Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

I actually can't get over the fact that people are defending these absolutely absurd parents in the odd way that they are rearing their kids. I think ye need go away and have a few bowls of this tbh.

Links234 wrote: »

Yes I did. I didn't repsond to all of it, but that's a different to not reading it.

Links I'd hate to play yourself and Mad in a game of twister, the verbal contortionism out of the pair of ye would make Fry and Laurie blush! :pac:

If you had actually read my whole post and understood the context as a whole, you would have seen that I expressed a far from conservative mentality, quite the exact opposite in fact, and I would put forward the opinion that it is indeed yourself that has expressed a conservative mentality, struggling to view anything as possible that doesn't jig with your world view.

I would consider that there's a reasonable argument to be made that going to the news and creating a large fuss about it may not be the best tactic, but even then it wouldn't be considering the motivations for doing so. Perhaps deciding to approach a news outlet allowed the parents to tell the story their way, as opposed to what a more unscrupulous and predatory news outlet might have done and how the story might then have been spun? Many people have taken to going public with something so that they can have some control over it in that sense. Think what the Daily Mail or the Sun might do in the UK for example.

Links you can't possibly be so naive as to assume that the media in general, any media in fact, be it tv, radio, newspapers or the internet, isn't always pushing an agenda, and most of the time their underlying agenda is sticky eyeballs, and the more sticky eyeballs, the bigger the increase in their bottom line- income generated by revenue from sales.

So it's pure conjecture and inference to read into her mother's motivations for taking it public. It could just be that the story was going to break anyway, and the parents felt it would be best if they had their say.

Clearly you don't see a contradiction in this paragraph Links. The story would never have broken had the mother not chosen to take it public.

The parents would be coaxed in what to say to whip up public sentiment. Every media outlet does this, from prime time to fun time, that's why PR and spin is such a lucrative business.

As to the mothers motivations for going public, well despite the fact that you see noble intentions, the cynic in me sees otherwise, so there are only conjecture based arguments to be made on both sides of the discussion without further presented evidence, which doesn't seem forthcoming.

I didn't. I said speaking up for it, where it is referencing the particular issue, not the child.

With all due respect Links, look at your post again. You referred the issue as "it" in the second paragraph, referring to the child as "it" in the first paragraph.

...what I gather from it is that the girl's parents are doing what they can to ensure that their child gets by in life and speaking up for it. Anything else you claim...

"it" referring to child.

What nobody here has seemed to have touched on is what the school has done is completely illegal, and the parents have every right to make an issue of it.

"it" referring to issue.

They did. They offered alternatives, but she was entitled to use the girl's room.

From your own post re: Colorado law-

What the school did by denying her access to appropriate facilities is against the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which states that they must allow an individual access appropriate to their gender identity,

The key word there being appropriate facilities. The school has provided facilities for the child, appropriate to their presented gender, in the school nurses facilities. The school has therefore fulfilled it's legal obligations under Colorado State law.

Now if the family's lawyer was any way a clever bastard, they could argue that gender stereotyping would assume the school nurse was female, BUT the school nurse could just as easily be a male nurse!

I presume Colorado State employment legislation means the school could not discriminate against a person
on the grounds of gender or sex, thereby nullifying the school's argument that gender appropriate facilities were provided for the child.

IANAL

homemadecider wrote: »

What was the point of those videos? That men can be good at disguising themselves as women?

They're neither men, nor disguising themselves thank you very much.

MadsL wrote: »

No it hasn't, as will doubtless be proved by the investigation. Under the law they may not single anyone out for segregation.


Open and shut, the school broke the law.

The school didn't single the child out for segregation, the parent's did, by making a point of the fact that the child was to be given special treatment because of their perceived gender identity.

It's going to be a messy one Mad tbh (the case I mean, not the toilet, I'm sure the child has been taught to aim properly by now with their penis), I know that over here the school has provided outside unisex toilet facilities on the yard and indoor single sex toilet facilities, and that in the case of students where psychological testing is deemed necessary, the school must employ the services of a professionally qualified psychiatrist to assess the child's needs.

I can only imagine the amount of legal eagle spin and conjecture that'll be employed by both parties in this case, but tbh I can't see the child coming out the best of it in any case.

Both the family and the school have already been tried in the court of public opinion and I'd imagine both sides are fairly well divided, with one side empathising with the child, the other side calling for some common sense to be applied.

mackg wrote: »

Not to drag the thread backwards but going with the idea that the child presented as female later on but that there were signs as early as 18 months could someone please tell what these signs could have been?

Nobody said there were signs, all the parents said was in retrospect that she seemed to like everything pink and sparkly since 18 months. They hadn't taken this as any kind of sign, but seemed to suggest it made sense after she had began to express herself quite vocally about who she was.