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

[Henry Ford]

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

And no, I wasn't planning on bringing this to a skin color issue. Do normal people feel sick because of a penis in the room?

 

[D-Day]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

Well, thank god we are discussing things that are not the outliers. Just to check, the people only feel like vomiting, but not actually vomit. If people actually vomit, that would be an environmental hazard and the school would have a duty to make sure the spread of disease would not occur. Now, if we are talking about "feeling like vomiting" the the school could make arrangements for either the student to change elsewhere, or have the other students that have issues change elsewhere.

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

Riddle me this... A thirty-ish year old man, for some reason thinks he is a 15 year old girl that should be going to school. He wears a wig and dresses in that damn sexy Catholic School Girl white top, plaid skirt and the Tucker + Tate shoes with the canvas upper and lining with a rubber sole (extra description for Arizona Ron). He even says "like" waaaaaay too much. Does he get to go to school and change in the girls locker room?

First, if there's a relevant distinction between something making someone "want" to vomit and "feel" like vomiting, I apologize for being confusing. It wasn't my intent.

Second, the relevant distinction in your example is that the 30-year-old man thinks he's 15. If he were a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 30-year-old woman, well, then yes he should be able to use a women's locker room, but not the high school locker room. If he's a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 15-year-old boy or girl, he's not entitled to go to the school or change in either locker room. That's a reasonable distinction for the State to make between who is and who isn't allowed to use facilities.

Come on Henry. Age is just a man made construct to mark the passage of time (another man made thing). People age physically and mentally at different rates. And schools are there to educate people to a certain level. If this 30 year old thinks he is a 15 year old girl, and his education level is that of a 15 year old, then why are we excluding him? It does not matter what you think you are, but rather, what you think... you are (that is your argument). He gets to see the naked girls, right?

 

[D-Day]

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

And no, I wasn't planning on bringing this to a skin color issue. Do normal people feel sick because of a penis in the room?

I'm calling BS on that. Why did you bring up skin condition and people becoming ill then? Do you think boils on the back look like a penis?

 

[matttyl]

Here you go - gender neutral elementary school bathrooms.

Miraloma Elementary principal Sam Bass said the bathroom change is because between six and eight students have decided they are transgender, or are tomboys.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

Well, thank god we are discussing things that are not the outliers. Just to check, the people only feel like vomiting, but not actually vomit. If people actually vomit, that would be an environmental hazard and the school would have a duty to make sure the spread of disease would not occur. Now, if we are talking about "feeling like vomiting" the the school could make arrangements for either the student to change elsewhere, or have the other students that have issues change elsewhere.

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

Riddle me this... A thirty-ish year old man, for some reason thinks he is a 15 year old girl that should be going to school. He wears a wig and dresses in that damn sexy Catholic School Girl white top, plaid skirt and the Tucker + Tate shoes with the canvas upper and lining with a rubber sole (extra description for Arizona Ron). He even says "like" waaaaaay too much. Does he get to go to school and change in the girls locker room?

First, if there's a relevant distinction between something making someone "want" to vomit and "feel" like vomiting, I apologize for being confusing. It wasn't my intent.

Second, the relevant distinction in your example is that the 30-year-old man thinks he's 15. If he were a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 30-year-old woman, well, then yes he should be able to use a women's locker room, but not the high school locker room. If he's a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 15-year-old boy or girl, he's not entitled to go to the school or change in either locker room. That's a reasonable distinction for the State to make between who is and who isn't allowed to use facilities.

Come on Henry. Age is just a man made construct to mark the passage of time (another man made thing). People age physically and mentally at different rates. And schools are there to educate people to a certain level. If this 30 year old thinks he is a 15 year old girl, and his education level is that of a 15 year old, then why are we excluding him? It does not matter what you think you are, but rather, what you think... you are (that is your argument). He gets to see the naked girls, right?

Because 30-year-olds aren't a group protected from discrimination on the basis of being allowed to attend high school. And public schools aren't there to "educate people to a certain level." In fact, there are perfectly legal (and constitutionally valid) limits on the age someone can be in order to attend high school in most states. It's usually 21.

As for time being a man made construct, there's a philosophical discussion to be had there as to whether years are a man-made construct or simply a man-made denoting phrase indicating an existing concept in the world, but whether or not they are has little bearing on the issue. If he's not enrolled as a student, he's not allowed to be in the school locker room. If he's 30, he's not allowed to be enrolled. The limit on him being enrolled is based on the public's willingness to provide a public education up to a certain age, and has been repeatedly (and reasonably) found to be within the limits of the law.

 

[Henry Ford]

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

And no, I wasn't planning on bringing this to a skin color issue. Do normal people feel sick because of a penis in the room?

I'm calling BS on that. Why did you bring up skin condition and people becoming ill then? Do you think boils on the back look like a penis?

Because boils on the back are significantly more likely to be seen than a penis is when high school students change for gym class, and because becoming physically ill makes them physically and psychologically uncomfortable.

 

[T J]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis." But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

I make no argument about whether people are uncomfortable. I have no doubt that people are uncomfortable, and in fact I might be uncomfortable. But my being uncomfortable doesn't give me any reason to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Being uncomfortable is close to irrelevant to the question of whether they have a right to exclude.

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

 

[D-Day]

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

And no, I wasn't planning on bringing this to a skin color issue. Do normal people feel sick because of a penis in the room?

I'm calling BS on that. Why did you bring up skin condition and people becoming ill then? Do you think boils on the back look like a penis?

Because boils on the back are significantly more likely to be seen than a penis is when high school students change for gym class, and because becoming physically ill makes them physically and psychologically uncomfortable.

Again, I call BS. You went to skin condition for a reason, and not because you wanted to draw a correlation between seeing a skin condition or seeing a penis as making people physically ill. Your question was a set up and you know it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here you go - gender neutral elementary school bathrooms.

Miraloma Elementary principal Sam Bass said the bathroom change is because between six and eight students have decided they are transgender, or are tomboys.

I have no quarrel with this.

 

[Henry Ford]

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

Please feel free. I look forward to it.

Meantime, from a recent Department of Justice brief on the subject:

The term"sex" as it is used in Title IX is broad and encompasses gender identity, including transgender status. "There is no doubt that 'if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.'" North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (brackets omitted). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that "sex" encompasses only one's biological status as male or female, concluding, instead, that sex discrimination also encompasses differential treatment based on one's failure to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. 490 U.S. 228,250 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, "under Price Waterhouse, 'sex' under Title VII encompasses both sex - that is, the biological differences between men and women - and because an individual's gender identity is one aspect of an individual's sex. See, e.g., Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 F.3d 566,575 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203,211 (D.D.C 2006) ("scientific observation may well confirm ... that sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008).9 Furthermore, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination based on the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing a gender transition. In Schroer, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken, or is undertaking, a gender transition is sex discrimination: Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306. Denying Title IX's protections to a student because he has changed or is changing his sex would be "blind ... to the statutory language itself." Id. at 307; see also Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395,2015 WL 1607756, at *7-8 (EEOC Apr. 1,2015) (concluding that federal agency violated Title VII where the complainant's "transgender status was the motivation" for the agency to bar her from using the common women's restrooms); Macy, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (concluding that "intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ... sex,' and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII").

 

[Henry Ford]

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

And no, I wasn't planning on bringing this to a skin color issue. Do normal people feel sick because of a penis in the room?

I'm calling BS on that. Why did you bring up skin condition and people becoming ill then? Do you think boils on the back look like a penis?

Because boils on the back are significantly more likely to be seen than a penis is when high school students change for gym class, and because becoming physically ill makes them physically and psychologically uncomfortable.

Again, I call BS. You went to skin condition for a reason, and not because you wanted to draw a correlation between seeing a skin condition or seeing a penis as making people physically ill. Your question was a set up and you know it.

You're welcome to your opinion, however wrong it is.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here you go - gender neutral elementary school bathrooms.

Miraloma Elementary principal Sam Bass said the bathroom change is because between six and eight students have decided they are transgender, or are tomboys.

I have no quarrel with this.

Ditto.

 

[dparker713]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

Well, thank god we are discussing things that are not the outliers. Just to check, the people only feel like vomiting, but not actually vomit. If people actually vomit, that would be an environmental hazard and the school would have a duty to make sure the spread of disease would not occur. Now, if we are talking about "feeling like vomiting" the the school could make arrangements for either the student to change elsewhere, or have the other students that have issues change elsewhere.

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

Riddle me this... A thirty-ish year old man, for some reason thinks he is a 15 year old girl that should be going to school. He wears a wig and dresses in that damn sexy Catholic School Girl white top, plaid skirt and the Tucker + Tate shoes with the canvas upper and lining with a rubber sole (extra description for Arizona Ron). He even says "like" waaaaaay too much. Does he get to go to school and change in the girls locker room?

First, if there's a relevant distinction between something making someone "want" to vomit and "feel" like vomiting, I apologize for being confusing. It wasn't my intent.

Second, the relevant distinction in your example is that the 30-year-old man thinks he's 15. If he were a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 30-year-old woman, well, then yes he should be able to use a women's locker room, but not the high school locker room. If he's a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 15-year-old boy or girl, he's not entitled to go to the school or change in either locker room. That's a reasonable distinction for the State to make between who is and who isn't allowed to use facilities.

So, one delusion is acceptable, but the other is not?

 

[renesauz]

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.

Thats complete and utter bullpuckey. the state has always had a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order, and laws protecting the PRIVACY of individuals (the girls in the Locker room threatening walkout) have always existed in this country.Im honestly disgusted by the fact that so many folks are open to the idea of forcing others to accept a biologically opposite sex into an area where they change clothes.

 

[dparker713]

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

Please feel free. I look forward to it.

Meantime, from a recent Department of Justice brief on the subject:

The term"sex" as it is used in Title IX is broad and encompasses gender identity, including transgender status. "There is no doubt that 'if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.'" North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (brackets omitted). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that "sex" encompasses only one's biological status as male or female, concluding, instead, that sex discrimination also encompasses differential treatment based on one's failure to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. 490 U.S. 228,250 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, "under Price Waterhouse, 'sex' under Title VII encompasses both sex - that is, the biological differences between men and women - and because an individual's gender identity is one aspect of an individual's sex. See, e.g., Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 F.3d 566,575 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203,211 (D.D.C 2006) ("scientific observation may well confirm ... that sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008).9 Furthermore, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination based on the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing a gender transition. In Schroer, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken, or is undertaking, a gender transition is sex discrimination: Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306. Denying Title IX's protections to a student because he has changed or is changing his sex would be "blind ... to the statutory language itself." Id. at 307; see also Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395,2015 WL 1607756, at *7-8 (EEOC Apr. 1,2015) (concluding that federal agency violated Title VII where the complainant's "transgender status was the motivation" for the agency to bar her from using the common women's restrooms); Macy, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (concluding that "intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ... sex,' and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII").

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

 

[renesauz]

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.

again complete bullpuckey. Decency laws exist in virtually every single muniipality in the country. those laws define a basic principle and only a lawyer would attempt to ignore that principle in favor of the letter.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis." But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

I make no argument about whether people are uncomfortable. I have no doubt that people are uncomfortable, and in fact I might be uncomfortable. But my being uncomfortable doesn't give me any reason to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Being uncomfortable is close to irrelevant to the question of whether they have a right to exclude.

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

I believe the outcome would be unfavorable to you. Henry is correct on the law. You would do better to argue in the court of public opinion, thugh it would be best if you did not choose a venue in San Francisco.

 

[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.

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??

Yes I do. What is the difference?

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.

So what is the rational? Saying that there is one is not the same as explaining what it is.

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.

I'm not asking whether there should be a transgender restroom (or locker rooms), but what policy consideration is involved requires someone with "a wang ...use the mens room or the unisex room. if you don't, you can use the womens room or the unisex room. "

 

[renesauz]

So basically this is going to end up as the student that thinks he is a girl will be able to change in the girls locker room. Then the school will then need to provide an area for the girls who are uncomfortable with the student a place to change... perhaps a private changing room... the very one that the school had set aside for the one student who thinks he is a girl to use.

This of course will start the issue that the one student who thinks he is a girl should be able to use the private changing area that the other girls are using.

Why would they have to do that?

I think we're back to "girls have an inalienable right to never be in a locker room with a penis" again.

They do! Why would this right be any less compellinh the the transgenders rights to use the locker room of their choice? we ALL have a very valid right to determine when, where, and in front of whom we undress, and a reasonable expectation that when changing is being forced on us (at school) we can do so in a room that makes us comfortable. the rights of the single transgendered absolutely positively do NOT pre-empt the rights of the other girls in that room, no matter what your own warped sense of logic is telling you. you're picking and choosing whose rights to defend here while ignoring almost identical rights of others involved.

 

[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.

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.

no, Im not. You are simply ignoring the rights of everyone else.

 

[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.

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.

So? Why does the "simple physiologically based definition of male and female " require prohibitions on who can use which rest room? It just does is not an answer.

 

[renesauz]

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.

So? Why does the "simple physiologically based definition of male and female " require prohibitions on who can use which rest room? It just does is not an answer.

There are things in life that we all disagree with or fail to understand that are agreed upon by the majority and we must accept and live with. The idea that males and females should use separate facilities might just be one of those things for you.

As to Ford....I hate arguing with lawyers as they have a strong tendency to fail to fairly consider the opposing side.

 

[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.

Thats complete and utter bullpuckey. the state has always had a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order, and laws protecting the PRIVACY of individuals (the girls in the Locker room threatening walkout) have always existed in this country.Im honestly disgusted by the fact that so many folks are open to the idea of forcing others to accept a biologically opposite sex into an area where they change clothes.

I agree that "peace and order" is a legitimate state concern. And have argued in other topics that when an overwhelming number of people find something immoral that it threatens "peace and order" that an exception to the "morality isn't a legitimate justification for policy". But is a single protest really a threat to "peace and order"? Or do you suspect that this is something that will never blow over? If so why not?

What is the source of this "laws protecting the PRIVACY "? It certainly isn't a natural right (by my definition at least). As for being a civil right what is the societal issue being resolved by having such a right? "This is how it has always been" isn't a reason.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Damn, 20 pages.

I can't believe people think it is a good idea to stick a boy in a change room with adolescent girls.

 

[Mister CIA]

Damn, 20 pages.

I can't believe people think it is a good idea to stick a boy in a change room with adolescent girls.

Clearly you are not an adolescent boy.

 

[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.

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.

So? Why does the "simple physiologically based definition of male and female " require prohibitions on who can use which rest room? It just does is not an answer.

There are things in life that we all disagree with or fail to understand that are agreed upon by the majority and we must accept and live with. The idea that males and females should use separate facilities might just be one of those things for you.

As to Ford....I hate arguing with lawyers as they have a strong tendency to fail to fairly consider the opposing side.

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Thats complete and utter bullpuckey. the state has always had a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order, and laws protecting the PRIVACY of individuals (the girls in the Locker room threatening walkout) have always existed in this country.Im honestly disgusted by the fact that so many folks are open to the idea of forcing others to accept a biologically opposite sex into an area where they change clothes.

I agree that "peace and order" is a legitimate state concern. And have argued in other topics that when an overwhelming number of people find something immoral that it threatens "peace and order" that an exception to the "morality isn't a legitimate justification for policy". But is a single protest really a threat to "peace and order"? Or do you suspect that this is something that will never blow over? If so why not?

What is the source of this "laws protecting the PRIVACY "? It certainly isn't a natural right (by my definition at least). As for being a civil right what is the societal issue being resolved by having such a right? "This is how it has always been" isn't a reason.

The Right to Privacy is a settled Constitutional right accorded to every person.

 

[Henry Ford]

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

Please feel free. I look forward to it.

Meantime, from a recent Department of Justice brief on the subject:

The term"sex" as it is used in Title IX is broad and encompasses gender identity, including transgender status. "There is no doubt that 'if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.'" North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (brackets omitted). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that "sex" encompasses only one's biological status as male or female, concluding, instead, that sex discrimination also encompasses differential treatment based on one's failure to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. 490 U.S. 228,250 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, "under Price Waterhouse, 'sex' under Title VII encompasses both sex - that is, the biological differences between men and women - and because an individual's gender identity is one aspect of an individual's sex. See, e.g., Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 F.3d 566,575 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203,211 (D.D.C 2006) ("scientific observation may well confirm ... that sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008).9 Furthermore, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination based on the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing a gender transition. In Schroer, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken, or is undertaking, a gender transition is sex discrimination: Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306. Denying Title IX's protections to a student because he has changed or is changing his sex would be "blind ... to the statutory language itself." Id. at 307; see also Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395,2015 WL 1607756, at *7-8 (EEOC Apr. 1,2015) (concluding that federal agency violated Title VII where the complainant's "transgender status was the motivation" for the agency to bar her from using the common women's restrooms); Macy, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (concluding that "intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ... sex,' and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII").

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

 

[Henry Ford]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

Cool. Prove me wrong! We lead the world in many socials where it would make sense, even if not really demonstrable that a more mature attitude towards nudity would likely help improve.

 

[Mister CIA]

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

Please feel free. I look forward to it.

Meantime, from a recent Department of Justice brief on the subject:

The term"sex" as it is used in Title IX is broad and encompasses gender identity, including transgender status. "There is no doubt that 'if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.'" North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (brackets omitted). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that "sex" encompasses only one's biological status as male or female, concluding, instead, that sex discrimination also encompasses differential treatment based on one's failure to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. 490 U.S. 228,250 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, "under Price Waterhouse, 'sex' under Title VII encompasses both sex - that is, the biological differences between men and women - and because an individual's gender identity is one aspect of an individual's sex. See, e.g., Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 F.3d 566,575 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203,211 (D.D.C 2006) ("scientific observation may well confirm ... that sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008).9 Furthermore, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination based on the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing a gender transition. In Schroer, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken, or is undertaking, a gender transition is sex discrimination: Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306. Denying Title IX's protections to a student because he has changed or is changing his sex would be "blind ... to the statutory language itself." Id. at 307; see also Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395,2015 WL 1607756, at *7-8 (EEOC Apr. 1,2015) (concluding that federal agency violated Title VII where the complainant's "transgender status was the motivation" for the agency to bar her from using the common women's restrooms); Macy, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (concluding that "intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ... sex,' and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII").

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

I'm sure it has been asked, so please pardon me for asking again, but are your suggesting that teenage boys are allowed to self-arbitrate whether or not they are allowed to go into the female locker room? ... or is there some sort of registration process, or a field guide for high school administrators?

 

[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.

Thats complete and utter bullpuckey. the state has always had a compelling interest in maintaining peace and order, and laws protecting the PRIVACY of individuals (the girls in the Locker room threatening walkout) have always existed in this country.Im honestly disgusted by the fact that so many folks are open to the idea of forcing others to accept a biologically opposite sex into an area where they change clothes.

I agree that "peace and order" is a legitimate state concern. And have argued in other topics that when an overwhelming number of people find something immoral that it threatens "peace and order" that an exception to the "morality isn't a legitimate justification for policy". But is a single protest really a threat to "peace and order"? Or do you suspect that this is something that will never blow over? If so why not?

What is the source of this "laws protecting the PRIVACY "? It certainly isn't a natural right (by my definition at least). As for being a civil right what is the societal issue being resolved by having such a right? "This is how it has always been" isn't a reason.

The Right to Privacy is a settled Constitutional right accorded to every person.

Since when have students had am absolute right to privacy? But ignoring that I agree. Why is it in the interest of the state to know which rest room and/or locker room any individual chooses to use for whatever reason that doesn't pose some kind of a legitimate threat? That should remain private!

 

[Eminence]

If I knew I had a choice, I'd try to get to change in the girls bathroom in High School. Those babes were hot! This kid is a shark.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm sure it has been asked, so please pardon me for asking again, but are your suggesting that teenage boys are allowed to self-arbitrate whether or not they are allowed to go into the female locker room? ... or is there some sort of registration process, or a field guide for high school administrators?

Don't you have this backwards? In a free society shouldn't there be a reason to prohibit such a choice? Since I assume we do what is that reason or reasons? And since this "sex discrimination" I'd think the reasons need to be pretty darn good with no better way to achieve the same goal.

 

[T J]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis." But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

I make no argument about whether people are uncomfortable. I have no doubt that people are uncomfortable, and in fact I might be uncomfortable. But my being uncomfortable doesn't give me any reason to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Being uncomfortable is close to irrelevant to the question of whether they have a right to exclude.

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

I believe the outcome would be unfavorable to you. Henry is correct on the law. You would do better to argue in the court of public opinion, thugh it would be best if you did not choose a venue in San Francisco.

If there is a law that says a MALE is legally allowed to use a FEMALE locker room, then I would love to take my chances. Yes I would.

 

[T J]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

No it isn't. At least it shouldn't, unless a-holes like you shove it in everyone's face unnecessarily.

 

[RBM]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

No it isn't. At least it shouldn't, unless a-holes like you shove it in everyone's face unnecessarily.

And knowing the jerkoffs in this country you know they will.

 

[fantasycurse42]

If I knew I had a choice, I'd try to get to change in the girls bathroom in High School. Those babes were hot! This kid is a shark.

Could you have pulled it off?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

For this topic in particular, highly disagree...

 

[Henry Ford]

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

Please feel free. I look forward to it.Meantime, from a recent Department of Justice brief on the subject:

The term"sex" as it is used in Title IX is broad and encompasses gender identity, including transgender status. "There is no doubt that 'if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.'" North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell,456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (brackets omitted). In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the notion that "sex" encompasses only one's biological status as male or female, concluding, instead, that sex discrimination also encompasses differential treatment based on one's failure to conform to socially-constructed gender expectations. 490 U.S. 228,250 (1989) (plurality opinion). Thus, "under Price Waterhouse, 'sex' under Title VII encompasses both sex - that is, the biological differences between men and women - and because an individual's gender identity is one aspect of an individual's sex. See, e.g., Smith v. City ofSalem, 378 F.3d 566,575 (6th Cir. 2004); Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203,211 (D.D.C 2006) ("scientific observation may well confirm ... that sex is not a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes") (internal citations omitted). Consequently, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is "literally" discrimination on the basisof sex. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,306-07 (D.D.C. 2008).9 Furthermore, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination based on the perception that an individual has undergone, or is undergoing a gender transition. In Schroer, the court offered the following analogy to help explain how discrimination against an individual because he or she has undertaken, or is undertaking, a gender transition is sex discrimination: Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testifies that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only "converts." That would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion." No court would take seriously the notion that "converts" are not covered by the statute. Discrimination "because of religion" easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion. 577 F. Supp. 2d at 306. Denying Title IX's protections to a student because he has changed or is changing his sex would be "blind ... to the statutory language itself." Id. at 307; see also Lusardi v. McHugh, Appeal No. 0120133395,2015 WL 1607756, at *7-8 (EEOC Apr. 1,2015) (concluding that federal agency violated Title VII where the complainant's "transgender status was the motivation" for the agency to bar her from using the common women's restrooms); Macy, 2012 WL 1435995, at *11 (concluding that "intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination 'based on ... sex,' and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII").

So, the gender of an individual is an entirely subjective determination?

I'm sure it has been asked, so please pardon me for asking again, but are your suggesting that teenage boys are allowed to self-arbitrate whether or not they are allowed to go into the female locker room? ... or is there some sort of registration process, or a field guide for high school administrators?

"Self-abitrate whether or not they are allowed to go into the female locker room" is a little different than determining a gender identification and living as that gender. I agree with the latter.

 

[Hoh]

It's a real shame that the real discrimination cases get tarnished by this one. Oh well, at least the lawyers get rich.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis." But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

I make no argument about whether people are uncomfortable. I have no doubt that people are uncomfortable, and in fact I might be uncomfortable. But my being uncomfortable doesn't give me any reason to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Being uncomfortable is close to irrelevant to the question of whether they have a right to exclude.

Good grief you're dense. Nobody is violating anyone's civil rights. It's a male that wants to use the female locker room. Period. Whose civil rights are being violated? I would love to argue against you in a court of law. LOVE to.

I believe the outcome would be unfavorable to you. Henry is correct on the law. You would do better to argue in the court of public opinion, thugh it would be best if you did not choose a venue in San Francisco.

If there is a law that says a MALE is legally allowed to use a FEMALE locker room, then I would love to take my chances. Yes I would.

Good luck.

 

[Henry Ford]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

No it isn't. At least it shouldn't, unless a-holes like you shove it in everyone's face unnecessarily.

It's okay, man. Relax. There's no law that says you have to admit that transgender women are really women.

 

[Eminence]

Majority opinion is not a legitimate justification to discriminate. I'm also not a lawyer, This also isn't an issue that I'm going to expend too much time fighting over because I doubt there is much change in "ten years",

That being said there is a simple test for me when it comes to this kind of topic and that is what is the reason for things being the way they are? From the replies you would think that a readily available list exist that could be just thrown up because everyone knows that such reasons exist. Yet with the exception of your "peace and order" which I have my doubts on, and "a right to not be seen" and/or "a right not to see" which I doubt exist there have been no such lists.

Buckle up, man. This one's coming like a freight train.

No it isn't. At least it shouldn't, unless a-holes like you shove it in everyone's face unnecessarily.

It's okay, man. Relax. There's no law that says you have to admit that transgender women are really women.

They're really just a nuisance to society, kind of like the mentally challenged which we have no problem keeping OUT of society.

 

[Henry Ford]

How about this - I'll stop reminding you that there's a pretty statistically strong chance that you've at least made out with someone who's not biologically female because you can't tell the difference, and you... Well, I can't think of anything I want you to do. So I guess I'll keep reminding you.

 

[Henry Ford]

Wait, we have no problem keeping the mentally challenged out of society?

Fighting.... Not to... Take obvious joke route.

 

[fantasycurse42]

How about this - I'll stop reminding you that there's a pretty statistically strong chance that you've at least made out with someone who's not biologically female because you can't tell the difference, and you... Well, I can't think of anything I want you to do. So I guess I'll keep reminding you.

Outside of that one time where I found that gigantic schlong in my face, I have to disagree here Henry.

 

[Henry Ford]

How about this - I'll stop reminding you that there's a pretty statistically strong chance that you've at least made out with someone who's not biologically female because you can't tell the difference, and you... Well, I can't think of anything I want you to do. So I guess I'll keep reminding you.

Outside of that one time where I found that gigantic schlong in my face, I have to disagree here Henry.

Fbgs have a high chance of model-banging as I understand it. More intersex women in the modeling world than about anywhere else.

 

[T J]

How about this - I'll stop reminding you that there's a pretty statistically strong chance that you've at least made out with someone who's not biologically female because you can't tell the difference, and you... Well, I can't think of anything I want you to do. So I guess I'll keep reminding you.

There is zero chance of this. Your statistics must apply to those you hang out with.

 

[Henry Ford]

How about this - I'll stop reminding you that there's a pretty statistically strong chance that you've at least made out with someone who's not biologically female because you can't tell the difference, and you... Well, I can't think of anything I want you to do. So I guess I'll keep reminding you.

There is zero chance of this. Your statistics must apply to those you hang out with.

Really? Do you do a chromosome check on all your dates?

Ever make out with a girl who looks like this one when you were a teenager?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000312718713/2838d794772ffc32ddae913302612cca.jpeg