I see that South Dakota legislature has passed a new law, limiting school bathroom use according to "chromosomes and anatomy at birth". It's awaiting the governors signature now.
http://time.com/4220345/south-dakota-ba … ign=buffer
Several other sites call it "harassment" and "bullying", or try to link it to LBGT issues. But it's not an LGBT issue (what consenting adults do behind closed doors and the legality of that), but about the culture in the US that forbids public display of certain portions of the anatomy - primarily genitalia and female breasts - and being in the position of being forced into that display.
We've come a long way since throat to ankle swim suits and breast feeding only behind closed doors, but the basic rule against public display of genitalia is still very much with us. It is legal only in a handful of places in the country, all strictly voluntary. Nudist colonies. A few beaches. Some hot springs way back from the beaten path. School bathrooms or locker rooms are hardly voluntary.
So let me ask this: what if we make locker rooms and bathrooms all uni-sex? Unisex as in multi-person rooms, not single, one person rooms? Those in restaurants, courthouses, gyms? Workplaces, shopping malls and clothing store dressing rooms? Make all swimming facilities uni-sex (might as well if the dressing room is). Yes, I know - it is irrelevant, not acceptable and even sinful, but there is a point here.
The question becomes "Will the transgender kids be happy then?" Or will they still be "harassed" because they still have to shower with someone with the same genitalia they have? Will anyone be happy outside of the voyeurs?
Given the self-consciousness of kids and that anyone over the age of 3 has been pounded for years with the necessity of covering up when anyone of the opposite sex is around, I don't think so. It seems to me that the ONLY solution acceptable to the transgender is bathrooms divided by sex...to anyone but themselves. They must have access to either, but no one else can.
So I've finally made up my own mind. Bathrooms, locker rooms and such should be divided by sex. Not internal feelings of gender, but outward, physical anatomy. Until such time as the people lose their horror of skin it should remain that way - at this point it is neither useful nor possible to change that. It is not reasonable to expect or require the entire society to change for the "benefit" of a tiny handful that might feel badly being put into the same bathroom as others with the same genitalia. Nor is it reasonable to require that every public facility have a dozen different bathrooms for every possible sexual orientation that humanity exhibits. Take off the universal signs on the doors if we must, and replace them with a stylized penis and vagina, but the function should remain the same.
In the case of children or teenagers in unisex locker rooms, I would like to ask any father of daughters out there if they are really OK with their daughters getting undressed in front of boys? Anyone who says, "Yes" is deluding themselves. As for transgender males making use of female public bathrooms, the jury is still out.
Regarding teens of both sexes undressing and showering together, I agree.
I have been called an ignorant, hateful bigot because I think it is best to keep teen students separated by biological sex in locker rooms and showers, and because I do not think little girls should be changing into their swimsuits in locker rooms with adult male strangers who are also undressing.
I see this (little girls changing) every now and then at the Y I use. There is an age limit, though - I think only children under 5 are allowed in the opposite sex locker room, and only with a guardian.
Doesn't seem to bother the kids, though - one little munchkin headed full speed for the door to the pool before the swim suit was even produced! And of course Dad is always right there, and a shout will bring dozens more if necessary. At the times I visit, the gym is mostly older, rather conservative, people - I doubt that someone trying to molest a child would survive the attempt.
And of course the scenario you describe is not the scenario I am writing about.
I wasn't sure when you said "little girls". But I wholly agree that older children belong in the correct room. They are quite capable of going there on their own, and there ARE a couple of "family" dressing rooms available, just large enough for 3 or 4 people.
Try not to take it personal when they have a hissy-sissy fit and revert to calling names. Its a reflection on them, a poor one at that. They bully to be controlling because they can't prove their stupid claims.
I would never have thought it would come to this 2-3 years ago!
Transgenderism is a social construct that is derived from a conscious decision by an individual to pick a category they want to attach themselves to. Its not enough to allow someone to change bathrooms.
And yet it is observed in children too young to make such conscious choices. At least to anywhere near the degree that they stick with that choice; all children would choose to be one gender or the other when it benefits them or when they don't know the difference. But staying with that choice when it turns bad; that takes more than an easy decision and must be driven (at least in children) by something more than simple peer desire.
But those of us from the outside cannot know for sure that the behavior wasn't coached
I rather doubt that you will find many parents willing to screw up their 6 or 8 year old by coaching them to pretend they're the other sex. Although they DO screw them up by coaching them to "be" the sex they were born with.
But whether you know for sure or not is not a reason to assume that it isn't true. Should you do the research (in an honest effort to learn rather than call them all liars), I think you will find that yes, transgender is very real.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible." The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. My assumptions being that if society wasn't trying to "encourage" those who may have an initial feeling to embrace it, then most of the people who identify as children would see that feeling go away without any issues. I'm not calling anyone a liar, and I am presenting peer reviewed research from a credible source as you noted. I agree that its real, but like the anorexic who thinks they are fat, people who embrace a sex different from what they physically are, suffer from a mental disorder. Sex reassignment surgery doesn't change your sex, it only makes masculine women or feminized men.
Yeah, I know. And if you find the right preacher/religion or even "psychologist" they can "cure" gays. They're going after such quacks in several states.
Which is why I said you would have to research with the intent if finding truth; one authority that says 30% of transgender kids stay that way does NOT indicate that the problem is "curable". It is likely "mental", in that gender (as opposed to sex) is a mentally assigned attitude, but that's all. It doesn't mean it is curable or that there is something automatically "wrong" mentally. Different, yes, but not "wrong".
You're right, though, that our current abilities in sex change surgery does not produce a true sex change. Only a person that can pass better for the sex opposite what their genetic makeup says they are. I don't think, though, that sex change surgery is what is being looked at in trans-gender kids.
You might be surprised.
Have you heard of Coy Mathis? Coy is a transgender child who is biologically male. Coy's parents note that one of the reasons they suspected their child might be transgender is when Coy was five months old, (and still regarded as a boy by his parents) Coy reached for a pink blanket rather than a blue one. Five months old. Pink vs. blue.
Something else to mention is that Coy is a triplet. Coy's triplet-set siblings are both sisters. So when Coy began exhibiting the toy and clothing preferences of his triplet sisters, his parents took him to a gender therapist rather than go along with him mimicking their behavior.
We are pumping kids full of drugs and putting them on the road to genital mutilation and being a lifelong medical patient because they do not like the colors, clothes and toys they are "supposed" to like.
Parents like Coy's seem to think they are super progressive and accepting. However, I counter that if they really were progressive and accepting, they would accept a gay son who loves princess dresses and baby dolls rather than tell him he has the "wrong body" and is "really" a girl.
The privacy of all students needs to be protected. There is no provision in Title IX that states otherwise. S.D. is a conservative state so I expect the best / fair outcome that is reasonable. Common Sense!
"The privacy of all students needs to be protected."
Assuming you refer to body consciousness and not constitutionally protected privacy from government, why? Why does it need to be protected?
They have gender neutral bathrooms in the Rainbow House.
(Ever wonder why this is such a big issue, now?)
So, it must be safe...right?
And are they group bathrooms, or one person at a time? But you skipped over the question of why protect privacy.
Wilderness, I skipped your question because you have one of the highest IQs in the forums and most likely already know how I would answer, and that 'you' would be fine with it.
Form an image search for gender neutral restrooms in the Rainbow House, the photos show stalls with doors in the restrooms. Now, how accurate that is, IDK.
I think it is perfectly arbitrary to let same biological sex kids see each other's bits. That's just one way to divide it. It could be divided by psychological sex or by sexual attraction object, or by hair color, or body weight. None of these things reliably determines who in the room might actually have a strong interest in those dangly bits for whatever reason.
If you think looking at dangly bits is inherently dangerous, all kids should have individual changing areas. And they could all be in the one big room.
With which I agree. I'll even go so far as to say that it harms society to put such emphasis on either anatomy or skin.
But it is what it is and what has to be worked with. So should those that disagree and find great discomfort or sin in the presence of opposing "dangly bits" be forced, under law, to expose themselves (either seeing or actually exposing themselves) to them? The transgenders are complaining of discomfort and feeling bad about NOT being able to; should they then have priority because 99.9999% of society disagrees with them? One side or the other will be discomfited (or more); which has the greater right?
So...are they going swab the inside of everyone's mouth and perform a genetic test on the spot as people cross the threshold of the restroom? LOL. Transgendered people who invest enough time and money in their transformation pass for the other gender. You won't know they're in the "wrong" restroom. This is just silly.
Yeah...if you don't know them, if they're not children, if they don't use a urinal (I take you don't?). And if they're not changing clothes or showering in the locker room.
Okay, so the law is targeting school-aged children (mostly high school-aged I assume), but teenagers presenting as the other gender often pass much better than adults with the same amount of effort, so I don't see how this law could realistically be enforced it was a brand new student. (Transgendered teens often switch schools to get a fresh start.)
I think deep down what they really want to ban are the non-passing perverts from using women's rooms, like this Canadian dude for example
(Yes, he really claims to be a woman, Google "Stefonknee")
An unfortunate consequence of making DNA and gender-assigned-at-birth the criteria that it also bans people who genuinely intend to live as the other gender. For example, this is a female-to-male transgendered person
Suppose this guy is coming to pick up his kids or nieces and nephews from school and he has to go to the bathroom. Do they really want him to use the girls' restroom? Does he just have to hold it until he gets home?
I don't understand the logic of this law at all.
I still think you assume far too much in that transgender kids will keep it to themselves until out of school. While "passing" for the opposite sex. I just do not see that happening - regardless of when the "change" occurs, there will be students that knew them before, and even high school kids are almost certain to "slip" somewhere along the line, let alone younger children.
The pictures - yes, the first one needs banned from girls facilities. The second - this appears like far more than a change of clothing and hair style. I don't think you will find very many doctors at all that will administer the necessary drugs (and surgery?) to teenagers still in school. You're talking a sex change here, or at least the early stages, not simple trans-gender. There is a difference. Or at least that's my understanding - we're getting so many new "sexes" so fast it's hard to keep track.
And yes, the second person, going to pick up their kid, can hold it until they reach a store or gas station. A very small price to pay for the safety and comfort of our kids.
They can administer puberty blocking drugs which facilitates the transformation in minors who can't get hormones. I disagree that most transgendered teens lack the discipline to maintain a passing appearance. If they are serious about it they will, and if they are just experimenting or trying to be a rebellious brat they won't -- the latter cases cannot truly be considered transgendered. Which brings me back to my point that if a teen transitions well nobody will know.
If they're going to make a law about it, the criteria should be intent and the ability to pass. Those are the two things that really determine whether people will be uncomfortable in the presence of a transgendered person in a bathroom or locker room.
If you were in the mens' room and you saw the latter person enter, go into a stall to do his business, wash his hands, and then leave, would you really be bothered by it? I think he passes well enough and assuming that he's not acting like voyeur he should be allowed to use the facilities like anyone else.
I agree regarding transgender persons who pass -- no one is the wiser when it comes to private toilet booths.
However, sharing open-access showers and undressing in front of one another make it difficult for trans teens in school to pass.
I agree that if genitals were being exposed it would be a different story, but every locker room I have ever been in has had several toilet stalls with doors. And in my experience people use them to change in for more privacy. Most transgendered and regular kids are uncomfortable with their bodies at that age and don't expose more than they have to.
Schools these days don't make kids take showers after gym, and knowing how kids are if it's not mandatory they won't do it.
All that is to say that if a kid is passing and has their original equipment, they will go to great lengths to make sure the equipment is not exposed and they will be undetected, which is their ultimate goal.
The transgendered kids who appear in the media with their discrimination claims are not typical. Most trans kids are trying to blend in and fly under the radar. Like that "Lila Perry" boy for example, who couldn't even fool Helen Keller, who insists on using the girls' room and being taken as a girl. A real girl would kill to get her own private changing room. He is not representative of trans kids.
Just "thinking out loud", but aren't you creating yet another generation of people "in the closet", where their sexuality, or in this case actual sex, is to remain forever hidden from society?
Is this a good idea? There has been an awful lot of suffering from those forced to live a hidden life over the years. Would it not be better to teach them (everyone) that "gender" and "sex" are two different things and should be treated differently? We've come a long way with our treatment of gays and it would be a shame to back track with transgenders to what gays used to be.
The men's room - I wouldn't care if it were a woman in a dress. Unless, of course, there were a bunch of them and they primped too long at the sinks!
But that's me, and I recognize that most of the country feels differently. That men and women in bathrooms MUST be kept separate. Even one person uni-sex bathrooms bother some people.
I don't have to understand their quaint stance, I don't have to agree with it. I just need to recognize that it is there, that it has been driven in since childhood and it's not going to go away because one person in a million wants to pretend that all of that makes no difference. I find the hard driven attitude at least as important as the desire to mix sexes in a bathroom, and there are a LOT more people that don't want it.
Although I guess I can understand the angst involved in being a little kid who feels they are an opposite sex than what their body parts tell them; I don't think alleviating their discomfort should be at the expense of the comfort of other children. I guess the solution might be for schools to put in an extra restroom somewhere that is unisex with one toilet and one sink. They'd have to wait in line to use it, but it would be available to them to use without upsetting the sensibilities of other students and a lot of parents.
That would be the flip side of making all bathrooms (and locker rooms) unisex, but the expensive way to go.
And I don't see it helping; it sounds like the problem isn't being put in with the "wrong" sex, it's NOT being with the "right" one. And the transgenders would still not be where they want to go. We saw that in an earlier thread about locker rooms: offered a separate area, it was declined because they were not accepted and welcomed into the girls lockers.
Well then, I think it is obvious. Reasonable and considerate people, who were once children themselves and know how children are, will agree that the transgender can't be allowed to share a locker room with what the majority of children understand to be the opposite sex.
The transgender will never be accepted by the girls as 'one of them' in that way so they will not achieve anything other than satisfying their own desire on one level and opening them up to a great deal of potentially emotionally scarring teasing, bullying and taunting on another. A transgender girl may end up being raped in the high school locker room, or at an even younger age.
I don't see an upside for the transgender if allowed their desires and I don't see an upside for the children who are expected to deal with the situation.
That's where I'm coming from - there just isn't an upside for anyone here. So it seems that the best solution is to continue the use of bathrooms (and locker or anything else) based on anatomical sex, nothing more. Emphasize that to the transgender kids, that it's a matter of anatomy and not feelings of gender.
They're going to fight this their whole lives, and there just isn't a reason to try and teach our kids that societies rules don't apply in their school, that they'll just have to be uncomfortable there, while they very much DO apply everywhere else in the world.
No one is looking at this from the perspective of a transgender male or female who has to go into the restroom based on their "biological" sex. So let's break it down for a moment:
A transgender girl in her early teens needs to use the restroom at school. She presents as a girl, has a girl name, and pretty much everyone who knows her knows she's a girl. Except that she still has male genitalia. Now, according to SD (and some other highly bigoted areas) this girl will be required to use the boy's restroom. Not only is SHE going to feel really uncomfortable shuffling in there to find a stall quickly, but ANY other boy in that bathroom is going to be really weirded out to see a female presenting person suddenly enter that space.
Same for the opposite case. A transgender teen male, who still has female genitalia, walking into a girl's restroom. Now, depending on how well this boy "passes", the girls in this particular restroom are going to FREAK OUT because a boy just walked in on them.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Everyone would be uncomfortable with this situation.
Now, if I (a biological female) am just hanging out in the ladies restroom at some public space and another female presenting person walks in to urinate/defecate - I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR PANTS/SKIRT. They're just taking care of business, you know?
I'm pretty sure no dude would really care either if some male presenting person entered a stall in the men's room and urinated sitting down. It's not their business what that person is doing in their own stall anyways.
HUMAN BEINGS use public restrooms to relieve themselves. The average person, regardless of gender, isn't going in their for some perverted purpose. So why don't we just let people use whatever restroom they're most comfortable with or just provide single stall unisex bathrooms alongside them?
The question is about schools - where more than just "doing your business" happens.
You make a big deal out of "presenting", but it would be the rare child indeed that managed to keep their sex a secret through 12 years of school. Which means that however they present themselves, the other students are quite well aware of what their sex is.
Which puts the question back into the same corner, from the other direction. Should students be required to share a bathroom with students of the opposite sex? And should they be required to share locker/shower rooms the same way (that question is also being challenged outside of S Dakota).
But rather than spend billions in a failed effort to make a handful of kids feel good (they don't want separate bathrooms - they want admittance to the bathroom reserved for the other sex), why don't we just define bathroom use according to anatomy. That way everybody goes to the "right" place and no need to feel bad - they are in the room reserved and outfitted for their own, personal anatomy.
I do not think schoolgirls who are biologically female should be forced to undress in front of or shower with fellow students who are biologically male. I believe this is abusive.
I agree with you 100%
South Dakota passed law to force transgender students to use bathrooms based on sex at birth. Yay!
Has the governor signed it? He was still thinking when I posted the thread.
The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he'd need to study it more before making a decision. - according the Mashable.
The LGBT rights organization Human Rights Campaign is already posturing law suits on the grounds of discrimination if the bill is passed. Some schools have already been sued over the same argument with awards as much as $75.000. Schools can't afford that kind of money.
Yeah, that's what I had yesterday as well - that the legislature had completed it and was ready for the Governors signature.
No, schools can't handle that kind of debt, which is probably where it will end up. Passed because deep pockets are pushing it, same as so many other bills in the country.
Hahaha, Seattle doesn't know what to do after a man went into a women's locker room and undressed. Later he went back in while a bunch of young gals were undressing.
All he had to do was sight the “gender rule,” that says men and women who claim to be the opposite of that can use any bathroom they want, and can’t be discriminated against.
This is hilarious that the city made this stupid liberal rule. Its like Saturday Night Live in real time.
Read more: http://louderwithcrowder.com/man-drops- … z40uZSqf00
Seriously, it doesn't get stupider than this if you need a good laugh.
ObamaLand progressiveness... the laughing stock of the world! Hahaha!
That man undressed twice in front of little girls and has full legal access to do it again and again.
I don't think it is funny.
I fully understand where you are coming from.
Its just wrong...but, the radical far left liberals are dumbfounded in Seattle. That is what is so funny, they just might get smart and change the rules to decency again. This is not a joke, but the mentality is.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I don't believe men (or men who wish they were women) should be given unrestricted access to undress and shower (or watch women and girls undress and shower) in public showering/changing spaces reserved for women and girls.
But that's the point: that they aren't reserved for women and girls. They are now reserved for women, girls, and anyone that claims they are a woman or girl on the "inside".
I agree with colorful; while the act isn't funny at all, the position the liberal legislature has put itself in is. Even if the man really is a transgender, it's still funny that they pass such a stupid law and then watch in horror as the inevitable blow up happens. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted this with 100% accuracy, but somehow over half of the legislature didn't!
I agree. In another thread from a few months ago I was arguing this point, but so many people didn't agree with me. So many people in that thread told me that if a man "feels" like he is a woman then he really is one and should be given complete status as a woman. I didn't agree then and I don't agree now. Not only are transgender males actual males and not females at all, laws like these open up spaces reserved for women and girls to any dude that wants in. All he has to do is say he "identifies" as a woman and he is good to romp around naked in the women's/girls' showers or lounge around spread eagle with an erection in the women's/girls' sauna.
Oh, I could see that from your previous post that you believe in decency and order. And, correctly so in my opinion, I respect that.
Idiotic laws like this based on self-identifcation make it worse for normal transgendered people to be accepted. The allowances are invariably abused by mentally ill gender pretenders and perverts who make it to the news, and then everyone assumes that they are representative of all trans folks.
It's difficult to codify these allowances into the law in a way that keeps out the perverts because if you make it based on passability, rather than self-identification, it opens a whole other can of worms. First, passability is subjective. Second, what about biological women who look mannish but still identify as women, or biological males who look effeminate and still identify as men? Third, what about people in the midst of their transition who don't yet pass very well but are on the way? Fourth, emphasis on passing reinforces gender stereotypes that women have fought against.
Law makers don't want to grapple with these issues so they take the easy way out and let people decide for themselves which bathroom to use and hope that not too many people with bad intentions abuse the privilege. Still, I think making passability the main criterion, as difficult as it is, results in fewer people being offended or feeling violated.
Here I cannot agree. Making sex the only criterion (pretty easy) results in the fewest people being offended. We all have one or the other sex and cannot complain when that's the criterion for everyone. Only when we pretend that it is gender does discrimination raise it's head.
Biological sex as the sole determining factor does not result in the fewest people being offended, otherwise this would not even be a topic of discussion. And, it's not "pretty easy" unless you are doing a dna test on everyone as they walk in the door.
How many straight people will be offended? How many gays or lesbians? That leaves the tiny number of transgender people that demand access to the other room. I'd have to say that is less than the number of straight people. And we see the result in the furor over the man in the "wrong" locker room - one man that might have been offended (if transgender and not voyeur) as opposed to the thousands that are.
As far as not being easy, the only problem will be the even smaller number of people that undergone a sex change operation and the dozen or so people in the country with an XXY or XYY chromosome setup. Don't see either as a problem.
I agree whole hearted with what Franklin Graham posted on Facebook about six hours ago.
Tonight the Charlotte, NC, City Council is set to vote on an ordinance that allows people to use the public restroom of their choice regardless of their biological sex. It’s really hard to believe that such a ludicrous law would even be seriously considered—and even harder to believe that at least 8 of 11 council members have said they would vote for it! Are people just not thinking clearly? This law would allow pedophiles, perverts, and predators into women’s bathrooms. This is wicked and it’s filthy. To think that my granddaughters could go into a restroom and a man be in there exposing himself….what are we setting our children and grandchildren up for? There’s not a public restroom in Charlotte that would be safe!
It should be inconceivable that Charlotte’s mayor and the supporting City Council members have succumbed to the pressures from depraved sexual activists and are willing to put women and girls at risk like this. The ordinance was defeated last year, and the mayor shouldn’t have allowed it back on the table. Shame on her. This is why it is so important that Christians get involved in the political process across our country by running for office and by voting. What a difference it could make if we had more city council members and mayors who were willing to stand up for morality and biblical principles for our cities and communities. Less than 10% of voters turned out for the last Charlotte mayoral election—that’s just a shame, and look what’s happening as a result.
I hope Charlotte citizens will come out in droves this evening to gather at 4:45 in front of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Complex Building before the City Council meeting and let the council know without question that they overwhelmingly oppose this! And to the rest of the nation—more of these kinds of laws are coming, so be watching, be on guard, and fight against them.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p … 07857.html
Franklin is very out spoken as you can see.
He said it is shameful, (but I personally don't use that word), although he is correct. Otherwise, I am in agreement...and people need to fight to stop this from happening.
I do hope the trans lobby will come to see that the "self identification" trans definition they have pushed is not doing them any favors, but instead is causing a backlash.
Assigning someone to be the "passing police" would cause an uproar in the trans community, because like you say, whether or not someone passes as the sex they wish to be is subjective. Many trans people believe they pass but do not, or perhaps their critical discernment is overridden by their hopes and dreams of passing.
Our brains are specifically trained/designed/evolved to pick up on the smallest of nuances when it comes to determining another person's sex, as I understand it, for the purpose of successful reproduction. I read an article once written by a blind man who met a transgender male and could immediately tell the person was male, despite the person being introduced to the blind man as a woman.
As I wrote earlier, if a person truly passes as the opposite sex and is in the locker room standing right next to me, I am none the wiser.
I agree, passing police will not work. And trans people's perception of their own passability is often off the mark. But you can safely assume if a person's presence in a restroom is not causing an uproar then he or she is passing well enough for people not to care.
Supposing Caitlin Jenner and Laverne Cox were not celebrities, I think if most women saw them in the bathroom minding their own business the other women around would probably not pay any attention to them, at least not enough attention to ascertain that they are biologically male. I would probably just think they were escorts. Constrast with Stefonknee, I think if he entered a ladies room you could hear the screams a mile a way. *shudder*
The truth is, on a spiritual level, every individual is both male and female. Therefore, I really think we should have unisex showers and restroom facilities. Problem solved.
While we are at it, we should all assume gender neutral appearances.
Lets get real! Stop identifying with the illusion of being either male or female! We are all the same gender in heaven: Neutral!
Why else would Jesus mention there is no marriage in heaven!
Grown men will now be able to legally go into bathrooms and locker rooms where girls and woman use to only be allowed in Charlotte, SC. Its a wicked law that will allow pedophiles, perverts and predators to roam freely.
This spells trouble by troubled individuals that started at the top.
"In 2013 the Department of Homeland Security released 36,000 violent illegal alien criminals onto American streets after claiming officials were practicing prosecutorial discretion.
In 2015, they did the same and released 30,000 more violent aliens onto the streets who had been convicted of heinous crimes like murder, sexual assault, aggravated assault, rape and more. We also learned just this week that more than 100 violent illegal aliens who avoided deportation by DHS have been charged with murder after being let go from the system. "
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli … s-n2013416
by Rhonda D Johnson14 months ago
A Colorado school district is being sued for discrimination. The parents of six year old Coy Matthis, who they say has identified himself as a girl since he was a toddler, are incensed that the school will not...
by Sarah B12 months ago
Lawsuit Planned Over North Carolina's Ban on Transgender Bathroomshttp://flip.it/2VvUMI'm posting about this because I legitamately don't understand the controversy in several ways. Problems:1.) Do we want transgender...
by Marc Lee5 months ago
Part of the concern around HB2 was abuse taking place in bathrooms, how concerned would you be about this in a public bathroom or do you feel that was just a red herring in the debate?
by Peg Cole20 months ago
You've probably seen the reports stating that the "Director of Education has ordered a suburban Chicago school to allow a boy who claims to be a girl into the girls’ locker room, whether or not the girls or their...
by Dear_hubs6 years ago
It has been a gray area for a long time that in the UK, sex below the age of 16 is illegal and many frown on it. I'll be honest, I lost my virginity at 15, however I am not a criminal, I have lead a community driven...
by N B Yomi15 months ago
Hi Hubbers,I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my Hub The Transgendered bathroom issue, isn't a real issue (must be signed in to view). What can I do to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.