Posted on 05/15/2016 5:27:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama’s done lost his mind. He’s just flushed the civil rights of men and women, boys and girls, to pee in peace and shower without having naked, sexually confused or sexually predatory members of the opposite sex ogling them, or intentionally exposing their genitalia for a cheap thrill.
Reports Fox News: “The Obama administration has sent a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students [meaning students pretending to be the opposite sex] to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate. …
“While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.”
The operative phrase here is, “does not have the force of law.” This is a cynical exercise in pure propaganda on the part of the Obama administration. The directive is entirely toothless and universally at odds with long-standing and unambiguous legislative intent and judicial interpretation of both Titles VII and IX of federal law.
It’s clearly in response to North Carolina’s federal lawsuit against the administration in defense of that state’s HB2 bathroom bill. “This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the courts,” notes North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory’s complaint.
School officials should, and must, ignore this absurd disinformation campaign. It’s nothing short of a frantic effort to curb the rising national tide of fierce opposition to genderless bathrooms, locker rooms and showering facilities.
“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” claims Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
One small problem: Title VII clearly defines what is meant by “sex.” It was intended to bar discrimination against women (real women), and Lynch knows it: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes.”
As noted by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Lipuma in the John Marshal Law Review, the “courts have defined ‘sex’ according to the traditional notions of biological sex.”
Even hard-left Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged this indisputable fact for years, writing in the Washington Post, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” When you’ve moved to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there’s no left left.
Moreover, Congress has, without fail, rejected efforts to include “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” in federal law. It is abundantly clear that the lawmakers who drafted and passed Titles VII and IX never dreamed that “sex” might include a man laboring under the delusion that he’s a woman.
And so, true to form, Friday’s “guidance” letter represents but another desperate attempt by our despot-in-chief to circumvent the constitutional process through executive fiat.
This “gender identity” madness is “The Emperor’s New Clothes” meets George Orwell. We must all pretend, under penalty of law, that a man in a miniskirt is magically a woman, or face the wrath of “progressive” Big Brother (or is it Big Sister?)
I’m so confused!
Not only is the extremist “LGBT” agenda counter-constitutional, offensive and outrageous, it’s also extremely dangerous. There have already been dozens of instances wherein sexual predators have brazenly leveraged these “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” policies for their own perverted purposes. Consider, for example, the following. If it doesn’t make your blood boil, then you just might be a liberal:
Washington state, dateline 2012: Colleen is just like the girl next door. Well, sort of. Colleen has a penis. So, I guess, unless the girl next door has a penis, Coleen really isn’t much like her at all.
But that’s beside the point. In Washington you must, by law, pretend, along with Colleen, President Obama and Loretta Lynch, that, in the face of both reality and sanity, Colleen really is like the girl next door. This includes letting Colleen, who is actually a 47-year-old dude named Clay Scott Francis, lie naked and “sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself” to girls as young as 6-years-old. This really happened in the ladies locker room at Evergreen State College.
Slow down there, Dad. According to Washington state law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin). Deck this pervert for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.
It’s only fair, you see, because, as Clay, er, “Colleen,” complained, and as police agreed, this sicko was “discriminated against” when he was asked to leave on behalf of a terrorized 17-year-old girl. “This is not 1959 Alabama,” cried Francis. “We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”
On this, Francis, Loretta Lynch and the larger Obama administration are simpatico. They share this bizarre hostility toward objective biological reality and the safety and privacy rights of women and children.
And the farcical “civil rights” card is their ruse of choice.
“It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had other signs above restrooms, water fountains, and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference. We’ve moved beyond those dark days,” opined Lynch last week.
“Distinction without a difference?” Evidently AG Lynch skipped third-grade biology. Time for a “birds and bees” refresher at 1600 Pennsylvania. It remains unclear whether Mr. Francis drafted Lynch’s off-the-wall remarks himself.
Get that, my African-American friends? According to both the Obama administration and their ally, Clay Scott Francis, a beneficiary of “white privilege,” a man who, incidentally, identifies as a “transgender lesbian” (meaning he’s sexually attracted to females), to be told that you cannot sprawl naked and intentionally expose your manly bits to 6-year-old girls is no different from being relegated to a “colored only” water fountain.
What a tangled web of gender dysphoria and progressive pathology we weave. It is not “transphobia” to recognize that “transgender girls” are not real girls. It is an empirical, biological fact that “transgender girls” are not real girls. They are, have always been and always will be boys, no matter how deep-seated their sexual confusion.
This madness must stop.
Time to man up, America.
He has said it should be a state issue, to my understanding. Sound familiar? Kind of reminds me of the ‘gay marriage’ thing 15 or 20 years ago. He himself chose to let Bruce Jenner use the women’s bathroom in his own buildings, though. That was before this latest dog squeeze from Obama. I didn’t get the impression he wanted anyone to impose anything on businesses, not sure about publicly owned bathrooms.
Freegards
Basically he said its a small thing that the states can deal with.
As we say in Texas. BRING IT!
Lots of Freepers keep saying that. Sorry, but to quote Joe Biden, "it's a big effin' deal". Theodore Dalrymple sums it up:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
It’s no longer “federal” law at work, but “feral” law.
Obama: takeing the “de” out of “federal”.
I suggest every woman in pants use ONLY the mens bathroom while they are menstruating and be sure to leave used sanitary items behind. If confrontwd the pants will help you “identify” as male.Will disposals for those be in mens rooms now? Guess guys should be ok with that...right?
When I was in Paris in the early 1970s I was surprised to find the bathroom at La Comedie Francaise to be coed. A bit strange to be standing doing your business and having a little nun walk in and use the stall next to you.
Thanks. I guess as a public school employee I should expect to always use the staff bathrooms from now on....you know given I could be in the bathroom with a student of the opposite sex.
This cretin is poison to what used to be the UNITED States of America. He’s poisoning this country, bit by bit, little by little.
Transgenderism is the only mental illness sanctioned by liberals / feminists. As if a man putting on a dress magically becoming a woman proves there is no difference between men and women, or a man having massive doses of hormones and major surgery proves gender differences are trivial.
So, if gender identity is the basis for determining sex, what if half the members of an all male business simply declare themselves as ‘feminine employees’ randomly each work day?
Will title IX go away?
Can company’s be held accountable for not having any women employees if all of its female employees get together and declare themselves men?
Nice school ya got there - too bad if something was to happen to it.
If the Feds are threatening to withhold money from the states - money the states sent to the Feds in the first place, what would happen if all the states said "Fine. We'll just stop sending any more to you"
Don't the Feds get 'their' money from all the states to begin with? Certainly the Fed is a pure consumer, consuming the increase of the states, and producing no product whatsoever (unless corruption and greed are 'products')
So seriously, what would happen if all the states (and it would likely require all states or it might not have effect) completely cut them off and kept their own money for their own use?
Not likely to happen even if it could - I'm sure not holding my breath for it...
Being female and having had previous experience with those things, I’d say if that’s a pad, she is old enough to have long ago figured out how to wear them correctly by now.
Already got into this with a former Coworker on Facebook.
She and I have gone back and forth so I explained my position that this whole thing is a State Issue and Obama is not some King that can threaten School Districts for not following his Unconstitutional Declaration. We left the conversation agreeing to disagree.
Then I saw her Husband’s ridiculous Comment, so I assume all bets are off after my not so nice reply to him.
Her Husband chimed in saying all those Religious White Conservative Republican types hate Gay and Transgender People the same way they hate Blacks. Typical Libtard.
Yes, I believe they are Hillary Voters. Surprise!
I am anticipating being Unfriended after the responses I gave to their Postings, especially the Husband’s. Must be why I seldom get on Facebook, maybe once or twice a week.
I would make too many enemies.
A nationwide tax revolt - I like that!
But most Federal taxes are on individual & corporate income, so how would the uprising be organized?
State refusal to accept Federal funds would pose a greater conundrum for the central government, I would think.
All of what you said was very grand.
OTOH, I inferred what was meant by distraction was ‘Look! Squirrel’. . . for which our Fearless Leader is reknown.
Seems like Barber missed the larger point she was making - that we are racist if we don't agree that a there is not a difference between a man and a woman.
It was a fun fantasy. ~sigh~
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.