CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Transgender toilet use: US schools 'must respect gender identity'
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said schools that don't comply may face lawsuits or lose federal aid if they do not comply.
One senior Republican politician has condemned the move as the "beginning of the end" of the current school system.
In a separate move, the president also strengthened protections for LGBT people receiving health care.
The federal government is fighting the state of North Carolina in court over a law requiring people to use toilets according to their gender at birth.
However the Obama administration education and justice departments say public schools must respect transgender pupils' gender identity even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Ms Lynch said.
Equal protection clause, 14th Amendment, US Constitution.
I love how scared people are about where other people take a piss. Like, they literally believe that someone taking a dump where they don't want them to is going to bring the whole federal school system to its knees. And they don't think they sound absolutely paranoid and delusional when they say that. Too bad they can't get this worked up over the chronic under-funding of schools, which actually is destroying public education.
The USA is 5th per student behind only Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway on the planet. I guess in your eyes if we are not number one then we are woefully underfunded. Those nations also are nowhere near the USA per GDP in military spending, two of which are NATO members. I suppose you would like to see the USA slash military funding and divert the money to education, would you not? Or raise taxes on the struggling middle class to make up the difference. Guess what, people can't afford to give more of their hard earned money to the government for education.
Further, if the USA would ship out all the kids here illegally then there would be more money per student on American kids, getting the number closer to what the top 4 spend per student. Those four countries do not have nearly the illegal alien problems that we face here in the USA. Not to mention that they are small population wise.
The Supreme Court has stated that the right to privacy is a constitutional right. Once a case makes it up to the Supreme Court on transgender vs women's privacy rights regarding restrooms and locker rooms it most certainly will go in favor of girls not having to be forced to change in front of a guy with a cock in the locker room.
I hate to tell you this but the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to a guy declaring he identifies as a woman and walking in on a seven year old girl changing. You may be ready for it, but the rest of us are not.
Obama did state that all a person has to do is openly declare which gender they prefer and that is good enough.
The USA is 5th per student behind only Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway on the planet. I guess in your eyes if we are not number one then we are woefully underfunded. Those nations also are nowhere near the USA per GDP in military spending, two of which are NATO members. I suppose you would like to see the USA slash military funding and divert the money to education, would you not? Or raise taxes on the struggling middle class to make up the difference. Guess what, people can't afford to give more of their hard earned money to the government for education.
No idea where you're pulling that figure from, but the US has consistently ranked lower than fifth (1)(2)(3). Given that the US has the largest world economy by a substantial margin, there's no reason it should be behind any other nations in education (whether that be four or twenty). That suggests that we are managing our resources ineffectively. Notably, US spending relative to GDP is lower than Austria, Switzerland, and Norway (could not find the data on Luxembourg), as well as other nations we lag behind in achievement (4).
I do not think that funding is the sole or even primary variable behind stagnate educational performance, but I think it is a variable unlike where students happen to piss (you might ask yourself why you aren't as critical of that claim). I do favor reduced federal military spending, but that is because I support reduced federal expenditure across the budget including for education. I'm an anti-federalist, and think that if less personal income were sent to a federal bureaucracy that states could then manage their own educational programs better with their own resources with minimal intervention by federal authority. I think this would result in more effectively funded education at lower expense to taxpayers, without even needing to touch other department budgets. It would also reduce federal influence over other variables that contribute to the problem, by reducing its coercive financial power over states.
Further, if the USA would ship out all the kids here illegally then there would be more money per student on American kids, getting the number closer to what the top 4 spend per student. Those four countries do not have nearly the illegal alien problems that we face here in the USA. Not to mention that they are small population wise.
Illegal immigrants make up about 3.8% of the overall US population (5), and only a fraction of that would be students. So, spending per (legally residing) student would probably increase even with the loss of tax revenue paid by some illegal immigrants... but that difference would be pretty marginal. The tendency to blame illegal immigrants for the broader shortcomings of US federal and state policies seems generally unfounded to me. If the nation can really be that unsettled by such a small proportion of people then it's gone critically wrong elsewhere. Immigration is a serious issue, but when it gets brought into other issues as the cure all it's usually a red herring to distract people from that other issue and its own independent and equally real problems.
The Supreme Court has stated that the right to privacy is a constitutional right. Once a case makes it up to the Supreme Court on transgender vs women's privacy rights regarding restrooms and locker rooms it most certainly will go in favor of girls not having to be forced to change in front of a guy with a cock in the locker room.
The competing rights claim under the 14th amendment has a strong precedent backing it, whereas a right to privacy in public restrooms rights claim does not. Were the judiciary to uphold the latter in this context it would involve an unprecedentedly broad construal of privacy that would necessitate equally absurd mandates for either single stall restrooms or floor-to-ceiling cubicles to prevent anyone seeing you (and once they do that, the issue is moot since no one could see anyone). Lower level courts have also found in favor of transgender students in public schools already (e.g. 6), so there is even less cause to suppose that the Supreme Court must necessarily rule as you predict (if they even deign to address an issue this trivial).
I hate to tell you this but the American public is overwhelmingly opposed to a guy declaring he identifies as a woman and walking in on a seven year old girl changing. You may be ready for it, but the rest of us are not.
Majoritarian conservatism has been opposed to many things throughout history, but on civil rights issues in particular it has consistently lost its sway as the political influence of older generations phased out. Not only is opposition not as great as you represent it, but it's weaker among younger demographics (7). At any rate, public opinion does not alter my original observation which was that this issue isn't going to destroy public education.
Obama did state that all a person has to do is openly declare which gender they prefer and that is good enough.
Yes. And that doesn't change laws about voyeurism, exhibitionism, assault, etc. Literally just means a person can walk into a place. Doesn't give them permission to do anything towards any other person. But, yes, let's all panic and proclaim the end of public education... like that's reasonable.
Abortion was decided on right to privacy and it never was before. Same can be said for a woman's right on restrooms and locker rooms. Lower courts ruling are completely useless. They get overturned all the time at the Supreme Court. Nine justices will someday decide it. No need to debate it since nobody knows yet how each will rule. I just have a hard time believing that 5 conservative judges will allow a guy to drop his pants in a locker room and expose an 8 inch cock to a little girl.
Read your source more closely. It specifies that this is true only when post-secondary expenditures are included, and that otherwise the US spends less at the primary and secondary levels where it ranks below other nations. This reference also contradicts your original assertion that the US ranked 5th in the world, as did my multiple sources which you have not addressed. You have completely ignored my analysis about funding as a contributing variable to the education problem in the US, as well as failing to address the relative irrelevance of immigration and total insignificance of trans restroom use on the matter. I'll take continued omission as concession, as if you will have had ample opportunity to respond.
Obviously there is precedent about the right to privacy generally (e.g. abortion). However, my point was that there is no strong precedent for extending that right into public settings. Doing so is also generally inconsistent with conservativism, which makes it less likely that conservative justices would rule in favor of your populist-conservative position since they give consideration to the broader implications of their rulings. Unlike you, they will also understand that permitting legal access to a space does not nullify existing legal constraints upon what one an do in that place so exhibitionism (a distinct issue) would still be illegal.
The Supreme Court also has set precedent for considering the rulings of lower courts in their own adjudication, so it's not immaterial. An soft trend in the lower courts may influence the decision of the Supreme Court, and a strong trend may prompt it not to even hear the case. You were the one who introduced speculation about how the Supreme Court might rule, and however much you want to back-peddle out of yet another position you've found yourself incapable of defending it was your original argument.
My original argument is speculation, since it hasn't happened yet. I am giving my opinion on what I believe the result will be. How the hell can I back track on that. I think the Supreme Court will rule against men using girls locker rooms. You seem hell bent on hoping men get the opportunity to expose themselves to little girls. Locker rooms are a place to change, meaning getting naked in front of other people, in this case the opposite sex if you get your way. I have been in plenty of locker rooms where men are naked, all athletes have. Stripping down naked can never be illegal, only when one does something inappropriate can it cause a problem.
If the Supreme Court feels the lower court is in error, it does not matter how strongly the lower court felt about its decision. Many cases are decided on personal biases anyway.
After Luxemborg, Switzerland, and Norway which were three of the countries you originally noted as outperforming the US in education. Thanks for further proving my point that funding, unlike where students piss, is actually a relevant predictor for educational success.
People do not strip down naked in restrooms, which is what we are discussing. Were we talking about locker rooms where that actually does happen, then yes there will be nudity. I don't believe the human body is shameful so I don't regard merely seeing any part of any body as a harm. Mere exposure is not the same as exhibitionism or sexual harassment, either, and those would remain just as illegal as they are at present.
I never claimed that the Supreme Courts cannot overrule lower courts. I pointed out that, contrary to your assertion that they didn't matter, the rulings of lower courts can influence both whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case and the outcome of their ruling. Both have long precedent in the US judiciary.
Of course personal bias also factors, but as I pointed out the conservative justices may have ample reason to disagree with your position because of its broader implications for the extension of private rights into public spaces which is generally against conservative legal interests.
You originally presented your speculation as a foregone eventuality, and as an implicit point in favor of your position. I complicated that through analysis you still haven't fully addressed, and you then tried to back off the point altogether as being not worth arguing over and a mere uncertain opinion. Classic back-track.
I never claimed that the OP was about the educational process. My original post made two responsive arguments, which neither of you have addressed. The quip about under-funding was strictly demonstrative of my secondary point about the ridiculousness of thinking something so trivial as restrooms could destroy public education (which is directly responsive to a reference made in OP). My use was contextually evident, as well as having already been subsequently explained. Yet both of you have persisted in honing in on that instead of addressing my topical arguments, and you have the comedic audacity to say I'm the one missing the point.
Engaging me on my original, topical arguments is evidently beyond you since this is the second transparent effort you've made at avoiding having to do so.
As has been thoroughly and repeatedly explained to you at length, I didn't create an extra-topical argument. My original comment was responsive to the prompt. None of your comments to me have been responsive to that comment, though, and your evasion has made it abundantly evident at this point that you are incapable of repudiating my position or defending yours.
I would be surprised to learn that you have children, perhaps even girls, in public schools. Do you recall the urges you experienced as an adolescent?
Do you really imagine that an already socially screwed up teenager will actually draw attention to themselves by walking into a bathroom belonging to the other gender? Really!😕
Do you really imagine that any policy is going to prevent any screwed up person from seeking attention? Of course not. Plus, the more neutral restrooms are the less rebellious that sort of thing is (so you should support neutrality!). Besides, if someone does something to actually harm others, like assault, then that action can still be addressed.
Whether I have children is immaterial to my arguments. Acting like it is to avoid engaging my argument only undercuts your own credibly. If anything is evident, it's that you have no intention of having a serious discussion.
Oh you mean the side argument you created while dismissing the OP as being about pissing. (Completely missing the point) As I have already said, you don't understand the real issue and concern.
As to your side argument, about under funding, I kind of agree with the part about state money and control remaining in the states. But under funding implies the core problem is not with system bureaucracy and public sector unions. Once again, missing the point, but this time on your own argument.
I'm not missing the point. The issue quite literally is about where people piss and shit. Concerns about voyeurism, exhibitionism, etc. are flagrant red herrings since this policy doesn't make any of that behavior legal.
I never presented under-funding as a comprehensive explanation of academic under-performance. I presented it as an example of something that actually is contributing to the problem, and primarily as a juxtaposition to the ridiculous claim that an issue as trivial as this bathroom nonsense could. It was meant just to exemplify what an actual problem looks like, but it's become a point of fixation for foratag so I elaborated on it there. Now you're trying to make an issue out of it too, instead of focusing on the substance of my original objection which was that this restrooms matter is trivial and stupid.
But, yeah, I'm definitely the one missing the point.
You agree, then, that you've misconstrued my remarks and not addressed my original point. You also agree that the concern you raised is a red herring without foundation. Because that's what I just said, and "exactly" reflects agreement.
What I agree to is that your missing the point still, now on two separate threads of this OP. Go make your arguments on your very own post. And I'll debate you there. 😉
I don't want to, so I'm not going to. And pressuring me to make a debate on something else so you can get out of defending your position on this issue is as transparent as your last two efforts to avoid the topic.
Can you imagine any elementary school kids being mature enough to know anything about who they are or what sex they are suppose to be?
What kind of parents would allow their children to have a lifetime of taking dangerous drugs and sex change operations, on the say so of immature kids who know nothing of who they are.
Take a look at this site to educate yourself on statistics concerning transgenders after sex change operations.
IT'S A CHILD!!!!!!! THEY HAVE NO CLUE OF LIFE OR ANYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES!
This is just one of MANY ISSUES that shows the extremism of Progressives and their total lack of common sense when it comes to human biology.
Like i have said many times, there is no explaining the fanatical Progressive fixation on LGBT issues other than it is a war against Christianity in this nation.
We truly have been, and currently are, in a cultural war for the soul of this nation.
Even our national magazines have been pressured to push the Left's LGBT agendas.
These Progressives are boycotting States such as North Caroina, if they don't cave into Big Brother's political correct extremism concerning forcing states to allow boys in girls bathrooms. They censored the All Star Basketball game from North Carolina for not towing Big Brother's LGBT dictates.
SICK! The Left has lost all semblance of common sense and wisdom.
Every American in this nation deserves respect, but that does not mean they deserve having their agendas forced on us all. If you want to be respected, stop forcing your beliefs of how our State's and public schools must conduct their laws and policies.
Ask yourself why we have age limits for drinking, age limits for getting a driver's license, age limits for marriage, age limits for many mant things.
Why do you suppose that is?
OBVIOULSY, we all know that children ad teenagers are NOT mature enough or responsible enough to handle many things in life.
Why on Earth would any thinking person believe they possess the maturity to understand any inward feelings they might have concerning their biological gender, and who they are?
Because liberals understand that if they can turn many young people, or children, into transgenders, they will most likely vote Democrat now or in the future. It does not matter how screwed up that person may become, votes are all that count.
You are correct. Democrats lack core moral foundations to hold to. Everything in the Democrat party resolves around voting blocks and big money from their activist lobbyists.
Whether it be the LGBT, Feminist, environmentalist, anti gun, illegal immigration, pro abortion lobbies, it's all about money and votes.
As if the right weren't equally compromised by vested interests and transparent voter manipulation. The most bizarre part of the equation is where partisan politics teaches people to see that sort of thing in the other party, but makes them obstinately blind about it in their own party.
Yes, she agreed with common sense. You are lost in your political correct world of LGBT activism whereby you would have or children spending their childhoods wondering who they are.
GET A BRAIN!
We have all sorts of dysfunction, and the answer is not sayng it's normal to be dysfunctional. You can't help a dysfunction without addressing it for what it is. It is a disorder and should be treated as such.
No matter what it is, our children are too young to be indoctrinated by activists with an agenda of feeling good about themselves.
Strip out your ad hominem and strawmen, and the only argument you've got here is that being trans is a disorder which the APA disagrees with. They've made a formal statement that not all trans people are diagnosable for GD. No PC, just the facts.
And you were the one who argued kids couldn't possibly know their own gender, so universal hormone suppression is just the natural conclusion of your own dogma. Not my fault you can't see your premises through to their full conclusions. :P
The doctors are now saying it is a disorder. They will change their stance on this just as soon as the LGBT activists come down on them and force them to change what they say about it.
Just as they did to doctors who once told us all how Homosexuality was a mental disorder. But the LGBT activist groups started suing them for saying saying such things.
The medical profession originally classified homosexuality and transgender identity as disorders under pressure from the conservative lobby. The first was completely depathologized and the second is now largely depathologized under pressure from the liberal lobby. While the liberal lobby was the motivating force for declassification, it was only able to succeed because the original classifications were introduced without foundation. The simple fact of the matter is that the classifications lack substantiation so they couldn't withstand scrutiny when it came. If you disagree, you need merely present that evidence.
I love how you keep dodging the natural conclusion of your own original claims, by the way. It's cute how you can't face the fallout of your own hapless tirades.
The only fallout I have a problem with is deception and twisting of my arguments to make yourselves correct. Fallout from those on the Left is a given to anyone who dares to speak to moral values or the natural order of life.
I expect it and ban the idiots who refuse to stay civil and speak honestly about the issues.
Doctors needed no conservative lobbies to understand that LGBT sexual orientations were not normal and therefore based upon some type of mental disorder.
For thousands of years, people understood biology and how our bodies are meant to function.
It has been the Liberal lobbies turning our biology and common sense up side down.
I wonder how long before Pedophiles will be sanctioned as normal as long as they don't act on their desires? They also say they are born that way.
This is the slippery slope of Liberalism and LGBT activism. I agree with those who simply want to be treated with respect and free from bullying. All Americans deserve respect as long as they respect other's beliefs and are not hurting others.
Activists who want to force their LGBT agendas on all Americans are the people I will speak out against. Every father has the right to protect his daughter from boys (who think they are girls) in her bathroom.
For thousands of years, people understood biology and how our bodies are meant to function.
First of all, no.
Secondly, have you done any research or ever learned anything about the history of the way homosexuality has been treated in the world over the past few thousand years? Because this whole idea that 'everyone accepted that it was abnormal and wrong and bad since the dawn of time until the liberals came along and pressured the doctors' is completely inaccurate.
Since you nor I lived a thousand years ago, we will never know all the facts of how homosexuality was treated.
Either side can and will cherry pick any tid bit of historcal data to try and prove their point.
All we know for sure is the facts before our eyes today. We know how our bodies are designed and we know how biology is suppose to work. Any small number of people who live contrary to our body's natural biological design, should not be telling everyone that homosexuality is normal. It is not!
I'm not here to judge anyone other than these activists and Liberals trying to force their beliefs onto my children in public schools, or in individual States that disagree with this political correct fixation.
Since you nor I lived a thousand years ago, we will never know all the facts of how homosexuality was treated.
Then don't say things like "For thousands of years, people understood biology and how our bodies are meant to function."
All we know for sure is the facts before our eyes today. We know how our bodies are designed and we know how biology is suppose to work. Any small number of people who live contrary to our body's natural biological design, should not be telling everyone that homosexuality is normal. It is not!
If it's contrary to our natural design, why is it possible and pleasurable? And why is it in present in nearly every record we have of significant civilizations throughout history?
We have had murderers and pedophiles throughout history as well.
So what!
It does not make it normal just because people have been doing it. I'm sure it is plesurable for pedophiles with consenting children as well. Does that make it normal?
I'm sure it's pleasurable when a man cheats on his wife. Your point?
I'm not comparing pedophiles to Gays before you waste all our time. I'm telling you that biology and common sense tells us all how our bodies are designed, and therefore homosexuality is not normal or natural.
I'm not wasting another word bantering words over common sense.
I never claimed that you said anything. I claimed that you agreed with what someone else said. And you did, because that's what FromWithin said. LG is part of the LGBT he was talking about being at war with Christianity. It's not my fault that you don't actually read something before agreeing with it.
Of course you don't see a problem with anything these extremist Political correct Liberal Democrats push on America.
You will be the same fools who finally say that pedophilies are born that way so we should accept who they are and accept their abnormal attractions to children as long as they do not act on it.
Can you even rasp the slippery slope and where this nation is headed?
Do you ever wonder why our families are so broken and millions of children have no fathers at home.
You sound very young and have been indoctrinated by Big Brother with the PC way to think. Try thinking for yourself and look at the state of our families.
Every State has been forced to change their marriage laws. The Left is trying to force every public school to bow to the whims of Transgender politics and the whims of dysfunctional children, and you sit there having no problem with it?
You are the very types of PC people who keep electing these extremist Democrats.
Wake up and look at this culture. We have record numbers of people on food stamps because there are no fathers at home!
All this fixation on LGBTPXYZABC groups are destroying what a family is suppose to be.
If you sincerely believe that children are incapable of determining their own gender identity, then you should support hormone suppression as a general policy towards all children until they reach an age where they can. Otherwise, we are permitting them to grow into bodies they may regret having chosen to have by not seeking hormone suppression.
Your persecution complex is absurd. You live in a majority Christian nation where Christian organizations enjoy unique federal benefits, such as tax exemption. There are places in this world where Christians are actually being persecuted, where their faith is outlawed and open practice gets them killed. Whining like a petulant child about how attacked you are because some people want to use a different toilet makes you look petty and insensitive to the very real violence those Christians are facing.
This "war" is all in your head. You're working yourself up over nothing. If you made others' identities and personal choices less about you, then you might feel less assaulted. You're the one trying to legislate where other people can take a piss, and you think you're the one being forced to live your life a certain way. No one is making you piss in public facilities, so if you don't like that the whole public gets equal legal access to what they also paid for then you can go find a private toilet and take your shit there.
It's the liberal left and the LGBT activists living in a CONSTANT STATE OF PERSECUTION COMPLEX.
Do you even listen to the words you are writing?
For the past 50 years, the Progressive left has been spending every waking minute trying to censor any mention of our Christian heritage off public lands!
You are the insecure extremists who will force all Americans to bow to your political correct fixation, and have been doing so in the courts non stop for decades.
Spew you total lies and deceptions to someone who lacks a brain to think with.
If you truly believe your lifestyle is normal, then be secure enough to not care what other's think about it. Stop trying to force everyone else to believe that LGBT lifestyles are normal.
Do you think Christians spend one waking second having insecure feelings about what people think of our beliefs? They don't! We are secure with who we are and what we believe. We don't try to force you to be Christians. Be anything you want, just don't try and censor our historical Christian heritage just because it does not agree with you.
I think Trump and his Department of Education leader is the end of the current school system.(She's tried for years!)! I might point out that I can't imagine a transgender person using a urinal. They'll be inside a stall, and unless you look under it or through the crack in the door, you won't likely see any difference. Those that do THAT would make me worry about my kids more than the TGP. THEY are FAR more likely to try to "stay under the radar"! Get REAL!
Antarctica, the southernmost continent and site of the South Pole, is a virtually uninhabited, ice-covered landmass.
Are you the only inhabitant in Antarctica ? Where do you cast your vote for the Dicktator of your choosing ? Are there many transgender issues in the ice covered landmass that you inhabit ?
No. It's not inauguration day yet. But, it's coming. (WAY to fast!) Trump is "Putin by Proxy". Congratulations, you may have done to this country what the Nazi's and Axis powers could not do ... without firing a shot! Wonder what the NRA thinks of that???
No one is saying you cannot disagree. They are merely saying that your belief does not give you legal grounds under US jurisdiction to control where others go in publicly funded spaces. That's not bigoted. That's the 14th Amendment.
Only that you get called bigoted, homophobe, Islamaphobe, racist etc. when you dissent. However, that just means they (the left) don't have the mental capacity to make an argument or accept the fact that others have a different viewpoint.
Additionally, no one is being denied a "right" they can still use the bathroom, the one designated for their gender.
People call other people names all the time, whether they have real arguments or not. It's not a liberal thing or a conservative thing. It's a people thing. But just as them calling you a name doesn't make them right, you complaining about them calling you names doesn't make you right either.
Laws which target a particular demographic based on its identifying features are a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supported by substantial judicial precedent. The law you support would uniquely constrain the capacity of a particular class of persons to make their own choice about which publicly funded facility they use. People who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth are not under equal constraint because their identity expression is tacitly endorsed rather than constrained by the law. Equal protection is satisfied only through a policy of neutrality which allows anyone to use the public facility of their choice.
Good question. Most policies create permissive conditions for use only, and the few that create requisite conditions share that permissive motivation but are designed to allay the baseless conservative fears that (cis) people are going to pretend to be trans in order to assault people (which would still be illegal). Policies with this wording are regarded as being more likely to pass and stay on the books because conservative opposition is presumed to diminish as a result, which is the only reason the wording gets added. To the very limited extent that the liberal camp of policies would control where people go, it is a direct consequence of conservative opposition to those policies. The entire class of policies is an attempt to diminish the regulation conservatives advocated for or introduced to previously unregulated spaces.
How the two respective classes of policies are likely to be practiced also function very differently with respect to controlling individual behaviors. Because the liberal class of policies which does contain requisite language is still motivated by an interest in protecting the personal choice of a specific group of students, there won't be anyone under those policies who has any cause to force anyone to use a particular restroom. But the conservative class of policies is motivated by an explicit interest in restricting a specific group of students, which means that if they pass there will be motivated parties with cause to force some people to use a particular restroom.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No transgender bathrooms mentioned above is there ?
Most rights are not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. They're derived from it, though, and in this case the body of pertinent adjudication comes from the equal protection clause in Section 1. Not my fault if you're ignorant of basic judicial practice and precedent.
I have never opposed the right of anyone to oppose anything. I have merely pointed out that their succeeding in their opposition would require a formal violation of federal law.
That's not remotely coherent. Forced compliance to neutral treatment of all persons is not a double standard if it holds for everyone. No one can be excluded from publicly funded spaces is neutrality. It's not targeting anyone or treating them with inequity.
The APA disagrees, actually. And that's a matter of fact, not my opinion. Besides, once again, this is the same argument people made (and still make) about homosexuality; it was baseless then and it is now as well. Moreover, if you really believe being transgender is a mental illness then you should be advocating accommodation under the ADA instead of jumping on the bandwagon with FromWithin.
Biological males cannot become biological females (or visa versa), but that's nothing to do with gender. Gender is a psychological phenomenon influenced by social concepts. It isn't physiological. Again, not a matter of opinion. Actually just facts.
You are wrong to generalize transgender people as mentally ill. I believe you are mentally because you asked Yeshua to heal your eyes and filthy soul. You are mentally ill, not those unfortunate transgender. They live their life better than anyone else.
Liberals always play the victim card when somone disagrees with their agenda. Transgendered people are delusional to think they can change their sex. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.
Agreeing to the principle of transgender toilets raises the question of transgender changing rooms.
If a transgender feels uncomfortable using the 'conveniences' for the gender of their birth then they should feel even more distressed in the changing rooms in which they feel out of place.
No, I'm really not. I'm pointing out your idiotic hypocrisy. That is the same exact argument people still make against homosexuality.
The difference here being it's even less founded in this case, since gender is a socially constructed identity concept associated with biological sex. Not that it matters in either case. Constitutionally, both should have equal protection under the law whatever the origin of their identities happens to be.
It's a load of absolute bollocks who is stopping them at the moment from using a toilet are there toilet police in the states ?
You want to piss go fucking piss what or who is stopping you ? watch the lawsuits go into the billions over the years as this PC bollocks becomes the norm ; wonder what the Trumpster thinks of it ?
Absolutely appalling. You are what you are. You are either born male or born female and that is what God made you. And you do not have the right to go into the bathroom of the opposite gender. That is just perverted. It is so sad to see what the world is coming to. How soon will it be until perverted acts like bestiality and pedophilia is accepted and those who are rightfully disgusted by them are called bigots. Being transgender is clearly unnatural and perverted. It gives me hope that Jesus will soon return and all this disgusting liberal nonsense is wiped away.
If you have a penis use the mens room, if you don't use the women's room, it's very simple. If you went through surgery to change your genitalia use the bathroom for what you now have. It's very simple.
