• Dan Patrick Lied to the People of Texas

    Dan Patrick, idiot Lt. Governor of the Great State of Texas, has lied to the people of Texas. Here’s a screen shot of his facebook post.

    Patrick

    There are two lies in this post, even the insta-summary here.

    The first is “Fort Worth ISD Allows Boys in Girls Bathrooms”.

    That’s simply not true. Let’s look at what the rule actually states.

    Guidelines recently established by Superintendent Kent Scribner now require school officials to offer students like Jessica access to a single-stall restroom or the opportunity to use a restroom when no other students are present.

    The guideline goes even further: It asserts that students have access to restrooms consistent with “the gender identity that each student consistently and uniformly asserts.”

    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/education/article76045467.html#storylink=cpy
    Now, look at that last phrase, it’s very important. “the gender identity that each student consistently and uniformly asserts. So, no Mr. Patrick, this rule does not allow boys in the girls restroom. It allows people who identify as girls in the girls bathroom.
    And that bolded section prevents what one commenter suggested. “Boy being trans for the day to get into the girls bathroom.”
    The second lie is that Superintendent Scribner has, without Board approval or parent input, decided on this course of action.
    What really happened was that Scribner signed a rule establishing guidelines for the non-discrimination rules already in place.

    In 2011, the district, then under the leadership of interim Superintendent Walter Dansby, the FWISD school board expanded the district’s anti-harassment and anti-bullying policies to include protections based on gender identity and gender expression. Protections based on sexual orientation were already included.

    Bond said the new guidelines were designed to give “more specificity” to existing policy.

    http://www.dallasvoice.com/fwisd-superintendent-signs-guidelines-protecting-trans-students-10218566.html

    Dr. Scribner did not act alone. The Board had, under the previous superintendent, already approved these rules.

    What does it say about our leaders that they are either so misinformed on a topic that even their one sentence summary has two basic facts wrong or that they are purposefully lying in order to attack someone who supports equality?

    It says that Lt. Governor Patrick is as much of an idiot and asshole as the attorney general of Texas.

     

    Category: featuredGovernmentLifeSociety

    Tags:

    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat

    • Otto T. Goat

      If the logic of anti-trans discrimination is consistently applied then prohibiting males from going in any restroom or locker room they please should be illegal sex discrimination.

      • That is not necessarily the case. The lawsuit from the Justice Department spells out precisely the sort of (sex or gender) discrimination that they have in mind.

        • Otto T. Goat

          Title IX only refers to sex, there is nothing in it about “gender identity”. If it’s really the case that it’s sex discrimination to keep a man in a dress out of the ladies’ room, then it’s sex discrimination to keep any man out of the ladies’ room.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            ” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations prohibit sex discrimination in educational programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal
            financial assistance. This prohibition encompasses discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status. This letter summarizes a school’s Title IX obligations regarding transgender students and explains how the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) evaluate a school’s compliance with these obligations.”

            http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

            • Otto T. Goat

              “This prohibition encompasses discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status.”

              They made that up, not that it, or logical consistency, matters.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You can complain about it all you want. But “they” are the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.

              It means what they say it means. You are welcome to sue, but that’s the only way that would be changed. And honestly, I doubt you’d have much of a chance.

              Again, feel free to complain. Just don’t complain to me, because I don’t want to hear it.

              Isn’t it amazing how everyone wants “The Rule of Law” until the law says something they disagree with?

            • Otto T. Goat

              I’m not complaining, I’m observing there is no legal basis for the DOJ’s assertions.

              “It means what they say it means”

              Actually that’s not the case.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You can say it as much as you like. It doesn’t make it true. Until a law suit is begun and won to support the same position that you advocate, the law is what they say it is.

              If you think you have a case, I’m sure some lawyers will support you.

            • Otto T. Goat

              Actually it’s a fact there is no legal basis for the DOJ’s assertions.

              “the law is what they say it is”

              There is no basis for that, either.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              And yet… that’s how it works… until someone sues.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

            • Otto T. Goat

              Chevron states “If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter”. Clearly, Title IX does not say anything about trannies.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              And now it comes out. It has nothing to do with law (as the law is clear on gender based discrimination). It has nothing to do with practice (as it’s been going on for decades).

              You just don’t like them.

              Well, I think we’re done here. I don’t think you’ll make much headway here in your desire to be allowed to discriminate.

            • Otto T. Goat

              It does have to do with the law, and I don’t think sex specific bathrooms are discrimination.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              But sex specific bathrooms aren’t what this is about is it?

              Tell, me something, just out of curiosity. Do you agree with me that Dan Patrick lied twice in his post?

            • Otto T. Goat

              My point was if the logic of anti-trans discrimination is consistently applied, then prohibiting males from going in any restroom or locker room they please is illegal sex discrimination.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Interesting. What law is on the books that tells men that they cannot go into women’s restrooms?

              I’m honestly curious. Is it illegal for a man to be in a woman’s restroom anywhere? Or vice versa, of course.

              Now, there are laws against harassment, voyeurism, exposing oneself in public, etc. But those apply whether you’re in the wrong restroom or the correct restroom. Honestly, unless you can find a law, on the books, that says other wise, it’s NOT illegal to use the any restroom.

              Hell, I’ve accidentally gone in the ladies room. It wasn’t until I had done my business and come out that I realized I made a mistake. Am I now a sexual predator?

              It may be bad form to use the wrong restroom. A business can ask you to leave… though I can’t imagine a business doing so if it was clearly a simple mistake. Other laws can be enforced by police.

              So, your “sex discrimination” argument is also moot, because it’s not actually illegal. It, like many things, is a cultural norm. I will say that schools might have specific rules in place. My local ISD doesn’t. Here’s the sum total of the rules on restrooms…

              “Restrooms
              Students are encouraged to assume responsibility for proper care and use of the restrooms. These facilities are not for loitering or congregating.”

              You have no argument.
              The law is, what the agency responsible for it says it is, until changed by a court of law. SCOTUS ruling in the Chevron case.
              The highest court in the land has refused to consider a change in that law. LInk to recent SCOTUS decision not to review.
              That law has 4 decades of precedent for being legal. Title IX
              The agency responsible for Title IX says it includes ALL forms of gender discrimination, including transgender.
              Until a very specific court case happens and is won by the plaintiffs, then it means transgender people have the rights and responsibilities set out in the letter.

              Do you agree that Dan Patrick lied twice in his facebook post? Yes or no?

            • Otto T. Goat

              Do you have a specific point?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              If you can’t figure it out after I stated it, there’s nothing I can do for you.

              Let’s see… that’s 3 times now, I asked you a question and you haven’t been able to answer it.

            • Otto T. Goat

              I don’t know who Dan Patrick is.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So you didn’t even bother to read the OP?

              Someone said “Trans” and you thought you had a point to make (you don’t) and would just jump in an correct everyone who disagreed with you.

              Sorry mate. You lost, big time. But thanks for giving me some point to research and learn about. See ya

            • Otto T. Goat

              I made a big picture point.

              “You lost, big time”

              That’s funny.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Your “big picture point” was marred by the fact that the assumption it is based on is wrong. As I have explained to you already.

            • Otto T. Goat

              It’s not wrong at all, and you never directly addressed it.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              “If the logic of anti-trans discrimination is consistently applied then prohibiting males from going in any restroom or locker room they please should be illegal sex discrimination.”

              So you admit that you don’t read what I write.

              “So, your “sex discrimination” argument is also moot, because it’s not actually illegal.”

              In other words, males are not actually prohibited from going in any restroom they please.

              Otto… good bye.

            • Otto T. Goat

              Men are prohibited from using women’s bathrooms and locker rooms in most places.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Dang son, do you even read anything? Really, that’s a serious question (probably another that you won’t answer). I want to actually know if you read what others write or are you just trolling?

            • Otto T. Goat

              You should ask yourself that question.

          • Title IX isn’t the only law in play here. Check out 42 U.S.C. § 13925(b)(13) for an explicit reference to discrimination in terms of gender identity.

            • Otto T. Goat

              That only refers to “discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act”.

            • Too true. This is probably why the lawsuit specifies that “Defendant University of North Carolina . . . has been a recipient of federal funds from the United States Department of Justice, including the Office on Violence Against Women, with open grants dated after the reauthorization of VAWA on March 19, 2013.”

            • Otto T. Goat

              Does VAWA fund UNC’s bathrooms? If it is so important to liberals to have trannies in every bathroom, they should pass a law.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              And SCOTUS put an end to the judicial complaints just now.
              http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_in_huge_lgbt_win_scotus_refuses_case_that_could_have_sabotaged_obama_transgender_policy

              Question. Now that this is the law of the land and SCOTUS has decided (in refusing to hear the appeal)… will you accept it?

            • Otto T. Goat

              Agencies can’t make new law, and Title IX isn’t vague.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So you don’t accept it. SCOTUS, the agency responsible for administration of the law, the US Justice department… all of them are wrong and you are right.

              Yeah, like I said, we’re done here.

            • Otto T. Goat

              You don’t understand that case.

            • The law requires only that it funds some aspect of the University, not necessarily the plumbing or other infrastructure associated with bathrooms.

            • Otto T. Goat

              The law says “discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part”. UNC’s bathrooms are not a program or activity funded in whole or in part by VAWA money.

            • You seem to want to conceptually separate bathrooms from the programs which they serve, as if the bathrooms in the College of Arts and Science are somehow separate from the college itself. This is an idiosyncratic view, at best.

            • Otto T. Goat

              They are separate from a program or activity receiving VAWA money. It’s an absurd pretext.

            • I really don’t think they are separate at all. If they took the bathrooms out of the arts and sciences building, many people would seek to work and study elsewhere.

    • If genderfluidity is really a thing, wouldn’t it be unethical to demand a “gender identity that each student consistently and uniformly asserts” as a precondition of using the restroom?

      • Derek Carr

        Good point, Damion.

    • Shatterface

      So, no Mr. Patrick, this rule does not allow boys in the girls restroom. It allows people who identify as girls in the girls bathroom.

      Whether those groups are distinct is precisely what the argument is over.

      And while most people are still arguing about that point transpolitics has moved on to issues about non-binary genderfluid whatnots for whom there are no gender appropriate toilets.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        That’s a good point and I think it goes to what Damion mentioned as well.

        The point of the bathroom is to eliminate body waste. Just remove the urinals from men’s rooms and put in stalls and every restroom is the same. Then it really doesn’t matter.

        One thing I wonder about is how these guys justify mothers taking their young sons into the women’s restrooms?

        • Doc Bill

          Perhaps we should adopt the French approach and simply don’t care.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            That’s pretty much my response.

            I go to the restroom to take care of 2 kinds of business. #1 and #2. That’s it. If someone else has to do their business, then I’m not gonna bug them and I’d prefer that they not bug me. Everyone washes their hands and no one cares.

            • Doc Bill

              French motorway rest stops! Humanity at its very best. Or at a fine restaurant where the restroom attendant is most likely a woman who will greet you with a cheery, “Bonjour,” then hand you a nice, linen towel to dry your hands. No muss, no fuss.

    • Derek Carr

      Sorry, Smilodon, but biological boys who identify as girls are not the same as biological girls. Please cite the scientific evidence that should be available to demonstrate transgender girls (teenagers) are actually the same as biological girls. You are probably aware many transgender girls are sexually interested in biological females?

      You you can be angry at Patrick and call him names but that doesn’t change the fact that millions of parents of young girls will not tolerate being forced to share locker rooms which are not private and even overnight accommodations in the name so-called anti-discrimination.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Interesting. I never said that they were the same as biological girls. Please quote me.

        I couldn’t care less who is sexually interested in who. It’s no more my business than yours or Dan Patricks.

        I’m not angry at him. The truth remains, and you comments did nothing to affect, the FACT that he LIED to the people of Texas. Twice.

        “millions of parents of young girls will not tolerate being forced to share locker rooms which are not private”

        And yet, they do. And they have for certainly over 40 years. High school girls share their bathrooms with lesbians all the time. High school boys share bathrooms with gay boys all the time. Guess what… no one except the parents have a problem with it. Mainly because 99% of the time, no one knows.

        Having been in high school, I know what bullying looks like and can do to children. I’m willing to put money on the claim that there have been more suicides of transgender students from bullying than attacks BY transgender people in public restrooms. Want to bet?

        What we can do is send a message to our children the people are people. They may have different color skin, they may have different genitals, they may (OMG) not like football… but they are still people who deserve respect.

        OR

        We can teach them that discrimination is OK. That some people are undeserving of the respect and rights that other people enjoy simply because they are different. And, that it is OK to lie to people to get your way.

        I wonder which lesson will benefit them and our society more?

        • Derek Carr

          Ok. You may not argue transgender girls are the same as biological girls but most on your side of the argument do. That’s part of the supposed justification to have transgender girls undress, shower, and room with biological girls. It’s presumably ok because a transgender girl is exactly the same as a biological girl.

          Most people have no problem with not discriminating against those with gender identity disorders in most matters. However, when it comes to preteen and teenage biological girls losing their rights to privacy from the opposite sex and to be forced to be naked in front of a biological males then you lose the support of most parents.

          The reasonable and practical alternative is to have transgender boys and girls use unisex or alternative bathrooms and locker rooms at school. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough for Obama and most LGBT activists as they demand both parties to be treated exactly the same. To extend the absurdity even further, Obama’s directive forces transgender girls and biological girls to room together during overnight hotel stays or even in single sex dormitories.

          Even with teaching not to discriminate how can you justify forcing the parents of preteen and young teenage students to share showers, dressing areas, hotel rooms, and dormitory rooms with members of the opposite sex?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            I’m confused. Because your suggestion is exactly what the DoE (not “Obama”, his name isn’t anywhere on it) letter says. Have you read it?

            1) There is no “loss of privacy”? There never has been any privacy in shower, changing, and other such rooms. The letter says that the school cannot require that students use a facility that is inconsistent with a student’s gender identity. In other words, they cannot force someone who is female (except for the fact that their birth certificate says “male”) to use a male facility.

            Let me ask you this… if you had child who identified as female, would you prefer her to be using the men’s locker room? Because that’s the other side of the coin.

            2) Transgender girls and biological girls are both GIRLS. That’s what people don’t seem to get. It’s not a girl who was born a girl and a guy who sometimes dresses like a girl. It’s a person who perceives themselves to be a girl and another person who perceives themselves to be a girl. That’s it.

            They are not “members of the opposite sex”. They are the GENDER that they identify with. Full stop.

            What are you really worried about happening here? You (and all the anti-trans groups I’ve come across) present this horrible picture if trans girls use the girls restroom. What do you expect to happen?

            Rape? Sex? Oogling? Like none of that stuff ever happens in school.

            People who commit crimes, including rape, harassment, bullying, etc should be punished to the full extent of the law. Regardless of gender identity or any other issue.

            That does not mean that a person who considers themselves female is using this to get into the girls restroom or locker room… for what? To look at naked girls? There are so many much easier ways to do that.

            I’ll finally point out, that what you are saying is exactly discrimination. You’re saying that a certain group of people, because of who they are cannot be trusted. You are saying that trans people cannot be good people and that everyone of them is some kind of crazy monster trying to get into the locker room for nefarious reasons. That is plainly bullshit. It’s also bigotry.

            If an individual is a problem, then deal with it. Don’t deny the rights to people just because you don’t like them.

            • Derek Carr

              Wow. What a selective rendition of the facts, I’ve been discussing this issue for some time now with many different posters who have much more consistent arguments.

              I never mentioned anything about one group not being trusted or being a “crazy monster trying to get into the locker room for nefarious reasons.” Why do you feel it necessary to put ridiculous words in my mouth I’ve never said or even implied? I believe this illustrates the emotionally based reasoning and logic you have demonstrated in some of our previous discussions.

              You’ve done a 180 in your last two posts. You first replied to me that transgender girls and biological girls are not the same. You said:

              “Interesting. I never said they were the same as biological girls.”

              Then you reverse yourself in your next post and said, “transgender girls and biological girls are both girls.”

              Which is it, Smilodon?

              There’s so much to refute here but I’ll focus on my main point. There is a huge difference between showering, undressing, and staying in the same hotel rooms and dormitory rooms with members of the same sex vs. transgender boys and girls. For a parent to condone young girls being forced to share the facilities I mentioned with transgender girls is absurd.

              I predict parents will absolutely reject this major overreach of government power and will either refuse to comply with this order or pull their kids out of public school.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Then what is the problem?

              “”Interesting. I never said they were the same as biological girls.”

              Then you reverse yourself in your next post and said, “transgender girls and biological girls are both girls.””

              There is a difference between BIOLOGICAL and IDENTITY. I don’t understand why this is so hard. I meant what I said and I said it correctly.

              “There is a huge difference between showering, undressing, and staying in the same hotel rooms and dormitory rooms with members of the same sex vs. transgender boys and girls. ”

              Why? What is the difference? What is the problem? Not “it’s icky”. What is the actual problem? Why is there a difference between transgender students and homosexual students?

              Do you think that there will be a sudden onset of sex on campus? Or on road trips? Do you think that a transgender girl is willing to take the risk of bullying, beaten up, and actual death just to get in a room with some other girls? It’s not that hard for a boy to get in a girls room on school trips. Usually, he just has to ask.

              “Government overreach”. Discrimination is wrong is now government overreach. I’ll point out that the law being invoked in the letter (not Obama’s letter as you have claimed) is based on Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 and, as such, has already been US law since before I was born.

              In fact, if you had actually read the letter (I would suggest you do so)… you would learn that

              “This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.”

              As far as your prediction. I guess, if parents can afford to pay for private school or to move to school run by bigots (without any federal support), then that’s fine for them. The rest of us will just have to go to schools where we teach children that tolerance is good and to learn about individuals instead of broad claims against groups of people that they know nothing about.

              We’re done here.

            • Doc Bill

              I predict you don’t have a freaking idea what you’re talking about and just babbling like an idiot. Furthermore, I would be absolutely delighted for bigoted, small minded parents removing their spawn from public school and stuffing them in a Christian madrassa. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Oh, and irony of ironies, those parents will STILL pay property tax going to public schools. How sweet it is!

            • Derek Carr

              Ol’, hateful Doc Bill. I can see little has changed with your smearing and hateful ways. As much as I disagree with Smilodon at least he’s intellectually capable of having a civil conversation… Something, apparently, you are incapable of.

            • Doc Bill

              You are correct. No civil conversation with a bigot, sir. Oh, I called you “sir” by mistake. Nope, ignorant dicks need to be called out. It’s not hateful to call your arguments ignorant and stupid, because they are. If you have some actual facts to rebut my arguments I’m all ears. Of course, I know you don’t, so why bother.

            • Doc Bill

              As an aside, over the years I’ve observed that “hateful” is a tactic used by social Christians, that is, those who profess to be Christian to cloak their bigotry, to deflect an argument they don’t have. It’s the same sort of argument as claiming “common sense” which is no argument at all. So Carr fails on all fronts, but especially as an intellectual. Back under your bridge with the other trolls, Carr, you are of no interest at the adult table.

    • Doc Bill

      The lies continue. In a statement recently, Ken Paxton (potential felon) said that Texas is suing the Obama Administration to protect children from assault in public restrooms from men pretending to be women. Then, when pressed for evidence admitted that there was no evidence. Yet not a heartbeat later stated that he was suing the Government because of “overreach” and “states rights.” Basically, these guys don’t give a rat’s ass about public safety. It’s all about dog whistles, stirring up the base and pushing their personal ideology.

    • Toad

      I was wondering if you or any of the other great writers here have ever looked into numbers or read any academic papers involving intersex people. Especially those who choose to identify with a different gender during the age when we form our sexual identities, namely high school and college age.
      That, to me, is the most immoral aspect to ever invoking a law or rule specific to one’s listed gender on their birth certificate and not gender identity. There must be people out there who reach a certain age and say “wait a minute, I’m not a [boy/ girl], I’m a [girl/ boy]”! The main reason being an ambiguity to a child’s sex immediately after birth.
      This, of course, does not directly relate to the thesis of your article. Yes, Dan Patrick is a liar. Unfortunately, lying is so common amongst politicians it’s become a cliche. Thank you for writing about it though, it is the best way to combat the problem.

      • Doc Bill

        Our current crop of “Tea Party” (read that – pig ignorant) Rethuglicans are only interested in bashing people weaker than them: minorities, women, LGBT and, now, this. It has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with prejudice and bigotry. This excites their “base” of mean-spirited, twisted, buckle-hatted Calvinist “religious” bigots who continue to vote these creeps into office. Until the independents, centrists and educated get interested enough in politics to run these idiots out of office we’ll continue to have the same old, same old.