BREAKING NEWS Trump administration rolls back protections for transgender students

[Stonepounder]

Source: Washington Post

The Trump administration on Wednesday revoked federal protections for transgender students who sought the right to use the public school restrooms that match their gender identity, taking a stand on a contentious issue that has become the central battle over LGBT rights.

Officials with the federal Education and Justice departments notified the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday that the administration is ordering the nation’s schools to disregard memos the Obama administration issued during the past two years regarding transgender student rights. Those memos said that prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that align with their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws.

The two-page “dear colleague” letter from the Trump administration, which is set to go to the nation’s public schools, does not offer any new guidance, instead saying that the earlier directive needed to be withdrawn because it lacked extensive legal analysis, did not go through a public vetting process, sowed confusion and drew legal challenges.

The administration said that it would not rely on the prior interpretation of the law in the future.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-administration-rolls-back-protections-for-transgender-students/2017/02/22/550a83b4-f913-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transgender-720pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

---

And he calls us "Haters".

[Chasstev365]

1. They're just so diciplined and professional!

[ismnotwasm]

2. UGH

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Hope there's a few dozen more lawsuits filed. I don't think

the executive branch gets to decide what's discrimination.

[yallerdawg]

4. So the Corrupt One is standing at a urinal...

and a "gorgeous woman" walks in.

What do you grab now, asshole?

[Bleacher Creature]

5. Can't wait to hear from the "Hillary is no better than Trump" crowd.

They should all crawl under a rock and never come out.

[WinkyDink]

6. Is there no way a Democrat can see this situation through a teen girl's (not a teen trans-girl's)

eyes? The human being in the edict is still a bio-boy. The bio-girl just might not want to deal with her bodily functions in the same bathroom.

[Igel]

9. Often it's convenience.

There's a trans kid in my class. Insists on "Mr." and a male first name, masc. pronouns.

Will not use the boys' bathroom because it's disgusting without enough toilets, but he can't use the urinals. Most of the time, male. But insists on girls' bathroom rights.

[LisaM]

10. But women are always behind a door.

I would think there'd be a bigger issue in the boys' rooms.

Edited to add: if there's an issue at all, which I don't think there would be or should be if people would just be nice to each other.

[Calista241]

19. There's not always doors in middle and high school locker rooms. n/t

[Tikki]

22. Then go after that....no school bathroom should ever be without stall doors.

Tikki

[Calista241]

24. There's also open showers in locker rooms.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. Why would it be so traumatic to see someone else's naked body?

I don't quite follow your argument.

[Ilsa]

30. For some of us who have been victims

of sexual predators or rapists, modesty is practiced. We are uncomfortable to be seen naked. But sometimes in locker rooms, you get exposed, and would rather not have a person with the appearance of the opposite sex there. If they already looked like my sex, then I doubt I'd be bothered.

I have no problem with the bathroom sharing. But I think there needs to be privacy available in locker rooms.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. What do you mean by "appearance of the opposite sex?"

Gender non-conforming and trans people don't fit into standard definitions of cisgendered bodies. There's an entire spectrum of body types. I don't quite know how to fully address your concerns in a space like a locker room where people are in various states of undress and the prospect of some form of nudity is never entirely avoidable.

I understand that sensitivity must be had for victims of sexual assault and the triggers that accompany the trauma, but I just don't see how that trumps proper accommodations for members of the trans community.

[Ilsa]

36. I didn't say it trumps it.

I'm saying there are people who will resist if they feel physically threatened if their perception is that a person of the opposite sex (even though that may not be clear) is watching them undress.

It's a difficult business trying to accomodate everyone, but I don't think it's fair to ask victims to just get over it, either. Recovery takes time, and locker rooms are not always spaces we volunteer to be in. All I'm saying is that there can be other situations to consider when making rules.

On edit: the issue of perception, for me, can make the bathroom law ridiculous, as I've tried explaining to friends. Why would they want a biological woman, who appears to be male (whether or not they've had surgery), in their Ladies Room?

[Crash2Parties]

35. So what you are saying is that you need a private facility, correct?

[Ilsa]

37. Honestly, yeah, I think a

Private section dressing area option, for whomever desires it, would resolve the issue easily for most situations, especially for locker rooms in schools where taking the class isn't optional.

Other than sex abuse victims, I also have met young women who are very uncomfortable undressing around others, period, no matter what their perception of their gender may be. They came from strict religious backgrounds and were very modest.

[Crash2Parties]

48. Guess what? Every parent of a trans kid that I've met say the last thing their child wants is for

Anyone to see the part of their body that "doesn't match". Every single one. They are exceedingly careful to NOT let anyone else see those body parts. It's really, really difficult for them to even let their doctor do so. Yet haters keep trying so very hard to paint trans children as some sort of exhibitionists and predators. Statistically, nothing could be further from the reality of these kids.

[WinkyDink]

40. OMG, please. We are speaking of school-children, and not the "Summerhill" ones.

[Tikki]

28. Then go after that...

It has got to be cheaper than law suits.

Tikki

[greymattermom]

25. And both trans men and women will always be behind a door

I really don't get what the issue is.

[Tikki]

12. Why would bio-girl ever see the "bio-boys parts" of a transgendered girl in a bathroom?

There are no urinals in a girl's bathroom. If either of them are going into the bathroom to
urinate..they are going to be using a toilet in a stall, hopefully with a door.

Tikki

[WinkyDink]

41. You do know there are parts to a lavatory that exist outside the stalls? Where clothing is "fixed,"

where gossip is exchanged, where tampon machines are placed?

[Tikki]

45. How would they know someone had bio-boy parts outside the toilet stall?

You sound concerned about the social stuff going on 'in the bathroom'.

If a transgirl isn't invited to the bathroom 'klatch' she'll do her business and move on...

I am not sure, but I believe girls still go inside a stall to apply a tampon.

Tikki

[Crash2Parties]

49. Define "bio-girl" or "bio-boy" with no exceptions, please.

Exceedingly few people have every sex-dirmorphic attribute at the far end of the spectrum.
Obvious example outside of this topic: height
Men are tall, women are short. Except that only works with averages & aggregates.

Everyone's brains have sex-dimorphic sites. Over 20 of them. But it's not actually di- morphism; it's again, a spectrum. Anyway, in most people those 20 sites match their identity and the sex/gender assigned at birth. Sometimes, rarely, they do not. Maybe 0.7% of the time those sites, along with certain endocrine and skeletal attributes develop toward the "opposite" end of the male-female spectrum. It happens. The sites are known, the genes expressions are known, the timing of development is known, etc.. And those sites contain some of the crucial ones that contain the "you" that lives in your head. Things like the location of your sense of Self. Damage it and you don't know you from other. And the location of the brain's low level, hardwired "map" of the body. Those are where "You" live, and those parts all develop along their own male-female spectrum.

So you see, trans people are most accurately described as being of mixed sex development, when all sex dimorphic parts are taken into consideration. And it's important to do so, because the reproductive parts that traditionally have been used are not necessarily accurate. If a male soldier is in Iraq and loses his genitals to a roadside bomb (there are about 700 such soldiers), is he not still a man? Of course he is - because the person that lives in his head is a man.

The brain is every bit as "bio" as any other body part.

[Tikki]

50. This debate is about a transgirl using a girl's bathroom at school.

I believe any girl who identifies as a girl is a girl.

If the debate is about a poseur using the girls bathroom that is a different debate.
I stand by my assertion that a stall with a toilet is the place for everyone to urinate in a girl's bathroom.

There is never a need for anyone to expose their genitals outside
of a bathroom toilet stall in a girls bathroom.

Tikki

[Crash2Parties]

51. "Bio-girl" is used by conservatives to assert that trans girls aren't *really* girls.

It's part of their argument that it's all a mental illness, deceptive, etc. etc..

Otherwise, I believe we are in agreement.

[Tikki]

52. I had never heard the term before seeing it here...but I do agree it can be an inflammatory term.

I won't use it again.

Just girls. Which I happen to be....well, an older, much older girl.

Tikki

[TimeChaser]

16. Why is it always about genitals?

I was a teen girl just 12 years ago. We did not get together and compare our junk in the bathroom. Doors exist. Transgirls are girls and are way more likely to be the victim of violence, especially when forced to use the wrong bathroom.

[TranssexualKaren]

18. I am an anatomically correct female...

You want me to shower its men!!!!!

Try to imagine how this would feel to me!

[mr_lebowski]

32. I would think that at an absolute minimum someone who's had the procedure ...

Would HAVE to be protected under the law to use a gender-correct facility.

I can somewhat, very, very slightly 'see their argument' when it comes to pre-Op trans folks (100% disagree, but I'd grant that a roughly 1%-reasonable argument can be made, esp. in High School ... of course it REQUIRES the assumption that non-trans folks will abuse the protection, which is not at all fair) ... but to deny someone the right to use a bathroom who's gender matches their physical parts?

That is just absolutely deplorable, indefensible, and BEYOND ANY sort of decency or moral high-ground. There's many reasons why, but a big one is that it completely takes away the 'abuse' argument. Anybody arguing that someone's going to have a sex change just to be able to 'peep' in the opposite sex's bathroom is just BEYOND idiotic.

What's next ... are we not going to allow homosexuals to use ANY public toilet/shower facilities, because 'the children'?

Are there going to be required friggin' rainbow armbands, in order to 'keep us safe' from the pre-verts? FFS ...

You know what? AFAIC, FUCK STATES So-Called RIGHTS.

Pardon my French, but 'States' are an archaic, wasteful, and stupid concept.

With the way everybody moves around these days, they don't mean shit. Look, this isn't 1780 where most people live their whole lives in one state, with minimal 'exposure' to other viewpoints/experiences/attitudes. Look how many 'States' have a breakdown in POTUS votes with 10% of each other for either party! The large majority fall in the 45-55% range of votes for Dems or GOP. What does that tell you? There's no longer 'cultural uniformity' when it comes to 'States', if indeed there ever was. Being "Californian" means very little, as is the case with most states outside perhaps Utah, and a few Deep South states.

ABOLISH THE STATES!!!

[WinkyDink]

42. No "procedures" were required under the previous rule. Only "feelings."

[Crash2Parties]

20. Is there no way you can see you are calling my daughter a predator?

But please, define "bio-girl". I'd love to see your depth of knowledge of the biology involved.

[WinkyDink]

43. Are we now in Humpty-Dumpty Land?

Does the word "chromosomes" ring a bell? Are you trying to say that obstetriciansare idiots who shouldn't declare gender at birth?

Do NOT pretend that the Obama Rule had anything to do with physiology.

BTW: There is much inter-mingling of topics between DU and Datalounge, a gay website. Maybe their perspective might add to the argument.

[Crash2Parties]

46. Your education of such things is seriously three or four decades out of date.

First of all, chromosomes are mere blueprints & things don't always get built according to plan.

Second, while it works *most* of the time, "XY" sex chromsomes do not necessarily have to result in a "male" body & "XX" sex chromosomes do not necessarily have to result in a "female" body. There are many exceptions. My current favorites:

- the crucial genes that trigger "male" development in sex-dimorphic body parts can transpose onto other chromosomes and get passed down that way.

- around five or so years ago, doctors genotyped a woman who'd recently given birth. Turns out she was XY. No one had thought to test women who'd given birth since the test used to be so expensive. Several more have accidentally been found since.

Physiology has much to do with it. We are sex dimorphic creatures, but each such part develops on a spectrum not a binary. And they don't all develop at the same time, from the same triggers / in the same immediate environment. The one part viewed by a birth doctor to assign a sex on the paperwork develops at a different time that the brain (+certain skeletal & endocrine sites). The brain's sex dimorphic parts match identity, not necessarily the sex/gender assigned at birth.

Congratulations! Your very most basic knowledge about how sex-dimorphic creatures develop - if you choose to accept the information - has been upgraded!

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Are you shitting me? Everything is seen through the cis perspective.

Literally everything is defined according to the perspective of cisgendered people. The one fucking time we try to change the perspective even a little and suddenly everyone's wilting with protestations of "save the children!"

Get a grip.

[WinkyDink]

44. The ONE time?! The very term "cis" puts the lie to that.

[Crash2Parties]

47. Once again your bigotry overcomes your knowledge

Cis- and Trans- are Latin prefixes that mean "same side" and "across from", roughly. They come from organic chemistry where they refer to the parts of a molecule aligning or not-aligning. As such they have been found to be very useful in describing people whose identity & body match, or don't match.

What seems to bother most cis people the most, I've found, is that the existence and usage of "cisgender" puts them on the same level as trans people. They seem to hate that. They can't deal with the fact that some people are trans, and some are cis. They can only accept that "people" means cis, and then trans must be some sort of "other". That's also a wonderful example of bigotry.

[Rex]

7. That means more protests, I guess he wants to halt the entire nation.

I LOVE how all these state and national congress critters are pretending it is just Business as Usual. Keep it up you idiots! Those 100s that show up at the town hall meeting? Will be in the 1000s now.

GOPers are about to get their asses handed to them by their very own constituents!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Ho, hum. They're all alike. Voting for one is like voting for the other.

If I can't get the perfect candidate, I think I'll stay home.

/s. I did not stay home on November 8, 2016. I made sure to vote before going to work. That way, if I got hit by a car or bus on the way to work, or, considering I work in DC, a bicyclist ignoring a red light, my vote would still count.

ETA: Reply #5 beat me to it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Authors! Authors!

Sandhya Somashekhar is the social change reporter for the Washington Post.
Follow @sandhyawp

Emma Brown writes about national education and about people with a stake in schools, including teachers, parents and kids.
Follow @emmersbrown

Moriah Balingit writes about education for the Post.
Follow @ByMoriah

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.
Follow @scotusreporter

[briv1016]

13. Donald's tired of getting shut down in fights against adults,

so he's turned his attention to children.

[yuiyoshida]

14. I wonder what LBGT rights will be turned back next....

Will WITCH HUNTS be legal next?? I know Republicans want to take us back to the
1800's.. maybe he thinks Slavery is fine too... bastards.

[Crash2Parties]

21. Most of their work in the pipeline involves the words "1 man & 1 woman"...

[uncle ray]

15. "needed to be withdrawn because it...did not go through a public vetting process"

fuck this cheeto motherfucker.

[TranssexualKaren]

17. I'd like to see the look on the guys faces if were to shower with them.

I don't think my Y chromosome would comfort them.

[Solly Mack]

23. Cruel

You don't kick the already vulnerable. You don't make life harder for those already being marginalized for being brave enough to be who they are.

You don't have to understand to feel compassion when someone is caused pain.

You don't get to lash out in your fear and ignorance at a vulnerable group then pretend it is their fault for being different.

[mr_lebowski]

33. Hear friggin' Hear!!! (n/t)

[Va Lefty]

29. Thanks again deplorables!

[Jarqui]

34. Can't impeach this heartless prick too soon nt

[tavernier]

38. Hey Jenner,

How do you like him now?

[TexasBushwhacker]

55. Jenner has already denounced it

"From one Republican to another."

Last night, Bill Maher's comment was "Bruce Jenner was always an idiot. Adding tits didn't make him a genius."

[tavernier]

56. Perfect!

Thanks for sharing, since I missed his show.

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. I watched on YouTube

I have to admit, I only got halfway through because of Asra Nomani, the Muslim feminist Trumpian. I just couldn't take her any longer.

Here's Overtime. I had no idea Fran Lebowitz was so tiny! She has such a big personality.

[Vinca]

39. In their crazy, zealous desire to take us back to the 1950's, have they wondered what might

happen to a young woman who ambles into the men's room? Or how their wives and daughters might respond to a man walking into the lady's room? Unless there's someone checking genitalia at the door, there's no way to know whether a person is trans or not so there is no point other than hate for this legislation to be rolled back.

[King_Klonopin]

53. Everything he does seems to be a metaphoric, giant middle finger to the world. nt

[astral]

54. x

The argument that boys and girls, AND MEN AND WOMEN, should use co-ed bathrooms is just sick and gives the people something to fight about that has nothing to do with where anybody should be directing their energies.

Kids are androgynous and should not be pressured into obsessing over Which Gender do they WANT to Be. They need to be allowed to spend their childhood Being KIDS. Let them act like boys or girls or whatever they want to be, what they really are inside won't come out until puberty or beyond.

If individual kids have gender issues that's not a federal government issue. Little girls need to have,a safe place where there are no boys, or GROWN UP MEN. We are being taught, as an entire culture, that there is no separation between the sexes. For many people that is true but don't shove it down everybody's throats.

It is a serious safety issue. If people's feelings are hurt because they are not what they are that is not a reason to turn the world upside down on children, and women fearful of abuse, by taking away their SAFETY ZONE.

If someone uses the opposite gender restroom already, is there a 'bathroom police' coming to take them away? Not likely. I was VERBALLY abused by boys in my school days, and always had my moments where I had to run to the restroom to find a safe place to hide and cry. What if I had nowhere safe to go to? Because in 'those days' the term bullying wasn't addressed. There was no punishment directed at abusive kids. You just had to toughen up.

I am quite mortified at the whole issue. Does this mean I disrespect transgender people? If we have new issues to deal with maybe we need three-sex separation in bathrooms, or, maybe we are in a period of transition and need to learn to not care about such things. I vaguely remember black people moving to the back of the bus, smoking of cigarettes everywhere you please, having no pants to wear to school because little girls didn't wear pants to school, the boys and girls playing in separate parts of the playground, not because of any rules, but just because we were wired that way. Tomboy girls could, and did, go play ball with the boys.

The societal changes we are going through are not, a black and white, right vs wrong agenda, it is LOADED with shades of grey. Are some kids born in the wrong gender body? I'm sure they are, and when they have matured enough to make their own decisions, they may choose to do something about their body parts. But don't push it on gradeschool kids, let them figure out who they are in their own good time.

I have recently heard, don't know if it's true or if it matters, that most transgender kids were sexually abused. Maybe sometimes that is the cause, or, their parent(s) wanted to have a boy not a girl, or even a girl not a boy, and the kid picked up on that. Or the parent started pushing the transgender thing on their own kid from the beginning.

Shades of Grey. I'm not saying the blurring of sexuality doesn't exist or is not valid, but the co-ed bathroom thing is not the answer, the answer just isn't quite that simple. Right or wrong I have reasons behind my belief.