Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
I am sorry RealOne I have lost patience with you... I have answered every question you have asked with law and links... it is hard to debate with someone that does not have the ability to understand. Maybe someone else can explain it to you i can't.
Butch
Dear Superintendent Garcia:
In November 2011, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), [an administrative agency NOT A COURT] received a complaint against Downey Unified School District (District). The complaint alleged discrimination based on sex against an elementary school student (Student) in the District.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that
(1) the Student was subjected to different treatment and harassment by District employees because of her gender identity and gender nonconformance, and
Nope NOT the problem in your case.
Actually that does seem to be the case. You don't like it, because you don't have an intelligent and well defined argument. It would take me less than five minutes to develop a counter argument; why can't you perform this (what to me is) easy task?
Joe anyone who can read can see that you conflated the facts and are accusing me of what you are about to do and what kd did. I spent how many posts getting him to state his argument then when he did it was nothing more than a gargantuan belch of flatulence.
See you can tell I defined it because you cut and pasted so many entries that are the definitions based on the administrative letter to the school which is inapplicable to this situation. You dont see that Joe?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
(2) the Student was subjected to sexual and gender-based peer harassment and the District failed to provide a prompt and equitable response to notice of the harassment.
Nope not the problem in your case.
See my reply above....
See my rebuttal to your reply above
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Continuing:
The Complainant stated that throughout the 2011-2012 school year, staff at the school disciplined the Student because of her gender nonconformance and gender identity.
Nope didnt happen in your case.
There does seem to be reality, and the fantasy your trying to push. The article does explain how the population 'attacked' this one student pretty clearly.
Making shit up now Joe? It does not explain how the population attacked anyone since it was not the population, it was the faculty, and other students.
Joe, its STUDENTS and FACULTY, not population.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In August 2013, as a result of a change in state law, the Complainant obtained an identification document for the Student reflecting the Student’s female name and gender. In August 2014, the District informed OCR that the Board of Education approved Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 252, “Transgender Students, Privacy, and Facilities” to implement California Assembly Bill (AB) 1266 2
Nope not in your case
It's amusing how much you try to say reality and history are not real. Yet have no supporting information to your argument.....
Seriously Joe, please try to keep up. This is at best 8th grade reading.
1) I did not say anything about reality, if you look at your above statement you will see that YOU are the one tooting reality.
2) I posted supporting text for MY argument which rebuts KD's (from KDs link) and now your argument from KDs link.
Its like shooting yourself in the foot with your own gun Joe
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
this is a battle between 2 competing religions NOT state institution versus student.
No.
This is a battle between a pile of under-educated fuck-wits whom do not understand the standing laws of the land. And a little child whom has the right to an education like anyone else.
When looked at from that perspective, its not hard to identify whom are the bullies and predators. And whom is the innocent in the confrontation.
Joe please try to keep up, this is not about education its about some kid who wants to put a dress on and play with his cock in the ladies room. Kids have moral values taught to them by their parents and church leaders Joe, do you have anything educated that you can post for us to read in favor of your claims?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
as you can see above (AS I HAVE SAID EARLIER) the kid had no legal standing to claim they are female until it is recognized by the state.
Actually they do.
1 ) They are a US Citizen
2 ) That affords them all the rights and privileges as granted under local, state, and federal laws (including the US Constitution)
3 ) How we define 'male' and 'female' has been undated in recent years; did you not get the memo?
4 ) If a person states they are 'A' and can prove to a reasonable doubt in court of 'A', then 'A' is true under the law
That has not been done joe, and the kid had no state id stating that he was officially a she. Being a US citizen has nothing to do with yours and KS incorrect application of law or for that matter administrative resolutions.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Once the kid took the proper legal steps the matter was resolved. That is not the case in your OP.
Should the child have to go through all the legal steps just to have an education? Seems a pretty extraordinary level of steps. Right now, there is a gay couple that wants to get married. According to the legal understanding of the land, they can get married. Yet, the county clerk, believes their personal religious rights trump those laws. That's just one person. What happens when its many persons towards this little child?
So now you think that shaking his cock in the ladies room is getting an education? I am pleading with you Joe stop I cant take it any more.
Once again you are confused Joe, the county clerk has no say so in the matter except to sue, since the clerk is an officer of the state the clerk must abide by the rules of any path the state wishes to take. The clerk can sue, but must perform their duty as clerk or be fired Joe. I mean FFS Joe this is like 101 you know.
Further more Joe the gay couple are not children your whole premise just gets more ridiculous as you go.
Again Joe I cant stress enough to try and keep up. Its NOT many, Its NOT institution Joe its other kids, I find it very hard to believe anyone old enough to read these forums would fail to make the distinction immediately after I pointed it out. You ok man?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
You cant simply blanket anything you feel like under the same umbrella. There are reasons that allowed that situation to be procedurally resolved. The school seemed to be doing what they could to accomodate the kid, however other kids protested against that kid, not institution v kid. Hope that helps.
An here in lies a moment in which educators failed to grasp a concept; and teach it to children. And their parents....
Other kids protested, because, they were told to protest by their parents. If the kids by themselves organized this whole thing; was it really to show 'protest' against the child? Or not do school work? Yeah, the motivations of school children are not always so 'lawful and honest'. I could make the argument they used this kid's plight as an excuse not to do school work.
No, this is a case of adults, hating a small child for being different. Not 'conforming' to their narrow views on reality. Isn't a school a place of learning? A place to teach children not to make the mistakes of generations before them? That we show them examples of hatred (i.e. KKK, Nazis, evil dictators, etc.), in an effort to get them NOT to go down those paths in life?
Joe the main as in primary educator of a child is the parent, certainly not the state and thankfully not you. Sorry joe but anyone who tries to argue law using rhetoric rather than facts scares the hell out of me.
No Joe, its NOT about other parents hating the kid, its about other parents protecting their religious beliefs. the religious beliefs they and the churches teach their kids and to bring them up within their respective religions, not force them to watch some kid in a dress with a cock play around in the ladies room.
You have that too completely conflated for some reason or are you just trying to spin it under hate rather than religion?
Its education outside the purview of state and is protected under the reservation of right to exercise their religion of THEIR choice Joe, NOT yours or the state or some atheist.
Yes I know Joe, you could throew a lot of rhetorical arguments around, but the problem is when you are called out on the carpet only to abandon the debate because you have no bullets in your imaginary gun.
So the moral of your story is to teach them not to follow the footsteps of the US government, nice oxymoron. I suppose you didnt not know that America put hitler in business in the first place and supported hitlers infrastructure throughout the war then put hitlers scientists on the staff, which is the only thing in your whole post that I could actually agree with at least on some level. Nah then again not, had you said stalin yeh
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 9/1/2015 4:42:18 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Transgender rights in rural Missouri - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread