Dept of Education fights for shower access for trans student

Post Reply New Topic

In a first of its kind decision ...

The US Dept. of Education (DOE) made a monumental decision to take action against a public school that won't allow a transgender girl access to the girl's locker room and showers.

The school provides the girl with private changing and showering facilities. However, the DOE says private facilities is a violation of that student’s rights under Title IX (sex discrimination laws). The DOE argues that the student should be given full access to the girls's locker room and showers.

The Department of Education has given the school 30 days to comply or they threatened to cut some of the school's funding, or sue them.

I am finding this amazing. Just a little while ago, groups were fighting over bathroom access, and now the government is arguing TITLE IX covers complete shower access as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/il ... .html?_r=2

https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_ ... anguage=en

Education should be run at the local level. The farther away the decisions are made away from the student and classroom, the greater disservice the student receives.

I will not send my children to a government school to be indoctrinated.

What about the rights of the straight students who are forced to share a locker room and to have to shower with a trans kid?

I consider myself pretty liberal. If people want to dress as another gender, be called by that gender's pronouns, change their name, have sex-change surgery, take hormones, even have their preferred gender listed on official documents, that's all perfectly FINE by me.
However, my daughter is not going to be told she has to get naked and shower next to a teenager with a penis and balls. Over my dead body.

All showers should allow enough privacy to not risk showing your naked body too anybody else - no matter the gender. A lockable stall with towel hanger should be a minimum for everyone.
Restroom stalls are seperated by lockable doors so why showers are not?

I never understood the idea of taking a shower in one room with other students at the same time. Fortunatelly none of my schools had rule about taking a shower after PE and the only occasion where I had to use facility like this was a school trip - and I was taking the shower wearing a swimsuit then(which I changed in lockable restroom stall) because I was afraid what my classmates might do. I was bullied a lot so they might pick on me at any time.

I also used a lockable restroom room to change. I was afraid of using girls changing room for the same reason I didnt want to take shower with my classmates - they could play tricks on me.

The girl got private changing and showering facilities. She should be happy. It is a luxury I wish I had.

Well, it look like this kinda issue killed what was supposed to be a broad nondiscriminatin ordinance in Houston, TX. LGBT activists need to rethink their approach to this issue, or the whole movement will be sunk by bathroom scares.

[quote="Kiriae"]All showers should allow enough privacy to not risk showing your naked body too anybody else - no matter the gender. A lockable stall with towel hanger should be a minimum for everyone.
Restroom stalls are seperated by lockable doors so why showers are not?
quote]
Agreed. Furthermore it would also seem that the school could move on the matter by setting things with individual segmenting.

The DOE will likely argue that girls don't have rights to avoid fat girls, girls with warts, ugly girls, and girls with a penis. There is no such rights.

You know, for being a Mensan, Mayor Parker really did not think this one through. Even before the ordinance was passed she threw trans people under the bus by removing the gender identity - public accommodations clause. She saw it as a reasonable compromise because some of it was potentially already covered under other laws, but it sent a strong public message as to what HERO's weak point would be and encouraged the Evangelical pastors to attack the entire ordinance. Which they did with a vengeance. Then she subpoena'd certain pastors in a very specific manner that was indeed quite legal - but folded immediately when they loudly and publicly objected saying it was an encroachment of government into religious affairs. All early indications are that it was the conservative Christian pastors that got out the vote, but it was the usual anti-trans organizations that raked in the donations, organized those churches and produced the horribly dishonest advertisements. The same groups - often the very same people - that made a very comfortable living for seven years off Prop8 have found a new cash cow. Sad thing is, this is America; we're supposed to be about equality for everyone and yet in some states we're back in the 1950's before the Civil Rights era, with people opposing laws that grant equality and the biggest organized push being from the conservative churches.

But in addition to the Equal Protections clause, the Civil Rights fight *did* take place, and resulted in the CRA of 1964. And those Titles that mention discrimination based on sex have been repeatedly found by Federal judges to also apply to trans people via the following chain of cases:

Schroer v. Library of Congress 2009 - this is the keystone, where the judges recognized that, "discrimination based on change of sex [sic] is still discrimination based on sex" in the same way that discrimination based on change of religion is still discrimination based on religion.

This was followed by the successful rulings for Vandy Beth Glenn (v. Brumby), and finally Mia Macy (on which the EEOC based their rulings), along with a number of others that filled in the corners and also applied the same logic to the Department of Education's rulings. Mixed in are others such as Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins which rule sex discrimination prohibitions include discrimination based on sex stereotypes such as "women must be feminine".

All have relied on pretty solid legal arguments unlike the few that have found for the opposition, such as in the recent Virginia case where Judge Doumar argued in his decision that because Federal Dept of Ed discrimination prohibitions use the word 'gender' they don't apply since trans people are actually the sex assigned at birth regardless of their gender, based on nothing but his assertion that it is so. Finally found the opinion here: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis ... 321927/57/ .

Back in high school, teenage Dill suddenly becomes transgender to glance sideways at boobies in the showers for a "justified" reason.

You know, I don't mind cross-dressers. I don't mind homosexuals either.

But I do mind the fact that children are being subjected to these alternative ideas and not having a say in it.

Who is giving these children ideas about sexuality? Suddenly, kids who haven't even reached puberty yet have made up their minds about these things. Somehow. It's crazy!

It isn't so, that increase acceptance causes people who were that way to come out more. It is increased propagation that affects impressionable young minds and confuse them!

If one of the boys wants to wear dresses then that's one thing. It's another to subject the girls to letting him waggle his dick in their locker room in order not to discriminate and hurt his feelings.

Back in the days, this kind of stuff was considered perverted and perpetrators were subject to correction.
I'm not arguing against identity. It is no problem when it only concerns the person in question. It does however, become a problem when others are being affected by it against their will.

As the mom of a trans kid, I can assure you the process is nothing like that, even though some in the media and online enjoy spreading the meme.

There are meetings with the principal, there's paperwork, meetings with the counselor and teacher, there's submitting more paperwork, there's more meetings, there's therapist letters, more meetings, letters from endocrinologists and pediatrician after making and going to appointments every year...and then there are sometimes the "extra" meetings and paperwork necessary to ensure that the most private part of my child's medical record is in fact kept private.

Dill in the past is now trans, though, so it apparently can be like that.

Meaning, there needs to be a larger burden of proof than what there currently is.

We let people use disabled spaces because they have a diagnosed disability.

First, I'll address your most offensive statement: every parent(s) of a trans kid I've met - and it's been many - has said the same thing: they are embarrassed of their "wrong" body parts and make every effort to hide them. While *you* might go "waggling" it around in a locker room, trans kids most certainly do not.

Second, your "correction" idea ruined a lot of lives.

Third, humans have sex-dimorphic body parts, including 20+ in the brain. In those are the location of your sense of Self (damage it and have trouble telling you from other) and your brain's low level, hard wired map of the body. Sometimes, rarely those brain sites, some skeletal sites and certain endocrine receptor sites develop opposite the one part used to assign sex on the birth paperwork by a doctor after a 2 second peek. The process is fully understood, including the genes expressed, the process of expression, the endocrine environment needed, etc.. The "differences" can even be induced in lab rats. Point is, trans people who must live as their identified sex/gender are better described medically as being of mixed sex-dimorphism. And since the "Self" is located in the brain, not the rest of the body, that's the one we use to determine a person's "true" sex/gender identity.

Last edited by Edenthiel on 04 Nov 2015, 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Children are not to concern themselves with sexuality. Nobody knows their sexual orientation for sure until they have reached adulthood. Yet, a viral video on YouTube shows a teenager given estrogen by his mother! If that boy figures out that he was not transgender, then the estrogen has ruined his puberty forever. He will probably never have children or develop his sexual characteristics properly. All because of some fleeting thought during puberty that turned out to be hormonal confusion.

I think one ought to be very, very careful about giving children ideas about these things. For adults to have these conversations is one thing. But there is so much of this that is targeting children. Keep them out of it. Guard them against media that gives them strange ideas.

If an impressionable young boy listens to voices talking about being born in the wrong body, in addition to lacking a father figure, which is often the case, since being raised by single mothers is the norm now, chances are his mind is going to be influenced quite a bit. Then he grows up and figures out he was just confused for a short while.

Yet this has escalated to talking about giving hormones to kids. It's crazy!
If the guy wanted to wear a dress, that would be one thing. Certainly something he can change his mind about.

If these alternative ideas are to be propagated, then the solution is gender neutral showers and restrooms for those who feel that way. That way, girls won't have to feel uncomfortable showering.

They say liberals care about women... what's this?
Obama's such a huge sick pervert for backing this.
Trump is right education should be run locally.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... yre-girls/