Even if a teacher didn’t stop the smartass punk, or lawsuit fears prevented a teacher from doing so, I would think the girls themselves would take care of it.
Dating was quite competitive when I was in high school, and it seems just as much so now. Any ‘smartass punk’ who tried this might be successful in getting into the girls locker room to look, but do you think he would have any serious chance of getting a date with any of those girls? Or any other girl they talked to? (And the girls always had a pretty active rumor mill going in my high school.)
And frankly, any 15-year-old guy can see more explicit stuff on the internet than in most high school locker rooms. Without risking the hit to his reputation from claiming to be transgender.
This relates to tomndebb’s repeated false claim that the DOJ letter came about when they “responded to numerous requests by soliciting input from multiple institutions, educational and otherwise, beginning last fall, and received over 28,000 responses […] this was not a hastily thrown together attempt to attack North Carolina, but a nation wide response to genuine requests for guidance from multiple locations throughout the country that was in the works for many months”
I was reminded of that claim when I was reading about the court decision putting that guidance on hold. Random cite from the LA Times (emphasis added)
[This is perhaps a bit of a minor point to be dragging up a 3 month old thread. But I didn’t realize the discussion was that old when I began searching for it, and once I’ve come this far I’m going to post it. Sorry. :)]
Your cite doesn’t contradict the claim that DOE received thousands of request for guidance, and I’m not sure how you thought it did. Notice-and-comment rulemaking is a formal legal procedure involving the promulgation of draft regulations that are then modified based on public comment. It is required for certain kinds of administrative rules, but not every administrative rule. The presence or absence of that procedure has absolutely nothing to do with whether the DOE received requests for guidance.
ISTM that the claim that they “responded to numerous requests by soliciting input from multiple institutions, educational and otherwise, beginning last fall, and received over 28,000 responses” contradicts the assertion by this judge that they “bypass[ed] its notice and comment process”.
Unless you’re claiming that they did issue notice and request and receive comments but violated the official process in some highly technical sense. If this is indeed your claim, please clarify.
I’m informing you that “notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law, referring to promulgating and modifying a draft regulation. Whether it happened or not is completely independent of whether what tomndebb describes happened or not with respect to the letter.
Agencies solicit and receive feedback on informal regulatory actions all the time. There is a narrower subset of regulations for which they do notice and comment rulemaking. They are logically and practically independent things. That’s not a “highly technical” distinction. It’s the difference between saying the President has not given a State of the Union speech this month and saying the President hasn’t talk about the conditions in our country this month.
Your first paragraph is built on your assertion that ““notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law”, but in your second paragraph you go on to say that the lack of this is “not a “highly technical” distinction”. Are you differentiating between “technical” and “highly technical”? I am not inclined to argue that …
Again, please clarify. In what substantive manner did a process that solicited comments from over 28,000 institutions fail to comply with the procedure? (Perhaps that the proposed rule wasn’t published in the Federal Register? But that begs the question as to why an agency going through the process of requesting comments from over 28,000 institutions in a deliberative and open process wouldn’t take the simple step of publishing it in the FR.)
One is privately working with certain institutions with technical expertise and practical experience with a given topic. The other is going “Here’s our plan, what do you think?” to the [del]ignorant[/del] uninformed public.
I don’t know if you could describe over 28,000 institutions as “certain institutions with technical expertise and practical experience” - especially when you consider that’s only the number of responses that tomndebb was claiming they got, not the number of requests they sent out. One can only imagine how many requests they would have to have sent out to get that many responses.
My impression is that while in general these requests for comments are open to anyone who wants to comment, as a practical matter the ones who comment are those who have a keen interest in the subject. The ignorant uninformed public rarely comments, or even - being ignorant and uninformed as they are - has any idea that it’s going on. [My own firm is constantly commenting on proposed regulations which impact employee benefits, but you never hear this come up in ordinary conversation … :)]
That said, I did note earlier in this thread that any request for comment which was broad enough to receive actual responses from 28,000 institutions on such a hot-button topic as this would have attracted some notice in the media, and would even reach the ignorant uninformed masses, and the fact that no one besides tomndebb has alleged that this process took place, and even tomndebb himself can’t produce any evidence that it ever existed, is yet another reason to believe that the whole thing never happened outside his imagination.
The fact that something has a technical definition does not imply that any differentiation from that concept is a technical difference. Pretty sure you understand that, and I’m really not sure how I would explain it further if you don’t. A grenade has a technical meaning. A pineapple is not a grenade, and that distinction is not technical.
If you ask me, this approach of covering for shallow and misleading arguments by adding some condescending language about you “explain[ing] it further” does not become you. You’re a bright guy and capable of making valid and substantive points, but everyone messes up sometimes and when that happens you should be forthright about it, instead of resorting to tactics like this. But I can’t tell you what to do, and perhaps you feel it works for you.
In any event, the following should be obvious and probably is, but since you’ve chosen to obfuscate it, I feel like I need to expand a bit.
It goes without saying that, as you say, “the fact that something has a technical definition does not imply that any differentiation from that concept is a technical difference”. That’s one reason why in my prior comment I didn’t suggest otherwise. What I did say - and note the added emphasis here - is “Your first paragraph is built on your assertion that "“notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law”. Pay attention to that, because it’s important.
To use your own example, someone attempting to explain why a pineapple is not a grenade would not begin by saying, as you did here, “‘[grenade]’ is a technical term …”. Because the reason a pineapple is not a grenade is not based on ‘grenade’ being a technical term. A pineapple and a grenade are clearly very fundamentally and functionally different with no resort to technical definitions.
But that’s not the case here. The claim being made is that the feds initiated a request for comment process on a scale so broad that they actually received over 28,000 responses from educational and other institutions. From a fundamental and functional standpoint, this is remarkably similar to the concept of giving notice and receiving comments. So when you asserted that these requirements may not have been met despite such a process, I suggested that this might be because they failed in some highly technical sense. Because, again, from a fundamental and functional standpoint, it seem pretty clear that it’s essentially the same thing (at least as to the “comments” aspect). In your response, you - perhaps unwittingly - acknowledged that yes, the issue here is that ““notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law”, but then in your second paragraph backed off this in declaring that the distinction is not “highly technical”. Which is what I called you on.
So North Carolina is dropping he HB2 lawsuit because its too expensive?!?!?!
WTF?!?!?!
I thought this was about principle and protecting the chilluns and womenfolk!!!
What price is too much to pay for principle and protecting the lil ones and womenfolk from perverts?
I don’t want to be cynical but is the governor of north Carolina in danger of losing his next election to the coach of Duke basketball over this principled and not at al bigoted law?