ver 150 Students Walk Out Of School To Protest Transgender Teen Using Girls’ Locker Room

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SagesStone**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Wow... This thread is growing so quickly! I can't read it all.

In any case, to me the solution seems simple. Just say that the changing rooms are divided by biological sex, not by gender. Problem solved and no need for "gender-neutral" nonsense which imo solves nothing (what the hell is 'gender-neutral' supposed to be anyway?)

Also, how come this transgender thing seems to be such an issue in the US but not in the Netherlands or most other European countries?

This really, just make a third one. And murica is just really sensitive lately, you don't understand how it feels!

**Ghazkuul**

Ashiraya wrote:
I support a gender neutral locker room/etc. because it helps reduce conflict and awkwardness (believe me, many transpeople feel awkward with either locker room, albeit for different reasons).

I doubt people 'taking advantage of the system' is really going to be a thing beyond one of those once-every-three-years scandals we see plastered all over the headlines.

I thin you underestimate peoples willingness to circumvent the system. I can't tell you how many people "Became" gay so they could marry a buddy and go live off base and receive BAH. Don't get me wrong, not many of the Gay marriages in the military were for BAH benefits but enough were questionable at best to make me hate how people take advantage of the system.

**agnosto**

Ashiraya wrote:
I support a gender neutral locker room/etc. because it helps reduce conflict and awkwardness (believe me, many transpeople feel awkward with either locker room, albeit for different reasons).

I doubt people 'taking advantage of the system' is really going to be a thing beyond one of those once-every-three-years scandals we see plastered all over the headlines.

The issue in this story is that the student was offered and accepted a gender-neutral option and utilized it for some time and then, this year, decided that she no longer felt it was sufficient to her needs for whatever reason. The school treated her with dignity and respect but she chose to make an issue of it later and then on TV say that anyone who has an issue is a bigot. This situation has "cry for attention" written all over it.

Where the district dropped the ball is in failing to communicate the change from previous years accommodations to this year's with the rest of the concerned stakeholders. This has been shown to be successful to one extent or another in similar cases around the country. Lack of communication creates mountains out of mole-hills and schools do not have the luxury of working in silos.

**nkelsch**

Ghazkuul wrote:

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")

Children shouldn't be having sex before being 18 in my personal belief system, therefor they should ban homosexuality in children because I know for a fact they are not old enough to 'know' if they choose to be gay... It is a choice right? I know more about their body and their brain chemistry than they do. If they only live by my rules everyone is ok right?

All this talk of separate locker rooms was the same excuses when people believed all homosexuals were sexual deviants and perverts and they were afraid of showering with a guy who might be attracted to their junk. Considering a majority of states already have court-affirmed legislation in place preventing discrimination and allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with regardless of surgery, and we haven't had mass raping or pervert peepers going into locker rooms, can you all realize youa re just regurgitating the same failed lies which are done whenever a majority wants to oppress a minority? It was done with race, it was done with gender, it was done with sexual preference and it was found out to be ILLEGAL and made up worries based upon lies in every case.

And every case people said "no, this time it is different!" and in every case they were wrong.

And the total lack of understanding of gender vs sex vs genetics is staggering... along with the 'we know everything' attitude when there is so much unknown.

Guess what? There is more than XX and XY
Guess what? 1/2000 people with Chromosomes have opposite genitals to their genetic code. Most never know unless they get a genetic test as it doesn't impact them.
Guess what? 1/20000 people have something other than XX and XY and are genetically neither or both.
Guess what? You guys keep saying 'bioligically male' but the brain is part of a persons biology and there is so much we don't know, especially in the 'nature vs nurture' debate as well as sexual preference. So much of what makes us people is hardcoded in our gentics and we barley even know a tiny percentage of it. To make absolute statements about 'biology makes you *THIS*' when there is so many KNOWN exceptions to that rule and so much unknown makes peopel look ignorant. Much how people KNEW that African Americans were sub-human based on known science at the time.

The law is going the way of 'gender identity', not 'junk test', not 'separate but equal'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Where the district dropped the ball is in failing to communicate the change from previous years accommodations to this year's with the rest of the concerned stakeholders. This has been shown to be successful to one extent or another in similar cases around the country. Lack of communication creates mountains out of mole-hills and schools do not have the luxury of working in silos.

You are not a stakeholder in what bathroom a transgender person uses any more than you are a stakeholder by seeing an interracial couple or homosexual couple kiss in public. If everyone who 'might see it and feel icky' is a stakeholder, then we would be able to ban virtually anything by majority rule and abuse virtually any civil right.

The law is the law, this state simply has crappy ones which allow individual situations like this to make news.

The Feds already have standards and many states have laws.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3795.pdf

**Kilkrazy**

Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.

There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.

I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? ...

These are different things.

I really don't think you can make children not think about their developing sexuality, it's a normal part of growing up.

**d-usa**

Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.

There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.

I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")

Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.

I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.

I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.

**-Shrike-**

d-usa wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.

There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.

I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")

Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.

I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.

I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.

Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?

**Ghazkuul**

You know what the biggest difference is here though? Most little kids don't identify as "Gay" or "Straight" until they get into middle school at the earliest, why? because they haven't hit that part of their development where sexual orientation has even become known to them. But for some reason you have little kids who are identifying as the opposite sex they were born even before they can even understand it.

Also comparing Segregation to this is ridiculous and you really shouldn't throw that out here. Nobody is taking away rights or anything of the sort. If anything this will limit the bullying that will happen and keep children (because they are children) from seeing the opposite gender's genitalia until they reach a certain age (Hopefully high school or later). And, people WILL mess with the system and try to abuse it because that is human nature, that is why earlier I suggested that people not be allowed to self identify as the opposite gender until they are evaluated by a psychologist to prove that they do indeed suffer from gender dysphoria. Lastly, this wouldn't continue onward into adult life, this is just a stop gap until children develop to a certain maturity level and can make this kind of decision on their own without outside influence.

**nkelsch**

-Shrike- wrote:

Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?

You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?

Guess what? Parents handle it how they want to, and many do take them in for genetic testing and counseling, especially around puberty when they begin missing certain benchmarks.

But most laws are based upon how they identify, no junk checks, and the 'trans panic' people have spread around is an urban myth with zero incidents to back it up.

Colorado

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2008. In 2008, Colorado expanded its Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, to include sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class. [The Denver Post, 5/29/08]

Coalition Against Sexual Assault: Opponents Of Protections Are Creating "Unsubstantiated Fear." Alexa M. Priddy, director of training and communications at the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, reported no problems as a result of her state's non-discrimination law. In an email to Media Matters, she wrote:

Denying equal rights is yet another form of discrimination against transgender individuals, which is pervasive within our society and institutions. Such criticisms of this law and ads [that] invoke what we see as "trans panic," an attempt to create fear of transgender people and a false label of trans individuals as sexual predators.

CCASA would love to see the real focus be on the realities that transgender people are far too often targeted for sexual violence, and if they seek support through victim services or the criminal justice system in the aftermath, they often face continued discrimination from the very people who are there to help. Sexual assault is already an under-reported crime, and we see this increase with marginalized communities. We want to focus on creating safety for transgender survivors and not on creating unsubstantiated fear. [Email exchange, 3/8/14]

Connecticut

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity or expression. [Bay Windows, 7/6/11]

State Commission On Human Rights: "Unaware Of Any Sexual Assault." In an email to Media Matters, Jim O'Neill, legislative liaison and spokesman for the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in Opportunities, reported no problems as a result of the state's non-discrimination law:

I am unaware of any sexual assault as the result of the CT gender identity or expression law. I'm pretty sure it would have come to our attention. [Email exchange, 3/6/14]

Hawaii

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2006. In 2006, Hawaii expanded its non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/12/14]

State Civil Rights Commission: Non-Discrimination Law "Has Not Resulted In Increase[d] Sexual Assault Or Rape." William Hoshijo, executive director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, told Media Matters in an email:

In Hawai`i, the protection against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sex, including gender identity or expression, has not resulted in increase sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms. The HCRC is not aware of any incidents of sexual assault or rape causally related or attributed to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. (In contrast to anecdotal reports of transgender students being harassed and bullied in school restrooms when forced to use an assigned restroom inconsistent with their gender identity.) [Email exchange, 3/6/14]

Iowa

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, the Iowa Civil Rights Act was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [Iowa Civil Rights Commission, accessed 3/14/14]

Des Moines Police Department: "We Have Not Seen That." In an interview with Media Matters, Des Moines Police Department spokesman Jason Halifax stated that he hadn't seen cases of sexual assault related to the state's non-discrimination ordinance:

We have not seen that. I doubt that's gonna encourage the behavior. If the behavior's there, [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they're gonna behave no matter what the laws are. [Phone interview, 3/13/14]

Maine

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2005. In 2005, Maine adopted legislation prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. [GLAD, 2/25/14]

State Human Rights Commission: "No Factual Basis" For Sexual Assault Fears. In an email to Media Matters, Executive Director Amy Sneirson of the Maine Human Rights Commission said that the state's non-discrimination law hadn't led to increased sexual assault or rape:

I know that this concern persists but I personally have not seen any factual basis for it.

I am not aware of any increased sexual assault or rape in women's restrooms as a result of Maine's 2005 adoption of protections in the Maine Human Rights Act for sexual orientation (which, in Maine, includes "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression"). [Email exchange, 3/7/14]

Massachusetts

Cambridge Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1997. In 1997, the city of Cambridge expanded its non-discrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, July 2008]

Cambridge Police Superintendent: "No Incidents" Of Transgender Protections Being Abused. Police Superintendent Christopher Burke told Media Matters in an email:

Back in 1984 Cambridge enacted an ordinance that established the Human Rights Commission. The purpose of the ordinance was to protect the human rights of all citizens of the City. In 1997 this ordinance was amended to specifically include gender identity and expression. Much like the Transgender Equal Rights Bill proposal, the City of Cambridge sought to offer protection to transgender individuals from being harassed, fired from a job, denied access to a public place, or denied or evicted from housing. Since this 1997 amendment there have been no incidents or issues regarding persons abusing this ordinance or using them as a defense to commit crimes. Specifically, as was raised as a concern if the bill were to be passed, there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added]

State Victims' Advocacy Group: Fears About Transgender Protections Are "Beyond Specious." Toni Troop, spokeswoman for the statewide sexual assault victims organization Jane Doe Inc., told Media Matters in an email:

The argument that providing transgender rights will result in an increase of sexual violence against women or men in public bathrooms is beyond specious. The only people at risk are the transgender men and women whose rights to self-determination, dignity and freedom of violence are too often denied. We have not heard of any problems since the passage of the law in Massachusetts in 2011, nor do we expect this to be a problem. While cases of stranger rape and sexual violence occur, sexual violence is most often perpetrated by someone known to the victim and not a stranger in the bush or the bathroom. [Email exchange, 3/7/14, emphasis added]

Minnesota

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 1993. In 1993, Minnesota amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against transgender people in public accommodations. [OutFront Minnesota, accessed 3/13/14]

Minneapolis Police Department: Fears About Sexual Assault "Not Even Remotely" A Problem. Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder told Media Matters in an interview that sexual assaults stemming from Minnesota's 1993 transgender non-discrimination law have been "not even remotely" a problem. Based on his experience, the notion of men posing as transgender women to enter women's restrooms to commit sex crimes "sounds a little silly," Elder said. According to Elder, a police department inquiry found "nothing" in the way of such crimes in the city. [Phone interview, 3/11/14]

Nevada

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2011. In 2011, Nevada enacted three transgender non-discrimination laws, including a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. [National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 6/2/11]

Las Vegas Police Department: No Problems Since Passage Of Non-Discrimination Law. Asked whether Nevada's 2011 gender identity law had fueled a rise in sex crimes, Las Vegas Police Department spokesman Jesse Roybal told Media Matters, "the answer would be no." After the department's lieutenant for sexual assault ran a check of crimes since 2011, Roybal told Media Matters that the department had not "had any incidents involving transgender suspects." [Phone interview, 3/6/14, 3/11/14]

New Mexico

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2003. In 2003, New Mexico amended its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations. [The Williams Institute, September 2009]

Albuquerque Police Department: "Unaware Of Any Cases Of Assault" Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Officer Tasia Martinez, Public Information Officer for the Albuquerque Police Department, told Media Matters in an email:

We are unaware of any cases of assault in our city as a result of transgendered [sic] accommodations. [Email exchange, 3/13/14]

Oregon

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Oregon enacted the Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. [Lambda Legal, accessed 3/13/14]

Bureau of Labor And Industries: "Zero Allegations" Of Assault Due To 2007 Law. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman Charlie Burr told Media Matters in an email:

The Oregon Equality Act protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians in employment, housing and public places and has done so without any incidents of LGBT assaults on women in public restrooms that we're aware of. Our agency has encountered zero allegations of LGBT assault related to this public accommodation protection. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]

Portland Police Department: "I Have Never Heard Of Any Issues Like This." Portland Police Department spokesman Peter Simpson wrote in an email to Media Matters:

I have never heard of any issues like this in Portland. We have a very low rate of sexual assault/rape crimes here overall. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]

Rhode Island

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2001. In 2001, Rhode Island explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in public accommodations. [GLAD, 2/25/14]

State Commission for Human Rights: No Increase In Sex Crimes Due To Non-Discrimination Law. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights Executive Director Michael D. Evora told Media Matters in an email:

The Commission for Human Rights has not taken in any cases alleging gender identity discrimination in respect to bathroom usage in public facilities since the law was amended to prohibit such discrimination. In addition, we are not aware of any affect the passage of the law has had on incidents of assault in public restrooms. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]

Vermont

State Law Has Prohibited Discrimination In Public Accommodations Since 2007. In 2007, Vermont explicitly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations. [GLAD, 3/4/14]

State Human Rights Commission: "We Are Not Aware" Of Any Problems From Non-Discrimination Law. In an email to Media Matters, the Vermont Human Rights Commission's Karen Richards said:

I have only been here a short time so was checking with my staff to find out if they were aware of any issues. ... We are not aware of any other issues or problems similar to this caused by prohibiting discrimination against those who are transgendered. [Email exchange, 3/7/14]

Montpelier Police Department: No Complaints. Montpelier Police Chief Tony Facos responded to an email inquiry about whether the state's non-discrimination law had led to incidents of rape or sexual assault in women's restrooms, stating, "We do not have any complaints related to this issue." [Email exchange, 3/10/14]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghazkuul wrote:
Nobody is taking away rights or anything of the sort.

The federal government disagrees with you, the courts disagree with you and a majority of states disagree with you.

And your 'human nature' is an urban myth based upon ignorant panic not based on facts. There have been laws ont he books for close to 10 years and the rate of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes is zero.

**Ghazkuul**

d-usa wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.

There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.

I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")

Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.

I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.

I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.

I am not "Dismissive" or "insulting" towards gender dysphoria, I just don't want my children going to school and being exposed to seeing the opposite gender naked in bathrooms/locker rooms until a certain age. If your ok with mixing gender bathrooms/locker rooms then just get rid of the entire semblance of segregation between the genders at schools and the work place. No more Mens rooms/womans rooms it is just the bathroom. But if your not ok with that then you need to realize that this is why people have a problem with this issue.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?

You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?

The irony of that is breathtaking as that is what you are recommending, not just for parenting, but for all of society, and then pretty much slamming them as being bigots because they don't hop to.

So far the school has offered:

* a separate facility.
* the use of same sex facilities.

I don't see how you can reasonably ask for more and in any way countenance that, guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

The person can partiicpate in all activities in whatever role they desire.

**d-usa**

Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because fething up a person for 18 years simply because other people don't know or believe that it is not just a case of simply choosing gender like its the flavor of the month is stupid.

There are many valid discussions about how to help transgender kids and normal kids integrate together and how we deal with that as a society, and that's fine. But forcing a guy to be a girl or a girl to be a guy for 18 years because you don't believe it is a thing is not a solution, it is damaging.

I just specifically said they can self identify all they want, I don't feel children are mature enough to make that kind of decision yet. Researchers have said that the Human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, we haven't even finished developing yet and people are talking about making that kind of a decision.

How can you tell me it is ok for a 8-12 year old to self identify as a female regardless of the fact that they were Born a boy, but it is not ok for them to do other tasks such as drinking/smoking/voting/military service/driving a car? We have age restrictions on everything, 99% of the time for safety or because we as a society have rules we adhere to, but these kids are ok to make decisions which could literally kill them later on (Transgender have the HIGHEST attempted suicide rate of any gender identity "41%")

Not to be an ass, but not being able to smoke or vote is not going to feth you up psychologically, but being forced to live as one gender when you are another will.

I know that it is not your intention, but a lot of your posts are very dismissive and insulting to the problems and realities of being transgender. The suicide rate is a problem, but it is fixed by helping transgender people address their problems early. Basically going "I couldn't smoke until I was 18, why do you think you should be able to choose what gender you are" isn't helping with fixing the atmosphere that contributes to suicides, especially since it ignores the reality that someone doesn't choose at 18, they lived that reality for 18 years before that.

I don't think we would argue that veteran suicides are up, so we should maybe keep people from identifying as veterans so early.

I am not "Dismissive" or "insulting" towards gender dysphoria, I just don't want my children going to school and being exposed to seeing the opposite gender naked in bathrooms/locker rooms until a certain age. If your ok with mixing gender bathrooms/locker rooms then just get rid of the entire semblance of segregation between the genders at schools and the work place. No more Mens rooms/womans rooms it is just the bathroom. But if your not ok with that then you need to realize that this is why people have a problem with this issue.

I know you don't mean to be insulting, that's why I even mentioned it.

But comparing gender identity to choosing to smoke or getting a tattoo does exactly that. It is dismissive and it is insulting, but I don't think that you are doing it with any mean intend.

I'm not mentioning it to criticize you for it, I'm mentioning it to help you realize you are doing it.

**nkelsch**

Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violating multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub. You're not talking bathrooms, you are talking dressing rooms, with open nudity.

And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.

**Crablezworth**

nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Wow, you're really bad at convincing people of stuff. You basically just wrote "because feth you that's why". I also can't help but notice you left out about 200 people "being impacted" who likely have some gradient to what they think and what they feel. But by the playbook put forward. screw those other 200 hundred students, they're all bigoted and any issue or discomfort they have can simply be generalized as bigotry, and boom we don't have to care about what they think, they're the other.

This is the social justice warrior crap people feel is tired. I hear plenty of parents who aren't monsters, who want to be empathetic and pragmatic, they just don't want their teenager seeing wang, and from the sounds of it, that's no longer an issue. Imagine that, those bigots being pragmatic enough to rationalize the difference between a bathroom and a change room.

We all remember that lovely morgan freeman quote about how he doesn't like the word homophobia because he feels people aren't scared of gays, they're just donkey-caves. I would tend to agree with him for the most part, however there genuinely are people of religious faith who are genuinely believing this stuff and suffer real emotions. I just find it odd we're to give them no benefit of the doubt but must trust anyone of any age about their gender and put aside all potential discomfort or emotional distress or possibly religious conflict. It's difficult to distinguish the far left from the far right at this point, they both power trip on authoritarianism.

**SagesStone**

nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

I support them if they want to make that change, I know people in the process of and who want to make that change. But I do not appreciate it when people feel the need to take a decision they made by themselves and decide to push it onto others saying "deal with it it's not fair to me" when it should be fair to both people. It's that pushy SJW crap that is the real issue, because you are not pushing equality at that point you're pushing one group ahead of others just because of something that makes them different. Which somewhat should be seen as insulting to that group as well as they would need to be treated like delicate snowflakes instead of as people like everyone else, yet which isn't complained about because there isn't a perceived negative to it for them.

**nkelsch**

Frazzled wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.

Sorry, in America it DOES work that way Bub...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.

**SagesStone**

nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.

Sorry, in America it DOES work that way Bub...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.

I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.

**-Shrike-**

nkelsch wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:

Just out of interest, what are the laws about identifying as a different gender (especially as a child)? Is there any kind of psychological/genetic testing, or is it a case of taking them at their word?

You going to legislate parenting? You going to make it illegal for a girl to wear pants and a ninja turtles shirt without genetic testing?

Tone down the fething snark. I was genuinely interested in what I asked about. To make it clear: what is the prerequisite for a child to be treated as (i.e. gain use of facilities designated for) a different gender to that they were given at birth?

Guess what? Parents handle it how they want to, and many do take them in for genetic testing and counseling, especially around puberty when they begin missing certain benchmarks.

But most laws are based upon how they identify, no junk checks, and the 'trans panic' people have spread around is an urban myth with zero incidents to back it up.

None of which answers my question.

**CptJake**

n0t_u wrote:
The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.

**Sigvatr**

As a matter of fact, a boy used the girl's locker room. Period. That's mostly likely against school policy. Refusing a gender-neutral restroom shows merely one thing: he wants to stir people up instead of getting a solution that benefits everyone, i.e. unisex room.

**Crablezworth**

Transcending a binary by presenting a binary does no one any favours. This is the cross progressives will die on because it's about as intellectually stimulating as "ur with us or ur with da terrorists".

Science has proven the 37th time you label someone a bigot they drop all ltheier personal beliefs and embrace yours, which is of course synonymous with progress and in no way subjective.

**SagesStone**

CptJake wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.

True I hadn't actually thought of them and it would be insulting to tell them to use the handicapped toilet as well (since those seem to generally be gender neutral).

**-Shrike-**

CptJake wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

It may be a solution in a resource unconstrained environment, unfortunately in the real world, sometimes folks operate in a resource constrained environment. Making a 3rd shower/locker room costs $$$. Many counties are struggling as is. If the numbers someone posted above are close to accurate (1:20,000 and 1:2,000 or .005% and .05% ) then expending those resources makes very little sense.

1:20,000 is the one you want to look at. 1:2,000 is the one where nobody notices without genetic testing. D-usa had a good explanation a while back.

**nkelsch**

n0t_u wrote:

I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.

When other people 'debate' by making up fake 'harm' and exercising fake 'rights' and rely mostly on a manufactured trans-panic which has no stats or evidence to back it up, it makes it hard to take them seriously.

I think legal precedent and the track-record of zero harm caused to these so-called 'stakeholders' by states who have instituted protections for transgender much more convincing. I find actual evidence, much better than made up mumbo jumbo based upon an array of questionable motivations.

**Crablezworth**

I''ve decided I'm a gir todayl - I'll take your word for it

Undressing around the opposite sex causes me emotional distress, a form of mental harm - you're lying, you bigot!

Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around them in a state of undress, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

And quite with the snarky bs boigot comments. You're just trying to shut everything down and its as pathetic as it is sad.

And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other races, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other genders, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.
And YOU don't have rights to force other people to be around other sexual orientations, violating social norms for thousands of years in most civilizations, violting multiple religions, and the rights of parents. It doesn't work that way, Bub.

*Social norms change, and rightly so because many of them are bigoted and abusive.
*Religions control on the populations have been scaled back as they have been found to violate people's human rights when forced upon people who don't practice the religion. When someone has an religious exception, they can REMOVE THEMSELVES, not require others be removed.
*Some parents don't believe in interracial dating or homosexuality... Do they have the right to ban those things from visible society because they want to raise their children a certain way? Your rights end when you try to apply your parenting to other people's kids. You don't like it you remove your child, or parent them by setting context.

Sorry, in America it DOES work that way Bub...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
guess what the rest of the people being impacted have rights as well, and until there is a physical change, there hasn't been a physical change.

Actually, you don't. You don't have rights over other people's bodies or how they exercise their personal freedoms. And no one is being impacted except the transgendered person being denied basic human rights.

Just because a few states are lagging behind and we haven't had any cases elevate to the supreme court yet doesn't mean you have a right to 'not be in a bathroom with a transgendered person'.

Same old playbook, same scaretactics, same claims of being harmed when zero harm is done... Glad we all know how this ends...

Equality for all not for some. The best solution is a third room that's set out as well as any other, they were offered their own private room and used it for a year before deciding it was inadequate. It solves the issue for everyone without having to decide who is just going to have to "deal with it".

Except many courts have found that to be a violation of people's rights, while using your identified gender violates no ones rights.

SO...
No one is saying hey be what you want.
No one is saying hey take the PE class you want.
No one is saying you have to be x or y.
All they are saying is, the girls don't want a swinging dick in their locker.

Yea good luck finding a court case that mandates that. frankly you're the bigot here. You're demanding that everyone kowtow beyond areas of common decency. Thats horse gak and it won;t wash in the real world.

**nkelsch**

Crablezworth wrote:
I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.

We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?

If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.

**SagesStone**

nkelsch wrote:
n0t_u wrote:

I'm glad you can dismiss a debate over to "but the courts said so" like the extremely religious spend hours throwing segments of a book at each other instead of actually thinking and making discussion. You can use support to make your point, but your support alone is not a point.

When other people 'debate' by making up fake 'harm' and exercising fake 'rights' and rely mostly on a manufactured trans-panic which has no stats or evidence to back it up, it makes it hard to take them seriously.

I think legal precedent and the track-record of zero harm caused to these so-called 'stakeholders' by states who have instituted protections for transgender much more convincing. I find actual evidence, much better than made up mumbo jumbo based upon an array of questionable motivations.

Yes I agree actually. I'm looking at it this way really, no matter the solution here you're basically going to be impacting on someone's rights somewhat. The third room solution while needing the most resources to enact would be the most neutral and least likely to impact on anyone's rights. Most of this debate like the gay marriage one seems to mostly be more based on people's religious beliefs than worrying about rights all that much. Sure they need to be treated better, but not at the expense of others.

As for the track record; there's obviously going to be evidence to support male on male and female on female violence withing their toilets as well which compared to the zero harm caused by the transgender can only then by that logic lead to one conclusion; males shouldnt be allowed to use the male toilets and females shouldn't be allowed to use the female toilets; they both should have to use a third gender neutral room where there would currently be safest when compared to these statistics, then the transgendered would be free to use which they identify with.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:
I
Don't go down the harm road, please, don't. If you don't see the irony in saying that 200+ teenagers are all faking harm while telling everyone else to 100% trust anyone who has the slightest of gender issues you won't succeed. Full stop.

We have millions of people in states currently getting by without issue. What makes those 200 students more 'harmed' by being in Missouri except of a fake perception put there by their parents?

If there is evidence of harm, please present it outside of manufactured scenarios which don't exist. I have provided evidence from the states with transgender laws which show there are zero incidents of people abusing gender identity to commit crimes or breach people's rights.

Please show me the millions of people in states where public school girls are forced to be disrobed in a gym with a swinging dick. Besides your Porkiesesque fantasy that dog don't hunt.