In so far as the girl has to be allowed to participate in gym class, I concede. Not in that she has any right to use the girls changing room any more than the boys do.
Sure, if you wanted to base policy on "feelings" vice law and justice it might be a good idea, but the school didn't even do that. It acted on its own, and in all probability, it broke the law.
According to you. The school only has an obligation to see that she gets to participate in the class, not that she uses a changing room.
Thanks for the momentous revelation that Judaism isn't a sexual preference
You brought in this tired old Act Up tactic. Sexual preferences are completely different from religions. Remember what I said at my very first post - the reason why men and women are segregated into different changing rooms has to do with it not turning into a peep show. A student being Jewish does not do this, unless you're some wacko anti-Semite.
That's not very conservative. There's a set of rules for everyone, or there's no set of rules for anyone---just a hobgob amalgamation of "feelings"-based bullsh*t for protected special interest groups, no matter what side of the political aisle they're on.
Quite touching that you defend the rules when you like them. I seem to recall that your grasp on drug laws in the United States was lex mala, lex nulla.
However, you can only say that the school "probably" or "possibly" broke the law, not that they did.
Secondly, you seem to not want to accept the societal norm about why changing rooms are segregated by sex.
Separate changing areas for girls, boys, female homosexuals, and male homosexuals...This useless stratification based on assauging everyone's tender feelings is identity politics at its worst---again, not very conservative, if you ask me.
No, it's not very conservative to steamroll over parents in favour of a special interest group, which you are so strenously defending.
Ivan
Both of which have absolutely no bearing on an individual's ability to attend gym class . . .
Remember what I said at my very first post - the reason why men and women are segregated into different changing rooms has to do with it not turning into a peep show. A student being Jewish does not do this, unless you're some wacko anti-Semite.
So then wouldn't a more perfect world assign locker rooms based upon sexual preference vice actual sexual equipment?
Quite touching that you defend the rules when you like them. I seem to recall that your grasp on drug laws in the United States was lex mala, lex nulla.
I'm working to overturn the laws criminalizing personal marijuana possession, yes.
However, you can only say that the school "probably" or "possibly" broke the law, not that they did.
A journalistic convention because this case hasn't been settled. Not unlike writing "alleged" or "allegedly" before everything.
Secondly, you seem to not want to accept the societal norm about why changing rooms are segregated by sex.
As I alluded to earlier, if this were truly the case, and society was really interested in preventing "peep shows" as you claim it is, changing rooms would be segregated by sexual preference, not by sex. There'd be a homo room and a hetero room. As a hetero man I'd have to change with other hetero men, but I wouldn't have to change with homosexual men. But whose loins is society trying to cool here? Could a lesbian woman change among heterosexual men? How about a straight woman among homosexual men? A straight guy among lesbian women? Or how about bisexuals---can they pick and choose depending on the day of the week? The permutations are endless.
No, it's not very conservative to steamroll over parents in favour of a special interest group, which you are so strenously defending.
No parents other than the lesbian girl's mother were consulted in this case. Why do you continue to exist they were---that they rose up and demanded their daughters be allowed to change for gym class in a lesbian-free environment?