- Joined
- Oct 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,715
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Obama's low intelligence blew it, Friday, with regard to his letter to public schools.
Okay, to comply, building separate restrooms for transgender students is out. That's good, because school's can't afford neither that or adding a ton of single-occupancy restrooms.
But the part of the letter that states "... to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students ..." reflects confusion between "sex" and "gender". Sex is physiological whereas gender neuropsychological. Obama is apparently ignorant that he can't have it both ways in this matter.
We have historically "discriminated" in multi-user elementary/middle/high school restrooms based on sex, meaning physiological sex organs, installing male-sex urinals in male-sex restrooms only and feminine hygiene products in female-sex restrooms only.
Now, only approximately .3% of the population is transsexual.
An elementary school with an average population of 500 students will have roughly two transsexual students, maybe three at the most, on average. A middle school of 650 students will have two, again, maybe three, rarely four transsexual students, on average. A high school of 850 students will have three transsexual students, five tops at the most on average. Or they might have zero. That's the accurate mathematical probabilities.
So .. regarding the part of the letter that states "... the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students ...", who is experiencing "discomfort" and is being "disadvantaged" when a 12-year-old sexually male 5th-grader walks into a restroom full of 2nd and third grade sexually female girls?!
Remember, over 99% of our population has a gender identity that matches their sex physiology .. including the 5% homo/bi -sexuals, people whose gender identity matches their physiology (it's just that their attracted-to gender isn't an "opposite" of their physiology).
For over 99% of children over the age of 4, they are already psychologically one with their sexual physiology, and, that includes both culturally and socially by the time they're in elementary school.
This 99+% of girls finds privacy from this 99+% of boys in the "girls" restroom, the reasons for which are obvious .. to that 99+%.
Obama's edict ignores a very simple decision method long practiced in America: majority rules.
Now, majority rule doesn't apply where, according to the letter, there is "discomfort" and "disadvantage". Okay, but just who in this matter is being "discomforted" and "disadvantaged"? It appears that the gender identity female in 12-year-old male physiology suffers such if she can't use the "girls" restroom, and that the little girls belonging to the 99+% physiological sex-gender match group suffer such if that gender identity female in 12-year-old male physiology does use the "girls" restroom!
So who wins this win-lose battle, and, this scenario can only be win-lose, obviously.
It would seem to me, that the little girls of the 99+% are more greatly discomforted and disadvantaged than the 12-year-old male transgender. This will especially be true in middle school, and in high school that 16-year-old male-physiology transgender is asking to have the crap beat out of him by six girls of the 99+% group should that person walk into the "girls" restroom.
Now I know we've all heard the rationale that we can't allow just anyone to choose which restroom to use at school because of potential predators or the like. Indeed, the administration policy implies a letter from the parents is necessary to authorize such.
But, what about the students? What about elementary school little girls of the 99+% category? How do they get "educated" that occasionally a rather large "boy" may enter their place of physiological and psychological privacy? Are they ready for that "educational lesson"? No, they really aren't.
And, what about the two or three transgenders in the school old enough (10, 11, 12 ?) to realize they're transgender? Do they have to identify themselves with a badge .. or "scarlet letter" .. or something so that no one will "react" when they walk into "their" restroom?
Children are immature, and immature children will be immature children .. and so-called bullying will occur when the wrongly-called "bullies" are sufficiently and legitimately frightened.
What parent wants to set their transsexual child up for that?
Obama blew it big time with this one.
Transgender students, for the benefit of everyone, need to simply keep it quiet in school and use the restroom that matches their physiological sex.
They are the least discomforted and disadvantaged compared to the the little girls in my example here.
And .. those little girls .. and their older boy school mates of the same group .. are the vast, vast majority here.
A word to the wise.
Okay, to comply, building separate restrooms for transgender students is out. That's good, because school's can't afford neither that or adding a ton of single-occupancy restrooms.
But the part of the letter that states "... to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students ..." reflects confusion between "sex" and "gender". Sex is physiological whereas gender neuropsychological. Obama is apparently ignorant that he can't have it both ways in this matter.
We have historically "discriminated" in multi-user elementary/middle/high school restrooms based on sex, meaning physiological sex organs, installing male-sex urinals in male-sex restrooms only and feminine hygiene products in female-sex restrooms only.
Now, only approximately .3% of the population is transsexual.
An elementary school with an average population of 500 students will have roughly two transsexual students, maybe three at the most, on average. A middle school of 650 students will have two, again, maybe three, rarely four transsexual students, on average. A high school of 850 students will have three transsexual students, five tops at the most on average. Or they might have zero. That's the accurate mathematical probabilities.
So .. regarding the part of the letter that states "... the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students ...", who is experiencing "discomfort" and is being "disadvantaged" when a 12-year-old sexually male 5th-grader walks into a restroom full of 2nd and third grade sexually female girls?!
Remember, over 99% of our population has a gender identity that matches their sex physiology .. including the 5% homo/bi -sexuals, people whose gender identity matches their physiology (it's just that their attracted-to gender isn't an "opposite" of their physiology).
For over 99% of children over the age of 4, they are already psychologically one with their sexual physiology, and, that includes both culturally and socially by the time they're in elementary school.
This 99+% of girls finds privacy from this 99+% of boys in the "girls" restroom, the reasons for which are obvious .. to that 99+%.
Obama's edict ignores a very simple decision method long practiced in America: majority rules.
Now, majority rule doesn't apply where, according to the letter, there is "discomfort" and "disadvantage". Okay, but just who in this matter is being "discomforted" and "disadvantaged"? It appears that the gender identity female in 12-year-old male physiology suffers such if she can't use the "girls" restroom, and that the little girls belonging to the 99+% physiological sex-gender match group suffer such if that gender identity female in 12-year-old male physiology does use the "girls" restroom!
So who wins this win-lose battle, and, this scenario can only be win-lose, obviously.
It would seem to me, that the little girls of the 99+% are more greatly discomforted and disadvantaged than the 12-year-old male transgender. This will especially be true in middle school, and in high school that 16-year-old male-physiology transgender is asking to have the crap beat out of him by six girls of the 99+% group should that person walk into the "girls" restroom.
Now I know we've all heard the rationale that we can't allow just anyone to choose which restroom to use at school because of potential predators or the like. Indeed, the administration policy implies a letter from the parents is necessary to authorize such.
But, what about the students? What about elementary school little girls of the 99+% category? How do they get "educated" that occasionally a rather large "boy" may enter their place of physiological and psychological privacy? Are they ready for that "educational lesson"? No, they really aren't.
And, what about the two or three transgenders in the school old enough (10, 11, 12 ?) to realize they're transgender? Do they have to identify themselves with a badge .. or "scarlet letter" .. or something so that no one will "react" when they walk into "their" restroom?
Children are immature, and immature children will be immature children .. and so-called bullying will occur when the wrongly-called "bullies" are sufficiently and legitimately frightened.
What parent wants to set their transsexual child up for that?
Obama blew it big time with this one.
Transgender students, for the benefit of everyone, need to simply keep it quiet in school and use the restroom that matches their physiological sex.
They are the least discomforted and disadvantaged compared to the the little girls in my example here.
And .. those little girls .. and their older boy school mates of the same group .. are the vast, vast majority here.
A word to the wise.
