Obama admin to schools: let boys use girlsâ€™ bathrooms, or we pull funding

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Obama administration is continuing its push for transgender teenagers to use facilities of the opposite sex – this time by explicitly threatening to pull federal funding from an Illinois school district and backing a transgender girl's appeal to use boys' facilities in Virginia.

In a letter sent to school officials in an Illinois school district, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education declared that it found "by the preponderance of the evidence that the District is in violation of Title IX for excluding Student A from participation in and denying her the benefits of its education program, providing services to her in a different manner, subjecting her to different rules of behavior, and subjecting her to different treatment on the basis of sex."

Title IX is a 1972 law designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex – which an Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney says has nothing to do with gender identity.

"A federal court in Pennsylvania recently rejected a similar lawsuit filed by a transgender student seeking access to restrooms at a college," Jeremy Tedesco told LifeSiteNews in June, "ruling that 'separating students by sex based on biological considerations … for restroom and locker room use simply does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.'"

"The court rejected the Title IX claim for the same reason. It also highlighted that Title IX's implementing regulations state that schools do not violate Title IX when they 'provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.'"

The ADF attorney said that the change to Title IX "is not legally binding" and was "politically motivated."

"In fact, federal regulations expressly state that 'significant guidance documents' have no binding legal authority," he explained. "Further, the document does not mention access to restrooms and it does not change binding Title IX regulations authorizing schools to create 'separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex.'"

"It would take an act of Congress to include 'gender identity' as a protected status under Title IX. The school can defend itself against this lawsuit without losing its federal funding. And it should. Allowing students access to the opposite sex's restrooms would violate the privacy rights of the vast majority of students and trample the rights of parents as well."

The Illinois district had attempted to compromise with a teenage boy who identifies as female by saying the student could use a private changing area. "At some point, we have to balance the privacy rights of 12,000 students with other particular, individual needs of another group of students," said District 211 Superintendent Daniel Cates earlier this year. "We believe this infringes on the privacy of all the students that we serve."

In a statement issued on Monday, Cates called the federal government's decision "a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications." He also told The New York Times that part of the district's compromise included a privacy curtain in the girls' locker room.

The Obama administration has also taken up the case for Gavin Grimm, a girl who identifies as a boy, filing a brief with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Grimm's appeal to use boys' facilities. Grimm sued her school district after the school board voted 6-1 to install gender-neutral bathrooms instead of allowing transgender students to use bathrooms of the opposite sex.

After a public hearing in December 2014, where most people opposed letting females use male restrooms, the board voted to state: "It shall be the practice of the GCPS to provide male and female restroom and locker room facilities in its schools, and the use of said facilities shall be limited to the corresponding biological genders and students with gender identity issues shall be provided an alternative appropriate private facility."

Three unisex bathrooms were subsequently installed, but Grimm and the ACLU said this wasn't good enough, and "subject[ed] [Grimm to discrimination."

Think about it people, what kind of sick mind mandates such a thing? What kind of spineless people, let alone parents of children don’t stand up and stop it?

What has happened to us?

Only a few years ago we would have almost had pity on someone who even suggested such a ridiculous idea, that is before we called him a warped, brainless, pervert and either ignored him, jailed him our put him away in an asslyum.

I saw the argument, on one of the CNN shows playing in a public space yesterday, being had about the player who held up his arm and pointed up after making a touchdown. The fool from ACLU or some damn place was arguing the boy was praying or drawing attention to himself. That is what high school football players have done for ages after making a touchdown or something else significant that they are proud of and have right to be so. We called it showboating and it usually stopped because the person was ostracized and not a team player. Being a team player has always been important but we have always allowed some pride of accomplishment and self-expression. If we didn’t like it, we ignored it as foolish. Why aren’t people who argue against this just dismissed as stupid? Can’t we just ignore them?

The muzzie call to prayer offends me. I want them to be made to stop. It is noisy and irritating and invades my privacy. I don’t want to hear that blather five times a day. Mosque towers also offend me and make me uncomfortable by blocking my view of the sky and as symbols of a an offensive set of beliefs. I want them all torn down. Head scarves and burkas also make me very nervous so I want them banned as well. If people want to live like that they need to go where the majority of the people share their belief.

Guiness is taking the isinglass filters out of their nearly 200 year-old beer making process becasue the vegans are protesting that the fish bladder the filter is made from might get in the beer? Are there that many vegans that drink Guiness that it is a threat to the market? Do the vegans have that many supporters who would give up their beer for more than a week? I doubt it. So why did Guiness fold? Why didn’t they just ignore the fools protests and go on about their business?

I popped up the stairs at Chevron one early morning headed for the elevator bank only to be greeted by a huge rainbow flag and a banner proclaiming Chevron as a major supporter of the LGBT community in Houston. That offends me and makes me uncomfortable. I think that LGBT is an abomination and a bunch of perverts that are dangerous to others. What about my rights to be comfortable and not offended? I still take Chevron’s money but I don’t agree with their support of LGBT. I mention Chevron by name since they seem to be proud of what they are doing and so expect they are prepared to deal with any consequences therefrom.

We must be stupid or spineless not to throw back on these types of idiots. The anti religious argue that they are uncomfortable around religious people. How uncomfortable are we in being told we somehow make others feel uncomfortable? Can’t they just ignore us and go on about their own business? They have a right to their position, why don’t we have a right to ours?

Hasn’t all this PC crap gone far enough? Aren’t you offended and uncomfortable? When are you going to start telling people to mind their own business? Your rights end where mine start. It can be a gray border but it used to be not so hard to stay away from. It used to be not so hard for us all to have our rights but not impose on the rights, space or privacy of others. What has happened to us? We were taught about this in 8th grade civics and most of us got it. The ones that didn’t were the exception and they were dealt with in exceptional ways.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.