Reply With Quote
Public bathrooms, like wedding cakes, are central to the rights of "LGBT citizens", because so much of their sexual activity happens there.
That's it....get it all out
Public bathrooms, like wedding cakes, are central to the rights of "LGBT citizens", because so much of their sexual activity happens there.
that reads funny
also I fify
How does sexual activity happen at wedding cakes
Slave State Lynching News
Rainbow-colored nooses taken down from Tennessee campus
Police at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee have removed six rainbow colored nooses – widely seen as a symbol of racial hatred – hanging from a tree on campus, the school said.Police on Monday took down the row of nooses found near the university fine arts building on the main campus in Clarksville, Tennessee, after receiving several complaints, the school said in a statement.
The intent of the display, especially in the multicolored style suggesting a link to the gay pride movement, was unclear. WTF
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/rain...e+Raw+Story%29
Why didn't the campus staff remove the nooses?
Sam Bee is the true inheritor of Jon Stewart's satire. Here she is letting a TN cretin take it in the Butt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4vZmsuw2s
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-19-2016 at 06:24 AM.
Federal Court Tells Lawmakers To Shut Up And Deal With Trans People In Bathrooms
A federal appeals court just dropped on bomb on Southern lawmakers who think it is up to them to decide where trans people pee.
In G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, a divided panel of the United States for the Fourth Circuit held that schools risk their federal funding if they do not permit trans people to use bathrooms that align with the person’s gender iden y.
Though the court stopped just shy of immediately ordering a Virginia school district to abandon its anti-trans bathroom policy, the opinion is likely to have sweeping consequences for schools that engage in such discrimination within the states overseen by the Fourth Circuit.
Notably, one of those states is North Carolina, the home of a sweeping anti-LGBT law preventing trans individuals from using the appropriate bathroom in many facilities.
Under federal law, “[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The Department’s regulations, however, do permit “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.”
The Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion by Judge Henry Franklin Floyd, an Obama appointee, relies primarily on the Department of Education’s interpretation of this regulation governing segregated bathroom facilities. “When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex,” according to the Department, “a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender iden y.” A trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ans-bathrooms/
I think campus cops count as staff. It was only up for about an hour.Slave State Lynching News
Rainbow-colored nooses taken down from Tennessee campus
Police at Austin Peay State University in Tennessee have removed six rainbow colored nooses – widely seen as a symbol of racial hatred – hanging from a tree on campus, the school said.Police on Monday took down the row of nooses found near the university fine arts building on the main campus in Clarksville, Tennessee, after receiving several complaints, the school said in a statement.
The intent of the display, especially in the multicolored style suggesting a link to the gay pride movement, was unclear. WTF
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/rain...e+Raw+Story%29
Why didn't the campus staff remove the nooses?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rainbow-c...277.html?nhp=1Reuters) - The Tennessee university student whose art project, six rainbow-colored nooses hanging from a tree, was swiftly removed by police said on Tuesday that she did not intend to be racially insensitive or offend the gay community.
Yeah, sure
I mean, I actually assumed it was a pro-gay display until I read her explanation...
"My intention with my sculpture project was to address the cycle of death and rebirth that is represented by the arrival of spring,"
And that is all fine and dandy, because in that school students who don't want to share a bathroom with Bruce/Kaitlyn will still have a choice to piss/ /tampon change with their own biological sex.Santee Education Complex is the first school in the Los Angeles Unified School District to let students of different genders use the same bathroom at the same time.
On Thursday, the circular "girls" sign outside a second-floor bathroom is being replaced by one that says "all-gender restroom." The inside isn't changing at all.
http://www.latimes.com/local/educati...htmlstory.html
But then you have a Federal courts ruling like this:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/19/fe...ed-on-biology/
The Fourth Circuit Court ruled today against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students.
The federal court concluded that le IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—should be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender iden y, as a Department of Education letter suggested in 2015. The ruling allows a lawsuit brought by a transgender student to proceed.
The case involves a biological girl who identifies as a boy. The court’s majority explains it this way: “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,’ is female, but G.G.’s gender iden y is male.” Note the scare quotes around what the court calls “so-called ‘biological sex.’” Biological sex, in fact, is precisely what Congress protected in 1972.
In a stinging dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer points out that “the majority’s opinion, for the first time ever, holds that a public high school may not provide separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex.” It’s hard to imagine that that’s what Congress was prohibiting when it enacted le IX in 1972.
Indeed, the court’s ruling goes against human history, practice, and common sense. Niemeyer explains:
This holding completely tramples on all universally accepted protections of privacy and safety that are based on the anatomical differences between the sexes. … schools would no longer be able to protect physiological privacy as between students of the opposite biological sex.Niemeyer even points out that students have privacy rights to not have students of the other biological sex in their locker rooms:
This unprecedented holding overrules custom, culture, and the very demands inherent in human nature for privacy and safety, which the separation of such facilities is designed to protect. More particularly, it also misconstrues the clear language of le IX and its regulations. And finally, it reaches an unworkable and illogical result.
Across societies and throughout history, it has been commonplace and universally accepted to separate public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of biological sex in order to address privacy and safety concerns arising from the biological differences between males and females. An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex. Indeed, courts have consistently recognized that the need for such privacy is inherent in the nature and dignity of humankind.Nevertheless, G.G. sued the school district. Why? Because the district created a policy which says that bathroom and locker room access is primarily based on biology, while also creating accommodations for transgender students. Specifically, the policy is that only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students.
But even this accommodation wasn’t good enough. Hence the lawsuit and Tuesday’s ruling.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Andre Davis claims the student is at risk of “irreparable harm” if forced to use a single-occupancy bathroom. Davis says that to support the claim of “irreparable harm, G.G. submitted an affidavit to the district court describing the psychological distress he experiences when he is forced to use the single-stall restrooms.”
Davis adds that “G.G. experiences daily psychological harm that puts him at risk for long-term psychological harm, and his avoidance of the restroom as a result of the Board’s policy puts him at risk for developing a urinary tract infection as he has repeatedly in the past.” Davis concludes that for G.G. to use single-occupancy restrooms “is tantamount to humiliation and a continuing mark of difference.”
Niemeyer, however, points out that the majority relies not on the actual text, history, or legal implementation of le IX, but on a 2015 letter from the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education: “The recent Office for Civil Rights letter, moreover, which is not law but which is the only authority on which the majority relies, states more than the majority acknowledges.” Indeed, that letter suggested that schools “offer the use of gender-neutral, individual-user facilities to any student who does not want to use shared sex-segregated facilities.”
At the end of the day, it’s hard to disagree with Niemeyer when he writes, “Any new definition of sex that excludes reference to physiological differences, as the majority now attempts to introduce, is simply an unsupported reach to rationalize a desired outcome.” This is simply an unaccountable agency and an activist court rewriting le IX and remaking bathroom policy across our nation.
Bathroom, locker room, and shower facility policies that protect privacy based on biology while also accommodating transgender students make good sense. And as Niemeyer explains, they comply with the law, too: “when the school board assigned restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex, it was clearly complying precisely with the unambiguous language of le IX and its regulations.”
This is what I have a problem with, the privacy rights of other students are now being trampled.The Fourth Circuit Court ruled today against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students
Exactly. That's it in a nuts .
There is no right to not be seen in the restroom.
What privacy rights are being trampled exactly
Lol human history
Men and women should squat behind separate bushes I saiiiiiiiid
Isn't the whole argument that the trans feels uncomfortable using the bathroom designated for their actual gender? But everyone else who feels uncomfortable using the same bathroom as the trans.
Let's finish that quote you startedNot all children are comfortable using the same restroom, especially girls having to share with boys. They will now be forced to.it has been commonplace and universally accepted to separate public restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of biological sex in order to address privacy and safety concerns arising from the biological differences between males and females. An individual has a legitimate and important interest in bodily privacy such that his or her nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts are not exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex. Indeed, courts have consistently recognized that the need for such privacy is inherent in the nature and dignity of humankind
muh comfort
Plenty of whites felt uncomfortable with blacks in the bathroom not too long ago.
I think you'll be alright.
You're talking about different kinds of discomfort, and you're comparing the rights of a person who might never knowingly encounter this situation to the rights of someone who will encounter it every time they use the restroom. The former has the option to leave the restroom or wait until the latter person is finished. The latter person does not have that option.
Why is that privacy stops at gender for you and other privacy honks?
Seriously, you're OK with dudes side by side at the urinal trough but suddenly privacy is gone when a tranny walks in.
If this stupid logic wasn't being displayed at such high levels of policy making, it'd be hilarious.
I don't see why the kids who identify with their "biological sex" can't turn around and sue the schools for the same thing.
"My son came home from school and told me there was a girl using the boys locker room,” Franz said before the meeting. “This is someone he’s known for years and has always been a girl. My son was very upset by this, and I called the principal.”
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...s-high-school/
Take a page out of "G.G.'s" book and claim the same trauma.
"My biological sex identifying son experiences daily psychological harm that puts him at risk for long-term psychological harm, and his avoidance of the restroom because of "G.G." as a result of the Board’s policy puts him at risk for developing a urinary tract infection as he has repeatedly in the past.” Because my biological sex identifying son is so uncomfortable around "G.G." his use of single-occupancy restrooms “is tantamount to humiliation and a continuing mark of difference.”
are you quoting the trans population?
And certain schools made accommodations that satisfied all students and gave them a choice on a gender neutral or gender specific bathroom, and I fully support this.
"Santee Education Complex is the first school in the Los Angeles Unified School District to let students of different genders use the same bathroom at the same time.
On Thursday, the circular "girls" sign outside a second-floor bathroom is being replaced by one that says "all-gender restroom." The inside isn't changing at all.
http://www.latimes.com/local/educati...htmlstory.html "
What I do not support is the Fourth Circuit taking those accommodations away from students.
"for the first time ever, holds that a public high school may not provide separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex.” It’s hard to imagine that that’s what Congress was prohibiting when it enacted le IX in 1972."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
