FrostedFlake
Posts: 3084
Joined: 3/4/2009 From: Centralia, Washington Status: offline
|
The thing that makes me side with the parents is, going to the bathroom is not group activity. The kid steps into a stall, closes the door and does whatever it is the kid does. Without supervision from anyone. So how does who know what's what? Without invading the kids privacy. How does this violate anyone elses' privacy? Absent that invasion, whence comes standing to bitch? To recap : The offense is against Coy Mathis. The substance of the offense is ; I know her name. This demonstrates Coys' privacy has been violated. Had she been left to herself, her situation would not be matter for public debate. By ignorant fucks. Like me. This ain't rocket science. Or the twentieth century. I remember the 20th century. Anyone else? Oh, you too! Cool. I remember one day I went to visit Katy. A gal I know, as far as I know a REAL gal, but who cares? Anyway, when I arrived, Katy introduced her friend, Dr. J. It was not long before I became aware Dr. J is gay. So, of course, being the fine, upstanding, red-blooded idiot I am, I said something unbelievably foul. Which, fortunately, I cannot now accurately recall. Being no fool, Dr. J very quickly and easily put those words back where they had come from and invited me to chew. And then spit or swallow. This is how I know it takes just five seconds for a reasonable person to cure himself of a lifetime of lessons on the topic of gender equity. Now, having prefaced my remarks, I would like to bring something up. quote:
http://www.transgenderlegal.org/media/uploads/doc_491.pdf Hmmm... was always able to cut from a PDF before. What makes this a special pain in the ass? OK! I'll type it out. YOU FOLKS OWE ME. ""As you undoubtedly know, Maine is one of several States that have legislation protecting Transgender Persons on the basis of gender identity or expression. However, as you also undoubtedly know, on (last Fall) the (Superior court in another State) ruled (on a similar case) the (school) did not violate a transgender students' rights (under a Maine statute) when school officials prohibited (her) from using the Womens' Restroom at school. It also rejected (her) claims of discrimination under (that same different statute) based on deliberate indifference to student-on-student harassment or harassment by school officials. If I can read, what is being claimed is, the Law does not require anyone to respect it. That is the real story here. There is more I would say, if I didn't have to type out the idiotic nonsense being bandied about before I can criticize it. Instead, I will make a general remark. A girl that has to use a special bathroom is not a girl. In anyones' estimation. If a transgender person has a right to express themselves as they choose to, making that person use a special accommodation on gender basis violates that right by demonstrating a difference. At the risk of appearing stupid, the definition of discrimination is discriminating. And the definition of discriminating is noticing. Did anyone notice the lawyers name?
< Message edited by FrostedFlake -- 2/28/2013 2:50:59 PM >
_____________________________
Frosted Flake simul justus et peccator Einen Liebhaber, und halten Sie die Schraube "... evil (and hilarious) !!" Hlen5
|