The change in the Fairfax County School District's anti discrimination policy to include transgender individuals may have been result of a well meaning policy directive, partisan political maneuver in order to advance political careers, a hasty response to the Dept. of Education's threat of revoking Federal Funds or a combination of all aforementioned factors. In any event, there appears to be a missing link in the FOIA release that short circuited the process and caused the chaotic process that resulted in the amended policy. An examination of the documents indicate that had the School Board held hearings on the subject and allowed both sides of the story to be heard a concensus could have been met regarding the implementation of the policy primary involving the use of locker rooms and rest rooms. Please note that the vast majority of the negative comments from residents did not involve bigoted sentiments, but only the desire to maintain their children's privacy. Instead, the School Board failed to hold hearings and was not responsive to inquiries about how the policy would be implemented resulting in an angry and raucous meeting. Also, School Board legal counsel was not helpful in providing a satisfactory response by apparently instructing the School Board to stand by the standard policy statement and avoid the rest room issue (could not determine due to redaction) leaving several School Board Members without a satisfactory response for their constituents. I any event, it would appear that the School Board's ineffective handling of this issue will result in litigation regardless of the direction that is taken in implementing the policy without expert guidance and deliberation.

TL, DR.

Try paragraphs next time if you don't want to seem even more like a raving lunatic.

Inquisitive One Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The change in the Fairfax County School District's
> anti discrimination policy to include transgender
> individuals may have been result of a well meaning
> policy directive, partisan political maneuver in
> order to advance political careers, a hasty
> response to the Dept. of Education's threat of
> revoking Federal Funds or a combination of all
> aforementioned factors. In any event, there
> appears to be a missing link in the FOIA release
> that short circuited the process and caused the
> chaotic process that resulted in the amended
> policy. An examination of the documents indicate
> that had the School Board held hearings on the
> subject and allowed both sides of the story to be
> heard a concensus could have been met regarding
> the implementation of the policy primary involving
> the use of locker rooms and rest rooms. Please
> note that the vast majority of the negative
> comments from residents did not involve bigoted
> sentiments, but only the desire to maintain their
> children's privacy. Instead, the School Board
> failed to hold hearings and was not responsive to
> inquiries about how the policy would be
> implemented resulting in an angry and raucous
> meeting. Also, School Board legal counsel was not
> helpful in providing a satisfactory response by
> apparently instructing the School Board to stand
> by the standard policy statement and avoid the
> rest room issue (could not determine due to
> redaction) leaving several School Board Members
> without a satisfactory response for their
> constituents. I any event, it would appear that
> the School Board's ineffective handling of this
> issue will result in litigation regardless of the
> direction that is taken in implementing the policy
> without expert guidance and deliberation.

Attachments:

Part of the document dump is what appears to be thousands of letters to McElveen from a human rights organization requesting the change.

I guess they carry more clout than the parents.

Stupid dumbshit parents shouldn't carry any clout anyway. They can all just go back to being on the wrong side of history as always. Bunch of worthless dumbfucks.

This move was in process long before the letter writing campaign. The letters just provided cover for a process that included working groups in the schools, school board closed door sessions and back door communications with a number of community activists. The Dept of Ed vague threat to withdraw Federal Funds was just the impetus and provided the cover for a School Board that was anxiously awaiting the opportunity to make this policy change.

One of the remaining questions is how extensive was the DoEd's involvement in pushing this along and if some additional funds were thrown into the Poirier contract via Federal Funds. Five thousand dollars (50 hours) do not go very far when providing technical assistance for a policy change that will have far reaching effects in several areas.

Yes, the truth is that the bathroom of choice is already being used by transgender students, at least at the middle and high school level. From reports of students, it's been that way for awhile and was allowed even before the vote. Maybe the elementary schools are being a little more strict with using a staff bathroom because of the wide range of ages.

So, it doesn't really matter what's in these documents. School board duped the parents and the community in acting like this was a new thing that wouldn't change anything. The change was already there, bathrooms are free for anyone, and it doesn't really matter how we feel about it.

questionablechange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> School board duped the parents and the
> community in acting like this was a new thing that
> wouldn't change anything. The change was already
> there, bathrooms are free for anyone, and it
> doesn't really matter how we feel about it.

You thought that community sentiment would trump civil rights?"

If that were true, we'd still have separate drinking fountains labeled "Blacks Only" & "Whites Only".

Are you new to the ol' US of A?

LOL!
From their website:
"Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation"

You can't be both 'conservative' and 'non-partisan'. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

They can't even be honest about what they do.
Attachments:

derpers gonna derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!
> From their website:
> "Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative,
> non-partisan educational foundation"
>
> You can't be both 'conservative' and
> 'non-partisan'. Just because you say it doesn't
> make it true.
>
> They can't even be honest about what they do.


Partisan conforming to party in this case, not ideology.

There are (or were at least) conservative Democrats.

If a middle or high school girl, who is really a boy, wants to use the girl's locker room every day for PE class, that should be allowed and all of the other girls and parents should be OK with it?

Why does the rights of one transgender student trump the rights of hundreds of other girls? Notice in these cases, the rights of the girls are being jepordized. There doesn't seem to be as many girls wanting to use the boy's locker rooms or restrooms.

The school board told the parents and community that nothing would change and that nothing woudld be done to make ANY students feel unsafe or uncomfortable while they are at school. This just isn't the case. Girls are feeling uncomfortable because boys are using their bathroom and locker room and the school board doesn't care about them.

questionablechange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a middle or high school girl, who is really a boy...

See, there's your problems right there.

questionablelogic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a middle or high school girl, who is really a
> boy, wants to use the girl's locker room every day
> for PE class, that should be allowed and all of
> the other girls and parents should be OK with it?
>
> Why does the rights of one transgender student
> trump the rights of hundreds of other girls?
> Notice in these cases, the rights of the girls are
> being jepordized. There doesn't seem to be as many
> girls wanting to use the boy's locker rooms or
> restrooms.
>
> The school board told the parents and community
> that nothing would change and that nothing woudld
> be done to make ANY students feel unsafe or
> uncomfortable while they are at school. This just
> isn't the case. Girls are feeling uncomfortable
> because boys are using their bathroom and locker
> room and the school board doesn't care about them.

Attachments:

vocabulary lesson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are (or were at least) conservative Democrats.

Used to be called RINO's. Then they wised up and got the hell out of the radicalized Party of No Fucking Sense at All.

"Schools can't prevent transgender students from using the restrooms that correspond with their gender identities without violating federal law, the Obama administration says."

You can use different names, but it's obvious that the above posts were all written by you (except for the sane ones). You have a truly unhealthy obsession with this issue, and it is no doubt affecting your kids. You can post here, you can post there, you can post here there and everywhere and it won't make a damn bit of difference. Same with the FOIA requests you are inundating the school board with and your lawsuit (all of which are a pointless expenditure of my tax money). You are going to lose.

And please stop spreading rumors. If you have PROOF - not gossip and innuendo - that transgender policies have already been implemented in some FCPS schools, then please provide it. Otherwise, STFU.

vocabulary lesson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> derpers gonna derp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL!
> > From their website:
> > "Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative,
> > non-partisan educational foundation"
> >
> > You can't be both 'conservative' and
> > 'non-partisan'. Just because you say it doesn't
> > make it true.
> >
> > They can't even be honest about what they do.
>
>
> Partisan conforming to party in this case, not
> ideology.
>
> There are (or were at least) conservative
> Democrats.

Nice try. A look at the stories on Judicial Watch homepage right now.

- Suing State Department over Hillary email
- Obama High Crimes and Misdemeanors
- Obama administration caves into Islamic activist.
- Obama administration executes the nation’s largest mass release of federal prisoner
- Two disturbing cases highlight the serious problems with the nation’s immigration laws under the Obama administration
- The Obama administration helped two Muslim truck drivers working for an American company in the U.S. get a nice settlement
- Stephen K. Bannon, lays bare the lawless and unconstitutional Obama administration
- Obama IRS scandal
- Benghazi Coverup
- THE FULLY DOCUMENTED FACTS BEHIND: The Solyndra Debacle, Obama’s Watergate: Operation Fast and Furious, The Obama Administration’s $20 Billion Extortion Scheme
- Hillary Email Scandal


LOL!!!
'Non-partisan' (party or ideology) my ass! They actually make Fox's bullshit 'Fair and Balanced' almost/slightly/maybe/kinda seem true.

derpers gonna derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL!!!
> 'Non-partisan' (party or ideology) my ass! They
> actually make Fox's bullshit 'Fair and Balanced'
> almost/slightly/maybe/kinda seem true.

Truth be told: Judicial Watch are a bunch of rabid rightwing scum.

derpers gonna derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vocabulary lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > derpers gonna derp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > LOL!
> > > From their website:
> > > "Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative,
> > > non-partisan educational foundation"
> > >
> > > You can't be both 'conservative' and
> > > 'non-partisan'. Just because you say it
> doesn't
> > > make it true.
> > >
> > > They can't even be honest about what they do.
> >
> >
> > Partisan conforming to party in this case, not
> > ideology.
> >
> > There are (or were at least) conservative
> > Democrats.
>
> Nice try. A look at the stories on Judicial Watch
> homepage right now.
>
> - Suing State Department over Hillary email
> - Obama High Crimes and Misdemeanors
> - Obama administration caves into Islamic
> activist.
> - Obama administration executes the nation’s
> largest mass release of federal prisoner
> - Two disturbing cases highlight the serious
> problems with the nation’s immigration laws
> under the Obama administration
> - The Obama administration helped two Muslim truck
> drivers working for an American company in the
> U.S. get a nice settlement
> - Stephen K. Bannon, lays bare the lawless and
> unconstitutional Obama administration
> - Obama IRS scandal
> - Benghazi Coverup
> - THE FULLY DOCUMENTED FACTS BEHIND: The Solyndra
> Debacle, Obama’s Watergate: Operation Fast and
> Furious, The Obama Administration’s $20 Billion
> Extortion Scheme
> - Hillary Email Scandal
>
>
> LOL!!!
> 'Non-partisan' (party or ideology) my ass! They
> actually make Fox's bullshit 'Fair and Balanced'
> almost/slightly/maybe/kinda seem true.


What your idiot self is missing is that they whined about Bush too in the same way.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/?s=bush

Principle > the party. Works the same way on the left for any number of groups. e.g., The ACLU is not a big fan of many of Obama's policies.

> The ACLU is not a big fan of many of Obama's policies.

is just democat facist thug kids who are using ACLU name to get into government jobs

how? by doing dirty deeds on government's behalf to gain "favor"

Skimming through the nearly 2,000 records FCPS dumped, I wonder how many of the Human Rights Campaign spam are from actual Fairfax County residents.

Probably about 2,000. Ever look around and notice how many HRC stickers are on Fairfax card? Wake up it's 2015. Most people don't care which bathroom a kid uses. They have doors on the stalls.

Lookaround Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Probably about 2,000. Ever look around and notice
> how many HRC stickers are on Fairfax card? Wake up
> it's 2015. Most people don't care which bathroom a
> kid uses. They have doors on the stalls.


Yeah, actually they do.

Try walking into a public women's restroom sometime and see how that goes.

vocabulary lesson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> derpers gonna derp Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > vocabulary lesson Wrote:
> >
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> What your idiot self is missing is that they
> whined about Bush too in the same way.
>
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/?s=bush
>
> Principle > the party. Works the same way on the
> left for any number of groups. e.g., The ACLU is
> not a big fan of many of Obama's policies.

You're still around derping away!
You clearly didn't look at YOUR OWN link.
The second result is critical of Obama, the third result is critical of Pelosi.

The ACLU also IS NOT a major sponsor of events of Liberal, Progressive, Democratic political action committees.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/judicial-watch-announces-major-sponsorship-of-cpac-sponsors-ronald-reagan-banquet/

And they certainly don't fawn over sideshow acts like Palin.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/03/sarah-palins-skit-ends-cpac-on-fun-note/

Principle <<< the party for Judicial Watch (with FACTS straight from their own website.)
You can polish a turd and keep saying its a diamond, but it's still is a turd. Even a blind man can sniff the stink.

Derpers gonna Derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vocabulary lesson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > derpers gonna derp Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > vocabulary lesson Wrote:
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > What your idiot self is missing is that they
> > whined about Bush too in the same way.
> >
> > http://www.judicialwatch.org/?s=bush
> >
> > Principle > the party. Works the same way on
> the
> > left for any number of groups. e.g., The ACLU
> is
> > not a big fan of many of Obama's policies.
>
> You're still around derping away!
> You clearly didn't look at YOUR OWN link.
> The second result is critical of Obama, the third
> result is critical of Pelosi.
>
> The ACLU also IS NOT a major sponsor of events of
> Liberal, Progressive, Democratic political action
> committees.
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/judicial
> -watch-announces-major-sponsorship-of-cpac-sponsor
> s-ronald-reagan-banquet/
>
> And they certainly don't fawn over sideshow acts
> like Palin.
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/03/sarah-pa
> lins-skit-ends-cpac-on-fun-note/
>
> Principle <<< the party for Judicial Watch (with
> FACTS straight from their own website.)
> You can polish a turd and keep saying its a
> diamond, but it's still is a turd. Even a blind
> man can sniff the stink.


Yep, still pwning your dumb ass. Seems to happen to you a lot around here. lol

Nobody said everything at the link was. It was a simple search for "Bush" on their site to show that they did in fact criticize him as well.

Derp indeed...