Stop the insanity!!! Transgender "Rights".

[RickD]

Obama administration tells public schoo ... hoice.html

Well, our beloved Current presidential administration has officially gone insane!

Obama passed a law that says transgender students in all public schools can use whatever bathroom or locker room that they want. By definition, transgender means:

denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender.

So, if a male student decides to self-identify as a female for the day, or hour, he can not only go into a girl's bathroom, but can also use a girl's locker room.

Are we as a nation, at the point of no return?

[edwardmurphy]

First off, the president can't pass laws. So no, Obama didn't do that.

Second, I'm assuming that teachers and administrators will exercise an iota of common sense and reject the football team's transparent plan to shower with the cheerleaders.

When it comes to transgender people I see it like this - I don't really get it. I'm way too literal a person to be able to easily accept that someone can be a gender other than the one he/she was born with. It baffles me, and I'd really like to see some sort of genetic evidence or something.

HOWEVER, I also see how transgender people are stigmatized, mocked, and shunned. I've seen transgender women (meaning guys who identify as women - god, our language has become confusing) walk into restaurants. The whole place goes quite, then there's the snickering and whispering. How much would it suck to face that every time you went anywhere? And yet these people are so miserable in their own skins that they figure putting up with ridicule, mockery, and insults from a large segment of society is better than living as their birth gender. That resonates with me (as it probably should with you as well, considering that early Christians were in much the same position).

Anyway, society is changing so I'll do my best to roll with it.

[Byblos]

First off, the president can't pass laws. So no, Obama didn't do that.

Really? Then you should have no problem pointing out the date congress voted and passed Obamacare.

[Byblos]

First off, the president can't pass laws. So no, Obama didn't do that.

Second, I'm assuming that teachers and administrators will exercise an iota of common sense and reject the football team's transparent plan to shower with the cheerleaders.

When it comes to transgender people I see it like this - I don't really get it. I'm way too literal a person to be able to easily accept that someone can be a gender other than the one he/she was born with. It baffles me, and I'd really like to see some sort of genetic evidence or something.

HOWEVER, I also see how transgender people are stigmatized, mocked, and shunned. I've seen transgender women (meaning guys who identify as women - god, our language has become confusing) walk into restaurants. The whole place goes quite, then there's the snickering and whispering. How much would it suck to face that every time you went anywhere? And yet these people are so miserable in their own skins that they figure putting up with ridicule, mockery, and insults from a large segment of society is better than living as their birth gender. That resonates with me (as it probably should with you as well, considering that early Christians were in much the same position).

Anyway, society is changing so I'll do my best to roll with it.

So how do you propose these societal changes can be enforceable? If the federal or any state government want to impose specific rules (for or against, it doesn't really matter) the first thing they need is redefine gender. In the olden days it was rather simple, really. Male and female, men and women. Period. Clear-cut, unambiguous, straight to the point gender.

Now-a-days, what does gender really mean? Is it the sex a person is born into? Is it the gender one transforms into or merely identifies with? No one knows and therefore, all these stupid rules are meaningless and unenforceable.

To enforce a rule means the rules are clearly defined. The rules are no longer clearly defined. If the government wants to enforce anti-discrimination laws, in the absence of a clear definition of gender (which I think is impossible), then they must start passing laws for gender-less bathrooms and bear the cost of conversions. Otherwise it should be left up to the individuals or local businesses. I don't see another equitable way.

[edwardmurphy]

First off, the president can't pass laws. So no, Obama didn't do that.

Really? Then you should have no problem pointing out the date congress voted and passed Obamacare.

No, no problem at all. The first version passed the House on November 7, 2009, a similar version passed the Senate on December 25, 2009, and then the House accepted and passed the Senate version on March 21, 2010. The President signed it on the 23rd, thus making a bill into a law.

I'm puzzled, Byblos. That took me less than 5 minutes. Do you have a conspiracy theory you've yet to unveil or something?

So how do you propose these societal changes can be enforceable?

No idea. This morning I found myself watching a Bill Maher (an irritatingly smug progressive, atheist comedian) rerun. Dan Savage (a gay sex advice columnist*) and Ann Coulter (a black-hearted, skull-faced** monster that does some punditry) were debating the issue and both raised points that I though were valid. It's a rare day that I agree completely with either of those two, much less both simultaneously. So anyway, it's a tough issue.




* Meaning that he's both gay and a sex advice columnist. The sex advice that he gives doesn't necessarily pertain to homosexual congress.

** To clarify, I'm aware that everybody has a face on their skull, but that makes them face-skulled, not skull-faced. Ann Coulter looks like Skeletor and is therefore skull-faced.

[Byblos]

First off, the president can't pass laws. So no, Obama didn't do that.

Really? Then you should have no problem pointing out the date congress voted and passed Obamacare.

No, no problem at all. The first version passed the House on November 7, 2009, a similar version passed the Senate on December 25, 2009, and then House accepted and passed the Senate version on March 21, 2010. The President signed it on the 23rd.

I'm puzzled, Byblos. That took me less than 5 minutes. Do you have a conspiracy theory you've yet to unveil or something?]

I wasn't specific enough, my fault. I meant certain aspects of obamacare that required executive orders (as related to abortion and coverage). My point, of course, was that the president doesn't pass laws is nonsense. Presidents issue executive orders all the time bypassing votes in both houses.

[B. W.]

This order from the el-prezident and justice dept is a pedophiles and sex offender dream come true and ripe for exploitation.

I worked as Case Manager and part of treatment team for Sex offenders and pedophiles as part of state SOMB team.

This also opens the door for perverts to graduate into sex offences and be peepers too all legalized. This indeed puts our children and daughters wives and women at great risk for exploitation and filming and victims of all the various sex crimes out there.

Basically, from a professional level, this is pure insanity and shows how stupid the left in this country really is. They do not know a thing about sex offenders at all, other than empathize with them. Such an political order enforced by the threat of losing funding for Education is beyond reason. Even the LBGT crowd should see the danger of this being exploited as well too.

Don't forget this includes shower and locker rooms in school too!

The President and Justice dept has Lynched our children and women to become more crime victims who cannot speak out for fear of being call names such as bigot, homophobic, narrow minded morons... etc and etc...
-
-
-

[Hortator]

Hey O

maybe you should fix the economy instead

just sayin

[melanie]

This order from the el-prezident and justice dept is a pedophiles and sex offender dream come true and ripe for exploitation.

I worked as Case Manager and part of treatment team for Sex offenders and pedophiles as part of state SOMB team.

This also opens the door for perverts to graduate into sex offences and be peepers too all legalized. This indeed puts our children and daughters wives and women at great risk for exploitation and filming and victims of all the various sex crimes out there.

Basically, from a professional level, this is pure insanity and shows how stupid the left in this country really is. They do not know a thing about sex offenders at all, other than empathize with them. Such an political order enforced by the threat of losing funding for Education is beyond reason. Even the LBGT crowd should see the danger of this being exploited as well too.

Don't forget this includes shower and locker rooms in school too!

The President and Justice dept has Lynched our children and women to become more crime victims who cannot speak out for fear of being call names such as bigot, homophobic, narrow minded morons... etc and etc...
-
-
-

B.W as someone who isn't entirely comfortable with transgender rights, purely because it's unfamiliar grounds what you are claiming is BS.
Stats clearly show that sexual exploitation of children by far and large is not being perpetrated by the transgender community.
Females are statically much more likely to be abused by someone they know, usually family related and much more likely to be heterosexual. Coaches, teachers, stepfathers ect are the usual suspects. Although there are always exceptions.
There are definitely legit concerns in regards to these new laws but as far as perverts go, they are by far and large usually your born male, hetro variety.

[edwardmurphy]

The conservative argument isn't that transgender people are rapists, it's that this opens the door for pedophiles, rapists, and pornographers to throw on a dress and hang out in women's bathrooms preying on our wives and daughters. It's still a BS argument, though, for a number of reasons. You already listed some of them.

[Jac3510]

No, some conservatives may make that argument, but actually, the conservative argument is that everyone has the right to modesty. It could be true, I suppose, that co-ed locker rooms might lead to more rape, but I doubt it very much. Laws are laws, and people who want to rape are going to do so whether they are in a locker room, a bathroom, a dark alley, or in the backseat of the car with their date.

The real question is, why have gender assigned bathrooms at all? Why have gender assigned locker rooms at all? Why have gender assigned fitting rooms at all? And the answer, of course, has to do with modesty. I don't want to be in a locker room with a bunch of women. I don't want a woman in the bathroom with me. It's a modesty issue. My six year old daughter would feel uncomfortable going to the bathroom with a boy, much less going to the bathroom and stepping out and seeing a man dressed like a woman waiting for her stall.

Now, you can say that feeling is inappropriate and ought to be educated out of her, and that would be a fine argument to make. I'll be honest and say that if you did make it, then I think you would be making it disingenuously, because I don't think you believe it. Unless you are willing to press for the removal of all gender assignment of any kind (no more male/female bathrooms or locker room or fitting rooms or anything like that) at all, then you just don't believe your own argument.

You want to make an argument for unisex bathroom? Fine. We can talk about whether or not that should be required. I'm undecided there. But to say that biological males can be granted access to rooms assigned to women is wrong, not so much because it puts the physical safety of the women at risk, but because you are guaranteeing that you will put quite a few of those women in significant psychological distress. And if our Supreme Court rulings do mean anything at all, we ARE constitutionally required to consider a woman's psychological distress when litigating and legislating these issues.

[crochet1949]

It has been stated that gender identity problems only affect 3tens of 1% of the population. So -- let Those people be responsible for their Own bathroom / shower facilities.

Please - let Common Sense be used.

How many people of school age actually have that problem. Boys, guys, use the room designated MEN -- leave us women Alone.

The President has No business Threatening school districts with withholding Fed funding for refusing to comply with his latest lack of brain storm.

[crochet1949]

The other day on FaceBook someone had put a picture of a women with cat face paint on and wanted bathrooms to have kitty-litter boxes installed cause She wanted to identify as a Cat. L O L -- It had been meant as a Joke.

[Jac3510]

It has been stated that gender identity problems only affect 3tens of 1% of the population. So -- let Those people be responsible for their Own bathroom / shower facilities.

Please - let Common Sense be used.

How many people of school age actually have that problem. Boys, guys, use the room designated MEN -- leave us women Alone.

The President has No business Threatening school districts with withholding Fed funding for refusing to comply with his latest lack of brain storm.

Meh. What can be ordered by one POTUS can be rescinded by the next. Other than just setting precedent, it's not nearly as concerning as if it had been enacted by law. Frankly, I think the next POTUS ought to rescind the order but rather than directing the conservative way, the POTUS ought to leave it to local school boards. Bottom line is the the POTUS should have absolutely nothing to do with public education.

[Hortator]

Found a very thorough, yet long, article all about the trending T fad in America.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/whats-really ... der-mania/

There are many points of view in here that I had never considered before, realizing that I'm really only given one point of view from the mainstream media.