LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS — All trans youth Gavin Grimm wants to do is pee in peace at his school in Gloucester County, Virginia. But peeing has resulted in an outpouring of hate from almost his entire community. If that wasn’t enough, Maine Gov. Paul LePage and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, have crossed state lines and joined a legal maneuver to permanently crush Grimm’s access to the boys’ bathroom.
Grimm’s school district’s trans “bathroom ban” has made its way all the way to federal court, and the two governors along with the Attorney Generals of South Carolina, West Virginia, Arizona, and Mississippi, are making a case for keeping the ban in place.
Maine Gov. Paul LePage was singled out in an editorial in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald for getting involved in the Virginia case:
“There is no reason for LePage to be involved in this case, and his position goes against rulings by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court [trans youth case of Nicole Maines] and the will of state voters, who in 2005 outlawed discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
What’s more, he is perpetuating harmful transgender stereotypes and contributing to an atmosphere that makes life difficult, and even dangerous, for transgender Americans of all ages.”
Maine Gov. LePage has said he was “appalled” at the Virginia youth’s lack of parenting. He also said 11-year-olds shouldn’t be filing lawsuits. North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory joined the action only after his own state’s Attorney General refused to do so.
Grimm was able to use the boy’s room at school for a year before being forced out when a parent complained. An earlier story in Raw Story accounts the hatred directed Grimm’s way following that decision.
Grimm: “It’s humiliating, it’s ostracizing and I don’t want to take that walk of shame to the unisex bathroom and know that everyone who saw me go in there knows why I’m in there — because I’m different, and I’ve been marked different by my school and publicly.”
No court ruling on the matter has been made at this point.
—–
Governors crossing state lines to stop trans people from peeing? It’s happening. Bathroom Cops are coming to your state, soon!
Nicole Maines: https://lexiecannes.com/2014/01/30/supreme-court-in-maine-rules-in-favor-of-trans-student-nicole-maines/
Editorial on Gov. LePage: http://www.pressherald.com/2015/12/14/our-view-lepage-backs-the-wrong-side-in-transgender-bias-lawsuit/
Background on the case: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/12/02/3727410/transgender-student-bathrooms-amicus-brief/
Earlier accounts: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/transgender-teen-angers-adults-by-asking-to-use-boys-bathroom-its-the-bible-belt-and-satan-is-in-our-town/
Watch LEXIE CANNES right now: http://www.amazon.com/Lexie-Cannes-CourtneyODonnell/dp/B00KEYH3LQ Or get the DVD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332
Read Lexie Cannes in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-odonnell/
Categories: Discrimination, Equality, Civil Rights, Judicial, Courts, Transgender, Transsexual, Trans
LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS 
Gov. LePage is someone that most of us Mainer’s are not happy with, and he has no right to be poking his nose in this or any other state’s business for that matter. He has enough problems right here in Maine to be dealing with right now. I could go on about how mean and nasty he is, but that’s a well known fact here.
Yhis is sad leave him alone people r ignorent let him be who he wants to be go to what bathroom he wants
It seems gender-neutral bathrooms for transgender has become the pink star placed on lgbt people in Nazi Germany.
I’m rejoicing that these governors are doing the Lord’s work of killing their supporters by covering up the causes of DSD/intersex conditions, all for their delusion that some form of consciousness insists there’s a law they be sexually pleased while being found irresponsible for their actions.
So your insistence is that you be sexually pleased, but not others that don’t follow your delusion? A bit selfish by the rules of your religion, yeah? Which is not law, fyi, and thankfully, i don’t have to follow your fake rules. I rejoice that this poor child will become an adult soon and will instill the fight to keep people like you out of our pants.
Why are you suffering the delusion that I’m wearing your pants? Do all pants belong to you? Or better still, do you have a dictionary in which the word “sarcasm” exists?
Considering the requirement for treatment of gender dysphoria doesn’t include any form of sexuality or social presentation, despite such sentiments as “For some it’s about dressing up, for others it’s about sex”; and considering the expression of sexual exclusivity engages social structures both political and religious and that it often includes or devolves into pedophilic demand –
“Girls as young as 11 were given a plastic Star of David, signifying that they had “the light” and were ready to have sex with the cult leader”
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/us/growing-up-under-koresh-cult-children-tell-of-abuses.html
“three charges involving two underage brides, unidentified girls who were 12 and 14 at the time of the alleged crimes”
http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/Warren-Jeffs-returned-to-Texas-to-face-bigamy-case-1716312.php
And the explicit example of Paul Schaffer, a supposedly Lutheran minister who fled Germany under charges of pedophilia, set up a compound in Chili with the sign “Arbeit macht frei” over the entrance, sequestered his “flock” and prevented escape, tortured and disappeared people for the Pinochet regime, and tortured and imprisoned heterosexual couples to keep them from having sex while he raped their male children. Though the paranoiac and sexually narcissistic attributes of sexual exclusives generally forbids or destroys close and cooperative association, Pinochet apparently found him useful and not a sexual threat in need of mitigation, because according to “Catholic Digest” at the time Pinochet left piles of drugged and bleeding 9-yr-old girls after his parties.
– and that those who purposely equate the trans state with homosexuality and cover up their pedophilia by claiming a majority is performed by gay or trans persons even though it exists at equal levels in gay persons –
“Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535
– and that such assaults are by opportunity and not selection –
“Sexual preference or opportunity: an examination of situational factors by gender of victims of clergy abuse.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23264544
– and yet while claiming gay persons are only 2% (5.6% including other orientations and trans persons) of the population, would insist that “straight” persons (a word from the Bible written “strait”) could never be responsible for the 1/3 of pedophilic assaults against males, acts predominantly performed by males even though 60% include participation by women:
“Yello Dyno”
http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html
Considering those who engage sexual exclusivity via religious texts that authorize the expression of disgust which functionally serves as sexual demand and ensuing servitude, such as Christians who quote prophets declaimed by their purported master as “worker[s] of iniquity” (inequality) in Matthew 7:22-23 as the ultimate SMH, or Buddhist proscriptions making “sin” of gender-and-sexual variance, or Muslims who’ve functionally made it “righteous” to kill anyone who isn’t sexually pleasing, willing to supply their leader’s sexual appetites, or willing to die to do it –
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/117-ghalib/1361-the-horrible-status-of-women-in-islam-part-2.html
– it becomes of note that denial of chemical/environmental causes of DSD/intersex conditions increases exposure to destructive and dysgenic agents, and thus sexual exclusivists engender their own demise, that of their genetic line, and the destruction of both civilization and the species while maintaining bodily moral disgust clothed in hearsay gives them the right to do so and be “morally” irresponsible for it.
Whereas freedom “of” religion was instituted as freedom FROM religion in some countries, there is no freedom from chemical agents, their increasing effects on other members of the public, and functionally no freedom from sexual or gender oppression.
So at what point in my short comment did I say I’d created a religion giving me the right to other people’s clothing or to deny them neurogenesis via healthy sexuality that doesn’t involve unwanted harm to others? Or should I just avoid sarcasm, metaphor, allusion, multisyllabism, and write in short sentences because I’ve underestimated the effect of phthalates, PAHs, and lead on the population? And why would I ask you being as that you’ve already proven it’s true?
Just my pants, thank you. I got lost on your reply about spiritual leaders trying to relate them as evidence supporting an ideological rant. Lordy me, i fell asleep.
Good for you! It’ll improve comprehension.
You’re just being trollish. Stop it.