Religious College Sues US Department of Housing & Urban Development to Protect Single Sex Dormitories/Showers

[Husky_Khan]

Religious college sues HUD to protect single-sex dorms and showers

A small Christian college has sued the Biden administration over a federal directive that threatens to force the school to put biological men and women in the same dorms rooms and showers.

www.washingtontimes.com

A small Christian College known as the 'College of the Ozarks' has less then 1500 undergraduate students is the one bringing the Lawsuit to Biden Administration, challenging a Biden Executive Order that requires entities under the 'Fair Housing Act' not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Lawsuit claims this will force religious schools to “violate their beliefs by opening up female dorms to biological males and vice versa.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom is helping represent the Christian College in the Lawsuit.

 

[Abhishekm]

I knew the US had mixed dorms but didn't think single sex dorms were the exception here.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I knew the US had mixed dorms but didn't think single sex dorms were the exception here.

Mixed rooms are rare (even when allowed, they're generally only by specific request), but mixed dorms are pretty much the norm.

Although the context of the argument here has nothing to do with mixed dorms; this is about saying that trans women are not allowed to be housed in women's dorms. Although honestly, this *should* be a moot issue because the sort of Christian college that imposes such restrictions *would not allow trans persons to be students in the first place*.

 

[LordsFire]

Mixed rooms are rare (even when allowed, they're generally only by specific request), but mixed dorms are pretty much the norm.

Although the context of the argument here has nothing to do with mixed dorms; this is about saying that trans women are not allowed to be housed in women's dorms. Although honestly, this *should* be a moot issue because the sort of Christian college that imposes such restrictions *would not allow trans persons to be students in the first place*.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of Christian colleges allowed trans students. They'd probably refuse to use preferred pronouns though, seeing it as encouraging an unhealthy delusion.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Mixed rooms are rare (even when allowed, they're generally only by specific request), but mixed dorms are pretty much the norm.

Although the context of the argument here has nothing to do with mixed dorms; this is about saying that trans women are not allowed to be housed in women's dorms. Although honestly, this *should* be a moot issue because the sort of Christian college that imposes such restrictions *would not allow trans persons to be students in the first place*.

I have a suspicion they're laying the groundwork for something else. Specifically I think they're worried about having trans students legally forced on them ala Masterpiece Cake Shop and are planning ahead to keep biological boys out of the girl's dorms and locker rooms before that happens and they have to deal with it all at once.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I have a suspicion they're laying the groundwork for something else.

I think they feel this is the easiest to sell case for the "principle" that trans people should not have civil rights protections of any sort. It's like that anti-bullying bill a few years back which had broad bipartisan support and which the religious right outright said they otherwise supported, *except* that it included trans students.

Their position was literally, "No, of course we don't want trans students to be bullied, but we believe it should be *legal* to bully them. Every *other* student group should be legally protected from bullying, but not trans students because that would set a dangerous precedent that trans people are protected. But we totally oppose actually bullying trans students and are super offended that you're accusing us of promoting it."

"Then we could amend the proposal to prohibit bullying generically, without naming any specific protected groups."

"No, that's not acceptable either. The law needs to explicitly specify the protected groups, but must not include trans students."

 

[Abhishekm]

Thats a bit of a false premise though, atleast I feel so. Not considering transgenderism a topic or condition covered under racial equality protections or it denial as a form of bullying isn't the same as saying 'Its okay to swirly someone a song as they are trans'. All standards and laws would still apply as is.

I know, I know that always gets some variant of 'so you deny' response or the 'so you hate thing. Or the 'that law isn't REALLY equal bigot' response. But honestly, from a country still waaay 'behind there xurve' as some would say on this 'social procession topic' I just don't get this.

Seriously, my old college still has male and female hostels split by a freaking railway tunnel connected by a bridge. With locked gates and a night watchman. And everybody especially the teachers and parents prefer it that way. So did the students if we were honest.

Edit: The real funny bit is my Parents were worried about me going there because there was reputation of it being a 'party school'.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Again, they rejected the proposed compromise of a tacitly inclusive general prohibition on bullying, and they *explicitly* said they needed the law to not cover trans students on the basis that it was a dangerous precedent for trans people to have civil rights protections in *any* context.


Edit: As to gender vs mixed dorms, eh. My college had a female-only hall (literally one hallway in one of the seven dorm houses) when they first accepted female students (said hall was promptly nicknamed "Heaven"). This segregation was found to effectively exclude the new female students from campus life (especially as it required that they all be placed in one house instead of going through the Rotation process for house picks), and was abandoned in subsequent years. This did not cause any onslaught of promiscuity as some feared, and frankly, *college students are adults anyway*. If they want to be consensually promiscuous, that really is their own business.

 

[Abhishekm]

Again, they rejected the proposed compromise of a tacitly inclusive general prohibition on bullying, and they *explicitly* said they needed the law to not cover trans students on the basis that it was a dangerous precedent for trans people to have civil rights protections in *any* context.

Sorry but that just sounds like a clickbait headline. Say it straight, was it a opposition to the inclusion of debate on trans related topics under the umbrella of 'bullying' or a 'we oppose not being allowed to used toilet swirlie gay people'?

 

[Abhishekm]

And just to add I don't have anything against LGBTQ whatever. Gay marriage, transgederism you do you whatever. But that kinda thing including this annoys me in the same way People of Color does, or peacekeeping or systematic racism or mega churches or patriarchy or atheim+ and whatever else have you.

It makes me look at it all and want to vote to ban social media in India.

Heck I would have been on the side of including transgenderism under the bullying rules anyway. But that kinda headline makes me want to go the other way just out of spite.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Sorry but that just sounds like a clickbait headline. Say it straight, was it a opposition to the inclusion of debate on trans related topics under the umbrella of 'bullying' or a 'we oppose not being allowed to used toilet swirlie gay people'?

The opposition was very clear: they wanted bullying against every other group to be legally prohibited, but bullying against trans students must remain legal.

 

[Abhishekm]

The opposition was very clear: they wanted bullying against every other group to be legally prohibited, but bullying against trans students must remain legal.

Huh, interesting. They sound like dicks. Got any links? Want to look into that.

Though why are bullying laws specific to groups instead of activities anyway? That a difference in definition or context here?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Huh, interesting. They sound like dicks. Got any links? Want to look into that.

This was a few years ago. I remember it because I was arguing about it online, but I don't have links immediately available.

Though why are bullying laws specific to groups instead of activities anyway? That a difference in definition or context here?

That's pretty standard for U.S. anti-discrimination laws, although it's worth pointing out that making something a "protected characteristic" in U.S. law applies in both directions -- when race is a "protected characteristic", this applies to *all* races. The only exception I am aware of is age, which was specially written into the law as an unprecedented one-way-only protected characteristic where discriminating against someone for being older is illegal, but discriminating against someone for being younger is explicitly still legal.

 

[Abhishekm]

That's pretty standard for U.S. anti-discrimination laws,

Why did college bullying laws come under discrimination laws instead of something like general conduct or coercion laws?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Why did college bullying laws come under discrimination laws instead of something like general conduct or coercion laws?

The laws in question were about schooling in general, not specifically college. Bullying of trans students in high school is *pretty* pervasive, unfortunately.

 

[Abhishekm]

The laws in question were about schooling in general, not specifically college. Bullying of trans students in high school is *pretty* pervasive, unfortunately.

Ok, but why was the law coached in terms of groups and not actions? Like I am assuming they were for things like student aggression, coercion or the like. So why was it as groups?

 

[LordsFire]

The opposition was very clear: they wanted bullying against every other group to be legally prohibited, but bullying against trans students must remain legal.

Yeah, I don't buy this. Maybe if it's the Westboro Baptist Church, but either provide some sources, or stop pushing this line.

I have yet to meet a single Christian who reacted to 'trans' people with hostility rather than either confusion or pity. I am 100% confident there will be some out there, because this is a big nation, there are fringe groups, and haters who pretend to be Christian, but I'll buy that anything approaching a credible or widely-respected Christian group pushed an 'it's okay to bully trans people' stance when I see some hard proof.

I've talked over this issue with a number of Christians, heard radio discussions from groups like Focus on the Family, and seen video debates from theologians and evangelists. The message has always and every time, been 'These are hurting people in need of Love. Gross physical mutilation and hormone therapies that will mess their bodies up are not the solution.'

 

[Terthna]

'These are hurting people in need of Love. Gross physical mutilation and hormone therapies that will mess their bodies up are not the solution.'

Many of the trans people I've seen are clearly just trying to use transgenderism as a coping mechanism for other psychological issues. They've been convince that becoming trans will fix everything and finally make them happy, when in reality it changes nothing.

 

[LordsFire]

Many of the trans people I've seen are clearly just trying to use transgenderism as a coping mechanism for other psychological issues. They've been convince that becoming trans will fix everything and finally make them happy, when in reality it changes nothing.

That fits the pattern I've seen as well. And 'being trans' is hardly the only thing people use as a coping mechanism, it just comes with much, much harsher negative consequences than most others.

If you get addicted to hard drugs, your body will mostly go back to normal if you get off of them. If you have hormone therapy and SRS, your body will be messed up forever, and if you took puberty blockers and other hormones while adolescent, you're looking at a host of degenerative bone conditions and the like.

Adults can do what they want with their bodies, but pretending it's not destructive isn't helping them, and activists trying to force others to play along with the delusion is evil.

 

[strunkenwhite]

I guess history will tell if sex reassignment is the 21st century neighbor of lobotomy, but I doubt it.