October 28, 2016



46 Responses to “SUPREME COURT !!!!!!”

  1. Mary Sunshine Says:

    What does this mean for females?

    • michelle Says:

      With a modicum of luck, a still somewhat-conservative court will recognize the lunacy that transINC continues to foist upon America and say NO MORE!

  2. Emily Says:

    A lawyer I know that is very familiar with all of these transgender cases says that it’s quite likely that we’ll win this case, BUT that the issue will (obviously) go back to the states in such a situation. That means that we all need to be on top of our game in our state. Start organizing people who are opposed to this insanity now, write op-eds, host public debates, gather a protest at your Capitol, inform yourself. Do not get all cozy on the couch thinking that our black-robed leaders will work it all out for us. Speak up, ladies!!

  3. donesoverydone Says:

    Reblogged this on stop trans chauvinism.

  4. annala el Says:

    I am not optimistic about this, but I wouldn’t mind being pleasantly surprised by common sense actually winning the day, for once, lately.

    As an attorney and liberal bleeding heart legal type law person at large, I used to hate-love Antonin Scalia, for being a conservative originalist bastard but such a brilliant persuasive writer that he could make me rethink nearly any of my most closely held personal beliefs (the dude even convinced me I was against affirmative action, for a time)(he was a tricksy hobbit and I was young, lol).

    Did he stand for everything I hated? Yes. But talk to almost anybody who went to law school and you’ll discover so much respect for the intellect behind the writing. So when I heard this news today, all I could think is that I would kill to read a Scalia opinion on this (or, god forbid, a dissent), were he alive to hear the case. It would have been spectacular. I would feel a lot safer about this news if that cantankerous old asshole were still on the court. As it is, I am not confident.

    • thisismeandonlyme Says:

      Scalia was not some principled deliberative judge. He was a right-wing activist, and who is to say he would not work to gut Title IX? That would fit right into his ideological wheel-house.

  5. Smits Says:

    Interesting that the case is one involving an FTM teenager. I would imagine that the advocacy groups backing the suit are well aware of how much better ‘weird, probably lesbian girl wants to put herself at risk’ plays than ‘teenage boy wants to shower with the girls because feelz’.

  6. Lierre Says:

    Radical feminists have been granted cert by the Supremes, and will be arguing this case from a radical feminist position. FMI:

    • GallusMag Says:

      Thank you Lierre.

    • Emily Says:

      Lierre, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought WoLF had filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the Virginia school district in the Grimm case. Which is still fantastic, but the case WoLF filed on behalf of a girl in Arizona is separate. Please double check for me and I will accept any corrections. I celebrate any and all lawsuits fighting this trans-insanity!

    • Cassandra Says:

      This is very good news.

    • Margie Says:

      SCOTUS did not grant cert to WoLF or radical feminists. That link refers to a lawsuit which was only filed by WoLF on August 11, 2016. It is not even close to being considered by SCOTUS. SCOTUS granted cert to the Gloucester County School Board in the Grimm case. Apparently, WoLF submitted a a friend-of-the-court (“amicus curiae”) brief supporting the petition for cert. We should expect that WoLF will file another amicus brief, this time on the merits, supporting the school district’s position and emphasizing the concerns to women which may not be set forth adequately in the school district’s own papers.

      Here is the link to WoLF’s amicus brief supporting the school board’s petition for certiorari:

    • GallusMag Says:

      Well folks, I was forwarded a statement from WOLF’s attorneys and it referenced no new involvement in the case beyond the Amicus Brief filed months ago in the GG case. So nothing has changed re: WOLF’s level of involvement in this case. I requested further clarification but it appears there are no new developments or involvement by WOLF in this case. False alarm.

  7. Margie Says:

    This case should be a slam dunk since there is nothing in the text or legislative history of Title IX which remotely suggests that Congress (in 1972!) intended to extend federal legal protection to “transgender” bathroom selection. It really is a crazy argument, which is probably why no one ever dared make it from 1972 all the way up to a a few years ago.

    That having been said, when SCOTUS was considering whether to stay the lower court ruling (in favor of “Gavin”), it split 5-3 in favor of a stay. Now, the decision to stay or not to stay turns on 1) whether irreparable harm will result if the stay isn’t granted and 2) whether the party seeking the stay is likely to prevail when the merits of the appeal is decided. So that means that the 3 Justices (all women!) who rejected the stay likely decided that it wouldn’t cause irreparable harm for boys to use the girl’s facilities while the appeal was pending and that the school board was not likely to prevail in its appeal. And 1 of the Justices who voted for the stay, Justice Breyer, told us that his vote was based on a court tradition regarding stays. So his view on who is likely to prevail on the merits is sort of up in the air. So there may well be 4 votes there in favor of “Gavin.” That would mean a 4-4 tie, in which case “Gavin” (the victor in the lower court) would win the case. However, because it would be a tie vote, it would not be a national precedent. It is possible that some or all of the Justices who voted for the stay could still vote against “Gavin,” but it is probably prudent to put Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan in the pro-trans column.

  8. michelle Says:

    If I understand the sequence correctly, Grimm is now a senior in high school. If so, she likely graduates before the SCotUS rules in the case. Depending on just how the arguments run, I could also potentially see the Supremes punting the case on a mootness basis.

    They don’t do it often, but they have done it before (along with the other end of the spectrum when they agree an issue merits discussion but is not judicially ripe at the time of a case coming before them).

    The mootness issues could move to the wayside if the tranny brigade has another student ready to put in place of Grimm…

    • Margie Says:

      I doubt that it will be dismissed for mootness. Her complaint demands damages for past denial of access to the boys facilities, so even if she graduates, the damages request still keeps the dispute alive. One possible outcome I have heard people talking about is that SCOTUS could hold that courts do not have to defer to the Justice Dept’s guidance and then it could send the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

      • GallusMag Says:

        Do you mean the Department of Education’s guidance?

        Also just an update- I will be speaking with one of the attorneys today or tomorrow about what WOLF is doing and any further involvement in the SCOTUS case.

      • michelle Says:

        Footnote early in the 4th Circuit Opinion claims that ONLY bathroom use is at issue in this case. As such, any claims for hurt fee-fees are not at issue before the SCotUS…and potentially makes it easier to boot on a mootness claim.

        Although it would certainly be helpful for the Supremes to issue a dose of ‘are you fucking kidding me’ to the tranny brigade and put the issue to its figurative rest.

      • Margie Says:

        Gallus – Sorry, yes, I meant DoE not DoJ. Look forward to hearing about WoLF. It would be strange for them to do an amicus brief on cert but then not do a brief on the merits.

        Michelle – I took a look at the 4th Circuit decision and the only footnote I could find that is close to what you describe is footnote 2, which reads as follows:

        “G.G. does not participate in the school’s physical education programs. He does not seek here, and never has sought, use of the boys’ locker room. Only restroom use is at issue in
        this case.”

        If that’s the footnote you were referring to, I’d have to say that it has nothing to do with your mootness point. Gavin has demanded damages for the alleged Title IX violation, and that includes past denial of access to the girl’s bathroom. (In other words, the claim for damages for emotional distress and the like arise out of the denial of access to the girl’s bathroom.) So even if Gavin graduates, that damages claim for past denial of access is still before the courts, a live controversy that needs to be resolved. It isn’t moot and the case can’t be dismissed until that claim is ruled upon, either for or against Gavin. In fact, that’s probably why the damages claim was included at all; I doubt if Gavin or her attorneys actually expect to get any serious money even if they win.

      • GallusMag Says:

        @Margie- Here is the update from WOLF, a statement sent to me from Kara:

        “The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) filed an amicus brief in Gloucester v. GG, arguing that the Court should take up this important case in order to protect women and girls from the overreaching, absurd, misogynistic policy of the Obama Administration that requires educational institutions to interpret sex to mean “gender identity” for Title IX purposes. Last week, the Supreme Court accepted the case.

        WoLF plans to submit an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the Administration’s policy should NOT be given effect because:

        Title IX was enacted to protect women and girls, and this new interpretation of what sex means turns that on its head. The new interpretation causes material harms to women and puts us at increased risk of assault and loss of privacy in intimate spaces.The administration’s interpretation of sex to mean gender identity results in the legal erasure of women and girls as a coherent protected class of people.

        Although the administration argues that this case only affects restrooms, it has already taken the decision in the 4th Circuit and run with it, extending the reach of its new interpretation far outside of the bathroom context to places like women’s homeless and domestic violence shelters.
        In the mean time, we are asking the court to put our New Mexico litigation on hold. There is no point to having a lower court consider questions that are currently pending before the Supreme Court. But that case is still live, and we plan to keep fighting it if we have to.”

      • GallusMag Says:

        They also mentioned a fundraising drive. I asked for clarification on that- what the funds were needed for in light of their New Mexico lawsuit being put on hold- and they never got back to me.

  9. It’s the first of the month, and it’s time for me to give whatever I can to WOLF. I try to give them whatever I can each month. There are 300 million people in the US, and half the population is female. If one million women gave just one dollar, WOLF could kick some ass.

    Their lawsuit was brilliant, but like everything illogical, stupid, and just plain dumb that the government does, it was dismissed. I don’t know what will happen next. I don’t know if they want to fight this further. Every time the government does some dumb shit thing (the list is very long), government attorneys will deny it. In the dismissal, they had the audacity to say that women aren’t harmed by being forced to share intimate spaces with male bodied persons. Seeing Colleen Francis and “her male genitalia” in the women’s locker room causes women no harm.

    ” It is possible that some or all of the Justices who voted for the stay could still vote against “Gavin,” but it is probably prudent to put Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan in the pro-trans column.a’

    Sotomayor and Kagan are Obama appointees. I voted for Obama twice, but he is a disgrace.

  10. The decision to use a biological female was a strategic move by the ACLU/trans organizations because it detracts from the real issue which is male violence and male access to women’s intimate spaces. Biological males in women’s locker rooms does not sit well with most people. This was discussed before on gendertrender. If a female student wants to use the boy’s restroom, I say let her. Or, she could use a single stall gender neutral restroom. Locker rooms, showers, overnight accommodations, etc. are different issues because most FTMs (biological females) never undergo “bottom surgery”. That is, they are fully female below the waistline. This goes far beyond bathrooms. It involves locker rooms, showers, dorms, and overnight accommodations. Despite the way the mainstream media portrays this as liberal versus conservative, people across the political spectrum are outraged. We must never let them forget what is at stake. The real issue is biological males in women’s restrooms, women’s locker rooms, and showers.

    As of November 4, 2016, this is a list Amicus Briefs in Support of School Board Petition. All this is posted on the ACLU’s website. The ACLU is representing Grimm.

    (click on the links and read each one because they are spot on!)

    *State of Missouri
    *National Organization for Marriage and Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
    *Students, et al.
    *West Virginia, et al.
    *Women’s Liberation Front (liberal feminist group)
    *Cardinal Newman Society, et al.
    *Cato Institute, et al.
    *Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
    *Members of Congress (Representatives in conservative leaning states are furious and fit to be tied, and they will fight this tooth and nail)


    James Lankford (OK), Ted Cruz (TX), David Perdue (GA), Steve Daines (MT) David Vitter (LA), Joni K. Ernst (IA)

    U.S. House of Representatives:

    Vicky Hartzler (MO) Robert B. Aderholt (AL) John Kline (MN) Rick W. Allen (GA) Doug LaMalfa (CA) Brian Babin (TX) Doug Lamborn (CO) Joe Barton (TX) Billy Long (MO) Michael D. Bishop (MI) Barry Loudermilk (GA) Rob Bishop (UT) Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO) Diane Black (TN) Kenny Marchant (TX) Marsha Blackburn (TN) Thomas Massie (KY) Charles Boustany, Jr.M.D. (LA) Mark Meadows (NC) Kevin Brady (TX) Luke Messer (IN) Dave Brat (VA) John Mica (FL) Jim Bridenstine (OK) Jeff Miller (FL) Mo Brooks (AL) Alex Mooney (WV) Michael C. Burgess (TX) Markwayne Mullin (OK) Bradley Byrne (AL) Mick Mulvaney (SC) Steve Chabot (OH) Randy Neugebauer (TX) Doug Collins (GA) Kristi Noem (SD) Mike Conaway (TX) Richard Nugent (FL) Kevin Cramer (ND) Pete Olson (TX) John Culberson (TX) Steven Palazzo (MS) Warren Davidson (OH) Gary Palmer (AL) Scott DesJarlais (TN) Steve Pearce (NM) Jeff Duncan (SC) Robert Pittenger (NC) John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN) Joseph R. Pitts (PA) Stephen Fincher (TN) Bill Posey (FL) Chuck Fleischmann (TN) Tom Price (FL) John Fleming, M.D. (LA) John Ratcliffe (TX) Bill Flores (TX) Scott Rigell (VA) J. Randy Forbes (VA) Todd Rokita (IN) Virginia Foxx (NC) Peter Roskam (IL) Trent Franks (AZ) Keith Rothfus (PA) Bob Gibbs (OH) David Rouzer (NC) Louie Gohmert (TX) Steve Russell (OK) Bob Goodlatte (VA) Steve Scalise (LA) Paul Gosar (AZ) Austin Scott (GA) Trey Gowdy (SC) Pete Sessions (TX) Garret Graves (LA) John Shimkus (IL) Sam Graves (MO) Adrian Smith (NE) H. Morgan Griffith (VA) Jason Smith (MO) Glenn Grothman (WI) Glenn Thompson (PA) Gregg Harper (MS) Ann Wagner (MO) Andy Harris, M.D. (MD) Tim Walberg (MI) Jeb Hensarling (TX) Mark Walker (NC) Jody B. Hice (GA) Randy Weber (TX) George Holding (NC) Daniel Webster (FL) Richard Hudson (NC) Brad Wenstrup (OH) Tim Huelskamp (KS) Bruce Westerman (AR) Randy Hultgren (IL) Lynn Westmoreland (GA) Bill Johnson (OH) Joe Wilson (SC) Walter B. Jones (NC) Rob Wittman (VA) Jim Jordan (OH) Robert Woodall (GA) Mike Kelly (PA) Ted Yoho (FL) Trent Kelly (MS) Ryan Zinke (MT) Steve King (IA)

    (*According to information I’ve been able to glean from the ACLU website, as of November 4, 2016, no politician in more liberal states has put his or her name on an Amicus Brief. Considering the animosity in Washington DC now, I don’t know if senators and Congress persons in blue states want to be on record as supporting the right of male students to access women’s restrooms and locker rooms. They have enough on their plates right now, but time will tell. People need to let their Congress person know how they feel. I know I’ll be riding my Congressman.)

    *William J. Bennett
    *Professional Educators From 46 States (*300 educators from across the nation – red states and liberal leaning blue states)
    *Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
    *Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation, et al.
    *Members of Commission on Civil Rights as Private Citizens (*two members of the eight-member U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)

    • thisismeandonlyme Says:

      Illinois is Blue, but Randy Hultgren is a horrible human being and is downright reactionary when it comes to females. He hides behind abortion to get out the anti abortion vote (always dependable, always right wing) while writing very pro-big-bank legislation. The problem is this became a left/right thing, and that pisses me off. If I have to choose between supporting the right to govern our own pregnancies, and preserving the legal definition of female based on reality, I have to choose the right to govern our own pregnancies.

      This crap about the legal definition of female being the girly feeling in a man’s head was not dragged down this far by Democratic congresspeople. It was dragged down by the men of the ACLU and the men of LGBTQ-ABCDEFG groups.

      Somehow, the message needs to be reframed as a women’s issue, not a religious issue, not a right wing issue. I don’t know how to do that, but until women’s groups get on board, and that means the LGBTQ community supports WOMEN and not the T agenda, we will lose.

  11. The Amicus Brief from Professional Educators from 46 States includes 300 educators from across the nation. These professional educators aren’t partisan right wing conservatives with a grudge. They know it’s nonsense, and they are aware that it’s pitting the interests of a small minority of students against the interests and human rights of all students. These professional educators have to answer to angry parents, and they have to consider the needs of all their students.

    “The federal government’s position that Title IX’s protections against “sex” discrimination should extend not just to biological sex, but to gender identity lacks democratic legitimacy. The extensive policy obligations on schools have been adopted without any Congressional action. This displaces state and local governing authorities’ ability to address complicated issues surrounding transgender students in a way that best reflects the needs of all local students…

    A careful reading of the “Dear Colleague ” letter shows how many important policy issues it purports to answer for virtually every school in the nation, with not so much as a period for comment or input from any elected representatives for the roughly 100,000 public schools in the United States. As an initial matter, the letter announces “title IX obligations regarding transgender students” and provides “ significant guidance.” This is not a mere policy preference or suggestion for the schools where the amici educators are involved. The substantial legal issues dictated by the letter include:

    *Definition of gender identity.Id.p.2.

    *Sex” includes “gender identity” for Title IX and implementing regulations. Id.

    *Schools must immediately accept a student’s self-declaration of gender identity. Id

    *Schools cannot involve medical professionals before changing how a transgender student is treated. Id.

    *Schools cannot fully consider objections or concerns of third parties. Id., p.2 (“a desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”).

    (*In other words, girls must just get over their “discomfort”)

    *Schools cannot require documentation for claims of transgender status. Id., p.3 (“Under Title IX, a school must treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex.”)

    *School staff and contractors must use pronouns and names consistent with a transgender student’s desires. Id.

    *Restrooms segregated by biological sex must be opened up to transgender students of the opposite biological sex. Id. (schools “must allow transgender students access to such [sex segregated] facilities consistent with their gender identity.”)

    *Locker rooms segregated by biological sex must be opened up to transgender students of the opposite biological sex. Id. (“transgender students must be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” )

    (*Male students claiming “gender identity” are already using women’s locker rooms.)

    *Shower facilities segregated by biological sex must be opened up to transgender students of the opposite biological sex. Id.

    *Housing segregated by biological sex must be opened up to transgender students of the opposite biological sex. Id.

    *Athletic teams appear to be required to allow transgender students to “participate in such activities …. [c]onsistent with their gender identity.” Id.

    *Housing and overnight accommodations separated on the basis of sex must allow transgender students with opposite biological sex to have access. Id., p

    (This infuriated conservatives. On school field trips or activities, biological males share the same hotel room as females.)

    (“[A]school must allow transgender students to access housing
    consistent with their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations or to disclose personal information when not required of other students.”)

    (*Dorm rooms are next, and female students can’t even ask which male they will be forced to share a dorm room with.)

    *Schools must change school records to “reflect the student’s gender identity and new name”. Id., p.5.

    Professional Educators from 46 States (300 educator from 46 states)

  12. No friend of women: ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center.

    The NWLC filed an Amicus Brief in support of Grimm.

    The ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center are telling female students that they are ignorant transphobic bigots if they don’t want to share locker rooms, showers, overnight accommodations, or dorm rooms with male bodied persons.
    *It’s a fact that males claiming “gender identity” have already exposed themselves to women. This is from Evergreen State College. At the time of this incident, a local swim team was using the pool. Since “gender identity” includes locker rooms and showers, logic tells us this is going to happen again.

    * It’s a fact that males dressed as women (skirts, makeup, etc.) have preyed on women in school and college locker rooms, dorms, and women’s restrooms. Gendertrender readers are familiar with most of these incidents, so I apologize to regular readers. They are simply being untruthful (lying is such a harsh word) when they say these incidents never happen.

    In 2013, Rodney Kenneth Petersen was arrested for dressing as a woman to enter a woman’s dormitory and take pictures of the coeds at Loma Linda University in California. An investigation revealed that Peterson had previously dressed as a woman and entered other female- only facilities, trying to take photos of women and girls with a cell phone he had hidden in his purse.

    In 2012, Taylor J. Buehler was arrested in Everett, Washington for voyeurism. He wore a bra and wig to appear as a woman so he could go into the women’s bathroom at Everett Community College. Once inside the bathroom, he began leering at the two women who were using the facilities. After his arrest, he admitted that he had previously taken a shower in a girls’ locker room for “sexual gratification.” Buehler was convicted of voyeurism.

    Man wearing bra, wig arrested in bathroom voyeurism incident,, March 16, 2012, available at; Man wearing bra and wig arrested in women’s restroom at local college, Sky Valley Chronicle, March 17, 2012,

    According to the University of California at Berkeley police department, a man dressed as a woman was spotted peeping at women and photographing them in a UC Berkeley locker room. During the fall semester of 2010, he was spotted on numerous occasions, dressed in women’s attire, peeping at women as they changed clothes in a locker room and photographing them in locker rooms and bathrooms. He used his cell phone to snap pictures of the unsuspecting coeds.

    This happened at the University of Birmingham in England.
    In 2011, Joel Hardman, a postgraduate student at the University of Birmingham in England, disguised himself with a women’s rubber mask and wig in order to gain access to women’s restrooms, where he spied on women using the toilets. After being arrested, he explained that he got sexual gratification from listening to women using toilets. While in the bathrooms, he not only listened—he also made audio recordings of the women urinating. And he admitted to, on at least one occasion, “performing a sex act” while listening to the women. He also took pictures of women’s feet under the stall doors with his phone.

    Transgender activists always say that these males wearing dresses, etc. really weren’t transgender so they don’t count. They do this even when cross dressers are listed in the “Transgender Umbrella”. If they are both wearing a dress, how are women supposed to tell the difference from male A dressed as a woman and male B (an official trans person) dressed as a woman? There is no such thing as an official transgender person. There is, and has never been, a precise definition of transgender or “gender identity”. Any male can claim “gender identity”.

    *It’s a fact that some colleges and universities have had to rethink their gender-neutral bathrooms.

    University of Toronto alters bathroom policy after two reports of voyeurism, 2015

    The University of Toronto has decreased the number of gender-neutral bathrooms in one of its colleges after two women became victims of voyeurism when they were filmed while showering.
    Toronto Police Const. Victor Kwong said Monday that two women in separate instances at the Whitney Hall residence reported that they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them. Police have yet to find any information about the culprit, but the investigation is ongoing.

  13. thisismeandonlyme Says:

    I’m interested…if females do not have the right to privacy, where does that leave Roe V Wade? Will we need to prove that the pregnancy will “harm” us even if we don’t want it? Are we pregophobic?

  14. GallusMag Says:

    @Margie- When President Pumpkinhead reverses the DOE “Guidance” will the Grimm case be dismissed as moot?

    • thisismeandonlyme Says:

      President Pumpkinhead will appoint Ben Carson to be in charge of the DoE who will dismiss this, as well as reality, in the classroom. We are so fucked either way.

      • thisismeandonlyme Says:

        Ha I am reading this back from November when Carson was the best bet to be in charge of the DofE. I could not have dreamed Betsy Prince Blackwater DeVoss would actually be in charge. She clearly paid more.

    • kesher Says:

      Didn’t Grimm’s case start before the DoE “guidance”? The ACLU is trying to get access to the opposite sex’s facilities litigated as a “civil right”, regardless of what the administration has to say about it.

  15. GallusMag Says:

    Supreme Court won’t rule on Title IX Gender Identity vs. Sex conflict via Gavin Grimm case.
    SCOTUS vacated hearings on the case and remanded GG to the lower court.

    • Mary Sunshine Says:

      Received these words of wisdom from a dyke lawyer in one of my facebook groups:

      1. The trans lobby dodged the bullet. If the decision had been on the merits, trans activism would have suffered a devastating blow. After the Obama Guidelines were rescinded, this was their best possible result, as they don’t lose too much face, but more importantly, the Title IX issue is kept alive (though moribund).

      2. Poor Gavin Grimm will be long out of high school before there’s any decision on the merits.

      3. The amicus briefs are “dismissed” with the SCOTUS decision.

      4. Since the litigation has returned to a lower court it’s going to be awhile before we know what the final result will be in the Grimm case. Years, maybe.

    • rheapdx1 Says:

      Common sense and the rule of law have come through, as opposed to the Orwellian newspeak of the bridgade.

      Perhaps someone else saw the article about what else these folks were after and wanted to put the brakes on. Lest darkness has blessedly fallen on the invasion of privacy by the younger Springer types.

  16. Medi Says:

    The trans lobby did indeed dodge a bullet, since Obama attempted in invalidate Title IX to totally change the meaning of SEX, which was specifically written for girls and women disadvantaged by boys and mens’ sports, among other things. The Supreme Court probably thought it didn’t want to deal with the craziness of the trans lobby and really, ordinary school districts should get their act together. Because they seem to go all crazy over ONE student getting special treatment, and I notice the whole issue of safety is a red herring, since most of the kids are offered private bathrooms to begin with.

  17. Medi Says:

    Susan Nunes– a voice for reason!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: