You think elementary and middle schoolers are going to do that?

Howard is the same expert who cautioned gay people to go slow and not rock the boat with lawsuits and such in their fight to legalize gay marriage and who thinks Sheriff Joe is a lovable scamp. He's not really into the whole equal rights thing. Trump is probably more progressive than Howard, and Howard is pulling the lever for Trump, sothe concern trolling about a Trump election is pretty funny.

Oh, and you were being disparaged because you are a simple, crotchety old **** who was complaining about the guidance saying something it didn't say. You didn't "suggest" separate facilities you whined about the mandated cost of new facilities even though the weren't mandated.

Luckily this is yet another battle that has an inevitable ending with every day of obituaries, a list Howard will be on well before most of the forum.

I feel like this is actually a much trickier issue than both sides make it out to be.

In the very specific cases of things like sports team / locker rooms for early teens I don't see an obviously correct solution/approach. Whatever solution taken feels like it leaves a group of people feeling legitimately and understandably uncomfortable.

Middle schoolers are 12-14? If so, yes?

The guidance some people are up in arms about acknowledges this and lays out a non-exclusive list of solutions. What it does say schools can't just say "hey other kids or parents are uncomfortable so go dress in x locker room or separate facility even though you identify as gender y, problem solved" which is imminently reasonable.

Ok, but I'm talking more generally.

I don't think there's a good or obvious solution here. So regardless of if its reasonable to get upset about what the OP is talking about, it does seem like each group has very legitimate concerns about any possible solution to the general problem.

I don't think its obviously OK to say that X identifying as Y should be allowed to use the Y locker rooms in certain cases. Nor do I think its obviously OK to tell X identifying as Y that they have to use the X locker rooms.

Bec it allows no compromise, no negotiation, no accommodation to those who are extremely uncomfortable w/ their children being put into this position and it's done bec the rights people want to be pure. A girl uses the girls room nm that for now she has a penis. For all we know she might be happy w/ a separate facility but it's against the rules so it reads like she's not even asked.

The problem ignored by so many short-term thinking people is that other people have a say. They vote and lobby and demand things of politicians and this particular issue is a hot button one. I think it's a dumb strategy. Somebody upthread just mocked me for preferring to play the long game but remarks that I'll be dead soon (along w/ my fellow dinosaurs, apparently). To him I wish a very long life bec it's going to be one of frustration as is the life of everybody that can't get their way w/ the wave of a magic wand.

Just do away with all gender specific bathrooms and locker rooms easy game.

It is, of course, not against the rules to provide a separate facility if that's what the person wants. You are just saying that because you are a concern trolling moron who, again, can't be bothered to read what you are complaining about. Since Howard is dumb and lazy and just going to keep beating up his straw man and will never actually read the source material, lets look at the actual examples provided in the guideline.

I mean, wow, giving pubescent students the option of not getting naked in front of everyone, talking to students, putting up a curtain. What tyranny! Also notice it explicitly acknowledges the school should work with uncomfortable children so Howard's whole premise is, you know, not true.

It is also a pattern with you, Howard. From bragging about paying trafficked immigrant women for sex to advising gay people to go slow and not step on toes in their quest for the right to marry (seems like ignoring your advice went fine!) to your myriad of colorful opinions about minority welfare recipients to, now, getting the vapors that schools actually have to consider gender identity when setting policy, you aren't really all about the whole non straight white males as equal people thing.

Tell me, Howard, how many people with gender identity issues did you interact with before deciding the kids should just suck it up?

trans people should suck it up and use whatever bathroom they physicically identify with.

If the government is so concerned about the transgender community, why do they allow the TSA to pretty much abuse them?

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/...ays-task-force

You're not really serious with this are you?

Uhhhh, we should obviously fix that too, what's your point LAS, or is this just another generic "I hate the Federal government, free the Bundy criminals" posts?

Ya think?
They seem unwilling to fix it so far, and we are talking about humiliating someone in front of 100's of people. It seems to me that is a bigger civil rights issue than what bathroom a 12 year old uses in Topeka.

Soooo close to a whole post without marginalizing transgender kids.

So you think the Government, as a whole and across all different departments, should prioritize the problems it's dealing with and only address them in order from most important to least important,

Maybe. It's kind of a ridiculous concern though. It's not like I spend my time in the men's room looking over my shoulder for nefarious gays who might sneak a peek. Same deal. But I don't see anyone proposing a gay bathroom because the concern is so obviously absurd.

I don't think we need to accommodate every viewpoint of every person out there. It's not how things work. Okay, the parents' views have been acknowledged, considered, and rejected. Sucks to be a paranoid bigot, I guess.

Again, we know they have a lobby and a vote. That's why there are states making insanely transphobic laws right now. Fortunately it looks like overall the tide elsewhere is turning against that kind of thinking.

This paragraph is so confused. You say we can't ignore dissenting opinions, and then you acknowledge that not everybody can get their way. It's dead simple then; the bigots shouldn't get their way and they have to deal with it.

The whole thing about parents being concerned that a man who identifies as a woman is going to walk in is so much silliness because forcing trans people into the other room creates exactly the same possible awkwardness.

Say a parent is at the local swimming bath, and doesn't want any men in the locker room because they're so damned "protective". You think having this guy walk in and start changing is going to be more comfortable for anyone involved:



Okay, so Buck here wasn't born with a penis. That'll end the problem of no men in the changing room.

Edit: Let's do the reverse too. Some father doesn't want his son seeing women getting undressed.



Problem solved!

Except not really. The problem you're proposing exists either way. At least in letting trans people choose, the same possible awkwardness isn't also oppressing a bunch of people.

This guidance doesn't even go that far, it allows for accommodations of uncomfortable students. Makes it pretty transparent what the concern over this guidance is all about.

It does stop a bunch of bigots from passing the equivalent of the bathroom bill for schools across certain behind the times states. Well they can if they want to pony up among the populace and forgo federal funding

No, they won't pony up the money, they will cut programs. Athletes, gone. Outdoor Education, gone. Less teachers and even more crowded classrooms, you bet. Free lunch for the poor kids will go away too.

lol

Hate to break this to you, but pervs can go into whichever bathroom right now. Like, we just had Howard and Mat tell us about times they used the ladies' room without incident.

LAS, let's concede your point.

So what?

Should athletes, outdoor education, etc. be paid for at the expense of discriminating against a minority group of kids? And if so, where do you draw the line? Would it be ok to cut all women's sports programs so that you could expand men's sports programs?

Is it ok to just not educate Asians so that we can offer a better education for everybody else?

Uh, here in reality, what will happen is they'll follow the Federal guidelines and not be bigots rather than forgo funding.

The Bundys will stop being teet sucking leeches before institutions stop following title IX guidance.

And Howard is a gambler(addict) who brags about paying for sex with women. HE is the guy we are scared of, which makes the irony oh so delicious!