What's actually written is tampons must be made available to menstruating students in regular bathroom... I'm disagreeing with guy implying that the word "menstruating" is of little importance there.
My comment was directed at this little nugget of idiocy: "...But your take is some pretty comical lawyer stuff." While Ben is an attorney, his 'take' was a superficial read of what the Statute actually says. You don't need a J.D. to read his interpretation from the plain language of of the statute--you need a stretch to read y'alls wished for interpretation (i.e. that it applies only to "restrooms used by menstruating students" (it actually reads: "...restrooms used by students grades 4-12")).
Dude's been married 3x, has a daughter, has sponsored beauty pageants--which celebrate woomanhood, and are instrumental in advancing women-- and he's been instrumental in offering many opportunities to those hot babes who parade the placards at the boxing matches.... Dude's a straight up champion of woman power!
but it's the left mentality that lets dudes compete against females. And yes, Tampon Tim's bill mandates that all public schools in Minnesota provide free menstrual products in both boys’ and girls’ restrooms. I think it's great they do this for young women, but it is insane to put it in boys' bathrooms. MSN His people are on record here at the 3:25 mark:
But thats the point… it says “all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12” … you guys are parsing sentence fragments and telling me it means something different than it would if you read the whole sentence as one complete thought.
I think the fragment you quoted is actually the one that potentially changes the meaning of the sentence when read out of context. Read as a whole, at least to me, the sentence pretty clearly means that tampons have to be located in restrooms used by students so as to be available to menstruating students, not that tampons have to be provided in some unspecified location so as to be available to menstruating students who happen to be located in restrooms. The sentence makes sense if you read “in restrooms” as modifying where tampons are to be located, but seems pointless if you read it as modifying who the students to be provided with tampons are (given that all students are presumably in a restroom at some point over the course of a school day).
Bottom line Ben, do you believe that a school district that has zero trans male students would be in violation of the law if they only put tampons in female bathrooms?
As written, quite possibly. It’s a poorly written statute. The chief defense against that would be the canon of interpretation that says you should avoid interpretations that lead to absurd results, but there seems to be clear legislative history here that the seemingly absurd result (we need to put tampons in men’s restrooms so as to ensure their availability to menstruating teen boys) was the one specifically intended by the legislature.
I don’t know man, I just don’t see anyway it would be interpreted such the “menstruating students” part isn’t seen as a limit on which bathrooms they must be included in. The law clearly states its purpose is to provide tampons to menstruating students, so it makes no sense claim it could require schools to put them in locations where they know menstruating students would have no access to them. But again, I think we disagree on what the “in restrooms regularly used by students” means and why it is there. You see it as a clause that possibly expands the laws to include every restroom used by students. Think it was put there because someone had the foresight to see that some red school district might use this law to humiliate poor children by locking the tampons in “special” restrooms where they need to ask permission to access them … hence, “restroom regularly used by students”. So in that case, the clause would further limit where the schools can out them, not expand it. But in the end, if the law intended for tampons to be in every school restroom, male or female, that’s an easy law to write… can’t think of any reason why they would write the statue as they did if that was their intent.
Walz may be to the left of Harris, if that's even possible. This could be one of the few races where the VP pick has some impact, because he's not offsetting her at all. He is her clone, I'm assuming, in a male body.
[/QUOTE] You and 5 other MAGA morons care. Swing voters could give a rip. So, please, keep leaning into this absurd line of attack.
You and 5 other MAGA morons care. Swing voters could give a rip. So, please, keep leaning into this absurd line of attack.[/QUOTE] Winner.
Winner.[/QUOTE] It's hilarious. All they had to do was remove the cadaver from the campaign and the MAGA fools all eat their young. Kamala literally doesn't have to say anything as the MAGA fools are doing all the heavy lifting for her. Now the dynamic has completely shifted as Harris - whether you like her politics or not (I don't) - just has to present as somewhat normal and contrast that with the unhinged, aging idiot and his unhinged, moronic fanbase. Just watching them destroy themselves daily with stupid statement after stupid statement is pure gold.
Just as a matter of your opinion: are tampons in a male restroom a greater threat to us, or is a presidential candidate knowingly accepting help in an election from Russia?
You and 5 other MAGA morons care. Swing voters could give a rip. So, please, keep leaning into this absurd line of attack.[/QUOTE] It's a form of mental masturbation. They post shit like tampon vending machines in boys restrooms because it makes them feel good. As you pointed out the issue will have virtually no impact on swing voters.
