FCPS settles bathroom suit

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3903896/fairfax-county-public-schools-backs-away-pronoun-bathroom-legal-fight/?utm_social_post_id=612363357&utm_social_handle_id=18956073

Not sure how this affects the suit against FCPS by the feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3903896/fairfax-county-public-schools-backs-away-pronoun-bathroom-legal-fight/?utm_social_post_id=612363357&utm_social_handle_id=18956073

Not sure how this affects the suit against FCPS by the feds.

Wow. Just read the article. In this case, the boy didn’t even identify as transgender but was still allowed to use the girls locker room due to “bullying” in the boys locker room. The girl is read was directed to use the stalls and the boy was allowed use of the girls locker room. This is truly sick and bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Instead of fixing the bullying problem on the male locker room, they allowed a boy to use a girls locker room?? Wtf.

The boy didn’t even identify as transgender!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of fixing the bullying problem on the male locker room, they allowed a boy to use a girls locker room?? Wtf.

The boy didn’t even identify as transgender!!!

He probably forgot to utter the magic words "Trans!" and vola all women's bathroom doors open.

[Anonymous]

My take is that FCPS knew it was going to lose badly and decided to cut their losses now.

Also, the entire scenario is insane. Whoever decided this was the appropriate course of action should be fired.

[Anonymous]

https://www.fcps.edu/news/message-and-update-superintendent-about-title-ix-0

So, does this still stand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My take is that FCPS knew it was going to lose badly and decided to cut their losses now.

Also, the entire scenario is insane. Whoever decided this was the appropriate course of action should be fired.

Yes, Rule 68 means FCPS caved. Good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of fixing the bullying problem on the male locker room, they allowed a boy to use a girls locker room?? Wtf.

The boy didn’t even identify as transgender!!!

He probably forgot to utter the magic words "Trans!" and vola all women's bathroom doors open.

I actually think its more honest just letting the boys do whatever they want rather than requiring a magic word based on their subjective and fluid feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of fixing the bullying problem on the male locker room, they allowed a boy to use a girls locker room?? Wtf.

The boy didn’t even identify as transgender!!!

He probably forgot to utter the magic words "Trans!" and vola all women's bathroom doors open.

I actually think its more honest just letting the boys do whatever they want rather than requiring a magic word based on their subjective and fluid feelings.

How about boys use the boys' bathroom or the gender neutral one if they are confused about their feelings? Be respectful of girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of fixing the bullying problem on the male locker room, they allowed a boy to use a girls locker room?? Wtf.

The boy didn’t even identify as transgender!!!

He probably forgot to utter the magic words "Trans!" and vola all women's bathroom doors open.

I actually think its more honest just letting the boys do whatever they want rather than requiring a magic word based on their subjective and fluid feelings.

How about boys use the boys' bathroom or the gender neutral one if they are confused about their feelings? Be respectful of girls.

I agree, but not all schools have a gender neutral bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Good. FCPS must be running out of legal funds or knew this was a loser. Hopefully something happened to the idiots in charge.

[Anonymous]

This is actually bad because it lets FCPS avoid getting a ruling on whether it was constitutional for them to let a boy (who does NOT identify as trans) access female-only spaces. They avoided a ruling on their policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is actually bad because it lets FCPS avoid getting a ruling on whether it was constitutional for them to let a boy (who does NOT identify as trans) access female-only spaces. They avoided a ruling on their policy.

Oh, I think the feds lawsuit is still active?

[Anonymous]

“The little-noticed update on the court docket means the district will pay nominal damages of $50 and Doe’s accrued attorney’s fees.”

What was the point of the lawsuit if the plaintiff settled for $50? There is no ruling about the constitutionality of the policy. The case just goes away. Sounds like a win for FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The little-noticed update on the court docket means the district will pay nominal damages of $50 and Doe’s accrued attorney’s fees.”

What was the point of the lawsuit if the plaintiff settled for $50? There is no ruling about the constitutionality of the policy. The case just goes away. Sounds like a win for FCPS.

Federal lawsuit maybe?