Students protest male student's access to girls' facilities

Page 4 of 5 [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

05 Sep 2015, 6:42 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
I am referring to the Department of Education's guidelines for TITLE IX that I linked above that "gender identity" is "sex". So, a trans girl has the sex of a girl.

This is why the Department of Justice is sueing many schools for sex discrimination on behalf of trans kids.

____________________________________________________________________________________

"Department of Justice: Title IX Protects Trans Students From Discrimination
The feds weigh in on the case of a transgender boy in Virginia, affirming his right to self-identify under federal law".
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transg ... s-students

"The DOJ affirmed in Tuesday's court filing that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects the right of transgender students to use the restroom that matches their gender identity".

____________________________________________________________________________________

The schools can't win here. The Department of Education holds the federal purse strings. School employees are money whores that will drop their principals in a heartbeat.

"School district says feds forced policy that allows transgender kids to use bathrooms of their choice"
See here, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/ ... olicy.html

"The district said they were mandated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to add “gender identity” to the policy — or else risk losing federal funding".


You've still not replied to the very core of the issue: Why should a trans person's rights be more valid than a non-trans person's rights?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

05 Sep 2015, 7:41 pm

Dantac wrote:
You've still not replied to the very core of the issue: Why should a trans person's rights be more valid than a non-trans person's rights?


Since the word "sex" can mean "gender identity", arguably, non-trans girls have no right to bathroom privacy from trans girls, because they are the same sex.

No such laws exist.

Many states tried to pass "bathroom bills" to specify that sex means biological sex, however, these mostly failed, or did not progress.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

05 Sep 2015, 11:03 pm

beneficii wrote:

How? These new regulations seek to turn Title IX on its head. It was passed so that girls and women would feel safe attending various educational facilities by having full facilities available away from boys and men, part of its effort to assure equality in education among the sexes. Now girls and women have to put up with boys and men coming into their spaces, simply because the boys and men declare themselves to be trans.

I think that for a change like this, an act of Congress would be required.

And yet it's happening now .... the DOE is slowly making progress.

Schools are adding trans protections to their policies. For example, in the article linked above,

"In Ohio, Troy City Schools Superintendent Eric Herman announced this week that the school will let a transgender student use the boys' room, saying that to deny the student's request would violate federal law".

The DOE will lose some along the way, but they will also find sympathetic judges to rule in their favor.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

06 Sep 2015, 6:28 pm

If all a boy has to do to use the girls' shower is say he's trans, then soon the only people in the boys' locker room will be gay students.



RoadRatt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 54,197
Location: Oregon

06 Sep 2015, 8:17 pm

^Don't forget about the girls who think they are boys.

And the people who think they are dogs, or cats, or maybe aliens from another planet. Nah wait, those people are crazy, they'll get locked up for thinking that way. :roll:


_________________
No power in the 'verse can stop me. - River Tam (Firefly)


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

06 Sep 2015, 9:05 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Since the word "sex" can mean "gender identity",


It does not. Sex is what you are biologically, gender identity is what you identify as (which evidence points could be heavily influenced by brain wiring/etc).

Even a trans person who has undergone significant surgery is still NOT of the opposite sex, they will merely look like it (despite how much they feel/believe they are). Those surgeries are done for two reasons: to make the person have their physical body match their gender identity + feel better/have better quality of life and, there is no politically correct way to say it, to mimic the members of the sex they identify as in order to fit in socially.

I'm all for society accepting trans people to be treated with respect and dignity as members of whatever sex they identify as. Problem is, as is in this case, that trans people (as this person in question) do not seem interested in treating non-trans with respect or dignity when it comes to their rights because being cloaked in the victim role somehow makes trans rights more valid than the rights of others.

LoveNotHate wrote:
arguably, non-trans girls have no right to bathroom privacy from trans girls, because they are the same sex.


They are not the same sex however and the rights of non-trans are being waived without their consent plus they are being forced to share their personal space with those who they do not feel comfortable with or safe or a myriad of other reasons.

Again, there is a big difference between a person who consents to share their privacy with someone else and between a person being forced to share their privacy. This is literally no different than if the law suddenly enforced that all bathrooms be made unisex. It is no different than a law being passed that installs security cameras in bathrooms even though those allegedly monitoring them are members of the same sex.

You have to see things from both sides not just the side you are heavily biased towards. The moment you impose your rights over that of others because it is convenient for you then you are no longer seeking acceptance/integration/equality.

It is not the girl's fault the trans person was born male. It is not the trans person's fault either. Yet all the girls are being stepped on to solve this problem.

Does the trans person not know or acknowledge being born into the wrong sex? Im sure this person does. By realizing this, this person belongs to the category 'trans+gender I identify with' not 'the gender I identify with'. Its something in between and always will be no matter how many surgeries this person has (until scientists figure out how to turn XX into XY and viceversa that is). Society is much more open today to respect this person's gender identity and even accommodate said gender identity... but that is what it is, literally: an identity. When it comes to rights this person should understand that trans rights are not above anyone else's rights. The parallels this has to religious rights is painfully obvious.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

07 Sep 2015, 12:10 am

Dantac wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Since the word "sex" can mean "gender identity",


It does not. Sex is what you are biologically, gender identity is what you identify as (which evidence points could be heavily influenced by brain wiring/etc).

Your interpretation is not consistent with more recent TITLE IX case law.

Here is one example ...

"The Supreme Court eventually rejected the view that Congress meant sex discrimination to only mean discrimination against one's biological sex."

"In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court considered the case of Ann Hopkins, a female accountant who was passed over for promotion based at least in part on the partners' view that she was too aggressive for a woman. The Court recognized that because aggressiveness is a trait the partners require for promotion, their objections to Hopkins's aggressiveness placed her in an "intolerable and impermissible catch 22 . . . ."

By agreeing that "Title VII lifts women out of this bind," the Court interpreted sex discrimination to include not just discrimination on one's sex in the sense of being "biologically" male or female, but also discrimination on the basis of how one presents one's gender relative to one's "biological" sex.

Source:
On Page 230
http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/v ... t=facschol



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

07 Sep 2015, 1:09 am

I wonder if this was female, would people be reacting the same way or would they react negatively claiming sexism?


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

07 Sep 2015, 9:53 am

If it was a biological female, I think people would be concerned for her safety.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

07 Sep 2015, 2:43 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
If it was a biological female, I think people would be concerned for her safety.

I think there would be a big backlash claiming sexism and openly shame the male students, if male students protested a biological female's access to their restroom.

There is no way male students would get away with it publicly without a massive controversy and most likely a lawsuit handed to them.


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

07 Sep 2015, 7:35 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Dantac wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Since the word "sex" can mean "gender identity",


It does not. Sex is what you are biologically, gender identity is what you identify as (which evidence points could be heavily influenced by brain wiring/etc).

Your interpretation is not consistent with more recent TITLE IX case law.

Here is one example ...

"The Supreme Court eventually rejected the view that Congress meant sex discrimination to only mean discrimination against one's biological sex."
.....
By agreeing that "Title VII lifts women out of this bind," the Court interpreted sex discrimination to include not just discrimination on one's sex in the sense of being "biologically" male or female, but also discrimination on the basis of how one presents one's gender relative to one's "biological" sex.


Here you have a case of a trans-girl demanding her rights be upheld over the rights of non-trans girls so that the trans person does not feel discriminated against... but in the process the trans person is demanding the right of privacy of non-trans girls be waived.

Rights of Trans girl = Rights of non-trans girl ... OK.
Rights of Trans girl > Rights of non-trans girl ... not OK.

I can do a blood test and prove the trans girl is not XX. I can take brain scans of the trans girl and prove that the wiring is different than XY and has elements/similarities to XX (but it is not in the variance range of 'identical' as scans from non-trans girls would output).

With this I can say the trans girl has a basis to claim the right to be legally and ethically treated as female rather than male. That means no firing/not hiring them because of it, no hostile treatment tolerated, no legal disadvantage NOR advantage (this last part is the problem here), etc,etc.

However there IS a huge difference between the trans girl and non-trans girl which also allows me to see how the non-trans girls have a basis to claim the right of privacy from trans girls just as they have the right of privacy from men.

In all areas BUT in privacy there is no clash when it comes to the rights of these groups.

Instead of acknowledging said similarities and differences, on this issue we have the trans wrongly stating that there are no differences between them and non-trans.

Trans is a third gender. It should have the same rights as the gender they identify is in all areas except privacy. If trans cannot accept that then it is very likely they will get their way out of sheer political correctness but it will not change how people IN the bathrooms will see/treat them as a breach to their privacy.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

07 Sep 2015, 8:08 pm

Quote:
I think there would be a big backlash claiming sexism and openly shame the male students, if male students protested a biological female's access to their restroom.

There is no way male students would get away with it publicly without a massive controversy and most likely a lawsuit handed to them.


Yes, that's exactly what would happen. The whole world is out to get men. :roll:



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 Sep 2015, 9:50 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Dantac wrote:

Here you have a case of a trans-girl demanding her rights be upheld over the rights of non-trans girls so that the trans person does not feel discriminated against... but in the process the trans person is demanding the right of privacy of non-trans girls be waived.

Rights of Trans girl = Rights of non-trans girl ... OK.
Rights of Trans girl > Rights of non-trans girl ... not OK.

I can do a blood test and prove the trans girl is not XX. I can take brain scans of the trans girl and prove that the wiring is different than XY and has elements/similarities to XX (but it is not in the variance range of 'identical' as scans from non-trans girls would output).



You would deny a non-trans XY female access to the women's room?



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

08 Sep 2015, 6:11 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Dantac wrote:

Here you have a case of a trans-girl demanding her rights be upheld over the rights of non-trans girls so that the trans person does not feel discriminated against... but in the process the trans person is demanding the right of privacy of non-trans girls be waived.

Rights of Trans girl = Rights of non-trans girl ... OK.
Rights of Trans girl > Rights of non-trans girl ... not OK.

I can do a blood test and prove the trans girl is not XX. I can take brain scans of the trans girl and prove that the wiring is different than XY and has elements/similarities to XX (but it is not in the variance range of 'identical' as scans from non-trans girls would output).



You would deny a non-trans XY female access to the women's room?


I assume you're referring to your earlier link of the genetic male born with female sex organs and has lived all her life as female then they would fall under the category of trans for all practical purposes because they are no different than an XY trans that identifies as female that has had sex reassignment surgery.

Let's not kid ourselves here... this XY female would be just like an XY trans female that has gone through sexual re-assignment surgery....and not trigger privacy/safety/whatever red flag response in XX females because for all practical purposes they have 'committed' or 'renounced' if you will, the male parts. On the flip side, a male with a wig is nothing like that and does trigger it.

What I'm saying is there should be a unisex bathroom for third gender. I know that a more female than most females XY trans that has gone through sex reassignment surgery and this XY female would not trigger the same response as a guy with a wig would (regardless of if trans or not) and I know that a more male looking than female XY trans female that has gone through sex reassignment surgery would trigger the response.

Each individual needs to have a sense of understanding of their own reality. If you're XY trans female with sex change surgery and you know there's simply no way you cannot be spotted right away as being born male then use the unisex facilities. If you're XY trans female with the surgery that is very feminine and easily passes for a female then that person needs to use own judgement to use the unisex or female bathroom.

You can't write into law absolutes but you must keep it as fair as possible and without waiving the rights of others. In this situation you have the privacy rights of 50% of the population being waived for what could be a single digit % of the population to get access to something which they can easily be provided a separate facility for.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

08 Sep 2015, 8:14 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
Quote:
I think there would be a big backlash claiming sexism and openly shame the male students, if male students protested a biological female's access to their restroom.

There is no way male students would get away with it publicly without a massive controversy and most likely a lawsuit handed to them.


Yes, that's exactly what would happen. The whole world is out to get men. :roll:

I didn't say that.
Though here in the U.S. any perceived sexism against females receives a huge public response.


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

08 Sep 2015, 9:42 pm

The "right to privacy" argument was used to try to prevent African American people from using white bathrooms, too.

...and in the early 70's to try to beat down the ERA.

...and when I was in grade & middle school, there was an attempt to integrate kids with various degrees of severe learning & developmental disabilities into neurotypical classrooms. "Mainstreaming" they called it. One of the arguments I remember quite clearly from a loud meeting of parents and administrators. Certain parents loudly claimed that the kids who were different should *not* be allowed to use the same bathrooms as the NT kids. Because they wouldn't understand social boundaries. Or might be dangerous. Sexual predators, even. And because of this, their children's right to privacy would be diminished if "those people" were allowed to use the same restroom as their precious sons and daughters.

At the time, things like the autistic spectrum weren't as well understood as they are now. "Those kids" included aspies, HFA's and LFA's. One of the suggestions was that they be given "separate but equal" facilities. The real goal of course was to always keep them separate from the NT kids, out of sight. Ideally, locked up in the proverbial attic like in the old days, but I think they knew that was no longer a viable option.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan