Virginia school board takes transgender bathroom case to Supreme Court

[Belsnickel]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/14/virginia-school-board-takes-transgender-bathroom-case-to-supreme-court.html

Quote:A Virginia school board asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to block a transgender male from using the boys restroom when he comes back to school in September until the high court decides whether to review the case.

The Gloucester County School Board filed an emergency appeal with Chief Justice John Roberts in an attempt to prevent Gavin Grimm from using the bathroom that aligns with his gender identity when school resumes in fall, saying it will “put parents’ constitutional rights in jeopardy.”

"Depriving parents of any say over whether their children should be exposed to members of the opposite biological sex, possibly in a state of full or complete undress, in intimate settings deprives parents of their right to direct the education and upbringing of their children," attorneys for the school board wrote.

They added that it would be "natural to assume" that parents may decide to pull their children out of school because of it.

Josh Block, an ACLU attorney representing Grimm in the case, said his legal team is prepared to file a response if and when the Supreme Court requests one.

"It is sad that the school board members and their lawyers have so little regard for the impact their misguided actions are having on a real teenager's life," Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, said in a statement. "We will continue to stand with Gavin and other young people suffering such cruelties and indignities."

Grimm's case is not unique: More than a dozen states have sued the federal government over its requirement that public schools allow transgender students to use restrooms conforming to their gender identity.

There are also court cases pending over a North Carolina law that requires transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate.

However, this is the first transgender restroom case to reach the Supreme Court. The ruling would decide whether prohibitions of sex discrimination extend to gender identity, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Grimm was born a female, but identifies as a male. He was allowed to use the boys restroom at the school for several weeks in 2014. But after some parents started to complain, the school board adopted a policy that forced students to use either the restroom that corresponds to their biological genderor a private, single-stall restroom.

Grimm sued the school board, arguing that it violated federal education discrimination laws by forbidding him from using the boys bathroom.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm in April, saying the federal judge who previously rejected Grimm's Title IX discrimination claim ignored a U.S. Department of Education rule that transgender students in public schools must be allowed to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. The court reinstated Grimm's Title IX claim and sent it back to the district court for further consideration.

The school board wants the Supreme Court to put Grimm's district court case on hold until the justices decide whether to review the appeals court decision. The board says it plans to file its petition for Supreme Court review by late August.

Chief Justice Roberts can act on the school board's request alone or ask the full court to consider it. If he chooses the latter, the school board must convince five justices to be successful.

The Obama administration issued a directive in May on bathroom use by transgender students, urging educators to allow students to use the bathroom and locker room that aligns with their gender identity.

[*bfine32*]

I know we've beat this to death, but here's my view in public buildings:

If you are an adult, I don't give a damn which restroom you use as long as you just go in there, handle your business, and exit, but the law should be according to sex.

If you are a child you should use the facility that matches you biological sex.

The best answer in a separate neutral facility. If memory serves in this case the school provided a reasonable accommodation of a single-stalled facility and the student and lawyers balked at this.

Now it will be interesting if SCOTUS rules. I have in the past given my thoughts on the warped thinking that you can claim sex discrimination because you are required to act according to your sex. To me it would be sex discrimination is the rule that you had to use the facility aligned with your gender.

[fredtoast]

I am on the fence on this one.  I have no problem with transgenders using the restroom of their gender identity, but I see a big difference with allowing them to use the same locker rooms and showers.

May not be logical, but that is the way i see it.  I don't want to stigmatize a teenager who is struggling to deal with gender identity issues in public, but I still think we need to keep some lines in place.

[Rotobeast]

(07-14-2016, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am on the fence on this one.  I have no problem with transgenders using the restroom of their gender identity, but I see a big difference with allowing them to use the same locker rooms and showers.

May not be logical, but that is the way i see it.  I don't want to stigmatize a teenager who is struggling to deal with gender identity issues in public, but I still think we need to keep some lines in place.

-Rep

Totally agree.

[Millhouse]

I dont care what bathroom they use in school. If the kid wants to take that risk, mainly the ones that identify with bein a boy, then that is their choice.

But I am against the locker room aspect of it in schools, and for that matter public places like swimming pools, water parks, gyms, etc.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-14-2016, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/14/virginia-school-board-takes-transgender-bathroom-case-to-supreme-court.html

I presume the "boy" in this story hasn't had the surgery to make things "official"; does anyone know if that's the case?

Since we've discussed this ad naseum, allow me to add that if allowed this "boy" with a vagina is going into a TEENAGE MALE lockerroom. Does no one see the potential problems for this person that will arise? Forget the problems of the natural boys (which is pretty much what pro-transgender people wnat anyways), but by allowing this, you're basically paving the way for these boys to sexually assault this person. I'm not saying they'll rape him, but they will look and possibly even forcibly so by removing any towels. 

I remember back in high school, a classmate of mine was super-shy and one day was forced by the gym teacher to shower after class - he usually didn't (and would stink the rest of the day) because he didn't want others to see his twig and berries - so he did everything he could to hide his nudity. He wrapped a huge towel around his waist, wore a t-shirt and shoes into the shower. Afterwards, he did the same thing, but on his way back to his locker, one of the class bullies decided to tease him and in the process ripped off the towel exposing an average penis (I say average 'cause it looked like mine; yes, I looked and you would've too, you liar). I've never seen a person's face get so red. He quickly changed and left and that's the last time I saw him in gym class.

Now take that same story, but instead, it's a person who was born a girl and hasn't had any surgery. But, hey, we have to protect our transgendered children by letting them be ogled and visually assaulted!!! 

[*bfine32*]

Update:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/03/supreme-court-transgender-bathrooms-virginia/88037966/

Quote:The supreme court on Wednesday blocked a court order giving a transgender student access to the boys' bathroom at his Virginia high school, in what is the high court's first ruling on an increasingly contentious topic.

 

[*bfine32*]

There's now one is Texas.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/mother-5-old-transgender-girl-fights-texas-school-213051833--abc-news-topstories.html

Two things:

5 years old, for real?
What part of reasonable accommodation is too hard to understand?

Quote:The mother of a 5-year-old transgender girl in Pearland, Texas, is continuing her fight against the Pearland Independent School District to allow her daughter to use the girls' bathroom....

In a statement to ABC News today, Pearland ISD said its "stance on transgender students remains" and that all "Pearland ISD kindergarten classrooms have a private, gender-neutral bathroom within the classroom for student use."

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 12:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's now one is Texas.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/mother-5-old-transgender-girl-fights-texas-school-213051833--abc-news-topstories.html

Two things:

5 years old, for real?
What part of reasonable accommodation is too hard to understand?

The trans people I know, and most of what I have read, felt they were in the wrong body at a young age, so it's not hard to believe a 5 year old boy would feel like he is a girl. At that age, they understand what is a "boy" and what is a "girl" in terms of play/dress and other cultural roles. Their understanding may be less based on "parts" and more based on how one acts. 

Whether or not that is good for them... I don't know. It's the parent's choice whether they allow it or refuse it. As long as there's no abuse, they have sovereignty in raising their kids.

With regards to the bathroom, when I was in kindergarten, we were only allowed to use the single bathroom in the room. This is most likely a fight she is preparing for next year. Given the cost of fighting this and the fact that a case is currently at SCOTUS, it seems foolish to waste the money now.

[BFritz21]

(07-14-2016, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am on the fence on this one.  I have no problem with transgenders using the restroom of their gender identity, but I see a big difference with allowing them to use the same locker rooms and showers.

May not be logical, but that is the way i see it.  I don't want to stigmatize a teenager who is struggling to deal with gender identity issues in public, but I still think we need to keep some lines in place.

So you want to have your cake and eat it, too?

The locker rooms and showers are the problem that I said would arise when all of these bathroom issues started popping up, and everyone who was in defense of allowing the one that they identify with defended it as saying that they're actually that sex.

You can't have it both ways.

[BmorePat87]

"one more example of unconstitutional interference and social engineering by the federal government. What's next? Legalizing pedophilia and polygamy? Unless we return to the Biblical basis on which our nation’s laws were established, we are in serious trouble – and cannot expect God’s continued favor."

I get why the mom feels the superintendent is biased against the LGBT community. I found it interesting that she tried to invoke religion in her defense of her child ("my kid was praying to god to get rid of being a boy" or whatever). Despite my support of the trans community and for anti-discrimination legislation, I can't help but wonder what the kid will want in 10 years. For a number of things, it always sees best to let them fully develop mentally and physically.

[*bfine32*]

I do wonder with the recent SCOTUS decision to allow school to decide who uses which bathroom until/if they rule will have any effect of Obama's declaration that schools must let folks use whichever one they feel like or lose government funding?

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2016, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do wonder with the recent SCOTUS decision to allow school to decide who uses which bathroom until/if they rule will have any effect of Obama's declaration that schools must let folks use whichever one they feel like or lose government funding?

I doubt it since all SCOTUS did was just blocked the lower court's order to allow the kid to use the bathroom until SCOTUS decided on the case. 

That wouldn't have any effect on what POTUS did. Once there's a decision, however, it could. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-11-2016, 12:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you want to have your cake and eat it, too?

The locker rooms and showers are the problem that I said would arise when all of these bathroom issues started popping up, and everyone who was in defense of allowing the one that they identify with defended it as saying that they're actually that sex.

You can't have it both ways.

I think some of you just like to argue with Fred, just because it's Fred.   On a side note why the **** wouldn't I want to eat my cake if I have it?  Never understood that saying.   It's cake and it's delicious now STFU!

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 12:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I doubt it since all SCOTUS did was just blocked the lower court's order to allow the kid to use the bathroom until SCOTUS decided on the case. 

That wouldn't have any effect on what POTUS did. Once there's a decision, however, it could. 

So even though SCOTUS said a lower court was wrong by saying a child can use whichever bathroom it wants until/if they rule on it. The President can block funds to schools that do?

Seems for lack of a better term "Above the Law". I'm not sure SCOTUS would let it stand; they've had to reel him in in the past. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(08-11-2016, 12:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I think some of you just like to argue with Fred, just because it's Fred.   On a side note why the **** wouldn't I want to eat my cake if I have it?  Never understood that saying.   It's cake and it's delicious now STFU!

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You have your cake, you eat the cake, there is no more cake. So, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[BFritz21]

(08-11-2016, 12:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I think some of you just like to argue with Fred, just because it's Fred.   On a side note why the **** wouldn't I want to eat my cake if I have it?  Never understood that saying.   It's cake and it's delicious now STFU!

I never understood the cake thing, either!

I don't like to just argue with Fred but, on things like this, he's making a direct contradiction on his word.  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-11-2016, 12:58 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You have your cake, you eat the cake, there is no more cake. So, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I have cake and I'm going to eat it.


Whether I bought the cake or someone gave it to me, I now have cake.  And I'm going to eat it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-11-2016, 01:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I have cake and I'm going to eat it.


Whether I bought the cake or someone gave it to me, I now have cake.  And I'm going to eat it.

Well then you will no longer have your cake

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(08-11-2016, 01:05 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I have cake and I'm going to eat it.


Whether I bought the cake or someone gave it to me, I now have cake.  And I'm going to eat it.

Have your cake and eat it, too. You eat the cake, you no longer have it.

You can't eat the cake if you want the cake.

You can't have both, you can't have the cake if you eat it.