Transgender Bathroom Bill Sent to South Dakota Governor
Source: Associated Press
South Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to approve a law requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex at birth if the governor signs a bill passed Tuesday by the state Senate.
The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he'd need to study it more before making a decision.
Advocates say the bill is meant to protect the privacy of students, but opponents say it discriminates against vulnerable adolescents.
Under the plan, schools would have to provide a "reasonable accommodation" for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the "controlled use" of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/south-dakota-lawmakers-approve-transgender-bathroom-bill-36987430
By JAMES NORD AND KEVIN BURBACH, ASSOCIATED PRESS
PIERRE, S.D. Feb 16, 2016, 8:47 PM ET
Skittles
(153,212 posts)just like they do with guns
AllyCat
(16,233 posts)We have no actual work, say, creating jobs that needs to be done. So we pass stupid bills to demonize people and gain votes from bigots.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I get arrested and sue the shit out of WI.
I'm trans, of course.
branford
(4,462 posts)Requirement for non-discriminatory public and quasi-public accommodations are generally a product of federal and state law, not the constitution at this time. Congress has not passed relevant legislation nor have most courts expanded current law to cover the restroom and related gender issues, and states are free to deny such protections. In fact, biological sex-based restriction, irrespective of gender identity, have generally been approved for decades in limiting access to restrooms, locker rooms and similar areas.
It's likely that restroom choice based on gender identity and not sex will be achieved through legislation, not the courts, for the foreseeable future. America's increasingly liberal attitudes concerning sexual preference have not really extended to gender identity in many parts of the country, including much of Blue America.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,077 posts)... type legislation being offered/tried in each state? Just curious because I had come across mention that one of the other discriminatory bills in the SD Legislature (right to refuse service to pregnant or transgenders) is the same as is being offered in other states.
prairierose
(2,145 posts)sponsor. They never have any trouble finding sponsors in SD because there are so many ALEC members here. ALEC sees SD as a proving ground for their legislation. They have plenty of idiot members and other members of the repugnant party here to pass their ugly hate bills. And once it is passed and signed they see how fast the ACLU or other groups file suit against the bill and what grounds they use. Then they get a better idea of how the judiciary is going to view that ugly hate bill or corporate gift.
And no one, not even the almost press here mentions what it costs the taxpayers of SD to pay to defend these ugly hate bills or corporate gifts.
But we still can't afford to give our teachers a raise to lift them out of last place in teacher pay in the US.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)It's so mean spirited. Work on bills that HELP people not HURT them. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Qutzupalotl
(14,334 posts)is the new voter ID is the new Iraq invasion is the new flag burning ban...
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)brett_jv
(1,245 posts)No, I really don't think it's 'they're all a bunch of bigots'.
It's a fear of lawsuits.
You make a cut-and-dry law that says 'students WILL USE the gender of the bathroom they were born as' (or barring that, use a special bathroom/locker room/shower designated as 'unisex'), there is no ambiguity in their 'policy'.
However, conversely ... if they make a policy that says 'students can decide for themselves what their gender is, and thus which bathroom to use' ... you open yourselves up to ALL KINDS of potential legal trouble and lawsuits.
As much as we'd all like to believe no horny high school boy would pretend to be a girl so he can shower in the girls locker room, lets be real. It WILL happen. And if the policy is 'you kids get to decide', then the school districts will be liable when the 14 year old freshman girl claims to be massive traumatized by the 18 year old genetic-male ogling her while showering or going potty.
Think about how many people in this world would NOT want their 14 year old girl showering AT SCHOOL ... with 18 year old boys, simply cause that boy decided ... he's really a girl. C'mon. You know that's probably a majority of parents, esp. in S. Dakota.
Without the law being as this one is, it basically becomes 'on the school' to determine 'who's truly trans, and who's not'. And they don't have to resources to make these determinations, lets be real, guys and gals ...
These laws are there to protect districts from being sued. You wanna get MAD? At least get mad at the proper people. We're talking about minors here. And the PARENTS ... of minors. They are a touchy, and litigious group.
Now, if it were college, or hell, the whole 'rest of the world other than high school and below' ... you'd get a TOTALLY different argument from me.
Behind the Aegis
(54,007 posts)The "cover" is "protect the privacy of students" and possibly, your rationale, "fear of lawsuits". The idea that some forms of bigotry are excusable because of non-existent events, but "could happen", is as old as the hills, but still bigotry, nonetheless. It is nothing more than an elaborate, "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!".
Oneironaut
(5,530 posts)for Transgender students to let them know "what their place is," and maybe keep other people in the closet. These laws are almost always created by the far right for religious reasons. They don't like Transgender people, and want to use the laws to bully them.
ck4829
(35,094 posts)The argument is always, ALWAYS, about boys and their elaborate plans to become girls just to share bathrooms and showers with girls. What is never asked is why girls who were born boy should be forced to share bathrooms and showers with boys?
I remember reading a similar argument during desegregation, that parents did not want their little white girls to share classrooms and a bus ride with scary black boys and that was why we needed to keep things the way they were.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)These politicians feel it is what will give them the most public support.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Response to Brickbat (Reply #13)
Algernon Moncrieff This message was self-deleted by its author.
liberalhistorian
(20,819 posts)stick it to our schools and schoolchildren, which they've been doing every fucking session for many years now. They won't address any of the funding and teacher pay issues, which are getting so desperate that even the state's business community has been screaming at them to do something because they can't recruit and retain good people to come here due to having the lowest paid teachers in the nation and crumbling school districts. They don't give a shit. They're more obsessed with finding more ways to not just stick it to the schools and teachers, but to demonstrate hate toward groups they don't like and strip them of their rights as human beings.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)"What-if's" along the lines of the ones you describe are being brought up with relation to sports here in Nebraska. What if boys "self-identify" as girls to stack a girls basketball or soccer team?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)These scenarios are so unlikely as to be laughable.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)A legislative committee of the Nebraska School Activities Association voted 7-7 to put the proposed bylaw change on the representative assembly agenda in April. It needed six votes to place it on the agenda, but the vote was largely symbolic since NSAA rules say it will automatically become part of the agenda.
But the close vote signals a bigger hurdle for supporters of the so-called birth-certificate proposal: getting the necessary super majority the proposal needs to pass once it gets to the representative assembly in April.
The NSAA has been debating how to handle transgender students participation in high school sports for months, and the birth-certificate proposal would effectively make it impossible for transgender students to participate according to the gender with which they identify.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/education/nsaa-birth-certificate-proposal-passes-small-hurdle-but-faces-bigger/article_33c79a5c-d1fb-5ad3-8ba6-101176db83e1.html
ck4829
(35,094 posts)"Alright boys, new plan... You're all gonna change your names, appearances, genders... and we will finally win the championship! Go team!"
Recursion
(56,582 posts)while a girls' swim team was changing there.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/
They don't hand out "trans" cards, and not all transwomen present as stereotypical women, so unfortunately his trolling reveals what seems like a pretty big problem.
Matthew28
(1,798 posts)So next time they bring those two words up stick this, gay marriage and legalized pot back in their nasty face.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)wolfie001
(2,276 posts)It's like Repuke heroin. They just can't stop themselves. Planned Parenthood's next, again I'm sure. Persecuted Christians, Darwin, blah blah blah.......
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,372 posts)... otherwise known as smoking lounges.
liberalhistorian
(20,819 posts)this nonsense as hard as we can. Unfortunately, my district's state senator is one of the primary sponsors and she makes Bachmann and Palin look like Sanders supporters. I haven't been able to get away from her even after moving several years ago, because she just switched from being a state rep to a senator after her state rep term limits were up and state senate districts are much larger. She's the one who made national news last year by making public jokes about Muslims and wanting them all out of the state.
The legislature has been obsessed with school bathrooms and children's genitals this session. They've also been obsessed with "protecting conservative views". This means that another crazy law that would allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, unmarried couples and unmarried pregnant women and single mothers for any goddamned "religious" reason they want is not only wending its way through the legislature but has picked up enough support that it will likely also pass this session. Never mind that it's completely unconstitutional, they don't give a shit. They'll take tons of federal money that we can't survive as a state without, but they'll scream about state's rights and being self-sufficient and not needing no stinking fedrul' gubmint anyway. Of course, tell the conservative ranchers and farmers who suck up tons of federal subsidies that, but oh, it's not the same thing to them, they "deserve" such subsidies while others don't.
And how the hell are they going to "enforce" this law? Order schools to appoint a genital police force to check each child and teen as they enter bathrooms, like that nutball in Virginia proposed in his law? That will NOT go over well in this state even among many conservatives. The schools are in bad shape financially and our teachers the lowest-paid in the nation thanks to the legislature and its refusal to address any funding or financial issues for years, yet this is the education "issue" they focus on?
The problem is that there's been a fight for the soul of the state's republican party for the past fifteen years or so, when church-sponsored candidates started winning legislative races and fighting with the more reasonable party wing who saw the danger of these people to the state and to their party. The wackos have been gaining the upper hand in the legislature, while the state as a whole has actually voted down many of the crazy shit that they've passed once they've been put to a referendum. The nuts hate the governor, who's seen as a 'liberal", when he's anything but. but he's actually not too bad as republicans go and he's from the more moderate, reasonable wing (fortunately, I don't think anyone from that nutball wing would actually win statewide as governor and when statewide office holders starting acting like teabilly nutballs, they're quickly shut down by the party or voted out of office, for the most part. And that is also why the statewide abortion ban that was passed twice was defeated twice in referendums. So it's really just some of the rural areas in certain parts of the state and Rapid City, the reddest part of this very red state, that are causing all the damned trouble, but the party can't seem to get rid of them and their influence during legislative sessions.
Meanwhile, we have many problems in this state that urgently need addressing, but we can't get the goddamned legislature to think about anything but these bigoted, cruel, hateful ways to screw around with people's lives. The governor has proposed a very workable, reasonable, solid, intelligent plan for increasing school funding and teacher pay that would actually greatly lower property taxes (which is what people are screaming about in this state, since we don't have a state income tax), but he can't get the goddamned legislature to consider it or support it. No, they're more interested in shoving theocratic bullshit down our throats.
Who needs to worry about Sharia Law coming here (as many ignorant idiots in this state yammer about) when we have these assholes pushing and enacting these laws? And how many LGBT kids are going to complete or attempt suicide over it?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Jesus, the republicans are the ones that accuse Libs of "Bring Gov't into the bedroom." (bullshit!) And they want to bring gov't into the shitter! Also considering their stance on Marriage Equality, they don't mind gov't in the bedrooms of LGBT(Q) peoples.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Do you want the people in this story to be able to live how they want, even if that happens to include this rule about bathrooms? If not, then you're not letting them live how they want if they vote for it.
Live and let live is yet another abstract concept from the human imagination. Nobody does that. Every rule or law we have in society goes against it, because everyone has something they can't do that they're pissed about. We'll all always be up in each other's business, to one degree or another.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)before they can pee? Ms Bigmack
demigoddess
(6,645 posts)in order to change her diaper or such, I think they should sue the pants off the politicians for not allowing him to do so. Hindering the proper care of a child. Or make them provide bathrooms where people can be non bigoted. You know, Male, Female, and Free Thinking bathrooms.
alp227
(32,064 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Just. Stupid.