11 states sue U.S. government over Obama's transgender directive

anatta

100% recycled karma
The transgender bathroom battle is about to take another dramatic turn.

Texas and 10 other states are suing the Obama administration over a new directive instructing public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender, rather than birth, identity.

The lawsuit, announced Wednesday in Austin by Texas Attorney General Kenneth Paxton, also includes Oklahoma, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maine, Arizona, Louisiana, Utah and Georgia. It accuses President Obama's administration of “running roughshod over commonsense policies” that protect children, and asks a judge to declare the directive unlawful.

Conservative states had vowed defiance since the Justice Department handed down the guidance earlier this month. At the time, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said “there is no room in our schools for discrimination.”

The Department of Education ordered schools to create policies to grant bathroom access to transgender students in accordance with their identities or risk losing billions in federal funding. According to The Associated Press, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has previously said Texas is willing to forfeit $10 billion in federal education dollars rather than comply.


exas Gov. Greg Abbott confirmed the lawsuit Wednesday morning at a book signing hours before Paxton formally announced the challenge.

“His lawsuit is challenging the way that the Obama administration is trampling the United States Constitution,” Abbott told reporters.

The issue of transgender usage of bathrooms exploded on the national scene in the wake of House Bill 2 in North Carolina, which became law on March 23. It bans transgender people from using bathrooms that don't match the gender on their birth certificate. North Carolina and the Justice Department then sued each other over the law, opening the door for the directive.

Supporters of transgender bathroom bills say such measures are needed to protect women and children from sexual predators, while the Justice Department and others argue the threat is practically nonexistent and the law discriminatory.

Several key Republican lawmakers in Texas, including Abbott, Paxton and Patrick, have been outspoken in their opposition to the directive and to the issue of transgender-identity bathroom use.

The lawsuit also marks the latest volley in the ongoing fight from Texas Republicans against the federal government.

According to a July 2015 report from The Texas Tribune, Texas Republicans have filed suit against the federal government 38 times since Obama took office, at a cost of $5.1 million to Texas taxpayers.

The Texas Tribune reported that in those cases, Texas has won six, lost 10, the state withdrew eight cases, and 14 were still to be fully litigated.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t-over-obamas-transgender-directive/84921276/
 
Seems Obama overreached his constitutional authority.
Umm. It's not that clear since it's done under Title IX -so called "sex discrimination"

For sure it's federal over-reach, but what else do you expect from the Democrats?
 
Umm. It's not that clear since it's done under Title IX -so called "sex discrimination"

For sure it's federal over-reach, but what else do you expect from the Democrats?

They ran out of sex discrimination so they made up some new genders.

The Crusade must go on lol!
 
Transgender is an identity and gender dysphoria is a psychological diagnosis. Both are relatively rare—probably around 1 percent of Americans at most. These are facts; not opinions. Gender dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder) is an actual thing. Look it up.

What’s more, kids who are diagnosed with it aren’t just going through a phase, or playing with gender as kids normally do; they are profoundly unhappy in their bodies, and demonstrate to a mental health professional, usually over a period of months, that their felt sense of gender does not match their biological sex.

So, what are we really talking about here? In terms of schools, we’re talking about a tiny handful of kids who usually act, look, and feel like their gender identity. Boys will not be in the girls’ room. Once in a blue moon, an anatomically male child who lives her entire life as a girl will be. And that’s where she belongs.

ll that is required, to conform with Title IX, is that facilities not discriminate on the basis of sex (interpreted here as including gender). Surely, a single-stall facility or other accommodation passes that test.

Yes, ideally, trans kids should use the gender-appropriate facility. But schools make judgments like this all the time. They might reasonably decide that a trans kid is safer in the nurse’s office—certainly if that’s what the child and parents want. There’s no way the Justice Department is going to second-guess that.

The responsibility of enforcing the Civil Rights Act is put on the federal government. This is not a case of government overreach. The White House letter was intended to put schools and other institutions on notice that they are violating Title IX if they don’t accommodate trans kids. Period. That’s exactly the purview of Title IX, and exactly why it exists in the first place.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/transgender-panic-isn-t-hate-it-s-ignorance.html
 
A man dressed like a women in a bathroom scares Conservatives. A man dressed like a Conservative congressmen in a bathroom scares everybody. - Tea Pai

5616cc3407305.image.jpg
 
Transgender is an identity and gender dysphoria is a psychological diagnosis. Both are relatively rare—probably around 1 percent of Americans at most. These are facts; not opinions. Gender dysphoria (formerly Gender Identity Disorder) is an actual thing. Look it up.

What’s more, kids who are diagnosed with it aren’t just going through a phase, or playing with gender as kids normally do; they are profoundly unhappy in their bodies, and demonstrate to a mental health professional, usually over a period of months, that their felt sense of gender does not match their biological sex.

So, what are we really talking about here? In terms of schools, we’re talking about a tiny handful of kids who usually act, look, and feel like their gender identity. Boys will not be in the girls’ room. Once in a blue moon, an anatomically male child who lives her entire life as a girl will be. And that’s where she belongs.

ll that is required, to conform with Title IX, is that facilities not discriminate on the basis of sex (interpreted here as including gender). Surely, a single-stall facility or other accommodation passes that test.

Yes, ideally, trans kids should use the gender-appropriate facility. But schools make judgments like this all the time. They might reasonably decide that a trans kid is safer in the nurse’s office—certainly if that’s what the child and parents want. There’s no way the Justice Department is going to second-guess that.

The responsibility of enforcing the Civil Rights Act is put on the federal government. This is not a case of government overreach. The White House letter was intended to put schools and other institutions on notice that they are violating Title IX if they don’t accommodate trans kids. Period. That’s exactly the purview of Title IX, and exactly why it exists in the first place.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/transgender-panic-isn-t-hate-it-s-ignorance.html

You are wasting your time.

You know facts will only confuse and anger the transphobes.
 
Yes, ideally, trans kids should use the gender-appropriate facility. But schools make judgments like this all the time. They might reasonably decide that a trans kid is safer in the nurse’s office—certainly if that’s what the child and parents want. There’s no way the Justice Department is going to second-guess that.
hoo boy..:rolleyes:

1. that type of (sensible) accommodation would STILL be in violation of the DoE directive
2.most states would indeed look for "reasonable accommodation" ( my words) -but CANNOT DO SO - for fear of punitive funding losses...

The states are forced into an unwieldy compliance, instead of agreed upon accomodation
 
hoo boy..:rolleyes:

1. that type of (sensible) accommodation would STILL be in violation of the DoE directive
2.most states would indeed look for "reasonable accommodation" ( my words) -but CANNOT DO SO - for fear of punitive funding losses...

The states are forced into an unwieldy compliance, instead of agreed upon accomodation

Think so?
 
Back
Top