South Dakota passes transgender student bathroom ban bill

[Facekicker]

PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to approve a law requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex at birth if the governor signs a bill passed Tuesday by the state Senate.

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.

Advocates say the bill is meant to protect the privacy of students, but opponents say it discriminates against vulnerable adolescents. CBS affiliate KELO in Sioux Falls reports that those opposed say that in addition to the likelihood it will lead to bullying, they also question the constitutionality of the bill and fear it will cost the state millions in lawsuits.

Under the plan, schools would have to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the "controlled use" of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.

Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to "preserve the innocence of our young people."

Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the Senate.

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and Human Rights Campaign have been vocal in their opposition to the measure and have called on Daugaard to veto the legislation.

"History has never looked kindly upon those who attack the basic civil rights of their fellow Americans, and history will not treat kindly those who support this discriminatory measure," Chad Griffin, the president of the LGBT-rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement Tuesday.

Transgender advocates have also criticized comments made by some lawmakers, including Omdahl, about transgender people.

"I'm sorry if you're so twisted you don't know who you are," Omdahl said at a recent event when asked about the bill. "I'm telling you right now, it's about protecting the kids, and I don't even understand where our society is these days."

Several states have looked at addressing gender and public facilities in the past several years. Late last year, the city of Houston was recently home to a bitter public fight over nondiscrimination rights that focused on transgender people's use of bathrooms.

But South Dakota would be the first state in the nation to put such a measure into law, said Joellen Kralik, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Legislature's passage of the bill is "shocking," said Thomas Lewis, a transgender student in his senior year at Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, the state's most populous city.

"At this point, I'm hoping that the governor has a sense of humanity and the common sense not to write this bill into law," said Lewis, who is planning to attend college in Minnesota. "I am so glad to be leaving soon. I can escape the oppression that my home state wants to put on me."

Supporters say South Dakota's plan is a response to changes in the Obama administration's interpretation of the federal Title IX anti-discrimination law related to education. Federal officials have said that barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under Title IX.

Glad to see that common sense still prevails in some states. 

 

[Strange Broue]

this topic will be locked in 3...2...1

[Len Cnut]

Personally i dont give a fuck whoose in the cubicle next to me, can't be any worse than having a slash in the khazi outside Charring Cross station with a bunch of greasy haired old gits with side partings and trenchcoats looking all agitated as you unzip.  It's more for the birds than anything, i understand that birds are somewhat threatened by the idea of having a 300 lbs pot-holer wearing a dress who used to be called Ted on the throne next to em.

It might even be worth it once you crack 70, i mean you ain't gonna get no trim at that age, might as well get the snip, chuck on a dress and cop an eyeful down the ladys loos

Edited February 18, 2016 by Len B'stard

[axlslash]

God forbid we actually try to keep our kids safe. As long as we're going to let them keep bringing guns into schools, might as well turn up the mental trauma too.

Wonder how many of the people who support forcing kids to use certain bathrooms fancy themselves "small government conservatives"? Just like the ones who want to shove electrical devices up every woman's hoo-haa before she can engage in a perfectly legal, constitutionally protected medical procedure.

What a time to be alive...

[Gracii Guns]

I'm confused, how is "protecting childrens' innocence" got anything to do with this? 

Presumably this applies to high schools. Where teenagers go through puberty, encounter their sexuality. A small minority realise that they were born with a disease which means their sex doesn't align with their gender. These people communicate that their condition makes conventional bathroom usage difficult. 

What's different between this and putting in wheelchair ramps, or signs in braille?

And at this stage in their lives, when children can access hardcore porn and weapons, what has other peoples' bathrooms got to do with their innocence?  

[bran]

i really don't give a shit who uses the bathrooms, just get add a couple of more urinals and stalls to the bathrooms and all is good.

[Len Cnut]

I think they should have a seperate toilet for metallers   They have tails y'know!

[Facekicker]

6 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

I'm confused, how is "protecting childrens' innocence" got anything to do with this? 

Presumably this applies to high schools. Where teenagers go through puberty, encounter their sexuality. A small minority realise that they were born with a disease which means their sex doesn't align with their gender. These people communicate that their condition makes conventional bathroom usage difficult. 

What's different between this and putting in wheelchair ramps, or signs in braille?

And at this stage in their lives, when children can access hardcore porn and weapons, what has other peoples' bathrooms got to do with their innocence?  

I'm a bit confused by your statement - are you saying that trans people have a disease that makes it difficult for them to go to the bathroom like everyone else? You believe they are disabled like wheelchair users and blind people?

[shades]

9 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

I'm confused, how is "protecting childrens' innocence" got anything to do with this? 

Presumably this applies to high schools. Where teenagers go through puberty, encounter their sexuality. A small minority realise that they were born with a disease which means their sex doesn't align with their gender. These people communicate that their condition makes conventional bathroom usage difficult. 

What's different between this and putting in wheelchair ramps, or signs in braille?

And at this stage in their lives, when children can access hardcore porn and weapons, what has other peoples' bathrooms got to do with their innocence?  

[Gracii Guns]

Just now, Jackie Treehorn said:

I'm a bit confused by your statement - are you saying that trans people have a disease that makes it difficult for them to go to the bathroom like everyone else? You believe they are disabled like wheelchair users and blind people?

You'd have to ask a trans person, but I assume it's more of a social difficulty than a physical one. They aren't disabled, but do have a condition which makes life really difficult. A little provision like this might make a massive impact. 

Let's remember that 50% of transgender people commit suicide. I don't see any harm in institutions caring for the people they serve, so fewer of them are inclined to kill themselves. 

 

[Facekicker]

4 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

You'd have to ask a trans person, but I assume it's more of a social difficulty than a physical one. They aren't disabled, but do have a condition which makes life really difficult. A little provision like this might make a massive impact. 

Let's remember that 50% of transgender people commit suicide. I don't see any harm in institutions caring for the people they serve, so fewer of them are inclined to kill themselves. 

 

So you are saying that due to this disease they find it easier to poop or pee if the sign on the door says women instead of men?

[Gracii Guns]

Just now, Jackie Treehorn said:

So you are saying that due to this disease they find it easier to poop or pee if the sign on the door says women instead of men?

I've a feeling they'd find it easier to pee or poop if they knew that they weren't at risk of getting the shit kicked out of them, or claims made against them, by ignorant or nasty schoolchildren. 

[Len Cnut]

Just now, Gracii Guns said:

I've a feeling they'd find it easier to pee or poop if they knew that they weren't at risk of getting the shit kicked out of them, or claims made against them, by ignorant or nasty schoolchildren. 

Either way the jobs done though right?

[shades]

On it's merit I think the intention is a good one on both sides. I think having a "transgender" bathroom that's set aside just for you would at least cause the same mental issue as them having to use the bathroom corresponding with their birth gender. It would be like an "it" bathroom, further alienating the psychological balance maybe?

Personally I don't think God makes mistakes but that's another argument.

 

[Chewbacca]

2 PC 4 ME

[Facekicker]

16 minutes ago, Gracii Guns said:

I've a feeling they'd find it easier to pee or poop if they knew that they weren't at risk of getting the shit kicked out of them, or claims made against them, by ignorant or nasty schoolchildren. 

So you are saying that these attacks and claims solely happen in regular bathrooms and that somehow they will stop because the people involved are incapable of doing the same thing outside of a bathroom?

 

Any statistics to validate these claims or is it just wild speculation?

[Gracii Guns]

26 minutes ago, Jackie Treehorn said:

So you are saying that these attacks and claims solely happen in regular bathrooms and that somehow they will stop because the people involved are incapable of doing the same thing outside of a bathroom?

 

Any statistics to validate these claims or is it just wild speculation?

Wild speculation based on the amount of times this comes up in transgender conversation. This is of importance to them. As I said, you'd have to ask a trans person for their reasoning. 

It's like lifelong gay partners who are finally getting married. Gay people mentioned that they weren't allowed to legally marry a few times (I don't know if they presented graphs, charts and statistics to their government too), and then they legalised gay marriage. 

If I had a statistic, what would it say? "100% of trans people we surveyed claim that a non-binary bathroom would make living with a condition they didn't choose easier?" 

[axlslash]

47 minutes ago, shades said:

Personally I don't think God makes mistakes but that's another argument.

 

I think God might disagree with you. God initially made one singular male/female being called Adam. God split that being into two beings because he "saw that it would not be good for the Adam to be alone." It wasn't until God created a singular being that God realized that loneliness was a possibility, and then corrected his original creation. Not to mention how many times - the Flood, Sodom, numerous incidents throughout the Exodus, just to name a few - God is ready to throw out large chunks of creation (or creation itself) in a fit of anger, only to have a human being intercede. The idea of God as perfect may well be a human creation, because it is anathema to the Bible.

And might it be important that God's first mistake, the first correction that God must make of God's self, is in the creation of people? Specifically the need for companionship, and the complexities of gender assignments? Perhaps you should take a page out of God's own book, and recognize that perhaps life is more complicated than you would think.

[Facekicker]

Just now, Gracii Guns said:

Wild speculation based on the amount of times this comes up in transgender conversation. This is of importance to them. As I said, you'd have to ask a trans person for their reasoning. 

It's like lifelong gay partners who are finally getting married. Gay people mentioned that they weren't allowed to legally marry a few times (I don't know if they presented graphs, charts and statistics to their government too), and then they legalised gay marriage. 

If I had a statistic, what would it say? "100% of trans people we surveyed claim that a non-binary bathroom would make living with a condition they didn't choose easier?" 

What is wrong with a unisex toilet? 

[axlslash]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Treehorn said:

What is wrong with a unisex toilet? 

I'm in favor of that. I went to a college with co-ed bathrooms. As long as there's a door where you can get your privacy (which I want regardless of gender), unisex bathrooms would make life a hell of a lot easier.

[Facekicker]

7 minutes ago, axlslash said:

I'm in favor of that. I went to a college with co-ed bathrooms. As long as there's a door where you can get your privacy (which I want regardless of gender), unisex bathrooms would make life a hell of a lot easier.

It is as if they want to ignore this solution so they can get their self-imposed segregation which only serves to reinforce their "freak" status and sense of victimhood. They'll probably object to a "non-binary bathroom" (what is wrong with unisex?) and the trans students will still want to sneak into the women's toilets. 

Fuck it, this is insane degeneracy 

I might as well just walk into the female toilet in Starbucks, get thrown out and then sue them for millions for discriminating against me because I identify as a woman. Doesn't matter that I'm not dressed as one because anyone can be anything they want today and don't have to follow the gender stereotypes. 

Society has become a carnival of the deranged.

 

 

[-W.A.R-]

assuming this is talking about elementary - high school i think thats way too young to "find yourself"

if i was parent i would never allow it with my child because they are more than likely confused or crying out for attention

if they still want to be woman when they are adults then they are free to do as they please

Edited February 18, 2016 by -W.A.R-

[Facekicker]

24 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

assuming this is talking about elementary - high school i think thats way too young to "find yourself"

if i was parent i would never allow it with my child because they are more than likely confused or crying out for attention

if they still want to be woman when they are adults then they are free to do as they please

Its called indoctrination, or conditioning. 

[axlslash]

1 hour ago, Jackie Treehorn said:

It is as if they want to ignore this solution so they can get their self-imposed segregation which only serves to reinforce their "freak" status and sense of victimhood. They'll probably object to a "non-binary bathroom" (what is wrong with unisex?) and the trans students will still want to sneak into the women's toilets. 

Fuck it, this is insane degeneracy 

I might as well just walk into the female toilet in Starbucks, get thrown out and then sue them for millions for discriminating against me because I identify as a woman. Doesn't matter that I'm not dressed as one because anyone can be anything they want today and don't have to follow the gender stereotypes. 

Society has become a carnival of the deranged.

 

 

Aaaaaand that's where you lose me. It's not ignoring the solution, it's thinking that a separate unisex bathroom is more attainable than doing away with all gendered bathrooms. This isn't "insane degeneracy," it's pragmatic organizing. You need to make change incrementally. Start with a designated unisex bathroom to provide choice: you can use the male bathrooms, the female bathrooms, or the non-gendered bathrooms. As long as society refuses to acknowledge that gender is a fluid spectrum rather than a rigid binary, you need to simultaneously pursue unisex options while respecting society's anachronistic views.

And the argument that people will fake gender identities to get into other bathrooms is fucking insane. In fact, providing non-gendered options will eliminate the risk of that happening. So keep the strawman out of the argument.

Society itself is deranged as long as it has this much trouble accepting people for who they are and just letting them live their lives. If you feel like we need a law that says "you can't have a bathroom that you feel comfortable in," you're the deranged one.

[Facekicker]

5 minutes ago, axlslash said:

Aaaaaand that's where you lose me. It's not ignoring the solution, it's thinking that a separate unisex bathroom is more attainable than doing away with all gendered bathrooms. This isn't "insane degeneracy," it's pragmatic organizing. You need to make change incrementally. Start with a designated unisex bathroom to provide choice: you can use the male bathrooms, the female bathrooms, or the non-gendered bathrooms. As long as society refuses to acknowledge that gender is a fluid spectrum rather than a rigid binary, you need to simultaneously pursue unisex options while respecting society's anachronistic views.

And the argument that people will fake gender identities to get into other bathrooms is fucking insane. In fact, providing non-gendered options will eliminate the risk of that happening. So keep the strawman out of the argument.

Society itself is deranged as long as it has this much trouble accepting people for who they are and just letting them live their lives. If you feel like we need a law that says "you can't have a bathroom that you feel comfortable in," you're the deranged one.

Gender fluidity is a mental illness and should be treated as such. One day you are Dick, the next Jane and in between you might decide to be a carrot. 

 

But the people who see this for what it is, an illness, are the ones in the wrong?