Stopping Edu. Funds for Disabled Students over Bathroom Laws

[Liriena]

I'm an anti-nationalist, open-borders sort of guy so...

The point is that you seem to believe in laws. The question then is:
Was there law in place to allow the President to stop these funds to disadvantaged and disabled kids, or is it a new regulation without the force of law?

I'm pretty sure Obama is acting within the boundaries of the law.

The states who are knowingly endangering their own federal funding, though? Not quite.

[Linux and the X]

I'm an anti-nationalist, open-borders sort of guy so...

The point is that you seem to believe in laws. The question then is:
Was there law in place to allow the President to stop these funds to disadvantaged and disabled kids, or is it a new regulation without the force of law?

There was indeed. And framing it as the President cutting off funding for disadvantaged students is disgustingly dishonest, BTW.

[Insaeldor]

Obviously this is a pretty sensitive issue. Personally I think were losing a lot of the nuance that comes with sexual identity in the new age with such rallying like "Stop the perverts, think about your kids and sisters!" or "Omg this is like a Jim crow thing that like cant even be allowed here". I'd argue both are right on some level. If our laws are too sweeping and general will have a situation where people can take advantage of this law for weird gain or put some people in uncomfortable situations. be on the other extreme we will have a situation where a person that looks, talks, and walks like a dude will be forced to use the women's restroom because its says she's a male on her birth certificate and vice versa for FtM trans people as well. we need to take a deeper look into how we can appropriately accommodate the needs of the masses without ignoring a massive segment of the general community. Personally I don't think the rape in public bathrooms argument withstands scrutiny because of how rare bathroom sexual assaults are but also how rare stranger on stranger sexual assault is. couple that with how public, public bathrooms can be and I think we've really only got a fear induced excuse against the argument. Again however I think appropriate compromise is in order. Maybe physicians who preform sexual transitions surgeries should be able to change the gender on the birth certificate more easily and make this more an issue on what sexual organs you have not what you sexually identify as. We can also just make it to where if you've taken adequate measures to be more like the gender you identify as than you can use the bathroom you most identify as. personally I feel the latter is the best and easier way of going about things especially given how hard a law like this is to enforce and that getting a reassignment surgery is just flat out expensive.

do we all need to carry our birth certificates where ever we go so we can produce them for the bathroom gender guard?

Birth Certificate is really only in reference to the North Carolina law which if I remembered correctly stated one needs to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate. and like I said the I preferred my latter suggestion as the best way to attempt and fix the issue we have brewing.

[The Great Devourer of All]

We're all furries here. NSG is basically a year-long, 24/7 FurCon with a bit of Trump paraphernalia.

For the sake of full disclosure... I have a Panda Costume.

Way to keep your own thread on topic. Two thumbs up, pal!

[Ashmoria]

do we all need to carry our birth certificates where ever we go so we can produce them for the bathroom gender guard?

Birth Certificate is really only in reference to the North Carolina law which if I remembered correctly stated one needs to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate. and like I said the I preferred my latter suggestion as the best way to attempt and fix the issue we have brewing.

I guess I don't understand what your position is. do you want it to be a matter of documentation or of presentation? how femme does a transwoman have to be in order to pass? if a trans man isn't quite manly enough do women have to share the bathroom with a "woman" with a beard wearing a man's suit?

[MightyQuinn]

The point is that you seem to believe in laws. The question then is:
Was there law in place to allow the President to stop these funds to disadvantaged and disabled kids, or is it a new regulation without the force of law?

There was indeed. And framing it as the President cutting off funding for disadvantaged students is disgustingly dishonest, BTW.

Which law is that?

It seems perfectly rational to hand the blame to the President, since it was his Administration's idea to threaten to cut off the funding. I'm sure that the states did not respond, "Well, we don't like your idea so WE will not take Federal education funds." That is laughable.

[MightyQuinn]

For the sake of full disclosure... I have a Panda Costume.

Way to keep your own thread on topic. Two thumbs up, pal!

As if I could keep it on topic. NSG folk are famous for tangents. I kind of doubt that this can remain at all serious, despite my best efforts.

[The East Marches]

Who else can they legally get them from?
oh right, the private transphobes and corporate nutbags.

Please refrain from giving school boards ideas. I don't want to see Nike High School of Plano. They may very try something like that. Its best for everybody of K-12 schooling remains somewhat independent of corporations.

[Kelinfort]

This is just a new interpretation and also falls under the powers of the executive branch, which is why a Republican administration can reinstate the Mexico City policy without having Congress pass a law.

[Theodolia]

I'm an anti-nationalist, open-borders sort of guy so...

The point is that you seem to believe in laws. The question then is:
Was there law in place to allow the President to stop these funds to disadvantaged and disabled kids, or is it a new regulation without the force of law?

There probably are some education dollars for which the President has the administrative authority to suspend, but the primary means of enforcement here would appear to be lawsuits. The Obama administration is essentially saying that they will sue schools and districts that don't follow this directive as discriminatory, and if a court finds them to be so, as I understand it they would then be ineligible for certain federal funds under the law.

My impression is that they are simply extending protections that already are in place for other groups. For example, the denial of federal funds to segregated schools was one of the mechanisms through which segregation in schools was ended.

[Insaeldor]

Birth Certificate is really only in reference to the North Carolina law which if I remembered correctly stated one needs to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate. and like I said the I preferred my latter suggestion as the best way to attempt and fix the issue we have brewing.

I guess I don't understand what your position is. do you want it to be a matter of documentation or of presentation? how femme does a transwoman have to be in order to pass? if a trans man isn't quite manly enough do women have to share the bathroom with a "woman" with a beard wearing a man's suit?

To be completely honest I'm all for just having open bathroom as I feel society will be more than able to regulate itself if the concept of shaming those who misuse the law. also the fact that both sexual assault in bathrooms and sexual assault in stranger to stranger situations. My argument was more of a way to try and find a middle ground in the issues and how we can try and get away from these mostly emotionally driven arguments on both sides of the debate.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Way to keep your own thread on topic. Two thumbs up, pal!

As if I could keep it on topic. NSG folk are famous for tangents. I kind of doubt that this can remain at all serious, despite my best efforts.

If you knew that beforehand, maybe you shouldn't have created the thread, hmm?

[Devon Teyson]

Who else can they legally get them from?
oh right, the private transphobes and corporate nutbags.

Please refrain from giving school boards ideas. I don't want to see Nike High School of Plano. They may very try something like that. Its best for everybody of K-12 schooling remains somewhat independent of corporations.

It's too late, the corporations are already sponsoring school gyms and fields. But yes- Nike running a school would be as bad as Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamic education, only instead of manufacturing wahhabist jihadis it makes corporate scabs for them.

[MightyQuinn]

As if I could keep it on topic. NSG folk are famous for tangents. I kind of doubt that this can remain at all serious, despite my best efforts.

If you knew that beforehand, maybe you shouldn't have created the thread, hmm?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Threlizdun]

The framework is false. Obama isn't trying to end segregated restrooms, but merely stop the state from forcing people into restrooms that present a risk to their physical and mental health.

[The Great Devourer of All]

If you knew that beforehand, maybe you shouldn't have created the thread, hmm?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Nothing seriously discussed before the thread is locked, nothing gained.

[Linux and the X]

There was indeed. And framing it as the President cutting off funding for disadvantaged students is disgustingly dishonest, BTW.

Which law is that?

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments 1972, P.L. 92-318, codified at 20 USC § 1681 et seq., viz., 20 USC § 1681(a).

It seems perfectly rational to hand the blame to the President, since it was his Administration's idea to threaten to cut off the funding. I'm sure that the states did not respond, "Well, we don't like your idea so WE will not take Federal education funds." That is laughable.

Barack Obama was twelve when said educational amendments, which include financial sanctions for noncompliance, were passed. All that's happening now is enforcement of longstanding law.

[United Furry Alliance]

It seems perfectly rational to hand the blame to the President, since it was his Administration's idea to threaten to cut off the funding. I'm sure that the states did not respond, "Well, we don't like your idea so WE will not take Federal education funds." That is laughable.

It is not rational as Texas LT gov is the one stating his desire of clear dissent to break apart from already established conduct and rules it is within the presidents powers to sue and settle this issue in court and use what powers he can. This is balance maybe one will get an edge over each.
Texas has recieved payments in previous years and if they stick on this path then this may be the first year without funds.

[Ohioan Territory]

Wow. I can't believe people actually think this is a good idea.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Wow. I can't believe people actually think this is a good idea.

That's because it is.

[MightyQuinn]

The point is that you seem to believe in laws. The question then is:
Was there law in place to allow the President to stop these funds to disadvantaged and disabled kids, or is it a new regulation without the force of law?

I'm pretty sure Obama is acting within the boundaries of the law.

The states who are knowingly endangering their own federal funding, though? Not quite.

Well, which came first?
The flow of Federal dollars to disadvantaged/disabled students or the new federal requirement of having the public school bathrooms be LBGT friendly?
If the education dollars were in the pipeline before the regulation was stipulated, then it's the President's fault.
If the education dollars were offered with the stipulation of the regulation, then the states are at fault.

Okay. Just took a look at Title 9

While it mentions sex, it doesn't mention the mental interpretation of one's sex.

[Devon Teyson]

Wow. I can't believe people actually think this is a good idea.

What's not a good idea?

[Linux and the X]

Okay. Just took a look at Title 9

While it mentions sex, it doesn't mention the mental interpretation of one's sex.

Several court cases have decided it includes trans people.

[MightyQuinn]

Okay. Just took a look at Title 9

While it mentions sex, it doesn't mention the mental interpretation of one's sex.

Several court cases have decided it includes trans people.

Citation, please.

Also, when does a person become "trans"?

[Geilinor]

The funding isn't going to be lost, but this will end up going to the Supreme Court which could rule that North Carolina is violating the Civil Rights Act.