http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/276632-i...-bathroom/

The pair believes there are larger, long-term issues with the policy. Adams stated:

“When does it go to the locker rooms are you going to be OK with this?”

“Are we going to allow our school district to make these decisions without asking (or) informing us? It’s not OK.”
D.W. Trantham, the transgendered student at the center of the controversy, says there is no reason to worry:

“I’m not in there to hurt anyone. I’m a heterosexual transgendered woman. I am attracted to males.”

This got me thinking. Are the Marxist who foisted the idea og Gender Constructionalism finally either (a) admit they were complete morons selling snake oil or (2) that the people who claim "I just know I'm a girl despite these things swinging between my legs" are full of it.

I don't know if he/she/it has been taking hormones, but "she" appears to be 100% feminine. I don't think that's just a phase.

It's a creepy situation. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

(03-22-2015 08:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I don't know if he/she/it has been taking hormones, but "she" appears to be 100% feminine. I don't think that's just a phase.

It's a creepy situation. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

The bigger question is not "is it a phase" It's when do we go too far accommodating this one person when gender is a "construct".

The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

I have often liked the DNC to one big tent that houses disparate groups who only have one thing in common; their hatred for the boogeyman (rich old white men). This encouraging because it starts to show that when actually forced together, these factions are just as suspicious of the other like those within the GOP.

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

I think you have to call it "it". I really believe it has a male body and a female brain. It doesn't qualify as male or female.

When I was younger, I would have laughed it off. But I feel sorry for he/she/it. That person will never lead a normal life. Very sad.

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

"It" identifies as female. So maybe you should refer to HER that way.

(03-24-2015 01:00 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

"It" identifies as female. So maybe you should refer to HER that way.

If "it" identified as a spruce tree should I call "it" that?

(03-23-2015 08:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I have often liked the DNC to one big tent that houses disparate groups who only have one thing in common; their hatred for the boogeyman (rich old white men). This encouraging because it starts to show that when actually forced together, these factions are just as suspicious of the other like those within the GOP.

That is the eventual path of leftism..

1 - Take everyone who feels left out and pait a group as "the reason for it"
2 - Unite those smaller groups and take out the larger group
3 - Once you've won start dividing out the lest desirable elements of your group.
4 - Repeat three..

So who is at fault for this? Not the regular folk but the legislators who change the rules to please these nut jobs because they are afraid of lawsuits. When did dress codes change so much that now if someone says he's a girl everyone has to bend over backwards to please the miscreant. It's crazy.

(03-24-2015 01:00 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

"It" identifies as female. So maybe you should refer to HER that way.

Hell will freeze over first.

Refering to him as her is as silly as it is. And he's as confused about his sexuality as his gender. An attraction to males makes it gay.

(03-24-2015 08:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Refering to him as her is as silly as it is. And he's as confused about his sexuality as his gender. An attraction to males makes it gay.

Pure and simple...gotta dick?...aint a chick.

(03-24-2015 01:00 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

"It" identifies as female. So maybe you should refer to HER that way.

I self identify as the King of England but that rarely works out in London.

(03-25-2015 12:11 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(03-24-2015 01:00 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 07:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The girls shouldn't have to put up with that.

It should have its own time and place to use a locker room.

It's nothing against it but others shouldn't have to be put in a compromising position to make it feel better.

BTW, I use 'it' because I don't know what else to refer to it as.

"It" identifies as female. So maybe you should refer to HER that way.

I self identify as the King of England but that rarely works out in London.

I demand to be addressed as "Your Highness".

Sigh. Comparing something as complicated and personal as gender identity to thinking you're a tree or delusions of grandeur? You guys are awesome. Golf clap for the insensitivity here.

Quote:Pure and simple...gotta dick?...aint a chick.

Oh but if life were that simple. There are tons of developmental disorders that give rise to gender and sex complications. Turners syndrome, Klinefelter, Guevedoce (5 alpha reductase deficiency), Jacobs syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity syndrome, to name a few.

Gender identity and even chromosomal sex are not always black and white. Who are we to paint a broad stroke to every child? Have some compassion.

(03-25-2015 06:49 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Sigh. Comparing something as complicated and personal as gender identity to thinking you're a tree or delusions of grandeur? You guys are awesome. Golf clap for the insensitivity here.

Quote:Pure and simple...gotta dick?...aint a chick.

Oh but if life were that simple. There are tons of developmental disorders that give rise to gender and sex complications. Turners syndrome, Klinefelter, Guevedoce (5 alpha reductase deficiency), Jacobs syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity syndrome, to name a few.

Gender identity and even chromosomal sex are not always black and white. Who are we to paint a broad stroke to every child? Have some compassion.

While complicated, you'd have to acknowledge that the English language lacks the descriptors for the various conditions you've mentioned, making the situation difficult. I guess we can go to India and import some of theirs, but suggesting that definitions of male and female aren't fixed is to close to newspeak for my taste. Their is a TG Female that would like to fight in the women's division of the UFC and IMO gender self identification doesn't justify inclusion.

(03-25-2015 07:41 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 06:49 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Sigh. Comparing something as complicated and personal as gender identity to thinking you're a tree or delusions of grandeur? You guys are awesome. Golf clap for the insensitivity here.

Quote:Pure and simple...gotta dick?...aint a chick.

Oh but if life were that simple. There are tons of developmental disorders that give rise to gender and sex complications. Turners syndrome, Klinefelter, Guevedoce (5 alpha reductase deficiency), Jacobs syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity syndrome, to name a few.

Gender identity and even chromosomal sex are not always black and white. Who are we to paint a broad stroke to every child? Have some compassion.

While complicated, you'd have to acknowledge that the English language lacks the descriptors for the various conditions you've mentioned, making the situation difficult. I guess we can go to India and import some of theirs, but suggesting that definitions of male and female aren't fixed is to close to newspeak for my taste. Their is a TG Female that would like to fight in the women's division of the UFC and IMO gender self identification doesn't justify inclusion.

It depends on what you're saying is a fixed sex. Now if we want to discuss chromosomal sex, then yes it's fixed. You're either male or female. I consider syndromes with XXY or XYY to still be chromosomal male. XO/XX/XXX to be chromosomal sex of female.

But chromosomal sex does not = gender identity. That's a social construct. It gets complicated when you throw in issues of transgender identity and more complicated topics like epigenetics. I won't deny that. That's why I offer no solution other then to be understanding and compassionate on a tumultuous topic.

Labeling people "its" is just blatantly offensive. She wants to be a she, is transitioning, so respect that.

No.