HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. We segregate facilities based upon genitalia. Now, sure people with a ###### could use a stall in a men's bathroom, but the trough isn't going to be quite so useful.

Oh, if the hardest math needed is statistics, then no it isn't a science.

Gotcha. Medicine isn't science. Thanks.

Psychology isn't medicine and is probably the least understood and most controversial of sciences.Very little is settled there, so proceed with caution with your absolute truths. You could very well be wrong.

Psychiatry is medicine, which is why it requires an MD.

 

[Henry Ford]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

What is the difference between gender and sex?

One is based on a five part objective biological test and one is a set of socially constructed behavioral norms.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

I guess they need to put some urinals in the female restrooms then

Why? Is there a usual female gender role that includes standing up to urinate?And where is the intersex bathroom? For people who are not biologically male or female?

I think you got that backwards. Cause ya know, if chicks with ##### are in the womens bathroom, some alterations will need to be made.

And if dudes with no wangs are in the mens room, they may need to make some alterations there also.

No more urinals I guess.

Unless I'm missing something, the sole purpose of a urinal is to save water.

You are missing something. They are faster. You don't have to touch them to lift up a seat. They are cheaper to maintain. They don't need a floor drain.

Who lifts a seat in the public restroom? The seat is split for a reason.Otherwise, thanks.

Wait, what?

Sorry, I know this is adding nothing to the conversation.

I'm being somewhat sarcastic but I'm hesitant to touch the seat. Most public bathrooms (ime anyway) have cut out the front center portion. It wasn't originally so we didn't have to lift, but it's a handy benefit.

How does the cutout make it so you don't have to lift the seat? That's the last place I ever get pee. Usually the splatter is from the pee hitting the water and then water splashing up.

As far as grabbing the seat I just grab a piece of TP and lift.

 

[Hoh]

She won't face discrimination in the girls locker room?

She won't face the discrimination of being told she's not a girl and that she needs to go be a boy during gym class by a state-funded educational institution.

Like I said, the boys/girls distinction is genitalia. She's not being told she's not a girl. She's being told she has a penis.

Then call it the penis restroom, not the boys' restroom.

Signs on the doors would be way more awesome that way.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I find it unfortunate that the mission of formal education is so frequently disrupted by the informal education that comes when society's arguments are brought to a decision point in school. Perhaps the dynamics are such that it could not be otherwise, and here, again, on this issue we may have Supreme Court involvement someday. My feelings aside I note that society's march (whether forward or backward I leave to others) has often been marked and changed by litigation that came of controversies at schools. Whether it be matters which never made the Supreme Court, such as the Scopes Monkey trials, or classic Supreme Court Rulings like in Brown v. Board of education litigation originating in schools has been instrumental in defining our country. I bet, if pressed, I could easily name 50 important Supreme Court decisions covering integration, search and seizure, first amendment expression, conscientious objection, affirmative action and more that arose in schools and now define us as a country. My feelings sometimes seem small when lined up against that jurisprudence.

Meyer v. State of Nebraska 262 u.s. 390 (1923)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 u.s. 510 (1925)

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada 305 u.s. 337 (1938)

Minersville School District v. Board of Education 310 u.s. 586 (1940)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 u.s. 624 (1943)

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing 330 u.s. 1 (1947)

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District 333 u.s. 203 (1948)

Sweatt v. Painter 339 u.s. 629 (1950)

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents 339 u.s. 637 (1950)

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 u.s. 485 (1952)

Zorach v. Clauson 343 u.s. 306 (1952)

Brown v. Board of Education 347 u.s. 483 (1954)

Bolling v. Sharpe 347 u.s. 497 (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education 349 u.s. 294 (1955)

Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City 350 u.s. 551 (1956)

Barenblatt v. United States 360 u.s. 109 (1959)

Shelton v. Tucker 364 u.s. 479 (1960)

Engel v. Vitale 370 u.s. 421 (1962)

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp 374 u.s. 203 (1963)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 u.s. 589 (1967)

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County 391 u.s. 430 (1968)

Maryland v. Wirtz 392 u.s. 183 (1968)

Board of Education v. Allen 392 u.s. 236 (1968)

Epperson v. Arkansas 393 u.s. 97 (1968)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 u.s. 503 (1969)

Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City 397 u.s. 50 (1970)

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 u.s. 1 (1971)

North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann 402 u.s. 43 (1971)

Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 u.s. 602 (1971)

Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 u.s. 205 (1972)

Grayned v. City of Rockford 408 u.s. 104 (1972)

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth 408 u.s. 564 (1972)

Perry v. Sindermann 408 u.s. 593 (1972)

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 u.s. 1 (1973)

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado 413 u.s. 189 (1973)

Lau v. Nichols 414 u.s. 563 (1974)

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur 414 u.s. 632 (1974)

Milliken v. Bradley 418 u.s. 717 (1974)

Goss v. Lopez 419 u.s. 565 (1975)

Ingraham v. Wright 430 u.s. 651 (1977)

Milliken v. Bradley 433 u.s. 267 (1977)

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke 438 u.s. 265 (1978)

Ambach v. Norwick 441 u.s. 68 (1979)

Stone v. Graham 449 u.s. 39 (1980)

Widmar v. Vincent 454 u.s. 263 (1981)

Plyler v. Doe 457 u.s. 202 (1982)

Board of Educ. v. Pico 457 u.s. 853 (1982)

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan 458 u.s. 718 (1982)

Bob Jones Univ. v. United States 461 u.s. 574 (1983)

Mueller v. Allen 463 u.s. 388 (1983)

Allen v. Wright 468 u.s. 737 (1984)

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 u.s. 325 (1985)

Wallace v. Jaffree 472 u.s. 38 (1985)

School District v. Ball 473 u.s. 373 (1985)

Aguilar v. Felton 473 u.s. 402 (1985)

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education 476 u.s. 267 (1986)

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser 478 u.s. 675 (1986)

Edwards v. Aguillard 482 u.s. 578 (1987)

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier 484 u.s. 260 (1988)

Missouri v. Jenkins 495 u.s. 33 (1990)

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools 503 u.s. 60 (1992)

Freeman v. Pitts 503 u.s. 467 (1992)

Lee v. Weisman 505 u.s. 577 (1992)

United States v. Fordice 505 u.s. 717 (1992)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 u.s. 384 (1993)

United States v. Lopez 514 u.s. 549 (1995)

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia 515 u.s. 819 (1995)

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe 530 u.s. 290 (2000)

Mitchell v. Helms 530 u.s. 793 (2000)

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 00-1751 (2002)

Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v. Earls 01-332 (2002)

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, it's the nature of education in general and the nature of those being educated I think. Parents will file suit over things for their kids that they'd never sue over for themselves, and kids have the sense of importance and drama to push things far enough to get to that point in some cases.

 

[onionsack]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

 

[Daywalker]

Lot of people get a raw deal. Way worse then this. Suck it up like they do. Don't force a locker room of girls to undress in front of a dude with a weiner.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

This isn't the same kind of issue at all. Shame? That's kind of funny. Most people in this thread are of the opinion that it should be a no, but that a third accomodation is most fair.

Why is that shameful? Whether people like it or not, our society has established differences between men and women. We wear bathing suits, cover up with towels, and all sorts of other things.

When a situation is outside of those norms, there is nothing wrong with trying to make the best of that situation for society as a whole.

Let's be honest here, if you voted yes, you basically have a nudist viewpoint. You believe that wandering around naked is acceptable. I won't say that viewpoint is wrong, just that I disagree with it. Our society could probably benefit from some more relaxed views on that, but I like that those boundaries are established and I don't support breaking them down.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Let's be honest here, if you voted yes, you basically have a nudist viewpoint. You believe that wandering around naked is acceptable.

1. There is a difference between changing for gym class and prancing around nude at the grocery store.

2. Lila isn't stripping down nude to get ready for gym and won't be working up such a sweat to need a shower afterwards. Nor will the girls in the locker room.

 

[jonessed]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

 

[Henry Ford]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

Oh, the humanity

 

[dparker713]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

Oh, the humanity

You seem to not care at all about the privacy rights of the girls in the lockerroom.

 

[Pipes]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

So I'm a bigot for not wanting someone with a penis to undress in front of high school girls? Good lord.

 

[Henry Ford]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

Oh, the humanity

You seem to not care at all about the privacy rights of the girls in the lockerroom.

I do care. We just disagree as to what those privacy rights are.

 

[onionsack]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

The only thing these girls are "suffering" from is a bad case of poor parenting, bigotry and ignorance. Trans people aren't pervs, they aren't in the shower to rape or ogle, they're in there to *gasp* take a shower. According to you, the trans in this photo should be showering with the girls and this one should be showering with the boys. Does that make any sense at all? Would you freak out if the first trans was showering next to you just because "he" didn't have a penis? Should that large group of girls feel threatened because the second one does? Kudos to the few girls who took a brave stand on the side of humanity and tolerance.

 

[dparker713]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

The only thing these girls are "suffering" from is a bad case of poor parenting, bigotry and ignorance. Trans people aren't pervs, they aren't in the shower to rape or ogle, they're in there to *gasp* take a shower. According to you, the trans in this photo should be showering with the girls and this one should be showering with the boys. Does that make any sense at all? Would you freak out if the first trans was showering next to you just because "he" didn't have a penis? Should that large group of girls feel threatened because the second one does? Kudos to the few girls who took a brave stand on the side of humanity and tolerance.

If either of those people were in a HS lockerroom, I'd expect them to get arrested.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Little surprised at how lopsided the poll is so far.

Really thought the LGBTQQIP2SAA community had more support in the FFA.

 

[tommyboy]

They need a 3rd locker room for all others

 

[BobbyLayne]

They need a 3rd locker room for all others

It's called gender neutral. They're already in a ton of schools. This is not complicated.

 

[T J]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

Oh, the humanity

Henry, you were wrong in the Jenner thread. You're wrong in this one.

 

[RBM]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

The only thing these girls are "suffering" from is a bad case of poor parenting, bigotry and ignorance.

Who the hell are you to dare criticize these parents over this bull####?How obnoxious. Pitiful.

 

[Henry Ford]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I'm supportive of gay marriage FTR... However, your post is just silly (and shame? No, not even close, sorry). In your opinion, it is apparent that you would let the masses suffer (in this case a large group of 13 - 17 year old girls that make up the overwhelming majority), to accommodate one individual.

Oh, the humanity

Henry, you were wrong in the Jenner thread. You're wrong in this one.

Keep an eye on this poll. I'll try to bump it annually.

 

[ghostguy123]

I disagree with a lot of what Henry Ford is posting, but I just can't bring myself to care who I'm sharing a restroom with, and I'm not really convinced that it's all that reasonable for other people to care. I have no idea who's in that stall or what sex they are, and they don't know anything about me either. And if I'm standing at a urinal and some lady walks in, so what? It's not like my #### is flapping in the wind for all to behold or that I'm showing it off or anything. We could all bathrooms over to unisex tomorrow and it wouldn't matter to me except that I like being able to get in and out of the mens room without women slowing down traffic.

I'm at that age where I personally wouldn't even care if we had unisex locker rooms, but that's one where I can see why a completely reasonable person might feel differently, and I think I'm probably the outlier there.

I don't care either, at all. Love pissing outside at parties and stuff.

Talking about kids though, middle school and high school. Sorry, but I hate it. I generally hate catering to the few with total disregard for the many, and this is no different.

 

[ghostguy123]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

I always do a full Buffalo Bill tuck when I read one of your posts.

What do you think that means?

It means you referenced a great movie with one of the most iconic villains ever, so you deserve a cigar.

 

[ghostguy123]

3. No, they aren't. But they are allowing people who outwardly express gender characteristics ("live as a woman") to use the women's restroom. You're the one trying to change that by instituting a bathroom use policy that relies on a biological definition of male/female that most people don't even know if they fit. Have you had your chromosomes tested? Do you know if you're an xx male? Do you know if you have vestigial ovaries from a development issue that technically make you intersex? If you have elevated estrogen levels? I don't.

Simple way to classify. Someone stands there naked in front of a doctor. Doctor examines them for a few seconds, then says Male or Female. Real easy.

Stop making it ONLY about the transgender person. It isn't, nor should it be. It's about everyone else that is being told to #### off here.

If this wasn't a major problem for everyone else, there wouldn't be any separate bathrooms for males/females to begin with.

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent, because every post you make is 100% about the transgender people and 0% I don't give a #### about everyone else.

 

[ghostguy123]

I disagree with a lot of what Henry Ford is posting, but I just can't bring myself to care who I'm sharing a restroom with, and I'm not really convinced that it's all that reasonable for other people to care.

This is the perspective from a mature adult... Think about it from a high school girls point of view.

Do you think high schoolers are born with shame and awkwardness around naked-ness? Or do you think perhaps we indoctrinate them into it with things like separate locker rooms and the like?

When kids are growing up and going through puberty, yes, there is some awkwardness that naturally comes about with the visible changes their body goes through.

Sure, we could all just live like animals in a totally uncivilized world and this wouldnt be an issue, but who the F wants to do that?

 

[ghostguy123]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

And to continue beating a dead horse, I guess that's what I have an issue with. I get what you are saying about unisex or whatever, but honestly are there more people who are unisex or whatever than there are people who's gender doesn't match their sex?

That, and the main issue is that the OTHER people in the locker room do not care what the TRANSGENDER identifies as. They either see a penis or a vag.

I don't care what definition he wants to use to define gender, the other kids in the locker room go by what they see, not by what the transgender thinks and feels. It doesn't work that way, and never will.

 

[ghostguy123]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. We segregate facilities based upon genitalia. Now, sure people with a ###### could use a stall in a men's bathroom, but the trough isn't going to be quite so useful.

Oh, if the hardest math needed is statistics, then no it isn't a science.

Gotcha. Medicine isn't science. Thanks.

People get fired for insubordination right?

Well, "science" might actually classify certain behaviors such as intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, and several other types of disorders that have symptoms consistent with that would be classified as insubordination.

Do these people have a valid lawsuit because "science" has actually classified them a certain way?

 

[ghostguy123]

I said several weeks ago that with gay marriage now codified transgender rights would be the next great campaign for progressives and their allies in academia and the media. The agitations never end, even in the face of logic and natural law. Even the military is getting in on the act. How do you think such accommodations are going to work within the confines of a Navy vessel or a forward deployed fire support base?

This isn't a lifestyle, it's a mental disorder. Cross-dressers on the front line. Madness. Then again, our enemies will be laughing so hard they won't be able to fight so maybe it will all work out.

Yes, the agitation never ends....interracial marriage....women's suffrage....desegregation....is there not some tiny quarter where bigotry can be left alone to thrive and prosper? I don't have the stamina to wade through 18 pages, but I imagine the comments mostly echo the above one, if the "yes" vote is at under 20%. Not the FFA's finest moment, and I think a lot of people will eventually look back at their vote and their posts in this thread with shame.

I don't view it as the same at all. Interracial marriage and same sex marriage doesn't ACTUALLY affect other people. If people don't like it and are offended, so be it. Don't go to the wedding or be friends with any of those people if you dont want to.

This bathroom issue does actually affect people. And it's kids, which makes it worse.

 

[ghostguy123]

You seem to not care at all about the privacy rights of the girls in the lockerroom.

I do care. We just disagree as to what those privacy rights are.

There is nothing to disagree about, but you are trying to anyway.

Been stated many times. Wieners are a no in the ladies room.

I am of the opinion that a girl should have the right to use a restroom where she won't see wangs, and vice versa.

You are in favor of a rule/law that offends, affects, humiliates, and upsets EVERYONE.

 

[ghostguy123]

The only thing these girls are "suffering" from is a bad case of poor parenting, bigotry and ignorance. Trans people aren't pervs, they aren't in the shower to rape or ogle, they're in there to *gasp* take a shower. According to you, the trans in this photo should be showering with the girls and this one should be showering with the boys. Does that make any sense at all? Would you freak out if the first trans was showering next to you just because "he" didn't have a penis? Should that large group of girls feel threatened because the second one does? Kudos to the few girls who took a brave stand on the side of humanity and tolerance.

If either of those people were in a HS lockerroom, I'd expect them to get arrested.

Exactly. This is a very terrible example or argument to try and make here.

 

[renesauz]

I feel like some people think there's a constitutional right to never see a penis.

Well I can guarantee that I would sue the school system if my 14 year old freshman daughter came home and told me she went to PE class and some dude was walking around the girls locker room with his c**k out. Also I would file a criminal complaint that, said dude exposed himself to my 14 year old daughter. And if said dude were 18 it would make it that much worse.

And when you realized that this was a transgender teenager who "exposed" the penis while changing clothes for gym class, that would make no difference to you?

Why would it?

I'm having a hard time understanding how or why anyone would support the idea of a stated transgender using the opposite locker room prior to having actual surgery. There is a very reasonable expectation of same sex privacy for anyone utilizing said locker room.

More...having such a belief is not in any way inconsistent with a desire and inclination to be open and fair-minded to the transgender individual nor should it in any way be considered bigoted or prejudicial. There have been more than a few posts in here suggesting that we as a society need to change our views towards nakedness in general. While I'm inclined to agree that we are too sensitive to it, I think it's a ridiculous and extraordinarily hypocritical approach to force that belief on others. Religious folks have every right to believe and demand that their children be allowed to change in locker rooms that are strictly for that SEX. Ideas about sex being an artificial construct are absolutely assinine and fail to pass even the most basic tests of logic.

There is a natural limit as to how far any society can go to accomadate it's more...unique...members. This argument is a no-brainer. Have the operation before you use the girls bathroom or locker room. If the facilities allow for a unique transgender ocker room, it should be done. If they can't, use your biologically determnied bathroom/locker room until you have the operation. This is NOT an undue hardship on the transgender...they have far more to overcome than the damn bathroom.

 

[renesauz]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

Bingo. The very argument being made FOR the transgender can be used by the dozens of others in the locker room AGAINST the transgender. The rights of one cannot overcome the rights of many, ESPECIALLY when it is essentially the EXACT SAME RIGHT in question.

 

[renesauz]

I disagree with a lot of what Henry Ford is posting, but I just can't bring myself to care who I'm sharing a restroom with, and I'm not really convinced that it's all that reasonable for other people to care.

This is the perspective from a mature adult... Think about it from a high school girls point of view.

Do you think high schoolers are born with shame and awkwardness around naked-ness? Or do you think perhaps we indoctrinate them into it with things like separate locker rooms and the like?

Not sure where you're going with this... I think high school girls are at a stage in life where they understand nudity, and a group of them not wanting to share a locker room with someone born a boy is perfectly normal. This has nothing to do with what adults say and more to do with instinct.

It has everything to do with what adults say.

Nobody is born being awkward or ashamed of nudity. it is a learned behavior. The solution here is not to **** around with bathrooms and locker rooms and wondering who we need to accommodate and how much...the solution is to change a rather dumb cultural norm. It's a much larger shift, of course, but if we as a society stopped freaking out about nudity and teaching our children that it is a bad thing that needs to be avoided at all costs, then we have no problem.

It's not an instinct in any way, shape, or form. To say that it is one is either completely disingenuous or kind of dumb.

The religious folks have every right to want to prevent public nudity.

 

[renesauz]

Lot of people get a raw deal. Way worse then this. Suck it up like they do. Don't force a locker room of girls to undress in front of a dude with a weiner.

Isn't it absolutely amazing and utterly flabbergasting how Henry Ford can't see this? How the transgender identifies him/herself is no more important than how the room full of nakend women identify him/her.

 

[ghostguy123]

Ideas about sex being an artificial construct are absolutely assinine and fail to pass even the most basic tests of logic.

Quote of the thread

Stop making so much sense with all these posts, especially with this quote; "The rights of one cannot overcome the rights of many, ESPECIALLY when it is essentially the EXACT SAME RIGHT in question."

 

[ghostguy123]

Lot of people get a raw deal. Way worse then this. Suck it up like they do. Don't force a locker room of girls to undress in front of a dude with a weiner.

Isn't it absolutely amazing and utterly flabbergasting how Henry Ford can't see this? How the transgender identifies him/herself is no more important than how the room full of nakend women identify him/her.

Unfortunately it isn't just Henry Ford. Political motives and fear are driving this train also.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The religious folks have every right to want to prevent public nudity.

To deny a right, even one which most people wouldn't even think of as a right such as "my ability to be nude in public" requires a legitimate state interest. I'd assume that in this case it does not necessarily need to be a very good reason just something that seems rational, but that still is a greater standard than some religious folks are against it.

As for this case I didn't really expect that we'd go almost 900 posts without a single post offering a somewhat reasonable state interest being served by keeping the transgendered out of the locker room.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Don't bother with the economic reasons why someone offering public accommodations might fear losing customers, or why a business might accommodate its employees to attract better employees, but why the state would be so interested.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Please tell me how separate restrooms based on gender are different from separate facilities based on race then.

Do you even realize what you are asking there??

 

[ghostguy123]

I am not even saying that transgenders should have their own transgender bathroom, but if they did, that would not be comparable to any sort of separate facilities based on race.

The rationale for those two things are completely different.

There will never be a "transgender bathroom" though, nor should there be, but unisex bathrooms may be become more prevalent. Now, if you think a unisex bathroom is in anyway discriminating towards anyone, then you are not real bright considering everyone can and will use them. Then transgenders would have two choices of restrooms to use, just like everyone else. If you have a wang you can either use the mens room or the unisex room. if you don't, you can use the womens room or the unisex room. Two choices, just like everyone else.

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Don't bother with the economic reasons why someone offering public accommodations might fear losing customers, or why a business might accommodate its employees to attract better employees, but why the state would be so interested.

Because the whims of people with mental disorders don't get to make public policy decisions. We have a simple physiologically based definition of male and female called sex. It is simple and applicable in 99.9999% of situations. Use it and stop wasting everyone's time trying to accommodate people with delusional disorders.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Don't bother with the economic reasons why someone offering public accommodations might fear losing customers, or why a business might accommodate its employees to attract better employees, but why the state would be so interested.

Because the whims of people with mental disorders don't get to make public policy decisions. We have a simple physiologically based definition of male and female called sex. It is simple and applicable in 99.9999% of situations. Use it and stop wasting everyone's time trying to accommodate people with delusional disorders.

While I think some of this post is harsh, I agree 100% with the bold.

 

[Henry Ford]

3. No, they aren't. But they are allowing people who outwardly express gender characteristics ("live as a woman") to use the women's restroom. You're the one trying to change that by instituting a bathroom use policy that relies on a biological definition of male/female that most people don't even know if they fit. Have you had your chromosomes tested? Do you know if you're an xx male? Do you know if you have vestigial ovaries from a development issue that technically make you intersex? If you have elevated estrogen levels? I don't.

Simple way to classify. Someone stands there naked in front of a doctor. Doctor examines them for a few seconds, then says Male or Female. Real easy.

Stop making it ONLY about the transgender person. It isn't, nor should it be. It's about everyone else that is being told to #### off here.

If this wasn't a major problem for everyone else, there wouldn't be any separate bathrooms for males/females to begin with.

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent, because every post you make is 100% about the transgender people and 0% I don't give a #### about everyone else.

I have repeatedly posted about why they exist in the first place.

 

[Henry Ford]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. We segregate facilities based upon genitalia. Now, sure people with a ###### could use a stall in a men's bathroom, but the trough isn't going to be quite so useful.

Oh, if the hardest math needed is statistics, then no it isn't a science.

Gotcha. Medicine isn't science. Thanks.

People get fired for insubordination right?

Well, "science" might actually classify certain behaviors such as intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, and several other types of disorders that have symptoms consistent with that would be classified as insubordination.

Do these people have a valid lawsuit because "science" has actually classified them a certain way?

If the business has failed to make reasonable accommodations for a disability, yes. However, allowing employees to be clearly insubordinate or demonstrate an "explosive" personality within that meaning isn't reasonable, and I don't think any of those have been classified as disabling, but don't really know for sure. Regardless, we aren't talking about ADA stuff, here, we're talking about gender discrimination.

 

[Henry Ford]

You seem to not care at all about the privacy rights of the girls in the lockerroom.

I do care. We just disagree as to what those privacy rights are.

There is nothing to disagree about, but you are trying to anyway.

Been stated many times. Wieners are a no in the ladies room.

I am of the opinion that a girl should have the right to use a restroom where she won't see wangs, and vice versa.

You are in favor of a rule/law that offends, affects, humiliates, and upsets EVERYONE.

No, I'm in favor of the existing law, which defines rights, and none of those are a right not to have a person with a penis in the ladies' room.

 

[T J]

The funny thing is, a transgender feels embarrassed because they have to go to the bathroom with "the opposite sex"...........................think about that for a minute as it relates to everyone else being subjected to members of the opposite sex using their bathroom.

The "gender roles" of the transgender are pretty irrelevant to the girls in the bathroom who have a dude with a weiner in there, regardless of what he thinks he is or was meant to be, or lives his life as, or which roles he takes on.

To beat a dead horse, bathroom use is based on gender, not sex.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it any more true. We segregate facilities based upon genitalia. Now, sure people with a ###### could use a stall in a men's bathroom, but the trough isn't going to be quite so useful.

Oh, if the hardest math needed is statistics, then no it isn't a science.

Gotcha. Medicine isn't science. Thanks.

People get fired for insubordination right?

Well, "science" might actually classify certain behaviors such as intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, and several other types of disorders that have symptoms consistent with that would be classified as insubordination.

Do these people have a valid lawsuit because "science" has actually classified them a certain way?

If the business has failed to make reasonable accommodations for a disability, yes. However, allowing employees to be clearly insubordinate or demonstrate an "explosive" personality within that meaning isn't reasonable, and I don't think any of those have been classified as disabling, but don't really know for sure. Regardless, we aren't talking about ADA stuff, here, we're talking about gender discrimination.

No. We're talking about a guy with a #### wanting to use the ladies locker room at school.

 

[Henry Ford]

I feel like some people think there's a constitutional right to never see a penis.

Well I can guarantee that I would sue the school system if my 14 year old freshman daughter came home and told me she went to PE class and some dude was walking around the girls locker room with his c**k out. Also I would file a criminal complaint that, said dude exposed himself to my 14 year old daughter. And if said dude were 18 it would make it that much worse.

And when you realized that this was a transgender teenager who "exposed" the penis while changing clothes for gym class, that would make no difference to you?

Why would it?

I'm having a hard time understanding how or why anyone would support the idea of a stated transgender using the opposite locker room prior to having actual surgery. There is a very reasonable expectation of same sex privacy for anyone utilizing said locker room.

More...having such a belief is not in any way inconsistent with a desire and inclination to be open and fair-minded to the transgender individual nor should it in any way be considered bigoted or prejudicial. There have been more than a few posts in here suggesting that we as a society need to change our views towards nakedness in general. While I'm inclined to agree that we are too sensitive to it, I think it's a ridiculous and extraordinarily hypocritical approach to force that belief on others. Religious folks have every right to believe and demand that their children be allowed to change in locker rooms that are strictly for that SEX. Ideas about sex being an artificial construct are absolutely assinine and fail to pass even the most basic tests of logic.

There is a natural limit as to how far any society can go to accomadate it's more...unique...members. This argument is a no-brainer. Have the operation before you use the girls bathroom or locker room. If the facilities allow for a unique transgender ocker room, it should be done. If they can't, use your biologically determnied bathroom/locker room until you have the operation. This is NOT an undue hardship on the transgender...they have far more to overcome than the damn bathroom.

Then I'd say you're really having a hard time understanding what transgender means. There's no requirement that someone ever have surgery to be considered transgender.