Besides being irrelevant to the issue, it's speculation on your part. It could be a reason, but for all you know, changing rooms could be segregated by sex because people of similar sex feel more comfortable changing in front of each other. Why are bathrooms segregated by sex? Surely not because of any sexual context.
You can't seem to come to grips with the fact that this girl was punished for who she was, not what she did.
Go tell it to Oprah.
That's mighty white of you. A girl who did not a thing wrong was kicked out of a public school gym class. The hell with her. In your world, do only the rights of heterosexuals matter? You can punish homosexuals in whatever way you like because they're homosexuals?
I am dealing with what the resulting policy should be. The sum total of listening to you is as follows - heterosexual boys, rightly, are denied the potential of a "peep show" in their changing facilities. Lesbian girls on the other hand, are not. If you cannot see how this is unequal, then you have a problem - you go on about justice and treating people fairly. Think of it from that angle.
I'm begining to understand your calculus: you think the issue here is who gets what kind of treat, not whose rights were violated.
You're going around in circles. I've said to you many times why that segregation was done in the first place.
I'll employ a Roscoe trick here: citeless. Claim all you want, no proof.
You may want to pretend it has something to do with mere anatomy. The segregation of men and women's changing rooms has to do with the peep show element. You are basically saying that gays and lesbians are entitled to this "peep show element" that heterosexual men and women are denied. And you call yourself an advocate of "equality".
As I wrote above, I'm beginning to understand your calculus. You could care less about rights or justice; your interest is in maintaining a certain level of sexual purity in these situations.
And why would that be, perhaps because of the peep show element? Got that?
Why are bathrooms segregated by sex? Surely not because of any sexual context.
One word: urinals.
That's mighty white of you. A girl who did not a thing wrong was kicked out of a public school gym class. The hell with her. In your world, do only the rights of heterosexuals matter?
Calm yourself. You made it very clear that you are only concerned with the rights of this girl, and not that of her classmates or her parents. I believe your words were to the effect that the other girls should just suck it up and carry on. Who cares what they think, right? They're only heterosexuals, and they have to be forced to overcome whatever discomfort they might feel, in spite of the fact that changing rooms are segregated due to peep show reasons. We cannot challenge the left wing, homosexual lobby orthodoxy on this either, right comrade?
You can punish homosexuals in whatever way you like because they're homosexuals?
You've got it backwards. You are trampling on the rights of the other girls and their parents by refusing to even take their viewpoint on board.
I'm begining to understand your calculus: you think the issue here is who gets what kind of treat, not whose rights were violated.
I'm pointing out the inconsistency in what you are saying. Why is it that lesbians are so much more trustworthy than heterosexual males to you?
I'll employ a Roscoe trick here: citeless. Claim all you want, no proof.
Your alternative suggestions are, to put it mildly, very weak.
As I wrote above, I'm beginning to understand your calculus. You could care less about rights or justice; your interest is in maintaining a certain level of sexual purity in these situations
No, my calculus is simple - if you are going to divide the sexes for good reasons regarding not turning a locker room into a "peep show", you ought to be consistent in that policy, not assuming some special saintliness on someone's part because they have an atypical sexuality.
Ivan