Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

Recommended Posts

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

 

 

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

 

 

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

 

Really? why do all the anti-LBGT laws come from the bible belt? Its the sinners stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

 

Or not. You guys are too quick to believe things.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-rep-slams-report-considered-de-transition-article-1.2634440

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/jennergender.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

 

 

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

 

Really? why do all the anti-LBGT laws come from the bible belt? Its the sinners stupid.

 

 

GULP..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

 

 

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

 

We look back on segregation as a shameful practice in our history, do we not? We look back and see so much ignorance. Well, 50 years from now, people will look back on the fight to allow two people who share a gender to marry, and think much the same. Similarly, folks will look back on this episode and shake their head at the Dabnis-level ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

 

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

 

 

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

 

We look back on segregation as a shameful practice in our history, do we not? We look back and see so much ignorance. Well, 50 years from now, people will look back on the fight to allow two people who share a gender to marry, and think much the same. Similarly, folks will look back on this episode and shake their head at the Dabnis-level ignorance.

 

You must be referring to the recent history of the democrat party.. Yes the marriage license was indeed created by these same forces. Before that it was not the concern of the state. Now they want to dictate the behavior of bisexual, crossdressing and gender confused 5 year olds while they support tyrannical governments that stone women for adultery....

 

Congrats on your "head shaking" gullibility, ignorance and stupidity..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't get it. Does someone contemplate that a transgender person is going to walk into the restroom and shout "I'm transgender and I'm here to look at your pee pee"!!!??? I don't even know how you'd know if a TG person was peeing in the stall next to you unless you're peeking under the divider or something.........if that happens then the issue isn't the gender......

 

Haven't people ever been to a concert and had a woman or two run into the men's head because the line was too long in the woman's head and take cuts in front of the line to pee in one of the stalls. Never seen anybody outraged at that...........

It seems like some folks can only feel better about themselves by making some weaker or smaller group feel worse about themselves.

The religious right have moral superiority. What good is superiority if you can't use it?

Do you find it inconceivable that even non-religious folks might object to this?

Really? why do all the anti-LBGT laws come from the bible belt? Its the sinners stupid.

My objection to this over reach has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-LGBT. And I'm pretty sure Len's, AGITC's and others objection stated here have nothing to do with it either. It's inconceivable to you that someone could have a principled objection to something and it have nothing to do with a sky fairy.

 

I maintain this is a manufactured wedge issue by the "T's" because they felt they could take advantage of what they thought was a change in mood in the US. I think they've miscalculated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this being used much more for as a wedge issue for the conservative republicans than the LGBT community. The Charlotte ordinance would have been a little discussed local issue until the conservative forces at the NC State Legislature got into the act.

 

Of course now that it is happened both the Rs and the Ds are going to try to use it to their advantage and to get out the vote, but I think it will be a bigger boon for the Republicans as it fits into the narrative of the godless liberals taking over the country. Those who pushed for the Charlotte ordinance had done so at the local level. Hard to argue that they were trying to create a wedge issue when they were keeping it quiet and local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this being used much more for as a wedge issue for the conservative republicans than the LGBT community. The Charlotte ordinance would have been a little discussed local issue until the conservative forces at the NC State Legislature got into the act.

 

Of course now that it is happened both the Rs and the Ds are going to try to use it to their advantage and to get out the vote, but I think it will be a bigger boon for the Republicans as it fits into the narrative of the godless liberals taking over the country. Those who pushed for the Charlotte ordinance had done so at the local level. Hard to argue that they were trying to create a wedge issue when they were keeping it quiet and local.

 

Bullshit, it's a wedge issue created by the LGBT community. It hasn't been necessary for human history but suddenly we need laws to protect those who haven't needed protection in the past.

 

If you look at where these laws are passed, it's in communities, like Charlotte, Key West, San Francisco, etc. that are already LGBT friendly. The very place that the laws are NOT needed.

 

I'll stick with a whiney cry for attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheer lunacy:

 

 

That’s the only way to describe the Obama administration’s decision to enforce the full “trans rights” agenda on the nation — in public accommodations, and in school bathrooms and locker rooms.

 

Yes, polite society in progressive precincts has embraced the idea that those with non-standard “gender identities” deserve the same protections as racial and other minorities.

 

But that idea surely never entered the mind of any lawmaker who voted for (or against!) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any of the other laws Team Obama is citing as authority for its actions.

 

And while Americans are good with “live and let live,” most will be outraged at Uncle Sam ordering their local school to let biological boys change in the girls’ high-school locker room.

 

 

http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/feds-push-for-trans-rights-in-us-schools-is-simply-insane/

 

 

It is all about control. Liberals are morons and they are tyrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

 

Or not. You guys are too quick to believe things.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-rep-slams-report-considered-de-transition-article-1.2634440

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/jennergender.asp

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

 

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?
If there's a link that you are posting in this context, there is a 99.9% chance that there is no content from anyone remotely related to transgender people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?
If there's a link that you are posting in this context, there is a 99.9% chance that there is no content from anyone remotely related to transgender people.

 

Messenger down! We've got a messenger down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?
If there's a link that you are posting in this context, there is a 99.9% chance that there is no content from anyone remotely related to transgender people.

 

Messenger down! We've got a messenger down.

Someone who has said that perception is reality has no principles, and therefore no message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

 

Or not. You guys are too quick to believe things.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-rep-slams-report-considered-de-transition-article-1.2634440

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/jennergender.asp

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

 

Cite please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?
If there's a link that you are posting in this context, there is a 99.9% chance that there is no content from anyone remotely related to transgender people.

 

Messenger down! We've got a messenger down.

Here's documentation of Heyer's debunked stuff, which Dog is trying to Doggy Style on us:

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/02/what-the-media-should-know-about-walt-heyer-and/203855

 

Here's the part about the author's regret: he even admits that he was "misdiagnosed" and was actually suffering with "a dissociative disorder that required talk therapy, not surgery."

 

Soooo, we're still looking for the website from a transgender person, as I predicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

A site for transgender people, with content by the TheFederalist.com. Is that a perception or reality website?

 

Does that violate your notion of how transgenders are supposed to think?
If there's a link that you are posting in this context, there is a 99.9% chance that there is no content from anyone remotely related to transgender people.

 

Messenger down! We've got a messenger down.

Someone who has said that perception is reality has no principles, and therefore no message.

 

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

 

Cite please.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-transgender-penner_N.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

 

Cite please.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-02-24-transgender-penner_N.htm

 

So one doctor's experience is a reliable study, as long as it gives the perception you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know one actual transgender person and she's really good with marine electrics. Stopped off to see her a few years ago bringing Saorsa south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analysis_of_All_Applications_for_Sex_Reassignment_Surgery_in_Sweden_1960-2010_Prevalence_Incidence_and_Regrets

 

 

2.2%, from 1960-2010. Still a significant number, so no need to go with the perception over the reality.

 

You trying to create a new reality?

 

 

There were 15 (5MF and 10 MF) regret applications corresponding to a 2.2 % regret rate for both sexes. There was a significant decline of regrets over the time period

 

An Analysis of All Applications for Sex Reassignment Surgery in Sweden, 1960-2010: Prevalence, Incidence, and Regrets (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analysis_of_All_Applications_for_Sex_Reassignment_Surgery_in_Sweden_1960-2010_Prevalence_Incidence_and_Regrets[accessed May 14, 2016].

 

The 2.2% number is the number of folks who requested surgical reversal. That means the ones that really, really regretted it enough to go back.

 

I don't see the figure for those who decided not to go through the procedure again after they regretted the original decision and surgery.

 

Perhaps they figured out the problem was not in their genitals but in their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks might find this interesting.

 

 


Subtypes of GD in adults, defined by sexual orientation and age of onset, have been described; these display different developmental trajectories and prognoses. Prevalence studies conclude that fewer than 1 in 10,000 adult natal males and 1 in 30,000 adult natal females experience GD, but such estimates vary widely. GD in adults is associated with an elevated prevalence of comorbid psychopathology, especially mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and suicidality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that the reasons for sex change varies across the spectrum from stupid to mentally ill to legitimate biological "mistakes". I'm sure some of the persons who make that effort/change regret it. I'm sure some don't. My personal anecdotal experience with two I worked with - one in each direction - was different for each. One - guy to woman - was pretty normal before and not at all happy/satisfied afterwards. He/she left the job and I heard he/she wanted to go back after some number of years (he became a REALLY ugly woman). The other woman to man was quite happy afterwards......very normal person.

 

So, we could speculate about the reasons and numbers who regret it or don't but I think its a bit too complex and varied to generalize in any meaningful way, especially when talking about individual people and their journey instead of broadly characterizing all TG folks as the same.

 

Still..............all that speculation seems meaningless in the context of individual rights to live absent discrimination or harassment. Some have questioned whether there was a problem before. Well...not for me but I'm not TG. Based on the NC legislatures actions I'd say the TG "community" is correct in its assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that the reasons for sex change varies across the spectrum from stupid to mentally ill to legitimate biological "mistakes". I'm sure some of the persons who make that effort/change regret it. I'm sure some don't. My personal anecdotal experience with two I worked with - one in each direction - was different for each. One - guy to woman - was pretty normal before and not at all happy/satisfied afterwards. He/she left the job and I heard he/she wanted to go back after some number of years (he became a REALLY ugly woman). The other woman to man was quite happy afterwards......very normal person.

 

So, we could speculate about the reasons and numbers who regret it or don't but I think its a bit too complex and varied to generalize in any meaningful way, especially when talking about individual people and their journey instead of broadly characterizing all TG folks as the same.

 

Still..............all that speculation seems meaningless in the context of individual rights to live absent discrimination or harassment. Some have questioned whether there was a problem before. Well...not for me but I'm not TG. Based on the NC legislatures actions I'd say the TG "community" is correct in its assertions.

 

I'm sure you're right about the reasons. There are a lot of them and a lot of reasons for almost everything we do. We don't build detailed logical constructs for our every action. We use societal norms of behaviour. I'd like to know why they need to be destroyed to accommodate someones internal beliefs or need for self worth.

 

The issue is the demand of everyone with issues to have others accommodate them as though they were the norm. They aren't, and no matter what law is passed, you will not change the behavior of others.

 

I suspect that quite a lot of antipathy to government is caused by the overreach of bullshit like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

 

Or not. You guys are too quick to believe things.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-rep-slams-report-considered-de-transition-article-1.2634440

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/jennergender.asp

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

 

 

But one of those 5% is NOT Caitlyn Jenner, at present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

 

Pure gold.

 

 

Facts are pesky things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

 

Pure gold.

 

 

Facts are pesky things.

 

And the fact is trans people make a decision to change genders. Sometime it works out for them sometimes it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce Jenner apparently does.

 

And he's not alone, there's even a website.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

 

 

Or not. You guys are too quick to believe things.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/caitlyn-jenner-rep-slams-report-considered-de-transition-article-1.2634440

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/jennergender.asp

 

About 5% of transgenders revert back to their original gender and a far higher percentage come to regret their DECISION.

 

 

But one of those 5% is NOT Caitlyn Jenner, at present.

 

yeah, but if someone repeats that bit of Malarkey enough times, it might give the perception that such is the case. Whether or not it is true doesn't matter. Doggy Style ®!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSCF0143_zpsr29e2kbh.jpg

 

DSCF0230_zpsshaneyne.jpg

 

 

 

During me epic camping hike around Europe last summer though many pretty conservative country's the bathroom deal showers and all changed constantly from traditional to mixed while the mixed shower thing was a bid strange at first it did NOT seem to bother anybody of any age or gender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSCF0143_zpsr29e2kbh.jpg

 

DSCF0230_zpsshaneyne.jpg

 

 

 

During me epic camping hike around Europe last summer though many pretty conservative country's the bathroom deal showers and all changed constantly from traditional to mixed while the mixed shower thing was a bid strange at first it did NOT seem to bother anybody of any age or gender

 

It certainly seems to bother the transgenders enough over here to demand laws protecting their visualization of intolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

 

Pure gold.

 

I know, but I have to confess, I lifted it from Dr. Who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the fact is trans people make a decision to change genders. Sometime it works out for them sometimes it does not.

 

 

The guy who starts out arguing that the square root of 15 is 5 and then ends up in the corner, quietly muttering to himself that 2 plus 2 equals 4...

 

Congratulations you just became him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a leak in a unisex bathroom today. No peekers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took a leak in a unisex bathroom today. No peekers.

But there could have been.............................you were just lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Took a leak in a unisex bathroom today. No peekers.

But there could have been.............................you were just lucky.

I think Sol needs to start a campaign to keep us safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Took a leak in a unisex bathroom today. No peekers.

But there could have been.............................you were just lucky.

I think Sol needs to start a campaign to keep us safe.

 

Carry one of these with you, and fire it up when you use the can in public. Watch the reactions. That'll help separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

man-and-naked-gun-2-o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

Read Title IX.






Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go get em internet warrior! Might want to start cross dressing now so you've got a bit of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go get em internet warrior! Might want to start cross dressing now so you've got a bit of history.

 

 

Have you read Title IX? Please do so. The Executive is making law and will lose in a huge way. I can't imagine anyone on the Supreme Court interpreting Title 9 in favor of TG rights. The entire thing is based on gender man and woman.

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of TG, they rule against title 9's purpose - the best girls high school soccer team will have mostly boys.

 

Conundrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go get em internet warrior! Might want to start cross dressing now so you've got a bit of history.

 

 

Have you read Title IX? Please do so. The Executive is making law and will lose in a huge way. I can't imagine anyone on the Supreme Court interpreting Title 9 in favor of TG rights. The entire thing is based on gender man and woman.

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of TG, they rule against title 9's purpose - the best girls high school soccer team will have mostly boys.

 

Conundrum?

 

Gender does not equal biological sex.

 

Sorry for your confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go get em internet warrior! Might want to start cross dressing now so you've got a bit of history.

 

 

Have you read Title IX? Please do so. The Executive is making law and will lose in a huge way. I can't imagine anyone on the Supreme Court interpreting Title 9 in favor of TG rights. The entire thing is based on gender man and woman.

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of TG, they rule against title 9's purpose - the best girls high school soccer team will have mostly boys.

 

Conundrum?

 

Gender does not equal biological sex.

 

Sorry for your confusion.

 

 

Day to day progressive Idealism does not trump law.

 

We are a nation of those pesky fucking things, and Title 9 clearly differentiates between male and female.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why stop with bathrooms. Where does this nonsense end?

 

How about sports? What is to prevent a biological male from claiming female identity now and competing in a women's sport? Tennis anyone?

 

59029.jpg

 

pearl-harbor.jpg

That would be up to the Tennis authorities, no?

How ignorant are you guys???

 

Renee.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go get em internet warrior! Might want to start cross dressing now so you've got a bit of history.

 

 

Have you read Title IX? Please do so. The Executive is making law and will lose in a huge way. I can't imagine anyone on the Supreme Court interpreting Title 9 in favor of TG rights. The entire thing is based on gender man and woman.

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of TG, they rule against title 9's purpose - the best girls high school soccer team will have mostly boys.

 

Conundrum?

 

Gender does not equal biological sex.

 

Sorry for your confusion.

 

You are the first progressive to make the argument that there is no male/female pay gap.

 

That took some real courage, Raz'r.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING FUCKING DING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt from the Title IX Legal Manual on the DOJ website (pg 12):

 

In addition, several other regulatory provisions permit single-sex programs: section ___.415(B)(5) permits portions of education programs or activities that deal exclusively with human sexuality to be conducted in separate sessions for boys and girls; section ___.445(B) permits a program offered to pregnant students on a voluntary basis that is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students; sections ___.414(B)(2) and (6) permit recipients to make requirements based on objective standards of physical ability or of vocal range or quality; and section __ .415(B)(3) permits separation by sex in physical education classes involving contact sports. In addition, section 420(B) permits exclusion, on the basis of sex, of any person from admission to a nonvocational school operated by a local education agency, so long as “...such recipient otherwise makes available to such person, pursuant to the same policies and criteria of admission, courses, services, and facilities comparable to each course, service, and facility offered in or through such schools.” 4

 

 

 

 

And here's another specifically addressing the toilet and locker room issue (pg 86):

 

3. Comparable Facilities (§ __.410) Under the Title IX common rule, recipients of federal financial assistance must not discriminate in providing facilities on the basis of sex. A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex. However, such facilities provided to one sex must be comparable to the facilities provided to the other sex. 65 Fed. Reg. at 52871.

 

 

 

Sure looks like Title IX is using sex as the criteria and not gender.

 

Obama, DOJ and the Dept of Ed will lose this fight big time when they get sued by states for attempting to use Title IX as their justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't, it was the Charlotte City Council that passed the bathroom law. The NC Legislature merely brought it in line with reality and the rest of NC and the vast majority of the United States.

Bingo. Charlotte City Council are the locals dealing with a local issue. The NC Legislature stepped in nanny government style and made a wedge issue out of stepping on the locals dealing with their own shit.

 

Once again, please show me the local issue in Charlotte. They could have had an LGBT anti-discrimination law in 2015 but it didn't pass because the bathroom issue was deemed too important the LGBT members of the council voted it down unless it had the bathroom provision.

Firstly, they had records of 140 instances of local discrimination. It was brought up in the meeting where the ordinance was passed. If you had decided to look into the local issue rather than simply buy into the wedge issue created by the state legislature, you would have known that.

 

Secondly, I was unaware the people voting it down were LGBT. Where did you find that out because it isn't mention in anything I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain this is a manufactured wedge issue by the "T's" because they felt they could take advantage of what they thought was a change in mood in the US. I think they've miscalculated

Yup, amazing how those "T's" in the State Legislature were able to make it such a wedge issue. If they'd left it as nothing more than locals dealing with local issues, it would have been nothing more than a local ordinance no-one else knew nor cared about. But those "T's" in the legislature just had to keep pushing it. Fuckers. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bingo. Charlotte City Council are the locals dealing with a local issue. The NC Legislature stepped in nanny government style and made a wedge issue out of stepping on the locals dealing with their own shit.

I don't know if the council members were individually LGBT when the ordinance failed in 2015 but it was the LGBT community that objected to its passage without the bathroom provision. Two of the Councillors who would not pass the bill with the bathroom provision were willing to vote for the anti-discrimination bill without it.

 

My sources on the 2015 and 2016 votes were the Charlotte Observer and other local web sites including those aimed at gays. MeckPAC, the Political Action Committee which supported the bathroom ordinance does have a website without much content. You'd think it would be filled with all these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And the fact is trans people make a decision to change genders. Sometime it works out for them sometimes it does not.

 

 

The guy who starts out arguing that the square root of 15 is 5 and then ends up in the corner, quietly muttering to himself that 2 plus 2 equals 4...

 

Congratulations you just became him!

 

I don't know what that babble is supposed to mean but do you have anything to add wrt Sol's question that started this line of discussion. Which is:

"Who thinks that being transgender is voluntary?"

I think that gender is a spectrum with effeminate males and masculine females but I don't think there are male women or female men. The decision to transition is just that...a decision.

3.87298335

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING FUCKING DING!

 

And when males can use the females room and females can use the males room the logical result is to do away with segregated facilities altogether and the T's will still be sharing the room with people who make them uncomfortable.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the council members were individually LGBT when the ordinance failed in 2015 but it was the LGBT community that objected to its passage without the bathroom provision. Two of the Councillors who would not pass the bill with the bathroom provision were willing to vote for the anti-discrimination bill without it.

Right, so when you said the "LGBT members" you didn't actually mean they were actually "LGBT members". Gotcha. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING FUCKING DING!

 

And when males can use the females room and females can use the males room the logical result is to do away with segregated facilities altogether and the T's will still be sharing the room with people who make them uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

That might be your logical result. For the rest of us, the logical result has been in use for quite some time, with no problems whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING FUCKING DING!

 

And when males can use the females room and females can use the males room the logical result is to do away with segregated facilities altogether and the T's will still be sharing the room with people who make them uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

 

I mentioned sports earlier, but hadn't thought about Title IX. It is a huge can of worms Obama has opened, crazy-making stuff when you think through the many possible implications, because it goes way beyond bathrooms. How about college applications? Let's see what happens when a white male checks the Native American Female boxes on the Stanford application.

 

The Obama administration is claiming that a person's sex is what a person thinks / feels it is. NC says, no, one's sex is what one's biological sex is. Sounds almost Clintonian: "It depends on what the definition of sex is". And if one's sex is just what one happens to believe, what of the other characteristics like race. We are back into Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren territory. Nothing is real. I want to see Caitlan take the next step and say he's not just a woman now, but a black one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big nanny government suckers are getting mad that they can't be mean to the trannies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Some guy walks naked into a Girl Scout meeting and he's facing jail time and lifelong sex offender status. The Fed is saying that those same girl scouts must accept being exposed to a naked man in showers. WTF.

 

I've read Title IX, and it is clearly based on the difference between "men" and "women". That is why it exists. Obama is, yet again, writing law instead of enforcing law.

 

Can of worms - "Equal Protection" means that if I'm a man, regardless of my gender identity, I can use whatever shower I want if the courts rule in favor of this TG issue. I don't have to be TG to use the women's shower. You let one man in - I'm allowed as well - or I'll fucking sue and win, because no one can define my sex at any given moment besides me.

The biggest part of Fed money the Admin is threatening to withhold from schools is lunch programs. Does Obama really want to go there? A few million hungry kids so "Pat" can shower wherever he or she wants?

 

Read Title IX.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DING FUCKING DING!

 

And when males can use the females room and females can use the males room the logical result is to do away with segregated facilities altogether and the T's will still be sharing the room with people who make them uncomfortable.

 

 

 

 

 

I mentioned sports earlier, but hadn't thought about Title IX. It is a huge can of worms Obama has opened, crazy-making stuff when you think through the many possible implications, because it goes way beyond bathrooms. How about college applications? Let's see what happens when a white male checks the Native American Female boxes on the Stanford application.

 

The Obama administration is claiming that a person's sex is what a person thinks / feels it is. NC says, no, one's sex is what one's biological sex is. Sounds almost Clintonian: "It depends on what the definition of sex is". And if one's sex is just what one happens to believe, what of the other characteristics like race. We are back into Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren territory. Nothing is real. I want to see Caitlan take the next step and say he's not just a woman now, but a black one.

 

Michael Jackson really was white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Who cares. They just want to be outraged. I think I figured it out. Righties think taking a shit is sexual.

 

I'd be happy to never have heard of this outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Who cares. They just want to be outraged. I think I figured it out. Righties think taking a shit is sexual.

 

I'd be happy to never have heard of this outrage.

Well you can thank the T's for it and now you can really thank Obama for fucking it up with this latest wedge by trying to be a bully with fed $$. For a constitutional scholar, he got this one spectacularly wrong.

 

As some said, these local ordinances were enacted in what were arguably the most LGBT friendly cities in the country. What local problem were they trying to solve? I continue to maintain that they hoped to seed enough of these laws around the country in order to them later force some less than friendly area to gal into one if they had enough cities to point to as precedent. NC called BSand want nookular. And then she it could get any worse, Obama went full retard.

 

He probably just back LGBT rights by years because this will go to the Scotus and stomped if it's based on Title IX. Even old RBG will go "WTF were you thinking??"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

 

Neither Title IX nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever contemplated application of the law to other than one's biological sex. So, what's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Neither Title IX nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever contemplated application of the law to other than one's biological sex. So, what's your point?

That is my point dumbass. I'm on your side on this. T9 specifically refers to biological sex as a criteria and says it's perfectly legal to have separate but equal facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Who cares. They just want to be outraged. I think I figured it out. Righties think taking a shit is sexual.

 

I'd be happy to never have heard of this outrage.

Well you can thank the T's for it and now you can really thank Obama for fucking it up with this latest wedge by trying to be a bully with fed $$. For a constitutional scholar, he got this one spectacularly wrong.

 

As some said, these local ordinances were enacted in what were arguably the most LGBT friendly cities in the country. What local problem were they trying to solve? I continue to maintain that they hoped to seed enough of these laws around the country in order to them later force some less than friendly area to gal into one if they had enough cities to point to as precedent. NC called BSand want nookular. And then she it could get any worse, Obama went full retard.

 

He probably just back LGBT rights by years because this will go to the Scotus and stomped if it's based on Title IX. Even old RBG will go "WTF were you thinking??"

No, I thank outraged repressed righties. Too bad their leader, Trump, thinks NC got it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff wants lady boys to swing their dicks in his face in the locker room. He just likes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Whitehouse directive on transgender students doesn't have anything in it that hadn't already been implemented by many school systems. Some of these schools systems have had these policies for at least the past 5 years. None of these school systems have had the widespread types of problems that the chicken little naysayers are predicting.

 

Even regards to title ix sports, the problems aren't insurmountable. The NCAA and other scholastic athletic governing bodies have been addressing the issues that transgender athletes pose for years. New issues and cases may arise as transgender policies become more widespread, but the systems and guidelines that have so far kept the skies from falling will continue to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Separate but Really Equal, not Separate but wink-nod Negro Equal.

 

A very big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

 

Neither Title IX nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever contemplated application of the law to other than one's biological sex. So, what's your point?

 

 

It would be nice if the Obama admin would cite a specific part of either law that justifies their actions or allows the Executive to redefine the meaning of "sex" which is blatantly obvious - especially Title IX.

 

Or maybe someone here who supports the DOJ decision would provide such a cite.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

 

Neither Title IX nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever contemplated application of the law to other than one's biological sex. So, what's your point?

 

 

It would be nice if the Obama admin would cite a specific part of either law that justifies their actions or allows the Executive to redefine the meaning of "sex" which is blatantly obvious - especially Title IX.

 

Or maybe someone here who supports the DOJ decision would provide such a cite.

 

 

 

I will if you cite a specific justification for the NC potty police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I figured it out. Righties think taking a shit is sexual.

I think you're projecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think I figured it out. Righties think taking a shit is sexual.

I think you're projecting.

 

Sex is always on their minds. And they hate themselves for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Neither Title IX nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act ever contemplated application of the law to other than one's biological sex. So, what's your point?

It would be nice if the Obama admin would cite a specific part of either law that justifies their actions or allows the Executive to redefine the meaning of "sex" which is blatantly obvious - especially Title IX.

 

Or maybe someone here who supports the DOJ decision would provide such a cite.

 

Maybe also mention that part of the Constitution puts Obadouche in charge of bathrooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Whitehouse directive on transgender students doesn't have anything in it that hadn't already been implemented by many school systems. Some of these schools systems have had these policies for at least the past 5 years. None of these school systems have had the widespread types of problems that the chicken little naysayers are predicting.

 

Even regards to title ix sports, the problems aren't insurmountable. The NCAA and other scholastic athletic governing bodies have been addressing the issues that transgender athletes pose for years. New issues and cases may arise as transgender policies become more widespread, but the systems and guidelines that have so far kept the skies from falling will continue to do so.

 

Really? Which school systems currently allow a biological male to shower with females based on his/her gender identity.

 

Charlotte passed an ordinance, the State passed a law. As a state's rights guy, that's not much my concern - except that my 19 yo daughter lives in NC.

 

Then, Obama turned this into a national issue based not on existing law, but on progressive ideology. This is a slippery slope. Title IX might as well be repealed and replaced with a simple law that states - "No government, company, group or individual shall at any time distinguish between biological males and females for any reason whatsoever"

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting the impression that conservatives are beginning to regret the overreach of having bathroom police. I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did anyone bother to actually read my post and links to Title IX?? The entire fucking premise of title 9 is "Separate but equal".

Separate but Really Equal, not Separate but wink-nod Negro Equal.

 

A very big difference.

 

 

If Caitlan can use the women's showers at the local Y, so can I - and I don't have to wear a wig and a dress. I can even self-identify as a man. That's the only solution that eliminates completely the "wink-nod Negro Equal."

 

You have a legal background, Sol. Perhaps you can provide a cite to federal law that allows the DOJ to force states to allow transgenders to use the bathroom they choose, or which grants the Executive power to redefine the meaning of the word "sex" in existing law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites