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

[Hang 10]

So this is what it has come to? "What if a guy whips out his #### at the trough in the women's room?"

Why is there a trough in the women's room?

Because apparently some have ##### now. Try and keep up

 

[Henry Ford]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

Plenty of laws pass without any publicity or anyone knowing they've passed. Kinda hard for them to change public behavior if no one even knows they're on the books.

It's the Minnesota Human Rights Act, so I'd imagine it's what every person who's ever sued about workplace discrimination has sued under in the last 22 years.

You think that people in Minnesota that have sued for racial discrimination in the past 22 years were made aware of the state's policy regarding gender, the difference between gender and sex, and transgender rights in general? Bit of a stretch.

Okay. 22 years after these rights were granted, we just don't have enough data to tell if they're a danger to the rest of society. Gotcha. We'll check back on people's rights in 2037 and see.

 

[dparker713]

Is 22 years (Minnesota) enough time, or do we not have enough data yet?

Depends, how long has the public even been aware its been on the books?

Well, it's been a law for 22 years... I guess you have to tell me what you mean by the public being aware and how you'd like me to prove that to you.

Plenty of laws pass without any publicity or anyone knowing they've passed. Kinda hard for them to change public behavior if no one even knows they're on the books.

It's the Minnesota Human Rights Act, so I'd imagine it's what every person who's ever sued about workplace discrimination has sued under in the last 22 years.

You think that people in Minnesota that have sued for racial discrimination in the past 22 years were made aware of the state's policy regarding gender, the difference between gender and sex, and transgender rights in general? Bit of a stretch.

Okay. 22 years after these rights were granted, we just don't have enough data to tell if they're a danger to the rest of society. Gotcha. We'll check back on people's rights in 2037 and see.

No need to get snippy because your data is suspect.

 

[the moops]

So this is what it has come to? "What if a guy whips out his #### at the trough in the women's room?"

Why is there a trough in the women's room?

Because apparently some have ##### now. Try and keep up

Meh. This is like number 7000 on my list of things that I care about and my first post in the thread

 

[dparker713]

A thought experiment for HF.

So, if there were a replacement for a toilet for defecation that was more efficient on space or time or cost, lets call it 3 sea shells, and due to anatomical reasons it was only really practical for those with a penis, do you suppose men's bathrooms would contain urinals and 3 sea shells, or urinals and toilets, or urinals and a combination of toilets and 3 sea shells? Do you suppose any toilets in women's bathrooms would be replaced by 3 sea shells?

It would seem to me that we design and build bathrooms with certain anatomy in mind, not gender.

 

[Henry Ford]

A thought experiment for HF.

So, if there were a replacement for a toilet for defecation that was more efficient on space or time or cost, lets call it 3 sea shells, and due to anatomical reasons it was only really practical for those with a penis, do you suppose men's bathrooms would contain urinals and 3 sea shells, or urinals and toilets, or urinals and a combination of toilets and 3 sea shells? Do you suppose any toilets in women's bathrooms would be replaced by 3 sea shells?

It would seem to me that we design and build bathrooms with certain anatomy in mind, not gender.

A combination. Some guy gets his penis shot off in the war, they'd still want him to be able to use the bathroom.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

That can happen?! Why in god's name do we even have treaties and conventions and what not if this has not been universally outlawed. What could possibly have been more pressing to cover than this?

Man, simply saying "thanks for your service" seem far too little!

 

[dparker713]

A thought experiment for HF.

So, if there were a replacement for a toilet for defecation that was more efficient on space or time or cost, lets call it 3 sea shells, and due to anatomical reasons it was only really practical for those with a penis, do you suppose men's bathrooms would contain urinals and 3 sea shells, or urinals and toilets, or urinals and a combination of toilets and 3 sea shells? Do you suppose any toilets in women's bathrooms would be replaced by 3 sea shells?

It would seem to me that we design and build bathrooms with certain anatomy in mind, not gender.

A combination. Some guy gets his penis shot off in the war, they'd still want him to be able to use the bathroom.

So like a handicapped stall then to satisfy the ADA?

 

[Henry Ford]

A thought experiment for HF.

So, if there were a replacement for a toilet for defecation that was more efficient on space or time or cost, lets call it 3 sea shells, and due to anatomical reasons it was only really practical for those with a penis, do you suppose men's bathrooms would contain urinals and 3 sea shells, or urinals and toilets, or urinals and a combination of toilets and 3 sea shells? Do you suppose any toilets in women's bathrooms would be replaced by 3 sea shells?

It would seem to me that we design and build bathrooms with certain anatomy in mind, not gender.

A combination. Some guy gets his penis shot off in the war, they'd still want him to be able to use the bathroom.

So like a handicapped stall then to satisfy the ADA?

Like one, but just a toilet.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

 

[DoubleG]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.

First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.

Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

 

[pecorino]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

 

[Henry Ford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

I don't care one way or the other about Rachel Dolezal, and am not aware of any rights she has been denied.

 

[dparker713]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

Why? Its just duplicative.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

Why? Its just duplicative.

Really? Is it currently unconstitutional to keep women out of combat units? Just an example.

 

[dparker713]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

Why? Its just duplicative.

Really? Is it currently unconstitutional to keep women out of combat units? Just an example.

Sorry, largely duplicative.

 

[Henry Ford]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

Why? Its just duplicative.

Really? Is it currently unconstitutional to keep women out of combat units? Just an example.

Sorry, largely duplicative.

If the federal government is currently allowed to discriminate based on sex, and wouldn't be able to with the amendment, I'd say there's a good reason for it.

 

[Clifford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

IMO zero difference. According to this line of logic, that whatever gender you identify with is your gender, Rachel Dolezal is legally African American. Not only that, she should be able to claim that on job/loan applications, which would actually affect not so much rights but rather ability to claim status. I won't say it will help her, but it certainly is something she should be able to do, as well as have her race legally changed.

The line of thinking that you are whatever you identify as should absolutely extend to race if it extends to gender.

 

[Clifford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

I don't care one way or the other about Rachel Dolezal, and am not aware of any rights she has been denied.

Do you think she should be able to legally change her race to African American?

 

[dparker713]

For those of you who are younger:

"Men will waltz right into women's bathrooms" is also part of how the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated during ratification. Might be time to decide whether equal rights are more important than ridiculous, unfounded fears.http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1991-04-28/news/9104280615_1_equal-rights-amendment-senate-the-amendment-two-votes

Ironically, the article you quote exemplifies why such legislation is unnecessary.First, the article states that:

After the Senate failed to pass the bill, opposition began to develop. Conservative groups claimed that the amendment would actually hurt women, lead to unisex bathrooms and force women to take part in combat. The claims were wrong, but legislators caved in as they began receiving thousands of letters demanding that they vote against the bill. Many of the letters weren't even from Florida.

Clearly, women DO indeed take part in military conflict. It just took more time than presumed.Secondly, the fact that the proposal of such legislation is continually defeated time and again might suggest that there is sufficient concern over the legislation's possible abuses are valid. Or, at the very least, concerning and legitimate enough that the needed majority of lawmakers (or, as in the case of Houston's recent legal action - the voters themselves) simply think the concerns outweigh the benefits. That's generally how a democracy works.

The fact that the ERA was never ratified should be a massive point of embarrassment.And taking part in military conflict isn't the same as combat. Women have been taking part in military conflict for hundreds of years - just not always allowed in combat. Now, almost 45 years after the ERA should have been ratified, women are finally being given the opportunity to serve in combat.

Why? Its just duplicative.

Really? Is it currently unconstitutional to keep women out of combat units? Just an example.

Sorry, largely duplicative.

If the federal government is currently allowed to discriminate based on sex, and wouldn't be able to with the amendment, I'd say there's a good reason for it.

First introduced in 1923, so barring some evidence of legislative intent, it would also bar discrimination due to gender.

I find nothing wrong with sex/gender discrimination needing to pass intermediate scrutiny.

 

[Henry Ford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

I don't care one way or the other about Rachel Dolezal, and am not aware of any rights she has been denied.

Do you think she should be able to legally change her race to African American?

What do you mean by "legally change"?

 

[Henry Ford]

Race is a significantly more ridiculous construct than gender. At this point, I'm all for the ability to identify yourself as whatever race you identify as. Which is how it works, anyway. All that stuff is self-reported.

 

[Clifford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

I don't care one way or the other about Rachel Dolezal, and am not aware of any rights she has been denied.

Do you think she should be able to legally change her race to African American?

What do you mean by "legally change"?

Driver's license, legal status. What's on your birth certificate and how you are officially recognized by the United States Federal and Local Government.

 

[Henry Ford]

So explain how this is different from Rachel Dolezal who identifies as African-American but because she did not come clean from day one, she is now considered a "faker". Should she not be allowed to live her life as the race she identifies with? Seems similar to me as a transgender person.

I don't care one way or the other about Rachel Dolezal, and am not aware of any rights she has been denied.

Do you think she should be able to legally change her race to African American?

What do you mean by "legally change"?

Driver's license, legal status. What's on your birth certificate and how you are officially recognized by the United States Federal and Local Government.

Driver's license is self-reported everywhere I've lived. "Officially recognized by the government"? In what? The census is self-reported, birth certificates in most (maybe all) states don't list the race of the child, only the parents.

 

[Hang 10]

Race is a significantly more ridiculous construct than gender. At this point, I'm all for the ability to identify yourself as whatever race you identify as. Which is how it works, anyway. All that stuff is self-reported.

Why was gender a ridiculous construct again? Was it because a small percentage of the population has birth defects?

 

[Henry Ford]

Race is a significantly more ridiculous construct than gender. At this point, I'm all for the ability to identify yourself as whatever race you identify as. Which is how it works, anyway. All that stuff is self-reported.

Why was gender a ridiculous construct again? Was it because a small percentage of the population has birth defects?

I'm not sure I said that gender is a ridiculous construct, just a construct. Race is the ridiculous one.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Such a sad article!

 

[ghostguy123]

PAGING HENRY FORD!!

Got a new one (maybe not new, but new to this thread I think). This boy (born a boy) is "Non Binary".

How ya handling this one with high school bathrooms?

 

[ghostguy123]

Such a sad article!

I am glad that people are outraged, but all the religious BS makes them all sound crazy and with no credibility.

I hate when people agree with me but sound like crazy looneys while doing it.

Although the whole "whether not the young man wants to admit it or not, he is a man" stuff is a bit much. Keep it simple. Maybe say "whether he wants to admit it or not, he has a penis. Penis means boy. Boy means boys room".

 

[ghostguy123]

Still waiting for a Henry special on nonbinary

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Instead of using gender based nomenclature for restrooms and locker rooms why not move to anatomy based ones. The Penis and Scrotum room, the ###### and Uterus room, and the Ambiguous, Mangled, Dual, Incomplete, Transitional and/or Undifferentiated Genitalia room?

Gonna be a long name on that third door.

 

[ghostguy123]

Henry?

 

[Hang 10]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Woman says she is a cat trapped in the wrong body - she hisses at dogs, hates water and claims she can even see better at nighthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12127067/woman-says-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Woman says she is a cat trapped in the wrong body - she hisses at dogs, hates water and claims she can even see better at nighthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12127067/woman-says-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html

Presuming she was an American high school girl instead of some Euro-20 year old would her school be required to place litter boxes around at likely locations and to accommodate her licking herself clean after gym rather than showering?

 

[trogg78]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Woman says she is a cat trapped in the wrong body - she hisses at dogs, hates water and claims she can even see better at night

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12127067/woman-says-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html

What happens when you put a cucumber next to her when she's not looking?

 

[Hang 10]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Woman says she is a cat trapped in the wrong body - she hisses at dogs, hates water and claims she can even see better at night

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12127067/woman-says-she-is-a-cat-trapped-in-the-wrong-body.html

What happens when you put a cucumber next to her when she's not looking?

Or a locker room full of cucumbers?

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm just going to leave this here:

None of the 17 largest US school districts' schools with trans-inclusive nondiscrimination policies have reported a single inappropriate act, harassment, or "negative consequence," according to a report by Media Matters for America.

In fact, many of the schools within Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington State say their trans-inclusive policies have improved school safety.

http://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a31352/in-unsurprising-news-trans-students-have-caused-zero-incidents-in-public-bathrooms/

The report being referenced:

Seventeen School Districts Covering 600,000 Students Experienced No Problems After Implementing Transgender Protections

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/03/17-school-districts-debunk-right-wing-lies-abou/203867

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm just going to leave this here:

None of the 17 largest US school districts' schools with trans-inclusive nondiscrimination policies have reported a single inappropriate act, harassment, or "negative consequence," according to a report by Media Matters for America.

In fact, many of the schools within Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington State say their trans-inclusive policies have improved school safety.

http://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a31352/in-unsurprising-news-trans-students-have-caused-zero-incidents-in-public-bathrooms/

The report being referenced:

Seventeen School Districts Covering 600,000 Students Experienced No Problems After Implementing Transgender Protections

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/03/17-school-districts-debunk-right-wing-lies-abou/203867

Kids are often more tolerant and mature than adults. (Except when they are not)

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm just going to leave this here:

None of the 17 largest US school districts' schools with trans-inclusive nondiscrimination policies have reported a single inappropriate act, harassment, or "negative consequence," according to a report by Media Matters for America.

In fact, many of the schools within Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington State say their trans-inclusive policies have improved school safety.

http://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a31352/in-unsurprising-news-trans-students-have-caused-zero-incidents-in-public-bathrooms/

The report being referenced:

Seventeen School Districts Covering 600,000 Students Experienced No Problems After Implementing Transgender Protections

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/03/17-school-districts-debunk-right-wing-lies-abou/203867

Kids are often more tolerant and mature than adults. (Except when they are not)

I'd go so far as to say they are significantly more tolerant of things that adults are not tolerant of. Likely out of spite.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm just going to leave this here:

None of the 17 largest US school districts' schools with trans-inclusive nondiscrimination policies have reported a single inappropriate act, harassment, or "negative consequence," according to a report by Media Matters for America.

In fact, many of the schools within Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon and Washington State say their trans-inclusive policies have improved school safety.

http://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a31352/in-unsurprising-news-trans-students-have-caused-zero-incidents-in-public-bathrooms/

The report being referenced:

Seventeen School Districts Covering 600,000 Students Experienced No Problems After Implementing Transgender Protections

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/03/17-school-districts-debunk-right-wing-lies-abou/203867

Kids are often more tolerant and mature than adults. (Except when they are not)

I'd go so far as to say they are significantly more tolerant of things that adults are not tolerant of. Likely out of spite.

Myself, I remember deliberately setting out to find the wrong way home when I was a teen.

 

[ghostguy123]

Still waiting on your thoughts regarding nonbinary Henry.

 

[Henry Ford]

Still waiting on your thoughts regarding nonbinary Henry.

I think if you read the thread you'll find that I support a non-binary-gender person making that decision as they feel it's appropriate for themselves. I also support a locker room for "third gender" or "non-binary" but I don't think the expense of adding a third locker room and restrooms is justifiable to "make" all schools do it.

 

[ghostguy123]

So mens room today and womens room tomorrow. Got it.

 

[rockaction]

Instead of using gender based nomenclature for restrooms and locker rooms why not move to anatomy based ones. The Penis and Scrotum room, the ###### and Uterus room, and the Ambiguous, Mangled, Dual, Incomplete, Transitional and/or Undifferentiated Genitalia room?

Gonna be a long name on that third door.

This would help immensely. It's time to reassign (ahem) the gender/sex differentiation, which is already happening at the federal level. The FDA was, according to Wiki, the first and last to ask to identify by gender. "Gender is a construct" is simply stipulative. It means nothing other than that which is within its context. Of course gender is a construct. The whole point of gender was to make it a construct.

Peace.

 

[fantasycurse42]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/north-carolina-gender-bathrooms-bill/index.html?eref=edition

 

[Henry Ford]

No, a judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction and set the matter for trial, while dismissing the Title IX section of the complaint (which is on appeal.) The rest of the complaint persists.

Update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/us/appeals-court-favors-transgender-student-in-virginia-restroom-case.html?_r=0

The ruling in favor of Gavin Grimm, a junior at Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia, does not immediately grant him the right to use the boys’ restrooms; rather, it directs a lower court that had ruled against him to re-evaluate Mr. Grimm’s request for a preliminary injunction to be able to use those restrooms.

But it is the first time that a federal appellate court has ruled that Title IX protects the rights of such students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

 

[Henry Ford]

My wife recently wrote an amicus brief from school administrators who had dealt with trans students in the "G.G." case.

Like many of you, it was an issue I hadn't really considered before, but I found reading her brief was pretty educational for me.

For one thing, the educators uniformly stated that adults tend to have a bigger problem with "affirming" policies than students. In the G.G. case, the girls didn't want Gavin Grimm in their bathroom even if he was born with female genitalia. He looks like a guy. Forcing Gavin, and only Gavin, to use the unisex bathroom in the nurse's office is clearly singling him out. Instead, most school systems adopt a policy where any student, for any reason, can use such unisex restrooms. That way, if a boy is freaked out by Gavin using the men's room, that student is welcome to use the unisex bathroom. A clear theme is that many of the concerns that the Gloucester School Board have brought up are hypothetical and have not occurred in school districts with experience accommodating trans students. Many of the administrators who were quoted in the brief learned these lessons from hard experience, sometimes being sued themselves.

Congrats to your wife.

 

[ghostguy123]

So am I allowed to use the women's restroom yet?

 

[cstu]

So am I allowed to use the women's restroom yet?

If that's your thing.