore. We've evolved into supreme beings who call our OWN shots, you see. That means we get to create our own reality as we go!! Isn't that fun? And don't worry, we'll force it on everyone as a fully objective truth. That way it won't seem quite so crazy.
Seriously, though...
IDK if this is a true story, but it appears to have been reported by ABC a couple of years ago. Pretty sure I've seen it posted on GB before, too.
Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users
Facebook introduced dozens of options for users to identify their gender today - and although the social media giant said it would not be releasing a comprehensive list, ABC News has found at least 58 so far.
Previously, users had to identify themselves as male or female. They were also given the option of not answering or keeping their gender private.
User's can now select a "custom" gender option.
"There's going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world," Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.
Facebook will also allow users to select between three pronouns: "him," "her" or "their."
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit
abcnews.go.com
---
IMO this is like a bunch of children playing a game, while trying to make the rest of us respond by legitimizing it.
"We are a generation that doesn't truly know what 'Struggle' is, so we invent them."
-
"We are a generation that doesn't truly know what 'Struggle' is, so we invent them."
Yeah, sounds like it. Individuals focusing on themselves to the point of hallucination, due to it.
And why only 58 or whatever it is? I'm sure their imagination's better than that.
-
You know what...
I associate with being a dolphin and insist, NO ... DEMAND the world treats me as such.
I DEMAND dolphin accessible restrooms!!
(https://files6.adme.ru/files/comment/part_2635/26341360-1432068149.jpeg)
-
As I was telling someone yesterday.
I don't care if you pick your gender. I'm fine with that, but it can only be two.
You're either man or woman... That's it.
The rest of them are just bullshit.
You can pick the other if you want, but just pick it and move on.
-
As I was telling someone yesterday.
I don't care if you pick your gender. I'm fine with that, but it can only be two.
You're either man or woman... That's it.
The rest of them are just bullshit.
You can pick the other if you want, but just pick it and move on.
I know what you mean. But one can see traces of a slippery slope, because then what's to say it's NOT okay to go the extra 189 steps, or whatever ridiculous number is "decided" upon?
-
We'll no longer restrict ourselves with God and Nature, friends. That's SO yesterday! No need to believe your lying eyes anymore. We've evolved into supreme beings who call our OWN shots, you see. That means we get to create our own reality as we go!! Isn't that fun? And don't worry, we'll force it on everyone as a fully objective truth. That way it won't seem quite so crazy.
Seriously, though...
IDK if this is a true story, but it appears to have been reported by ABC a couple of years ago. Pretty sure I've seen it posted on GB before, too.
Here's a List of 58 Gender Options for Facebook Users
Facebook introduced dozens of options for users to identify their gender today - and although the social media giant said it would not be releasing a comprehensive list, ABC News has found at least 58 so far.
Previously, users had to identify themselves as male or female. They were also given the option of not answering or keeping their gender private.
User's can now select a "custom" gender option.
"There's going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world," Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.
Facebook will also allow users to select between three pronouns: "him," "her" or "their."
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit
abcnews.go.com
---
IMO this is like a bunch of children playing a game, while trying to make the rest of us respond by legitimizing it.
WTF --- Who are these Idiots coming up with this Crap
I'm starting to believe a very large percentage of people are either
suffering from some form of Brainwashing or Mental illness.
Male or Female That's it -end of.
-
What gender is obama and his husband ?
-
WTF --- Who are these Idiots coming up with this Crap
I'm starting to believe a very large percentage of people are either
suffering from some form of Brainwashing or Mental illness.
Male or Female That's it -end of.
Media. I've done a bit of thinking on it since last post, and that's what it looks like. That's the driving force.
So figure about one meeting room of ego, arranged in some pecking order. Meaning that probably less than a half-dozen guys have decided that society is to be bombarded with these messages. Everyone else in the room thinks it's merely an attempt to push a "liberal" agenda, which they're easily sold on.
-
Media. I've done a bit of thinking on it since last post, and that's what it looks like. That's the driving force.
So figure about one meeting room of ego, arranged in some pecking order. Meaning that probably less than a half-dozen guys have decided that society is to be bombarded with these messages. Everyone else in the room thinks it's merely an attempt to push a "liberal" agenda, which they're easily sold on.
Yes could be.
Only I can't figure why or how so many are taken in by this utter lunacy.
-
Yes could be.
Only I can't figure why or how so many are taken in by this utter lunacy.
Human nature IMHO. People want to fit into a culture, and nothing casts an image of culture like media can do it. Nothing else comes close, when you think about it. Especially true since media has done its part to destroy the family, which is hardly coincidental IMO.
Everything from the news to sitcoms chips it away further, all by design.
That's why it must be fixed, NOW.
-
School orders boy to "tolerate" undressing with girl and make it "natural"
By Todd Starnes
Published March 22, 2017
FoxNews.com
A teenage boy was told by school leaders that he had to “tolerate” undressing in front of a female student and to make it as “natural” as possible, according to a blockbuster lawsuit filed in a Pennsylvania federal district court.
Click here for a copy of Todd’s new book – “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.”
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Alliance Defending Freedom and Independence Law Center, alleges the Boyertown Area School District shamed the teenage boy and violated his personal privacy. They are also alleging sexual harassment.
“No school should rob any student of this legally protected personal privacy,” ILC attorney Randall Wenger said. “We trust that our children won’t be forced into emotionally vulnerable situations like this when they are in the care of our schools because it’s a school’s duty to protect and respect the bodily privacy and dignity of all students.”
In the case of “Joel Doe” – they clearly ignored that duty.
Last Fall, the teen boy was standing in his underwear inside a locker room at Boyertown Area High School preparing to change for a physical education class.
“He suddenly realized there was a member of the opposite sex changing with him in the locker room, who was at the time, wearing nothing but shorts and a bra,” the lawsuit states.
The boy, along with several of his classmates reported the incident to Assistant Principal, named as a defendant.
“Dr. Foley indicated that the legality was up in the air but that students who mentally identify themselves with the opposite sex could choose the locker room and bathroom to use, and physical sex did not matter,” the lawsuit states.
The teenage boy asked the assistant principal if there was anything that could be done to protect him from the situation.
“Dr. Foley told Joel Doe to ‘tolerate’ it and to make it as ‘natural’ as he possibly can,” the lawsuit states.
As the boy got up to leave the office, the assistant principal allegedly told the youngster to again “be as natural as possible.”
Even more disturbing, parents were not told of the school district’s decision to let students of one sex use the locker rooms and bathrooms of students of the opposite sex.
“The District’s directive to Joel Doe was that he must change with students of the opposite sex, and make it as natural as possible, and that anything less would be intolerant and bullying against students who profess a gender identity with the opposite sex,” the lawsuit states.
The young man’s parents made an appointment to school leaders and were told that the district is “all-inclusive.”
The lawsuit alleges that Foley told the boy’s parents their son could use the nurse’s office to change – if he had a problem changing in front of girls.
Principal Brett Cooper, also a defendant, backed up the assistant principal’s solution.
Supt. Richard Faidley suggested if “Joel Doe was uncomfortable changing with those of the opposite sex, or with using the nurse’s office, then he could just withdraw from school and be home schooled.”
The school district has yet to respond to the lawsuit.
Should the school district be found guilty, they should immediately fire Faidley, Cooper and Foley. Their alleged behavior is beyond repulsive.
But the lawsuit clearly illustrates the radical sex and gender narrative being forced on every public school locker room in the nation.
And as evidenced by the school district’s behavior, resistance to this perverse indoctrination seems to be futile.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/22/school-orders-boy-to-tolerate-undressing-with-girl-and-make-it-natural.html
-
School orders boy to "tolerate" undressing with girl and make it "natural"
By Todd Starnes
Published March 22, 2017
FoxNews.com
A teenage boy was told by school leaders that he had to “tolerate” undressing in front of a female student and to make it as “natural” as possible, according to a blockbuster lawsuit filed in a Pennsylvania federal district court.
Click here for a copy of Todd’s new book – “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again.”
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday by Alliance Defending Freedom and Independence Law Center, alleges the Boyertown Area School District shamed the teenage boy and violated his personal privacy. They are also alleging sexual harassment.
“No school should rob any student of this legally protected personal privacy,” ILC attorney Randall Wenger said. “We trust that our children won’t be forced into emotionally vulnerable situations like this when they are in the care of our schools because it’s a school’s duty to protect and respect the bodily privacy and dignity of all students.”
In the case of “Joel Doe” – they clearly ignored that duty.
Last Fall, the teen boy was standing in his underwear inside a locker room at Boyertown Area High School preparing to change for a physical education class.
“He suddenly realized there was a member of the opposite sex changing with him in the locker room, who was at the time, wearing nothing but shorts and a bra,” the lawsuit states.
The boy, along with several of his classmates reported the incident to Assistant Principal, named as a defendant.
“Dr. Foley indicated that the legality was up in the air but that students who mentally identify themselves with the opposite sex could choose the locker room and bathroom to use, and physical sex did not matter,” the lawsuit states.
The teenage boy asked the assistant principal if there was anything that could be done to protect him from the situation.
“Dr. Foley told Joel Doe to ‘tolerate’ it and to make it as ‘natural’ as he possibly can,” the lawsuit states.
As the boy got up to leave the office, the assistant principal allegedly told the youngster to again “be as natural as possible.”
Even more disturbing, parents were not told of the school district’s decision to let students of one sex use the locker rooms and bathrooms of students of the opposite sex.
“The District’s directive to Joel Doe was that he must change with students of the opposite sex, and make it as natural as possible, and that anything less would be intolerant and bullying against students who profess a gender identity with the opposite sex,” the lawsuit states.
The young man’s parents made an appointment to school leaders and were told that the district is “all-inclusive.”
The lawsuit alleges that Foley told the boy’s parents their son could use the nurse’s office to change – if he had a problem changing in front of girls.
Principal Brett Cooper, also a defendant, backed up the assistant principal’s solution.
Supt. Richard Faidley suggested if “Joel Doe was uncomfortable changing with those of the opposite sex, or with using the nurse’s office, then he could just withdraw from school and be home schooled.”
The school district has yet to respond to the lawsuit.
Should the school district be found guilty, they should immediately fire Faidley, Cooper and Foley. Their alleged behavior is beyond repulsive.
But the lawsuit clearly illustrates the radical sex and gender narrative being forced on every public school locker room in the nation.
And as evidenced by the school district’s behavior, resistance to this perverse indoctrination seems to be futile.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/22/school-orders-boy-to-tolerate-undressing-with-girl-and-make-it-natural.html
Insane, it's really getting out of hand.
-
Here’s What Happened When A GOP Candidate Challenged A Transgender Man Who Used The Ladies’ Room [VIDEO]
GRACE CARR
Reporter
05/18/2018
A GOP candidate running for Congress in California confronted a biological male who identifies as a female when he tried to use the restroom at a Los Angeles restaurant, and things got spicy.
Jazmina Saavedra entered the women’s restroom at a Denny’s restaurant and found a man using the bathroom, first reported by news outlets Thursday. She decided to confront the man and filmed the encounter. She streamed their exchange on Facebook live Tuesday. The video has since gone viral.
WATCH:
Saavedra involved the restaurant’s manager and waited outside the bathroom for the man to emerge before asking him why he was using the women’s restroom.
“You’re invading my privacy,” he said as he exited the establishment.
“You’re invading my privacy because I’m a woman and I deserve to use the woman — the ladies’ room,” Saavedra responded.
The Denny’s restaurant did not have gender-neutral restrooms, but only a men’s bathroom and women’s bathroom. (RELATED: California Can Now Jail People For Misusing Gender Pronouns)
“How can I be with a man inside of the ladies’ room just because he thinks he’s a lady? This is unbelievable,” Saavedra said. “Only in California this happens.”
California’s Equal Restroom Access Act, which has been in effect since March 1, requires some establishments with single-occupancy restrooms to indicate that the restroom is gender-neutral.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/18/gop-candidate-challenges-transgender-man/
-
Here’s What Happened When A GOP Candidate Challenged A Transgender Man Who Used The Ladies’ Room [VIDEO]
GRACE CARR
Reporter
05/18/2018
A GOP candidate running for Congress in California confronted a biological male who identifies as a female when he tried to use the restroom at a Los Angeles restaurant, and things got spicy.
Jazmina Saavedra entered the women’s restroom at a Denny’s restaurant and found a man using the bathroom, first reported by news outlets Thursday. She decided to confront the man and filmed the encounter. She streamed their exchange on Facebook live Tuesday. The video has since gone viral.
WATCH:
Saavedra involved the restaurant’s manager and waited outside the bathroom for the man to emerge before asking him why he was using the women’s restroom.
“You’re invading my privacy,” he said as he exited the establishment.
“You’re invading my privacy because I’m a woman and I deserve to use the woman — the ladies’ room,” Saavedra responded.
The Denny’s restaurant did not have gender-neutral restrooms, but only a men’s bathroom and women’s bathroom. (RELATED: California Can Now Jail People For Misusing Gender Pronouns)
“How can I be with a man inside of the ladies’ room just because he thinks he’s a lady? This is unbelievable,” Saavedra said. “Only in California this happens.”
California’s Equal Restroom Access Act, which has been in effect since March 1, requires some establishments with single-occupancy restrooms to indicate that the restroom is gender-neutral.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/18/gop-candidate-challenges-transgender-man/
Non gender specific restrooms would make some things a lot simpler/better....women wouldn't have to wait in line to pee, for example. If one toilet is occupied, you simply use the next one. It amazes me sometimes how Victorian some people are today. Prudes be gone! There was a time in my youth when I couldn't pee if there was someone else in the facility. This probably was because I was an only child with his own bathroom. I got over it.