Posted on 11/12/2015 3:17:41 PM PST by reaganaut1
Those of us who oppose the expansion of governmental controls often get the retort, "You’re just using a slippery slope argument; the bad consequences you foresee are extremely unlikely to happen."
Ah, but predicted bad consequences often do happen. As evidence, I offer the following instance.
In 2013, a student in Palatine Township High School (Illinois) complained about sexual discrimination to the federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The allegedly illegal "discrimination" suffered was because the school refused to allow the student, a male who “identifies†as a female, to use the girls' locker room.
The applicable 1972 statute forbids sexual discrimination by any school or college that accepts any federal funds–but surely that couldn't mean that a male student who "identifies" as female can’t be kept from changing and showering with the girls.
Oh yes it does.
Instead of dismissing the complaint, OCR took it very seriously. Under pressure from Washington, officials in the Palatine School District offered this accommodation: The student could use the girls’ locker room, but had to change and shower behind privacy curtains.
Not good enough! The requirement of using the privacy area was discriminatory; it singled the student out; it made him/her feel "ostracized." The ACLU attorney representing "Student A" declared, "It’s one thing to say to all the girls, 'You can choose if you want some extra privacy, but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone must use them.' That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as a girl."
Despite the many accommodations the school had made, including allowing Student A to play on girls sports teams, Student A still wasn’t satisfied.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“The student could use the girls’ locker room, but had to change and shower behind privacy curtains. “
Just send the freak to the boiler room.
Is Title IX one of the things that can be repealed as “Poorly designed law”?
Right up there with EPA and IRS.
And most especially the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010”.
Thus will end girls sports which the liberals wanted anyway.
This is hysterical. Send in the platypus, there’s got to be paltypus, send in the platypus.
They want the girls to get used to men hanging around while they’re naked
This all about removing the 'evil' word 'segregation' so everything is now 'integrated'
I see no need to end girls' sports. Just end locker rooms. Let the kids shower when they get home, where it's safe. It's a stupid answer, but any pervert or mentally-ill victim being exploited to advance the left's agenda who demands accommodation and costs the entire school their locker rooms for four years will be shunned for life. They will deserve it too.
that accepts any federal funds
Eliminate that caveat from the Law and this crap will end Overnight. As soon as ALL these new rules apply to ALL SCHOOLS, including Private it will END!!
Male’s who want to identify as females need to undergo a short arms inspection by a doctor to determine gender.
Clearly, the purpose of Title IX was to invite male perverts and sex criminals into girls locker rooms - because that is such a wonderful and important public purpose.
I’m sorry, but I’m confused: which side is it that is supposedly waging a “war on women”?
oohrah!!!
Can you imagine any other President pushing for such a thing?
I live in Palatine. Palatine HS is a good school, but thank God my wife and I sent our kids to a Catholic HS.
Unfortunately, a portion of our taxes is going towards this BS.
Palantine actually stood up against this nonsense but $6 million in federal funds is a pretty heavy price to pay.
Attended a private Christian academy and this never will happen at that school. Even today. But yer’ right, we “pay’ for this freakshow.
If all the girls chose the extra privacy of showering behind the curtain, this would mean that the boy would be the only one outside the curtain. Would that be considered ostracism? Would the girls, or some of them, then be forced to shower on the same side of the curtain as the boy?
Couldn’t the parents get organized as a charity to fund the school, and raise the funds to make up the shortfall. Couldn’t it be done in such a way that the charitable contributions could be tax deductible?
This could all be solved with new building codes. Just require that all public bathrooms and locker rooms be constructed with clear glass walls. Viola, no one gets excluded.
The kids simply won’t use the showers. Instead they will go home sweaty and wind up with skin diseases. Well that is until the shower police come in and force everyone together shower before them.
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.