Obama Administration to Issue Decree on Transgender Access to School Restrooms

[Underhill]

I am all for inclusion. I have no problem with transgender people using whatever bathroom they want.

I do have a problem with Obama for allowing the Republicans to turn such a small thing into a major issue at yet another election time. This is gay marriage all over again only it affects an even smaller segment of the population.

This will now be the headline of every republican fund raising letter. It will turn what may have been an issue for a few people into a national problem for most transgender people across the country. My son said at his school it was never a problem, but now some of the kids are starting to harass the 2 kids in the school who fall into this category.

This should be handled at a different time, but then at a different time it never would have come up.

 

[esmith]

I take it that if this had gone through Congress it would not be an issue? Ans that this isn't necessarily about the legality of the decree but that it extends beyond the authority of the President as envisioned by the founders and treating the constitution as consistent with principles of limited government and the seperation of powers?

Wouldn't you agree that the founders never intended to have political parties or therefore to have a deadlocked Congress. so could a Presidential decree be justified on the grounds of expediency as part of the evolution of the U.S. Constitution?

Yes, my issue is with any Executive order that goes beyond the powers of the Executive branch which as you know is to "carry out laws" not write laws nor to "evaluate laws" which would also imply to not "interpret the Constitution" . Would still have a problem if it went through Congress, but not as much. I think this should be a State's Rights issue.
No I do not agree that the founding fathers never foresee political parties or a deadlocked Congress. If you take the time and think about it you might come to the conclusion that they did. Since they insured that:

Source
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to ensure a central government in which no individual or group gains too much control:

 

[Quetzal]

Yes, my issue is with any Executive order that goes beyond the powers of the Executive branch which as you know is to "carry out laws" not write laws nor to "evaluate laws" which would also imply to not "interpret the Constitution" .

I think this is a fair statement.

Would still have a problem if it went through Congress, but not as much. I think this should be a State's Rights issue.

I would disagree here, though. What a mess that would be if a transgender individual goes on a road trip and has to make a laminated card about where they can pee based on what state they pass through. I prefer the alternative: we all grow up and stop caring about where they go to the bathroom. Yeah?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would disagree here, though. What a mess that would be if a transgender individual goes on a road trip and has to make a laminated card about where they can pee based on what state they pass through. I prefer the alternative: we all grow up and stop caring about where they go to the bathroom. Yeah?

We agree about the objective.
The question is the best legal way to achieve it.
I don't have the answer here.
But one approach is how gay marriage became universal,
ie, the states must recognize marriages from other states.
Recognizing genders looks similar.
I'm not prepared to defend the constitutionality of this....
.....tis something which only now just occurred to me.

 

[Quetzal]

We agree about the objective.
The question is the best legal way to achieve it.

That is the million dollar question for sure (don't get excited, I might have fifty cents for the answer... maybe...). The biggest problem I see with our legal system, on this kind of scale, is that it would take a very long time. Party politics would take precedence over the issue itself. But, that is another topic entirely.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is the million dollar question for sure (don't get excited, I might have fifty cents for the answer... maybe...). The biggest problem I see with our legal system, on this kind of scale, is that it would take a very long time. Party politics would take precedence over the issue itself. But, that is another topic entirely.

You're really lousy at taking the bait for a flame war.

 

[Quetzal]

You're really lousy at taking the bait for a flame war.

Might I suggest a better trap? This cunning example has gotten me more times than I would like to admit!

 

[Brian Schuh]

If we force trans people to use the restroom of their biological gender, it might burst their bubble. It might be a reality shock, which could be devastating to some of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

If we force trans people to use the restroom of their biological gender, it might burst their bubble. It might be a reality shock, which could be devastating to some of them.

Which biological gender.....their original equipment, or after their upgrade?
And which gender is a hermaphrodite?

 

[Underhill]

Yes, my issue is with any Executive order that goes beyond the powers of the Executive branch which as you know is to "carry out laws" not write laws nor to "evaluate laws" which would also imply to not "interpret the Constitution" . Would still have a problem if it went through Congress, but not as much. I think this should be a State's Rights issue.
No I do not agree that the founding fathers never foresee political parties or a deadlocked Congress. If you take the time and think about it you might come to the conclusion that they did. Since they insured that:

Source
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to ensure a central government in which no individual or group gains too much control:

How does this not fall under "carries out laws"? The federal courts have said we have to treat everyone equally regardless of orientation. All Obama did was decide how to carry out that ruling.

The reality is, this ruling changes nothing. For as long as there have been transgender people they have been using whatever bathroom they felt comfortable in. This just makes it official.

 

[metis]

Guess you have a problem in understanding differences. Like I said I don't care about where one goes to get rid of bodily waste; however I do have a problem with what I consider overreaching of this joke of an administration. There is a difference, but I guess you either don't want to, or can't understand the difference. Care to enlighten us on which one you are having a problem with. The same goes for women in combat, I have no problem with them defending their country as long as this, again, joke of an administration doesn't force the military to lower their standards for mental, physical, or emotional standards.
In other words I can accept a policy, I just don't have to accept how it was arrived at. Do you understand now? That's about as simple as I can make it.

Actually, I do apologize for that as I went back to that thread that you started on that. Where I think I went wrong is that I just remembered your OP but forgot your follow-up post whereas you clarified the OP.

It's just another "senior moment" for me-- sorry.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Which biological gender.....their original equipment, or after their upgrade?
And which gender is a hermaphrodite?

Hermaphodites according to Talmud are to be classified as males for purposes of marriage. They are to marry females.

As for functioning, most are not functional as male or female. There are ones functional as one or other. As for a hermaphodite fully functional as both male and female, I doubt it, although a friend of mine claims they exist, but he has no evidence. The reason there is no evidence is that traditionally they are "fixed" to be female at birth. A few hermaphodites have had children in modern times.

As for trans people and also hermaphodites, gender identity is not determined by anatomy, but DNA. A y chromosome makes one male. Period.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hermaphodites according to Talmud are to be classified as males for purposes of marriage. They are to marry females.

No choice, eh?
I'm glad we aren't ruled by that standard.
What of US law though?

As for functioning, most are not functional as male or female. There are ones functional as one or other. As for a hermaphodite fully functional as both male and female, I doubt it, although a friend of mine claims they exist, but he has no evidence. The reason there is no evidence is that traditionally they are "fixed" to be female at birth. A few hermaphodites have had children in modern times.
As for trans people and also hermaphodites, gender identity is not determined by anatomy, but DNA. A y chromosome makes one male. Period.

So you believe that "he" should use the men's room.....

And "she" should use the women's room......

I smell trouble brewing.
Cops will be called.
ID will be offered.
Cops being cops (often ignorant & bullying), results will be mixed.
Some will be left to take care of business.
Some will be given the boot.
And some will get the beating of their lives.

 

[Nous]

Regardless of this ruling, I cannot fathom how the school might have violated Title IX (oddly the panel doesn’t and can’t claim that it did breach this law)

It's pretty much because of this:
G.G., a transgender boy, seeks to use the boys’ restrooms at his high school. After G.G. began to use the boys’ restrooms with the approval of the school administration, the local school board passed a policy banning G.G. from the boys’ restroom.
And if you keep reading, the school board that passed the ban pretty much decided that "separate but equal" is OK under the law. And not only that, apparently he was using the restroom without incident until the school board turned it into an issue. He was causing no harm, yet a hoard of bigots decided to take it upon themselves to make their own idea of how things should be as law. Fortunately, that is not the system we live in, and just because something thinks it's how things should be is not reason enough for a law.

(1) What the school did can be seen as different from what the policy of the Gloucester County School Board policy states. As I said, the policy itself might be read as violating Title IX.

(2) The school did not provide “separate but equal” toilets for G.G., for transgender students generally, or on the basis of sex. The school provided 3 gender-neutral restrooms available for anyone to use. Neither Title IX nor any case law suggests that provision of gender-neutral restrooms constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.

(3) For a school to provide “separate but equal” restrooms on the basis of sex does not violate Title IX. The implementing rules and regulations of Title IX, namely 34 CFR. §106.33, specifically allow schools that receive federal funding to provide “separate but equal” facilities on the basis of sex:

34 C.F.R. § 106.33 Comparable Facilities

A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/106.33

 

[Nous]

So you believe that "he" should use the men's room.....

And "she" should use the women's room......

I would like for both of these beautiful people to use my restroom. But if they don't want to, I will be happy to use the gender-neutral restroom with them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I said I don't care about where one goes to get rid of bodily waste; however I do have a problem with what I consider overreaching of this joke of an administration.

There is no over-reach. Title IX is the federal law, and the NC law does violate this. There is no overreach when the president states federal law will be enforced. Technically, it was more of an overreach when he told the fed's to quit prosecuting and harassing states that have legalized medical and recreational marijuana, and "states rights" do not apply in that regard because no state law can superseded federal law. But the NC bathroom law is superseding federal law.

(2) The school did not provide “separate but equal” toilets for G.G., for transgender students generally, or on the basis of sex. The school provided 3 gender-neutral restrooms available for anyone to use. Neither Title IX nor any case law suggests that provision of gender-neutral restrooms constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.

According to the documents, G. was using the boy's restroom without incident and with his school being OK with it until the school board took it upon themselves to make that law and insist on "separate but equal" facilities for G. Because G. is a teenaged boy, he has just as much of a right to use the boy's room as any of his male peers.

(3) For a school to provide “separate but equal” restrooms on the basis of sex does not violate Title IX. The implementing rules and regulations of Title IX, namely 34 CFR. §106.33, specifically allow schools that receive federal funding to provide “separate but equal” facilities on the basis of sex:

The Supreme Court itself ruled that "separate but equal" is illegal.

 

[Nous]

According to the documents, G. was using the boy's restroom without incident and with his school being OK with it until the school board took it upon themselves to make that law and insist on "separate but equal" facilities for G.

You don't dispute anything I said in either (1) or (2), do you?

(1) What the school did can be seen as different from what the policy of the Gloucester County School Board policy states. As I said, the policy itself might be read as violating Title IX.

(2) The school did not provide “separate but equal” toilets for G.G., for transgender students generally, or on the basis of sex. The school provided 3 gender-neutral restrooms available for anyone to use. Neither Title IX nor any case law suggests that provision of gender-neutral restrooms constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Supreme Court itself ruled that "separate but equal" is illegal.

So, in other words, you are unable to argue that what the school did in providing gender-neutral restrooms violates either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. So am I.

The Court has never held 34 CFR. §106.33 to be unconstitutional. In fact, in US v. Virginia, the Court asserted, “The heightened review standard our precedent establishes does not make sex a proscribed classification . . . ‘[t]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both’”(quoting Ballard v. US).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(2) The school did not provide “separate but equal” toilets for G.G., for transgender students generally, or on the basis of sex. The school provided 3 gender-neutral restrooms available for anyone to use. Neither Title IX nor any case law suggests that provision of gender-neutral restrooms constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex.

Not inherently having them, no, but telling transsexual students they have to use them is.

(1) What the school did can be seen as different from what the policy of the Gloucester County School Board policy states. As I said, the policy itself might be read as violating Title IX.

Their ruling was that he use them. They are separate from the regular boys restroom they didn't want him using, but it's equal in accommodations. That is what makes the policy of what the school board passed as wrong.

 

[esmith]

Actually, I do apologize for that as I went back to that thread that you started on that. Where I think I went wrong is that I just remembered your OP but forgot your follow-up post whereas you clarified the OP.

It's just another "senior moment" for me-- sorry.

No problem we all have this problem and obviously it is not predicated on age.

 

[Nous]

Not inherently having them, no, but telling transsexual students they have to use them is.

So, again, since the school didn't require that anyone use the gender-neutral restrooms, the school didn't violate either Title IX or any Fourteenth Amendment case law.

Their ruling was that he use them.

What "ruling" are you referring to?