Federal Judge Blocks Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy

Some people think it’s a bad idea allowing people who feel that they’re the opposite biological sex in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers of the opposite biological sex, especially when there is a serious concern that many are just pretending

(Bloomberg) The Obama administration was barred by a judge from enforcing a directive that U.S. public schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their gender identity.

A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Sunday sided with Texas and 12 other states that argued the administration’s policy usurps local control and threatens students’ safety and privacy. (snip)

In the Texas case, the judge said his ruling was based on the administration failing to follow rule-making procedures and not underlying issues of students’ rights.

“This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students’ rights and that of personal privacy when using school bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other intimate facilities, while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school,” O’Connor said. “The resolution of this difficult policy issue is not, however, the subject of this order.”

You have this tiny, tiny, tiny segment of the population which needs some serious psychological guidance, along with restraining orders against wackjob parents who advocate and coddle their little boys and girls into believing that they are really the opposite biological sex at young ages. And none of them will accept a common sense solution like separate showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, so that everyone is afforded their privacy and safety. No, no, they want to force this gender confusion down everyone’s throats.

And no, this is not even close to what blacks went through when Democrats were instituting Jim Crow and other segregation laws, an argument liberals like to trot out. No one is kicking TGs out of school, saying they can’t participate in gym class, nor cannot use the bathroom. They just need to use the either use the bathroom etc that corresponds to their biological sex or accept a reasonable accommodation that allows for other people’s privacy.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Federal Judge Blocks Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy”

  1. Dana says:

    What we’ll wind up with is a costly project to modify public restrooms, not just in schools, but all over the place, to make all of them completely private, so that it doesn’t matter what sex you are, or think you are, you will not be exposed to not just the opposite sex, but anyone, all to mollycoddle the mentally ill.

    Businesses will just have to eat those costs, of course, which really means: pass them down to the consumers.

    The lunatics really are running the asylum.

  2. Liam Thomas says:

    This is nothing but more Cloward and Piven strategy to bring America to her knees…..

    Simply inundate the system until it collapses from the weight of the demands.

    Cloward and Piven tried this strategy on NYC back in the 70’s and NYC was within hours of filing Bankruptcy before the FED stepped in and bailed them out.

    It works so well that even Cloward and Piven admitted in an interview that the concept was frightening to them and much more powerful then they even realized in devoloping the strategy.

    Saul Alinsky/Cloward and Piven trained Leftists are ramming both down Americas throats now….because they think the well is bottomless……just look at Jeffery saying deficits dont matter.

    He is the typical Communist who believes that the well never dries up and that America can be the land of Eutopia for 60 percent of the population and that the rich can be taxed into the poor house and the rest of the money can just be printed.

    It would be comical if it wasnt deadly serious. These people really intend on bringing America to her knees.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Our national debt was nearly 120% of GDP in the 1940s, fell steadily to 30% until the massive tax cuts of the 1980s.

    Should we not have fought the Nazis and Japan on credit?

    How did America do in the 1950s when the debt was so high?

    “These” people really intend on bringing America to her knees.

    Was it “leftists” that pushed through the massive tax cuts? You do realize that deficits have two components – spending AND revenues.

    Most of what the far-right believes as true is false.

  4. john says:

    Anyone who wants the hot drag queens in the men’s room please go on record as such

  5. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    You do realize that deficits have two components – spending AND revenues.

    This is absolutely correct . . . and the answer is to cut spending!

    Ronald Reagan ran on cutting taxes, and he won. Walter Mondale challenged him, saying that he’d raise taxes, and he lost big time! Both George Bushes, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all ran on ‘middle class tax cuts.’ The voters have approved tax cuts almost every time they’ve had the opportunity.

    And that means that we need to cut spending, cut it to the fornicating bone! We should eliminate welfare, period, and make it so that if you don’t work, you starve. I bet we’d find a whole lot of Americans who say that they can’t find work can suddenly find jobs!

  6. Hank_M says:

    “Anyone who wants the hot drag queens in the men’s room please go on record as such”

    I believe you just did, John.

  7. Jeffery says:


    I’ve asked before but you dodged it. How much would cutting “welfare” to the bone save us, as a percentage of total spending? 80%, 50%, 10%? Do you have any idea? I suspect you don’t know and don’t care. For you it’s not about finances at all, it’s about your ideology of “limited” government.

    First you have to define “welfare”. Be specific please.

    Do you include Social Security to be welfare? Most DC insiders do and see trimming SS as a way forward. Same with Medicare. Should we cut SS and Medicare payments? They make up nearly half of federal spending.

    How about Medicaid? Would you eliminate Medicaid? Most people don’t realize that Medicaid pays for a lot of old folks in nursing homes. If their families can’t pay or take care of them, let them die? Kids in poverty rely on Medicaid. Let them die too?

    Unemployment payments?

    Food stamps? Would you let children starve because their parents aren’t successful?

  8. Jeffery says:

    Do any Tea-hadis have any evidence that our current debt load is an existential problem for the US?

    So far the evidence suggests it’s a manageable problem to be solved, just as we did after WWII.

    Donald Trump’s latest tax “policy” suggestions will add trillions to the debt unless we make drastic spending cuts.

    According to the conservative USgovernmentspending website the federal government spends about 25% each on Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid leaving 25% for everything else. The everything else includes “welfare” (10%), interest (6%), education (3%), FBI, NASA, FDA, FCC, etc etc and so on.


    If you’re going to cut federal spending to the bone how will you do it?

  9. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    They just need to use the either use the bathroom etc that corresponds to their biological sex or accept a reasonable accommodation that allows for other people’s privacy.

    But that’s just it: “accept(ing) a reasonable accommodation” is the admission that they really aren’t what they claim to be, and is, therefore, wholly unacceptable to them.

  10. I do so love it when people want to blame limited government types for various problems in society, or believe that they are idiots, ignoring completely the fact that America was born from a tax revolt. They also somehow ignore that a minimal government led to incredible expansion of the country, economic growth, and freedom for all (slow but sure).

    The usual argument boils down to “government or nothing” – that is, if government were to exit social security, medicare, medicaid, and the other 128 or so aid agencies, PEOPLE WOULD STARVE! Of course that would not happen in any great degree, as charities and churches would pick up the slack and some people would fend for themselves and stop being leeches. And here’s another thing – PEOPLE STARVE NOW! Government doesn’t prevent starvation now, but those facts never enter the small, sad world of government dependency peddlers.

  11. Liam Thomas says:

    Was it “leftists” that pushed through the massive tax cuts? You do realize that deficits have two components – spending AND revenues.

    YES….the more you spend the more revenue you need.

    So when taxes are low, people have MORE TO SPEND…..

    The problem is that the lower taxes never translated to the businesses and corporations who still have to pay 35 fuking percent taxes….the highest in the world.

    Cut that tax rate and watch the economy boom.

    Yes I understand economics very well….that is why most major corporations are slowly seeping their business model overseas and export their products back to the USA because the stronger dollar makes their products cheaper to build overseas and creates JOBS for foreigners.

    You sound just like LENIN in 1910-1916…..Im sure your Komrades have trainned you well.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Indeed, why does any corporation stay in the US? Paraguay, the UAE, Burundi, Bulgaria, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia and Nigeria all have much lower corporate tax rates.

    It’s almost as if having a business in the US offers some advantages over Afghanistan. Does it seem fair that a corporation pay more for access to better workers, better roads, airports, security, clean water and air, better courts etc?

  13. […] you’ll remember back a few days, a federal judge has placed a block on Obama’s directive that schools allow little boys and […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 9476 access attempts in the last 7 days.