Houston rejects controversial LGBT anti-bias policy

The Obama administration is “laying down the executive order” on a suburban Chicago school district to force a school to allow a boy to use the girls’ showers, and the Minnesota and California high school athletic leagues don’t appear far behind—they’re allowing boys to play on girls’ teams.

(at some point, I’m pretty sure there will be lawsuits when a boy joins the girls’ team and doesn’t take the female hormones and someone gets hurt—either because the boy’s natural advantage in strength, or because the boyfriend of one of the actual girls doesn’t take kindly to his girlfriend needing to compete against boys and “suggests with his fists” that the boy ought to rejoin the boys’ team….I’m not endorsing the latter, of course, but something like this is going to happen)

Really, you’ve got to watch government at all levels to preserve the notion that going to the bathroom or showering places a person in a vulnerable position, and that people of the opposite sex ought not be allowed there because too much can go wrong too quickly.

Houston, Texas rejected the HERO ordinance that would have given the city new powers, and allowed men claiming to be women, in women’s restrooms.

Ohio rejected marijuana.

Texas placed the right to hunt and fish in their state constitution.

It was a very good day.

David R. Brumbelow

Isn’t this amazing:

• When the people have an opportunity to speak their mind on the very re-definition of gender itself (as they did in Houston), then they vote overwhelmingly for sanity and rationality
• Yet, when the government has the opportunity to impose madness by fiat, they choose to force a school district to allow a boy to have unrestricted access to a girl’s locker room.

This is a very interesting tale of two contradictory voices. Even more tragically, which voice is supposed to prevail in our system of government?

….we elected these guys to office, no? So we’re getting what we asked for, boy howdy. We may not admit it, but that’s exactly what’s going on.

The mayor isn’t giving up; it seems that we need to establish a very real reason why we ought not allow people who are genetically and physically male in women’s restrooms and locker rooms. I would submit to us that the reason is because what we do there makes us uniquely vulnerable.

And of course, we’ve also got the big question of why we even bother with communal bathrooms and locker rooms—it really hearkens back to the Greek Gymnasia, where education and physical culture were thought to proceed best naked and in a single sex context. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about why we have these big bathrooms and locker rooms to begin with, and whether there are better options.

There’s a restaurant in San Francisco at the Embarkadero that has one big bathroom. And then lots of stalls. So you go in, use a stall (private), and then when you come out, a woman might go in. And everyone uses the same big set of sinks to wash hands after. It’s not that weird.

Embarcadero. And the usage is a restaurant in San Francisco on the Embarcadero. This as the Embarcadeo is a English\Spanish combination. South of the Rio Grande the street would be termed el Embacadero.

[Dan Miller]

There’s a restaurant in San Francisco at the Embarkadero that has one big bathroom. And then lots of stalls. So you go in, use a stall (private), and then when you come out, a woman might go in. And everyone uses the same big set of sinks to wash hands after. It’s not that weird.

Right, Rob. good point.

of local knowledge. The street’s name is related to the English word embarkation. The English spelling probably threw you off.