Obama Admin Says Boys Must Be Allowed to Shower With Your Daughter
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Should your daughter have to share showers with a boy and have him competing on her sports team? The Obama administration certainly thinks so, as its Education Department has just ruled that an Illinois school must allow a boy claiming to be a girl “unfettered access to girls’ facilities.” Writes the Chicago Tribune:Illinois' largest high school district violated federal law by barring a transgender student from using the girls' locker room, authorities concluded Monday.The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights spent nearly two years investigating Palatine-based Township High School District 211 and found "a preponderance of evidence" that school officials did not comply with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.The student, who has identified as a girl for a number of years, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in late 2013 after she was denied unrestricted access to the girls' locker room. District and federal officials negotiated for months, and a solution appeared imminent as recently as last week, when the district put up privacy curtains in the locker room.But talks stalled after school officials said the student would be required to use the private area, as opposed to offering her a choice to use it. Although the student said she intends to use the private area or a locker room bathroom stall to change, the stipulation constitutes "blatant discrimination," said John Knight, director of the LGBT and AIDS Project at ACLU of Illinois, which is representing the student.First note that the above article, as all mainstream media now do as policy, uses feminine pronouns to refer to what American Thinker’s Ed Straker, in an emperor-has-no-clothes moment, calls a “disguised boy.” Speaking of emperors, the media’s altered-eye habit is a bit like referring to a man fancying himself Napoleon as Your Imperial Highness.Yet there’s something in this matter universally unnoted. Consider the Tribune’s line, “School officials did not comply with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.” The problem?“Transgender” activists have taken pains, repeatedly, to emphasize that “gender” is not synonymous with “sex.”They acknowledge that sex is a biological distinction. But they define “gender” as a person’s perception of what he is and claim that it often doesn’t match his biological sex. For instance, the homosexuality-activism organization GLAAD states in its Media Reference Guide on “Transgender Issues” that sex is “a combination of bodily characteristics including: chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics.” It then explains that a person’s “gender identity” is “one's internal, deeply held sense of one's gender,” clearly drawing a distinction between the two terms. This is why sexual revolutionaries co-opted the word “gender” — which used to apply only to language (i.e., word division into masculine, feminine, and neuter) — in the first place. In fact, the notion that human “gender” exists and is different from “sex” is the very basis, the central tenet, of the transgender movement. It is why it’s called the transgender movement and not the transsexmovement.Yet the law cited by the DOE, Title IX (unconstitutional to begin with), clearly addresses only discrimination “on the basis of sex” (law’s text here). And, of course, the “transgender” movement is a recent phenomenon, with the word not even taking on its current meaning until the 1990s. Thus, it’s obvious that Title IX’s 1972 framers intended to address sex discrimination and only sex discrimination. For good or ill, they wanted to ensure that girls had equal access to educational opportunities, not that boys claiming girlhood would have equal access to girls’ locker rooms.To completely close the loop here, some may propose that Title IX can apply because the term equivalent to “transgender” in the '70s was “transsexual.” Untrue. A “transsexual” was someone who had undergone euphemistically named “sexual-reassignment surgery,” not someone merely “identifying” as a member of the opposite sex, which is the case with the Illinois boy. (Of course, Title IX’s framers weren’t talking about transsexuals, either.) So, clearly, the DOE is twisting the law to fit an agenda, trying to match today’s living-document jurists with its own living-document bureaucrats.Yet it isn’t just the feds. State authorities across the nation have in recent years compelled schools to allow “transgender” students to use the opposite-sex’s facilities and play on its sports teams. And the irony is that our language, educational standards, and culture are being upended — and those opposing this are being called bigots — based not on science but ideology.At issue here is the “diagnosis” known as “gender dysphoria” (GD), which, we're told, is a condition in which a person’s conception of his true “gender” doesn’t match his biological sex. But as I explained last November:There is no blood test for it [GD]. There is no identifiable genetic marker. There is no medical exam at all. Rather, the diagnosis is made based on, as PsychCentral.com puts it, “strong and persistent cross-gender identification”; in other words, strong and persistent feelings that you actually are a member of the opposite sex.Yet such a diagnostic standard would constitute malpractice in any other branch of medicine. Could you imagine a patient telling a cardiologist that he has a strong and persistent feeling he has heart disease and the doctor, on that basis alone, performing bypass surgery? The point is that whatever one thinks of the soundness of the “gender dysphoria” diagnosis, the basis on which it’s made certainly is not medically sound.Yet other than having implications for remedial treatment, would it matter if there were a genetic basis for “transgenderism”? The existence of genetic disorders such as Down syndrome, sickle-cell anemia, and Tay-Sachs disease inform that inborn isn’t synonymous with normal or desirable. And the same social scientists claiming homosexuality is innate also tell us that psychopaths are born and not made. And if it was determined that homicidal instincts could be inborn, would this make murder “moral” for those so disposed? The “it’s okay if I was born that way” thesis does nothing less than replace morality with biological determinism. So the truth here is simple: Biology can generate mistakes — but not morality.There’s also an irony in leftists’ citing of Title IX to defend boys’ participation in girls’ sports. The same leftists have used the law for decades to increase athletic opportunities for girls and women (often unfairly and at the expense of boys and men). Now consider: Dr. Richard Raskind, the famous “transsexual” who adopted the name Renée Richards, won the 1979 35-and-over U.S. Open women’s tennis title at age 45. “Lana Lawless,” also a man claiming to be a woman, won the 2008 Women’s World Long Drive Championship (golf) at age 55. And because of a lawsuit Lawless filed against the Ladies Professional Golf Association, the tour had to scrap its “female at birth” rule in 2010.Yet sexual distinctions in sports exist for a reason, well illustrated by the fact that the mile record for 15-year-old boys is better than the women’s world record. And Richards, who paved his own way to compete in women’s tennis by winning a 1977 lawsuit against the USTA, now agrees. As he said some time back, “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”And that’s a word to the wise. Perhaps if we consider matters more carefully today, we won’t have to reconsider them amidst the cultural ashes of a dystopian tomorrow._______________________________________________________________Obama Administration Orders School District to Let Boy Use Girls’ Locker Room
BY HEATHER CLARKrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:CHICAGO — The Obama administration has ordered a school district in Illinois to allow a male student who identifies a female to use the girls’ locker room or face enforcement measures that could mean the loss of $6 million in federal funding.As previously reported, an unidentified high school student within Township High School District 211 requested to use the girls’ locker room nearly two years ago since the student asserts that they identify as female.But the district declined, citing the privacy concerns of the other students. It in turn offered the student a private location to change, but the student rejected the accommodation. He then contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which in turn filed a federal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.The Department of Education responded by opining that the district had to permit the student to use the locker room of his choice due to Title IX requirements. The two sides continued in talks for a number of months, but the district held firm on requiring privacy for female students while offering various accommodations, which were refused.On Monday, the Department released its final remarks following the conclusion of its investigation into the matter.“[T]he evidence establishes that, given Student A’s intention to change privately, the district could afford equal access to its locker rooms for all students if it installed and maintained privacy curtains in sufficient number to be reasonably available for any student who wants privacy,” its letter reads in part, noting that the district did so last week.“Here the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of the district granting Student A equal access to the girls’ locker rooms, while protecting the privacy of its students,” the Department opined.However, negotiations remain impasse. The district now has 30 days to settle the matter or it could be penalized.“To date, OCR’s efforts to resolve this complaint voluntarily with the district have not been successful,” the letter states. “If an agreement is not reached within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter of findings, OCR must follow the procedures … for the issuance of a letter of impending enforcement action.”“This decision makes me extremely happy because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others,” the unidentified student said in a statement released by the ACLU. “The district’s policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a ‘normal person.'”But the district continues to maintain that it has done no wrong.“We believe the law is aligned with our current position, and we are prepared to pursue all measures of due process in order to hear this argument out,” said Superintendent Daniel Cates in a statement. “We don’t believe, and it is false to report that we broke the law because the [office of civil rights] said we did. I believe in this case, they have overstepped.”______________________________________________________________Houston Overwhelmingly Votes to Repeal ‘Bathroom Bill’
BY HEATHER CLARKrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:HOUSTON, Texas — Residents in Houston, Texas voted overwhelmingly Tuesday night to repeal the city’s controversial homosexual and transgender equality ordinance, also known by opponents as the “bathroom bill.”As previously reported, Houston Mayor Annise Parker, an open lesbian, had promoted an “Equal Rights Ordinance” in 2014 designed to quell any discrimination in America’s fourth largest city—including any discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” Most opponents were especially concerned about the “Public Accommodations” section of the ordinance, which would allow men to use women’s restrooms, and vice versa, if they identity with the opposite sex.“It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to intentionally deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity,” the ordinance states.The only stipulation, according to the ordinance, was that people who use the opposite sex’s facilities must dress, behave, and clothe themselves in a way that is “consistent with the gender designation of the facility the person attempt[s] to access.”Last June, Houston City Council passed the bill, resulting in the creation of an initiative signed by area residents who requested that either City Council repeal the ordinance or that it place the matter on the ballot for voters to decide.The matter soon turned into a lawsuit against Gov. Parker, which generated national attention after attorneys for the City of Houston subpoenaed several area pastors not a party to the lawsuit, and issued discovery requests demanding “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the ordinance], the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity…”In August, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Houston officials must either repeal the city’s “Bathroom Bill” or place it on the November ballot for a vote. Officials opted for the latter.On Tuesday, voters overwhelmingly voted to repeal the bill, defeating it 61 to 39 percent.“I fear that this will have stained Houston’s reputation as a tolerant, welcoming, global city,” Parker said last night after the results were released. “I absolutely fear that there will be a direct economic backlash as a result of this ordinance going into defeat and that’s sad for Houston.”But Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick, who opposed the ordinance, expressed satisfaction with the outcome.“The voters clearly understand that this proposition was never about equality—that is already the law,” he stated. “It was about allowing men to enter women’s restrooms and locker rooms, defying common sense and common decency.”“[The vote] was about protecting our grandmoms and our mothers and our wives and our sisters and our daughters and our granddaughters,” Patrick continued. “I’m glad Houston led tonight to end this constant political-correctness attack on what we know in our heart and our gut as Americans is not right.”Some opine that city council might decide to revisit the issue at a later time and present an altered version of the ordinance for consideration.____________________________________________________________Transgender Rant: Leave My Children Alone!
Published on Nov 7, 2015Alex Jones goes off on the transgender craziness sweeping the nation and how this is all part of destroying the american culture as we have come to know it for the past 239 years of existence. http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/houston-vo... http://www.infowars.com/paglia-transg... ---------- http://www.infowars.com/caitlyn-jenne... http://www.infowars.com/former-intell... http://www.prisonplanet.com/universit...WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: "TREMENDOUS PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADEOVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS" ON LGBT RIGHTSObama Orders/Forces Public Schools To… Your Blood Will Boil With Fury! "SUPPORTING UNDOCUMENTED YOUTH"
Published on Oct 26, 2015Here is the link that goes with the post: http://b4in.info/cmb2 For More Information See: http://truthuncensored.net/obama-orde... Document: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/foc...
