Maine court forces school to let tranny use girls bathroom

[Iceweasel]

The actions I've taken on the basis of our disagreement have been limited to the realm of discussion.

Can the same be said of the actions of the religious right?

You just said that opposition can be worse that a literal bashing. So apparently when you disagree it's for the sake of dicussion. When your opposition disagrees they are bashing on par with a physical beating. You need a backbone.

 

[Capstone]

What does what I might think about where a hermaphrodite have to do with the fact the guy has a penis and where he needs to piss?

If your position is that gender identification should be determined solely on the basis of one's genitals (and by extension, that people with penises should piss in the mens room and people with vaginas should piss in the ladies room), your argument fails to account for a well-known counterexample to the male/female dichotomy in human biology.

There's a difference between simplicity and over-simplification; and your argument is an exemplification of the latter.

 

[Defiant1]

Since when did the objective lack of gushing admiration for the LBGT movement amount to bashing?

I was speaking figuratively, at least in part.

...If all you have to offer in response is a false accusation in regards to an aspect that has nothing to do with the fact he has a penis and where he should take a piss ... Oh well.

The accusation wasn't false. Many, if not most, Christians and Muslims are in agreement over the wholesale rejection of the rationale behind the LGBT movement (such as it is) worldwide. This rejection has presented itself in various forms of opposition and abuse around the globe.

Moreover, this backward religious aspect holds sway over the issue of gender identification (regardless of the genitals involved) by default. If your position is that genitals alone should determine one's gender, then those who consider themselves as something other than their genitalia would indicate could be guilty of the transgressions ascribed to homos and lesbos as a matter of doctrine.

The question is: what do the Bible and the Koran really have to say on the matter of gender identification?

There should be something in the scriptures based solely on the fact that their God's creation has occasionally allowed for humans to be born with both sets of genitals (it happens more than you might think).

By your logic, which bathroom should hermaphrodites use?

Hermaphrodites? They can go **** themselves for all I care....

 

[jknowgood]

This is a kid, why is he being able to dictate anything? I mean the last time i checked 18 is when you become an adult. The only reason he gets away with it is because it takes the lefts preverted ways a step further. What if he said he was born addicted to cigarettes, and demanded he should be able to smoke at school? The left would be outraged.

 

[Iceweasel]

What if he decided he was a duck? My God, can you imagine what that would cost?

 

[BlackSand]

What does what I might think about where a hermaphrodite have to do with the fact the guy has a penis and where he needs to piss?

If your position is that gender identification should be determined solely on the basis of one's genitals (and by extension, that people with penises should piss in the mens room and people with vaginas should piss in the ladies room), your argument fails to account for a well-known counterexample to the male/female dichotomy in human biology.

There's a difference between simplicity and over-simplification; and your argument is an exemplification of the latter.

Your argument is an over-complication of an otherwise a pretty easily defined matter for the express purpose of supporting an agenda.
The only position I have expressed is that if you are a guy with a penis then you need use the men's room.
Because you may or may not have a problem with it ... Or want to complicate the matter ... Is not my problem or deficiency ... Deal with it.

.

 

[Capstone]

You just said that opposition can be worse that a literal bashing. ...

Yes, it can be...

...So apparently when you disagree it's for the sake of dicussion. When your opposition disagrees they are bashing on par with a physical beating. ...

No, when I disagree with someone in the course of a discussion, it's usually for the sake of defending my principles in that discussion. The same could well be true of my opponents in that debate.

When the opposition steps out of that realm in order to act on the basis of their disagreement with me, ...they could easily find themselves guilty of illegal activity.

 

[Capstone]

Because you may or may not have a problem with it ... Or want to complicate the matter ... Is not my problem or deficiency ... Deal with it.

It's not my problem; it's human biology's (or perhaps God's) problem, whether you see the failure of your argument to account for that problem as a "deficiency" or not.

Deal with that.

 

[BlackSand]

Because you may or may not have a problem with it ... Or want to complicate the matter ... Is not my problem or deficiency ... Deal with it.

It's not my problem; it's human biology's (or perhaps God's) problem, whether you see the failure of your argument to account for that problem as a "deficiency" or not.

Deal with that.

I never said you had a problem, never mentioned God, and biology has a pretty specific way of defining sex.
The idea you think my argument has anything to do with anything other a guy with a penis using the men's room ... Is your deficiency.

But hey ... Keep on ignoring the obvious to push an agenda ... And you will continue to need to redefine biology, anything I may have for an argument ... And making false accusation about what I could possibly mean.
That is because you have nothing to base a disagreement on unless you want to suggest that a guy with a penis is not a guy with a penis.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

You just said that opposition can be worse that a literal bashing. ...

Yes, it can be...

...So apparently when you disagree it's for the sake of dicussion. When your opposition disagrees they are bashing on par with a physical beating. ...

No, when I disagree with someone in the course of a discussion, it's usually for the sake of defending my principles in that discussion. The same could well be true of my opponents in that debate.

When the opposition steps out of that realm in order to act on the basis of their disagreement with me, ...they could easily find themselves guilty of illegal activity.

What have Christians done that is illegal, and is that stereotyping all Christians and all Muslims?

 

[Immanuel]

OMG some of you folks are blathering idiots!

This heshe scares you, does she?

That's truly pathetic

Since when does not believing someone constitute being afraid of them? I don't believe him. That does not mean I an afraid of him or as Capstone insinuated that I am bashing him or as Noomi said that I hate him.

I do not believe him and I do not believe young ladies in his school should be subjected to sharing a locker room or restroom with him. Doesn't mean I hate him. It only means that I am an awful person because I would tell PC assholes where to shove their demands that everyone be PC.

 

[HenryBHough]

A modern, progressive school would have three flavours of rest room:

Boys
Girls
Its​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maine court forces school to let tranny use girls bathroom

Incorrect.

The Maine Supreme Court correctly upheld the law of the State:

Section 4592(1) of the MHRA provides, in relevant part:

It is unlawful public accommodations discrimination, in
violation of this Act . . . [f]or any public accommodation or any
person who is the . . . superintendent, agent, or employee of any place
of public accommodation to directly or indirectly refuse, discriminate
against or in any manner withhold from or deny the full and equal
enjoyment to any person, on account of . . . sexual orientation . . . any
of the accommodations . . . [or] facilities . . . of public
accommodation . . .

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/doe-v-clenchy/doe-v-clenchy-decision-1-30-14.pdf

In fact, the school had initially allowed the student access to a gender-appropriate restroom in compliance with the law, only to deny her access as a result of ‘complaints.’

Consequently, the school is not being ‘forced’ to do anything; is was merely admonished by the Court to reinstate its original decision in accordance with the law.

The OP and those who agree with him should first read the Court’s ruling, rather than lying about the facts of the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OMG some of you folks are blathering idiots!

This heshe scares you, does she?

That's truly pathetic

Since when does not believing someone constitute being afraid of them? I don't believe him. That does not mean I an afraid of him or as Capstone insinuated that I am bashing him or as Noomi said that I hate him.

I do not believe him and I do not believe young ladies in his school should be subjected to sharing a locker room or restroom with him. Doesn't mean I hate him. It only means that I am an awful person because I would tell PC assholes where to shove their demands that everyone be PC.

Whether you ‘believe’ the transgender student or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant, as it is indeed a fact of state law that she may access a gender-appropriate restroom:

Thus, we do not suggest that any person could demand access to any
school facility or program based solely on a self-declaration of gender identity or
confusion without the plans developed in cooperation with the school and the
accepted and respected diagnosis that are present in this case. Our opinion must
not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of
their choice. Decisions about how to address students’ legitimate gender identity
issues are not to be taken lightly. Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon
being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity,
denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation
discrimination in violation of the MHRA.

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/doe-v-clenchy/doe-v-clenchy-decision-1-30-14.pdf

Consequently, the right of transgender persons in the State of Maine to be afforded access to public accommodations is neither capricious nor a manifestation of the ‘PC’ myth; rather, it’s done in accordance with the law and under the supervision of mental health professionals seeking only what is best for the student, where your opposition to this policy is not in the child’s best interest, regardless your ‘motives.’

 

[Immanuel]

OMG some of you folks are blathering idiots!

This heshe scares you, does she?

That's truly pathetic

Since when does not believing someone constitute being afraid of them? I don't believe him. That does not mean I an afraid of him or as Capstone insinuated that I am bashing him or as Noomi said that I hate him.

I do not believe him and I do not believe young ladies in his school should be subjected to sharing a locker room or restroom with him. Doesn't mean I hate him. It only means that I am an awful person because I would tell PC assholes where to shove their demands that everyone be PC.

Whether you ‘believe’ the transgender student or not is legally and thankfully irrelevant, as it is indeed a fact of state law that she may access a gender-appropriate restroom:

Thus, we do not suggest that any person could demand access to any
school facility or program based solely on a self-declaration of gender identity or
confusion without the plans developed in cooperation with the school and the
accepted and respected diagnosis that are present in this case. Our opinion must
not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of
their choice. Decisions about how to address students’ legitimate gender identity
issues are not to be taken lightly. Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon
being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity,
denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation
discrimination in violation of the MHRA.

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/doe-v-clenchy/doe-v-clenchy-decision-1-30-14.pdf

Consequently, the right of transgender persons in the State of Maine to be afforded access to public accommodations is neither capricious nor a manifestation of the ‘PC’ myth; rather, it’s done in accordance with the law and under the supervision of mental health professionals seeking only what is best for the student, where your opposition to this policy is not in the child’s best interest, regardless your ‘motives.’

Maybe not his best interest, but clearly in the best interest of the young ladies who have been denied privacy by an erroneous court.

 

[Iceweasel]

The young ladies' sense of decorum is a small price to pay for the blurring of lines of morality and genders.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s also telling, but not surprising, how the conservative mantra of ‘states’ rights’ goes out the window whenever a state acts in a manner the right subjectively disapproves of.

 

[Iceweasel]

It’s also telling, but not surprising, how the conservative mantra of ‘states’ rights’ goes out the window whenever a state acts in a manner the right subjectively disapproves of.

Who said it wasn't a state right? And why do they represent the right?

 

[Papageorgio]

It’s also telling, but not surprising, how the conservative mantra of ‘states’ rights’ goes out the window whenever a state acts in a manner the right subjectively disapproves of.

You can believe in states rights and still disagree with the law or ruling.

You are just twisting words or you are a complete idiot.

 

[hazlnut]

Maine Supreme Court rules in favor of transgender girl in Orono school bathroom case ? Bangor ? Bangor Daily News ? BDN Maine

You must play along with their delusion or else!

If delusion was a reason for exclusion, then "Christians" would be banned everywhere.


The child was born that way.

You choose to be an ignorant homophobe.