The Five school districts with Title IX violations, how much money do they stand to lose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Sounds like fcps is losing , what a bunch of idiots. Stop the trans and move on

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/judge-dismisses-virginia-schools-lawsuit-over-federal-funding/3984870/?amp=1

It's based on a question of which court has jurisdiction, not on the merits of the case. No one is losing.

How could they file in wrong court? Wilkie is supposed to be one of the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

DNA testing would be much less intrusive and easily covered as part of the K intake process.

most of us don't want a public school division to DNA test our kids just because of your weird obsession with this.

+1

DNA testing? WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Sounds like fcps is losing , what a bunch of idiots. Stop the trans and move on

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/judge-dismisses-virginia-schools-lawsuit-over-federal-funding/3984870/?amp=1

It's based on a question of which court has jurisdiction, not on the merits of the case. No one is losing.

How could they file in wrong court? Wilkie is supposed to be one of the best.

The ruling says it is a federal court issue. It wasn't dropped because of merit, but because of jursidicition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Sounds like fcps is losing , what a bunch of idiots. Stop the trans and move on

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/judge-dismisses-virginia-schools-lawsuit-over-federal-funding/3984870/?amp=1

It's based on a question of which court has jurisdiction, not on the merits of the case. No one is losing.

Do you have A link to the opinion? The article doesn’t say that and it was filed in federal court. Eastern district of Virginia is a federal court. The article says the judge said he lacked jurisdiction. That doesn’t necessarily mean wrong court. I suspect t has more to do with the fact that nothing has actually happened. Dept of Ed told districts that they would withhold finding. They haven’t actually done it yet. But I am speculating bc I haven’t read the opinion

How could they file in wrong court? Wilkie is supposed to be one of the best.

The ruling says it is a federal court issue. It wasn't dropped because of merit, but because of jursidicition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

Or how about we use the policy which has been in place for the past hundred years to let each student use the restroom which aligns to their biological sex. You’re the one who’s peddling hysteria, most of us are fine with a policy that worked well for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

DNA testing would be much less intrusive and easily covered as part of the K intake process.

most of us don't want a public school division to DNA test our kids just because of your weird obsession with this.

I’m simply stating that a basic chromosomal test would be less intrusive than looking at the genitalia of children as PP wants to do. I’m good with an outdoor porta potty for the weirdos that can’t figure out the correct bathroom to use, no testing or freaky genitalia checks required.

there is no need to do either, you're the one who keeps raising invasive physical testing/exams. you just keep letting the kids select the bathroom of their gender identity. problem solved. the kids are fine with this. sorry you're not. deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

This is an 80-20 issue which has been pushed on Americans by a tiny minority of elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

+1

For now, when things get cut or there are massive legal bills will they still support this tiny minority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

+1

For now, when things get cut or there are massive legal bills will they still support this tiny minority?

Sadly, most people are likely not even aware of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

+1

For now, when things get cut or there are massive legal bills will they still support this tiny minority?

Yes, we will protect our vulnerable kids from the bigots and raging a-hole MAGAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the problems is defining who is what. Trans, Gender fluid, non Binary, etc.
Biological sex is definable.

Yes, that’s at the crux of this whole thing. Replacing objective fact (biological sex) with subjective identity/feeling (gender identity).

And you would have APS do what - do physical checks of kids' genitalia before allowing a kid to use a particular bathroom?

No. But, if there is a complaint, it should be investigated.

Do you really think that people did not complain about the pervert in Arlington and Fairfax locker rooms?

Investigate how - with a genitalia check to ensure the person is female enough for you?

the pervert in the Arlington locker room (outside of school hours) was a sex offender, who never should have been near any locker room of either gender. I don't get your take because unlike you I'm not ok with such a person being in the boys room either. The gender of the room he entered wasn't relevant; he should not have been allowed in to either room.

Why are you people so obsessed with imaginary genitalia checks? Sex can be determined bye eyesight 99% of the time. If there is any question, then a cheek swab will suffice.

Go peddle your hysterics somewhere else.

Or how about we keep the policy to let each student select the restroom that aligns with their gender identity instead of giving someone else the job of monitoring their sexuality. You're the one who's peddling hysterics, most of us are fine with the policy as is.

+1 million

Translated into legal language, you are taking the position that where there is a conflict of rights between sex-based rights and gender-based rights, as there is here, you do not think girls and boys should retain sex-based rights.

I do not think you can truly assert most people are okay with that position.

and yet most in Arlington ARE ok with it.

+1

For now, when things get cut or there are massive legal bills will they still support this tiny minority?

Yes, we will protect our vulnerable kids from the bigots and raging a-hole MAGAs.

And who is protecting the students who will lose special education services and meals due to these policies?