Republicans want these children to go to the boys room. Promise they will be "safe"

[Flopper]

The one with the dangly bit...or xxy chromosomes, you may change the first but you'll never change the second

Your attempt at a pathetic straw man is noted. Science has determined what chromosome make up determines male and female, xy is an abnormality...and again, has nothing to do with a man deciding he is really a woman, which is simply a mental disorder

You and I seem to be in complete agreement on principle, but I have to point out that you seem to be getting a bit confused about the underlying science.

In short, XY = male, XX = female.

Normally, we get one from each of our parents. Since female is XX, we always get an X from our mother. We get either an X or a Y from our father, and in the absence of some extremely rare genetic or chromosomal defects, that is what determines our sex.

Extra chromosomes, such as an XXY pattern, are among these extremely rare defects. There are also some other defects in which one may have a normal XX or XY pattern, and yet develop morphologically as the opposite of one's genetic sex, or as some in-between condition. So rarely, we get someone who is not really truly 100% male or 100% female. But these amount, by credible estimates, to about 0.2% of the population. That's a completely different issue than “transgenderism”, which is all about those whose biological sex is normal and unambiguous, but who insist on claiming to be the opposite of their true sex.

It's all semantics, bottom line if you were born with a penis you use the men's room, no penis then use the ladies room. This isn't rocket science and there is absolutely no reason it's even an issue other than to create division

And that is exactly the kind of thinking that kept those with physical and mental disorders out of public schools for years. If you couldn't climb the stairs to your classroom, you stayed home. A child on the autism scale that had communication problems, was turned away from public schools. Today our public schools attempt to accommodate kids with physical and mental problems. If public schools can accommodate kids with other mental disorders, they can certainly accommodate kids with Gender Dysphoria.

 

[bripat9643]

They passed laws that went against federal statutes, dummy.

Link the statutes, prove your claim.

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Republicans push their god on everyone,,,,fuck that party.

What a load of tripe.

It's you who needs it.

 

[OKTexas]

They passed laws that went against federal statutes, dummy.

Link the statutes, prove your claim.

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

 

[OKTexas]

Link the statutes, prove your claim.

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

 

[Jack4jill]

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

Try reading it, instead of making shit up.

 

[Jack4jill]

Link the statutes, prove your claim.

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

Try reading it, instead of making shit up.

Try reading what, the Constitution or Maybery V. Madison where the courts assumed the power of judicial review.

The Constitution only grants the courts the ability to decide if a law is constitutionally compliant, not to determine what a law means, that's the job of congress.

 

[OKTexas]

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[4]

Title IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try reading the whole page, you might not be so ignorant when you're finished.

 

[Crixus]

Let's look at the numbers. .3% of the population is transgender.

And yet they are forcing acceptance - not tolerance, acceptance - of their mental condition on the 99.7 remaining.

I really haven't any problem with the directive because in the end it will have very little impact on schools. In most communities, the small number of transgender students are already using the facilities and are much more accepted by the student bodies than you might think. It's just not big a problem. However, I'm sure it will inspire millions of postings, thousands of internet articles, and demonstrations by the left and right and in the end, it will be much ado about nothing.

not really, and in elementary or preschool I could see your point, but I ask you to remember back to highschool a d what a freak show that was. I remember catching shit because I was waring my brothers hand me down jeans. Keeping that in mind, what will happen to Gavin Grim, the woman who is really the center of this freak show finally gets to get necked after PE with the boys who were borne boys ? You think shit on message boards are cruel ? I bet the comment from her peers are much worse. In this country we have an issue with our youth being fag, lazy and stupid. most can't read or do math coming out of high school when third world shit holes like Pakistan are graduating geniuses. Our presidant should focus on that before Gavin Grim and her freak fetish.

 

[OldLady]

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[4]

Title IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try reading the whole page, you might not be so ignorant when you're finished.

Maybe everyone should read:
Explaining bathroom bills, transgender rights, and equal protection

From :
Fact Check: Do existing federal civil rights laws already protect transgender people?

The three laws are Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace bias based upon sex, and two laws that ban sex bias in programs funded with federal tax dollars: Title IX of a federal educational benefits law passed in 1972, and a 2013 provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Individually, and taken together, those laws – according to Justice Department officials – definitely ban discrimination based on a transgender person’s “gender identity.” (The law that has been applied most expansively in that way is Title VII, primarily because of the energetic use of that law for the past four years by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in job bias cases.)

Sounds to me as if the DOJ has the weight of earlier decisions on their side. They're attorneys; they're not going to sue if they're sure they'll lose. Bigots should back off. No one is going to be accosted in the women's room and you all know it. Same scare tactics bigots were using before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
All this is doing is further turning us into enemies against fellow Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

Try reading it, instead of making shit up.

Try reading what, the Constitution or Maybery V. Madison where the courts assumed the power of judicial review.

The Constitution only grants the courts the ability to decide if a law is constitutionally compliant, not to determine what a law means, that's the job of congress.

They have to determine what a law means before they can determine its constitutionality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

So you would take away the power of the Court to determine if a state or local ban on handguns was constitutional?

 

[rdean]

Republicans feel they have a winning issue that will help Trump become President. Forcing these young people to use the Men's Room. Republicans insist they would be perfectly safe. And they if they used the Women's Room, they would sexually attack women.

They look very dangerous, don't they?

^^^^^^ will commit suicide at a rate 20 times greater than their peers

How is that anyone's fault?

Harassment from your kind?

Nope.

Look at the fourth picture. He's probably not old enough to tie her own shoes, but somehow old enough to decide he's not a boy?

That's what's really sad.

I'm pretty sure it's not something you decide. I never had to decide to be a boy. I always knew I was. And I liked girls at a very young age, but I didn't want to be one.

How about you? When did you decide? Was it a hard decision?

 

[bripat9643]

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[4]

Title IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try reading the whole page, you might not be so ignorant when you're finished.

Maybe everyone should read:
Explaining bathroom bills, transgender rights, and equal protection

From :
Fact Check: Do existing federal civil rights laws already protect transgender people?

The three laws are Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace bias based upon sex, and two laws that ban sex bias in programs funded with federal tax dollars: Title IX of a federal educational benefits law passed in 1972, and a 2013 provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Individually, and taken together, those laws – according to Justice Department officials – definitely ban discrimination based on a transgender person’s “gender identity.” (The law that has been applied most expansively in that way is Title VII, primarily because of the energetic use of that law for the past four years by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in job bias cases.)

Sounds to me as if the DOJ has the weight of earlier decisions on their side. They're attorneys; they're not going to sue if they're sure they'll lose. Bigots should back off. No one is going to be accosted in the women's room and you all know it. Same scare tactics bigots were using before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
All this is doing is further turning us into enemies against fellow Americans.

Why should anyone believe what Fact Check has to say on the subject?

 

[bripat9643]

Title nine I believe. You can look it up, it deals with gender discrimination.

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

So how does making someone with a penis use the men's room violate his rights under Title 9?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Gotta.love.parents who dress up their boys as girls, then take pics and sell them to.media outlets.

stay out of peoples lives,,,,

When you stay out of the restroom we will

 

[OldLady]

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[4]

Title IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try reading the whole page, you might not be so ignorant when you're finished.

Maybe everyone should read:
Explaining bathroom bills, transgender rights, and equal protection

From :
Fact Check: Do existing federal civil rights laws already protect transgender people?

The three laws are Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace bias based upon sex, and two laws that ban sex bias in programs funded with federal tax dollars: Title IX of a federal educational benefits law passed in 1972, and a 2013 provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Individually, and taken together, those laws – according to Justice Department officials – definitely ban discrimination based on a transgender person’s “gender identity.” (The law that has been applied most expansively in that way is Title VII, primarily because of the energetic use of that law for the past four years by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in job bias cases.)

Sounds to me as if the DOJ has the weight of earlier decisions on their side. They're attorneys; they're not going to sue if they're sure they'll lose. Bigots should back off. No one is going to be accosted in the women's room and you all know it. Same scare tactics bigots were using before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
All this is doing is further turning us into enemies against fellow Americans.

Why should anyone believe what Fact Check has to say on the subject?

I'm not wasting my time talking to someone who won't believe facts when they are presented. Go back to your echo chamber.

 

[OKTexas]

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

This is a bunch of regressive bureaucrats trying to bend the law to fit their agenda, not a court. Title 9 was passed to ensure equal funding and facilities for mens and womens sports. It has nothing to do with which bathroom mentally ill people use.

T9 is education,. dumbfuck.

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[4]

Title IX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try reading the whole page, you might not be so ignorant when you're finished.

Maybe everyone should read:
Explaining bathroom bills, transgender rights, and equal protection

From :
Fact Check: Do existing federal civil rights laws already protect transgender people?

The three laws are Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans workplace bias based upon sex, and two laws that ban sex bias in programs funded with federal tax dollars: Title IX of a federal educational benefits law passed in 1972, and a 2013 provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Individually, and taken together, those laws – according to Justice Department officials – definitely ban discrimination based on a transgender person’s “gender identity.” (The law that has been applied most expansively in that way is Title VII, primarily because of the energetic use of that law for the past four years by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in job bias cases.)

Sounds to me as if the DOJ has the weight of earlier decisions on their side. They're attorneys; they're not going to sue if they're sure they'll lose. Bigots should back off. No one is going to be accosted in the women's room and you all know it. Same scare tactics bigots were using before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
All this is doing is further turning us into enemies against fellow Americans.

Right, the weight of decisions made by bureaucrats who are consistently trying to expand their own power. If the folks that support the mentally ill are to be believed, sex and gender are not related, of the laws prohibiting discrimination base on sex wouldn't apply. Simple as that, if trans bias was legal at the time the laws were passed, bending the definitions now makes no sense. Well except in the regressive mind.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong, it deals with discrimination based on sex, not gender or gender identity. The dear leader is trying another one of his end runs around congress, saying it does, when there is no such language in the law. Don't believe me look it up.

Leftwing douche bags have always believed that the government can interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

Judicial interpretation of the law is a constitutionally sanctioned power.

Just one of the many errors in the Constitution.

No, because it's not in the Constitution, it was a power the courts granted themselves. It's unconstitutional.

So you would take away the power of the Court to determine if a state or local ban on handguns was constitutional?

It's job of the courts to determine if a law is constitutionally compliant, not redefine the meaning of laws, that's the job of the legislature.