TakeYouToTasker Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-decision-stand-trans-girl-means-locker-rooms/story?id=34937789 Though the district recognized the student as female in its computer systems and allowed her to have unlimited access to the girls' restrooms, it said granting her the "option to change her clothes in the girls’ locker room would expose female students as young as fifteen years of age to a biologically male body," according to the DOE's letter. The OCR found that such reasoning was discrimination "on the basis of sex," which violated Title IX, a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. Title IX is the same law that mandates parity between male and female athletic programs. The DOE's letter to the school added that to date, "efforts to resolve this complaint voluntarily with the District have not been successful." The DOE also threatened to take "enforcement action" against the school district if compliance or an agreement wasn't reached within 30 days of the letter dated Nov. 2, 2015, putting the district at risk of losing millions in federal funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 "The OCR found that such reasoning was discrimination "on the basis of sex," which violated Title IX, a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity." So if you're physically male but emotionally/psychologically female, the DOE is fine with you and your tonker showering with the 15 year-old girls, and any effort to prevent that is considered sexual discrimination?! It sounds to me like people in the Department of Education aren't necessarily very well educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 "Federal education authorities found on Monday that an Illinois school district had violated anti-discrimination laws..." "... when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates in athletics to change and shower in the girls’ locker room without restrictions." “All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right,” Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.” The burden of protecting privacy, the feds found, is on the non-transgender girls who don’t want to observe or be observed by the opposite sex: Those female students wishing to protect their own private bodies from exposure to being observed in a state of undress by other girls in the locker rooms, including transgender girls, could change behind a privacy curtain. The feds don’t even attempt to strike a balance. It’s all or nothing. And that all is that your daughters have to look at male genitalia in the locker room and shower, whether you or they like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 "The OCR found that such reasoning was discrimination "on the basis of sex," which violated Title IX, a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity." So if you're physically male but emotionally/psychologically female, the DOE is fine with you and your tonker showering with the 15 year-old girls, and any effort to prevent that is considered sexual discrimination?! It sounds to me like people in the Department of Education aren't necessarily very well educated. So now it's legal for the physically male girl's volleyball coach to shower with the team, as long as he believes he's a woman? Conversely, if the girl's volleyball coach is physically female, but believes she's a man, can she not shower with the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 So now it's legal for the physically male girl's volleyball coach to shower with the team, as long as he believes he's a woman? Conversely, if the girl's volleyball coach is physically female, but believes she's a man, can she not shower with the team? This opens the door for arguments that any delineation between male and female for the purpose of separate facilities (separate but equal) are unlawful. It also opens the door for the decriminalization of child sexual abuse, assuming consent; given that such charges are tantamount to sexual discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Feds: Schools Must Grant Mentally Disturbed Boy Unfettered Access to Girls’ Locker Room by David French FTA: Let me get this straight — if the school district allowed someone to post pictures of a nude man in a classroom, that would be blocked as sexual harassment, but if a nude boy changes next to women in a locker room, that’s equality? Apparently so: In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student’s rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls’ facilities, the letter said. And you have to love the anti-science sanctimony from the ACLU: “What our client wants is not hard to understand: She wants to be accepted for who she is and to be treated with dignity and respect — like any other student,” said John Knight, the director of the L.G.B.T. and H.I.V. Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, who is representing the student. “The district’s insistence on separating my client from other students is blatant discrimination. Rather than approaching this issue with sensitivity and dignity, the district has attempted to justify its conduct by challenging my client’s identity as a girl.” “Identity as a girl?” This poor kid doesn’t have a chance. He’s surrounded by people who are indulging his mental challenges, lying to him — as social-justice warriors do — for the sake of a sexual revolutionary ideology so radical that it now even trumps the rights of girls to be free from involuntary exposure to male nudity at school. This won’t end well for the boy, for the girls in the school, or for the use of the law as a rational instrument of justice. Nor should it end well for the Department of Education. Last year, the DOE issued a memorandum that purported to amend Title IX to add protections for “transgender” students. The use of memoranda to change the law is a favorite tactic of the Obama administration, and it also happens to violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Colleges — in the grips of the radical Left — have been too cowardly to challenge the administration’s legal abuses, but I suspect that public-school districts will be a bit more eager to go to court. They have less to lose and more to gain. Would you want to be the school-board member in a conservative district who meekly acquiesced to Obama-administration lawlessness?Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) This has been California law in all public schools this year. I find it interesting that a male child who identifies as a girl finds himself more stigmatized by having to change clothes in front of other guys than he will be telling everyone he has a penis, but feels like he should have a vagina. No stigma there. Especially in a public high school. In Chicago. Edited November 3, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 So now we no longer base our definition of gender upon a person's gender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 So now we no longer base our definition of gender upon a person's gender? The argument, in all seriousness, comes from the left, and it argues is that gender is not something by which we should be categorized because we didn't get to choose our gender. So it stands to their reason that we should not be pigeonholed into accepting the gender we were given. Progressives want a world where there are no labels of any kind. Unless they can assign them. So you're not a man or a woman, but you ARE a racist Islamophobic right-wing extremist misogynistic Jew-loving cop-adoring dirtbag, whether you have a penis or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The argument, in all seriousness, comes from the left, and it argues is that gender is not something by which we should be categorized because we didn't get to choose our gender. So it stands to their reason that we should not be pigeonholed into accepting the gender we were given. Progressives want a world where there are no labels of any kind. Unless they can assign them. So you're not a man or a woman, but you ARE a racist Islamophobic right-wing extremist misogynistic Jew-loving cop-adoring dirtbag, whether you have a penis or not. This pretty much nails it. I'm actually very sympathetic and tolerant of the trans people but unfortunately the new rounds of legislation have opened up more than they bargained for with unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 This pretty much nails it. I'm actually very sympathetic and tolerant of the trans people but unfortunately the new rounds of legislation have opened up more than they bargained for with unintended consequences. Interestingly, in California, there was no stomach to put a bill to fund the addition of locker rooms and bathrooms specifically for the gender confused. It was much easier to just pass a law to accommodate the gender confused and let them cross dress/shower in the other locker rooms/bathrooms. Also interestingly, a report about a year back estimated that less than 2% of all California youth struggle with gender identity. Meanwhile, fully 100% of Californians have to deal with the drought, and the only thing the state could do to address the issue was to make people use less water or be fined. Your SoProg mindset at work. But hey...great weather here. So we have that going for us. Which is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 .So you're not a man or a woman, but you ARE a racist Islamophobic right-wing extremist misogynistic Jew-loving cop-adoring dirtbag, whether you have a penis or not. You left out homophobic climate change denier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 You left out homophobic climate change denier. And mass-murder-supporting gun nut fat-cat CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Big boost for homeschooling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Apparently voters in Houston need to be "re-educated": http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/us/houston-voters-repeal-anti-bias-measure.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The last line pretty much sums up the gender identity issue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Dicks should shower with dicks, gay trans or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Dicks should shower with dicks, gay trans or otherwise. Is Beerball considered an "otherwise"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Is Beerball considered an "otherwise"? Does he still have his balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The last line pretty much sums up the gender identity issue: htt p://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c "It's every man's right to have babies... if he wants them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts