What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

So We Pull Federal Funding If High School Guys Can't Use The Girls' Locker Room? (1 Viewer)

"Schools are working with students … based on what they are comfortable with or what their needs are," said Don Buchheit, senior director for student support services with the San Diego County Office of Education.

In San Diego Unified School District, all schools have private restrooms available for any student to use, and middle and high school students have options for changing in private in locker rooms.

"We haven't had any issues that I'm aware of like we heard in Poway," said Linda Zintz, communications director of San Diego Unified.

Zintz said all schools created private areas after the law took effect that could be used by either transgender students or other students in locker rooms.

 
Start a fight over and pick the losing position on social issues over and over again, then cry about the consequences of losing over and over again.

 
It's not a losing position. It's an ideologue in the Oval Office determining federal funding, which will simply change with the next Republican administration. 

In addition, so what about San Diego and Poway? San Diego was going to do this anyway. What about schools with less funding and lesser facilities? Will private options be available. 

If I may paraphrase matuski, it's starting a fight about rights again and claiming that the majority is wrong when they want to not grant these so-called rights to others when it disrupts the majority's view of public facilities and the appropriateness of who can use them and how to use them. 

 
As usual, much ado by Republicans about nothing.
Not much ado about nothing. This was reported by CNN. It's not just Republicans, it's a wide swath of the American public. 

As usual, Democrats claim that crazy disruptions in hundreds of years of tradition is "nothing."  

 
Not much ado about nothing. This was reported by CNN. It's not just Republicans, it's a wide swath of the American public. 

As usual, Democrats claim that crazy disruptions in hundreds of years of tradition is "nothing."  
#### tradition.

 
#### tradition.
Right, because tradition can be replaced with simple social revolution. It's that easy, and folks should just accept it.  

Never mind that tradition might just be wisdom and dialectic formed over thousands of years and longer and that simple overthrows of common wisdom really means replacing a long-standing dialectic with a simplistic extension by analogy of certain rights based on faulty definitions.  

 
I mentioned this in the other thread, but I agree with Rock here 100%.  And Rock and I don't always agree on this stuff.  I've been a big proponent of gay and lesbian rights my whole life - before it was trendy.  My problem with this ruling is that it's not well thought out.  It opens up the possibility for all sorts of problems down the road with non transgenders gaining access to women's dressing rooms, lockers and bathrooms.  And a lot of transgenders agree with me.  The 8:00 to 10:00 minute mark for those with short attention spans. http://youtu.be/tg-MAMvkplE

I think the solution here is to have 3 bathrooms going forward - men's, ladies, and "Family" unisex bathrooms that can be used by families with infants or young kids or transgenders.  The locker room situation is tough, and I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the problem I guess.. you are incapable of evaluating the situation.
This is simply an executive edict. It says nothing about popular support, which is a huge aspect of a losing position in a legislative majoritarian system of government. 

 
Time after time after time.  

Name the social issue.. anyone with any awareness or wherewithal can tell you which side loses before the fight starts.

This is what is so mind boggling to many of us - watching the Right start the fight while picking the side that everyone knows is going to lose.  Then watching the temper tantrums over losing.  Then watching you line up to do it all over again next time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is simply an executive edict. It says nothing about popular support, which is a huge aspect of a losing position in a legislative majoritarian system of government. 
Don't worry, this is going to backfire BIGTIME on Obama and the Democrats.

 
Time after time after time.  

Name the social issue.. anyone with any awareness or wherewithal can tell you which side loses before the fight starts.

This is what is so mind boggling to many of us - watching the Right start the fight while picking the side that everyone knows is going to lose.  Then watching the temper tantrums over losing.  Then watching you line up to do it all over again next time.
Republicans did not "pick the fight." Courts started enforcing this under Title IX, if I'm not mistaken, because many courts these days cannot comprehend any other form of jurisprudence other than extending analogies. Then the legislatures take preemptive action against a future court decision, and the other side hollers what matuski hollers without any cognizance at all of the political nature of courts and jurisprudence. 

 
Time after time after time.  

Name the social issue.. anyone with any awareness or wherewithal can tell you which side loses before the fight starts.

This is what is so mind boggling to many of us - watching the Right start the fight while picking the side that everyone knows is going to lose.  Then watching the temper tantrums over losing.  Then watching you line up to do it all over again next time.


So perfect 

 
And BTW... I am for the mindset that bathrooms should be MALE or FEMALE.  Based on genitila.

Yes, that's my thought on it.

But when it comes to equal protections under the law, my belief is for segregation on this subject. Which I know doesnt work with how our country is supposed to treat people. So a better solution needs to come forth. And if we go to court my "sensibility" is going to ####### lose. But Im not a moron who doesnt consider the nuances and the particulars.

 
And so wrong, but that's okay. We can just throw Article III out the window and you can ramble on and on.  
We all see you hiding behind this when it is obviously not what you truly have a problem with.

File this under temper tantrum over losing on another social issue.

 
We'll see where we are at in a couple of years....I'm guessing you are on the losing side
I'm not sure what the losing side and winning side means. By losing, do we mean raw politics? Do we mean public opinion? Do we mean common sense and reality? Or what exactly is the losing side and winning side? 

Is there a normative element to the losing side? Are we better off for having won? 

I have no idea what the hell the losing side and winning side means, definitionally.  

 
We all see you hiding behind this when it is obviously not what you truly have a problem with.

File this under temper tantrum over losing on another social issue.
Wat?

I have a problem with guys identifying as girls and using their restrooms. Yes, I do. 

I also have a problem with the political process used to ensure that this ridiculousness happens. I care about the public aspect of privacy and private functions. I care about the necessary enforcement going to motive (are you really transgender or are you just a high school kid who wants to see some girls undress?)

Tell me, matuski, what crystal ball do you have that you know what my problem is? 

We're not losing this position, dude. We're winning by a lot.  

matuski, you're such a savant in these threads I'm often breath taken by your incredible wisdom and foresight.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know... PJMedia...  but the story is real, and the point is highlighted well.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/03/01/moms-ask-man-to-leave-seattle-locker-room-while-their-swim-team-daughters-are-changing/

It wasn’t going to happen. This was not going to be a problem. Only honest-to-goodness women who were trapped in a men’s bodies by genes were going to use women’s locker rooms. Everyone would be well-intentioned and everyone would be comfortable. No big deal. Any concerns some might have about opportunistic voyeurism were an overblown panic.

Except it wasn’t. Recently, a man who did not claim to be a trans-woman just walked into the women’s locker room at a Seattle public pool and started changing and watching the women change. A woman reported him. Staff asked him to leave. He resisted, asserting he was allowed to be there. He went for his swim and then returned to the women's locker room when he was finished. A girls’ swim team was using the facility. Mothers complained, and he eventually left. The police were not called because if he identified as a woman, then he was within his rights, and if he did not, then the staff preferred to settle the issue without involving the police. The story got out when a witness called a radio station.

Two things that stand out to me, besides the “told ya” point all of us maligned panic mongers can claim: One, the staff person interviewed said, “We want everyone to feel comfortable at our facilities.” Well, the woman who asked him to leave did not feel comfortable with a man changing in the women’s locker room. Nor did the young girls’ swim team or their mothers who were in the locker room when he returned to assert his legal right to change in the women’s space. When does their comfort count?
The agency in Seattle that authorized this "Ruling" (under cover of the Christmas break) later said that the man was in violation of the law.  Several lawyers I've talked to agree with me that the regulation in question is vague enough that the man couldn't be legally asked to leave.  Nowhere does the law specify how one has to "identify as a woman".  Does he have to be in drag?  And what does that mean exactly?  That he's wearing high heels?  Are we going to provide a list of acceptable women's clothing?  Does he have to talk like a woman?  Does he have to act like one?  

Starting to see why this is a mess waiting to happen?  And for those who think that it's no big deal if a man goes into a women's restroom, how would you feel if your daughter was videotaped by a pervert in the next stall - up on the internet forever.  Think that doesn't happen?  Think again.  

 
I'm comforted that the usual ideologues on the left on this board love this decision. 

Wonder what they thought about the "keep your doctor" and "JV" statements at first. 

 
I need to become a plumber asap.  Because, I see a lot of new bathrooms being built in the near future in schools, and government buildings.

 
I need to become a plumber asap.  Because, I see a lot of new bathrooms being built in the near future in schools, and government buildings.
Well they made them have men/womens previously (and black/white), so now they rethink their outdated/outmoded application and instead have coverage for all. Progress.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well they made them have men/womens previously (and black/white), so now they rethink their outdated/outmoded application and instead have coverage for all. Progress.
I need to become a plumber asap.  Because, I see a lot of new bathrooms being built in the near future in schools, and government buildings.

What about those lawyers that went around the country and sued small business owners for not having handicap access?  I can see this happening as well.  Money grab for everyone.

 
Time after time after time.  

Name the social issue.. anyone with any awareness or wherewithal can tell you which side loses before the fight starts.

This is what is so mind boggling to many of us - watching the Right start the fight while picking the side that everyone knows is going to lose.  Then watching the temper tantrums over losing.  Then watching you line up to do it all over again next time.
I think the democrats lost the forced busing issue in the 1970s, didn't they?

 
And BTW... I am for the mindset that bathrooms should be MALE or FEMALE.  Based on genitila.

Yes, that's my thought on it.

But when it comes to equal protections under the law, my belief is for segregation on this subject. Which I know doesnt work with how our country is supposed to treat people. So a better solution needs to come forth. And if we go to court my "sensibility" is going to ####### lose. But Im not a moron who doesnt consider the nuances and the particulars.
That is what I've been arguing for a long time, nothing less. But then all the threads I've started about "gender" and "sex have been so strange to me. People have no problem with synonymous terminology. My point is that as soon as we get into "gender" as a synonymous word that deals with male/female distinctions, we see the problem as relates to the determination of public accommodations; namely, we run into identity problems. I've been constantly arguing about this on this board, but have been sort of met with yawns or disagreements or accusations of being too abstract and incomprehensible. 

What I've argued, simply, is that the distinction between "gender" and "sex" is important and that blurring the lines leads to stuff like this. Gender is a construct. Sex is biological. Being born intersex is a definite issue, and one that should be dealt with with compassion.

I've argued that bathrooms should be done on the basis of biological sex, because that's the really only enforceable mechanism when dealing with identity, which will always go to motive if we're just trying to address the problems of peeping Toms and leerers.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I need to become a plumber asap.  Because, I see a lot of new bathrooms being built in the near future in schools, and government buildings.

What about those lawyers that went around the country and sued small business owners for not having handicap access?  I can see this happening as well.  Money grab for everyone.
You said lawyers and money grab... you do know that is what lawyers do?  :yes:

 
I know... PJMedia...  but the story is real, and the point is highlighted well.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/03/01/moms-ask-man-to-leave-seattle-locker-room-while-their-swim-team-daughters-are-changing/

The agency in Seattle that authorized this "Ruling" (under cover of the Christmas break) later said that the man was in violation of the law.  Several lawyers I've talked to agree with me that the regulation in question is vague enough that the man couldn't be legally asked to leave.  Nowhere does the law specify how one has to "identify as a woman".  Does he have to be in drag?  And what does that mean exactly?  That he's wearing high heels?  Are we going to provide a list of acceptable women's clothing?  Does he have to talk like a woman?  Does he have to act like one?  

Starting to see why this is a mess waiting to happen?  And for those who think that it's no big deal if a man goes into a women's restroom, how would you feel if your daughter was videotaped by a pervert in the next stall - up on the internet forever.  Think that doesn't happen?  Think again.  
But they promised!  

In all seriousness, this is what happened with the marijuana debate. A lot of advocacy groups claimed to be only about medical marijuana, and as soon as those laws passed, they went straight for outright legalization. 

Now, I'm all for legalization in that instance, but it's just an illustration of how advocacy politics chips away at one thing and then runs to the next obstacle to what they really want. 

In this case, most of the LGBTers want co-ed bathrooms, gender to replace biological sex (for whatever reason) and self-created identity to replace any semblance of biological determinism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is what I've been arguing for a long time, nothing less. But then all the threads I've started about "gender" and "sex have been so strange to me. As soon as we get into "gender" as the determination of public accommodations, we run into identity problems. I've been constantly arguing about this on this board, but have been sort of met with yawns or disagreements or accusations of being too abstract and incomprehensible. 

What I've argued, simply, is that the distinction between "gender" and "sex" is important and that blurring the lines leads to stuff like this. Gender is a construct. Sex is biological. Being born intersex is a definite issue, and one that should be dealt with with compassion.

I've argued that bathrooms should be done on the basis of biological sex, because that's the really only enforceable mechanism when dealing with identity, which will always go to motive if we're just trying to address the problems of peeping Toms and leerers.  
But we are forcing a person who is fully of the belief they are a woman to go use the mens restroom. And we are determining what they are (not just physically, but everything about them).

Do you understand how our argument is counter to how this country treats people with equality and respect? The USA is a torch bearer in this regards.

I understand the counter to how we see things rockaction, I am of a different mindset like you, but if you extrapolate that mindeset to other areas it undoubtedly becomes oppressive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Republicans did not "pick the fight." Courts started enforcing this under Title IX, if I'm not mistaken, because many courts these days cannot comprehend any other form of jurisprudence other than extending analogies. Then the legislatures take preemptive action against a future court decision, and the other side hollers what matuski hollers without any cognizance at all of the political nature of courts and jurisprudence. 
It's even worse than you think Rock.  The Ruling in Washington, which really set all of this in motion, was made by a 5 person Human Rights Commission composed of civil servants who weren't even elected.  They are the ones who made the interpretation and issued the ruling.  Talk about a shadow Government.

 
I am mostly in favor of transgender rights, but I do think BO is overstepping here. Our school has two kids this year that are transgendered. Like in SD we have single person restrooms that they use. 

 
But we are forcing a person who is fully of the belief they are a woman to go use the mens restroom. And we are determining what they are (not just physically, but everything about them).

Do you understand how our argument is counter to how this country treats people with equality and respect? The USA is a torch bearer in this regards.

I understand the counter to how we see things rockaction, I am of a different mindset like you, but if you extrapolate that mindeset to other areas it undoubtedly becomes oppressive.
Yes, the United States certainly has been very good about individual rights in this respect, but rarely have we dealt with issues of public facilities and self-proclaimed identity so starkly. It is in these instances that we have to ascertain motive for the public good, which most lawyers and judges will tell you is the hardest thing to discern. Most other equality and freedom issues in this respect deal with immutable characteristics, or those things that we cannot hide. Identity is not one of those things. It can change very quickly.  

 
I am mostly in favor of transgender rights, but I do think BO is overstepping here. Our school has two kids this year that are transgendered. Like in SD we have single person restrooms that they use. 
What about locker rooms?  I assume they change in the single person restroom?

 
It's even worse than you think Rock.  The Ruling in Washington, which really set all of this in motion, was made by a 5 person Human Rights Commission composed of civil servants who weren't even elected.  They are the ones who made the interpretation and issued the ruling.  Talk about a shadow Government.
That's interesting. So somebody has to accept the HRC's recommendation, though. Somebody had to appoint and accept. My guess would be that it was the legislature, and now their statute is biting them in the proverbial you-know-where.  

I wonder if one of the lawyer guys in here could come in and tell us about the breadth of the statute and whether it would be binding on public facilities because of the futility of the wording with respect to enforcement and basic wisdom.  

 
Yes, the United States certainly has been very good about individual rights in this respect, but rarely have we dealt with issues of public facilities and self-proclaimed identity so starkly. It is in these instances that we have to ascertain motive for the public good, which most lawyers and judges will tell you is the hardest thing to discern. Most other equality and freedom issues in this respect deal with immutable characteristics, or those things that we cannot hide. Identity is not one of those things. It can change very quickly.  
Are you saying its not allowed to? And if it does it cant ever be organic/natural/normal?

*not sparring with you. genuinely curious.

 
I know... PJMedia...  but the story is real, and the point is highlighted well.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/03/01/moms-ask-man-to-leave-seattle-locker-room-while-their-swim-team-daughters-are-changing/

The agency in Seattle that authorized this "Ruling" (under cover of the Christmas break) later said that the man was in violation of the law.  Several lawyers I've talked to agree with me that the regulation in question is vague enough that the man couldn't be legally asked to leave.  Nowhere does the law specify how one has to "identify as a woman".  Does he have to be in drag?  And what does that mean exactly?  That he's wearing high heels?  Are we going to provide a list of acceptable women's clothing?  Does he have to talk like a woman?  Does he have to act like one?  

Starting to see why this is a mess waiting to happen?  And for those who think that it's no big deal if a man goes into a women's restroom, how would you feel if your daughter was videotaped by a pervert in the next stall - up on the internet forever.  Think that doesn't happen?  Think again.  
To be fair, perverts are videotaping in stalls without having to identify as a woman. 

 
Are you saying its not allowed to? And if it does it cant ever be organic/natural/normal?

*not sparring with you. genuinely curious.
Identity is certainly allowed to change. Generally, laws cannot touch the personal nature of our own selves and who we conceive them to be. It absolutely can be organic/natural/normal. I'll bet there are millions of scores of people that identified at one point with one sex and then another years later. It's one's own journey to make, whether I agree personally or not. 

The problem here is one of accommodations in the public sphere and how it relates to the fluidity of identity.  I'm not such a libertarian that I think there is no place for public facilities, funding, and spirit, and that brings a host of problems when one considers enforcement of these sort of things. Identity is so difficult because it rests on a self-creation and self-proclamation. There is nothing to stop people from declaring themselves one way when they really don't believe it. And if laws are written respecting a human right that relies on self-reporting (which we all know can be bull####) we are susceptible to these sort of things. And the concerns aren't just for the squeamish or prudish; they're eminently reasonable, IMO.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top