TX, AL, WI, WV, TN, AZ, ME, OK, LA, UT & GA Sue Fed Over Men In Women's/Girls' Showers

[mdk]

Actually, I've had no problem with civil arrangements gays have with each other. I have a problem with them forcing their lifestyle on states and divorcing children from either a father or mother for life.

Good thing our marriage laws are not decided by an unwed loon in flyover country.

I'll leave you to your thread. You seem to enjoy taking to yourself. Cheers!

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, I've had no problem with civil arrangements gays have with each other. I have a problem with them forcing their lifestyle on states and divorcing children from either a father or mother for life.

Good thing our marriage laws are not decided by an unwed loon in flyover country.

I'll leave you to your thread. You seem to enjoy taking to yourself. Cheers!

As I expected. You can't answer to how "marriage is a right" at the same time it is denied to polygamists & brothers/sisters. Lifestyles are lifestyles. Yet somehow (and federally illegally) yours is "more special/protected" than other lifestyles. Even when the majority objects to ALL your lifestyles being married. Just your group gets a special pass.

Which of course violates the 14th Amendment. Look for Obergefell to get a little revisit in the near future...

 

[Silhouette]

Some of the text of the actual lawsuit: Lawsuit challenging Obama's guidance on transgender facilities in schools
*******

Plaintiffs include a diverse coalition of States, top State officials, and local school districts, spanning from the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes, and from the Grand Canyon to the Grand Isle, that stand behind the singular principle that the solemn duty of the Federal Executive is to enforce the law of the land, and not rewrite it by administrative fiat.

Defendants have conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights. Defendants' rewriting of Title VII and Title IX is wholly incompatible with Congressional text. Absent action in Congress, the States or local communities, Defendants cannot foist these radical changes on the nation....

...17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.~1331 because this suit concerns the ultra vires revision of the term "sex" under multiple provisions of the United States Code. This Court also has jurisdiction to compel an officer of the United States or any federal agency to perform his or her duty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1361....

24. Following the enactment of Title IX, there was broad support behind the policy of maintaining separate intimate facilities for female and male students. The initial rules that the federal government promulgated to implement Title IX permitted schools receiving federal funds to separate restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of sex. 34 C.F.R.~ 106.33. Furthermore, legal scholars defended separate sex intimate facilities as necessary to preserve individual privacy rights. In a 1975 Washington Post editorial, then Columbia Law School Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy. "Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, WASH. POST, Apr. 7, 1975, at A21. And in a 1977 report, the United States Commission on Civil Rights concluded the "the personal privacy principle permits maintenance of separate sleeping and bathroom facilities" for women and men, United states Commission on Civil Rights, SEX BIAS IN THE U.S. CODE 216 (1977)

**********

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Apparently some of their citizens are dim enough to be distracted from crumbling infrastructure by this sort of nonsense.

I frankly could care less about which bathroom trannies use, but none of this would have been a front and center issue had the Executive branch not overstepped its authority with this directive. I feel the lawsuit is justified based on the balance of Constitutional power being disrupted, not the subject matter itself.

 

[Silhouette]

I frankly could care less about which bathroom trannies use, but none of this would have been a front and center issue had the Executive branch not overstepped its authority with this directive. I feel the lawsuit is justified based on the balance of Constitutional power being disrupted, not the subject matter itself.

So you think the Executive unilaterally redefining the meaning of "sex" without Congressional input, which results in seismic changes in privacy policies for girls and boys in schools in violation of Title IX's original intent is "OK"? That means that if any Executive tyrant either now or in the future wants to unilaterally change Congressional statutes or even the Constitution itself, all she or he has to do is pick out a key word that everything else hinges on, and simply expand or contract its meaning, or replace it altogether without any input from the People.

That's creating a wide open barn door for Executive tyranny, otherwise known as a despotic state.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So you think the Executive unilaterally redefining the meaning of "sex" without Congressional input, which results in seismic changes in privacy policies for girls and boys in schools in violation of Title IX's original intent is "OK"?

No. What I think is you can't read English so shut the **** up.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

When I was in Japan and used a bathroom there, on one wall was the urinals and on the other were the stalls with ceramic holes in the floor. The men would come in an use the urinals and the women would come in and use the stalls at the same time. Once you get over the initial surprise of it, you ignore it and move on.
As for showers, well....that's a whole different ball game. Men and women don't need to be in showers together, if they don't know each other. Along that same note, in group shower situations (fitness clubs, YMCA's, YWCA's and the military), I'm sure there have been gays in the shower with any number of others and looked at others of the same gender with sexual ideation. We just don't notice it as they are of the same sex.

 

[Silhouette]

When I was in Japan and used a bathroom there, on one wall was the urinals and on the other were the stalls with ceramic holes in the floor. The men would come in an use the urinals and the women would come in and use the stalls at the same time. Once you get over the initial surprise of it, you ignore it and move on.
As for showers, well....that's a whole different ball game. Men and women don't need to be in showers together, if they don't know each other. Along that same note, in group shower situations (fitness clubs, YMCA's, YWCA's and the military), I'm sure there have been gays in the shower with any number of others and looked at others of the same gender with sexual ideation. We just don't notice it as they are of the same sex.

Wow, your subjective outlook is stunning. On the one hand you tell everyone that women with their butts bared should squat in full view of men with their dicks out. On the other hand, you're quite prude about them standing in the same scenario showering.

You DO realize how AMERICAN law works right? More importantly, you understand what it is "transgenders" (men pretending to be women) are pushing for right? They want access to all female things, not just some of them. How would you "live your life as a woman" being welcomed into the bathroom that says "women" but turned away from the showers that say "women"?

What you seem to be trying to achieve is anesthetizing the public to the initial needle stick, like Ginsburg back in the 1970s assuring the public that "equal rights does not mean men and women sharing showers etc.", while the public knows what your next step is because of your very recent track record. We all know that the second men are allowed in bathrooms, it would be arbitrary "discrimination" to ban them from showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. as well.

I'm just shaking my head at your post, really. We're not dumb. The gig is over.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

When I was in Japan and used a bathroom there, on one wall was the urinals and on the other were the stalls with ceramic holes in the floor. The men would come in an use the urinals and the women would come in and use the stalls at the same time. Once you get over the initial surprise of it, you ignore it and move on.
As for showers, well....that's a whole different ball game. Men and women don't need to be in showers together, if they don't know each other. Along that same note, in group shower situations (fitness clubs, YMCA's, YWCA's and the military), I'm sure there have been gays in the shower with any number of others and looked at others of the same gender with sexual ideation. We just don't notice it as they are of the same sex.

Wow, your subjective outlook is stunning. On the one hand you tell everyone that women with their butts bared should squat in full view of men with their dicks out. On the other hand, you're quite prude about them standing in the same scenario showering.

You DO realize how AMERICAN law works right? More importantly, you understand what it is "transgenders" (men pretending to be women) are pushing for right? They want access to all female things, not just some of them. How would you "live your life as a woman" being welcomed into the bathroom that says "women" but turned away from the showers that say "women"?

What you seem to be trying to achieve is anesthetizing the public to the initial needle stick, like Ginsburg back in the 1970s assuring the public that "equal rights does not mean men and women sharing showers etc.", while the public knows what your next step is because of your very recent track record. We all know that the second men are allowed in bathrooms, it would be arbitrary "discrimination" to ban them from showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. as well.

I'm just shaking my head at your post, really. We're not dumb. The gig is over.

The stalls in the Japanese bathrooms, ALL have doors that actually close and the urinals had separating pieces so that if you wanted to see anything, you'd have to actually walk over to them and look in. There were no stalls behind the urinals. I'm just pointing out that in some countries that I've been to, sharing a bathroom wasn't an issue. AND, personally, I'm not advocating any particular stance, although, basically, if you have a dangling appendage hanging between your legs, use the men's room and go into a stall. If you don't have a dangling appendage, use the women's room and use a stall.
I've encountered women walking into the men's room while I was using it (they cited long lines at the women's room). It didn't traumatize me. I just ignored it and finished my business and left.

 

[Fang]

Apparently some of their citizens are dim enough to be distracted from crumbling infrastructure by this sort of nonsense.

Obama started this garbage. It's a shame the states need to wasted time responding this this shit.

 

[Silhouette]

When I was in Japan and used a bathroom there, on one wall was the urinals and on the other were the stalls with ceramic holes in the floor. The men would come in an use the urinals and the women would come in and use the stalls at the same time. Once you get over the initial surprise of it, you ignore it and move on.
As for showers, well....that's a whole different ball game. Men and women don't need to be in showers together, if they don't know each other. Along that same note, in group shower situations (fitness clubs, YMCA's, YWCA's and the military), I'm sure there have been gays in the shower with any number of others and looked at others of the same gender with sexual ideation. We just don't notice it as they are of the same sex.

Wow, your subjective outlook is stunning. On the one hand you tell everyone that women with their butts bared should squat in full view of men with their dicks out. On the other hand, you're quite prude about them standing in the same scenario showering.

You DO realize how AMERICAN law works right? More importantly, you understand what it is "transgenders" (men pretending to be women) are pushing for right? They want access to all female things, not just some of them. How would you "live your life as a woman" being welcomed into the bathroom that says "women" but turned away from the showers that say "women"?

What you seem to be trying to achieve is anesthetizing the public to the initial needle stick, like Ginsburg back in the 1970s assuring the public that "equal rights does not mean men and women sharing showers etc.", while the public knows what your next step is because of your very recent track record. We all know that the second men are allowed in bathrooms, it would be arbitrary "discrimination" to ban them from showers, dorms, locker rooms etc. as well.

I'm just shaking my head at your post, really. We're not dumb. The gig is over.

The stalls in the Japanese bathrooms, ALL have doors that actually close and the urinals had separating pieces so that if you wanted to see anything, you'd have to actually walk over to them and look in. There were no stalls behind the urinals. I'm just pointing out that in some countries that I've been to, sharing a bathroom wasn't an issue. AND, personally, I'm not advocating any particular stance, although, basically, if you have a dangling appendage hanging between your legs, use the men's room and go into a stall. If you don't have a dangling appendage, use the women's room and use a stall.
I've encountered women walking into the men's room while I was using it (they cited long lines at the women's room). It didn't traumatize me. I just ignored it and finished my business and left.

But.....*sigh*, this isn't limited just to bathrooms, this is "a transgender's right" to go anywhere women exclusively go...like bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, dorms...etc. etc. That's the elephant you keep denying is in the living room.

 

[Silhouette]

Michigan tiptoes towards joining the resistance: School stops enforcing Obama’s trans bathroom policy after parents pulled kids out

HOWELL, Michigan, June 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Michigan school district has stopped the practice of allowing members of one biological sex to use the restrooms of the opposite sex after parents pulled their two sons out of elementary school over the issue....Now, after publicly complaining that parents should have been consulted, Stewart says, "over the last few days they have actually changed their positions.”..."We are pausing on the federal guidance issued to all school districts across the nation...while we work to...gather feedback on this matter,” Superintendent McGregor wrote.

I would say that the Michigan school districts should thank their lucky stars that it wasn't a full lawsuit filed, and only a withdrawal of students...for now. The best protection for any state from future lawsuits over the unthinkable would be to join the 13 states already signed onto the lawsuit against the fed for this royal decree from King Obama and Queen Lynch. Then they could tell the parents, accurately, that they were "doing all they could" to protect their children.