# Cant understand......



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

If a 12 yr old guy drops his pants and flashes a 12 yr old girl It is a crime,but if the guy claims "to identify as female" The girl has to shower with him in the locker room at school .........HAS THE WORLD REALLY GONE THIS NUTS?????


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

D-BOONE said:


> If a 12 yr old guy drops his pants and flashes a 12 yr old girl It is a crime,but if the guy claims "to identify as female" The girl has to shower with him in the locker room at school .........HAS THE WORLD REALLY GONE THIS NUTS?????


Yes it is going to heck in a hand-basket very fast. The liberal left is getting tis country into a mess as fast as they can. They have no document to back this up they think in their heads that it is unconstitutional but that is only in their heads..


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Well, Ya. Try explaining "stranger danger" to kids now.
Forget about "science" the libs rag on.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

D-BOONE said:


> If a 12 yr old guy drops his pants and flashes a 12 yr old girl It is a crime,but if the guy claims "to identify as female" The girl has to shower with him in the locker room at school .........HAS THE WORLD REALLY GONE THIS NUTS?????


It really has. All in the name of 'civil rights'. Just imagine how much farther it can go under that banner or the banner of 'social justice'. 

:run:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Where are 12 year olds being forced to shower with anyone?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where are 12 year olds being forced to shower with anyone?


Please don't mess with the hysteria by injecting a common sense question....it throws the whole thing off track.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> It really has. All in the name of 'civil rights'. Just imagine how much farther it can go under that banner or the banner of 'social justice'.
> 
> :run:


Its a take over of America One Bathroom At A Time. When you knock out God from your life you can see right here where this country is now headed. &#55357;&#56447; Common Sense, decency, morality and privacy go right down the sewer along with whats right and wrong.


----------



## brosil (Dec 15, 2003)

Why D-Boone, they're both girls now because they think they are. I think I'm a unicorn. Want to see a rainbow?


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/...allow-boys-to-use-girls-locker-rooms-showers/

"...Federal education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls&#8217; sports team to change and shower in the girls&#8217; locker room without restrictions..."

and in case the idea is as long as we provide curtains for privacy, this satisfies the directive, 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-school-district-transgender-ruling/

"....
Like other districts faced with this dilemma, the district tried to find a negotiated solution by putting up privacy curtains in the girls' locker room. Similar arrangements have kept schools from running afoul of anti-discrimination violations. 
At Township High School District 211, however, the line between accommodation and discrimination came down to this: whether the student would be able to choose to use the privacy curtains, or whether the school could force her to do so. 
The use of curtains might be OK, but the school can't have a policy that singles out this student for mandatory use of the privacy curtains, the Department of Education report states...."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> It really has. All in the name of 'civil rights'. Just imagine how much farther it can go under that banner or the banner of 'social justice'.
> 
> :run:


All American citizens have rights, not just some Americans or some rights. 

Are you ready to give up the civil right to your religion? No? Why not?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It is just going to get better, and better, and better.

It is your's to accept, or reject. Laws will be passed, and mores amended to make rejection reason for ostracization.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I already decided to quit bar room fights. The first time a man claims he's a (she) that carries a mandatory 72 hours in jail.....


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> All American citizens have rights, not just some Americans or some rights.
> 
> Are you ready to give up the civil right to your religion? No? Why not?


As has been stated many times, trans have been using the restroom that matches their anatomy or, if dressed accordingly, the one they identify with. 

So please explain to me how their rights to go to the restroom were being denied.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> All American citizens have rights, not just some Americans or some rights.
> 
> Are you ready to give up the civil right to your religion? No? Why not?


Wrong thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> As has been stated many times, trans have been using the restroom that matches their anatomy or, if dressed accordingly, the one they identify with.
> 
> So please explain to me how their rights to go to the restroom were being denied.


They are trying to pass laws that would deny them these rights. Is that explanation enough?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> As has been stated many times, trans have been using the restroom that matches their anatomy or, if dressed accordingly, the one they identify with.
> 
> So please explain to me how their rights to go to the restroom were being denied.





painterswife said:


> They are trying to pass laws that would deny them these rights. Is that explanation enough?


Painterswife explained it perfectly. It's OK for states to deny you the ability to have religion? You'd be fine with that, right?

ETA: Except for Ebony Belcher, right? The transgender woman that was assaulted trying to use the woman's bathroom in DC?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> They are trying to pass laws that would deny them these rights. Is that explanation enough?


'Are' or 'were'? What prompted this current push if trans have been, admittedly, using restrooms all along? Can you provide a link showing proposals, prior to Obama's recent mandate, to stop trans from using restrooms?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> 'Are' or 'were'? What prompted this current push if trans have been, admittedly, using restrooms all along? Can you provide a link showing proposals, prior to Obama's recent mandate, to stop trans from using restrooms?


Maybe you shoul read the other threads discussing the laws being passed in depth. All right there.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

As for the Ebony Belcher incident, there aren't enough details to have an opinion about it yet. But I will say, something about the story thus far just doesn't smell right.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Maybe you shoul read the other threads discussing the laws *being passed* in depth. All right there.


You're missing my point. Those laws are being passed *in response* to Obama's mandate. 

I'm asking, what prompted the mandate? Were there any laws, anywhere, that prevent*ed* trans from using restrooms?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> You're missing my point. Those laws are being passed *in response* to Obama's mandate.
> 
> I'm asking, what prompted the mandate? Were there any laws, anywhere, that prevent*ed* trans from using restrooms?


Transgenders were suing to get the rights they were denied before the mandate.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> As for the Ebony Belcher incident, there aren't enough details to have an opinion about it yet. But I will say, something about the story thus far just doesn't smell right.


Of course it doesn't to you, will it ever? 

Is it OK if states decide that you no longer have the right to freedom of religion?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course it doesn't to you, will it ever?
> 
> Is it OK if states decide that you no longer have the right to freedom of religion?


Sorry, but states can't do that. 1st Amendment. 

I'll make a decision about Belcher when more details come out. Specifically, what prompted the guard to challenge him/her?

ETA: the snark is early this morning.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Sorry, but states can't do that. 1st Amendment.
> 
> I'll make a decision about Belcher when more details come out. Specifically, what prompted the guard to challenge him/her?
> 
> ETA: the snark is early this morning.


You missed the point but you knew that. All Americans have rights, not some Americans and some rights. All Americans. If the rights of transgenders can be so easily removed, why can't _your_ protected class (religion) be taken away? 

Did you read links to the assault? Is there anything I can help clarify for you?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

They ALREADY WERE going in Bathrooms for the last Umtine YEARS. Non of this BS should have been needed OR was necessary ~! This was just a CERTAIN FEW that wanted to BE SPECIAL why can't YOU admit?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You missed the point but you knew that. All Americans have rights, not some Americans and some rights. All Americans. If the rights of transgenders can be so easily removed, why can't _your_ protected class (religion) be taken away?
> 
> Did you read links to the assault? Is there anything I can help clarify for you?


I've read several links on the story (trying to find more details) and there just aren't enough details. Do you know specifically what prompted the guard to confront him/her?

Since when have men who self-identify as women had the right to use the women's restroom? Or locker rooms?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yeah.
I gotta question.
Can you tell me the personal motivation of these "exercises of rights"?
Is it to protect the oppressed and downtrodden - or is it to gain fame and fortune?
When you can get the truth, get back to me OK?
As said previously, gaining a right is important. Knowing how and when to USE it is even more important.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I've read several links on the story (trying to find more details) and there just aren't enough details. Do you know specifically what prompted the guard to confront him/her?
> 
> Since when have men who self-identify as women had the right to use the women's restroom? Or locker rooms?


They are Americans, and identify as women so they are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same act that protects your civil right to practice your religion without discrimination. 

This has been exactly the same wording in every article I've read: "Belcher said the unidentified guard ordered her to leave the bathroom and called her &#8220;derogatory names.&#8221; According to Belcher, the guard grabbed her and pushed her out of the store after telling her, &#8220;You guys cannot keep coming in here and using our women&#8217;s restroom. They did not pass the law yet.&#8221;

No recantation, no allegation of wrong doing, nothing that indicates it didn't happen or happened differently. Why do you have such a problem believing that this happened but had no problem believing the Planned Parenthood videos by CMP that were _proven_ to be fake? IIRC, you were all over them the second they came out, there was no "wait for more details" it was hysterics over PP "selling baby parts". Willing to admit because the transgender issue doesn't suit your agenda?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

so according to this logic if I was delusional enough I could claim to be GOD and everyone would have to bow down to me.
NUTS
NUTS
NUTS


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> so according to this logic if I was delusional enough I could claim to be GOD and everyone would have to bow down to me.
> NUTS
> NUTS
> NUTS


Well, actually if you believe that transgenderism is a delusion so is the belief of an imaginary figure that runs your life if you only worship it.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

What makes some humans so vain to think they can defy the laws of nature?
I cant say that I remember everything from my high school biology class,but I do remember that almost all species has 2 sexes ,male and female,the only example I can remember of a species that has both and can get itself knocked up is an earthworm.Each sex is given a specific genitalia,easy to distinguish.The old saying still holds true
You cant fool mother nature


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It's all words. The problem is words the solution is words. It is time to move in to this century ,we must do away with the girls room and the boys room. 
It is simply time for the penis room and the vagina room.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are Americans, and identify as women so they are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same act that protects your civil right to practice your religion without discrimination.
> 
> This has been exactly the same wording in every article I've read: "Belcher said the unidentified guard ordered her to leave the bathroom and called her âderogatory names.â According to Belcher, the guard grabbed her and pushed her out of the store after telling her, âYou guys cannot keep coming in here and using our womenâs restroom. They did not pass the law yet.â
> 
> No recantation, no allegation of wrong doing, nothing that indicates it didn't happen or happened differently. Why do you have such a problem believing that this happened but had no problem believing the Planned Parenthood videos by CMP that were _proven_ to be fake? IIRC, you were all over them the second they came out, there was no "wait for more details" it was hysterics over PP "selling baby parts". Willing to admit because the transgender issue doesn't suit your agenda?


I'll say it again, I don't have an opinion because there aren't enough facts. As you said, all the stories say the same things (nearly identically). If you're will to accept the story on those few details, have at it. I suspect there's more to the story.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I'll say it again, I don't have an opinion because there aren't enough facts. As you said, all the stories say the same things (nearly identically). If you're will to accept the story on those few details, have at it. I suspect there's more to the story.


Yup, I understand completely.  :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> What makes some humans so vain to think they can defy the laws of nature?
> I cant say that I remember everything from my high school biology class,but I do remember that almost all species has 2 sexes ,male and female,the only example I can remember of a species that has both and can get itself knocked up is an earthworm.Each sex is given a specific genitalia,easy to distinguish.The old saying still holds true
> You cant fool mother nature


Everyone has a gender too, and sometimes it doesn't match up with biological sex. 

Here's a link that may help: https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/

Testosterone injections, estrogen replacement therapy, birth control pills, insulin, organ replacement, viagra, etc. all fool mother nature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mzgarden said:


> http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/...allow-boys-to-use-girls-locker-rooms-showers/
> 
> "...Federal education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girlsâ sports team to change and shower in the girlsâ locker room without restrictions..."
> 
> ...


Can you point out where that addresses 12 year olds, or forced showers?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Newser) â President Obama issued a mandate last week that transgender students must be allowed to use whichever bathroom and locker room they wish in any US public school

By this mandate It covers the local middle school (grades 7-9 )who must dress for gym class and shower after.

How many parents want their children grades 7-9 having a coed shower?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

D-BOONE said:


> Newser) â President Obama issued a mandate last week that transgender students must be allowed to use whichever bathroom and locker room they wish in any US public school
> 
> By this mandate It covers the local middle school (grades 7-9 )who must dress for gym class and shower after.
> 
> How many parents want their children grades 7-9 having a coed shower?


No one can be forced to shower with anyone even of the same sex.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> They are trying to pass laws that would deny them these rights. Is that explanation enough?


No one has denied them the "right" to use the bathroom, show me where a law has been written that denies anyone the "right" to use the bathroom. 

All this is about a group of people that are asking for SPECIAL "rights" - the right to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, period.

They just are "uncomfortable" about being outted when they dress one way and then think that they will be caught because of their style when they go to the bathroom based on their biological sex.

Do you see any lawsuits where hetero males are asking to access the other bathrooms? OK, then these MALES are asking for Special rights. Rights that other males do not have.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> Newser) â President Obama issued a mandate last week that transgender students must be allowed to use whichever bathroom and locker room they wish in any US public school
> 
> By this mandate It covers the local middle school (grades 7-9 )who must dress for gym class and shower after.
> 
> How many parents want their children grades 7-9 having a coed shower?


I can't find where mandatory showers are required by state or federal BOE do you have a link?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Where in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does it state you have to let men in the women restroom?

Title III

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.


I dont see sex or gender listed so governments can restrict use of public facilities based on sex


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are Americans, and identify as women so they are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same act that protects your civil right to practice your religion without discrimination.


Can you show me where they were denied the use of a bathroom? Was there one available in the close vicinity that matched their biological sex? Or is it that they want special rights to access the bathroom of the opposite sex?

Please be clear.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> Where in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does it state you have to let men in the women restroom?
> 
> Title III
> 
> ...


It specifically states that an American can't be discriminated against for their sex. 

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88â352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, *sex*, or national origin." 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Can you show me where they were denied the use of a bathroom? Was there one available in the close vicinity that matched their biological sex? Or is it that they want special rights to access the bathroom of the opposite sex?
> 
> Please be clear.


They are denied the use of the bathroom of their gender. Honestly, do you really want to repeat all this? If it wasn't understood the first 50 times is another rendition really going to help? I'm not playing the merry go round game that you seem to be so fond of. It's pointless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Can you show me where they were denied the use of a bathroom? Was there one available in the close vicinity that matched their biological sex? Or is it that they want special rights to access the bathroom of the opposite sex?
> 
> Please be clear.


Can you show where *12 year olds* are being forced to shower with anyone?

Please be clear


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> They were denied the use of the bathroom of their gender. Honestly, do you really want to repeat all this? If it wasn't understood the first 50 times is another rendition really going to help? I'm not playing the merry go round game that you seem to be so fond of. It's pointless.


No, we don't have to repeat it. Do they have access to the bathroom that matches their biological sex? Then their rights have not been denied.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show where *12 year olds* are being forced to shower with anyone?
> 
> Please be clear


Can you show me where I asked this question?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> No, we don't have to repeat it. Do they have access to the bathroom that matches their biological sex? Then their rights have not been denied.


According to you but not according to the constitution.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> It specifically states that an American can't be discriminated against for their sex.
> 
> "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88â352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, *sex*, or national origin."
> 
> From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


If your going to quote or refer to an act I suggest you actually read it,in this instance try reading title 3 which says public facilities can be regulated by sex.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> No, we don't have to repeat it. Do they have access to the bathroom that matches their biological sex? Then their rights have not been denied.


Nope. Trans*GENDER* is that clear enough? Biological sex and gender are not the same for everyone. I'm sorry that you can't (or most likely won't) understand but I'm not even going to try any longer. 

Good luck, and may the force by with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> If your going to quote or refer to an act I suggest you actually read it,in this instance try reading title 3 which says public facilities can be regulated by sex.


Does this override that sex is a protected class? And where does it say in Title III that facilities can be be regulated by sex? 

Title III Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Plus I should have quoted the entire paragraph to start with:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88â352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that *outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin*.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by *facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations"*).

To forestall what public accommodations are: 

"What About Public Restrooms?

People sometimes think that âpublic accommodationsâ refers to public restrooms. Actually, âpublic accommodationsâ are categories of businesses that serve the general public. If a business is covered by a public accommodations law, access to all facilities that are open to the public is covered by that law as well. (Similarly, if a business is covered by an employment law, then an employeeâs access to the restrooms is covered by that law.)

Denial of access to a public restroom that is consistent with personâs gender identity may be discrimination based on sex and/or gender identity. Many state and local laws, or official interpretations of those laws, explicitly protect this right; however, in a few states the laws have been interpreted not to protect this right. While most states currently have no official guidance on this issue, you may file a complaint of discrimination with your state or local human rights agency if you are denied equal access to restrooms."

From: http://www.transequality.org/know-your-rights/public-accommodations


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> According to you but not according to the constitution.


Would you be so kind as to show me where the Constitution GUARANTEES males access to the females restrooms and showers and visa-versa?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Would you be so kind as to show me where the Constitution GUARANTEES males access to the females restrooms and showers and visa-versa?


Can you show me where it denies them first.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Does this override that sex is a protected class? And where does it say in Title III that facilities can be be regulated by sex?
> 
> Title III Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.
> 
> ...



Is the underlined part found within The Civil Rights Act or is some other entity trying to enlarge what that Act provides for?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Can you show me where it denies them first.


No, because the Constitution does not stoop to such a trivial claim that a man must be given access to a woman's restroom or private changing or showering area or visa-versa. You've confirmed this by being unable to identify the area that grants these "rights".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Would you be so kind as to show me where the Constitution GUARANTEES males access to the females restrooms and showers and visa-versa?


The 14th Amendment.

"The Department of Education (DOE) regulations implementing Title IX specifically allow schools to provide separate restrooms on the basis of sex. But in 2015, the DOE issued a memo saying that when a school decides to treat students differently on the basis of sex, it âgenerally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.â The ACLU emphasized this interpretation as part of Grimmâs Title IX claim. The complaint also argued that the policy violated Grimmâs rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."

"In Obergefell, Justice Kennedyâs majority opinion explained that â[t]he Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.â Hence, the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment extend to âintimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.â Law professor Lawrence Tribe has celebrated that âObergefellâs chief jurisprudential achievement is to have tightly wound the double helix of Due Process and Equal Protection into a doctrine of equal dignity,â and the decisionâs establishment of same-sex couplesâ freedom to marry was âunderstood by all to directly redress the subordination of LGBT individuals.â

From: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...ills-transgender-rights-and-equal-protection/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Is the underlined part found within The Civil Rights Act or is some other entity trying to enlarge what that Act provides for?


Neither. It's the definition of "public accommodations" I figured it would be an issue, and there's a legal opinion that you underlined as well.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Theres no grey area in the laws of nature males are males they have MALE reproductive organs,females are female they have female reproductive organs if you have a penis just cause you wear a dress and makeup doesnt make you female you are still a male .

Restrooms locker room are assigned by sex of which there are only 2 in the human species.
Ive noticed the term is trans-gender not trans-sex


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well then, those that tell Christians that they are not allowed to pray for them are discriminating against Christians in that they are not allowing them to openly practice their religion. They are forcing those Christians to practice in secret, in their daily dealings, their Constitutionally Protected Right in a manner consistent with the teachings found within their Holy Writings. 

So, is there anyone here that is a hypocrite? Rights for some, not for all?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Neither. It's the definition of "public accommodations" I figured it would be an issue, and there's a legal opinion that you underlined as well.


How is it a legal opinion? You'll forgive me, I can not go to the site that you provided, my anti-virus stopped me with multiple warnings.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> How is it a legal opinion? You'll forgive me, I can not go to the site that you provided, my anti-virus stopped me with multiple warnings.


I quoted it. You won't accept my opinion so I'm not wasting my time to type it. 



Shine said:


> Well then, those that tell Christians that they are not allowed to pray for them are discriminating against Christians in that they are not allowing them to openly practice their religion. They are forcing those Christians to practice in secret, in their daily dealings, their Constitutionally Protected Right in a manner consistent with the teachings found within their Holy Writings.
> 
> So, is there anyone here that is a hypocrite? Rights for some, not for all?


Where in the Constitution does it say that christians can't pray to those that don't believe? 

I've never said it's discriminatory to pray for those that don't believe in god, I've said it's rude. And that it reflects on how small your (collective preachers) faith is that you feel the need to annoy someone with your religion when they clearly don't want it. Is it discriminatory to tell the collective preachers that? Just askin'.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I quoted it. You won't accept my opinion so I'm not wasting my time to type it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, we have our first winner?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> So, we have our first winner?


Sorry. Can you explain? Winner of what?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where are 12 year olds being forced to shower with anyone?


50 years ago we did after gym class, sports practice, and games. Been a log time since have been involved in schools I figure it hasn't changed that much, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jim Bunton said:


> 50 years ago we did after gym class, sports practice, and games. Been a log time since have been involved in schools I figure it hasn't changed that much.
> 
> Jim


It has changed. I can't find anything under state or federal BOE that mandates showers after anything. There are _individual_ schools that say it's mandatory but that would never stand under a lawsuit.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

It stands if you want to pass the class.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Jim Bunton said:


> 50 years ago we did after gym class, sports practice, and games. Been a log time since have been involved in schools I figure it hasn't changed that much.
> 
> Jim


My oldest had to shower after gym but they were individual, the youngest no longer did.
I like you had to shower, and it was in a communal shower, army basic ditto. Times certainly have changed.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The 14th Amendment.
> 
> "The Department of Education (DOE) regulations implementing Title IX specifically allow schools to provide separate restrooms on the basis of sex. But in 2015, the DOE issued a memo saying that when a school decides to treat students differently on the basis of sex, it âgenerally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.â The ACLU emphasized this interpretation as part of Grimmâs Title IX claim. The complaint also argued that the policy violated Grimmâs rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."
> 
> ...


You keep saying gender is different than sex, but these lawsuits are based on sexual discrimination, I'm having a hard time grasping which is true...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> It stands if you want to pass the class.


Link to a credible site? If you can't provide one it's your opinion, and like bellybuttons everyone has one.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Link to a credible site? If you can't provide one it's your opinion, and like bellybuttons everyone has one.


um... wasn't it you that would not link to a credible site when previously asked? As to being the first winner, you're sharp, you know what was going on.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> You keep saying gender is different than sex, but these lawsuits are based on sexual discrimination, I'm having a hard time grasping which is true...


Gender is different than biological sex, but gender wasn't an issue until recently (at least not publicly). It also doesn't say biological sex, so we're stuck with just "sex" for now. 

The 14th doesn't say abortion is legal either but that's the amendment SCOTUS used to rule on Roe v. Wade.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

gym teachers rules teacher gives the grade you do the math.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> It specifically states that an American can't be discriminated against for their sex.
> 
> "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88â352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, *sex*, or national origin."
> 
> From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


Sorry, wrong. It does not include sex in the civil rights act. The EEOC does not allow discrimination based on sex but in the act itself it is absent.
But we have been over this very same issue in another thread, you can keep repeating it but it will not make it true.:nono:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> um... wasn't it you that would not link to a credible site when previously asked? As to being the first winner, you're sharp, you know what was going on.


Who asked me to link to a credible site? I must have missed it. If I can't find a cite I admit it. I just recently had to do so.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender is different than biological sex, but gender wasn't an issue until recently (at least not publicly). It also doesn't say biological sex, so we're stuck with just "sex" for now.
> 
> The 14th doesn't say abortion is legal either but that's the amendment SCOTUS used to rule on Roe v. Wade.


Well that's certainly clear as mud...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

D-BOONE said:


> gym teachers rules teacher gives the grade you do the math.


No link just a bellybutton...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> Well that's certainly clear as mud...


It means that transgenders (actually all LBGT) have rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. US v. Windsor was ruled on using it as well.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It means that transgenders (actually all LBGT) have rights under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. US v. Windsor was ruled on using it as well.


Yeah, some want to misconstrue this to mean that some people can access the formerly private rooms and facilities of the other sex but not all people can have this access. This will cause people to be discriminated against because they too do not currently have that same access. 

Correct? Equal rights for all? 

Oh, that's right, they only have to say the magic words: My gender is different than my biological reality.

Now it seems clear, there will be lawsuits across the board because of this stupidity.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Yeah, some want to misconstrue this to mean that some people can access the formerly private rooms and facilities of the other sex but not all people can have this access. This will cause people to be discriminated against because they too do not currently have that same access.
> 
> Correct? Equal rights for all?
> 
> ...


If "some" means SCOTUS, I don't agree. It's their job to decipher the wording of the Constitution, isn't it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If "some" means SCOTUS, I don't agree. It's their job to decipher the wording of the Constitution, isn't it?


No, you misunderstood. I referred to "people". If you say that one man can do this, to stop another from doing the exact same thing would be discriminating, wouldn't it? Equal rights for all... To do anything less is unfair.

Yawn... Enough for me, I am going to further ponder this dilemma whilst I relax on the beach. Enjoy.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

The 14 amendment guarantees protection of the law to ALL citizens so the 25 or so girls have the right to protection of the law and the law says if a male enters a girls shower and disrobes it lewd and criminal behavior.

THE RIGHTS OF MANY OUT WEIGHT THE WANTS OF A FEW


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> If "some" means SCOTUS, I don't agree. It's their job to decipher the wording of the Constitution, isn't it?


This comment is not necessarily about this subject. It is their job to interpret the constitution, not to twist it to come up with the decision they prefer. I believe they do twist it too often. I base this on how often the divide is along party lines.

Jim


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> If "some" means SCOTUS, I don't agree. It's their job to decipher the wording of the Constitution, isn't it?


Thats where it all started going wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English using common well defined words. The act of "decyphering" itself is unconstitutional.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

thericeguy said:


> Thats where it all started going wrong. The Constitution was written in plain English using common well defined words. The act of "decyphering" itself is unconstitutional.


Sigh. Does it cover every situation in that "plain English"? No, it doesn't.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> No, you misunderstood. I referred to "people". If you say that one man can do this, to stop another from doing the exact same thing would be discriminating, wouldn't it? Equal rights for all... To do anything less is unfair.
> 
> Yawn... Enough for me, I am going to further ponder this dilemma whilst I relax on the beach. Enjoy.


Another bellybutton. Time will tell, huh?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jim Bunton said:


> This comment is not necessarily about this subject. It is their job to interpret the constitution, not to twist it to come up with the decision they prefer. I believe they do twist it too often. I base this on how often the divide is along party lines.
> 
> Jim


It's what we've had since 1789.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Can you show me where I asked this question?


Do you really read what is posted?
I asked the question and never got any answers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> 50 years ago *we did* after gym class, sports practice, and games. Been a log time since have been involved in schools I figure it hasn't changed that much, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> Jim


I didn't ask if anyone "did it".

I asked for evidence that *12 *year olds are being* forced *to shower with anyone.

We're talking about 5th and 6th graders here, not high school


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> The 14 amendment guarantees protection of the law to ALL citizens so the 25 or so girls have the right to protection of the law and *the law says *if a male enters a girls shower and disrobes it *lewd and criminal behavior*.
> 
> THE RIGHTS OF MANY OUT WEIGHT THE WANTS OF A FEW


Which law says that?

Be specific, and explain what it has to do with transgenders in schools


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

D-BOONE said:


> The 14 amendment guarantees protection of the law to ALL citizens so the 25 or so girls have the right to protection of the law and the law says if a male enters a girls shower and disrobes it lewd and criminal behavior.
> 
> THE RIGHTS OF MANY OUT WEIGHT THE WANTS OF A FEW


See now I think you are wrong here, the rights for all should be the same, encompassing the few as equally as the many. Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it should remain that way.

Im not sure what the right answer is going to be, but what you are suggesting isn't it.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

D-BOONE said:


> .........HAS THE WORLD REALLY GONE THIS NUTS?????


I think it's wrong to refer to USA as "the world" - because it isn't.

No, the world hasn't gone this nuts, it appears to only be USA that is having problems resolving its transgender issues.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't ask if anyone "did it".
> 
> I asked for evidence that *12 *year olds are being* forced *to shower with anyone.
> 
> We're talking about 5th and 6th graders here, not high school


Just a few short years ago in our school district, for a phys. ed. Grade you had to shower. Okay maybe in your world that's not forced in mine it pretty well is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Just a few short years ago in our school district, for a phys. ed. Grade *you had to shower*. Okay maybe in your world that's not forced in mine it pretty well is.


In 5th and 6th grades?
We didn't have "Phys Ed" in those grades
We had "recess"


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

coolrunnin said:


> See now I think you are wrong here, the rights for all should be the same, encompassing the few as equally as the many. Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it should remain that way.
> 
> Im not sure what the right answer is going to be, but what you are suggesting isn't it.


coolrunnin
Read closer I said the RIGHTSof many out weigh the WANTSof a few.
RIGHTS VS WANTS NOT RIGHTS VS RIGHTS

And so far I have not seen any law that gives a male the right to use women only facility. 

No mandate should overide the established law


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

I thought shower facilities were not permitted in gyms in elementary schools due to liability issues re: personal injury risks to children. And / or that for the same personal injury risk liability reasons, elementary school age children are not allowed to shower in schools that are K-12 and do have shower facilities for the older teenagers.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't ask if anyone "did it".
> 
> I asked for evidence that *12 *year olds are being* forced *to shower with anyone.
> 
> We're talking about 5th and 6th graders here, not high school


There were several 12 yr old 7th graders in my class who turned 13 during the school yr including myself.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

D-BOONE said:


> There were several 12 yr old 7th graders in my class who turned 13 during the school yr including myself.


That isn't relevant. 

When you were in elementary school did the grades from 1 - 7 take showers in the school?

If they did, what were the genders of the teachers who are required by law to supervise the elementary students in the shower facilities during shower times?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In 5th and 6th grades?
> We didn't have "Phys Ed" in those grades
> We had "recess"


You were cheated is all I can say, your incomplete education isn't my problem.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

D-BOONE said:


> coolrunnin
> Read closer I said the RIGHTSof many out weigh the WANTSof a few.
> RIGHTS VS WANTS NOT RIGHTS VS RIGHTS
> 
> ...


You call them wants I'll call them rights to be whatever you want to be..

I'll grant you someone put this stuff out there to either hide something else that really matters or to further divide the populous, and it appears to be working...


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Since the people that all this fuss is about only make up a fraction of a percent, it would stand to reason that a lot of the people making the fuss are trans-gender supporters rather than actual transgenders. Of course, some of the fuss is probably drumming up business, or adding to the ranks, by thoroughly confusing people who might be easily confused.

It is safe to assume, that some of these supporters, are the same liberal weirdos, who, a few short years ago, would have had a huge problem if an employer told a female employee that they only had one bathroom, "just go in with the guys and shut the stall door, you will be fine". That would have been sexual discrimination then, but now it's OK for guys to be in the ladies room, because it fits the narrative.

Now that every place of work and business has to have two bathrooms, if there is a push for three, I'm going to strongly suspect that the plumbers union has something to do with this issue. I guess the joke is on them, though, because plumbing is irrelevant now.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Fennick said:


> That isn't relevant.
> 
> When you were in elementary school did the grades from 1 - 7 take showers in the school?
> 
> If they did, what were the genders of the teachers who are required by law to supervise the elementary students in the shower facilities during shower times?


7 th grade is not elementary it is middle school with gym class and organized sports with 2 communal showers one for boys one for girls.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> There were several 12 yr old 7th graders in my class who turned 13 during the school yr including myself.


Were you *forced* to shower?
(You realize even 7th grade is still middle school, and that would mean being 5 in the first grade?)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really read what is posted?
> I asked the question and never got any answers.


Sometimes I am interested in an answer to a question that I have not asked, not always.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Sometimes I am interested in an answer to a question that I have not asked, not always.


I can see you're having a hard time following along so I'll just stop trying to explain


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't ask if anyone "did it".
> 
> I asked for evidence that *12 *year olds are being* forced *to shower with anyone.
> 
> We're talking about 5th and 6th graders here, not high school



Evidence?
The ruling on Title IX was done by the SCOTUS, which covers k-12.
By evidence do you mean pictures and video, or just documentation?




D-BOONE said:


> There were several 12 yr old 7th graders in my class who turned 13 during the school yr including myself.


This should be "elementary", my dear Watson.....................



Bearfootfarm said:


> Were you *forced* to shower?
> (You realize even 7th grade is still middle school, and that would mean being 5 in the first grade?)




Yes, many middle schools have gym class, team sports, showers and locker rooms. Middle school is 6th thru 8th grade.

Most 6th graders are 11, 7th graders 12, and 8th graders 13........then on to high school.

Since math is fun, this should be easy......

1st grade - 6
2nd " - 7
3rd " - 8
4th " - 9
5th " - 10



Now that the mystery of a 7th grade, 12 year old middle schooler is solved, how in the world is he/she "forced to shower with another sex which has gender issues?

I refer back to the gov't Title IX ruling. No denial of entering said locker rooms and showers.

The 12 year old student comes in from gym class to shower, it's a typical large, communal one with many shower heads spaced apart along the walls.
The student disrobes and begins to shower.
TG student then enters, disrobes and does the same, as the law clearly allows now.
Is that being forced to shower with them or not?
True, you can immediately leave, soapy or not and get dressed, but even so have you not just been in the shower together, even temporarily?


If you already decided to shower first, THAT wasn't by force, but the event that followed wasn't by your own choice.

That's the nit-picky details, but factual all the same. How students choose to handle this remains to be seen. They will probably work it out satisfactorily.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can see you're having a hard time following along so I'll just stop trying to explain


Well then, if this is truly the case then things are looking up! Really not certain that understanding things the way that you do is a good thing...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Evidence?
> The ruling on Title IX was done by the SCOTUS, which covers k-12.
> By evidence do you mean pictures and video, or just documentation?
> .........


So the answer, after all that, is you have nothing that shows any 12 year olds are being forced to shower with anyone.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Cant fix stupid.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Making wild claims and not backing them up really makes a statement. Not in a good way.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The new, politically correct expression is, "Can't fix 'special' ", there, riceguy.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So the answer, after all that, is you have nothing that shows any 12 year olds are being forced to shower with anyone.


Absolutely 100% WRONG!
I provided the documentation and asked you what you wanted for "evidence" besides that.
If you won't answer THAT question, fine, but my statement is true.
The quoted post here, my friends is what is known as a LIE!
I can say that, but I'm not allowed to characterize the speaker of that lie.
But y'all are smart enough to figure it out.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Making wild claims and not backing them up really makes a statement. Not in a good way.


So is telling a lie when presented with the truth.


I'll back up ANYTHING I say, I just prefer to do it person.
That's the way I was raised I guess.
:cowboy:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Absolutely 100% WRONG!
> I provided the documentation and asked you what you wanted for "evidence" besides that.
> If you won't answer THAT question, fine, but my statement is true.
> The quoted post here, my friends is what is known as a LIE!
> ...


What law forces anyone to take a shower with anyone of any sex.

School boards and teachers may try to enforce this but what parent does not back up their child and refuses to allow this?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> What law forces anyone to take a shower with anyone of any sex.
> 
> School boards and teachers may try to enforce this but what parent does not back up their child and refuses to allow this?


Oh, those terrible parents are teaching their children to discriminate, let's send some investigators from Children and Families...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So the answer, after all that, is you have nothing that shows any 12 year olds are being forced to shower with anyone.



I guess you are going to have to define each of the words you use since. No one else can understand you. 
Could we start with your definition of forced then shower then anyone then nothing then shows ?
Cause I think he has done a excellent job of what you asked.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Oh, those terrible parents are teaching their children to discriminate, let's send some investigators from Children and Families...


I did not imply that. I believe that every single person has the right to privacy when disrobing. No one should be forced to have to be naked or be in the presence of another naked person.

I was never forced to even share a shower with someone of the same sex. Why would any parent allow their child to be forced to?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I did not imply that. I believe that every single person has the right to privacy when disrobing. No one should be forced to have to be naked or be in the presence of another naked person.
> 
> I was never forced to even share a shower with someone of the same sex. Why would any parent allow their child to be forced to?


I haven't found anything on the federal or state level BOE that indicates it's mandatory to shower for a PE class. I did read that individual schools have made it mandatory but I think a lawsuit (or even the threat of one) would take care of that in short order.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

Why do they allow that basic right of privacy to be taken away from their child but get bent out of shape about someone of a different sex in the next stall?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Absolutely 100% WRONG!
> *I provided the documentation* and asked you what you wanted for "evidence" besides that.
> If you won't answer THAT question, fine, but my statement is true.
> The quoted post here, my friends is what is known as a LIE!
> ...


You provided a lot of rambling but I see no actual "documentation"

How about a simple copy and paste of this "documentation" without the extra commentary?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *So is telling a lie when presented with the truth*.
> 
> 
> I'll back up ANYTHING I say, I just prefer to do it person.
> ...


LOL
Do you really mean that?
I've seen you have hissy fits when presented with the simple truth, and I feel certain it will happen again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I guess you are going to have to define each of the words you use since. No one else can understand you.
> Could we start with your definition of forced then shower then anyone then nothing then shows ?
> Cause I think he has done a excellent job of what you asked.


Which words are confusing you?

If you think he did such an excellent job, then maybe you can copy and paste the actual proof that any 12 year old is being forced to shower with someone else


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which words are confusing you?



Honest question here not trying to be a smart aleck. 
Do you read and comprehend the American English language yourself. ? You are not running this site through a translater or something are you ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Honest question here not trying to be a smart aleck.
> Do you read and comprehend the American English language yourself. ? You are not running this site through a translater or something are you ?


I'm sorry you're confused.
It's really simple English
Try Dictionary.com


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The same posters asking for the documentation *started their own threads* when the court rulings came in favoring the new interpretation of Title IV.............you know, the documentation you keep asking for?
The law now states that if you are a girl in the girls' shower (like it's always been) and a gender confused boy wants to force himself into that shower, as Pixie likes to say, "That's the law and there's nothing you can do about it!"
If you refuse that boy entrance into the shower, the federal hammer will come down on you and your school.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Honest question here not trying to be a smart aleck.
> Do you read and comprehend the American English language yourself. ? You are not running this site through a translater or something are you ?


Forget it, his definitions are not the same. Unless you want to go round and round.
Remember this one? Depends on what the definition of is..is?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The same posters asking for the documentation *started their own threads* when the court rulings came in favoring the new interpretation of Title IV.............you know, *the documentation you keep asking for?*
> The law now states that if you are a girl in the girls' shower (like it's always been) and a gender confused boy wants to force himself into that shower, as Pixie likes to say, "That's the law and there's nothing you can do about it!"
> If you refuse that boy entrance into the shower, the federal hammer will come down on you and your school.


Keep asking for, but never get.

Your confused if you think that means someone is forcing a 12 year old to take a shower. 

Copy and paste the portion that states "every child must take a shower at school", or just admit that what I said before is the truth


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Keep asking for, but never get.
> 
> Your confused if you think that means someone is[B forcing a 12 year old to take a shower. [/B]
> 
> Copy and paste the portion that states "every child must take a shower at school", or just admit that what I said before is the truth



Sure.
I'll get the statute, say from Illinois, showing where all school principals now have the right to force students at gunpoint into the showers. 
(I think there was an amendment to that excluding Jewish kids though, for obvious historical reasons)
:croc:

I mean after all, that's exactly what we were talking about right?
The whole thing is about forced showering, not being forced to shower with the opposite sex at an inappropriate age.
:nono:
No, that was not the subject at all..............



Bearfootfarm said:


> So the answer, after all that, is you have nothing that shows any 12 year olds are being *forced to shower with anyone.*



And furthermore, I'll have to admit that I failed math in elementary school ............(see post #106)



Bearfootfarm said:


> Were you *forced* to shower?
> (You realize even 7th grade is still middle school,* and that would mean being 5 in the first grade?)*




Yes sir.
You are full of 100% truth, honest and straightforward, as always.........
:heh:


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

The OP issue is not about FORCING anyone to do anything.....

The issue is to freedom to decide take a shower if they want to without having to do so in the presence of the opposite sex. 

But again political correctness has the .01% disrupting the lives of the other 99.99%.



Title IX, schools were prohibited from forcing students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity. That directive further stated transgender students could not be "segregated" from others in restrooms and locker rooms:


http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Sure.
> I'll get the statute, say from Illinois, showing where all school principals now have the right to force students at gunpoint into the showers.
> (I think there was an amendment to that excluding Jewish kids though, for obvious historical reasons)
> :croc:
> ...


Lots of talk, still no evidence of "forced showers" from anyone.
It was a simple request that it seems can't be fulfilled



> Yes sir.
> You are full of 100% truth, honest and straightforward, as always.........
> :heh:


Yeah, you're just a honest as you ever were too.
That has nothing to do with forced showers


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

The average American who needs to use a bathroom or shower is * FORCED * to decide if they are to subject themselves to the possibility of the other gender being there.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Gender is what is in your pants, not in your head. But if your head is up your backside, I guess it's one in the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> The average American who needs to use a bathroom or shower is * FORCED * to decide if they are to subject themselves to *the possibility of the other gender being there*.


That's always been a possibility.
It has nothing to do with transgender laws
You're about 3 times more likely to end up in the restroom with a Muslim than a transgender.
When's the last time that happened to you?


----------

