Libertarians and gender neutral locker rooms

ABYUFAN wrote:
BTW There is a wonderful website called Transparent California - where the world can know what people in the public sector make. I pulled up Fresno Unified School District. Nice middle class school district in the central valley. Here's a link to the Music teachers' salaries....

http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-districts%2Ffresno%2Ffresno-unified&q=music&y=2014



The highest paid teacher has a regular rate of pay at $77,000. the lowest $15,000. There are significant benefits (mostly coming from an excellent defined benefit retirement plan) Teachers are not getting rich on these salaries, but they can at least own a house and a car. At $77,000. they realistically need to be a two-income family to pay for their kids' college education.



so tell us the name of this teacher, and we can see for yourself that teacher's compensation.



PS just for a goof, look up engineer salaries, and see how they compare....



http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=engineer

No doubt city "engineers" are overpaid compared to their private counterparts. So are teachers. The government sets a price that is way overmarket (like they do for everything else). Also those numbers leave out the a large part of the present value of retirement benefits.



The value of a benefits package for privately employed engineers is half that of public school teachers. So teachers starting at 43K here make an amount equivalent to an engineer starting at 60K (the average for CA engineering grads).



Look up music teachers in Monterey county (Salinas Union). The smarter districts here hire consultants at half the price their union counterparts charge, some of whom aren't even on that list.

jvquarterback wrote:

BTW There is a wonderful website called Transparent California - where the world can know what people in the public sector make. I pulled up Fresno Unified School District. Nice middle class school district in the central valley. Here's a link to the Music teachers' salaries....

http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=school-districts%2Ffresno%2Ffresno-unified&q=music&y=2014



The highest paid teacher has a regular rate of pay at $77,000. the lowest $15,000. There are significant benefits (mostly coming from an excellent defined benefit retirement plan) Teachers are not getting rich on these salaries, but they can at least own a house and a car. At $77,000. they realistically need to be a two-income family to pay for their kids' college education.



so tell us the name of this teacher, and we can see for yourself that teacher's compensation.



PS just for a goof, look up engineer salaries, and see how they compare....



http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=engineer

No doubt city "engineers" are overpaid compared to their private counterparts. So are teachers. The government sets a price that is way overmarket (like they do for everything else). Also those numbers leave out the a large part of the present value of retirement benefits.



The value of a benefits package for privately employed engineers is half that of public school teachers. So teachers starting at 43K here make an amount equivalent to an engineer starting at 60K (the average for CA engineering grads).



Look up music teachers in Monterey county (Salinas Union). The smarter districts here hire consultants at half the price their union counterparts charge, some of whom aren't even on that list.

You're taking the highest public sector compensation place of Monterey County and comparing it to the statewide average of starting civil engineers. Not the average starting salary of Monterey County Engineers. Got it. You realize that your position is not supportable



But to get back to where we started, You had a conniption when I said that it was a sin for a school district not to have sports or music classes. And yet your kids are in music classes that cost about what it takes to pay a music teacher. Also your kids are involved in sports that rely on the generosity of others, and are not self-sustainable, but even with that you have a problem with others thinking that music and sports belong in a publicly funded school.

ABYUFAN wrote:

but remember before when you said taxation was theft then changed your mind when it didn't suit your argument?).

.

I don't remember saying that - mostly because I never did..... Show me where you think that I said that (Spoiler alert: you can't). I'm just chalking this up as trying to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.



By the way, you admit that your kids sports are subsidized through other people's money and efforts (i.e. property donation) You also admit that the so-called "market value" of a music lesson is roughly the hourly rate of pay of a public school teacher. It really was nice having this conversation with you

Just a reminder Mr. JV, this question is still pending.

ABYUFAN wrote:
You're taking the highest public sector compensation place of Monterey County and comparing it to the statewide average of starting civil engineers. Not the average starting salary of Monterey County Engineers. Got it. You realize that your position is not supportable



But to get back to where we started, You had a conniption when I said that it was a sin for a school district not to have sports or music classes. And yet your kids are in music classes that cost about what it takes to pay a music teacher. Also your kids are involved in sports that rely on the generosity of others, and are not self-sustainable, but even with that you have a problem with others thinking that music and sports belong in a publicly funded school.

I doubt you have any concept of Monterey County but there aren't a lot of engineers here, most of them are in the bay area, LA and San Diego where the cost of living is much higher - those that are here do mechanical engineering (agricultural and otherwise)if they are lucky and aren't getting paid what the guys up in San Jose get paid. Also Monterey county is a relatively inexpensive place to live in California as long as you don't live in Carmel or Pacific Grove.



Generosity is great - our HOA has offered our ball field free from cost but the league likes to support the upkeep of the school fields. No one holds a gun to our heads asking for donations or threatens jail time if we don't contribute. Theft by taxation to pay for some over-educated, sorry teacher (and musician) to bang on some drums is not OK. I pay half the price for wonderful music instructors to come to my house and teach lessons (are you really going to argue they bill 80K a year traveling to peoples' homes? and that doesn't include self employment taxes, driving costs, time spent traveling, time at recitals, etc.). And the only reason I have to pay that much is because the government overpays somebody at the local school.



As I've said the smarter districts hire consultants at about half the cost of the music teachers in our district. The same could be done with PE teachers and sports' teams. If people want to donate they should. If they don't, you shouldn't threaten to confiscate their property.



BTW I apologize for thinking you could be integral in your argument. For you it's a sin to misuse stolen funds. For me it is a sin to steal and threaten violence in the first place.

jvquarterback wrote:

I doubt you have any concept of Monterey County...

Doubt all you want... you'd be wrong about that too.

jvquarterback wrote:
but there aren't a lot of engineers here, most of them are in the bay area, LA and San Diego where the cost of living is much higher - those that are here do mechanical engineering (agricultural and otherwise)if they are lucky and aren't getting paid what the guys up in San Jose get paid.

Not true and no way that you can quantify that, but we'll ignore that because of the other glaring problems with your statements...

jvquarterback wrote:

Also Monterey county is a relatively inexpensive place to live in California as long as you don't live in Carmel or Pacific Grove.

Salinas is also very expensive to live in, as is the entire county. This website indicates that the cost of living in Salinas is equal to that of San Diego....



http://cost-of-living.careertrends.com/d/d/California

jvquarterback wrote:


BTW I apologize for thinking you could be integral in your argument. For you it's a sin to misuse stolen funds. For me it is a sin to steal and threaten violence in the first place.

Nice. Not only do you accuse people of saying things that they never did, you also have some previously-unknown and perhaps unknowable definition to common English words.



In the traditional English language, the word steal, as it relates to theft is to take another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.



Often times the taking is surreptitiously.



Taxes are neither unlawful nor surreptitious.



For me it is a sin to misuse PUBLIC funds. I've never called them stolen, you have. For you it is a sin for the government to legally take something that it is entitled to and to use it in a way that you (and you alone) find bothersome.



At least I understand you now. You want to live in Monterey but not pay Monterey taxes. Talk about entitlement. I travel to Monterey all the time, when there I pay their extra occupancy taxes on hotels, I pay their higher sales tax on goods, and then I leave.

Leave it to an English teacher or worse, an English teacher's husband or son, and you'll get an Orwellian definition of the word steal. Taxes are lawful - remind me who makes the law? Oh yeah, the person taking your money. I hope you feel good about taking other people's money to pay for your kids' sports teams. Remember that the next time some old lady has her house foreclosed over a tax lien.



BTW learn how to read a chart. The Salinas metro you cite includes all of Monterey county including Carmel and Pacific Grove. Salinas is still expensive compared to Provo but without the peninsula data it's very manageable particularly with all the benefits teachers get (including buying homes at half price).

jvquarterback wrote:
Leave it to an English teacher or worse, an English teacher's husband or son, and you'll get an Orwellian definition of the word steal. Taxes are lawful - remind me who makes the law? Oh yeah, the person taking your money. I hope you feel good about taking other people's money to pay for your kids' sports teams. Remember that the next time some old lady has her house foreclosed over a tax lien.



BTW learn how to read a chart. The Salinas metro you cite includes all of Monterey county including Carmel and Pacific Grove. Salinas is still expensive compared to Provo but without the peninsula data it's very manageable particularly with all the benefits teachers get (including buying homes at half price).

I've told you this before, and I know that it is hard for you to believe, In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports. I'm sorry that this information hurts your psyche so much that you refuse to acknowledge it.

ABYUFAN wrote:

In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports.

Should we all start clapping because you're financing your kids' sports teams on the backs of a bunch of widows? Good on you.



If you're taking money back the government stole from you in the first place I think that's great. If you're just taking money - well that's another story entirely. Even with your claim that it's "neither unlawful nor surreptitious" and that you'll pay it back eventually.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports.

Should we all start clapping because you're financing your kids' sports teams on the backs of a bunch of widows? Good on you.



If you're taking money back the government stole from you in the first place I think that's great. If you're just taking money - well that's another story entirely. Even with your claim that it's "neither unlawful nor surreptitious" and that you'll pay it back eventually.

Come up with one definition of "stole" that supports your position... Just one

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports.

Should we all start clapping because you're financing your kids' sports teams on the backs of a bunch of widows? Good on you.



If you're taking money back the government stole from you in the first place I think that's great. If you're just taking money - well that's another story entirely. Even with your claim that it's "neither unlawful nor surreptitious" and that you'll pay it back eventually.

Come up with one definition of "stole" that supports your position... Just one

This seems to be the main point of your argument:

1. The government demands money from you just because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.

2. A random thug on the street demands money from you because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.



#1 is not stealing because the law says it's ok.



That doesn't change the morality of the concept by very much in my opinion.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports.

Should we all start clapping because you're financing your kids' sports teams on the backs of a bunch of widows? Good on you.



If you're taking money back the government stole from you in the first place I think that's great. If you're just taking money - well that's another story entirely. Even with your claim that it's "neither unlawful nor surreptitious" and that you'll pay it back eventually.

Come up with one definition of "stole" that supports your position... Just one

This seems to be the main point of your argument:

1. The government demands money from you just because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.

2. A random thug on the street demands money from you because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.



#1 is not stealing because the law says it's ok.



That doesn't change the morality of the concept by very much in my opinion.



But I think if you have taxes, they should be as "voluntary" as possible -- in other words, a sales tax should be way preferred over income tax. You don't have to buy the product if you don't want to pay the tax. Economists have proven this would also be much better than income tax which is essentially just a punishment for being productive and is therefore a drag on the economy.

hawkwing wrote:

My view:



Have Men's bathrooms. Have Women's bathrooms. Allow transgender individuals to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in. The End.

Is that the same with locker rooms or no?

No. Women who identify as men and who have their breasts reduced and a penis constructed should be forced to shower with women. Men who identify as women who have breasts enhancements and their penises removed and a vagina constructed should be forced to shower with men. Because THAT makes sense somehow.

ABYUFAN wrote:
My children have had a trans kid at their school since the 1st grade… He (meaning biologic he, not the “she” that he dresses up as) has always used the boys bathroom, and good for him and the school for having it happen that way I have always felt sorry for the little girls who are uncomfortable to have an uncovered penis in the bathroom with them at other schools. It really is too bad that we as a society have decided that we want to cater to these folks’ mental issues and not offer them the help that they need.

Tell us more about your horrible attitudes. Do you also have a white relative who is married to a black person who you refuse to ever speak about in public, due to the terrible shame you feel they brought on your family?

Schmoe wrote:
I'm proud of my school district and state for fighting against this ridiculousness, but if it is somehow strongarmed through... I personally would quit my job as a public educator.

And the educational system would be better off for it. Better an unemployed bigot than one being paid by my taxes to treat children poorly.



P.S. There are Trans BYU fans who read this forum.

Mars wrote:

My children have had a trans kid at their school since the 1st grade… He (meaning biologic he, not the “she” that he dresses up as) has always used the boys bathroom, and good for him and the school for having it happen that way I have always felt sorry for the little girls who are uncomfortable to have an uncovered penis in the bathroom with them at other schools. It really is too bad that we as a society have decided that we want to cater to these folks’ mental issues and not offer them the help that they need.

Tell us more about your horrible attitudes. Do you also have a white relative who is married to a black person who you refuse to ever speak about in public, due to the terrible shame you feel they brought on your family?

I believe that mental illnesses should be helped and not catered to. Sorry if that offends you. I believe that if someone has misophonia there are better alternatives than telling them that they are fine just the way they are. I believe that even if someone has aquaphobia they should still learn to swim. I have a cousin married to a black man, and we get along fine - but because I have an opinion that you find offensive I must be a horrible person. You're welcome to come to my house and shoot me.

BlueK wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
In my lifetime I will have paid much much more into the educational system than my kids used for their sports.

Should we all start clapping because you're financing your kids' sports teams on the backs of a bunch of widows? Good on you.



If you're taking money back the government stole from you in the first place I think that's great. If you're just taking money - well that's another story entirely. Even with your claim that it's "neither unlawful nor surreptitious" and that you'll pay it back eventually.

Come up with one definition of "stole" that supports your position... Just one

This seems to be the main point of your argument:

1. The government demands money from you just because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.

2. A random thug on the street demands money from you because you have it and will punish you in some way if you don't pay.



#1 is not stealing because the law says it's ok.



That doesn't change the morality of the concept by very much in my opinion.



But I think if you have taxes, they should be as "voluntary" as possible -- in other words, a sales tax should be way preferred over income tax. You don't have to buy the product if you don't want to pay the tax. Economists have proven this would also be much better than income tax which is essentially just a punishment for being productive and is therefore a drag on the economy.

The government doesn't demand money from you just because you have it - the government demands money from everyone who receives the benefits of that government. The government excuses some people from paying any money because they do not have sufficient to pay, but there is no law prohibiting people from leaving an area where they don't want to pay what the government requires them to.

Mars wrote:

I'm proud of my school district and state for fighting against this ridiculousness, but if it is somehow strongarmed through... I personally would quit my job as a public educator.

And the educational system would be better off for it. Better an unemployed bigot than one being paid by my taxes to treat children poorly.



P.S. There are Trans BYU fans who read this forum.

You're right, wanting boys not to be able to have free reign to go into girls locker rooms at a junior high school and believing that the president doesn't have authority to decree whatever he wants based on his social beliefs instead of the constitution makes me a bigot and means that I "treat children poorly."



Funny statement, as well, coming from someone who is paid by my taxes--I'll gladly pay you back the less-than a penny that goes from your taxes to me if it means protecting teenage girls from pervy boys. These aren't people that have had surgeries, just anyone who "feels" like the opposite gender for that day, week, month, etc.



If there are trans BYU fans reading this forum, they should realize that laws are not to be used to justify someone's lifestyle choices, and the basic biological fact is that men and women are different.



Thanks for calling me names because you disagree with me, though, it's a great tactic instead of logically talking through an issue. You're a winner! ;)

Sorry if I'm getting upset. It's just not a simple issue. Some people are born male. Some are born female. Some are born both. Some are born neither. Genetics themselves aren't perfect, due to DNA mutations and chromosomal abnormalities, which is why there's no sure way to perform gender testing in the Olympics. To label people as suffering from a mental disease because of issues like these reeks of the days when being gay was treated with electro-shock therapy. Psychology has come a long way in the last 100 years. I don't see how punishing people for being different than yourself can ever be an acceptable belief system. That's Sharia Law. Of course, that doesn't mean that Obama has the right answers either (he doesn't, nor can he seem to follow his legal jurisdictional boundaries), but to me that's neither here nor there.



One small life rule- Respect people enough to call them what they wish. If they are black, don't call them nigger. If they are gay, don't call them faggot. If they are transgender, identifying as female, transitioning to female, don't call them 'he'. That's simply being a good human being.

Mars wrote:
Sorry if I'm getting upset. It's just not a simple issue. Some people are born male. Some are born female. Some are born both. Some are born neither. Genetics themselves aren't perfect, due to DNA mutations and chromosomal abnormalities, which is why there's no sure way to perform gender testing in the Olympics. To label people as suffering from a mental disease because of issues like these reeks of the days when being gay was treated with electro-shock therapy. Psychology has come a long way in the last 100 years. I don't see how punishing people for being different than yourself can ever be an acceptable belief system. That's Sharia Law. Of course, that doesn't mean that Obama has the right answers either (he doesn't, nor can he seem to follow his legal jurisdictional boundaries), but to me that's neither here nor there.



One small life rule- Respect people enough to call them what they wish. If they are black, don't call them nigger. If they are gay, don't call them faggot. If they are transgender, identifying as female, transitioning to female, don't call them 'he'. That's simply being a good human being.

I think transgender is a much different issue than being a racial minority or homosexual. Yes there are genetic abnormalities that can lead to having both male and female sex organs. In that case, though, they are picking one, rather than switching from one sex to the opposite sex. Gender, except in all but the rarest of cases, is pretty clear at birth and is biologically verified. Having a desire to change your body to a different sex than the one you are born with is a mental illness, just like someone who feels like their limbs should be amputated (a real mental illness), one who feels like they should be thinner, so they starve themselves or make themselves throw up (a real mental illness), or any of the other mental illnesses that cause people to make a break from reality and take serious action to change their otherwise perfectly healthy bodies.



Studies have shown that after transgender surgery, there is actually an increased rate of suicide by more than 20 times. Why do you suppose that is? Unfortunately, there cannot be real, honest intellectual study into the issues because people start throwing around the bigot card to silence any honest inquiry into whether mental health counseling is better for the person struggling with that issue, as opposed to a completely physical change. See, http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120 for example.



The real issue, as has been pointed out, is those that have not gone through a transition surgery, but just identify as the opposite sex for the day as a sham to have access to the opposite locker room. I would have no issues with a woman who has had the surgery to look like a man being in the men's locker room or vice versa. But that isn't what all the hoopla is about. It is about the teenage boy "feeling like he is a woman today" and hanging out in the girl's locker room.

http://www.youngcons.com/mother-of-girl-who-lost-to-transgender-runner-speaks-out/



Shocking! How can this mother be such a bigot and treat children so poorly? Doesn't she know that there are probably trans people who read youngcons? She should probably be fired from her job and stuff.