Trans

South Dakota Governor Rejects Transgender Bathroom Panic—With a Conservative Argument

Bill would have forbidden students from using facilities of opposite sex.

|

I'm not sure I'm dressed fashionably enough to use either of these restrooms.
Credit: Sam Howzit / photo on flickr

South Dakota's legislators passed a law through both houses earlier in the year that forbid public schools from accommodating transgender students by allowing them to use the restrooms and locker rooms that did not match their birth sex. It was the first law of its kind, obviously opposed by transgender activists. But it wasn't certain whether Republican South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard would sign the legislation.

In the midst of Super Tuesday he made his decision: Nope. He vetoed the bill, and his reasons for doing so were a reminder to conservatives that they're supposed to be in favor of local control of government and schools, not orders from high. From his veto letter:

"HB 1008, does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota. As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people. Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity,"

"This bill seeks to impose statewide standards on 'every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school.' It removes the ability of local school districts to determine the most appropriate accommodations for their individual students and replaces that flexibility with a state mandate."

The representative who sponsored the bill defended it as a solution that was intended to be "non-discriminatory." He nevertheless has asked his peers not to overturn the veto because of the bad publicity the legislation has brought the state.

Setting aside the bathroom panic, perhaps a non-discriminatory solution would be more about respecting the individual privacy of all students being forced to spend their days as guests of the state, regardless of how they express their gender identity. You don't have to be questioning your birth gender or "transitioning" to not be comfortable with peers looking at your body, especially as a teen. (I personally, as a high school student, fulfilled some of my gym requirements in summer school in part so that I could just go home afterward and not have to use the locker room.)

Right now, the debate is infused with such an "us vs. them" culture war mentality that both sides are happy to cheer on the dispute rather than figure out what an acceptable accommodation might mean. We have the bathroom panic crowd who argue that accommodation would be used by evil men intent on victimizing women, without much evidence that such a thing would happen. (For that matter, even if it did, that's a terrible reason for not accommodating others, because it collectivizes the conditions for individual liberty. It's akin to "stop and frisk" efforts to fight crime.)

But I do worry that argument from some transgender activists and allies is less about being left alone to express their gender as they desire, as every human should be permitted, and more about a demand that everybody around them celebrate and participate in the journey and attempting to use the state as a tool to bludgeon opponents into submission. I support obligating schools, prisons, and other government agencies accommodate transgender people's journey because it's the government, they force us to interact with them, they take transgender people's money just like everybody else's, and they can damn well respect their gender expression.

Everything else is a matter of cultural debate and negotiation, and right now it feels awfully shrill and entrenched. Everybody wants to use the law to fix it. Such a method therefore requires a constant fight for control over the levers of power. Trying to shame the "bathroom panic" people as bigots seems to be a poor strategy, particularly given the big victory in Houston in fighting its pro-transgender ordinance.

I do get it—there's an underlying subtext that these people would prefer that they never interact with transgender people at all or that they didn't even exist. This was the same subtext under a lot of anti-gay arguments (when people argue that acknowledging or even permitting gay relationships encourages others to "become" homosexual, I guess I wouldn't even call that subtext).

Despite these current fights, there have been significant cultural shifts in how people perceive and react to transgender individuals, and it's improving. It's the "I know a transgender person" phenomenon that used to be the "I know a gay person" phenomenon. Polls show that people are likely to have more positive opinions toward transgender individuals if they know one. The difference is striking. A poll from last year found a 53-percentage point improvement in positive impressions of transgender people between those who personally know them and those who do not.

Cultural engagement is more likely to help transgender people get what they want and subsequently help pave the way for transgender teens in public school (which, reminder: an extremely new phenomenon) to be accommodated and to maybe avoid the pursuit of government force as a solution on either side.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ron Paul: Neither Trump, Clinton, & Others "offer to reduce the size and scope and intrusion of government"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people.

    Next there will be slavery at the district level!

    1. Fist,

      But, wait-the author points out that “he gets it”-its about not wanting to be around Tranny’s. And now you add to this horrible stance that you also don’t want to be around slaves? Or are you one of those “PC” fanatics who insist on abolition and dont want to be around slaveholders? Local rule, babe, like the author insists.

  2. Nice poisoning of the well with the use of the term “panic”, as though it’s just completely irrational not to want your daughter to shower next to a dude.

    1. Yes, because forcing girls to shower next to boys is definitely what’s happening here.

      1. Yeah, they have the choice not to shower or use the bathroom if they don’t want to. Hurray for choices!

        1. Send your daughter to a different school if you don’t like your current school’s policies.

          Better yet, ask your daughter if she really gives a shit. If she doesn’t care, then you don’t really need to get your panties in a wad, do you?

          1. Yet another reason school choice fucking rules – we wouldn’t have to deal with these stupid fucking squabbles over culture war issues if you could just choose a school with the policies you want.

          2. Yeah, that’s really practical in South Dakota, where towns are just teeming with schools.

            1. They have way more schools than trans students

            2. You can choose to homeschool. Or to move. Remember that having kids was your decision.

              1. But they are paying for public school nonetheless. If some private school wants to bend over backwards to accommodate a tiny minority of screwed up people, peachy, but that’s not what we are discussing.

                1. Trans people are also paying for public schools.

                  1. Not those kids.

                    Their parents might be, but the kids aren’t.

        2. What would you tell your daughter if she refused to share a bathroom with that loudmouth bitch Katie? Would you demand the state do something about it?

          1. Not the same thing and you fucking know it.

            1. Exactly the same thing. It’s forced association.

              1. Serious question:

                What happens if the country goes full Progressive and public schooling becomes mandatory (no private schooling / homeschooling)? At that point do I have a right to demand that boys not be allowed in the girls’ locker room? This isn’t out of the realm of possibility. As a liberty-minded individual, and as someone who doesn’t think it’s wise to let teenage boys shower with teenage girls, where do I turn? I assume I could tell my daughter not to shower at all, or avoid the locker-room altogether, but this is what happens when the state gets involved in shit where it doesn’t belong.

                1. What about the creepy homos? What if they rape someone or look at someone lustfully? How terrible. All the bathrooms are completely unsafe. We have to create bathrooms that are only suited to be used by one person at a time.

                2. Well, when the country “goes full progressive” and forces you to do things you don’t like, you’re SOL. Even in that case, subsidiarity is still superior to central government.

            2. Please answer the question.

              I’m guessing you would tell your daughter, “Tough. Deal with it.” You would have her accept the choices before her, the choices that Kevin mocked, rather than run to the state and demand they ban Katie.

              1. loud-mouth bitch Katie =/= creepy dude

                In the case of loud-mouth bitch Katie, I’m telling my daughter to tell Katie to shut the fuck up.

                In the case of creepy pseudo-dudelady, I’m homeschooling her.

                In neither case am I telling the state what to do. But they are not the same thing.

                1. So what you’re saying is that you have no respect for your daughter’s associative preferences, but when it comes to yours, well, that’s really fucking important.

                  1. Say what?

                    I’m assuming in this scenario that my daughter is annoyed/bothered by both individuals. I have no idea what your point is (which I’m not saying is on you… I’m just not grasping your point).

                    1. But that was never the scenario. The scenario was someone who actually bothered your daughter, vs. a trans person. No one has actually talked about what their kids want, only about what they want for their kids.

                    2. Look, I hear you, and I’m not a statist on this, but I also don’t buy the uber-libertarian argument about kids. There’s no definitive point where children suddenly get to decide everything about their lives. It’s an age-old problem. You wouldn’t let a 4 year old run out into the middle of a busy street because, well, he’s got free will! I’ve only read a little bit about how different libertarians view this subject, and there seems to be no perfect answer.

                      In this scenario, I’d probably err on the side of what my daughter felt comfortable with, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have to seriously consider all relevant facts. I’m not a father yet, so I can’t say for sure. Let me phrase it this way: I would say the same thing if it was a boy vs. a trans (because, to me, they’re the same thing)

                    3. My own point was just trying to get to the actual objection here, since so much of this discussion is hidden behind stupid innuendo (they’ll share a restroom with boys… you know what that means!).

                      Is the problem that your daughter will be uncomfortable with a penised person in the restroom? As with Katie: too bad, deal with it.

                      Or is the problem that you think “something” will happen? If so, specify what that is, and start bringing some evidence to the discussion.

                    4. Then you and Just Say Nikki (seem to) have different qualms (it’s difficult to have these kinds of divergent discussions).

                      I’ll say this: I’m coming around to your point (begrudgingly). I would still say that both the bitchy chick and the dude might end up with bloody faces. This is where I part ways (a bit) with the NAP. Some people deserve to be punched in the face (for their sake, as much as anyone else’s). Not saying this is a certainty (far from it), but I’m suggesting that some bad behavior earns retribution. But then, I’m still in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress / Wild West school of libertarianism, where we can mostly police ourselves, and bad actors learn to behave.

          2. Or what about parents who didn’t want their kids going to school with bog irish hooligans? Surely the state owes them a separate school!

    2. Yeah, like, god forbid she sees a penis, but sending her to prison is A-OK!

      1. Of course. She’s already forced to be in school, so prison is just a difference of degree.

        1. The school is the prison in question.

        2. That was the joke CP, school is prison, except it is no joke.

          1. I just got out of a four hour meeting, my brain is fried.

            1. Have a beer, you’ve earned it.

            2. No meeting should last more than 90 minutes. Anything said after that is guaranteed to just be repetitive. I wish more people understood this…

            1. How did you fit this in the middle of a squirrel attack?

              1. I’m an understudy of Jesse.

          2. I just got out of a four hour meeting, my brain is fried.

            1. Huh. That’s the first time I’ve seen the squirrels let a comment in between their duplicates. Neat.

              1. I’m probing the squirrel defenses for weakness.

                1. *hands FM a bag of strychnine-laced acorns*

    3. Also, notice daughter…dude, not daughter…boy. Someone is in full pants-soiling mode.

      1. Is “dude” offensive to males or something?

        1. Dude implies adult male. Given that we’re talking about schools, faculty and staff tend to have restroom facilities separate from those used by students.

          1. Dude implies young male to me. I don’t see how being 17 makes it any better.

      2. Because fathers are hardwired to defend their daughters from undesirable boys.

        1. So, transgendered people are inherently violent?

          1. No, they’re inherently undesirable.

            1. No, all boys are inherently undesirable.

              1. You were the one who brought “defend” to the discussion, Nate.

                1. Actually, no I didn’t.

                  I was correcting Nikki, in that many girl dads find all boys to be undesirable whether they be straight, gay, bi, trans, or space aliens.

                  But thanks for automatically assuming I have a problem with trans-gendered kids.

                  1. Oops, my 1:50 was in response to JWW. Nate, I’m sorry about the typo.

                    1. Not a problem. Sorry I got overly defensive.

                    2. No problem, bro.

              2. Also, I find it fascinating that the gender-rigidity people, would get freaked out over an effeminate boy in a dress. You really think that kid is after your daughter?

                1. Very possibly. Not all transgender males are attracted to males, as advocates are quick to point out.

                  Either way, whether or not the guy is after my daughter, she is still compelled to see him undressed if he chooses to use the girl’s locker room.

                  1. And you think that 5-minute-long experience is worse than sending her to prison for hours and hours each day.

                  2. Some people seem to imagine these situations as being not transgendered students using the bathroom of their choice, but as the captain of the football deciding on a moment-to-moment basis which locker room he wants to go into. I don’t think there’s any practical situation in which that’s how it actually works.

                    Captain of the football wants to go in the girls’ locker room, he needs to identify as a girl. Like permanently.

                    Do you freak out about lesbians leering at your daughter in the shower?

                    1. I’m not concerned about leering.

                    2. OK, you claim to not be concerned about leering…yet above you get all exercised about how your (perhaps hypothetical) daughter is compelled to look at others in the shower room. Which is it, Kevin?

                    3. Is the concern rape? How does the current gender-segregation system for restrooms prevent rapists from entering or waiting outside of women’s restrooms?

                    4. Yes, I think the biggest concern is rape, and that is a legitimate concern. But are not lesbians and gay men also capable of rape? Is it not also possible that straight people would sexually abuse others as a display of dominance? But somehow when transgendered people are introduced it immediately becomes a problem.

                2. Could be. There are plenty of M2F lesbians.

          2. They’re either genuinely delusional, or they’re faking it. I think the fear of guys faking it to try to get a peek at the goods are what has parents upset.

            1. I think both. I don’t buy this notion that gender is just some sort of construct and everyone should just be comfortable seeing people of the opposite sex naked.

              1. I don’t buy this notion that […] everyone should just be comfortable seeing people of the opposite sex naked.

            2. I think both. I don’t buy this notion that gender is just some sort of construct and everyone should just be comfortable seeing people of the opposite sex naked.

              1. Well, in a free country, it’s not the job of the state to protect you from seeing things that make you feel uncomfortable.

                Mind you, I don’t partcularly like seeing other people’s dangly bits. But then I also don’t particularly like seeing obese people or clowns for that matter.

    4. Isn’t that pretty much the definition of irrationality? A parent’s love for his child manifesting in overly cautious rules and behaviors?

      1. Parents…really don’t like to hear that.

        1. Meh, depends how you put it. If you ask someone to give an example of irrationality, I bet love is likely to come up, with parental love being considered particularly strong.

      2. If we begin with the assumption that separate bathroom and showering facilities comprise overly cautious rules

        1. What do you think will happen, if a penised child is in the same bathroom as a vaginaed child?

          1. Pegging when the boys drop the soap?

          2. I guess the question is, given how society loves its moral panics, what are the odds the trans stuff survives the first time a “transgirl” takes a picture of another girl showering, sends said nudie pics to all his guy friends, and she kills herself out of cybershame?

            1. Uh, a conviction for child porn, of course. Anyone of either gender taking pictures in the shower would be inappropriate.

              1. Cis-girls would never share pics of another girl and shame her into depression!

                Goddamnit you people made me use cis.

                1. I hate that, too, MJ. Honestly, I’m not personally keen on the transgendered. But people are saying exactly the same things about them that they used to say about gay people – delusional, pretending, mentally ill, disruptive, sick, perverts, defying god’s will.

            2. I think you probably ought to have evidence of a problem existing before making legislation to “fix” it. Pretty basic stuff.

          3. Since you won’t answer, Kevin, I’ll clarify my earlier post: a parent’s love for his child manifests in exaggerated fears about the dangers posed to the child, which leads to overly cautious rules. Your fear is very human and understandable, but it is not reasonable.

            1. Very well-put, MJ. Kevin, I do understand your concerns.

          4. Why do you say this–“a penised child’? There is a single syllable word for this–‘boy’ or ‘man’–unless you’ve gulped down the SJW Kool-Aid, in which case anyone or anything can have a penis, men can give birth and biology is just the errant dream of a more primitive humanity.

            If so, you’ve abandoned reason for madness and we should just call you ‘nikki jr’

        2. I haven’t seen a public school with showering facilities in use in a long, long time. Even when I was in school in the 80s, showering after PE was 100% optional.

          Is this still something that kids are actually forced to do in any part of the country?

          1. Pretty much no, as far as I can tell. So what we are dealing with is people going into the toilet and using a single occupancy stall to do their business (unless some ambitious trans-guy tries out the urinal). I fail to see the problem that needs solving. If anything making people use the toilets for their biological sex would be more disruptive, I would think.

          2. How dare you bring facts into this discussion. Showers! Communal nudity! Peniseses!

    5. Do people actually shower in school?

      And would it really be that hard to have a couple private stalls?

      1. No, no, LP, that would be special rights and we can’t have those. Neither can we allow them to use the facilities that everyone else does. The only solution is to make them go away.

        1. Or just have them shower with their biological gender, since apparently it’s no big deal anyway, right?

          1. Biological gender…as defined how, exactly?

            1. I think he means “Sex”.

              Because there is no danger and nothing disruptive about the trans-girl showering with all the guys (if that even is a thing anymore in public schools). Also, something tells me that trans students in South Dakota are probably doing all they can to avoid showering in groups at school.

              1. I know it’s sex, was more interested in getting a definition out of Kevin than going all pedantic (yeah, rare for me, I know).

                there is no danger and nothing disruptive about the trans-girl showering with all the guys

                Yes, that would be a hell of a disruption. Srsly.

                Did you mean transboy, ie a F2M? Yeah, they mostly still have vaginas, phalloplasty yielding only cosmetic results.

                1. I hope the sarcasm was obvious.

                  And I did mean M2F, but still with the male equipment. But either way, I don’t imagine high school boys are going to be too kind about it.

                  1. Or, they’re going to be both mean and turned on by the boobs, which will make them meaner still.

                2. Because there is no danger and nothing disruptive about the trans-girl showering with all the guys

                  was the sarcastic part. Perhaps a bit too subtle, given the variety of views around here.

    6. We’re talking about taking a pee here (or a poop). What’s more disruptive and likely to cause problems, a man dressed and acting like a woman using the men’s room or the same person using the ladies room (or the same thing with genders switched). Unless that person (let’s avoid the gendered pronoun issue here) is really half-assing it, I’m going to go with the latter.

  3. I support obligating schools, prisons, and other government agencies accommodate transgender people’s journey because it’s the government, they force us to interact with them, they take transgender people’s money just like everybody else’s, and they can damn well respect their gender expression.

    Gosh… one those things stands out like a sore thumb as something that very much shouldn’t be a state institution! 🙂

    1. I can see allowing boys in the girls’ room being one route to ending public education in some state soon.

      1. ^This. So, in a way we should be thankful to hysterics like Kevin47.

        1. The argument for letting kids shower with whomever they like pretty much boils down to “accept it or your crazy.”

          1. There’s always “accept it or you’re oppressing people.”

            1. I’m sure I’m also racist somehow.

              1. Sorry, Irish has our racist quota all filled up.

                Would you prefer to apply for our bigot status? That designation never seems to get full.

              2. As long as you can admit it.

            2. I don’t really see the oppression in saying you have to use the bathroom for whatever plumbing you were born with.

              Of course I say just make everything unisex and be done with it. (Added bonus, I don’t have to do extra fixture calculations for every building I design.)

              1. I don’t really see the oppression in saying you have to use the bathroom for whatever plumbing you were born with.

                Kevin thinks part of his role in life is “letting kids shower.” Other people’s showers are not my business.

    2. Tarran,
      obviously rampant perversion is not going to be the norm but you can bet that there will be plenty of perverts to jump on the opportunity to hit the ladies room and claim innocence as a gender confused fella when caught peeping.

      This is obviously a tough subject when people can just claim to defy science.

      It seems that in the absence of a solution, we need to stick to using the men’s room if you have balls. Also, if you are a good enough tranny to get away with using the ladies room, just do it without asking.

      This is also a good pretext for all women arming themselves and macing Bruce Jenner if he should try to catch a peak while your business is out.
      This is not a panic, its just a slight tick over ridiculous to have the conversation. If you identify yourself as a man and you have ovaries, life is going to continue to be tough for you. The bottom line is that there are not that many freaks out there and thus they have to bend to the will of the majority public in this instance. Or just go to a private business that has neutral bathrooms. Don’t send your kids to public school either. Its a complete waste of time.

      1. So, a veteran who had his balls tragically blown off by an IED and is on hormones would be totes ok?

        1. No. But he likely will not put on a dress and insist on using the ladies room would he?

          If he does, then he fits in the tiny minority crowd. Tough luck for him.

          USA!

          1. OK, why not? That hypothetical vet passes the test you articulated. Either revise your test, or explain how I failed to understand it or how my example is deficient.

            And that hypothetical vet might do that just to piss off people like you. Or he (or should that be “he” since he doesn’t have balls) might not want to squat to pee in front of other men (assuming penis damage as well).

      2. life is going to continue to be tough for you

        It does beg the question of just how far does society have to go to “accommodate” someone.

        Here in NYC, for example, wheelchair users are now demanding that all Uber vehicles must accommodate them. Or take the ADA, which requires escalators and such for transit facilities – if the NYC subway wasn’t grandfathered in we’d be looking at probably trillions of dollars to fix it and for what benefit?

        1. Well, libertarians shouldn’t be in favor of people being coerced into paying for special accommodations for others in any case.

          1. Unfortunately we still have all these publicly-owned operations lying around.

            1. I think Scott put it well: government is held to a different standard because it doesn’t give us any alternatives. This is a good argument for alternatives.

              I’m fine with having the government accommodate transgender people, but no one has a right to use a particular bathroom, so if the government decides not to offer that option I really can’t bring myself to call it an injustice.

              So given that this really does seem like a question of policy and not of fundamental rights, I’d say the democratic process is the way to settle it. This is a good argument for federalism and allowing this to be sorted out at the state/local level.

              1. I should clarify: I really don’t think it should be illegal for anyone to use the bathroom of their choosing. This seems to be the type of thing best settled through cultural norms.

                1. ^This. I don’t care if men want to use the ladies room. Just don’t be shocked when they are ridiculed (or worse) for their decision. And, if they do worse (like creep on the girls/women), they deserve whatever they get.

                  1. I used the women’s bathroom once because it was closest to the classroom I was in and I really had to piss.

                  2. Except if they are ridiculed then they can file a grievance because they aren’t being tolerated. Which they will.

              2. So given that this really does seem like a question of policy and not of fundamental rights

                Nope, no actual rights question at all, folks.

                1. I’d honestly like to hear which question or rights there are here.

                  The only way I can see this falling under Constitutional or rights-based arguments is through equal protection, and there may be an argument for that. But I think it is perfectly plausible to argue that bathrooms have always been segregated by biological sex as defined mostly by genitalia and defaulting to other physical dimorphic properties when necessary, rather than by personal gender association. So unless the argument is that someone is being denied the use of the bathroom of their choice based on their sex, or that the current male/female dichotomy ignores another type of sex, then I don’t see why equal protection would apply.

                  1. But I think it is perfectly plausible to argue that bathrooms have always been segregated by biological sex as defined mostly by genitalia and defaulting to other physical dimorphic properties when necessary, rather than by personal gender association.

                    I would say it’s the exact opposite, in fact, since no one normally checks your genitalia or boobs before you go into the ladies room. They just see that you look like a lady. It’s the gender expression that gets you in the bathroom, not the sex at all.

                    1. It’s the gender expression that gets you in the bathroom, not the sex at all.

                      Maybe, but I think that is more a consequence of that fact that most people have assumed that gender and sex match. And so long as you’re not exposing yourself publicly, most people aren’t going to challenge that assumption.

                      I’ll readily admit that both lines of reasoning could be true depending on circumstances, and maybe even simultaneously, because people do things for complicated reasons. But it does seem to me that segregation of men and women emerged primarily around sex and not gender, mostly out of concerns over sex (the kind that is more fun to talk about).

                    2. Maybe, but I think that is more a consequence of that fact that most people have assumed that gender and sex match. And so long as you’re not exposing yourself publicly, most people aren’t going to challenge that assumption.

                      Absolutely! That’s just part of the sort of insidiousness of the cultural construct: no one was ever actually policing people’s sex when they went into bathrooms, but they thought they were, because gender expression was fairly well policed. Now that it’s a no-no to police gender expression, normals have realized they don’t actually care about gender expression, at least as far as bathroom breaks (as evidenced by the people here who seem to think it preferable for a birth-boy dressed as a girl to go into the boys’ room).

                      The problem is that when you try to justify what people currently want based on what they did in the past…it’s not actually the same.

                    3. that is more a consequence of that fact that most people have assumed that gender and sex match

                      That is certainly true. But it is also true that people make the judgement about what sex someone is based on gender expression and not their genitals or chromosomes.

                    4. But it is also true that people make the judgement about what sex someone is based on gender expression and not their genitals or chromosomes.

                      I think if someone who dresses like a woman but has a penis were to use the communal shower in a women’s locker room, people’s judgement would change.

                    5. Yes, that’s true. I’m thinking mostly of toilets. Communal showering just isn’t going to be easy for trans people no matter what. A person with a ding-dong dressing as a woman using the men’s shower is going to get some odd reactions too. I can only imagine that the vast majority will do what they can to avoid that mess.

                  2. Clarifying again: No one has a right to use a bathroom of their choosing. That would be a positive right, which I don’t consider to be rights at all. The question of who can use what bathroom is left to property owners. In this case, the property owner is the government, and the democratic process is the proper way to answer questions of how the government uses its property.

                    Now, the government is rightly prohibited from policies that deny people equal protection of the law. But if you buy the above argument that bathrooms are segregated by biological sex and that the current male/female dichotomy covers all cases, then I don’t see an equal protection argument. I don’t see how anyone is being put at a legal advantage or disadvantage or is having their rights violated.

                    That doesn’t mean I am against making accommodations for transgendered people. It’s the justification/reasoning behind it that I’m talking about.

                  3. I’d honestly like to hear which question or rights there are here.

                    First amendment – free expression. The right to live your life as whatever sex you wish. Just like people have a 1A right to believe in nonsensical stone-age superstitions.

                    Equal protection – the right to an education and to use the bathroom like everyone else.

                    1. “First amendment – free expression. The right to live your life as whatever sex you wish. Just like people have a 1A right to believe in nonsensical stone-age superstitions.”

                      But no one is required to believe other people stone age superstitions.

                      So why should they be required to believe someone’s subjective body image ideas?

                    2. Response to Tonio:

                      Regarding free expression, you certainly have a right to live as whatever gender you want to identify as, but if we are talking about biology I don’t think your statement makes much sense. That isn’t really a lifestyle or something you choose. We were discussing the implications of that above.

                      Regarding equal protection, I think you’re treading into positive rights territory.

          2. Which is what is going to happen. If laws like this are not on the books, eventually laws requiring the accommodation will be. The school choice argument is utterly disingenuous.

        2. The Green Mountain Club has basically been forced to stop creating new outhouses on the trail because any new ones have to be ADA compliant (even when they’re 5 miles of rocky, rooting trail and 3000 feet of elevation gain from the nearest road).

          1. Do you expect Master to just piss on Blaster’s neck?

      3. but you can bet that there will be plenty of perverts to jump on the opportunity to hit the ladies room and claim innocence as a gender confused fella when caught peeping.

        No you can’t. Don’t project.

        Also, if you are a good enough tranny to get away with using the ladies room, just do it without asking.

        Because the value of a woman is based on her looks? Besides, I’ve seen plenty of biological women that wouldn’t pass that test.

        You’re just throwing a bunch of (bad) arguments against the wall to see if something sticks.

        1. “Besides, I’ve seen plenty of biological women that wouldn’t pass that test.”

          Something tells me in the coming years of this culture war, we can expect to see ugly people being thrown out of bathrooms on suspicion of their true gender.

          Though, Timbo may be on to something: This largely shouldn’t be much of an issue, because people are simply going to use what they want to use without permission, and there’s no way to tell who’s trans without security guards that check your genitals before entry. So why is this an issue?? People are gonna use what they’re gonna use.

          1. Exactly. All riling of the pc police aside, if a tranny stands next to me at the urinal, I now have a funny story to tell outside of said bathroom.

            This whole thing is absurd and thankfully funny enough to piss off whole swaths of douchebags who give a shit.

        2. No I’m not, Simples.
          When the TSA blob first exploded after 9/11, smart people knew those zombies would abuse their power, share video’s of people’s junk, illegally grope passengers, and otherwise prove their worthless bureaucratic ilk.

          When all of that happened, they did not reverse the laws now did they?

      4. “obviously rampant perversion is not going to be the norm but you can bet that there will be plenty of perverts to jump on the opportunity to hit the ladies room and claim innocence as a gender confused fella when caught peeping.”

        So what?? There are probably perverted gay people out there who take the opportunity to peek at you when you use the bathroom. The only way we can remove the hazard of ogling perverts is to make bathrooms completely private stalls. Which we could do, but it’ll be expensive.

      5. You’re just speaking hypothetically about what some people might do, maybe, at some point in the future. Why not let the school handle that situation if it should arise rather than trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution to a non-problem down everyone’s throats?

        1. I regard people going to the bathroom with their biological gender a non-problem.

          1. Well, as long as we’re making laws based on Kevin’s feelz, that sounds really important.

      6. “This is also a good pretext for all women arming themselves and macing Bruce Jenner if he should try to catch a peak while your business is out.”

        This may be a good opportunity to remind viewers that women don’t have “business” that comes “out” when they pee.

        I have built many, many women’s restrooms, and I have never, ever built or seen one where the women don’t sit on toilets behind privacy screens. Never.

        Where is this “peeking” happening, exactly? Mirrors under the stall doors?

    3. Hmmmm… I got it, it’s the “other government agencies” that sticks out like a sore thumb, right??

  4. /Sigh. How long is it going to take before the Starship Troopers shower scene is normal.

    1. Who needs a knife in a nuke fight anyways? All you gotta do is push a button…Sir?

    2. *looks around workplace*

      Not long enough.

    3. I have no interest in showering with anyone.

      1. Then you need to avoid gyms and locker rooms.

        1. I avert my eyes and shower at home, like a gentleman.

      2. Showering with a really close friend is one of life’s great pleasures.

        1. I’m assuming you mean friend with benefits.

            1. You have to pay your friends medical and maternity leave? Do you have to pay for their contraception too? How many sick days a year do you have to give them?

              This is exactly why I don’t have any friends.

        2. Until they pee on your feet

        3. Unless you’re in the friend zone, then it’s inhumane.

  5. “It’s the “I know a transgender person” phenomenon that used to be the “I know a gay person” phenomenon. Polls show that people are likely to have more positive opinions toward transgender individuals if they know one. The difference is striking. A poll from last year found a 53-percentage point improvement in positive impressions of transgender people between those who personally know them and those who do not.”

    Are people counting Caitlyn Jenner as the transgender person they know?

  6. Too later for the Christie story, but still…
    Union Leader says they thought Christie was a principled guy:

    http://www.unionleader.com/An-…..bad-choice

    1. Never too late for a fatboy smackdown. And the UL’s tears are so very yummy.

  7. We also need to start accommodating people who think they are Emperor Napoleon and start building them palaces around the country.

  8. What about furries and otherkin, where are THEIR accomodations?

      1. At you, Kevin, at you.

    1. They’ll need to bring their own pee-pads.

      1. So, you favor denying them access to public restroom accomodations based on their self-identity? You pants-shitting bigot, you!

        1. They can set the pee-pads in the restrooms, of course.

          This bill is largely about stopping school’s from allowing transgenders into their restroom of choice, not building or providing new accommodations. Schools may opt for that solution, of course, but the outrage in these comments supposes that they will not.

      2. IRRATIONAL! REASONS!

    2. Uh, no one said that shitting in the woods was off-limits.

      1. I wasn’t just talking about bears. And how about someone who thinks he is the Pope? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

        1. All animals with self-respect shit in the woods.

          1. Is that why cats always look like they’re panicking when they’re in the litter box?

            1. Yes. They long for the sweet caress of pine needles and leaves on their excreting nethers.

              1. You really do have a way with words. A sick, sick way, but still.

    3. Exactly, what about the accommodations of people who want to marry their cars? I saw a show about that one.

      When people inevitably start identifying as their dog breed, will we have to use little plastic bags to clean up after them?

      At some point, even the retards have to just put up a barrier and say stop already. The world is a tough place. If you are unfortunate enough to have no idea what you are, you fall in a very small minority that just has to deal with a tough life.

      Sorry tiny minority. You can find friends on the interwebs.

      1. “Sorry tiny minority.”

        How very libertarian of you.

        1. Forcing others to pay for or otherwise provide some sort of special accommodations for others is not exactly libertarian, Tonio.

          1. Uh, it’s the socons who are screeching about special segregated facilities. The trans* people just want to use the existing restrooms just like everyone else.

            1. Then let them and just shut up about it. If they venture towards a peak, they should get popped in the face.

              1. Then let them and just shut up about it.

                That’s what this discussion is about. South Dakota’s legislature didn’t want to let them.

            2. Does freedom of association come into this anywhere?

            3. No, they mostly want to use the existing restrooms like the other gender.

        2. The world needs ditch diggers too…and some people are in such a tiny minority, they aren’t going to have equal opportunity. Some things are basic fact.

          If you own a small business, should you have to widen you doors for the chance of a 500 pounder wanting to get in?

          The author is right about the government and their role in the hypocrisy but who cares about that shit anymore. The government is without limits and we are not going to stop them.
          The point is that society does not have to kowtow to the whims of a few strange people. They can live their lives and most people don’t care. They just have to live with their relatively abnormal lives. The world is a tough place.

      2. At some point, even the retards have to just put up a barrier and say stop already.

        OK. After transgender accommodations.

        Ha-ha!

        1. You know what accommodation retards want. That’s right. Cake.

      3. “what about the accommodations of people who want to marry their cars?”

        Would that harm you in any way?

        “When people inevitably start identifying as their dog breed, will we have to use little plastic bags to clean up after them?”

        Shitting in public and leaving it there is illegal, even for dogs.

        If people want to do something stupid that harms you in no way, why waste your energy opposing it?

  9. “”HB 1008, does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota. As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people. Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity,””

    I like this argument. I do think the ‘panic’ exists on both sides though, since you’ve also got leftists like the ones in Houston seriously arguing that we need to pass a law forcing private businesses to let trans people use their chosen bathroom, as if this is actually an important issue as opposed to blatant social signalling.

    Transgendered people are like 0.3% of Americans. South Dakota has about 850,000 people in it. That means there are a total of 2-3 thousand trans people in the entire state.

    Of that number, what percentage are in public schools? You’re probably talking about like 800 trans students in the state, and we’re seriously discussing the need for a statewide ordinance to deal with this issue? Are you fucking kidding me?

    1. “Issue.”

      Everything is an issue in need of fixing. It’s impossible to just leave things alone.

      1. If you leave things alone, then government cannot expand. Get on the wagon and become a complainer already.

    2. I’m guessing most trans people who could do so got out of SD, sot heir percentage probably doesn’t match the national average.

      1. I’m guessing your average South Dakota parent dismisses their four year old saying she’s a boy as a phase.

        1. I’m sure they do, Kev. And they keep dismissing it as “just a phase” throughout the intervening years and then wonder why their kid commits suicide but are secretly relieved to be able to trade the shame of having raised a freak for the sympathy of the bereaved parent.

  10. I really don’t care. But mark my words if this leads to the end of the piss trough and urinals, pitchforks will be sharpened and torches will be lit.

    1. Might as well fire ’em up, because that is pretty much a sure thing once f-m transsexuals start bitching about not enough stalls in the men’s room. Then men can enjoy half-hour lines just to take a piss.

      1. This is all conspiracy rooted in jealousy of our short piss lines. That scab, bruce jenner, sold out half of the world’s population.

        BTW, he is a tranny. Renaming tranny to trannygender does not change what he is.

        1. BTW, he is a tranny. Renaming tranny to trannygender does not change what he is.

          That’s a very special type of stupid you have going on there, timbo.

        2. “Renaming nigger to black people doesn’t change who they are.” – timbo

          1. Except trannies used to call themselves trannies and they were proud of it.

            You have missed one of the major points of this whole moronic argument. If you, every once in a while, rename something that no one gives a shit about, then it gives nannies something to do.

            1. I know plenty of transsexuals who still call themselves trannies. I believe Ru Paul got in a fight with Millennial trans people over this very issue.

              1. What camp does ru paul choose?

              2. There is still some confusion over the usage of “transvestite” versus “transsexual”. Both are often referred to as “trannies” and I am not even clear on what’s acceptable to whom any more.

                Ru and friends are mostly “transvestites” although there is some overlap with “transsexuals”.

            2. rename something that no one gives a shit about

              Oh, it seems that you’re very invested in this issue, timbo.

              1. Correct. Simply to annoy folks like you.

                I just like making fun of trannies, cis, safe spacers, micro -aggs, 99%er douches, and generally any other group of effeminate pussies …. because in the eyes of any self-respecting guy, they are pansies and freaks.

                And that’s all that means. I could care less if they piss in my bathroom. I’m still nice to them.

        3. “This is all conspiracy rooted in jealousy of our short piss lines. That scab, bruce jenner, sold out half of the world’s population.”

          What the fuck is going on here?

          1. A thread that’s shaping up to be kind of entertaining, from what I see.

          2. I don’t know what’s snark and what’s genuine. It keeps tipping back and forth.

            1. Assume its all snark, MJ. You’ll be happier if you do.

              1. One tends to go snark when discussing whether guys who like to dress as girls should have their own bathroom built for them or not.

                After all, what can be more serious than budgeting for new public construction for

        4. probably the most useful part of having a working penis is being able to go take a piss in the parking lot if you have to

      2. Yeah, there is no way urinals survive this.

      3. once f-m transsexuals start bitching about not enough stalls in the men’s room.

        They’ve actually got a point there. What’s a colon-less guy got to do to take a crap around here?

        Unfortunately, stalls don’t really work well in a men’s bathroom despite their theoretical ability to handle either #1 or #2. It’s kind of amazing how many guys are terrible at peeing in a toilet.

    2. I better not have to sit down to pee every time.

      Feminists, before you say anything: I don’t care.

    3. My favorite is when the troughs are filled with ice.

      1. It makes the experience so fancy. I love it.

        1. You’re not supposed to dip your dick in it, you know.

          1. I can’t help it. 🙁

  11. I know a couple transgendered people, and neither of them really convince me that they really know what it means to be the opposite of their birth sex

    (i.e. trangendered is the new act out against authority of very angsty teens)

    1. That’s been my experience, too. I suspect there are far few people who actually suffer from gender dysphoria than there are people who claim to.

    2. I don’t even know how it feels to be my own gender. I don’t walk around thinking “gosh, I feel very woman-y today”

      1. Yeah. And all the instances where I ever have thought that way have related to reproduction, so it’s extra confusing.

        But that’s just life as a cis shitlord.

      2. I don’t know, I feel very manly when I’m leaping from tree to tree as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia, my best girlie by my side…

        1. Back when I was rampaging across Central Asia with my Khanate, I felt manly as fuck

          1. I bet you don’t always drink beer, but when you do…

        2. +1 Lumberjack Song (Indy)

        3. I totally believe that guys feel manly, I’ve known enough. On the other hand, I’m usually the one in the relationship who kills the bugs and I don’t feel anything but amusement in those situations while my manly man is cowering in the corner.

          1. What “men” have you been hanging around with? They must be millennials.

            1. My husband is a millennial, but not a typical one….except when it comes to spiders

              1. Nothing like moving to a scorpion-infested desert to get you over your fear of spiders.

                Seriously, fucking scorpions are the worst.

                1. Solpugids. Look ’em up.

                  Try finding one of them on your cot…

      3. I tell my wedding tackle that I love it three our four times a day.

        1. Does it say anything back?

          WAIT, FORGET I SAID THAT!!!!!

      4. So, lap, you’ve never questioned whether some contemplated action would be unmasculine? And it’s just totally accidental that you automatically head to the Men’s clothing section when shopping for garments?

        1. She’s a woman. I know, we have like three female libertarians in this comment section right now, which must be some kind of record.

          1. They aren’t real women. Because TANFL.

            1. Well, at least one of them is a man-eating tiger pretending to be a woman.

        2. Oops, my bad. But the point still stands. Unfeminine…women’s clothing.

    3. You know you don’t have to go full oppo to be transgendered, right? Like maybe there are alternatives besides Pepsi or Coke, Democrat or Republican?

      1. ahem. Pyrofox.

        1. I was thinking more along the lines of the J’naii, but whatever floats your goat.

      2. The only correct alternative is Dr. Pepper.

        1. Bourbon.

          1. *holds out empty glass*
            Don’t mind if I do.

      3. Ici, c’est Pepsi.

    4. they tend to mistake personal identity with public identity. they tend to be more concerned with how other people see them, than how they see themselves. (of, course, there are always exceptions… but those never go to the local news, or courtroom)

    5. Maybe they’re just weird and have latched onto the trans thing as a way to provide a rational explanation for it.

      I’m pretty sure that’s the deal with otherkin. Like one day, like a weirdo, you have the bizarre urge to go lay on a giant pile of money. Instead of thinging “I’m a weirdo”, which be admitting to imperfection, you rationalize it by claiming to be the reincarnation of Smaug.

      1. What if I think I’m an avatar of Scrooge McDuck? Would that be weird?

        1. What special accommodations would you require for that, RC?

          1. Well, a bigger swimming pool would be nice. The one I have can’t hold all the gold coins.

    6. neither of them really convince me that they really know what it means to be the opposite of their birth sex

      DO they convince you that they really know what it means to be their birth sex?

  12. Wow, someones got way too much spare time on their hands!

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

    1. Nailed it, anonbot. Just fucking nailed it.

  13. did not match their birth sex.

    Nobody can change their sex, so the word “birth” is extraneous. Good social signaling, though, quite PC and SJW-y.

    1. There you have it, folks. Flemur says nobody is allowed to question what was written on a government-issued document. Nothing left to argue.

      1. He said nothing about the government.

      2. Flemur said nothing explicit about the government, but how would one know about one’s birth sex if not for the birth certificate? Happy to have Flemur unpack how one’s birth sex is to be officially determined.

        1. how would one know about one’s birth sex if not for the birth certificate

          If you have to check the birth certificate to know what gear you were born with, well, you’ve got more problems than gender dysphoria.

          1. Hermaphrodites are far more common than you may think. The standard practice is to make a choice and quietly “correct” the gender shortly after birth. Many people who are born with both sets go through their whole lives having no idea.

            Same with tails.

            1. Many people who are born with both sets go through their whole lives having no idea.

              I doubt its because of their birth certificate.

            2. ^This. (Square @ 3:27)

              RC, that’s a bit disingenuous. You know that bureacrats won’t make the determination themselves, not will they let the parents make that determination; they will insist on a government-issued piece of paper. Hell, they already require that as proof of age.

              1. The question was about whether somebody could know what sex they were born as without a birth certificate. If a hermaphrodite is “fixed” at birth and never knows it, I don’t see how checking their birth certificate makes any difference.

                1. The original point in consideration here was whether “sex” can be changed or whether it is an inalterable condition of existence.

                  I don’t think Tonio was literally arguing that the birth certificate is what determines sex. I think he was referencing that fact that the form, so to speak, only has two boxes to check, when reality is not actually so simple.

      3. We are discussing an argument that re ignites the preferred distinction between sex and gender but in a way Tonio does not like so he then claims that one’s biological sex is something that you can have a subjective opinion on.

        1. Nope. Try again.

          1. One’s sex is an unchangable fact. Someone may have drawn a wrong conclusion based on available evidence, but that does not change the underlying fact. A person’s biological sex is rarely unknown or even obscure.

    2. They could use CRISPR to alter the DNA of their cells to the other sex, use the altered cells to create an opposite-sex clone, and then transplant their brain into the clone.

      I mean, that wouldn’t completely do it, but it’s about as close as you can get. Give it a hundred years.

      1. mmm….crispier….

  14. kids who are so mentally unstable so as to think they’re the opposite sex should be barred from public school. it’s obvious that they’re not able to deal with reality and represent a major distraction to the rest of the normal kids trying to get an education.

    1. Kids who are so mentally unstable so as to think they’re attracted to the same sex should be barred from public school. it’s obvious that they’re not able to deal with reality and represent a major distraction to the rest of the normal kids trying to get an education.

      1. Liking something most people is completely different from thinking something wrong. Saying “I like booger flavored ice cream” is a weird thing, but not objectively wrong. Saying “I am booger flavored ice cream” is objectively wrong. Gay people aren’t denying reality, they just have unusual preferences.

    2. Kids are in school because they’re trying to get an education? I thought it was because they get assaulted and kidnapped if they didn’t go.

  15. I actually read the bill. Its not even two pages long. It strikes me as somewhat amazing that we are debating a bill that says:

    (1) People shouldn’t go into the bathroom for the other sex.

    (2) If you are trans, the school needs to provide reasonable accommodations. Allowing you to use bathrooms for the other sex, when members of the other sex are present, is not a reasonable accommodation.

    I guess I’m just old, but this strikes me as pretty reasonable.

    1. Obviously because you’re a LGBTQWERTY hating bigot asshole. You’re either with them or you’re against them.

      1. Yeah, I think we call all conclude from RC’s comments that he’s a retrograde TEATHUGLIKKKAN who hates the LBTQITWGXLVTRLMNOP community and wants to stop their imaginary gay pizza weddings, too.

        1. Well, I somehow manage to both support gay marriage and be an anti-gay bigot, so sure, why not.

          1. RC, I believe that this is the first time you’ve articulated support for gay marriage. Am I right about that? Does it come with qualifications, like “as long as they don’t want state approval”?

            And, yes, I have accused you of sneering contempt for the homos (repeatedly) in the past. If I was wrong about that I will apologize.

            1. RC, I believe that this is the first time you’ve articulated support for gay marriage.

              Then you should pay closer attention. I’ve never opposed it.

              I think the equal protection arguments for it are crap, and I think going the court route is already showing “unintended” consequences, but I’ve never thought gays shouldn’t get married.

              1. Then you should pay closer attention.

                Yes, my memory is imperfect. No apologies for that.

                1. Tonio, you’re generally a nice guy but this is a topic that you frequently go John-crazy over. Not everyone who’s beliefs don’t line up 100% with yours is a gay-hating bigot.

                  1. Thanks for the complimentary part of that, Sparky. I try very, very hard to not demonize my opponents. And there is a big difference in my mind between sneering contempt and actual hatred. My impression of RC was formed over years of interactions with him, and as I’ve stated my memory is not perfect.

                    1. Not everyone who’s beliefs don’t line up 100% with yours is a gay-hating bigot.

                      I feel that’s mischaracterizing my position, but whatevs.

                    2. I was being a little hyperbolic, but only a little.

                    3. There’s nothing wrong with being passionate about something, that’s what usually throws off your (mine) ability to interpret another’s comments. I find that the Principle of Charity is required a lot more around here than in other places.

              2. I think the equal protection arguments would be a lot stronger if they reframed it as a gender based discrimination rather than an orientation based one. When it comes to marrying a man, gay guys are treated exactly the same way that straight guys are. The thing is that they want to be treated the same way that women are (i.e. be allowed to).

    2. I’m not a fan of laws with “reasonable” in them. What the hell is reasonable? Letting people use the other toilet seems pretty reasonable to me. Showers is just going to be a mess in any case.

      1. Zeb, much of the law is based on the “reasonable man” standard. What would a hypothetical reasonable person do in such and such a circumstance.

        1. Yeah, I sort of get how that is unavoidable in some ways, very little is ever certain. Maybe I’m just not a fan of laws.

          1. The more laws, the more potential for mischief.

  16. I’m fine with having the government accommodate transgender people,

    If it was just the government, I wouldn’t care.

    But these accommodations are also going to have to be made by real people. Regardless of whether you like it or not, children are going to be accommodating them as well.

    Here’s a hypothetical:

    Somebody has an irrational fear of trannies. Such fears are recognized as a phobia, a mental condition, a disability. As such, they must be reasonably accommodated.

    Now you have two mutually exclusive accommodations that you have to make. You can either accommodate the trannies by letting them use the other bathroom, or you can accommodate the phobics by banning trannies from using the other bathroom. Which one do you pick, and why?

    1. Which one do you pick,

      Whichever side the SJW’s whine loudest about

      and why?

      Because that’s how we make all of our public policy decisions lately

      1. This^^^^

    2. Somebody can also have an irrational fear of black people, but we don’t usually consider that phobia to be one deserving of special accommodation, so I’m not sure this argument holds water all by itself.

      1. Oh, we accommodated the fuck out of those people (racists) for many years.

      2. Its a hypothetical.

        The fact that some mental conditions require accommodation, and some, apparently don’t, makes you wonder how “content-neutral” our laws are.

        The point I was trying to make was that, while some accommodations don’t bother anybody but the person who has to foot the bill, some do. Requiring some people to accommodate the diagnosed mental conditions of others (such as, by requiring children to share bathrooms with transgendered people), but not applying this rule equally (such as, by not requiring people to accommodate some phobias), is odd if you are concerned with things like consistency, predictability, and even equal protection.

        1. The root of the debate, however, is whether or not being trans-gendered is a “psychological” problem. I’m not saying it is or isn’t, but it’s a controversial point that is far from settled.

          If it is somehow determined to be purely a mental illness of some form, then yes accommodation gets to be a sticky argument. If it’s found, for example, to have roots in “miscorrected” hermaphroditism, then the accommodation argument gains a lot more strength.

          1. Libertarians are justly skeptical of the mental health profession, particularly given the past abuses of involuntary commitment in the US, and the Soviets’ labelling of dissidents as mentally ill.

            1. “Libertarians are justly skeptical of the mental health profession, particularly given the past abuses of involuntary commitment in the US, and the Soviets’ labelling of dissidents as mentally ill.”

              A very fair point, and one that’s directly relevant to gay rights, as well, not to mention the drug war. Banning some behavior *because* it’s been deemed symptomatic of a mental illness is as arbitrary a reason to ban something as any.

              The end game really should be that any behavior that does not harm someone else is allowed, regardless of whether or not someone else judges that behavior as “mentally ill.”

              I was just pointing out that “transgendered = mentally ill” is not the given axiom that many here seem to assume that it is.

          2. Pretending that we’re talking about hermaphrodites when we are talking about the transgendered is about as honest as pretending you’re talking about health-of-the-mother concerns when you’re talking about abortion.

            1. You should comb your hair back down – the point messed up your ‘do as it was flying over your head.

              1. No, you proposed hermaphroditism as an alternative explanation to them just being fucking crazy. That’s not remotely applicable since it’s a super tiny edge case.

  17. while i agree that trans people should be allowed to do what they want, and not be discriminated against… the bathroom obsession is retarded. if they look like a woman, it won’t create havoc if they go in the woman’s bathroom…. only if they go in and start waving their dick around, or the women are comparing pubic haircuts. showers/locker rooms might be a little different, but the bathroom thing is just dumb. the part that differentiates them is not really out in the open.

    that said, i personally think it’s irresponsible to let kids do this as young as we do. i also think that the acceptance of trans people has an odd distinction from other equal rights issues…. that is that they WANT to be treated differently based on their appearance. we talk about gender identity, but gloss over the fact that it is more about the identity they project, and is responded to. its not about what they wear, it’s about what bathroom they use. it’s not about who they like to hang out with, it’s about if they can join the boy scouts or the girl scouts. it’s not about a TSA agent who doesn’t want to frisk someone’s junk, its about a pre-op that does not what to admit to being a man when the penis shows up on the body scan.

    where gay right are about not being treated differently for what they do in private, trans are more interested in being treated differently in public than they are in private(their pants).

  18. Legislation like this is usually a pre-emptive strike against the judicial branch imposing its will on the situation, where there have been court cases in other states forcing school policy. Apparently in Shackford’s world the courts count as “local control” more than the legislature.

    1. Or maybe he is against both the legislation and the courts deciding to force the issue. Not everything is a binary choice.

      1. His opposition (if any) to the courts forcing a policy is utterly irrelevant, you know.

        1. As is his opposition to laws like this. It’s possible, even common, for people to have opinions on things independent of likely practical outcomes. This is a point I tried to make (perhaps badly) over and over again when the gay marriage thing was the big debate.

          In any case, if the court were going to force the issue and set the policy, wouldn’t this law passing just give more people standing to bring a case that would force the issue in court?

      2. If memory serves, Shackford has been celebratory of courts imposing a policy of a transgendered kid using the opposite sex facilities in schools. The case in California a couple of years ago comes to mind.

        I don’t think Shackford is in favor of local control of that control is informed by what he disparangely terms “bathroom panic”

        1. If he does, he does. I don’t know.

          1. It makes his pearl clutching about “local control” as an argument against this legislation seem rather dubious.

        2. Yes, Mickey, we know that hysterics don’t like being called out on their irrationality.

          1. We know that progressives like to make ad hominem attacks on their opponents rather than argue in good faith.

            1. That’s hardly limited to progressives. Everyone loves to do that.

          2. That supposed that a person having an expectation of privacy from persons of the opposite sex in a common area where intimate actor s are done is irrational. Just because you are incapable of sympathizing with such a point of view does not make it irrational.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.