SCOUTS to take up transgender issue

[mallorian69]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37802223
How do you think this one will be decided?

[BmorePat87]

Past decisions would lead me to believe 5-3 in the student's favor

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Just don't see how this ever gets solved unless they switch to a dozen personal bathrooms rather than two large ones, or something.

Understand they identify the other way, but we are talking about high school kids here. They are assholes. Pretty much immediately you're going to get some boys deciding they are women just so they can go to the women's bathroom and laugh about it.

And how can anyone stop them? There's no test or anything to see if they're telling the truth, and you'll get sued if you try to stop them. Can they also then decide they want to play women's basketball? Because then all sports would either need to be unisex, which would basically mean wiping out female sport players, or you'd just have the occasional man dominating the crap out of female sports.

Plus then what about showering?



So yeah, just don't really see how this turns out okay in the end without everyone just switching to a bunch of private single person bathrooms. Or people just give it all a big FU and switch over to nothing but a single large unisex bathroom.

[*bfine32*]

(10-31-2016, 03:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just don't see how this ever gets solved unless they switch to a dozen personal bathrooms rather than two large ones, or something.

Understand they identify the other way, but we are talking about high school kids here. They are assholes. Pretty much immediately you're going to get some boys deciding they are women just so they can go to the women's bathroom and laugh about it.

And how can anyone stop them? There's no test or anything to see if they're telling the truth, and you'll get sued if you try to stop them. Can they also then decide they want to play women's basketball? Because then all sports would either need to be unisex, which would basically mean wiping out female sport players, or you'd just have the occasional man dominating the crap out of female sports.

Plus then what about showering?



So yeah, just don't really see how this turns out okay in the end without everyone just switching to a bunch of private single person bathrooms. Or people just give it all a big FU and switch over to nothing but a single large unisex bathroom.

It is going to come down to which group SCOTUS rules has a "more legitamate right"

Those that support using facilities based on Gender or those that support using facilities based on sex.

[BmorePat87]

(10-31-2016, 03:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just don't see how this ever gets solved unless they switch to a dozen personal bathrooms rather than two large ones, or something.

Understand they identify the other way, but we are talking about high school kids here. They are assholes. Pretty much immediately you're going to get some boys deciding they are women just so they can go to the women's bathroom and laugh about it.

And how can anyone stop them? There's no test or anything to see if they're telling the truth, and you'll get sued if you try to stop them. Can they also then decide they want to play women's basketball? Because then all sports would either need to be unisex, which would basically mean wiping out female sport players, or you'd just have the occasional man dominating the crap out of female sports.

Plus then what about showering?



So yeah, just don't really see how this turns out okay in the end without everyone just switching to a bunch of private single person bathrooms. Or people just give it all a big FU and switch over to nothing but a single large unisex bathroom.

I'd recommend reading some of these trans-inclusion laws. They require the person to have a legitimate, public gender identity. This does allow room for the government to say "No, you're not really trans".

Sports are handled by jurisdiction, but to get you an idea of how this isn't just a choosing your gender on a whim, the NCAA allows trans students to play the sport of the gender they identify as, however, this is only after they start hormone treatment. For MTF, they have to have undergone hormone therapy for one year. 

[fredtoast]

This is a tough issue.

I have no problem with transgender people being allowed to use the restroom of the sex they identify with. But I also see a big difference between a public restroom and public showers and even sports teams.

I believe the rights of transgender people should be respected up to the point that they start interfering with other people's rights. I don't see any problem with public restrooms because even in that situation the individuals right to privacy must be respected. Even a person of the same physical sex is not allowed invade your privacy in a bathroom stall or expose himself to children.

But a group shower is different. I think those should be segregated based on physical sex. Same with sports teams.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-01-2016, 10:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd recommend reading some of these trans-inclusion laws. They require the person to have a legitimate, public gender identity. This does allow room for the government to say "No, you're not really trans".

Sports are handled by jurisdiction, but to get you an idea of how this isn't just a choosing your gender on a whim, the NCAA allows trans students to play the sport of the gender they identify as, however, this is only after they start hormone treatment. For MTF, they have to have undergone hormone therapy for one year. 

That said, even if you have to do hormone treatment, it doesn't change the body structure differences. LeBron James on hormone treatment would still easily score 50+ points a game in the WNBA.

I am with Fred with what he said. I have absolutely no problem with anything that anyone chooses to do/believe, so long as it doesn't start to infringe upon other people's rights.



(Things also start getting more complicated when you start including the military into it, too.)

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a tough issue.

I have no problem with transgender people being allowed to use the restroom of the sex they identify with. But I also see a big difference between a public restroom and public showers and even sports teams.

I believe the rights of transgender people should be respected up to the point that they start interfering with other people's rights. I don't see any problem with public restrooms because even in that situation the individuals right to privacy must be respected. Even a person of the same physical sex is not allowed invade your privacy in a bathroom stall or expose himself to children.

But a group shower is different. I think those should be segregated based on physical sex. Same with sports teams.

Definately a resonable option, my only issue would be minors. Perhaps like voting, marriage, sexual relations, ect... your right to identify with a gender opposite your sex should be reserved until you are of the age of consent.

ALCON: Spare me the harm it can cause. I'm not sure there are enough studies one way or the other to support either stance.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  your right to identify with a gender opposite your sex should be reserved until you are of the age of consent.

This is ridiculous.

What if someone said that a person's right to choose a religion should be reserved until the age of majority?  

You can not legislate what people feel and believe.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 03:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is ridiculous.

What if someone said that a person's right to choose a religion should be reserved until the age of majority?  

You can not legislate what people feel and believe.

Then they keep their faith in their heart until society says you can publicly practice it (sorta like we do at public schools). 

Someone may also point to the First Amendment.

Of course you cannot legislate what people feel or believe; however, you can legislate their actions. 

What if a 17 year old feels Trump is destined to be the next President if only he or she could vote?

What is a 13 year old feels she is deeply in love with her young teacher? 

No one is saying you have to feel the gender that matches your sex, you just have to follow rules in public places. 

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then they keep their faith in their heart until society says you can publicly practice it (sorta like we do at public schools). 

Someone may also point to the First Amendment.

Of course you cannot legislate what people feel or believe; however, you can legislate their actions. 

What if a 17 year old feels Trump is destined to be the next President if only he or she could vote?

What is a 13 year old feels she is deeply in love with her young teacher? 

No one is saying you have to feel the gender that matches your sex, you just have to follow rules in public places. 

I think You may be talking about something different than me.

Are you saying a transgender under the age of 18 can't identify as a different sex or are you saying that a transgender under age 18 can't use the restroom of the sex they identify with?

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think You may be talking about something different than me.

Are you saying a transgender under the age of 18 can't identify as a different sex or are you saying that a transgender under age 18 can't use the restroom of the sex they identify with?

I'm saying a Transgender under the age of consent must use all public facilities that align with their biological sex.

Private businesses can do as they see fit. 

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm saying a Transgender under the age of consent must use all public facilities that align with their biological sex.

I thought you meant they could not dress or identify as the other sex.

[*bfine32*]

SCOTUS just called me and this is what I instructed them to do:

Public Facilities:

All citizens under the legal age of consent must use facilities that align with their biological sex

All facilities must provide a third gender-neutral facility if doing so is reasonable.

All new Government facilities must include plans for Gender Neutral facilities

All citizens of the age of consent may use the facility with which they identify, unless their sex does not align with their gender and a gender-neutral facility is available.

Private Businesses:

Much more complicated.

[mallorian69]

I think it ends in a 4-4 tie which would keep the ruling of the lower court in place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't transgenders and their liberal allies said for years that sex and gender are two seperate things? If that is true then why do they cite Title IX as to why they should get their way? 

No where in Title IX is gender mentioned. So either sex and gender are seperate, which is what the left has been parroting for years, and Title IX as written does not apply or they are in fact one in the same and it does apply.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 09:38 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: I think it ends in a 4-4 tie which would keep the ruling of the lower court in place.

Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't transgenders and their liberal allies said for years that sex and gender are two seperate things? If that is true then why do they cite Title IX as to why they should get their way? 

No where in Title IX is gender mentioned. So either sex and gender are seperate, which is what the left has been parroting for years, and Title IX as written does not apply or they are in fact one in the same and it does apply.

That is why I said in my instructions to SCOTUS, that Private Business is much more complicated. The protected classes under the CRA are clearly defined, but there are those that state if you force someone to use the facility aligned with their biological sex, somehow you are discriminating against them based on their biological sex.

Admittedly that logic makes zero sense to me, but there are those that have/will throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. SCOTUS' rulings are drifting further and further away from the words of the Constitution and more toward their interpretation of the intent.

[*Nately120*]

(11-01-2016, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then they keep their faith in their heart until society says you can publicly practice it (sorta like we do at public schools). 

Someone may also point to the First Amendment.

Of course you cannot legislate what people feel or believe; however, you can legislate their actions. 

What if a 17 year old feels Trump is destined to be the next President if only he or she could vote?

What is a 13 year old feels she is deeply in love with her young teacher? 

No one is saying you have to feel the gender that matches your sex, you just have to follow rules in public places. 

I don't think repressing what may actually be biological underpinnings and pretending to be something you aren't until adulthood for the good of the public is a very plausible thing.  I mean, I didn't wait until I was 18 to publicly practice being straight, if you catch my drift.

*nudge nudge wink wink*

But seriously, we're talking about expecting certain people to just act asexual until they are 18 while those damn normal kids are walking around all knocked up and straight as hell at like 14?  No way. Sort of reminds me of a guy I work with who wonders why gays have to be "All in his face about being gay" without realizing his Facebook page is totally in everyone's face that he has a wife and a daughter.

Dude I get it, you're straight. You impregnated a woman by having sex with her. I get it, that daughter came out of her vagina. Stop shoving your straightness down my throat! Anyways, side rant aside this stuff is never really symmetrical.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Admittedly that logic makes zero sense to me, but there are those that have/will throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. SCOTUS' rulings are drifting further and further away from the words of the Constitution and more toward their interpretation of the intent.

Not true at all.

For example they just recently granted equal protection under the law to homosexuals in the area of marriage.  I was glad to see them finally apply the words of the Constitution that have been there for so long.

[*bfine32*]

(11-01-2016, 11:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't think repressing what may actually be biological underpinnings and pretending to be something you aren't until adulthood for the good of the public is a very plausible thing.  I mean, I didn't wait until I was 18 to publicly practice being straight, if you catch my drift.

*nudge nudge wink wink*

But seriously, we're talking about expecting certain people to just act asexual until they are 18 while those damn normal kids are walking around all knocked up and straight as hell at like 14?  No way. Sort of reminds me of a guy I work with who wonders why gays have to be "All in his face about being gay" without realizing his Facebook page is totally in everyone's face that he has a wife and a daughter.

Dude I get it, you're straight. You impregnated a woman by having sex with her. I get it, that daughter came out of her vagina. Stop shoving your straightness down my throat! Anyways, side rant aside this stuff is never really symmetrical.

This sounds like one of those non-productive T-Shirt answers. Nobody is advocating that anyone repress their feelings; not sure how you inferred that.

[*bfine32*]

(11-02-2016, 01:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Not true at all.

For example they just recently granted equal protection under the law to homosexuals in the area of marriage.  I was glad to see them finally apply the words of the Constitution that have been there for so long.

Well as long as you say so, we can consider the debate closed; I'll inform the Justices that decented of your decree.