Discussing the Issues Removed

[wbtfg]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

[arvcat2]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Hey wbtfg, that’s rather rich coming from one of the biggest consumers and re posters of fake news from the terminated Discussing the Issues board. To bad that board was removed as it would be very enjoyable to revisit all the lies out of the “media” that you regurgitated, hook, line and sinker. But alas, you have the moderator to run cover for you and your fellow far-left VIP posters (yes, Tomcat88 aka CatBot included). Go Cats!

[wbtfg]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Hey wbtfg, that’s rather rich coming from one of the biggest consumers and re posters of fake news from the terminated Discussing the Issues board. To bad that board was removed as it would be very enjoyable to revisit all the lies out of the “media” that you regurgitated, hook, line and sinker. But alas, you have the moderator to run cover for you and your fellow far-left VIP posters (yes, Tomcat88 aka CatBot included). Go Cats!

LOL!

Did you have something to contribute about the topic, or did you just come here to talk about me?

[Cataholic]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

[wbtfg]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

[CatBot]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Hey wbtfg, that’s rather rich coming from one of the biggest consumers and re posters of fake news from the terminated Discussing the Issues board. To bad that board was removed as it would be very enjoyable to revisit all the lies out of the “media” that you regurgitated, hook, line and sinker. But alas, you have the moderator to run cover for you and your fellow far-left VIP posters (yes, Tomcat88 aka CatBot included). Go Cats!

Huh?

[Cataholic]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

[wbtfg]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

[Cataholic]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

[wbtfg]

This is really cool! Reading through all this offers zero clarity and lots of confusion. Then a few posters pretending to want to know what I think of it. Hilarious. Nobody cares what I think.

I think we should go to the real brains and ask Tim “Weird” Walz what he thinks!

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

[Cataholic]

Tim "female products in the boys bathroom" walz...

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

[wbtfg]

Spreading fake news again Rich? That’s twice on one thread.

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

[Cataholic]

Didn’t he sign the legislation and pass it into Minnesota law?

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

[wbtfg]

Yeah. Did you read the law? Or a summary of the law? Rich obviously didn’t.

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

[Cataholic]

The new law requires Minnesota public schools to stock free menstrual products in bathrooms used by students in 4th through 12th grade goes into effect Jan. 1, 2024.

During a House Education Policy Committee on the bill this past January, an amendment to add the word “female” before the student reference was rejected (“…in restrooms regularly used by female students in grades 4 to 12…”). “Not all students who menstruate are female,” bill author Rep. Sandra Feist stated. “This [the amendment] is just another way to divide people in our schools,” added Thomas Stinson, a licensed school nurse at Harding High School.

While you can argue that the legislation was an effort to provide free products to students, the attempt to clarify that it should apply to just females was rejected by the Walz administration.

Democratic State Representative Sandra Feist, the chief sponsor of the legislation, said she purposely made her bill “gender-inclusive.”

“While the vast majority of the period products will be used in the girls’ bathrooms, the decision was made to structure the bill as gender-inclusive in order to ensure that trans and nonbinary students who menstruate would have equal access to the products they need,” Feist said.

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

[wbtfg]

From the legislation.
“A school district or charter school must provide students access to menstrual products
at no charge. The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district. For purposes of this section, "menstrual products" means pads, tampons, or other
similar products used in connection with the menstrual cycle.”

Nothing in there about boys bathrooms. School districts can choose to put the products in boys bathrooms, but it’s not mandated. Seems pretty benign to me.

As a girl dad, I think this is great.

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that biological females need feminine products.

It also tells me that not all biological females identify as female gender.

So in order to meet the law of providing female products to biological females, the schools need to figure out the best way for them to do that.

Growing up in Montana, I know that schools look very different from each other. The one room school house in greenough looks very different from Billings west.

Heck, some Montana schools may only have one gender neutral restroom for the entire school…maybe even the entire district.

You and I both support providing female hygiene products. I support leaving it up to each individual district (which is how the law in question is written), and I get the impression you’d like it more spelled out where those products should be made available. I don’t think we’re too far apart on our views here.

I’m just clapping back on @RickRund echoing false gop talking points that waltz mandated female products in the boys bathroom, which we’ve established clearly isn’t the case.

[Cataholic]

I agree that providing free products to females is a good thing. However, the sponsor of the bill says she purposely made it gender inclusive and the efforts to exclude boys bathrooms was rejected by the Democrats and Walz. You can try to paint it any way you want, but Walz supported the placing of feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

Just curious, but what do you think personally regarding placing these products in boys bathrooms? The state of Connecticut and country of Canada have made it explicitly required that they are placed in boys bathrooms. How about you?

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that biological females need feminine products.

It also tells me that not all biological females identify as female gender.

So in order to meet the law of providing female products to biological females, the schools need to figure out the best way for them to do that.

Growing up in Montana, I know that schools look very different from each other. The one room school house in greenough looks very different from Billings west.

Heck, some Montana schools may only have one gender neutral restroom for the entire school…maybe even the entire district.

You and I both support providing female hygiene products. I support leaving it up to each individual district (which is how the law in question is written), and I get the impression you’d like it more spelled out where those products should be made available. I don’t think we’re too far apart on our views here.

I’m just clapping back on @RickRund echoing false gop talking points that waltz mandated female products in the boys bathroom, which we’ve established clearly isn’t the case.

I think we have also established that Walz and his party could have clarified the law for just girls restrooms. Instead, he chose to side with far left politicians and go along with the ambiguity of placing female hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

[wbtfg]

There were female products in my bathroom at home growing up and there are female products in my bathroom now. I’ve never really given it a second thought since it doesn’t affect me at all.

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that biological females need feminine products.

It also tells me that not all biological females identify as female gender.

So in order to meet the law of providing female products to biological females, the schools need to figure out the best way for them to do that.

Growing up in Montana, I know that schools look very different from each other. The one room school house in greenough looks very different from Billings west.

Heck, some Montana schools may only have one gender neutral restroom for the entire school…maybe even the entire district.

You and I both support providing female hygiene products. I support leaving it up to each individual district (which is how the law in question is written), and I get the impression you’d like it more spelled out where those products should be made available. I don’t think we’re too far apart on our views here.

I’m just clapping back on @RickRund echoing false gop talking points that waltz mandated female products in the boys bathroom, which we’ve established clearly isn’t the case.

I think we have also established that Walz and his party could have clarified the law for just girls restrooms. Instead, he chose to side with far left politicians and go along with the ambiguity of placing female hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

You say ambiguity, I say delegating authority to the local experts.

[wbtfg]

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that biological females need feminine products.

It also tells me that not all biological females identify as female gender.

So in order to meet the law of providing female products to biological females, the schools need to figure out the best way for them to do that.

Growing up in Montana, I know that schools look very different from each other. The one room school house in greenough looks very different from Billings west.

Heck, some Montana schools may only have one gender neutral restroom for the entire school…maybe even the entire district.

You and I both support providing female hygiene products. I support leaving it up to each individual district (which is how the law in question is written), and I get the impression you’d like it more spelled out where those products should be made available. I don’t think we’re too far apart on our views here.

I’m just clapping back on @RickRund echoing false gop talking points that waltz mandated female products in the boys bathroom, which we’ve established clearly isn’t the case.

I think we have also established that Walz and his party could have clarified the law for just girls restrooms. Instead, he chose to side with far left politicians and go along with the ambiguity of placing female hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

You say ambiguity, I say delegating authority to the local experts.

Another little interesting tidbit about this bill is that one Republican submitted an amendment, saying that the products would only be available in female and Gender, neutral restrooms. That seemed like a logical amendment to me. It was eventually defeated, but that same Republican lawmaker still voted in favor of the bill because he thought it was a good thing.

[Cataholic]

Assuming you have females use that bathroom, that would seem to be a normal item.

Hmmm. You do seem to be avoiding the question by not answering it directly, but it sounds like you approve of having feminine hygiene products in boys bathrooms. With all the problems our country is facing, it would seem that money allocated to making sure boys bathrooms have such products could be used elsewhere. Maybe something like additional funding to take care our veterans.

Again, the law doesn’t dictate that tampons are to be available in boys bathrooms. That seems to be a difficult, yet important, point to grasp.

It’s a decision made by each individual school district in Minnesota. I’m sure some Minnesotans don’t approve how their school districts have rolled it out, and I’m sure others are fine with it. I’d imagine there are lots of districts who don’t put them in boys bathrooms.

Okay. I understand your point. Let’s approach it from a different perspective. An amendment was proposed to clarify that only restrooms used by female students should apply. You have went to great lengths to point out that this is great for female students, which I agree. This simple clarification in the amendment would still maintain the positive impact on the female community. This clarification was denied by the Democrats and Walz. What do you think?

I’m not opposed to it, but it sounds like a big government approach. I like the idea of letting each local school decide, as they know their needs better than politicians who don’t even live in the community. Didn’t peg you for a big government guy.

It would seem to me that the state government is the one mandating this law.

What is really telling to me is that the Democrat sponsor of the bill explained that the bill was purposely worded to be gender inclusive. It is a shame that such a worthy project is muddied by woke ideologists trying to make a political statement.

Gender inclusive is bad?

For feminine hygiene products? What does common sense tell you?

Common sense tells me that biological females need feminine products.

It also tells me that not all biological females identify as female gender.

So in order to meet the law of providing female products to biological females, the schools need to figure out the best way for them to do that.

Growing up in Montana, I know that schools look very different from each other. The one room school house in greenough looks very different from Billings west.

Heck, some Montana schools may only have one gender neutral restroom for the entire school…maybe even the entire district.

You and I both support providing female hygiene products. I support leaving it up to each individual district (which is how the law in question is written), and I get the impression you’d like it more spelled out where those products should be made available. I don’t think we’re too far apart on our views here.

I’m just clapping back on @RickRund echoing false gop talking points that waltz mandated female products in the boys bathroom, which we’ve established clearly isn’t the case.

I think we have also established that Walz and his party could have clarified the law for just girls restrooms. Instead, he chose to side with far left politicians and go along with the ambiguity of placing female hygiene products in boys bathrooms.

You say ambiguity, I say delegating authority to the local experts.

This made me laugh. So based on your view that local experts should have the final say on the law, wouldn’t you be against the state mandating any law in the first place?

It would be very interesting to see how many voters would have supported a simple amendment to clarify women’s restrooms. I am guessing that it would have been overwhelmingly approved. Everyone is for providing women access to necessary hygiene products (as you indicated in your other post), but not everyone is for wasting money.