Political Correctness thread

[NorthDakota]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

I'm with you.

 

[pkt77242]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

Straw man?

I haven't seen anyone arguing that no guns means no homicides. The argument is that no guns means significantly less homicides.

ETA: Of course people would kill even without guns, people killed long before we had guns but guns make it easier, quicker, more efficient and less personal.

*Again getting rid of guns is impossible, not arguing that we should or could.

 

[Irish#1]

The solution is simple. Several private bathrooms available to students who are uncomfortable or feel unsafe using a public bathroom. In the long run, it's less expensive than paying the lawyers and the settlement awarded by a jury when the school has failed to provide a safe environment for the students. It's also cheaper than putting a security guard in every restroom.

There's a major flaw in this thinking. you set up private bathrooms, everyone that sees you use it will know you're a TG, including the bullies. This would be like making an announcement that your a TG. Unlike Bruce Jenner/Caitlan, many don't want it to be known.

 

[connor_in]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

 

[GoIrish41]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

Sure, people are going to kill if they if the set their minds to it, but the number of people that can be killed with a knife is much smaller than the number who would die if the killer is armed with an AR-15. We have issues with mass shootings in this country ... not so much with mass stabbings. Nobody is suggesting there will be no homicides if there are no guns. There would certainly be far fewer mass homicides. I'm not even suggesting taking guns away from people -- just not making them easier to purchase so we can have an even bigger problem than we have already.

 

[EddytoNow]

There's a major flaw in this thinking. you set up private bathrooms, everyone that sees you use it will know you're a TG, including the bullies. This would be like making an announcement that your a TG. Unlike Bruce Jenner/Caitlan, many don't want it to be known.

The private restrooms would be available to anyone who wants to use them, especially those who who have been or might be singled out for abuse in the public restroom. Their use would be voluntary. Transgenders would be only one of the groups using the private restrooms. Lesbians and Gays would be welcome to use the restrooms, as would minorities: black students in a predominantly white school, white students in a predominantly black school, Muslims in a predominantly Christian school, etc. Students singled out for bullying for whatever reason would have access to the private restrooms. They wouldn't be "Transgender" restrooms. They would be "Private" restrooms and available to all to use as needed.

I taught for 42 years, and the school from which I just retired had a private restroom for each of four kindergartens. It also had 13 other restrooms designated by gender, two of which were reserved for teachers and one for the school nurse. As far as school budgets go, it would not be a major expense to convert some of these restrooms to private restrooms or to add a few private restrooms. It's all a matter of priorities. Is your priority safety or is your priority a manicured baseball field, a shiny new administrator's office, more I-Pads than you need, etc.?

And as far as outing transgenders or gays or lesbians, for that matter, the students know well before the teachers and administrators become aware.

 

[EddytoNow]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

You are ignoring some facts. Guns can kill from a distance. Automatic weapons can kill multiple people from a distance before being reloaded. Knives would require that the killer be in close proximity to the victims. Knife wounds are not necessarily deadly. The killer might have to stab a victim multiple times to subdue them. Potential victims could rush and disarm or slow down a killer with a knife while others escape to safety or run for help. A roomful of victims could flee in multiple directions allowing some to escape to safety.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Comparing guns to knives is silly and that's not what I was doing. That's what you did to ignore the fact that if people want to kill they're going to, even without guns. That tells me your fantasy land of "no homicide" because "no guns" looks a little more like a scene from Braveheart.

Re-posting from above:

The same day as Sandy Hook, there was a knife attack at a primary school in China. 24 wounded, no deaths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpe...chool_stabbing

Killers will always be able to do damage. But having guns means they can do a heck of a lot more damage.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You are ignoring some facts. Guns can kill from a distance. Automatic weapons can kill multiple people from a distance before being reloaded. Knives would require that the killer be in close proximity to the victims. Knife wounds are not necessarily deadly. The killer might have to stab a victim multiple times to subdue them. Potential victims could rush and disarm or slow down a killer with a knife while others escape to safety or run for help. A roomful of victims could flee in multiple directions allowing some to escape to safety.

I'm not comparing knives to guns and their capacities. But hey I'll play along...

How many guns did the terrorists use in the bombings in France? Or the tube bombings in the UK? Or Spain? Or Boston? And how many people did they kill?

 

[kmoose]

Sure, people are going to kill if they if the set their minds to it, but the number of people that can be killed with a knife is much smaller than the number who would die if the killer is armed with an AR-15. We have issues with mass shootings in this country ... not so much with mass stabbings. Nobody is suggesting there will be no homicides if there are no guns. There would certainly be far fewer mass homicides. I'm not even suggesting taking guns away from people -- just not making them easier to purchase so we can have an even bigger problem than we have already.

I'm for background checks for everyone, but the notion that without guns the mass homicides will be a thing of the past is insanely naïve. As long as fertilizer and drain cleaner are available in bulk, there will be just as many mass homicides.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm for background checks for everyone, but the notion that without guns the mass homicides will be a thing of the past is insanely naïve. As long as fertilizer and drain cleaner are available in bulk, there will be just as many mass homicides.

Ok. Well, do you believe that the movie theater shooter and the Newtown shooter would have gone out and loaded a Ryder truck with fertilizer and blown shit up if they didn't have access to AR-15s. You think bombings would be the new mass shootings at the same frequency as mass shootings are now if guns weren't as readily available? What are we going to divert the argument to next, hemlock? I said mass homicides would decrease with fewer guns. Are you honestly disputing that?

 

[Legacy]

Gun laws in the US, state by state – interactive

President Obama has indicated a move towards strengthening federal gun control measures, but the reality is that the majority of gun legislation in the US is enacted at the state level. That has brought broad variations across the country, with states taking different approaches to issues ranging from sales, permits, licensing, self-defence and carry laws

 

[kmoose]

Ok. Well, do you believe that the movie theater shooter and the Newtown bomber would have gone out and loaded a Ryder truck with fertilizer and blown shit up if they didn't have access to AR-15s.

James Holmes had an array of explosives booby-trapped in his apartment, including 30 homemade hand grenades. So, yes, I believe that, had he not had access to guns, his mental illness would have driven him to eventually use his explosives knowledge to cause mass casualties somewhere.

 

[BGIF]

You are ignoring some facts. Guns can kill from a distance. Automatic weapons can kill multiple people from a distance before being reloaded. Knives would require that the killer be in close proximity to the victims. Knife wounds are not necessarily deadly. The killer might have to stab a victim multiple times to subdue them. Potential victims could rush and disarm or slow down a killer with a knife while others escape to safety or run for help. A roomful of victims could flee in multiple directions allowing some to escape to safety.

I'm not comparing knives to guns and their capacities. But hey I'll play along...

How many guns did the terrorists use in the bombings in France? Or the tube bombings in the UK? Or Spain? Or Boston? And how many people did they kill?

What was the body count on 9/11?

Box cutters are short bladed knives.

 

[Irish#1]

Ok. Well, do you believe that the movie theater shooter and the Newtown bomber would have gone out and loaded a Ryder truck with fertilizer and blown shit up if they didn't have access to AR-15s. You think bombings would be the new mass shootings at the same frequency as mass shootings are now if guns weren't as readily available? What are we going to divert the argument to next, hemlock? I said mass homicides would decrease with fewer guns. Are you honestly disputing that?

Not sure they will. A lot of these people who have performed mass killings have planned these for a while and even wrote a letter letting authorities know it was planned. If guns weren't available, I have to believe those who are hell bent on mass killings will look for another "weapon" to accomplish their mission.

 

[phgreek]

The private restrooms would be available to anyone who wants to use them, especially those who who have been or might be singled out for abuse in the public restroom. Their use would be voluntary. Transgenders would be only one of the groups using the private restrooms. Lesbians and Gays would be welcome to use the restrooms, as would minorities: black students in a predominantly white school, white students in a predominantly black school, Muslims in a predominantly Christian school, etc. Students singled out for bullying for whatever reason would have access to the private restrooms. They wouldn't be "Transgender" restrooms. They would be "Private" restrooms and available to all to use as needed.

I taught for 42 years, and the school from which I just retired had a private restroom for each of four kindergartens. It also had 13 other restrooms designated by gender, two of which were reserved for teachers and one for the school nurse. As far as school budgets go, it would not be a major expense to convert some of these restrooms to private restrooms or to add a few private restrooms. It's all a matter of priorities. Is your priority safety or is your priority a manicured baseball field, a shiny new administrator's office, more I-Pads than you need, etc.?

And as far as outing transgenders or gays or lesbians, for that matter, the students know well before the teachers and administrators become aware.

What about the girls who feel uncomfortable with swinging dicks in their midst...can they use those private restrooms too? Who decides when it is time you get a key to the victims' private lounge? How private we talkin' here...just limited access to the same pee trough as the others have, a mix of multi seats and urinals, multi seater acrosss the board? What happens when the victims start victimizing each other, because as sure as I'm sitting here, they will start to stratify themselves? Then, when is it appropriate to leave someone out of the lounge, for fear they might take it out on people who are more vulnerable...say like Jimmy, who is beaten by his drunk dad, and who has issues with other kids teasing him because he doesn't exactly fuss over his appearance as he has survival to do and all...does he get a key? What happens when he is a little less vulnerable than the others in the lounge..do you just make a rule that if you are beaten by your drunk dad, you are too much a risk for the lounge?

I'm being off the wall here...I know. But you being IN the soup for 40 years...you know stuff gets wacky real quick....and not just on IE. I see trading a very rare occurance for a free for all of problems here.

 

[Irish#1]

The private restrooms would be available to anyone who wants to use them, especially those who who have been or might be singled out for abuse in the public restroom. Their use would be voluntary. Transgenders would be only one of the groups using the private restrooms. Lesbians and Gays would be welcome to use the restrooms, as would minorities: black students in a predominantly white school, white students in a predominantly black school, Muslims in a predominantly Christian school, etc. Students singled out for bullying for whatever reason would have access to the private restrooms. They wouldn't be "Transgender" restrooms. They would be "Private" restrooms and available to all to use as needed.

I taught for 42 years, and the school from which I just retired had a private restroom for each of four kindergartens. It also had 13 other restrooms designated by gender, two of which were reserved for teachers and one for the school nurse. As far as school budgets go, it would not be a major expense to convert some of these restrooms to private restrooms or to add a few private restrooms. It's all a matter of priorities. Is your priority safety or is your priority a manicured baseball field, a shiny new administrator's office, more I-Pads than you need, etc.?

And as far as outing transgenders or gays or lesbians, for that matter, the students know well before the teachers and administrators become aware.

Doesn't surprise me that kids know before faculty. Even if the private restrooms were available to anyone, which legally they would have to be, anyone using them is going to be known to use it for a specific reason, thus easily "outed" and an easy target for bullies.

While I don't think it would solve the problem, I do agree that it wouldn't be difficult to come up with the funds. Priorities for school systems are out of whack right now.

 

[EddytoNow]

What about the girls who feel uncomfortable with swinging dicks in their midst...can they use those private restrooms too? Who decides when it is time you get a key to the victims' private lounge? How private we talkin' here...just limited access to the same pee trough as the others have, a mix of multi seats and urinals, multi seater acrosss the board? What happens when the victims start victimizing each other, because as sure as I'm sitting here, they will start to stratify themselves? Then, when is it appropriate to leave someone out of the lounge, for fear they might take it out on people who are more vulnerable...say like Jimmy, who is beaten by his drunk dad, and who has issues with other kids teasing him because he doesn't exactly fuss over his appearance as he has survival to do and all...does he get a key? What happens when he is a little less vulnerable than the others in the lounge..do you just make a rule that if you are beaten by your drunk dad, you are too much a risk for the lounge?

I'm being off the wall here...I know. But you being IN the soup for 40 years...you know stuff gets wacky real quick....and not just on IE. I see trading a very rare occurance for a free for all of problems here.

I'm talking a very small room with a single stool and a sink, a room that can be locked from the inside. Perhaps, 6 ft. x 8 ft. No one is suggesting a private lounge. I'm just throwing out numbers here, but maybe one such restroom for every two to four classrooms.

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm not comparing knives to guns and their capacities. But hey I'll play along...

How many guns did the terrorists use in the bombings in France? Or the tube bombings in the UK? Or Spain? Or Boston? And how many people did they kill?

I'm not suggesting that you can prevent every mass killing. But if we prevent only a few then that's a lot of people still alive that wouldn't be alive without some form of regulation. Aren't background checks, gun registration or some form of gun control a small price to pay for saving the lives of these innocent people? And why is it again that the average guy on the street needs an automatic weapon capable of firing multiple rounds before reloading?

 

[BGIF]

I'm not suggesting that you can prevent every mass killing. But if we prevent only a few then that's a lot of people still alive that wouldn't be alive without some form of regulation. Aren't background checks, gun registration or some form of gun control a small price to pay for saving the lives of these innocent people? And why is it again that the average guy on the street needs an automatic weapon capable of firing multiple rounds before reloading?

The average guy on the street doesn't have/or need an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires MULTIPLE rounds with 1 pull of the trigger and are generally illegal.

You're probably thinking of semi-automatic weapons which with one trigger pull fires ONE round, ejects the casing, and reloads a new round in the chamber without the manual operation of a bolt.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The average guy on the street doesn't have/or need an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires MULTIPLE rounds with 1 pull of the trigger and are generally illegal.

You're probably thinking of semi-automatic weapons which with one trigger pull fires ONE round, ejects the casing, and reloads a new round in the chamber without the manual operation of a bolt.

But, as I understand, that happens nearly instantly. As such, it's not hard to get off at least 2-3 shots per second.

 

[phgreek]

I'm talking a very small room with a single stool and a sink, a room that can be locked from the inside. Perhaps, 6 ft. x 8 ft. No one is suggesting a private lounge. I'm just throwing out numbers here, but maybe one such restroom for every two to four classrooms.

OK, that’s more what was discussed earlier. Now, simply because Texas is
going all Friday Night Lights, that doesn't mean everyone else is. Also,
the origin of the money to pay for all of that stadium stuff is still
unclear me. Anyway, some school structures are slab on grade, at least on level 1.
Even if they have craw spaces or basements, retrofitting is most certainly extremely expensive. Any discussions I've seen are largely centered around retrofit of existing facilities to go unisex because running all the plumbing and wiring is pretty costly. It isn't like modifications to a home. As it is, installation of suites would require jack hammering cement in a limited area where there is already plumbing and compliant wiring for fire alarms etc. In a school district that is NORMAL, that funding comes from a budgeting process that is 3-5 years out, and would absolutely impact the educational
mission...no question. Here you are asking not for sacrifices of over indulgence, but basic educational needs. Also, many inner city schools will simply never, ever be able to comply...w/o help.

My point was/is, you can't just wave your hands like the Obama administration,
and only provide support by unleashing the justice department on people. YOU
KNOW that is destined to polarize this issue beyond the obvious social war,
with little hope of winning over people, even if some half-assed
implementation happens in some places. So who've you helped. You need to
define what is good enough, when it needs implemented, and how money may be
sought for help implementing it. The ADA is an ok model...anything less is
simply a political "nerve" being irritated at the expense of real
people...not the least of which are a few kids who have an issue who will
undoubtedly now have a spotlight on them as people fight over this. This
entire bathroom thing was calculated, and a fight that was picked coming
into an election year. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You
can't pick a fight on behalf of the weak for political reasons and demonize
the other side when they have legitimate concerns. That’s scummy, lowlife
divisive garbage that leaves a legacy of hatred and distrust. Is anyone
here going to honestly say the Obama administration is above such? At some
point if people want the polarization to stop, and human dignity back in
these processes, folks need to recognize, and not reward political chicanery
by refusing to be a pawn. That takes losing the "by any means necessary"
approach to causes near and dear to you. That takes being plan centric, and
not politically centric.

 

[phgreek]

The average guy on the street doesn't have/or need an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires MULTIPLE rounds with 1 pull of the trigger and are generally illegal.

You're probably thinking of semi-automatic weapons which with one trigger pull fires ONE round, ejects the casing, and reloads a new round in the chamber without the manual operation of a bolt.

...and there is simply no way to regulate semi-automatic weapons, and automatic weapons are already illegal to common Joe.

 

[wizards8507]

The private restrooms would be available to anyone who wants to use them, especially those who who have been or might be singled out for abuse in the public restroom. Their use would be voluntary. Transgenders would be only one of the groups using the private restrooms. Lesbians and Gays would be welcome to use the restrooms, as would minorities: black students in a predominantly white school, white students in a predominantly black school, Muslims in a predominantly Christian school, etc. Students singled out for bullying for whatever reason would have access to the private restrooms. They wouldn't be "Transgender" restrooms. They would be "Private" restrooms and available to all to use as needed.

I taught for 42 years, and the school from which I just retired had a private restroom for each of four kindergartens. It also had 13 other restrooms designated by gender, two of which were reserved for teachers and one for the school nurse. As far as school budgets go, it would not be a major expense to convert some of these restrooms to private restrooms or to add a few private restrooms. It's all a matter of priorities. Is your priority safety or is your priority a manicured baseball field, a shiny new administrator's office, more I-Pads than you need, etc.?

And as far as outing transgenders or gays or lesbians, for that matter, the students know well before the teachers and administrators become aware.

Private restrooms have already been deemed discriminatory by the trans lobby. They were part of the original proposals that were shot down by Charlotte's ordinance. They've drawn the line at no less than full access to whatever bathroom, locker room, and shower they want based on their gender identity.

 

[Legacy]

The average guy on the street doesn't have/or need an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon fires MULTIPLE rounds with 1 pull of the trigger and are generally illegal.

You're probably thinking of semi-automatic weapons which with one trigger pull fires ONE round, ejects the casing, and reloads a new round in the chamber without the manual operation of a bolt.

The Slave-State Origins of Modern Gun Rights

As early as 1840, antebellum historian Richard Hildreth observed that violence was frequently employed in the South both to subordinate slaves and to intimidate abolitionists. In the South, violence also was an approved way to avenge perceived insults to manhood and personal status. According to Hildreth, duels “appear but once an age” in the North, but “are of frequent and almost daily occurrence at the outh.” Southern men thus carried weapons both “as a protection against the slaves” and also to be prepared for “quarrels between freemen.”

Malcolm X:

We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."

"The day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself."

 

[NDohio]

Private restrooms have already been deemed discriminatory by the trans lobby. They were part of the original proposals that were shot down by Charlotte's ordinance. They've drawn the line at no less than full access to whatever bathroom, locker room, and shower they want based on their gender identity.

Yep.

Article in the Dayton Daily News about a student in that area. See bold:

Troy City Schools officials said they are following legal advice in allowing a transgender student to use the school restroom of his new gender.

Troy Superintendent Eric Herman said school officials were approached just before school began Aug. 19 by a junior high school student. The student had previously attended Troy schools as a female, but declared he is a male and asked to be able to use the boys’ restroom.

After consulting with legal counsel, the district sent a telephone message to parents Friday afternoon, saying that denying a student’s request to use a restroom that matches the student’s gender identity is prohibited under federal Title IX. This information was also shared with the student and his parents, Herman said.

In addition, parents were told that each school has a restroom available for any students or visitors who do not want to use the shared restrooms. Parents were told to call Herman or any building principal if they had questions.

“We try to make sure all of our kids are safe and protect their rights. It is a big job,” Herman said. “We are trying to work our way through it the best we can. My role in this is to comply with the law as superintendent.”


Law, state approach

Sara Clark, director of legal services for the Ohio School Boards Association, said her office has gotten a lot more gender identity questions from school districts recently, citing media attention about the topic. The pinnacle of that attention came in April, when 1976 Olympic decathlon champion Bruce Jenner announced that he is a woman, taking the name Caitlyn.

“I think a lot of (students) who maybe haven’t been comfortable coming out at school or having the conversation with their school district are now having those conversations,” Clark said.


Clark wrote a November article on transgender students that was sent to Ohio school districts by OSBA.

On one side, the article says there are no explicit federal legal protections for transgender students, and while more than a dozen states have their own laws offering some protections on the basis of gender identity, Ohio is not one of them.

On the other side, Clark said the federal departments of Education and Justice argue that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is “based on sex” and therefore in violation of Title IX (as Troy said).


The conflict creates a type of legal limbo that could eventually be decided by a Supreme Court ruling.

OSBA does say the state’s existing anti-bullying law for schools would cover “bullying or harassing behavior directed at a person’s gender identity.” Clark said transgender issues are widely misunderstood, and suggested school districts should provide training. OSBA is offering a training session Oct. 1 in what Clark called “an area of the law that’s changing quickly.”

“The whole goal is to treat it on a case-by-case basis, and what works for one student might not work for another,” she said. “Just have the conversations. It depends on the student, it depends on the environment, it depends on their comfort level.”

Upset residents

Some Troy residents are angry about the school district’s action.

Bryan Kemper of Troy, who said he has six children in district schools, said he was “outraged” by the district’s telephone message. He stood on Market Street near the board of education offices Monday morning with signs, one saying, “My students deserve privacy/No co-ed bathrooms.”

He said a community meeting for concerned parents would be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 1, at the Koinos Christian Church at 722 Grant St. in Troy. “This will not be a debate or a bash session, we want an honest conversation about something many parents and students are deeply concerned about,” an email about the meeting said.

Herman said late Monday the district had heard from an estimated 15 parents.

“Some people understood we are complying with the law. It is hard for them to realize or understand completely,” he said.

Herman said there were no complaints of harassment of the student in question, and discussions were held with the student and his parents. A protocol is being developed for handling of any other requests, he said.

Other districts

Centerville City Schools Superintendent Tom Henderson said his district has worked with male students who identify themselves as female, having conversations with the student, parents, teachers and others at the school.

“We have a responsibility to make sure those kids are safe at school, and we would work through it at that particular school building,” Henderson said. “Typically you have a bathroom in a clinic, and we would set it up where if they were in phys ed class and the locker room was an issue, we’d have a clinic bathroom (that they could use).”

In Maine and Colorado, courts have ruled that limiting transgender students to a one-person, unisex bathroom like that, rather than the larger shared bathroom they identify with, is discriminatory. But Clark said those rulings were based on state laws, and Ohio does not have a comparable law.

Clark wrote in the OSBA article that “transgender support organizations consistently recommend transgender students be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity, and many districts have successfully implemented such a plan.”

 

[Irish Insanity]

How long before I can identify as handicap and start parking in a handicap spot. I feel I'm being discriminated against.

 

[ACamp1900]

How long before I can identify as handicap and start parking in a handicap spot. I feel I'm being discriminated against.

Ha, this reminds me, last week I'm with my mom... for those that don't know my father passed away suddenly earlier this year. During his last year or so he got a handicapped sticker/sign...

anyway, I'm having lunch with my mom on Friday, the parking lot is PACKED.. she pulls right into the handicap spot and I'm like, "Mom?"

She directs me to the glove box a tells me to put dad's old HC sign on the rear view... it felt so dirty, but so good at the same time.........

 

[EddytoNow]

Private restrooms have already been deemed discriminatory by the trans lobby. They were part of the original proposals that were shot down by Charlotte's ordinance. They've drawn the line at no less than full access to whatever bathroom, locker room, and shower they want based on their gender identity.

I assume that what was shot down was a private "Transgender" restroom and a public restroom for everyone else, something that would be treating transgenders separately and differently. I am proposing that public school, multi-stall restrooms be replaced with several smaller private restrooms that would be available to all students to use (one student at a time). Everyone would have equal access to private restrooms. Transgenders would be treated no differently than anyone else, and no one would have to proclaim their gender preference before using the restroom.

 

[GDomer09]

I assume that what was shot down was a private "Transgender" restroom and a public restroom for everyone else, something that would be treating transgenders separately and differently. I am proposing that public school, multi-stall restrooms be replaced with several smaller private restrooms that would be available to all students to use (one student at a time). Everyone would have equal access to private restrooms. Transgenders would be treated no differently than anyone else, and no one would have to proclaim their gender preference before using the restroom.

News flash "transgenders" ARE different. That's why it's a controversy.

We're not talking about what race, religion, or sexual preference anymore. We're talking about someone saying they feel like their something different then science says they are and whatever that is we must allow it to change our ways to accommodate them. A black Muslim man, white Christian man and a gay atheist man all have the same thing in common when it comes to restrooms and locker rooms. It's really that simple.

Furthermore, whether people want to admit it or not, this is a big argument because most believe this to be a mental illness with no evidence to speak otherwise. If a boy is raised to be a man and taught to understand the difference and to know there's no changing it would some of these transgender situations really be happening?

This is about pushing a blatant sexual agenda -- including sex changes that involve cutting off body parts -- upon impressionable schoolchildren as young as kindergarten. Can you imagine having these conversations at that age????