Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Ashmoria]

I would just counsel the schools to shut down the bathrooms and bring in porta potties until such time the bathroom can be made to be single use.

1. No need for a gender identity crisis.
2. There is no sharing of facilities ,eliminating the fear of "my daughter is in the same restroom/shower as a what physically appears to be a boy.
--- I am assuming this extends to the usage of showers and girls locker room for any boy identifying themselves as a girl
3. It basically keeps the whole situation neutral and boys or girls identifying as the opposite sex can keep their own privacy without it being disclosed or becoming a gossip item for the whole school.

Since the fed is mandating this I would hope the fed is also funding the reconstruction of these facilities at the schools so they can easily comply with this order and avoid any potential class action lawsuits from parents should their daughter need therapy/psychiatric help due to being traumatized by being subjected to a loss of privacy and being forced to share facilities with what they perceive to be the opposite sex. Attorneys are going to have a field day with this one. 10-20K per parent in a semi-liberal state, if they get lucky, in a really conservative state down south x10 for this amount? Add in emotional distress, and a blatant disregard for the well being of a minor. will it be worth it?

So schools will need to weigh in the potential of law suits from parents who may have a phobia, warranted or not. and loss of federal funding. Sort of like a Cost risk analysis for the area the school is located in. Would they lose more thru lawsuits coming from parents or more if they lost federal funding. They would also need to weigh in the potential of a loss in students as more go to homeschooling therefore losing a portion of their state funding . What is the return on investment in complying vs. not complying. Do they want to wage the long legal battles against angry parents? Especially if they are in a district and state where they know a judge will side with the parents?

just some basic common sense being applied. my daughter has one more year of high school left and if they do this at her school and it stresses her or she comes home crying because of this i will not show mercy to the school district for subjecting her to conditions she did not agree to be subjected to. Under such circumstances I would reach out to just about every parent I could to join me in a multi-million if not billion dollar lawsuit. I would seek a lifetime worth of therapy to ensure her well being. Considering she is a minor and the depth and breath of the trauma caused is unknown. 1 mil x 2000 or so parents i do not know but this could get really expensive really fast. If they think they can just pay off and settle the state would still be looking at a few thousand schools. So how do you pay off a million angry parents demanding their children not be subjected to this?

Their best bet is to provide porta-potties and single person showers perhaps on a mobile trailer if need be. If they get state and federal funding then they can restructure and meet compliance with the law. i won't accept shortcuts and a statement of you will just have to live with it Hahahahahahaha too bad.

OR

we could stop worrying about it and let people self select what bathroom to use just like they have been with no trouble since we started having gender segregated public bathrooms.

[Neutraligon]

looks like most states already have mobile showers in some case sold as surplus. mainly used for emergencies like hurricanes and tornadoes. so the southern states can easily pull from available inventories and comply with the directive. using equipment they have already purchased. no need to sell these at surplus auctions when they can be put to good use. Nice to have too in the event of emergencies. many disaster management plans for cities include having people go to their local high schools anyway. Having equipment already onsite would be a bonus for these communities.

http://www.grannysalliance.com/mobileshowers.html

or

these are actually a combo shower and restroom pretty cool:
http://www.washaway.com/trailers/shower-restroom-combo/

lots of schools had to add mobile trailers for classroom space, so it is not that hard to imagine or make the leap to mobile showers and restrooms.

Yet I somehow doubt the legality of using those in schools for extended periods of time.

[Ashmoria]

It's nothing more than bullying and pure extortion. Can we get a law passed to keep the feds from pulling this kind of shit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the bathroom rule only apply to private businesses? There's a simple solution. If you don't like segregated bathrooms, DON'T SHOP AT STORES THAT HAVE THEM. Why is that so difficult?

it would only matter if schools started discriminating against trans students. which means they would have to have open trans students and discriminate against them. then they would be in violation of title IX.

[Ashmoria]

When people passed laws that empower the President to administer Federal funding to the point that he had the power to cut off funding to states, they set themselves up for this to happen.

If the states don't like this, they have two choices:

1. Refuse federal funding altogether.
2. Obey the President's lawful authority.

There's no way you can get the government to subsidize your schools and then not follow its lawful mandates.

which is what the lt gov of texas plans to do--give up federal funding. because they are far more interested in their sexual fantasies of boys showering with teen girls than they are in actual children having something to eat.

"stop me before I fantasize again!"

[Ashmoria]

Crotch Police. Brought to you by the Party of Small Government.

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

[Neutraligon]

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

Don't forget older buildings will be grandfathered in, so problem not solved at all.

[Ashmoria]

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

Don't forget older buildings will be grandfathered in, so problem not solved at all.

geee in my town we replace schools every...50 years or so so the current kid's grandchildren will have non-existent problem solved.

[The East Marches]

Title IX can always be reinterpreted. All they gotta do is get that right judge. Not very difficult considering the swings in our election cycle make sure that at least 40% of them are going to be right-wing. I'd think on that before you get so confident. If the November election goes South, all they gotta do is appeal up to the Supreme Court because of who will be appointed. Not exactly the odds I would want to put myself under.

Enough with the scaremongering. Title IX isn't going to be changed or reinterpreted. The extreme amount of backlash wouldn't be worth it. Even assuming Trump somehow wins, and gets his nominee on the court, who's to say he or she will rule in his favor?

Its not scaremongering. Stupid decisions for short terms gains have caused most of our long term problems. The extreme amount of backlash wouldn't matter to him. He doesn't care. Pandora's box may already be cracked open but I see no reason to continue trying to take the whole lid off.

Title IX may very well be reinterpreted. We have had many laws and amendments be reinterpreted over the years. You are dreaming if you think that can't or won't happen to Title IX.

[Neutraligon]

Don't forget older buildings will be grandfathered in, so problem not solved at all.

geee in my town we replace schools every...50 years or so so the current kid's grandchildren will have non-existent problem solved.

I'm from the DC area...I don't even want to know how long it has been since some of those buildings have been rebuilt/remodeled...

[SJW Trigglypuffs]

I totally support this. Who gives a shit (haha get it, it's a pun) about the mentally and physically disadvantaged children who need extra help within the education system? There's young transpeople who need to go potty in a bathroom where they feel safe. I mean, really, what's more important here? Peeing and pooping is way more important than integrating the disabled into society!

[Neutraligon]

I totally support this. Who gives a shit (haha get it, it's a pun) about the mentally and physically disadvantaged children who need extra help within the education system? There's young transpeople who need to go potty in a bathroom where they feel safe. I mean, really, what's more important here? Peeing and pooping is way more important than integrating the disabled into society!

Why should the state be given money when it fails to meet the requirements for receiving that money?

[Lady Scylla]

Thankfully, two cents doesn't get very far. Things are expensive. State passed a law that could be used, and abused, to curtail around already set precedent. I see no issue with the Fed playing hardball -- if you have a problem with states' rights, you can take a look at 1860-1865.

So, you're willing to go to war over this!?!?! What a totalitarian.

If that's what you got from that, then you've entirely missed the point. I'm not really surprised, but still.

[MFrost]

single occupancy is the solution for those who wish to comply with your federal law and not have to put up with a common communal area wherein the bathroom becomes co-ed everyone get to go home happy, so they spend a little extra for their own peace of mind. Would you still consider this discrimination as in omg the business or school went single occupancy to deny my right or my child's right to use a woman's restroom?

--------------------------------------------------

lol, splitting hairs they knew what the job entailed before accepting the contract of my labor for your paycheck. Why should an employer have to pay for an additional driver with all the taxes and benefits to do the job he hired these two gentlemen to do? can he deduct those hours and hand them to the new driver, or would he be discriminating. What if his business model changes and he decides to go with part time workers can he do this without getting sued? I recall UPS doing this years ago chopping hours off of the full time staff and hiring a bunch of part timers to get around the Union and benefit packages. Many businesses did the same to get around Obama care. perhaps the business drops their hours to 10 hours a week would this be considered discrimination?

Would not work, simply because it would be almost impossible for older building to create enough single occupancy restrooms to fulfill federal and state requirements, and to do it in such a way as to be safe. Older buildings would thus need to be grandfathered in, which means that the problem is not going to be solved at all. No not everyone gets to go home happy, The people paying for building it do not go home happy. The people who have a lot of traffic blocking them in the hallways do not go home happy. The Tran people who have to deal with grandfathered buildings do not go home happy since they still death with those shit laws that do not let them use the restroom of their gender. In fact the only people who go home happy are the construction workers who get more money for building additional stuff. Discrimination? no, very stupid, from an engineering point of view, hell yes.

That is hardly splitting hairs. In fact the difference is incredibly big. They knew their job would entail driving things from point A to point B. They also knew that should they have a religious problem with driving particular cargo, accommodations could be easily made, namely having them switch with another driver who is doing a different shipment. The business is not being forced to pay additional drivers, they are only being forced to switch which driver is driving which load. Something the company said they were easily able to do. So again you are making a comparison that is not legitimate in any way. Sure he can change his business model, that is an entirely different and irrelevant question.Why are you bringing up irrelevant points like Obamacare? The point I was making is that your comparison is not valid, and that your description of events is not valid.

retrofitting bathrooms in old buildings happens all the time it is up to the owner of the building, if they are comfy with complying with federal and leaving their building asis, then by all means more power to them. However if they feel strongly thru there own beliefs and moral standards that compliance in the building asis is just not going to work then they have a few options. Sell the building, and buy a building that meets their criteria. Retrofit the building so it meets their criteria. A bathroom stall is a bathroom stall they come in all shapes and sizes, the only real requirement is the number of ADA compliant stalls a business needs to have. Most small businesses have one bathroom any way. for restaurants or small businesses with 2 bathrooms they just change the door knob to a locking one and one person per bathroom at a time. in reality most already do this anyway so it is really just about removing the gender signs and replacing them with signs that say Restroom A and Restroom B, feel free to use either one. Have fun and be careful.

For the larger offices restroom usually have 2 urinals and 3 stalls for men and probably 5 stalls for women. The plumbing is pretty much in place already so it is just about adding walls and a door for each stall and replacing the 2 urinals with 2 stalls. Cost probably less than 10K. if we are talking a multi floor building with 30/40 offices, I'm sure the price per office drops and retrofitting the whole building could occur for about 200K. 200k on a multi-million dollar building raking in 5-to 12k a month per small office is not going to complain about the cost. In some cases they may be in the process of picking new tile and counter tops anyway. so they would be replacing the toilets, sinks and whatever anyway. I'm sure the contractor adding a few walls is not going to be walking back to their car going muwahahaha single occupancy cha ching. the structure is already there as is the plumbing. Now if they are retrofitting and replacing lead pipes with copper then yeah it's going to cost a mini fortune. The mini fortune however is in pipe replacement not in adding a few sheets of drywall.

You are like a step away from requesting a ban on single occupancy restrooms, just because it complies with the requirement while simultaneously stating no you will not share the restroom with my daughter or wife. no you do not get to walk into a restroom marked women in my business or facility. You get your equality and it is truly equal for all and not some special exception carved out just for you. Wherein I have to comply to your whims and fantasies, regardless of my personal comfort level with your actions. not this time baby, go back to the drawing board and try again.

[Ashmoria]

I totally support this. Who gives a shit (haha get it, it's a pun) about the mentally and physically disadvantaged children who need extra help within the education system? There's young transpeople who need to go potty in a bathroom where they feel safe. I mean, really, what's more important here? Peeing and pooping is way more important than integrating the disabled into society!

cant we do both?

[Cesopium]

I for one support the Emirate of Columbia.

[SJW Trigglypuffs]

I totally support this. Who gives a shit (haha get it, it's a pun) about the mentally and physically disadvantaged children who need extra help within the education system? There's young transpeople who need to go potty in a bathroom where they feel safe. I mean, really, what's more important here? Peeing and pooping is way more important than integrating the disabled into society!

Why should the state be given money when it fails to meet the requirements for receiving that money?

Because the requirement is idiotic.

[SJW Trigglypuffs]

I totally support this. Who gives a shit (haha get it, it's a pun) about the mentally and physically disadvantaged children who need extra help within the education system? There's young transpeople who need to go potty in a bathroom where they feel safe. I mean, really, what's more important here? Peeing and pooping is way more important than integrating the disabled into society!

cant we do both?

Some states don't want to. Take it to the public polls, I bet you even more states won't want to.

[Ashmoria]

Why should the state be given money when it fails to meet the requirements for receiving that money?

Because the requirement is idiotic.

title IX has been in place for quite a while and I don't see that it has done anything but good.

[Hillary Clinton 2016-2024]

Look,son!Another strawman and lie filled bullshit argument!

[Neutraligon]

Would not work, simply because it would be almost impossible for older building to create enough single occupancy restrooms to fulfill federal and state requirements, and to do it in such a way as to be safe. Older buildings would thus need to be grandfathered in, which means that the problem is not going to be solved at all. No not everyone gets to go home happy, The people paying for building it do not go home happy. The people who have a lot of traffic blocking them in the hallways do not go home happy. The Tran people who have to deal with grandfathered buildings do not go home happy since they still death with those shit laws that do not let them use the restroom of their gender. In fact the only people who go home happy are the construction workers who get more money for building additional stuff. Discrimination? no, very stupid, from an engineering point of view, hell yes.

That is hardly splitting hairs. In fact the difference is incredibly big. They knew their job would entail driving things from point A to point B. They also knew that should they have a religious problem with driving particular cargo, accommodations could be easily made, namely having them switch with another driver who is doing a different shipment. The business is not being forced to pay additional drivers, they are only being forced to switch which driver is driving which load. Something the company said they were easily able to do. So again you are making a comparison that is not legitimate in any way. Sure he can change his business model, that is an entirely different and irrelevant question.Why are you bringing up irrelevant points like Obamacare? The point I was making is that your comparison is not valid, and that your description of events is not valid.

retrofitting bathrooms in old buildings happens all the time it is up to the owner of the building, if they are comfy with complying with federal and leaving their building asis, then by all means more power to them. However if they feel strongly thru there own beliefs and moral standards that compliance in the building asis is just not going to work then they have a few options. Sell the building, and buy a building that meets their criteria. Retrofit the building so it meets their criteria. A bathroom stall is a bathroom stall they come in all shapes and sizes, the only real requirement is the number of ADA compliant stalls a business needs to have. Most small businesses have one bathroom any way. for restaurants or small businesses with 2 bathrooms they just change the door knob to a locking one and one person per bathroom at a time. in reality most already do this anyway so it is really just about removing the gender signs and replacing them with signs that say Restroom A and Restroom B, feel free to use either one. Have fun and be careful.

For the larger offices restroom usually have 2 urinals and 3 stalls for men and probably 5 stalls for women. The plumbing is pretty much in place already so it is just about adding walls and a door for each stall and replacing the 2 urinals with 2 stalls. Cost probably less than 10K. if we are talking a multi floor building with 30/40 offices, I'm sure the price per office drops and retrofitting the whole building could occur for about 200K. 200k on a multi-million dollar building raking in 5-to 12k a month per small office is not going to complain about the cost. In some cases they may be in the process of picking new tile and counter tops anyway. so they would be replacing the toilets, sinks and whatever anyway. I'm sure the contractor adding a few walls is not going to be walking back to their car going muwahahaha single occupancy cha ching. the structure is already there as is the plumbing. Now if they are retrofitting and replacing lead pipes with copper then yeah it's going to cost a mini fortune. The mini fortune however is in pipe replacement not in adding a few sheets of drywall.

You are like a step away from requesting a ban on single occupancy restrooms, just because it complies with the requirement while simultaneously stating no you will not share the restroom with my daughter or wife. no you do not get to walk into a restroom marked women in my business or facility. You get your equality and it is truly equal for all and not some special exception carved out just for you. Wherein I have to comply to your whims and fantasies, regardless of my personal comfort level with your actions. not this time baby, go back to the drawing board and try again.

For the most part those retrofits maintain about the same shape. They kinda have to since the plumbing for the building is already set. Moving from a multi-stall to a single use restroom would require completely redoing the walls, plumbing, electrical etc. That means completely demolishing the existing restroom structure. None of that is cheap. What exactly are you basing your estimates on? As I mentioned they would likely be grandfathered in if there was a change in regulations, so the rest of that part is useless. Most of those that use 1 or two restrooms are already gender neutral and not what these laws cover, you are again bringing up irrelevant things to the discussion, why do you keep doing that? After all you are planning on getting rid of the general holding room (that is what you need for single-person restrooms. If you did have the holding room, well then you have a unisex multi-person restroom...Simply Adding stalls does not a single-person restroom make.

No I am not for a ban, I just think your idea is a really really stupid one as far as regulations go for larger business, government facilities, and schools. It would be nice if you would not strawman my argument. I have mentioned that your idea will not solve the problem, since buildings will be grandfathered in. I have mentioned that it will create it's own set of problems; you have not responded to this fact. I have not stated that I am unwilling to share a bathroom with your daughter or wife, why would I have an issue with that? Please tell me exactly where I said that. You really are making absolutely no sense.

[The East Marches]

Because the requirement is idiotic.

title IX has been in place for quite a while and I don't see that it has done anything but good.

That is debatable. It has been used to change the level of evidence needed at colleges to expel a student based on accusations of misconduct. From beyond a reasonable doubt, lowered to a preponderance of evidence. They were encouraged to make kangaroo school courts that prosecute a student even if no criminal charges could be filed. It is a mixed bag. Laws are not all good or bad. Their application is subject to human fallibility.

[Neutraligon]

Why should the state be given money when it fails to meet the requirements for receiving that money?

Because the requirement is idiotic.

How so?

[MFrost]

completely unnecessary just encode single occupancy bathrooms into the building codes for facilities expecting public access, problem solved and done with.

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

states like the south already have mobile bathrooms and showers in place for emergencies they replace these every few years and sell off the older ones as surplus. i'm sure the schools can use the surplus restrooms and showers, and come into compliance with federal law almost overnight. it will all be single occupancy so everyone in the school is on equal ground, no special carved out exceptions for the transgender kids. everyone gets to use single occupancy restrooms, and no one is discriminated against. It also sends a message no you do not get to use the bathroom with my daughter or wife, no you do not get to use a restroom marked women. however you do get your equality under the law.

[Ashmoria]

cant we do both?

Some states don't want to. Take it to the public polls, I bet you even more states won't want to.

then they don't need the taxpayers money.

they've lost the gay-hatred thing so now they just transfer the same tired lies to the trans population. they can all go right to hell.

[Ashmoria]

nonexistent problem solved 20 years from now when they finally get it all done. what do we do in the meantime? kids have to pee EVERY day.

states like the south already have mobile bathrooms and showers in place for emergencies they replace these every few years and sell off the older ones as surplus. i'm sure the schools can use the surplus restrooms and showers, and come into compliance with federal law almost overnight. it will all be single occupancy so everyone in the school is on equal ground, no special carved out exceptions for the transgender kids. everyone gets to use single occupancy restrooms, and no one is discriminated against. It also sends a message no you do not get to use the bathroom with my daughter or wife, no you do not get to use a restroom marked women. however you do get your equality under the law.

yeah that's a great solution to a non-existent problem.