Va. bill would require schools to verify children’s genitals before using restroom
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
No, it's based on traditional factors. The gays are the ones trying to change things, not the other way around.
Wait until you're an adult to make that decision. When I was a teen, I thought I was a rock star. As I matured, I realized I'm not.
Well make a law that scoping is illegal!!!!! Everyone knows men scope each other out whether they re gay or straight! For different reasons, of course.
Okay I lean to the right on many topics(other than being pro-choice); but this is way over the top IMHO. It's a bathroom for Christ's sake. I don't give a rat's a$$ who is in there. If I have to take a leak, I don't care who is standing/sitting next to me, if I got to go, I'm going. Why on earth does it matter? I also don't agree that kids should be subject to a strip search to use the restroom.
Are you sure? I didn't get to keep my insurance that I liked. And time and time again BHO told me I could.
I know of a fact there are exceptions to this. And don't our leaders always govern for the exception?
I know . . . let's require gay men to use women's bathrooms.
Now . . . how do we tell if they are gay?
I'm sure the free market has already solved this problem in the private sector.
I suggest we look at companies like Chick-Fil-A to see how they have responded to this serious problem.
I suggest we look at companies like Chick-Fil-A to see how they have responded to this serious problem.
Actually, it's her vulva that they care about, since the vagina is an internal organ.
They're completely different scenarios. Gay couples should have the right to get married just like heterosexual couples. Dudes shouldn't be able to shower in the girls' locker room just because he feels like he should have been born a female.
It's not even close to the same argument.
I suggest we repeal Obamacare and use that money to redesign school bathrooms so that instead of group bathrooms divided by gender, we have a bunch of single-occupancy bathrooms.
OK, OK, I'm not really suggesting we repeal Obamacare. But it seems pretty obvious that single-occupancy bathrooms would resolve this - whether you think it's a problem or not.
OK, OK, I'm not really suggesting we repeal Obamacare. But it seems pretty obvious that single-occupancy bathrooms would resolve this - whether you think it's a problem or not.
No, the free market hasn't solved the problem because the problem is already being regulated by our benevolent Federal government.
- EEOC v. Deluxe Financial Services Corp., (D. Minn. Civ. No. 0:15-cv-02646-ADM-SER, filed June 4, 2015). The EEOC sued Deluxe Financial Services Corporation, a check-printing and financial services corporation, alleging that after charging party, Britney Austin, began to present at work as a woman and informed her supervisors that she was transgender, Deluxe refused to let her use the women's restroom in violation of Title VII. The Commission further alleged that supervisors and coworkers subjected her to a hostile work environment, including hurtful epithets and intentionally using the wrong gender pronouns to refer to her.
- EEOC v. Lakeland Eye Clinic, P.A. (M.D. Fla. Civ. No. 8:14-cv-2421-T35 AEP filed Sept. 25, 2014, settled April 9, 2015). The EEOC sued Lakeland Eye Clinic, an organization of health care professionals, alleging that it discriminated based on sex by firing an employee because she is transgender, because she was transitioning from male to female, and/or because she did not conform to the employer's gender-based expectations, preferences, or stereotypes in violation of Title VII. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant's employee had performed her duties satisfactorily throughout her employment. However, after she began to present as a woman and informed the clinic she was transgender, Lakeland fired her. In April 2015, Defendant agreed to settle the case by entering into a two year consent decree which includes injunctive relief and $150,000 in monetary damages.
- EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. (E.D. Mich. Civ. No. 2:14-cv-13710-SFC-DRG filed Sept. 25, 2014). The EEOC sued Detroit-based R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc., alleging that it discriminated based on sex by firing a funeral director/embalmer because she is transgender, because she was transitioning from male to female, and/or because she did not conform to the employer's gender-based expectations, preferences, or stereotypes in violation of Title VII. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Amiee Stephens had been employed by Harris as a funeral Director/Embalmer since October 2007 and had always adequately performed the duties of that position. In 2013, she gave Harris a letter explaining she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female, and would soon start to present (e.g., dress) in appropriate business attire at work, consistent with her gender identity as a woman. Two weeks later, Harris's owner fired Stephens, telling her that what she was "proposing to do" was unacceptable. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 19, 2014. The EEOC opposed the motion on December 10, 2014. On April 23, 2015, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. The court acknowledged that "even though transgendered/transsexual status is currently not a protected class under Title VII, Title VII nevertheless 'protects transsexuals from discrimination for failing to act in accordance and/or identify with their perceived sex or gender.'" Id. at 8. The court concluded that the EEOC had sufficiently pled a sex-stereotyping gender-discrimination claim under Title VII because the Commission alleged that Stephen's failure to conform to sex stereotypes was the driving force behind the funeral home's decision to fire Stephens. Id. at 14.
- EOC v. Boh Bros. Constr.Co. LLC (5th Cir. 11-30770). The Commission won a jury verdict in the amount of $451,000 in this Title VII enforcement action with evidence showing that Chuck Wolfe, the supervisor of an all-male construction crew, harassed Kerry Woods, one of his subordinates, and created a hostile work environment. The district court subsequently reduced the verdict to $301,000 because of statutory limits and also provided injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination. A panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the jury verdict, and the EEOC sought rehearing en banc. In September 2013, a 10-6 majority of the Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict except for the punitive damages award.
The Appellate Court held that a plaintiff alleging same-sex harassment can show that the harassment occurred because of sex by showing that it was motivated by the harasser's subjective perception that the victim failed to conform to gender stereotypes. The Court agreed with the Commission that this rule follows from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). The Court ruled that the focus is on the "harasser's subjective perception of the victim" and even an employer's "wrong or ill-informed assumptions about its employee may form the basis of a discrimination claim" since "[w]e do not require a plaintiff to prop up his employer's subjective discriminatory animus by proving that it was rooted in some objective truth." The Court then ruled that the Commission had offered sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict that Wolfe harassed Woods because of sex (here, because Wolfe viewed Woods as "not manly enough"), and that Wolfe's harassment of Woods was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment.See 732 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
So, why is the transgendered employee's feelings more important than the feelings of everybody else on the job?
Not a problem if we do away with the group bathroom layout of locker rooms. Replace the open space with multiple shower heads and no walls with a bunch of single-person showers.
Sure, that costs money to change, but if we think it's worth doing, we should spend the money.
How many bathrooms in all the schools and all the workplaces and all the places of public accommodation in this country will need to be redesigned? How much would that undertaking cost?
All so that 0.3% of the adult population won't feel uncomfortable going into the bathroom that corresponds with his or her God-given genitals?
Yepp- but les-b-honest...
On Wednesday, Portland, Ore. police arrestedTerrence Patrick Bean, who has been charged with two felony counts of having sex with a minor last year. This man is not just any old guy accused of having sex with a 15-year-old – he's a big-money Democratic donor and liberal political activist with connections inside the Obama White House. Bean raised more than a half-million dollars for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
"Bean has been one of the state's biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state," reports oregonlive.com. "He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama."
Again . . . problem solved if we have single-occupancy bathrooms.
BTW, nothing is keeping the private sector from solving this problem. Your cites don't prevent them from going unisex, or single bathrooms, or other approaches that clever capitalists could come up with.
The market always has to adapt to laws. So why hasn't the private sector already "fixed" this. And why is the party of the private sector calling for nonsense like this rather than turning to the private sector for solutions?
Cons.... Invent a problem, call for government authoritarianism to fix it, refuse to pay for a better fix.
BAU
The overwhelming vast majority of public bathrooms have single occupancy stalls. That's really all that's needed.
Or people could simply respect the bathroom traditions that have worked out just fine for as long as humanity has had bathrooms.
"Cons" didn't invent this problem. GBLT activists invented this problem.
You may be right, depending on how you define "full" support. There are those, like John Kasich, who don't agree with gay marriage personally, but also don't see it as the state's responsibility to hold up his own religious (I assume it's religious for him) belief, and therefore won't stand in the way of it being legal. He'll also support his friends in their choices, because he loves them, whether he agrees or not. IMO, that stance is a ok.
Those who believe the state should conform to their religious belief...well, they're not going to get their way on gay marriage or many other issues. Nor should they.
Gender separate bathrooms are actually a recent phenomenon. For most of humanity both genders used the same facilities.
We have not yet solved the variable of bi-sexuality. Any chance we could just kill the male bi's and own the the females? Natural needs to help us out with history here.
I've stood over a female floor urinal in Korea. Hung around for 4 hours but never got to see a female use one. I was probably creeping out the entire elementary school, huh?
In Asia there are women cleaning the men's bathrooms all the time while you're in there. It's pretty much the same thing at our house.
How did native American women handle their periods? Did they have an absorbent material? How many bunnies had to die per month for the average woman? Just curious if any of you historians know.
Last edited:
Change the labels on bathroom doors.
Instead of one door reading "Men" and the other reading "Women" how about these signs:
"Bathroom: 3 Stalls, 3 Urinals"
"Bathroom: 5 Stalls, 0 Urinals"
Let people pick the one they want to use.
Cheap fix. Problem solved.
You're welcome.
Instead of one door reading "Men" and the other reading "Women" how about these signs:
"Bathroom: 3 Stalls, 3 Urinals"
"Bathroom: 5 Stalls, 0 Urinals"
Let people pick the one they want to use.
Cheap fix. Problem solved.
You're welcome.
Many of them has separate menstrual huts, isolated from the rest of the community, that they would retire to during their menses.
So in your scenario a boy pretends he's trans in order to use the girls bathroom. He goes in there and discovers that it's a bunch of stalls and that he can't see the girls taking a dump inside them and leaves. Where is the problem that needs to be solved with a new law that requires children to show their genitals to adults at school?
Some of them even had separate premenstrual huts. They were about 5 miles away from the community.
So Trad, should I throw away the pic of MLK in my office or sell it on Ebay? Of course I would donate the proceeds to Black Lives Matter.
