Quantcast

Do you Agree with California's new Law that Forces Co-Ed locker rooms and showers in schools statewide?

☆ElenaDiamond☆ 2013/05/11 14:24:25
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Yep. You read that title right. The California State Assembly passed a bill on Friday that is mandating school let boys play on girls athletic teams and use the girls locker room and showers IF they identify as girls, or vice-versa for the girls wishing to utilize the boys locker room.

The Bill's author is an openly homosexual man named Tom Ammiano. Mr. Ammiano has been a strong advocate for homosexuals and transgendered people for many years, and is reported to be the first teacher to come out as openly homosexual way back in 1975, before it was cool, and earned you a phone call from the President. Ammiano also co-founded a LGBT organization with Harvey Milk.

urinal

The bill passed 46-25 without a single Republican vote. Mr. Ammiano, is aware that some parents will be "uncomfortable" with their children sharing a locker room and showers with the opposite sex, but feels that this is the only way, to avoid "trampling other people's rights"

The Bill, AB1266 states: “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

Well hold on there a second, Mr Ammiano in his concern about trampling the rights of the LGBT community seems to have forgotten that the OTHER students have rights as well. Don't the girls in a locker room have the right to NOT be exposed in front of members of the opposite sex? Don't they have a right to be "comfortable" in THEIR school environment? Oh and what about parents who have the right to raise their children as they wish. What if it violates a Muslim woman's right to NOT be naked in front of the opposite sex, or a Christian's right to not expose their body in front of boys. How DARE Mr. Ammiano infringe on the rights of other students to be comfortable in their own schools. How dare he supersede a parents right to make choices about how to raise their children?

[caption id="attachment_519" align="alignnone" width="300"]Angry Parents

Are you freakin' kidding me? If I was a parent of those poor hapless children in California, I would REFUSE to send my child to school until they built separate bathrooms and locker rooms for people who were born one gender but "identify" as another. I would start a lawsuit for the oppression of MY kids religious beliefs. I would raise hell and have my child refuse to participate in gym, I would organize other parents to do the same. What in the hell can California be thinking? California has just deteriorated to the point of where , I will soon refuse to even visit there.

How is this an OK solution? OK let's infringe on the rights of privacy of hundreds upon thousands of students for the rights of those that are a TINY percentage of the population. Why can't they have separate facilities? This is absolutely crazy. I knew California was becoming radical, but this is just taking things too far. If I lived in California, I would give up. I would simply move. I can see that California is no longer a place that is safe to raise children. California has become a cesspool and breeding ground for evil.

Read More: http://conservativewomenfortruth.com/2013/05/11/ca...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • 666_Maggots~I'm a female! 2013/05/11 14:32:41
    No I don't agree with it.
    666_Maggots~I'm a female!
    +19
    WTF?!? Are these people insane or just mentally handicapped? You know what, never mind. Putting them in the same category as the insane and mentally handicapped is a complete insult to the insane and mentally handicapped. >.> they are officially a new kind of stupid.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jack's ... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 14:12:21
    Jack's Pearl
    I don't think that is how it will happen. That's all.
  • ☆ElenaD... Jack's ... 2013/05/13 14:17:29
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    +1
    How else would it happen? The bill is very clear. They have the right to participate on the sports team and use the facilities. What do people do after a hard basketball game, etc? They shower. Period. They have the right to utilize the opposite sex shower.

    That violates others students rights. I promise you, no matter how much they may "identify" as the opposite sex, if they still have the genitalia it will violate the rights of other students to not be naked in front of the opposite sex. Do you think it is ok to make Muslim students violate their faith? Do you think its ok to to make victims of sex abuse afraid to take a shower?

    How is that fair?
  • Jack's ... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 14:21:22
    Jack's Pearl
    +2
    Because someone in the period of transgender change should be able to be where they are comfortable. They likely won't be flaunting their junk all over the place. This truly isn't a horn fest, and no school would support that. This is to support serious students actually going through the change of their body.

    An when you compare it to have it shower/dress with gay students, this hardly is an issue.
  • ☆ElenaD... Jack's ... 2013/05/13 14:27:38
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    Transgender and homosexuality are two different things.

    Whether we like it or not, homosexuals have the right to use the showers that is appropriate for THEIR SEX.

    It isn't about being "horny" only a pervert would think that is what I meant.

    You completely ignored my question about violating a persons religious faith, or victims of sexual abuse, or people who simply don't want a penis swinging about in the ladies shower. They have the SAME rights to not be violated as the transgender student.

    Incidentally it is nearly impossible to find a post-op transsexual who is under 18. So yes they would still have the genitalia of the opposite sex. Your argument makes no sense.
  • Jack's ... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 14:33:10
    Jack's Pearl
    +1
    I ignored nothing. I simply stated it is not going to be as you think in your mind. I'm sure any transgendered person will be respectful of others and not flaunt their penis. In fact, I do believe they want to get rid of it. So case closed.
  • ☆ElenaD... Jack's ... 2013/05/13 14:38:50
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    What do you mean case closed? Why? Because you assumed something inaccurate? How do you know? You said, "I'm sure". That is a supposition that is not fact based. The FACT is the student will be anatomically a member of the opposite sex. Period. If they choose to shower, they will be naked. It isn't about flaunting. No one suggested they would flaunt. Just as no one suggested they were "horny". You added the "horned up" comment.

    The FACTS are simple. SOME, Children will feel violated to be exposed in front of the opposite sex. You still haven't addressed why the rights of the transsexual are more important than the rights of people to not be exposed in front of the opposite sex.
  • Jack's ... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 14:44:03 (edited)
    Jack's Pearl
    +1
    The school will handle all concerns. They must because of responsibility. I've worked with enough schools to know. You have this whole orgy type thing in your mind, and it will not be that way. I guarantee it. I know how these things work Elena. Let's look into it in the future and see.

    Edit: I cannot address you anymore. Have a nice time on SH! :)
  • ☆ElenaD... Jack's ... 2013/05/13 14:56:02
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    Oh my God, are you nuts? No one even hinted at such a thing. I would never have suggested or even thought that. God almighty get your mind out of the gutter.

    " I know how these things work"?

    Really? Do any schools that you work with have co-ed showers?

    You post no fact, just your own personal assurances that it will be fine. LOL!! You don't even live in California, you have NO idea if it will "be fine".

    Somehow you have developed psychic abilities. I want some of what your on. LOL
  • scblues... Jack's ... 2013/05/13 18:08:41
    scbluesman13
    +2
    This is a bill about protection for transgendered students. ED is completely mutilating the meaning of this law and what it will do.

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • Thecharliejay 2013/05/13 10:47:45
    No I don't agree with it.
    Thecharliejay
    +2
    Oh dear god no, that is a recipe for disaster and how about women that would feel uncomfortable with a man in their locker room and vice versa. I can't believe that this Mr. Ammiano will happily infringe on the rights of other students to be comfortable in their own schools. I think this is disgusting that you would allow this or potentially allow this.
  • ☆ElenaD... Thechar... 2013/05/13 13:53:45
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    +1
    I agree.
  • Ace 2013/05/13 10:10:35
    No I don't agree with it.
    Ace
    +1
    It is not law; it is still in the legislative process. It might be pertinent to present the facts correctly.

    I agree with the contents of assembly bill 1266, which is about "Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities", except for the amendment affecting the use of facilities, which was changed to:

    (f) "A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records."

    I seriously doubt that the girls' bathrooms will become desegregated so as to be open to the use of pupils known to be males. And, that little attempt to desegregate a heretofore exclusively female area will likely result in the bill NOT passing, which is too bad.

    Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has said about his bill, "...Assembly Bill 1266 will force school districts to be in compliance with current laws that prohibit discrimination against transgender students." But, current bathroom usage differentiates based on male or female, but does not discriminate *against* either sex, as bathrooms available to one sex are currently available to the other. Bathrooms are available to each sex. And, gender identity in...

    It is not law; it is still in the legislative process. It might be pertinent to present the facts correctly.

    I agree with the contents of assembly bill 1266, which is about "Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities", except for the amendment affecting the use of facilities, which was changed to:

    (f) "A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records."

    I seriously doubt that the girls' bathrooms will become desegregated so as to be open to the use of pupils known to be males. And, that little attempt to desegregate a heretofore exclusively female area will likely result in the bill NOT passing, which is too bad.

    Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has said about his bill, "...Assembly Bill 1266 will force school districts to be in compliance with current laws that prohibit discrimination against transgender students." But, current bathroom usage differentiates based on male or female, but does not discriminate *against* either sex, as bathrooms available to one sex are currently available to the other. Bathrooms are available to each sex. And, gender identity in and of itself has not, and does not, customarily differentiate bathroom usage.

    I understand that people need to be protected, but women are people to, and they have a right to their own protected bathroom facility.
    (more)
  • Ace Ace 2013/05/13 10:12:41
    Ace
    +1
    Link by S*, who always has the best links:
    http://blogs.sacbee.com/capit...
  • ☆ElenaD... Ace 2013/05/13 13:56:21
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    That link supports what I said. The same bathrooms and sports teams, and facilities. Almost every high school team I ever knew hit the showers after a game. So yes, you would be putting people who were anatomically the opposite sex in showers.

    I think that students have the right to privacy as well, and this violates their rights to privacy.
  • Ace ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/14 08:14:43 (edited)
    Ace
    +1
    California does not have a new law.

    No matter, girls and boys will not be taking showers together in public school facilities. So, no. Opposite sexed kids will not be taking showers together at school, and to be saying so is over-formulating something that doesn't even exist, nor will it.

    Your mind ran away with itself before you even knew if the bill 1266 even WAS a law. Which, it is not. That's not quite a minor detail.

    But, I suppose it does make for interesting talk on SH for some...when you stretch it into girls being forced to take showers with boys. My mind doesn't titillate itself in quite that way.
  • ☆ElenaD... Ace 2013/05/14 12:56:52
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    That is sick. No one is "titilated" don't be a pervert.
  • Ace ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/16 15:06:08 (edited)
    Ace
    +1
    Pervert is as pervert thinks.

    The only place I have found forced Co-Ed showering is in your mind. And, you have put that up for discussion (talk) here on this poll as if it is a given; a law, which it's not even.

    Your thoughts about California Assembly Bill 1266 latched tenaciously on to the idea of a statewide forced Co-Ed showering for public school students before you even checked it out properly, and you INSIST on it. But, this poll insisting on forced Co-Ed showers is just inflamed thoughts based on nothing but what captured your mind: Forced Co-Ed showers.

    There are no forced Co-Ed showers.


    http://leginfo.legislature.ca...
    (AB - 1266 > Go)

    Assembly Committee On Education Hearing, April 17, 2013 (under "Bill Analysis"):
    Page 2
    "transgender students in sports" is addressed, but you have completely ignored the actual CONTENT of the rest of the bill amendment as your mind tenaciously wants to instead think about the Co-Ed showers that don't exist (the title of your poll even).

    Page 3:
    "Restroom and locker room accessibility" explains the portion of the bill which refers to 'facilities'. Where are the Co-Ed showers? Where are they even mentioned!?...?? ...well?

    Facilities are explained in the analysis to be restrooms and lockers. NOT stripping nude, and being forced to shower Co...

    Pervert is as pervert thinks.

    The only place I have found forced Co-Ed showering is in your mind. And, you have put that up for discussion (talk) here on this poll as if it is a given; a law, which it's not even.

    Your thoughts about California Assembly Bill 1266 latched tenaciously on to the idea of a statewide forced Co-Ed showering for public school students before you even checked it out properly, and you INSIST on it. But, this poll insisting on forced Co-Ed showers is just inflamed thoughts based on nothing but what captured your mind: Forced Co-Ed showers.

    There are no forced Co-Ed showers.


    http://leginfo.legislature.ca...
    (AB - 1266 > Go)

    Assembly Committee On Education Hearing, April 17, 2013 (under "Bill Analysis"):
    Page 2
    "transgender students in sports" is addressed, but you have completely ignored the actual CONTENT of the rest of the bill amendment as your mind tenaciously wants to instead think about the Co-Ed showers that don't exist (the title of your poll even).

    Page 3:
    "Restroom and locker room accessibility" explains the portion of the bill which refers to 'facilities'. Where are the Co-Ed showers? Where are they even mentioned!?...?? ...well?

    Facilities are explained in the analysis to be restrooms and lockers. NOT stripping nude, and being forced to shower Co-Edly. Get a grip. On sound thinking and reason, which should tell a sensible person that there will never be statewide forced Co-Ed showers in public schools.

    Now, who's the pervert, mind in the gutter?
    (more)
  • Ace ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/16 15:28:24
    Ace
    +1
    S* is correct. It is about the well-being of kids. I don't agree with parts of the amendment, and most definitely not with portions of arguments. But, I am certainly NOT going to make it something it's not either.

    Plus, there is a whole body of information, research, and statistics that supports the vulnerability, higher risks, and less successful outcomes for kids in school and later adult life that do not fit stereotypically into male/female gender orientations. And, that is not even arguable.

    School should be a safe place for all kids. I do not like the law amendment though. So, I wouldn't support it and might enjoy arguing against it.
  • Ysggirb Ace 2013/05/20 03:02:41
    Ysggirb
    +1
    I never grow tired of this one:

  • Ace Ysggirb 2013/05/20 09:26:52 (edited)
    Ace
    Nor do I =D

    And, people sure do keep it funny.

    Hey, you didn't happen to hear them mention anything about forced Co-Ed showers on there (^) did you? I've read that it's a certainty to happen and will affect the whole of humanity, but I can't find anything about it anywhere except in the minds of perverts.

    One would think that the Mayans would have had the foresight to at least mention it, inconsiderates.
  • Andrea 2013/05/13 09:58:42
    No I don't agree with it.
    Andrea
    +1
    Hahahaha....Now what you gonna say? You people are all gung ho about the transgender BS that is now come home to roost.
  • C-ZAR™, Emperor of the PHÆT 2013/05/13 09:29:01
    Yes, I agree with it.
    C-ZAR™, Emperor of the PHÆT
    +1
    It's gonna be like Starship Troopers soon; lol
    http://timeentertainment.file...
    starship troopers shower scene
  • ☆ElenaD... C-ZAR™,... 2013/05/13 13:57:30
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    +1
    Thats not a positive thing. Why is it ok to violate the rights of those who wish to be private?
  • C-ZAR™,... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 15:06:28
    C-ZAR™, Emperor of the PHÆT
    +2
    I am sure they can make accommodations for people that will want to shower by themselves. When I was in the military, all guys had to shower together, which was not my thing, so I often showered by myself afterwards
  • ☆ElenaD... C-ZAR™,... 2013/05/13 15:27:12
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    +1
    Then that will force students who were comfortable in their educational environment to be uncomfortable and to be outcasts. Why are their rights any less important?
  • C-ZAR™,... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 15:44:11
    C-ZAR™, Emperor of the PHÆT
    I think that they will hash out all the kinks, perhaps still making showers for those who don't wish to shower together or use the bathroom together, I hear that they even have unisex restrooms in NY in some trendy clubs, if not everyone wants to use them, they don't have to.
  • ☆ElenaD... C-ZAR™,... 2013/05/13 16:23:05
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    A trendy club is full of adults. I have been. Also you can choose whether or not to go to a club. School is mandatory. Bad example.
  • C-ZAR™,... ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/14 00:20:18
    C-ZAR™, Emperor of the PHÆT
    But you see where I'm going right?
    They won't scrap man and women's showers in favor of unisex ones, I think that there will be choice
  • Cal 2013/05/13 07:48:55
    No I don't agree with it.
    Cal
    +2
    So if I claim to be gay...I can peep on the girls all the time and not get in trouble. JACKPOT. This is going to cause so many problems and CA wont figure it out until someone gets raped. Sorry it's the naked truth.
  • Srztanjur Cal 2013/05/13 10:09:40
    Srztanjur
    Gay? No. You have to identify as a gender that does not align with your birth sex.

    Also, do you think that rapists need /permission/ to invade a victim's space and rape them? And you think they're going to do it in such a public place, but have reservations about doing it in /other/ public settings?
  • Cal Srztanjur 2013/05/13 14:33:22
    Cal
    So all I need to do is claim I'm something I'm not. It's still too easy. You obviously don't understand the concept of opportunity.
  • Srztanjur Cal 2013/05/14 00:27:46
    Srztanjur
    I do understand, and I also understand that it's easier to shag in a janitor's closet, or to sneak a peak of woman online or at an unsupervised party than it is to pretend to be a gender you don't identify with, with its risk of irrevocable stigmatization and the difficulty of keeping up the appearance of a gender you don't identify by.

    And why should the 'opportunity', granted we pretend it exists, be enough to deny gender expression to those who have no intention of being 'opportunistic.'
  • Mike 2013/05/13 07:26:31
    Yes, I agree with it.
    Mike
    Cal schools have led the nation about coeducation.
  • RTmarx 2013/05/13 07:12:55
    Yes, I agree with it.
    RTmarx
    I know a homosexual guy, and whenever he wants to shower in the school the other boys don't shower :'(
    (because he's homosexual)

    And it's not dangerous, I mean. Let him shower with us girls? come on?
  • ☆ElenaD... RTmarx 2013/05/13 13:58:40
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    This isn't about homosexuals. But no that is not acceptable either.
  • RTmarx ☆ElenaD... 2013/05/13 17:53:51
    RTmarx
    Yeah, I know:)
    I was just trying to make a point
  • Wolf 2013/05/13 07:06:09
    No I don't agree with it.
    Wolf
    +1
    It is the latest mental illness demonstration of the Nanny State --- but then this Public Sector has stated CO2 is a Pollutant the essence of all Life on the Planet --- the idiots abound in this society today
  • Srztanjur Wolf 2013/05/13 10:11:46
    Srztanjur
    CO2 /is/ a pollutant... In fact, anything which changes the nature of the atmosphere in a way which is harmful to humans or environments is a pollutant. Furthermore, this legislation /grants/ rights, not takes them away -- so, so much for "nanny state." But feel free to spout that smug mouth of yours about how many idiots there are in this society.
  • Silvershadows 2013/05/13 06:19:34
    No I don't agree with it.
    Silvershadows
    +2
    Nope, typical liberal/progressive agenda to destroy the manners, morals and customs of America. Are we concerned about illicit sex? Teenage sex? More pregnant and more abortions?? STD?? I suppose the jocks would love it. Government is an ASS.
  • Srztanjur Silvers... 2013/05/13 10:13:41
    Srztanjur
    Because people who will have sex in a locker room won't have sex in a closet, a stairwell, or any other space they can escape a watchful eye in public. Truly, the children are doomed. I'm sure there will be an upjump in the number of people who are willing to have sex in front of their classmates in a shared locker room. Or, you know, they'll just wait until the locker room is empty like they always have.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 04:29:53

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals