Transgender 6-Year-Olds in Potty Spurs California Repeal Drive

[Amelia Pond]

Transgender 6-Year-Olds in Potty Spurs California Repeal Drive
Newsmax, Monday, September 09, 2013 07:13 AM

Californians jolted by the mental image of children sharing lavatories and locker rooms with opposite-sex classmates are campaigning to repeal the nation's first law requiring schools to accommodate transgender pupils.

The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, requires all schools receiving state funds to let children choose between boys' or girls' bathrooms, for instance, and participate in sex- segregated sports teams based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex.

The drive to put a repeal on the ballot echoes a 2008 initiative, Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by voters that banned same-sex unions. California resumed gay weddings in June following a Supreme Court ruling.

"It is just fundamentally wrong," said Doug Boyd, a lawyer circulating petitions in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora. "It's against the laws of God and nature."

Boyd, 60, said he can't stomach the idea of his 6- and 7- year-old daughters sharing school bathrooms, showers or locker rooms with a boy who sees himself as a girl...

-------

It's really sad seeing how hard all of these people are working just to oppress us. 

[Kia]

I know . If they took all that effort and work and put into something that is good for society we'd be in a much better way.

[VeronicaLynn]

In my elementary school, all of the classrooms except the kindergarten had a single unisex bathroom. Is this rare? I think all schools should be built like this. There were also a boys and girls rooms near the middle of the school, but these were mainly used by teachers and visitors, or if someone really needed to go and the unisex bathroom was occupied. The kindergarten had a multiple stall unisex bathroom, there was bathroom time for both groups, and were supposed to ask permission if you needed to go at some other time. No one really did though, and I vaguely remember being in there a few times at the same time as girls were. The world didn't end, people make such a big deal out of these things and they aren't even traumatizing to kids at that age. If they had multiple stall unisex bathrooms in the upper grades as well, they wouldn't be traumatizing in middle school, high school and beyond either.

[Harlow]

In 6th grade there was a girl who identified as a boy. She looked acted and sounded EXACTLY like a boy, you would never know! We really didn't though, besides the fact that she had girls PE and had to use the girls locker room. She was so much of a boy that I don't remember anyone whispering or pointing or gossiping like most kids around that age would. We all accepted her has a boy and didn't think anything of it, I just remember wondering why they made him do girls PE. That was more confusing to me then any of it. Just goes to show you kids are a lot more open minded than adults. Maybe they should ask the kids how they feel about it, I'm sure they'd just shrug and not think a thing of it

[Carrie Liz]

God, I hate this country some times. We're so caught up in this stupid notion of "protecting childhood innocence."

KIDS DON'T CARE.

If anything, the lack of information that they have is what is causing a lot of our country's problems with body image in the first place. Because suddenly rather than just knowing what everyone has, being used to it, and knowing that it's natural and beautiful, they view everything as this taboo thing that they can't be open about and should be ashamed of, and they have no healthy notion of body image. Porn becomes the only place that they can see it.

I'm probably biased because I grew up going to nudist camps, so in my mind nudity and sexuality are separate, where for most people they can't separate the two, so as soon as they think of naked boys and girls occupying the same space they completely flip out and go into "OMG, sexual deviancy!!! Shun!!! Not my precious daughter!" And honestly it makes me sick when people make such a big deal about it. It's not the end of the world. Kids don't care. I grew up around naked boys and girls alike, and I still didn't "get it" until I was like 14 years old. As a kid, I didn't even really notice. When I finally learned what sex was, I was still just as surprised as everyone else. "You do WHAT? With WHAT?"

So honestly, not only is this a matter of someone's human rights being taken away, I'd argue that kids don't even need separate bathrooms in the first place. I can kind of understand why it's necessary once puberty starts, but these are freaking 6-year-olds they're talking about. They don't care.

[mac1]

God, I hate this country some times. We're so caught up in this stupid notion of "protecting childhood innocence."

KIDS DON'T CARE.

If anything, the lack of information that they have is what is causing a lot of our country's problems with body image in the first place. Because suddenly rather than just knowing what everyone has, being used to it, and knowing that it's natural and beautiful, they view everything as this taboo thing that they can't be open about and should be ashamed of, and they have no healthy notion of body image. Porn becomes the only place that they can see it.

I'm probably biased because I grew up going to nudist camps, so in my mind nudity and sexuality are separate, where for most people they can't separate the two, so as soon as they think of naked boys and girls occupying the same space they completely flip out and go into "OMG, sexual deviancy!!! Shun!!! Not my precious daughter!" And honestly it makes me sick when people make such a big deal about it. It's not the end of the world. Kids don't care. I grew up around naked boys and girls alike, and I still didn't "get it" until I was like 14 years old. As a kid, I didn't even really notice. When I finally learned what sex was, I was still just as surprised as everyone else. "You do WHAT? With WHAT?"

So honestly, not only is this a matter of someone's human rights being taken away, I'd argue that kids don't even need separate bathrooms in the first place. I can kind of understand why it's necessary once puberty starts, but these are freaking 6-year-olds they're talking about. They don't care.

Hi Carrie,
from: friend Mac on EA

You are looking great.

Please tag me as a buddy. I can't yet access that feature.

thanks

mac1

[mac1]

In my elementary school, all of the classrooms except the kindergarten had a single unisex bathroom. Is this rare? I think all schools should be built like this. There were also a boys and girls rooms near the middle of the school, but these were mainly used by teachers and visitors, or if someone really needed to go and the unisex bathroom was occupied. The kindergarten had a multiple stall unisex bathroom, there was bathroom time for both groups, and were supposed to ask permission if you needed to go at some other time. No one really did though, and I vaguely remember being in there a few times at the same time as girls were. The world didn't end, people make such a big deal out of these things and they aren't even traumatizing to kids at that age. If they had multiple stall unisex bathrooms in the upper grades as well, they wouldn't be traumatizing in middle school, high school and beyond either.

Multi stall unisex public restrooms, with private stalls, should be the standard everywhere. Once the stall door is closed it is not really any different than a single user facility. It would greatly reduce the space requirement and cost of public facilities. There is really no need for any further separation.

[mac1]

If multi user restrooms, locker rooms, and showers (with privacy partitions where nude) were the standard people would adjust and think nothing of it. I could even be in a public shower with a nude women and show them proper respect.

[Silvermist]

"It is just fundamentally wrong," said Doug Boyd, a lawyer circulating petitions in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora. "It's against the laws of God and nature."

Against the laws of God? Where in the Bible does God forbid sex changes? Maybe he was referring to males and females sharing bathrooms, but again, where in the Bible does God prohibit this? Maybe he was referring to the notion of males and females exposing their genitals to each other in public places. But Adam and Eve were perfectly fine being naked around each other until they ate the forbidden fruit and learned about shame. Thus shame is the reason to be "modest," not some God-given commandment. And it's not like people go to restrooms with the intention of being immodest.

Against the laws of nature? Common reed frogs can naturally change gender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_reed_frog
In nature, male and female animals urinate and defecate in common areas all the time. That's the norm, not these silly human ideas of segregation and modesty.

[MadeleineG]

Transgender 6-Year-Olds in Potty Spurs California Repeal Drive
"It is just fundamentally wrong," said Doug Boyd, a lawyer circulating petitions in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora. "It's against the laws of God and nature."

Putting the fun back in fundamentalism. 

[Silvermist]

If anything, the lack of information that they have is what is causing a lot of our country's problems with body image in the first place. Because suddenly rather than just knowing what everyone has, being used to it, and knowing that it's natural and beautiful, they view everything as this taboo thing that they can't be open about and should be ashamed of, and they have no healthy notion of body image. Porn becomes the only place that they can see it.

The statistics prove that as gender segregation and modesty strictures increase in a society, so too does the violence against women. It's really a self-fulfilling prophecy: The members of such a society become so obsessed with the "evils" of sexuality that they become obsessed with sex itself. This creates a mindset of sex among all citizens, notably the more volatile ones who have no clue about how to self-regulate their urges effectively other than to go through endless cycles of desire, guilt, and denial without adequate release.

The definition of sexual repression is the denial of sexual thoughts, feelings, and behavior. People who don't want or need a lot of sex cannot be sexually repressed because there's nothing (or very little) to repress. It's like how non-drinkers and non-smokers would be far less upset than drinkers and smokers about laws prohibiting alcohol and tobacco. Pervasive society-wide sexual repression is not an example of the citizenry regulating things that they don't want. It's a symptom that the people are unhappy because their needs aren't being met. The denial only creates more wanting, not less. This is the true unnatural thing, not what the raving religious zealots say.

[mac1]

Against the laws of God? Where in the Bible does God forbid sex changes? Maybe he was referring to males and females sharing bathrooms, but again, where in the Bible does God prohibit this? Maybe he was referring to the notion of males and females exposing their genitals to each other in public places. But Adam and Eve were perfectly fine being naked around each other until they ate the forbidden fruit and learned about shame. Thus shame is the reason to be "modest," not some God-given commandment. And it's not like people go to restrooms with the intention of being immodest.

Against the laws of nature? Common reed frogs can naturally change gender: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_reed_frog
In nature, male and female animals urinate and defecate in common areas all the time. That's the norm, not these silly human ideas of segregation and modesty.

Nudity in front of the other sex was the common behavior in the beginning. Why should we feel that it is wrong now.

[suzifrommd]

Nudity in front of the other sex was the common behavior in the beginning. Why should we feel that it is wrong now.

If multi user restrooms, locker rooms, and showers (with privacy partitions where nude) were the standard people would adjust and think nothing of it. I could even be in a public shower with a nude women and show them proper respect.

Multi stall unisex public restrooms, with private stalls, should be the standard everywhere. Once the stall door is closed it is not really any different than a single user facility. It would greatly reduce the space requirement and cost of public facilities. There is really no need for any further separation.

I'm sorry, but I can't sign onto this. The fact is people ARE more comfortable with gender segregated restrooms and changing spaces.

I try to stay out of situations where I'm telling people what they should or shouldn't feel comfortable with (just as I wouldn't want them to tell me what I should or shouldn't be comfortable with).

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

"It is just fundamentally wrong," said Doug Boyd, a lawyer circulating petitions in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora. "It's against the laws of God and nature."

Mr. Boyd, I could give a **** less about you and your ******* god.

[Jill F]

But when the Bible was written there was no such thing as sex-segregated public restrooms, which ironically do not occur in nature.

On which day did the almighty create said restrooms, and which one were the eunuchs to use?

Boyd is an idiot.

[DriftingCrow]

"It is just fundamentally wrong," said Doug Boyd, a lawyer circulating petitions in the Los Angeles suburb of Glendora. "It's against the laws of God and nature."

I see this attorney failed his Constitutional Law class.    His version of God should have nothing to do with influencing our laws.

First Amendment here (widely interpreted as "separation of church and state"): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [. . . ]

[VeronicaLynn]

It really all comes down to the money issue. My elementary school, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, and built decades ago, did not really have this issue, as all classrooms had a single use unisex bathroom, and there were boys and girls rooms near the office that were generally only used by visitors. Retrofitting schools to be like this does have significant expense. It would be cheaper to retrofit all stalls to be all the way down doors and enclosed, but leave the sink area unisex. This isn't entirely without precedent. At large festivals, the port-o-potty's are all unisex, and some have port-o-sinks that can be used by anyone.

[TerriT]

I see this attorney failed his Constitutional Law class.    His version of God should have nothing to do with influencing our laws.

First Amendment here (widely interpreted as "separation of church and state"): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [. . . ]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

And the 1st amendment is widely interpreted as freedom of speech, press, etc.

[DriftingCrow]

Retrofitting schools to be like this does have significant expense. It would be cheaper to retrofit all stalls to be all the way down doors and enclosed, but leave the sink area unisex. 

I've been seeing more and more bathrooms with the closer fitting and all the way down doors. Somehow, I'd still imagine that those strongly against trans rights would still argue there's some sort of privacy violation going on. Lol, once I was using a public stall when I suddenly heard a voice over me, I looked up and some little girl was climbing over from the next stall. Oh my, a five-year old is invading my privacy. That said, that would obviously be an issue if it was someone older, but very young kids aren't typically considered sexual predators.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

And the 1st amendment is widely interpreted as freedom of speech, press, etc.

Yes, I was just mentioning the part that seemed relevant. As indicated by the [. . . .] there is more text. 

[TerriT]

Yes, I was just mentioning the part that seemed relevant. As indicated by the [. . . .] there is more text. 

Yeah, so did I.