Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Kansas Bill Would Pay Students A $2,500 Bounty To Hunt For Trans People In Bathrooms
Not The Onion!
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/22/3762490/kansas-transgender-ransom-bathrooms/
With only two weeks left in the Kansas legislation session, state lawmakers have introduced a pair of bills that would prohibit transgender students from using restrooms that match their gender. The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened.
The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read.
Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.”...
But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.”
The complementary bills (SB 513 and HB 2737) declare in no uncertain terms that transgender students are going to harm other students just by using the same facility alongside them. “Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” they read.
Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.” The definition ignores the many genetic and anatomic variations that can actually occur in how sex actually presents itself and, by design, erases the significance of transgender identities entirely. The explicit goal is to “maintain order and dignity in restrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities where students may be in various states of undress in the presence of other students.”...
But transgender students are apparently such a threat to their peers that these lawmakers believe anyone who has to be in a restroom for them should have grounds for a suit. If a student encounters someone “of the opposite sex,” they have a private cause of action against the school. The aggrieved student is entitled to $2,500 for every time they saw someone transgender in the restroom, plus “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of a violation of this section.”
Looks like Dog the Bounty Hunter is headed to Kansas.
Wait, isn't Kansas broke? Where do they propose to come with $2500 times however many times trans people need to pee?!
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Enjoy your stay. 
Not the sharpest of tacks down there in Kansas.
lol. Makes as much sense as anything else being proposed in Kansas.
Dorothy was right to leave. 
Husband overreacts...
Fuck them and their religion of hate. 
Half the fun would be him getting from South Park to Kansas.
