This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sort of. The ruling was that Title IX wouldn't be the winner - an equal protection argument would have to win the day in this case. Regardless, that's what appeals are for - and the U.S. government has taken a pretty strong stance in this case in favor of the kid using the male bathroom.
No, the surgery can't happen until age 18. Is that what you think is going on here? Kid can't consent to sex or genital gender reassignment surgery until adulthood.
Hormone therapy is pretty significant in and of itself.
I'm not a lawyer and obviously can't interpret the law like one, but this would appear from some initial reading that a federal judge has put a preliminary roadblock in place here.
I think there any many arguments that could be made against antidepressants. But to my knowledge, they don't prolong puberty or force irreversible changes to a male / female endocrine system.
It's the children making the demands with regard to the bathrooms.
Because it isn't an emergency and the kid can't consent to the surgery. It's a guideline, but violating it would be clear malpractice. I'm not aware of anyone doing gender reassignment surgeries on anyone under 18.
One judge to a whole district: your daughters have to look at male genitalia in the locker room and shower, whether you or they like it or not.
A federal judge has ruled against a plaintiff on part of a lawsuit. No determination on whether the practice is discriminatory happened in this case yet. And even when it does - on either side - it'll be appealed. This one may well go to the SCOTUS.
The fact that a child can't consent to certain acts doesn't mean a child doesn't have any rights.
Parents can consent to any other surgery I can think of on behalf of their children, why not this one?
Why? Is there some female vision magnet attached to male genitalia? Are girls incapable of not looking at this kid's genitals?
Which rights must be enforced by parents acting on their behalf. Which obviously is circular and with the example in the OP I think we know the horrible lengths that logic can be taken.
I think there are some others, but it's because of the (mostly) irreversible nature of the surgery, and that it's not an emergency situation, and to guard against Munchausen by proxy issues.
Oh, good to be back here. Please lay out the rights that are being violated, as specifically as you're able.
How stupid is this. What if he wants to look at theirs? And you think girls now have to go through the process of not looking at this kid entirely? Are they looking at the ceiling and the walls and the locker so as to not see what they don't want to see? The transgender aspect becomes ridiculous in that scenario, you might as well get rid of that fig leaf altogether and just try to argue why a man shouldn't be allowed to walk into any woman's bathroom?
Sure, but what is the primary right first, just so I know what board we're leaping off of? Is it the right to piss in whatever stall you should so choose as provided in the US Constitution?
I don't know Ford, maybe think why there is a separation between a men's and women's lockerroom and start there.
I'm aware of why there's usually a separation. It doesn't deal with this issue. And it certainly doesn't create any rights that are being violated here.
Oh I see, he - transgender guy - can't look at theirs, right? Or can he?
The right I'm talking about? Equal rights based on gender, which includes gender identity. It's the right to have a state actor treat you as the gender you live as, with all the privileges and responsibilities that go along with that.
That's an argument in favor of unisex bathrooms, not for a trans person to be able to use the bathroom of their choice.
Gender identity is meaningless without what that identity is for. We're talking about the action of urinating and getting undressed. Every transgender child has a place to undress and take a leak. Nothing is being denied them. A child has a right to be free of being sexually intimidated, and yes a boy at that age in a state of undress is extremely sexually intimidating to a young girl. A man walks into a woman's bathroom and starts undressing it's assault. He gets hauled away to jail. For a child it's even worse.
The problem in my opinion is that this person isn't a male or a female. They are essentially becoming a 3rd gender. They truly don't belong in ether lockeroom and watching the video of this young person makes it quite clear.
The situation you described, a child being forced to be in the vicinity of a child of the opposite sex getting undressed. How old do you expect children to start processing this appropriately?
Has SCOTUS ever made the distinction between gender and sex, specifically as relates to EP or SDP?
What if it's 2 children? In your opinion, do the children have the right to engage with each other?
Your concept of gender and mine have a pretty significant series of differences, I think.And "a child has the right to be free of being sexually intimidated" is either irrelevant or just patently false. No one has the actual right to not feel intimidated.
Doubt there's any municipality in the country where assault isn't a crime in some form or another.
Pretty sure that requires intent, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion. Hence the options in my statement.
Mostly civil rights against employers and state actors these days. As much personal injury as I can get my hands on to relax my brain.
No, no. He has female genitalia, so no worries.
