Replies

Regardless, homosexuality is now out in the open so your Victorian Era sensibilities and your rationale for sexually segregated changing areas no longer apply. What you're arguing for, then, is a new societal norm where it's considered unseemly to have people who are potentially sexually attractive to each other changing in front of each other. Isn't this the logical endpoint of your argument?

So you want to abolish the idea of segregated changing rooms altogether? How interesting.

What "say" could they possibly have? Because their daughters feel uncomfortable changing in front of a lesbian girl, exactly what rules or order should the parents of the uncomfortable girls have the power and authority to enforce?

As they pay for the school, they are the "stakeholders" in that school. If a policy is going to be decided, there must be some form of consultation of the stakeholders for their approval. It is this consultation which you so stridently disapprove of.

Ivan

So you want to abolish the idea of segregated changing rooms altogether? How interesting.

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that the "uncomfortableness" of others is not a just or even a sound basis for punishing a different person, especially when the different person has done nothing wrong. It would be another thing altogether if the lesbian girl was harassing her heterosexual classmates by leering at them, etc., or whatever scenario a prurient mind wants to construct. But she wasn't doing anything of the sort---she was being punished solely because of who she is.

Hardly. This consultation was done statutorily when California passed a law saying that its institutions couldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. I think that's pretty clear---you don't?