Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[MFrost]

I'm fairly confident schools in Texas have plenty of room to accommodate single occupancy restrooms and showers. besides the footprint of the actual bathrooms does not need to change. and the cost of plumbing the whole thing is already taken care of. The added expense is in enclosing each of the individual stalls completely i.e a little drywall. Last time i looked drywall was not very expensive. large arenas they make the money and if the owner of the Arena felt it was worth the expenditure it is his Arena, why would you care?

So we should spend profligately in order to please a few people whom suddenly out of the blue, decided that transgender rights pose a public safety risk?

if that is what the tax payers in those states want, let them have it how is it harming you, why are you so objectionable to it?

[MFrost]

I'm fairly confident schools in Texas have plenty of room to accommodate single occupancy restrooms and showers. besides the footprint of the actual bathrooms does not need to change. and the cost of plumbing the whole thing is already taken care of. The added expense is in enclosing each of the individual stalls completely i.e a little drywall. Last time i looked drywall was not very expensive. large arenas they make the money and if the owner of the Arena felt it was worth the expenditure it is his Arena, why would you care?

If you're going to have the 'walls' so paper thin that they are essentially no different from stalls, and sinks in a common area of the bathroom (IE, where no new plumbing is required), what's the difference between that and a unisex public bathroom?

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

[Vassenor]

If you're going to have the 'walls' so paper thin that they are essentially no different from stalls, and sinks in a common area of the bathroom (IE, where no new plumbing is required), what's the difference between that and a unisex public bathroom?

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

And this will help how?

[Gauthier]

If you're going to have the 'walls' so paper thin that they are essentially no different from stalls, and sinks in a common area of the bathroom (IE, where no new plumbing is required), what's the difference between that and a unisex public bathroom?

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel.

Which just makes it better for someone presumed Trans to be slammed repeatedly against amirite?

[Galloism]

If you're going to have the 'walls' so paper thin that they are essentially no different from stalls, and sinks in a common area of the bathroom (IE, where no new plumbing is required), what's the difference between that and a unisex public bathroom?

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

I'm saying the only 'difference' between your 'proposal' and the status quo is how tall/low you make the stall door and wall, which means what you're proposing is essentially just a public unisex bathroom with a slight modification to stall design.

Which is a good idea, at least public unisex bathrooms anyway.

[Noraika]

If you're going to have the 'walls' so paper thin that they are essentially no different from stalls, and sinks in a common area of the bathroom (IE, where no new plumbing is required), what's the difference between that and a unisex public bathroom?

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

Because its ultimately unnecessary? Because regardless of practicality its already established by legal proceedings that HB 2 is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Because the idea of egalitarian society and inclusiveness is a net positive? Because we shouldn't appease bigotry or ignorance? Because, while gender neutral restrooms would be good and efficient to increase in number, this is definitely not the context or spirit which should give rise to it? That 'transgendered' bathrooms ignore the point, and that a man should be able to use the men's room, and a woman the woman's room? That 'transgendered' bathrooms would single-out and be exclusionary to transgender individuals even more than is already the case?

I can go on quite a lot longer.

[MFrost]

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

And this will help how?

it gives those who would oppose you a solution they can live with.... can you live with it?

[Atheist Collective]

So we should spend profligately in order to please a few people whom suddenly out of the blue, decided that transgender rights pose a public safety risk?

if that is what the tax payers in those states want, let them have it how is it harming you, why are you so objectionable to it?

Well because that would: A. be expensive, B. require a tax increase, C. it is utter paranoia to assume that we all need physical barriers to protect us from some imaginary "threat", D. the state would then face the feds pulling funding from that state ala NC, which harms in this case innocent children, E. It harms only the reputation of the individual state, F. I object to it because what is happening today has parallels to discrimination in years past.

[Galloism]

And this will help how?

it gives those who would oppose you a solution they can live with.... can you live with it?

What you're proposing is a public unisex restroom with a slightly modified stall design. I don't think the bigots will want to live with that.

[Ifreann]

The problem with trying to keep both parties happy is that one party thinks the other party are a bunch of delusional perverts out to rape children. They're not going to be happy unless the people they hate are suffering.

perhaps it has more to do with outside interests imposing moral values on them they are uncomfortable with.

Perhaps all the people demanding that blacks not be allowed into the same schools as white students just didn't want outside interests imposing moral values on them that they were uncomfortable with. Or perhaps they were a bunch of racists.

in some countries they stone girls to death for getting raped, its their moral values. i would not want these imposed upon my community just because less than 1% of the population living in my community believes this is the moral justice i need to live by.

And if I told you I was opposed to stoning girls to death for getting raped then I suppose you'd want to find a compromise to keep both parties happy, hmm?

but then again i digress the question was would you fault them for providing single occupancy bathrooms in compliance with your desires, or would you still be running around complaining this is not good enough for me...

I'm sure I would criticise the United States for going to such absurd lengths to pander to bigots. And I'm sure a great many Americans would agree with me.

[MFrost]

if that is a concern line it with stainless steel. and if it is no different then why are you objecting to the proposal?

I'm saying the only 'difference' between your 'proposal' and the status quo is how tall/low you make the stall door and wall, which means what you're proposing is essentially just a public unisex bathroom with a slight modification to stall design.

Which is a good idea, at least public unisex bathrooms anyway.

with a common sink and waiting area that can easily be monitored by teachers and parents. you also have the benefit of stopping someone if they are attempting to break into an already occupied stall the person would have to be very foolish to attempt it. then again i do not put it past human stupidity for such an event to actually occur. It is also visible if someone tries to use a single stall as a waiting room to expose themselves to some unsuspecting victim.

[Galloism]

I'm saying the only 'difference' between your 'proposal' and the status quo is how tall/low you make the stall door and wall, which means what you're proposing is essentially just a public unisex bathroom with a slight modification to stall design.

Which is a good idea, at least public unisex bathrooms anyway.

with a common sink and waiting area that can easily be monitored by teachers and parents. you also have the benefit of stopping someone if they are attempting to break into an already occupied stall the person would have to be very foolish to attempt it. then again i do not put it past human stupidity for such an event to actually occur. It is also visible if someone tries to use a single stall as a waiting room to expose themselves to some unsuspecting victim.

So yes, you're talking about a unisex public restroom.

If a unisex public restroom would satisfy the bigots, I'm happy with that. I just doubt it will.

[Noraika]

if that is what the tax payers in those states want, let them have it how is it harming you, why are you so objectionable to it?

Well because that would: A. be expensive, B. require a tax increase, C. it is utter paranoia to assume that we all need physical barriers to protect us from some imaginary "threat", D. the state would then face the feds pulling funding from that state ala NC, which harms in this case innocent children, E. It harms only the reputation of the individual state, F. I object to it because what is happening today has parallels to discrimination in years past.

Personally, I think the only thing that needs to change is the paranoid attitude of people who are worried about some imaginary threat, which has proven unfounded is so many different states and countries, in both the short and long term. Its not going to make people uncomfortable, except in the case in which people make it uncomfortable

[Aphryss]

If you'd rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars completely reworking basic infrastructure than simply acknowledge trans people as the gender they identify as ... you might be a bigot.

[Gauthier]

If you'd rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars completely reworking basic infrastructure than simply acknowledge trans people as the gender they identify as ... you might be a bigot.

"We'll call it... Separate But Equal!"

[Conigsberg]

Not that I give a crap about tranny stuff but

I don't understand why disabled children should get any funding at all as they have no potential and are only a drag. If there is centralized funding (which I oppose), I would think that it should obviously go to the kids who do well first

Western world...

[Noraika]

If you'd rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars completely reworking basic infrastructure than simply acknowledge trans people as the gender they identify as ... you might be a bigot.

"We'll call it... Separate But Equal!"

Its kind of like the whole 'civil unions with the same benefits' thing instead of allowing for homosexual marriage. Don't actually give them full equality, but rather a stop gap to try and appease both sides, and placate the masses. They're equal, but not equal.

[Atheist Collective]

If you'd rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars completely reworking basic infrastructure than simply acknowledge trans people as the gender they identify as ... you might be a bigot.

You have to love all the effort expended to find a solution to an imaginary problem, whilst they ignore actual problems.

[Ifreann]

I don't understand why disabled children should get any funding at all as they have no potential and are only a drag. If there is centralized funding (which I oppose), I would think that it should obviously go to the kids who do well first

[Atheist Collective]

"We'll call it... Separate But Equal!"

Its kind of like the whole 'civil unions with the same benefits' thing instead of allowing for homosexual marriage. Don't actually give them full equality, but rather a stop gap to try and appease both sides, and placate the masses. They're equal, but not equal.

What I personally cannot stand, is the same people that scream bloody murder about their supposed persecution by the federal government, have no qualms with turning around and using state government to persecute others.

[MFrost]

perhaps it has more to do with outside interests imposing moral values on them they are uncomfortable with.

Perhaps all the people demanding that blacks not be allowed into the same schools as white students just didn't want outside interests imposing moral values on them that they were uncomfortable with. Or perhaps they were a bunch of racists.

in some countries they stone girls to death for getting raped, its their moral values. i would not want these imposed upon my community just because less than 1% of the population living in my community believes this is the moral justice i need to live by.

And if I told you I was opposed to stoning girls to death for getting raped then I suppose you'd want to find a compromise to keep both parties happy, hmm?

but then again i digress the question was would you fault them for providing single occupancy bathrooms in compliance with your desires, or would you still be running around complaining this is not good enough for me...

I'm sure I would criticise the United States for going to such absurd lengths to pander to bigots. And I'm sure a great many Americans would agree with me.

on the first point i did not bring up race you did, or someone else did, however unlike you i see these as two completely different issues. one is absolutely racism the other is solvable thru basic infrastructure changes and design.

on the second point i am not even going to dignify that with a response due to the absurdity of the statement made.

on the third point i ask what is it to you, if the problem is solved and the taxpayers were willing to pay for it? is it because
1. they did not do it exactly the way you wanted them to?
2. you want or need that special feeling of walking into a room marked Women?
3. it takes away the toy you were hoping to have fun with?
4. All of the above?

Just curious as to how this would affect you if those who oppose your directive solved it using single occupancy bathrooms?

[Gauthier]

Not that I give a crap about tranny stuff but

I don't understand why disabled children should get any funding at all as they have no potential and are only a drag. If there is centralized funding (which I oppose), I would think that it should obviously go to the kids who do well first

Western world...

"We need to leave the crippled out in the wilderness for nature to take care of!!"

Heelarious.

[Atheist Collective]

Perhaps all the people demanding that blacks not be allowed into the same schools as white students just didn't want outside interests imposing moral values on them that they were uncomfortable with. Or perhaps they were a bunch of racists.

And if I told you I was opposed to stoning girls to death for getting raped then I suppose you'd want to find a compromise to keep both parties happy, hmm?


I'm sure I would criticise the United States for going to such absurd lengths to pander to bigots. And I'm sure a great many Americans would agree with me.

on the first point i did not bring up race you did, or someone else did, however unlike you i see these as two completely different issues. one is absolutely racism the other is solvable thru basic infrastructure changes and design.

on the second point i am not even going to dignify that with a response due to the absurdity of the statement made.

on the third point i as k what is it to you if the problem is solved and the taxpayers were willing to pay for it? is it because
1. they did not do it exactly the way you wanted them to?
2. you want or need that special feeling of walking into a room marked Women?
3. it takes away the toy you were hoping to have fun with?
4. All of the above?

Just curious as to how this would affect you if those who oppose your directive solved it using single occupancy bathrooms?

If the "problem" were solved with single occupancy bathrooms, then would we need to construct single occupancy locker rooms, or do away with communal showers? Where would it end? You would be opening up a can of worms.

[Ashmoria]

Sure, once everyone stops being dicks and simmers down a bit with the needless panic over imagined offenses.

I still say we need to stop yelling at one another across the country, and call to account those responsible for the mess to begin with - politicians and the media. Without that impetus, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Transgender people are not a this year's occurrence any more than gay people are, or any number of varied sorts of people. We've all been using the bathrooms together for like ever now, whether we're masculine-looking women, or feminine-looking men both of straight variety, or all the rest, and few if any have been the wiser. It was a non-issue before, if we had any goram sense as a citizenry, it'd be a non-issue now, with all of us standing up, pointing at the politicians, and demanding they stop their asshattery and do their goram jobs, which is to REPRESENT WE, THE PEOPLE. Not their thrice-damned agendas, party politicking, and pocket-lining.

Grr. Argh. >_o

You're only fooling yourself if you think that this is an imaginary issue created by politicians and the media. Transphobia is huge, particularly among conservatives.

and having lost the homophobia fight they are doubling down on the transphobia. its not going to end soon.

[MFrost]

"We'll call it... Separate But Equal!"

Its kind of like the whole 'civil unions with the same benefits' thing instead of allowing for homosexual marriage. Don't actually give them full equality, but rather a stop gap to try and appease both sides, and placate the masses. They're equal, but not equal.

unfortunately for you everyone is equal in a single occupancy situation so the argument does not hold. if they had said civil unions for all and banned all marriages then we would be comparing apples to apples.