Higher Education and Title IX

Motar
#1
“Religion-based bigotry is careless and life-threatening,' said Shane Windmeyer, Executive Director of Campus Pride. 'LGBTQ young people face high rates of harassment and violence, especially our trans youth and LGBTQ youth of color. The schools on this list openly discriminate against LGBTQ youth and many of these schools have requested or received Title IX exemptions for no other purpose than to discriminate, expel and ban LGBTQ youth from campus. It is shameful and wrong.'

Campus Pride named the list the 'Shame List' for the purpose of calling out the harmful and shameful acts of religion-based prejudice and bigotry. 'Families and young people deserve to know that this list of schools are the worst for LGBTQ youth. They are not loving, welcoming, safe spaces to live, learn and grow – and nobody wants to go to a college that openly discriminates against anyone,' Windmeyer said.'
https://www.campuspride.org/shamelist/ (external - login to view)

What is Title IX? How does Title IX contribute to higher education?
 
Cliffy
#2
Title IX states that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.Apr 29, 2015

Title IX and Sex Discrimination

What is your point in posting this Motar? Do you think the Title IX is a detriment to education?
 
Motar
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Title IX states that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.Apr 29, 2015

Title IX and Sex Discrimination

What is your point in posting this Motar? Do you think the Title IX is a detriment to education?

I am now teaching at an institution of higher education included on the 'Shame List', Cliffy.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

I am now teaching at an institution of higher education included on the 'Shame List', Cliffy.

As long as you only hate the people Jesus hates, it's OK.
 
taxslave
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

I am now teaching at an institution of higher education included on the 'Shame List', Cliffy.

So you are working at a place that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. On the bright side it probably isn't difficult to get on that list.
 
Motar
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

So you are working at a place that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

No, not really, ts. There are plenty of female employees and athletes at my workplace. In fact, there are 20% more female students than males.
 
taxslave
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

No, not really, ts. There are plenty of female employees and athletes at my workplace. In fact, there are 20% more female students than males.

But how many are trannies? Or does your school have a person to tell trannies that they are trannies? Did you put on a course for incoming students to learn if they are really the gender they think they are? Try and find out just why your school is on that list. The reason might surprise you.
 
Motar
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

But how many are trannies? Or does your school have a person to tell trannies that they are trannies? Did you put on a course for incoming students to learn if they are really the gender they think they are? Try and find out just why your school is on that list. The reason might surprise you.

According to the United States Department of Justice, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 identifies two 'sexes' (presumably male and female):

"...changing from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes.."

and exempts religious educational institutions:

"this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization..."

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix...mendments-1972

There is no mention of 'trannies' or any other 'sex' in the original legislation, ts.
 
Cliffy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post


There is no mention of 'trannies' or any other 'sex' in the original legislation, ts.

So that gives you the right to discriminate against anyone who does not fit into your narrow view of sexual orientation. Until Christians came along, native Americans recognized 5 different sexual orientations. You cherry pick passages from the OT to justify your prejudices while ignoring 95% of the other passages in rabbinical laws. I hate to break it to you sister, but Jesus hung out with 12 guys and was quite possibly gay himself. During that time period it was quite common. He supposedly came to reform rabbinical law but you still cling to those out modded laws when it suits you bias. I'm sure Jesus would kick your butt if he was to return. "Love your neighbour as thyself" includes everyone, whether you agree with them or not. You think discriminating against the LBGT brothers and sisters is pleasing to your Lord and Master? I think not.



Before European Christians Forced Gender Roles, Native Americans Acknowledged 5 Genders

Religious influences soon brought serious prejudice against “gender diversity,” and so this forced once openly alternative or androgynous people to one of two choices. They could either live in hiding, and in fear of being found out, or they could end their lives. Many of whom did just that.
Imagine a world where people allowed others to live freely as the people nature intended them to be..without harm..without persecution..without shame. Imagine a world where we are truly free.


Before European Christians Forced Gender Roles, Native Americans Acknowledged 5 Genders (external - login to view)
 
PoliticalNick
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

So that gives you the right to discriminate against anyone who does not fit into your narrow view of sexual orientation.

Yes
Quote:

Until Christians came along, native Americans recognized 5 different sexual orientations.

They also lived in tents and would trade resources and land for some shiny beads and a couple of blankets.
Quote:

You cherry pick passages from the OT to justify your prejudices while ignoring 95% of the other passages in rabbinical laws.

Nope, I ignore that novel completely
Quote:

I hate to break it to you sister, but Jesus hung out with 12 guys and was quite possibly gay himself.

I think he had wild sex with Mary Magdeline...and maybe a few of the apostles and their wives..or some hookers, you choose.
Quote:

During that time period it was quite common.

I'm sure you remember it vividly but that was just you in the 60s. Should have stayed off the LSD buddy.
Quote:

He supposedly came to reform rabbinical law but you still cling to those out modded laws when it suits you bias.

Nope, I ignore all the religious idiots.
Quote:

I'm sure Jesus would kick your butt if he was to return.

He could try.
Quote:

You think discriminating against the LBGT brothers and sisters is pleasing to your Lord and Master?

I am my own lord and master
Quote:

I think not.

We know you don't but you should try, it doesn't hurt.

100 million dead?? There wasn't 100 million in total. There wasn't 10 million in total. Quit lying.
 
Motar
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

According to the United States Department of Justice, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 identifies two 'sexes' (presumably male and female):

"...changing from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes.."

and exempts religious educational institutions:

"this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization..."

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix...mendments-1972

There is no mention of 'trannies' or any other 'sex' in the original legislation, ts.

It appears that the original legislators had something other than LGBTQ in mind when they crafted this law, ts.
 
Cliffy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Yes

They also lived in tents and would trade resources and land for some shiny beads and a couple of blankets.

Nope, I ignore that novel completely

I think he had wild sex with Mary Magdeline...and maybe a few of the apostles and their wives..or some hookers, you choose.

I'm sure you remember it vividly but that was just you in the 60s. Should have stayed off the LSD buddy.

Nope, I ignore all the religious idiots.

He could try.

I am my own lord and master

We know you don't but you should try, it doesn't hurt.

100 million dead?? There wasn't 100 million in total. There wasn't 10 million in total. Quit lying.

Nobody was talking to you pinhead. Go play in the traffic like a good little sheeple.

And there was as many as 110 million people in the Americas before Columbus.
 
PoliticalNick
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Nobody was talking to you pinhead.

It's an open forum thanks
Quote:

Go play in the traffic like a good little sheeple.

That wouldn't be smart, playing in traffic. I'm certainly no sheeple. I would say you are though when it comes to indian issues.
Quote:

And there was as many as 110 million people in the Americas before Columbus.

Sure thing Zippy. They had cities the size of Dallas and Chicago too I'm sure. There wouldn't have been those wide open spaces the Europeans found. Exactly what I meant above...you're a sheeple to the indian issues.
 
Cliffy
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

That wouldn't be smart, playing in traffic. I'm certainly no sheeple. I would say you are though when it comes to indian issues.

 
PoliticalNick
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by cliffyView Post

triggered! Lol
 
Motar
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

“It is shameful and wrong.' ... Campus Pride named the list the 'Shame List' for the purpose of calling out the harmful and shameful acts of religion-based prejudice and bigotry. https://www.campuspride.org/shamelist/ (external - login to view)

In our day, religion is most often accused of shaming and provoking guilt in people. Is this a false accusation? Or has 'Campus Pride' joined the ranks of the religious?

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Imagine a world where people allowed others to live freely as the people nature intended them to be..without harm..without persecution..without shame. Imagine a world where we are truly free.

Would this imaginary world support people of faith who wish to establish an institution of higher education based upon their moral beliefs and practices, Cliffy? Or are these excluded from such liberty?
 
taxslave
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MotarView Post

According to the United States Department of Justice, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 identifies two 'sexes' (presumably male and female):

"...changing from being an institution which admits only students of one sex to being an institution which admits students of both sexes.."

and exempts religious educational institutions:

"this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization..."

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix...mendments-1972

There is no mention of 'trannies' or any other 'sex' in the original legislation, ts.

The legislation isn't relevant to the SJWs that put your school on the shame list.You need to find out what their problem is. It may very well be something you don't care about.
 
Motar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The legislation isn't relevant to the SJWs that put your school on the shame list.You need to find out what their problem is. It may very well be something you don't care about.

I would suggest that the problem lies with a misuse of the law, ts. Rather than holding the conduct up to the doctrine and adjusting the behavior, the new morality seeks to hold the law up to the cultural practice and bend the law.
 
no new posts