What would Rand Say about Feds Making School Accomodate TransGender or No Funds?

[alucard13mm]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-orders-girls...023502738.html
"CHICAGO (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Monday found that a Chicago suburban high school district discriminated against a transgender student and gave the school a month to provide full access to girls' locker rooms or lose federal funding."

What do you guys think Rand would go about with this situation??

Would he say that its none of the federal government's business to dictate what a school should or should not do? Would he say that the federal government uses grants to force state or even local institutions to do things they dont want to do? Should there be less involvement by the federal government/department of education in public schools? Perhaps he should say that kids should be home schooled.

I think this would be a very good issue for Rand to go about. All this transgender nonsense is making things way too complicated. Penis = Mens bathroom and locker. Vagina = Womens bathroom and locker.

It is absurd to accommodate and sacrifice the rights and needs of the few hundred girls at that school for a few transgendered kids that seem to have a power trip or want their fantasy of becoming the other sex to be real.

[jmdrake]

Hopefully he would say that's crazy as hell.

[mit26chell]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-orders-girls...023502738.html
Penis = Mens bathroom and locker. Vagina = Womens bathroom and locker.

I

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

[timosman]

It is absurd to accommodate and sacrifice the rights and needs of the few hundred girls at that school for a few transgendered kids that seem to have a power trip or want their fantasy of becoming the other sex to be real.

THIS ^^^ Let SJWs refute this.

[timosman]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

For 0.05% of the population. Now let's $#@! everybody over this minor inconvenience.

[jbauer]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

Hrrrmm Pretty sure they do. Now if you want to be part of the less then 1% that has a dick but wants to be a chick go for it but don't make me pay for an additional bathroom for you.

[jmdrake]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

Identifying as something that contradicts objective reality is a mental illness. We live in such a bizarre age, where psychologists pathologize normal human behavior, and normalize pathologies.

[dannno]

Federal funding of schools is the main issue..

But at the school level, I'm ok with this stuff if all the girls are cool with it - if any girls complain he should be relegated back to the boys locker room.

There was a South Park episode last season where Cartman pretended to have gender identity disorder to use the girl's bathroom.. None of the girls were cool with it, but Cartman threatened the school with lawsuits if they didn't let him have his way.

[Rothbardian Girl]

For 0.05% of the population. Now let's $#@! everybody over this minor inconvenience.

Only takes one counterexample to refute a conjecture.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cAUDKEI4QKI

[Dr.3D]

I'm pretty sure Rand would say something about abolishing the Department of Education.

[timosman]

Only takes one counterexample to refute a conjecture.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cAUDKEI4QKI

1 in 2000 is exactly 0.05% Thanks for the confirmation.

[T.hill]

Tran-sexuality is the product of biological distinctions, like anatomical differences in the brain, differences in brain chemistry, and sometimes genetics. So it would be a farce to say that transsexualism is a mental disease, because it has been consistently shown to be directly related to physical/biological features of the brain.

[erowe1]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

He didn't say they did. He said they determine which bathroom you use.

[erowe1]

Tran-sexuality is the product of biological distinctions, like anatomical differences in the brain, differences in brain chemistry, and sometimes genetics. So it would be a farce to say that transsexualism is a mental disease, because it has been consistently shown to be directly related to physical/biological features of the brain.

And no mental disease has ever been directly related to physical/biological features in the brain?

[Jan2017]

I'm pretty sure Rand would say something about abolishing the Department of Education.

the Federal money that goes to local sources for education and some weird research studies adds up and is not divided up equally or fairly - leave it to the states imo.

That west suburban Chicago school district (5 high schools) gets $6 million a year . . .

Last year, the district received $6 million in federal money contingent on compliance with non-discrimination rules.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-orders-girls...023502738.html

[erowe1]

Your sex organs do not determine your gender identity.

Hrrrmm Pretty sure they do. Now if you want to be part of the less then 1% that has a dick but wants to be a chick go for it but don't make me pay for an additional bathroom for you.

See fellas, the key phrase for mitchell was "gender identity," as opposed to "sex." A person's gender identity is just whatever they identify as, regardless of any objective facts. That's the beauty of this neologism. It's like how an Earthling can identify as a Martian. That doesn't mean he's a Martian. It just means that's his species identity.

[T.hill]

And no mental disease has ever been directly related to physical/biological features in the brain?

That's possible, but it seems some are under the impression that transgenderism or transsexuality is merely a mental disease caused from perceptual distortions of themselves. When, in fact, their identities as a man or women, despite their genitalia are the result of their biological makeup --which they were born with. At the very least you can see how it can be confusing for these people when different parts of their biological makeup are giving them mixed signals in relation to their gender. So, they just identify with what the feel most comfortable with as a result.

[erowe1]

That's possible

That's quite an understatement.

If it is the case that these perceptual distortions do result from biological causes, that is more of a reason to consider them a disease, rather than less of one.

Without biological causes these perceptual distortions would merely be a case of being wrong.

[ds21089]

That's possible, but it seems some are under the impression that transgenderism or transsexuality is merely a mental disease caused from perceptual distortions of themselves. When, in fact, their identities as a man or women, despite their genitalia are the result of their biological makeup --which they were born with. At the very least you can see how it can be confusing for these people when different parts of their biological makeup are giving them mixed signals in relation to their gender. So, they just identify with what the feel most comfortable with as a result.

So you're saying the fact that the media paints gays and transgenders as "brave people who are heroes" plays no roles in making kids want to also become a "brave hero" by identifying differently. This is a problem brought about by rights groups, just as how feminism has made tons of women into abusive girlfriends / wives. Just as how black people are demonizing white people because of "privilege". You say biological makeup. I say environmental. Most of these people were probably deprived of attention as a child and some just have fetishes (again, mental) but want to claim something more. Do you see anyone currently identifying as a panda? What if the media started saying that if you identify as a panda you are a true hero and if you disagree with people who identify as pandas, you are a bigot who should be demonized. Do you think then there will be an increase of people identifying as pandas? (I know panda is a weird example, just proving a point)

I have a friend who liked women all his life. He was in a serious relationship which ended tragically for him resulting in him getting shafted. It's after that he started seeking men. If homosexuality is purely biological, why the change? What about people who like both genders? This is a mental disorder brought about through their environment - an environment which shouldn't be the way it is. Fix the media and "rights groups", you fix most of this problem.

South Park has been on point this season not only talking about political correctness, but this very issue. In order for parents to feel special, "cool" being accepting of gay children is "in". So much so to the point of some parents (usually mothers) taking steps to actually push them into being gay by promoting feminine things and demonizing masculine (aspect of feminism as well). The creators of South Park are gay libertarians and in my opinion are dead accurate on everything they are showing about this in their show.

[NativeOne]

A so called "Gender Neutral" bathroom is the one with only "ONE STALL" in it ..

[PCKY]

I'm pretty sure Rand would say something about abolishing the Department of Education.

Agree...block grant back to the states...so call your Governor.

[cajuncocoa]

[VIDEODROME]

These kinds of issues are a trap. He should try his best to deflect it.

Previously in debates, foreign policy or abortion was discussed until the moderator turned to Ron Paul and asked him about gay marriage. It's a convenient question for media talking heads that can be used to completely waste a candidate's time. The country is in a shambles, our foreign policy is a mess, but we're going to waste your time talking about these relatively mundane social issues. Hey let's talk about Caitlyn Jenner instead of how we are drone bombing hospitals.

[erowe1]

These kinds of issues are a trap. He should try his best to deflect it.

Deflecting things rather than speaking up boldly has been one of his biggest weaknesses, and the reason he doesn't have a large enthusiastic following. This is especially important when the issue is as much of a no-brainer as this one. Deflecting things like this is what slimy professional politicians do.

Trump and Carson are dominating this race, largely because they at least come across as people who don't deflect everything the slightest bit controversial (which I don't think this even is).

[jmdrake]

And no mental disease has ever been directly related to physical/biological features in the brain?

/thread

[VIDEODROME]

Deflecting things rather than speaking up boldly has been one of his biggest weaknesses, and the reason he doesn't have a large enthusiastic following. This is especially important when the issue is as much of a no-brainer as this one. Deflecting things like this is what slimy professional politicians do.

Trump and Carson are dominating this race, largely because they at least come across as people who don't deflect everything the slightest bit controversial (which I don't think this even is).

I think he should certainly speak boldly with certainty about critical issues like the economy and foreign policy, but I think these social issues are distractions. I suppose if he addresses them at all, he should have a very succinct short answer so he can move on to more important issues.

Or perhaps he could seize on the question and hijack it to apply it to his more meaningful positions. One example would be the whole gay wedding cake thing and turning that into an infringement on the rights of private business. I think he has already done this to some extent and I think this is a good way to handle things like this.

Similarly, private businesses should not have to accommodate every unique interest group. Or he could even argue this is another reason involving government with education is bad because it puts school in a position of dealing with things like this instead of focusing only on education.

[erowe1]

I think he should certainly speak boldly with certainty about critical issues like the economy and foreign policy, but I think these social issues are distractions.

It sounds like you're saying his official position on whether or not he would require states to have transgender bathrooms in their schools should be, "First you have to elect me so that you can find out what I'll do."

[jmdrake]

I think he should certainly speak boldly with certainty about critical issues like the economy and foreign policy, but I think these social issues are distractions. I suppose if he addresses them at all, he should have a very succinct short answer so he can move on to more important issues.

Or perhaps he could seize on the question and hijack it to apply it to his more meaningful positions. One example would be the whole gay wedding cake thing and turning that into an infringement on the rights of private business. I think he has already done this to some extent and I think this is a good way to handle things like this.

Similarly, private businesses should not have to accommodate every unique interest group. Or he could even argue this is another reason involving government with education is bad because it puts school in a position of dealing with things like this instead of focusing only on education.

The simple answer to this one is "The federal government shouldn't be using the power of the purse to set local school policy."

[r3volution 3.0]

What Rand really thinks but can't say because it'd be political suicide = there shouldn't be public schools in the first place

What Rand should and probably will say instead = the federal government shouldn't be dictating these policies to local schools