Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[MFrost]

the issues you brought up are non issues. as a matter of fact some the beaches in California have already converted to single occupancy bathrooms. they must have gone thru your list and decided the benefits outweigh the issues you presented. I'm sure the city planners and engineers went thru a much more extensive list and risk assessment than what you presented. granted it was not done to deny transgenders an ability to use the woman's restroom. however safety issues were brought up in the sense of homeless people were using the restrooms to camp out in. There were other risks also along the lines of potential predators using these bathrooms to target victims. So the risk factors and benefits were all weighed in and the solution they came up with was single occupancy. the California beach cities are not alone in this analysis, and for most likely similar reason in fighting off the homeless other cities implemented similar plans.

So they found it to be a cost effective solution for the problem at hand. Why would a business or school not agree with this. for 10 billion in federal funding schools will want to keep parents happy while retaining their funding, single occupancy is a nice solution. keeps everything equal and satisfies the demands of the most phobic of parents. I know I would feel better if my daughters high school implemented this solution. it mitigates unknown and potential risks. i grant you it may never happen, but in the same breath would ask you are ready to guarantee this non-event with a million dollar bond? obviously if I have absolutely nothing to worry about then you have no problem putting money where your mouth is. You are the one after all who is claiming such an event cannot and/or will not occur. Exactly how sure of this are you?

The beaches tend to have more space, then say an enclosed building. Bad comparison. Sure it is an effective way...except what you are suggesting is basically no different from what already exists. What you are suggesting is, anybody can use the sinks (man or woman) and all people sit around waiting for the restrooms in the same place (man or woman). When a room opens up they go in and do their business and then leave. Again How is this any different from what exists now, except now those sinks are normally enclosed now. What risks are you talking about. This is exactly the same as what already exists, except that both men and women wait in the same area for what you suggest while now they are have different waiting areas. It mitigates no risks, solves no problems, makes practically no changes, and all for money these schools could better spend elsewhere (like textbooks). What event cannot and will not occur? In all this time, trans people have already been using the restroom they identify with, and there has been no issue with this. So how certain am I that trans using the restroom they identify with is ok, I am 100% certain since we have already been doing so for a very long time.

what event? some opportunistic predator leverages this policy to their advantage and sexually assaults a young girl or boy. I am not saying transgenders are the risk I am saying the policy opens the door or acts as an enabler to this risk. as i stated before we are not dealing with adults here but children who may or may not know better, or may act out on a whim. would you bet the million dollar bond that I am wrong and make it payable to whoever the victim is of a sexual assault in a transgender accessible bathroom anywhere in the country. i feel like you are a champion of the cause, the safety of those i feel your cause would put at risk can be guaranteed by you. your confidence in assuring those around you seems to project a certainty that you would be willing to back up with financial risk to yourself. in essence i am saying i feel this bridge is unsafe and asking you to pay for any damages in the event damage is incurred based on your guarantee that this bridge is safe.

if my proposal is no different in your estimation from what is currently available then why would you want to fight it, it essentialy gives you what you want access to whatever toilet you wish to use. Please explain how my proposal discriminates against any transgendered person or denies them access to the toilet of their choice.

[MFrost]

there is no sign on the door so the stall can be used by whoever gets there first.
the stall portion is completely enclosed and private not half walls like they are now.
there is no discovery or privacy breach, for women ,men and transgenders.
it's just an accessible toilet with nothing special about and it it does not belong to any sexual identity.
an open area for sinks makes them public, whereas in a women's room they are in an enclosed and private room.
as to amount of time spent with other people when she goes to the bathroom at the beach it is not some communal affair.
and when she steps out of the stall i can see her as she washes her hands.

as for gov building changes it is all about what taxpayers are willing to pay for and unless you are living in that state then you really do not have a vote on what they feel is right for their state, and or how they should spend state collected tax dollars, especially property taxes. as for federal buildings I can careless they can do whatever they like with those. perhaps the employees within those buildings are perfectly comfortable with this arrangement. the senators and house representatives must be ok with it since it appears this is something they wish to enforce upon the rest of the country. their call not mine. i rarely visit federal buildings anyway so it has no effect on me. If i visit a national park i will make sure to bring my own bathroom with me

And half walls are not enough why? Anyone looking under those stalls is already committing a crime, regardless of gender (well they could just be checking to see if someone is in there). There is no privacy breach anyway. Correct, so again the only change you are suggesting that is of any significance is that th sinks are in the open where as before they were enclose in a single room. Oh, and you are of course getting rid or urinals, thus slowing the process down and taking up more space since urinals take up less space.

So once again, what is the point of what you are suggesting when there is practically no difference to how things are now? Except that what you suggest has men and women in the same waiting area, while leaving things as they are has men and women in separate waiting areas. Seriously talk about a solution in want of a problem. These schools have better things to do then to waste money here, like textbooks, computers, and paying their teachers (there are some states that cannot afford to pay for accredited teachers...).

i'm fairly certain schools in Texas have all the room they need to add in single occupancy bathrooms. heck they can probably pull in mobile restrooms and mobile showers they have set aside for emergency situations and pre-stage them in schools with minimal overall costs to meet this directive. They just shut down regular locker rooms and bathrooms. and use the mobiles until they get state funding to revamp existing infrastructure. each district gets to vote on whether the expenditure is worth it to them. Perhaps they sell bonds or put in a small property tax increase to pay for the whole thing. it is ultimately up to the parents of those children attending those schools who should be allowed to decide how they want to handle this. It is the life and well being of their child you are thru a cavalier attitude gambling with. If the parents of a district is willing to agree with your assessment then none should stand in their way. however if they disagree and find an alternate solution and meet your criteria for equality why would you want to continue standing in their way. Is it simply because they are not doing it the way you want them to do it or do you have a legitimate concern?

[Rusozak]

Once again, he’s acting like an Emperor and not a President.

But that’s just my two cents.

What's congress's approval rating? 11%? Lower than any other job in the entire country, lower than cockroaches? I mean, I disagree with Obama's decision, but when you have THAT as the legislature meant to keep you in check, one must ask if it's even worth putting through them anymore.

[Ethel mermania]

So, what do you suppose will be the reaction if this does go to Federal Court, the Appellate court rules for the states and the SCOTUS is deadlocked?

I'm certain that there will be protests. Will there be a radical increase in trans-bashing?

And again, if this is such a great idea, why didn't the Obama Administration inaugurate this social experiment in the Armed Forces?

The funding issue might be won by the states. Long term I see Trans access to the bathroom as a inevitable rule from the court.

Pretty much agreed. Which I believe is the just outcome.

[New Grestin]

I'm all for incorporating trans-gender students better, but jesus, this is a little heavy handed.

I'm not saying I disagree, but this is several different shades of gray in terms of the ethics of it.

On one hand, there's no way in hell schools are going to just embrace trans-gendered bathrooms whole-heartedly. On the other, using disabled students as leverage is some supervillain level shit.

I'm adopting a "Wait and see" attitude on this one.

[Gauthier]

Once again, he’s acting like an Emperor and not a President.

But that’s just my two cents.

What's congress's approval rating? 11%? Lower than any other job in the entire country, lower than cockroaches? I mean, I disagree with Obama's decision, but when you have THAT as the legislature meant to keep you in check, one must ask if it's even worth putting through them anymore.

With this Congress it would have been nice if Obama actually *was* Emperor so he could just get everything passed without needing to compromise with obstinate Republicans who would have likely shot it down even then just because Obama proposed it in the first place.

[Trotskylvania]

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 is said that in every generation there are 36 tzadikim; righteous men who justify humanity before God and for whose sake he does not destroy the world.

But after seeing the avalanche of ignorance in this post and others, I'm starting to think he should just destroy it anyway.

[MightyQuinn]

What's congress's approval rating? 11%? Lower than any other job in the entire country, lower than cockroaches? I mean, I disagree with Obama's decision, but when you have THAT as the legislature meant to keep you in check, one must ask if it's even worth putting through them anymore.

With this Congress it would have been nice if Obama actually *was* Emperor so he could just get everything passed without needing to compromise with obstinate Republicans who would have likely shot it down even then just because Obama proposed it in the first place.

That statement has no thoughtfulness directed at the future. The problem with dictators is that there is no recourse or ability for the common man to challenge and imperial whim.
Thank God that the founding fathers looked at government as a system that needed checks and balances.

[Ashmoria]

The beaches tend to have more space, then say an enclosed building. Bad comparison. Sure it is an effective way...except what you are suggesting is basically no different from what already exists. What you are suggesting is, anybody can use the sinks (man or woman) and all people sit around waiting for the restrooms in the same place (man or woman). When a room opens up they go in and do their business and then leave. Again How is this any different from what exists now, except now those sinks are normally enclosed now. What risks are you talking about. This is exactly the same as what already exists, except that both men and women wait in the same area for what you suggest while now they are have different waiting areas. It mitigates no risks, solves no problems, makes practically no changes, and all for money these schools could better spend elsewhere (like textbooks). What event cannot and will not occur? In all this time, trans people have already been using the restroom they identify with, and there has been no issue with this. So how certain am I that trans using the restroom they identify with is ok, I am 100% certain since we have already been doing so for a very long time.

what event? some opportunistic predator leverages this policy to their advantage and sexually assaults a young girl or boy. I am not saying transgenders are the risk I am saying the policy opens the door or acts as an enabler to this risk. as i stated before we are not dealing with adults here but children who may or may not know better, or may act out on a whim. would you bet the million dollar bond that I am wrong and make it payable to whoever the victim is of a sexual assault in a transgender accessible bathroom anywhere in the country. i feel like you are a champion of the cause, the safety of those i feel your cause would put at risk can be guaranteed by you. your confidence in assuring those around you seems to project a certainty that you would be willing to back up with financial risk to yourself. in essence i am saying i feel this bridge is unsafe and asking you to pay for any damages in the event damage is incurred based on your guarantee that this bridge is safe.

if my proposal is no different in your estimation from what is currently available then why would you want to fight it, it essentialy gives you what you want access to whatever toilet you wish to use. Please explain how my proposal discriminates against any transgendered person or denies them access to the toilet of their choice.

absolutely nothing keeps them from doing it NOW.

[The Black Forrest]

what event? some opportunistic predator leverages this policy to their advantage and sexually assaults a young girl or boy. I am not saying transgenders are the risk I am saying the policy opens the door or acts as an enabler to this risk as i stated before we are not dealing with adults here

Ok. Well. Problem is perverts have already being doing the photo thing for awhile and *shock* they are punished when discovered. This law does NOTHING to curb that.

but children who may or may not know better, or may act out on a whim. would you bet the million dollar bond that I am wrong and make it payable to whoever the victim is of a sexual assault in a transgender accessible bathroom anywhere in the country.

Can you name one case where a transgender attacked a child?

Can you name one case where a pedo dressed as a woman and attacked a child in a public bathroom?

This is nothing more then "See fellow Christians I am defending you from the plague of lgbt."

i feel like you are a champion of the cause, the safety of those i feel your cause would put at risk can be guaranteed by you. your confidence in assuring those around you seems to project a certainty that you would be willing to back up with financial risk to yourself. in essence i am saying i feel this bridge is unsafe and asking you to pay for any damages in the event damage is incurred based on your guarantee that this bridge is safe.

It's easy to defend something when you don't have to pay for it. Bet you would be screaming a different thing if the goverment said we are going to give you a tax to "protect the children" in public bathrooms.

if my proposal is no different in your estimation from what is currently available then why would you want to fight it, it essentialy gives you what you want access to whatever toilet you wish to use. Please explain how my proposal discriminates against any transgendered person or denies them access to the toilet of their choice.

They had access before!

[Pope Joan]

Obama, a scholar of Constitutional law, realized that he can do nothing which requires the approval of Congress. They won't even give an up or down vote for a SCOTUS candidate they already approved for the appellate system.

So he does what he can do within the limits of the Executive power alone.

If you want something better, change Congress.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Ahhh you Republicans. Even when Obama does his job and follows the law (Title IX of the Education Ammendments) you complain.

[Val Halla]

Ahhh you Republicans. Even when Obama does his job and follows the law (Title IX of the Education Ammendments) you complain.

The only way they'd be satisfied is if they had eternal power

[Washington Resistance Army]

Obama, a scholar of Constitutional law, realized that he can do nothing which requires the approval of Congress. They won't even give an up or down vote for a SCOTUS candidate they already approved for the appellate system.

So he does what he can do within the limits of the Executive power alone.

If you want something better, change Congress.

I agree, we should kick the Dems out entirely and replace them with libertarians

[Pope Joan]

Ahhh you Republicans. Even when Obama does his job and follows the law (Title IX of the Education Ammendments) you complain.

They have too much inertia invested to even shift their venom onto Hillary. Maybe that shift just lacks the oomph of basic racism.

[Gauthier]

Ahhh you Republicans. Even when Obama does his job and follows the law (Title IX of the Education Ammendments) you complain.

The only way they'd be satisfied is if they had eternal power

And then there's no more abortion, no more LGBTs, no more Muslims, and no more Amendments except the 2nd.

[Val Halla]

The only way they'd be satisfied is if they had eternal power

And then there's no more abortion, no more LGBTs, and no more Amendments except the 2nd.

Considering that LGBT discrimination is a Republican policy...

[Gauthier]

And then there's no more abortion, no more LGBTs, and no more Amendments except the 2nd.

Considering that LGBT discrimination is a Republican policy...

No more as in being LGBT becomes a capital crime.

[Aelex]

Wait, do Obama seriously want to fuck over the education of people who're in the most dire need of one just for the sack of pandering progressives?
And there are 19 guys and gals (at least) who're backing him up?
Wow. I didn't thought one could loose his faith in humanity on the internet in any other site than tumblr or 4chan but I guess that I was rather naïf to think so...

[Gauthier]

Wait, do Obama seriously want to fuck over the education of people who're in the most dire need of one just for the sack of pandering progressives?
And there are 19 guys and gals (at least) who're backing him up?
Wow. I didn't thought one could loose his faith in humanity on the internet in any other site than tumblr or 4chan but I guess that I was rather naïf to think so...

So Obama should reward a state for passively encouraging a pogrom on transgender people?

[Aelex]

So Obama should reward a state for passively encouraging a pogrom on transgender people?

Are transgender people's good and property seized? Are they defenestrated while people set their house on fire? Are they targeted and murdered either randomly by civilians in the street or in an organized fashion by the governement?
No? Well I guess that being told to go on the bathroom fitting your sex rather than fucking up a system working perfectly fine just so you could feel better about yourself isn't in any way near something worth being called a "pogrom", thus.

[Ashmoria]

So Obama should reward a state for passively encouraging a pogrom on transgender people?

Are transgender people's good and property seized? Are they defenestrated while people set their house on fire? Are they targeted and murdered either randomly by civilians in the street or in an organized fashion by the governement?
No? Well I guess that being told to go on the bathroom fitting your sex rather than fucking up a system working perfectly fine just so you could feel better about yourself isn't in any way near something worth being called a "pogrom", thus.

the system that already existed allowed transgendered people to pick the bathroom the felt most comfortable in. the ones fucking up the system are anti-trans bigots ginning up fear in order to get political power.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

So simply add unisex bathrooms for all genders and gender identities. I don't agree with presidential directives outside of national security but let's face it, Obama is not unique in this. Here is some raw numbers for recent presidents.

Richard Nixon - 346 or 62 per year
Gerald Ford – 169 or 69 per year
Jimmy Carter – 320 or 80 per year
Ronald Reagan – 381 or 48 per year
George H.W. Bush – 166 or 42 per year
Bill Clinton - 364 or 46 per year
George W. Bush – 291 or 36 per year
Barack Obama (through Dec. 31, 2015) – 227 or 33 per year

It seems Obama is on track to be the least imperial president.

[Val Halla]

So Obama should reward a state for passively encouraging a pogrom on transgender people?

Are transgender people's good and property seized? Are they defenestrated while people set their house on fire? Are they targeted and murdered either randomly by civilians in the street or in an organized fashion by the governement?
No? Well I guess that being told to go on the bathroom fitting your sex rather than fucking up a system working perfectly fine just so you could feel better about yourself isn't in any way near something worth being called a "pogrom", thus.

Cuz there's totes no risk involved with a transwoman going into the male bathroom is there?

[Ifreann]

Wait, do Obama seriously want to fuck over the education of people who're in the most dire need of one just for the sack of pandering progressives?
And there are 19 guys and gals (at least) who're backing him up?
Wow. I didn't thought one could loose his faith in humanity on the internet in any other site than tumblr or 4chan but I guess that I was rather naïf to think so...

Shouldn't you be asking if state governments seriously want to fuck over the education of people who are in the most dire need of it just for the sake of pandering to conservatives?