The most dangerous part of Obama's transgender edict

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Quote

 

The most offensive part of the new policy is that, under the Obama administration's federal guidance:

• School districts must allow biological males and females to spend the night together in the same hotel room on field trips;
• Colleges must let men who say they are transgender be roommates with one or more women; and
• School officials cannot even tell those young women or their parents in advance that their new roommate is a man, without risking a federal lawsuit.
• The plain wording of the Obama administration's diktat is clear enough, yet it has not been reported, even by conservative news outlets.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/not-just-bathrooms-the-most-dangerous-and-underreported-part-of-obamas-tran

 

Thoughts? 

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Thoughts? 

Lifesitenews isn't really objective or fair. While I agree there are issues with transgender bathrooms and issues with Obamas increasingly disturbing power grabs, lifesitenews isn't where you should get information from. 

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Lifesitenews isn't really objective or fair. While I agree there are issues with transgender bathrooms and issues with Obamas increasingly disturbing power grabs, lifesitenews isn't where you should get information from. 

Either way, we should focus on whether or not these assertions are true.  If they are, this is a pretty serious problem.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Either way, we should focus on whether or not these assertions are true.  If they are, this is a pretty serious problem.

I agree with you. No one is worried about a transgender person using the rest room near you, that's been going on for years without you (not you meaning Unixknight) knowing it. We're worried about the predators. 

We're also worried about Obama and his disregard for the constitution. 

But lifesitenews just ain't credible. 

[LeSellers]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

lifesitenews isn't where you should get information from.

Less than the reporting/reporter, we should be focused on the truth of the claim. If it's true, what will we do about it? If false, we can get away with doing nothing.  As I'm reading the opinions on this (and I haven't seen this particular charge elsewhere), it seems possible, perhaps likely, that all or most of the points are hidden in the policy.

Lehi

Edited June 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

But lifesitenews just ain't credible. 

I hear ya, just saying I've often had people disregard arguments I've supported because they had some problem or another with the source I used, and I always wondered whether they honestly had an issue with my source or whether they were just using it as an excuse to dismiss an argument they didn't like.  Of course I know you aren't doing that...  I only bring this up because even the hackiest, most biased or unreliable site still occasionally gets it right and I try to be slow to dismiss it without checking into it first.

I don't really know anything about lifesitenews so I don't have a dog in this race either way.  I am going to look and see if this is true though.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

Less than the reporting/reporter, we should be focused on the truth of the claim. If it's true, what will we do about it? If false, we can do nothing.  As I'm reading the opinions on this (and I haven't seen this particular charge elsewhere), it seems possible, perhaps likely, that all or most of the points are hidden in the policy.

Lehi

Would you agree with a site that said choicesitenews? You'd probably read that with a more critical eye than Lifesitenews. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I hear ya, just saying I've often had people disregard arguments I've supported because they had some problem or another with the source I used, and I always wondered whether they honestly had an issue with my source or whether they were just using it as an excuse to dismiss an argument they didn't like.

All true my friend. 

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Would you agree with a site that said choicesitenews? You'd probably read that with a more critical eye than Lifesitenews. 

I would not make my choice to accept or reject a story based on its name or even its bias. I've been caught before, and it isn't wise to make the same mistake again.

There's a fancy Latin phrase for this kind of selective acceptance: argumentum ad hominem.

Lehi

Edited June 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I would not make my choice to accept or reject a story based on its name or even its bias. I've been caught before, and it isn't wise to make the same mistake again.

There's a fancy Latin word for this kind of selective acceptance: argumentum ad hominem.

 

My freshmen year of high school (remember, Catholic school) our Latin teacher told us something on the first day. 

"Latin is a pretentious language you'll never use again in the real world." 

After four years of Latin, all I remember is that he was right about that. It helped me on the SATs though. 

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

Here.  Read the guideline itself to see if it's true.  It's only 9 pages long.  Not too hefty.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/850986/download

[zil]

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

My freshmen year of high school (remember, Catholic school) our Latin teacher told us something on the first day. 

"Latin is a pretentious language you'll never use again in the real world." 

After four years of Latin, all I remember is that he was right about that. It helped me on the SATs though. 

 

 

From "How to Argue and Win Every Time":

*Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases. Memorize this list:

"Let me put it this way"

"In terms of"

"Vis-a-vis"

"Per se"

"As it were"

"Qua"

"So to speak"

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, zil said:

 

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.", "e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't."

Mic drop: QED for stupid people. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 A little context about the site and Gtors comment. He and I have talked about reading media from both sides and which sites length Liberal and which lean Conservative.  I took his comment to be a continuation of that discussion so to speak.

Uniknight, I get where you are coming from. I have wondered the same thing about whether a person was really questioning the site of the story. 

Anatess is right, I should take the time to read the "edict" perhaps tonight while I'm working graveyard. If it's not written in language that will put me to sleep.

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 A little context about the site and Gtors comment. He and I have talked about reading media from both sides and which sites length Liberal and which lean Conservative.  I took his comment to be a continuation of that discussion so to speak.

Uniknight, I get where you are coming from. I have wondered the same thing about whether a person was really questioning the site of the story. 

Anatess is right, I should take the time to read the "edict" perhaps tonight while I'm working graveyard. If it's not written in language that will put me to sleep.

If you're nice to @Just_A_Guy and give him some candy, he might distill it for you... (or us... hmm... I got eggrolls cooking here).  All that lawyerly-speak can get difficult to parse.

Edited June 3, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

If you're nice to @Just_A_Guy and give him some candy, he might distill it for you... (or us... hmm... I got eggrolls cooking here).  All that lawyerly-speak can get difficult to parse.

Flattery, madame, will get you anywhere!!!

But frankly, I think the letter needs to be read in the context of a plethora of court and administrative rulings, none of which I'm very familiar with.  But, shooting from the hip:  First off, to contextualize, this letter doesn't carry the force of law.  It does, however, give a glimpse into how the Obama administration will interpret the law, and the sorts of enforcement actions they may or may not press.  In that context, the paragraph on page 5 about overnight accommodations does seem like a potential land mine.

a)  Re hotel arrangements for short-term travel (athletic competitions, or whatever):  I daresay that's what the Obama administration would like to see happen; but I think there's a lot of room for push-back.  What happens when concerned parents start independently booking their kids' hotel rooms--will the Administration pronounce that the schools, and only the schools, must make the room reservations so as to prevent those nasty parents from making discriminatory rooming arrangements?  I'm not really worried about this one--yet.  Conservative states can just tell their schools to leave the bunking arrangements for traveling teams, etc. to the students themselves.  And if the feds continue to push that point of view, I look forward to some enterprising state AG arguing that the schools are not duly licensed travel agencies, and are therefore enjoined under state law from booking hotel rooms for third parties.  Should be fun.

b)  and c):  (Re long-term, school-provided housing):  The letter seems to specifically forbid schools from housing transgender students in a room by themselves--so they're gonna have to room with someone.  The paragraph also has an interesting statement prohibiting schools from asking transgender students questions not asked of the rest of the student body (I imagine it might be problematic to single out transgender students and say "OK, then--what was your biological sex at time of birth?"); and I don't see how they can disclose to third parties information that they aren't even supposed to be to asking.  So, yeah; that could be an issue.

Oh, and re Latin and QED:  To get the full effect, the abbreviation just doesn't cut it.  I prefer the hauteur of using the entire phrase:  quod erat demonstrandum.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks, JAG!  That was helpful.  Unlimited virtual chocolate chip cookies for you!

Next up...

I'm not familiar with this site, and the title of the article is inflammatory and unnecessary...so not a site I will likely visit in the future...but I appreciate the list of Republicans who support Obama on the transgender bathroom issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435976/obama-transgender-order-republicans-who-supported-it?utm_source=email+marketing+Mailigen&utm_campaign=News+5.31.16&utm_medium=email

Edited June 3, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

I am not familiar with LifeSiteNews, but I find it unlikely that it is any more bias than HuffPo or Slate, or for that matter CNN. The main difference with CNN is that they bias their site by choosing to report only on certain stories and events, ignoring many items that might cast their pet topics in a bad light. But bias is bias, and CNN (not to mention the other dog vomit sites) is not to be trusted. Frankly, in this way, Fox News is vastly more trustworthy than CNN -- if their reporting per se is no better, at least you can get articles and reports from various perspectives.

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In that context, the paragraph on page 5 [sic, page 4 as listed, 5 in the total page count] about overnight accommodations does seem like a potential land mine.

a)  Re hotel arrangements for short-term travel (athletic competitions, or whatever):  I daresay that's what the Obama administration would like to see happen; but I think there's a lot of room for push-back.

Here's the ¶ in question (with referenced footnotes):

Quote

Housing and Overnight Accommodations. Title IX allows a school to provide separate housing on the basis of sex. ²² But a school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations or to disclose personal information when not required of other students. Nothing in Title IX prohibits a school from honoring a student’s voluntary request for single-occupancy accommodations if it so chooses.²³

²² 20 U.S.C. § 1686; 34 C.F.R. § 106.32.
²³ See, e.g., Resolution Agreement, In re Arcadia Unified. Sch. Dist ., CA , OCR Case No. 09-12-1020, DOJ Case No. 169-12C-70, (July 24, 2013), www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/07/26/arcadiaagree.pdf (agreement to provide access to single-sex overnight events consistent with students’ gender identity, but allowing students to request access to private facilities).

As JAG said, this is just what O'bama and his ilk want to see happen: the destruction of all morality. We're well on our way, and this is one of the last possible remnants of chastity in our once-great country. Immoral people must have a caretaker, powerful government serving that need. A moral people can be free, and need no (or little) governance. For those in power, creating immorality is a grand key to continuing their lordship.

Lehi

Edited June 3, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

What brought chills up my spine is when Obama said the phrase... transgender CHILDREN.

[mordorbund]

From the letter:

Quote

As a condition of receiving Federal funds ...

Our local district superintendent noted federal funding contributed to 1.25% of the budget and remarked "I think we can make up that shortfall."

[NightSG]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What happens when concerned parents start independently booking their kids' hotel rooms--will the Administration pronounce that the schools, and only the schools, must make the room reservations so as to prevent those nasty parents from making discriminatory rooming arrangements?

AFAIK, most schools have always had a policy of not letting parents make special arrangements like that on school sponsored trips.  Up until now, it was probably a good thing, since it kept them from having any control over whether their precious Aryan snowflake got roomed with an Asian, a Colombian and a Jordanian on the field trip, where she might start to see other races as human.

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

For those in power, creating immorality is a grand key to continuing their lordship.

Of course; the less morality there is, the more people will be government dependent either through regular handouts or incarceration.

[Blackmarch]

On June 2, 2016 at 4:44 PM, LiterateParakeet said:

Thoughts? 

Wonder if there is a way to finagle the ruling and precedent set by the court circuit that covers colorado in a suit against a wedding bakery against this.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Blackmarch

[yjacket]

I have found a podcast that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this whole sordid mess.

http://podcast.rosemond.com/?name=2016-06-03_jr_052816.mp3

This line of thinking about transgender, etc. will only lead to our destruction . . .ah the last days. When common sense goes out the window and people who adhere to common sense are branded as evil . . .

[anatess2]

Well, destruction is what they're after, right?  I mean, they think we're causing global warming, er, climate change, cage gorillas and orcas even kill them for our entertainment, babies are parasites...  I wouldn't be surprised if LGBT is actually just a front for a human extinction project.

Edited June 8, 2016 by anatess2