Trans

Denying Sexual Reality in North Carolina

Anti-transgender law will cause problems, not solve them.

|

Restroom
Credit: TooFarNorth / photo on flickr

Some residents of North Carolina don't like the idea of sharing restrooms with transgender men and women, and they were pleased to learn that, thanks to a new law, they won't have to. I have news for them: They already have. They just didn't know it. And they will again. 

In February, the Charlotte City Council approved an ordinance strengthening protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification. It included a provision stipulating that transgender men may use men's restrooms and transgender women may use women's restrooms. 

That provision brought on a hailstorm of fury and disbelief, and the North Carolina Legislature quickly passed a bill to overrule it. The Charlotte ordinance "defies common sense and basic community norms," said Gov. Pat McCrory on signing the state law. 

"We've had these proper etiquette situations for decades in our country," he argued, "and all of a sudden, through political correctness, we're throwing away basic etiquette." Under the new policy, North Carolinians will have to use the restroom corresponding to the sex denoted on their birth certificates. 

"No Men in Women's Bathrooms," read one of the signs brandished by opponents of the Charlotte measure. That sounds like a good reason to reject it—if you don't think very hard. 

Under the new state law, a woman who undergoes sex change surgery, takes hormones and has a penis, a deep voice and facial hair will be required to use the women's restroom. In the name of protecting daughters from unwanted male intruders, the Legislature and governor are exposing them to exactly that. Men, meanwhile, will have to share facilities with people wearing skirts and lipstick. 

This policy will cause far more discomfort than it will prevent. What McCrory and others forget is that transgender men generally go unnoticed in men's restrooms, for the simple reason that they appear to be men. In fact, the odds are very good that at one time or another, you have unwittingly done your business alongside someone who is transgender—with no ill effects. 

Even in North Carolina, that will keep happening. If someone with breasts and long hair enters a women's restroom, strangers usually won't realize this person was born with a full set of testicles. If a muscular, bearded person in a suit strides up to a urinal, the guys at the others aren't going to ask for proof he is a male. In these cases, ignorance is bliss. 

What will generate problems is transgender people's obeying the North Carolina law. But that may not happen often. It's not as though anyone has a clue how to enforce this mandate. Without a cop stationed at every entrance demanding birth certificates, most transgender people will probably go on doing as they've done, invisibly, in the past. 

The oft-stated fear is that male child molesters will dress up as women to find girls to victimize. But what's stopping them from doing that now? 

And where is the epidemic of abuse where transgender people are allowed to choose restrooms? The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America contacted law enforcement officials and other experts in 12 states and found none who was aware of any such incidents. 

McCrory thinks all we need to do is uphold "basic community norms." But the traditional norm for people with gender dysphoria has been to deny, suppress or hide their true nature—so that everyone else could operate in comfortable denial. 

The traditional norm these people could expect if they were found out has been hostile and often violent. This week, a Brooklyn man pleaded guilty to manslaughter for killing a 21-year-old transgender woman. He had been flirting with her, and when he found out she was not exactly what he assumed, he flew into a rage and beat her to death. 

Barring transgender people from the restrooms they prefer exposes them to harm by exposing something they may want to be secret: that they are transgender. In addition, a lawsuit filed against the North Carolina law noted, "if a transgender woman were to use the men's restroom, she likely would be harassed and might be assaulted by men who believed that she should not be in the men's restroom."

Transgender men emerging from women's restrooms may incur violence from angry fathers or husbands. 

The North Carolina law makes perfect sense if you're willing to pretend that transgender people don't exist. Too bad they won't cooperate. 

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc. 

NEXT: What if the Minimum Wage Increase Is a Fraud?

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. Under the new state law, a woman who undergoes sex change surgery, takes hormones and has a penis, a deep voice and facial hair will be required to use the women’s restroom.

    And under the law you’d prefer, a man in a dress can sashay about the women’s showers whenever the whimsy strikes him.

    I suggest a compromise.

    If you show the commitment to change your junk, you get to change bathrooms too. That will keep those nasty penises away from little girls. Is that tolerant enough for you?

    Note that I’m a middle aged man who couldn’t care less if a woman wants to strut about the men’s room in a little penciled in mustache. But I am getting tired of the few self righteously demanding their comfort while imposing discomfort on the many.

    If transsexuals can have preferences about who they take a dump nearby, how about they extend the same courtesy to nontranssexuals to have their own preferences about who they take a dump nearby?

    1. If transsexuals can have preferences about who they take a dump nearby..

      Yeah, dude, they just invented the Boy/Girl restroom phenomenon for their own salacious needs. Like, I remember the days of anarchy, where no one was allowed to have a preference about who heard them taking a dump.

      Don’t hate the player, etc etc.

      1. Like, I remember the days of anarchy, where no one was allowed to have a preference about who heard them taking a dump.

        Just how old are you? And was that in hamster land?

        1. Not very.* I’m teasing BuyBuy that bathroom segregation may not be a transgender plot. Although I have used a three-holer.

          *My knees and children disagree. Ancient. *coughs dust*

          1. Although I have used a three-holer.

            Are we doing cis-hetero world? Then you belong in the men’s room.

            It doesn’t appear BB is in disagreement. Let’s say 90% of the people prefer tradtionally segregated bathrooms. Why would he 10% get to override their preference and compel association?

            1. “In fascist America, toilet shit on you.”

              Because the 90% don’t own the toilet, dude. Set up whatever policies and protocols for toilets you own, no problemo. I’ll even leave the required dime.

              Fucking laws about shitters. I think the existential terrors of the women’s loo are getting old, and don’t even get me started on the Kafka-esque bullshit that is unqualified internet psych diagnosis. But this *is* purely an association argument. Both sides trying to have their brand of hysterics and ideal norm codified through legislation as a Hail Mary pass around that.

              Remember when people used to shrug and say, “It’s a free country…” Now I do feel old.

              1. Hamster

                Because the 90% don’t own the toilet, dude. Set up whatever policies and protocols for toilets you own, no problemo. I’ll even leave the required dime.

                you do give a dime.

                It’s a problem of compelled association. On the surface, there’s no neutral principle of negative liberty to solve this. You either compel the 90% or the 10%. But consider that the facilities are mostly maintained with funds from the 90%. On property grounds, they’d get greater control in determining usage. Further, utilitarianism favors the 90%..

              2. “Remember when people used to shrug and say, ‘It’s a free country…'”

                *defiantly pumps fist*

            2. The most frequently cited estimate is that 700,000 people in the United States, or about 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the population, are transgender, though some experts say the true number is probably greater than that. — LiveScience, April 27, 2015

              Let’s be very generous and assume that transgenders actually make up a full 1% of the population. The question remains, why should the purported sensitivities of the 1% override those of the 99%, and in what bizarre world is that not “discrimination”?

              1. “The question remains, why should the purported sensitivities of the 1% override those of the 99%, and in what bizarre world is that not “discrimination”?”
                Catering to the 99% puts the 1% at real risk of harm.
                Catering to the 1% puts no one at any meaningful risk of harm.

                And the truth is, you’re not talking 99%. Using Houston’s HERO ordinance as a proxy, you’re talking around 60%.

                So it’s more like “catering to the 60% puts the 1% at real risk of harm. catering to the 40% puts no one at any meaningful risk of harm”.

                1. Catering to the 99% puts the 1% at real risk of harm.
                  Catering to the 1% puts no one at any meaningful risk of harm.

                  For government to send in police to micromanage who can go into which private bathroom puts 100% of Americans at real risk of harm.

                  Decisions about how to handle transgender usage of bathrooms should be left to private property owners.

              2. 0.2 or 0.3 already IS being exceedingly generous–

                It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on current diagnostic criteria

              3. The question remains, why should the purported sensitivities of the 1% override those of the 99%, and in what bizarre world is that not “discrimination”?

                No, the real question is why government gets involved in regulating who can enter which bathrooms on private property, and why police and courts are supposed to waste time enforcing this bullshit.

            3. and compel association?

              That aspect of this issue overrides any and all concerns about equality and feelings. Forced association is illegitimate, those arguing for it to be imposed in the absence of the conviction of a crime are wrong, always wrong.

              1. FreeS, agreed.

                Bru, the 90/10 are a very rough approximation, with lots of tolerance for error. However, you must take into account, that a considerable number of the left (and others who are not trans-X) favor the cause and interest of that 1% you noted. Thus: 1% + 9%=10%.

    2. “a man in a dress can sashay about the women’s showers whenever the whimsy strikes him.”

      That can happen under EVERY law someone has proposed on this matter. There is no way to enforce this law. People who WANT a law barring transgender people from certain bathrooms just want to pass a law to signal their moral beliefs. There is no way to /enforce/ said law, and there is thus no POINT in having this law.

      Idiots who just think “there aught to be a LAW” are the reason we have so many pointless, unenforceable laws in the first place.

      If you AREN’T gonna bother to explain how your Law is gonna be enforced, you should SHUT UP and stop asking for your preferred law. We shouldn’t have to waste OUR time discussing and passing this law just so YOU can signal your morality to everyone. Either come up with a plan for enforcement that ISN’T creepier than the TSA, or shut up.

      1. Wasn’t it already illegal for a man to go in to the women’s locker room? If it wasn’t then I’ve missed out on a lot. I always wanted to go in to the women’s showers. I just thought I’d get in trouble if I did.

        But apparently it is only the moral majority of 2016 that decided to make it illegal. Are there any states still left where I can go in to the girls locker room? I want to take advantage of it while I still can.

        1. “If it wasn’t then I’ve missed out on a lot. I always wanted to go in to the women’s showers. I just thought I’d get in trouble if I did.”

          * Googles “is it legal for a man to enter women’s shower in Texas” *

      2. ” There is no way to enforce this law. “
        BOOM!
        or any other gay law. “prove you’re queer”.
        papers, please or suck a dick.

    3. “If transsexuals can have preferences about who they take a dump nearby, how about they extend the same courtesy to nontranssexuals to have their own preferences about who they take a dump nearby?”

      That’s usually /the point/ of why they use the different bathroom in the first place. There are exceptions, but many trans people actually LOOK like the gender they are transitioning to.

      A lot of women would be uncomfortable going to the bathroom next to a dude. So why would forcing them to go to the same bathroom as burly, often bearded, trans men be a good idea?? You know, even if you bothered explaining how you’d enforce this law in the first place.

      The current situation is working. People go to whatever bathroom looks like the correct one, and no one suspects any problem. It works for everyone’s comfort. There’s no need to legislate one way or another.

      1. Well, yes, yes there is.

        See, the law as the city council wanted it allows the people who don’t ‘look like it’ to sashay legally< into the bathroom/ changing room/showers of the sex they don’t look like.

        And the law as the city council wanted it allows people who don’t ‘look like it’ to simply declare their trans status.

        And that–making that legal–and mandatory is the problem.

        Before all this hullabaloo, transmen and transwomen just used the bathroom the looked like they fit and if there was a problem it was settled privately, on a case by case basis–because it could be handled that way because the population of transfolk is so tiny.

        Now, with SJW inspired laws getting passed, enforced acceptance is taken to ridiculous levels. And this results in backlash.

        And it’s transfolk feeling the backlash–not the SJW inspired idiots who refuse to believe that problems can sort themselves out.

        1. Social Justice Warriors . Yep .

    4. I like the junk test, but what if you lose your junk in a horrible accident and have neither boy junk or girl junk?

  2. Is there some law or regulation that requires bathroom stalls to have those openings between the door and the fixed wall of the stall that someone could potentially peer through? If those were eliminated, and the stalls thereby offered just a bit more privacy, I think the discomfort over transgender people possibly being in the same bathroom would go away.

    1. I seem to recall a design at Heathrow where the door also went higher and lower than the absurdly small American standard.

    2. Is there some law or regulation that requires bathroom stalls to have those openings between the door and the fixed wall of the stall that someone could potentially peer through?

      Yes. It’s a kickback scheme with the toilet paper manufacturers.

      *** bites lip ***

      1. Want to see me make this pencil disappear?

  3. How about, on a libertarian website, we just say leave it up to the business owner?

    1. DING DING DING

      You win 5 internetz

      1. And more!

        *glitterbombs*

        1. That’s a perfect rule right there. If you want to do things with glitterbombs, you are not allowed in the men’s room.

          1. “There I was, having my morning constitutional, minding my own business. Until I looked up, and saw Hamster over the top of the stall divider. Grinning. In this moment, I knew I had never truly understood fear.”

            1. You know, I’m starting to favor a third bathroom to keep Hamsters away. You get free glitter, a wheel of doom (don’t get carried away), and music for old people. What’s your favorite old people musc, Hamster?

    2. Not allowed – you are either going to have the foaming at the mouth left DEMAND forced access everywhere for everyone, anytime or the MUHSHITTER! right taking the decision away from everyone, to stop them pervs!!!!!

      Private property owners choices be damned. 🙁

    3. Freedom of association is so passe

    4. Yes! Once again I can’t tell if I’m reading lefty MSNBC/NPR or Reason. Good God.

    5. Normally, that makes sense. Ideally business owners should set their own rules.

      Buuuut, for issues like this, there’s no real way, on a state or private level, to actually enforce any rule about bathroom access you set up. The only way you’re going to be able to enforce is if you go ahead and implement your very own TSA. And I can’t think of a better way to drive away customers than to require junk inspection before using your facilities.

      1. and since there’s no way to enforce such a law, seeing to it that the city council can’t pass such a law should be no problem, right?

        or do you mean that we should let the city councils unenforceable mandates stand?

    6. Well the NC law also applies to government facilities, so…..

    7. In some people minds making a law that says you can’t make laws forcing this issue is compelling people. The opposite is just a law that says what bathrooms must be used though.

      At this point, there’s going to be a law either way though.

  4. Sexual reality is if one is born with a vagina one is a female, if one is born with a penis, one is a male. Hormone treatments or surgical correction does not change one’s sexuality.

    1. Too simple, and partially wrong.

      1. but completely accurate

        1. Nope. It’s true that hormone treatments and surgical correction do not change your sexuality – your sexual orientation. They also don’t change your sex. If you were a girl who looked like a boy before, you become a girl who looks like other girls. That’s it.

          But apparent natural sex changes from appearance at birth do occur. They’re quite common in some parts of the world. Not in the USA though, or we wouldn’t have these issues that are based on biological ignorance.

          Science 1974 Dec 27; 186 (4170): 1213-5
          In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970’s, guevedoces… These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these ‘girls’ sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects. Their underlying pathology was found to be a deficiency of the enzyme, 5-alpha Reductase.

          Although they’re not 1 in 50 in the US, they do exist there too. Men who have female birth certificates, and as they haven’t had surgery, can’t get those corrected. 5ARD (as above) or 17BHSD are the usual causes, though 3BHSD can cause this too. 45X/46XY MGD and sometimes 3BHSD can cause a change in the other direction, from apparently male at birth to female looking later.

          It’s unfortunate that most people are clueless about this, so say completely false things such as “transgenders deny reality” while denying reality – out of ignorance – themselves.

          1. There are many realities that get denied–

            It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on current diagnostic criteria

    2. Sorry, but that’s wrong. More than 1% of humans are born intersex, i.e., with ambiguous genitalia. Genetically, there is also a lot of variation. And there is no biological reason why brain and body should agree on gender either.

      1. 1%???? I think you need to cite some evidence for an assertion that bold. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

        1. Source:

          https://oii.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/

          We have seen estimates range from 1 in 1,500 or 2,000 births to 4%, and we recommend a figure of 1.7%, despite its flaws. This was published by Blackless and others in the American Journal of Human Biology, a peer reviewed scientific journal, and also by Anne Fausto-Sterling, Professor of Biology and Gender Studies at Brown University in the US. No more accurate sources of data yet exist.

        2. LMGTFY

          And why do you think that claim is “extraordinary” anyway? Developmental abnormalities and genetic malformations are very common in the population.

  5. Transgenders deny reality reality…

  6. a woman who undergoes sex change surgery, takes hormones and has a penis, a deep voice and facial hair will be required to use the women’s restroom.

    Umm…wut? They stitching those on now?

    1. “I *know* *** grunt *** I have my penis *somewhere* in this damn handbag!”

    2. I believe they offer prosthetics, which is not technically a penis.
      But, having a penis is not the definition of male. A war vet who gets his shot off is still male. So, for that matter, is a man who has his surgically altered to resemble a vagina.

    3. Umm…wut? They stitching those on now?

      Actually, yes. Here is the website of only one surgical group that performs the procedure. There are many more.

  7. Add a dress code and a penis clause.

    1. It’s like you never gave a party.

      1. “It’s formal. Dress right.”

  8. I’m going to indiscreet for a moment. When I was about 11 or 12 and got my period, it was a fucking mess. I didn’t quite get the pads on right, I was mortified by the thought of tampons, and guys probably don’t realize this, but you poop A LOT while on your period. It’s the progesterone. It just happens. And when you’re young and freaking out about all these things, trying to clean up the streaks of blood in your underwear in a stall and trying not to make a sound while you unpeel the backing off a pad because your “friends” can sometimes bully you for these things, the thought of attempting to do all this next to a guy is mortifying. I’m sure the guy won’t mind, but the girl would.

    1. your “friends” can sometimes bully you for these things, the thought of attempting to do all this next to a guy is mortifying.

      That’s understandable. And in better cases, friends, or women who can relate might actually be of help.

    2. I have the weirdest boner right now

    3. You comfortable doing this next to this dude?? http://41.media.tumblr.com/d46…..1_1280.jpg

      Because the law discussed in the article wants you two to use the same bathroom.

      1. Would.

  9. The illustration is a nice solution, subtly indicating “One must have an erect penis to use these restrooms.”

    1. Difficult to piss, though.

      1. It’s a technique that can be mastered learned. So I’ve heard.

        1. I always just turn downwind before opening the floodgates. You mean there’s another way?

  10. I never even thought about it like that before. Wow.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

    1. Better check your privilege, JaWa.

      1. *JoWa*, sorry!

        1. I’m sure the spambot appreciates your pathetic human attempt at apologizing

  11. Madame Rufus sees in the future demands for trigger warnings and worries of micro-aggressions.

    Could you imagine the openings for all sorts of insane complaints? ‘I didn’t know women did that! It’s offensive!’ and ‘Men shouldn’t shake their penises wildly!’

    Man oh man. It’s gonna get mighty retarded.

    1. Madame Rufus is right….Betting on MOAR ‘TARD is always correct.

    2. The penises, they got out of hand.

    3. ‘I didn’t know women did that! It’s offensive!’

      Doing a stint as a park maintenance worker removed many illusions about “the fair sex”.

      1. Madame Rufus sees big future in portable bathroom services.

        Say you have to take a piss but you don’t want to stand next to ‘freaks and ambulance chasers’. You want your own private bathroom…ON THE GO!

        http://bit.ly/1UYTurY

    4. If you shake it more than twice, you’re just playing with yourself. And that’s a sex offense.

      1. Right! And I hear that getting the shivers is a life sentence under some circumstances!

    5. Could you imagine the openings for all sorts of insane complaints? ‘I didn’t know women did that! It’s offensive!’ and ‘Men shouldn’t shake their penises wildly!’

      ^This^x1000

      Not complaints, legislation. A woman comes into the men’s room, takes a stall, pees, and leaves. You *must* pretend she used a urinal or took a dump lest you be found guilty of abusing the charade.

      Went through this very thing about a week ago. A woman used the men’s restroom in my employer’s building. If she had been a man, it would’ve been clear she was looking for a fight. Because she was a woman in the men’s room it seemed pretty clear she was looking for an SJW-style fight. Sure enough, I come out of the restroom and all her friends/coworkers or w/e are right there. If I hadn’t pummeled and been pummeled using the exact same trick so many times in HS, I probably would’ve fallen for it.

      1. What happened next? Sadly, I am legitimately interested in whether anyone called her on her bullshit.

  12. OT: anyone else catch Peter Bagge hating/trolling at the end of the Merle Haggard thread? Or maybe giving his straight forward honest opinion.
    I was unaware Merle imprisoned dope smokers.

    1. I knew someone who said at a party Haggard made an anti-semitic remark to him.

      1. My brother’s roommate’s cousin’s best friend said that Merle Haggard told her he made $9472 in the last few weeks working on Google for just a few hours.

        1. FOR REAL?!

          That Merle.

        2. Do you know who else made 9472 DeustchMarks working part time on an Enigma Machine?

          1. DeustchMarks working part time on an Enigma Machine?

            Wasn’t it ReichMarks?

  13. If someone with breasts and long hair enters a women’s restroom, strangers usually won’t realize this person was born with a full set of testicles.

    I have man boobs and long hair. The beard was a giveaway, though.

    1. Yeah, its like Chuck Shumer never grew his hair out?!

  14. There’s a technical, legal problem to get the wording right, to capture reality. But consider this: are people generally in agreement over who is a man and who is woman, over femininity and masculinity? As to those who disagree, can they predict the norms/view/opinion of the majority? (All the complaints about “cis-heteronormativity” suggest they can.)

    1. “are people generally in agreement over who is a man and who is woman, over femininity and masculinity? ”

      Alas, no, they’re not. And the laws are in even worse disagreement. The problem is that actual biology is complicated.

      It’s trivially easy to make laws that adequately cater for 90% of people, where appearance, chromosomes, genitalia, sexual orientation, “gendered behaviour” etc all match, but even there you’ll see some people insist that men should all have beards, women should all have long hair or be 100% covered by burkhas etc.

      Discard everything but physical anatomy, and you can cater for 59 out of 60 people, all but 1.7%.

      After removing the floridly psychotic or obvious malefactors, no-one’s come up with a better system of determining someone’s sex than to ask them. As good – yes, some combinations of MRI and PET scans, gene tests, physical exams etc, certainly. But why pay tens of millions of dollars when the result is no more reliable than just asking them?

      1. To see how dire the situation is when you try to codify things into law, from Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000))

        “Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Tex., is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.””

        Since then, both Vermont and Kentucky have reversed their positions, and now in NC, she’d be classed as ‘biologically female’ based on nothing but her birth certificate, not actual biology.

      2. The “hard cases” problem of law.

        but even there you’ll see some people insist that men should all have beards, women should all have long hair or be 100% covered by burkhas etc.

        Granted, but they are able to determine the individuals who are supposed to wear beards and burkhas, respectively. They generally agree on sex, then applying behavioral norms. Nonetheless, I appreciate your input, and you’ve increased my interest in reading cases dealing with that.

  15. If someone with breasts and long hair enters a women’s restroom, strangers usually won’t realize this person was born with a full set of testicles.

    “Oh, what *interesting* earrings!”

    1. Of course, what is actually being demanded is that a person who thinks of themselves as a woman but still has a penis and testicles must be allowed use of women’s facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms. Many such facilities have common areas where it cannot be hidden that the person is a biologically of 8th e opposite sex.

      The question is if none of this matters, why the resistance to transgender using the facility that corresponds to what they are equipped for?

      1. Because it’s about everybody else in society overcoming their discomfort to accommodate the relatively few people out there that refuse to acknowledge their genetic makeup. It’s not about common courtesy or the willingness of the minority here to accommodate the overwhelming majority’s discomfort. It’s about shoving their delusions down everyone else’s throats as some kind of “fact,” genetics be damned.

        1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
          A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

          Genetics don’t determine someone’s sex. It’s not Trans people who are “denying reality” here. It’s those with only 3rd grade biological knowledge commenting on something they’re misinformed about, taking the good approximations they were taught at grade school – for only 1 in 300 men don’t have 46,XY chromosomes – and assuming they’re universal truths, and anyone who says different is “delusional”..

          Nothing any Intersex or Trans person does will overcome the majority’s discomfort that they exist.

          1. I appreciate your input. It is quite interesting. However, I am suspicious of the numbers of “transgender” people in society. What I mean is there is no doubt that there are anomalies (no insult intended). But I would be very interested in seeing some data to correlate actual genetic/hormonal discrepancies with those that claim to be the sex which does not correspond to their anatomy.
            I think the other problem is not even so much transsexuals (people who transition from one sec to the other), but the transgender movement who seem to really feel that gender is nothing but a social construct and that human gender is a spectrum. It is not. It is binary (albeit with a small percentage of anomalies).

    2. Well, that’s rich.

    3. “Oh, what *interesting* earrings!”

      Silly, you don’t get to keep them! I asked.

  16. Single occupant bathrooms for all.

    1. “In the wealthiest nation on Earth ?!”

    2. As so.done who does building design for a living…HA HA HA HA HA HA…fuck you.

  17. But the traditional norm for people with gender dysphoria has been to deny, suppress or hide their true nature?so that everyone else could operate in comfortable denial.

    Wait, which person is “operating in comfortable denial”? It’s the one that understands genetics and isn’t the one that undergoes hormone treatments and surgery to completely alter their physical nature? Got it.

    1. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
      A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

      1 in 300 men don’t have 46,XY “male” chromosomes. Some women do. It’s not Trans people who don’t understand genetics, it’s people whose education on biology stopped in grade school. They only got the simplified kiddies version, the reality is a whole heap more complex, unfortunately.

      Male?to?female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034?2041
      The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions

      1. I don’t think it is fair to imply that the traditional standards for sexual differentiation in humans is “3rd grade biology”. Of course there is a small number of those born with ambiguous genitalia. There are also other genetic disorders which affect the X or Y chromosome count. Do we create a new sex for those?
        And I haven’t read the study you cited regarding neuronal differences, so I can’t really argue against it. However, just based on the summary you provided I do have questions about it : do transexuals neuronal profiles change due to hormone profile changes? (I.e. Estrogen increases and testosterone decreases?) Or is the study saying that in those who self-identify as transsexuals, their neuronal profile is closer to the opposite sex in regards to their physical anatomy?
        In other words, at the start do their brains and anatomy have a sexual mismatch? And how does that correlate to their chromosomal pattern?

  18. Chapman spends paragraph after paragraph dismissing the opinions of supporters of the law then goes on to write:

    In addition, a lawsuit filed against the North Carolina law noted, “if a transgender woman were to use the men’s restroom, she likely would be harassed and might be assaulted by men who believed that she should not be in the men’s restroom.”

    I noticed that “opinion” is given different treatment than those offered my the myriad protesters and legislators that have listened to their constituents. With zero supporting evidence other than feelz.

    1. Well spotted Sloopy! Anecdotal evidence (aka “lived experience”) is worthless to lefties unless it conforms to their ideological preconceptions, after all.

  19. This new political correctness by Reason saying how we should face reality but never commenting on the right of the state to mandate whom we allow in our bathrooms is disgusting.

    Pretty soon Reason will be telling us how we must face the reality of killing jews, Right Steve Chapman ?

    1. Agreed. They’ve pretty much decided that “if there’s going to be a law, it should favor group X”.

      Except, of course when it comes to “if there’s going to be a welfare state, we should control our immigration” or “if there’s going to be public accommodation laws, we should offer protections for moral or religious objectors”.

      I never knew libertarianism could be so close to progressivism until the last year or so.

      1. Unfortunately, I fear many libertarians are feeling the political drive to appeal to all the new “fancy groups” and to “appear liberal” – when the fact is that their views are becoming less liberal in the name of appearing liberal.

        1. I think it exists in the bubbles of think tanks and peer groups for journalists. Regular libertarians still just want to be left alone and want people to enjoy private property rights.

          But we don’t have cocktail parties to attend if we say the right things or the shunning to deal with if we stick to our basic principles.

  20. Denying Sexual Reality in North Carolina

    He got the headline right then proceeded 180? from that reality.

    What he is talking about is the so-called “gender” issue, not the sex issue. Sex is chromosomal, and with the exception of a very small number of hermaphrodites aside, sex is completely fixed at conception as male or female. Gender is open to interpretation to some people, but sex is completely chromosomal. Sorry to bust Chapman’s bubble, but in this case the science is actually settled.

    1. Very small number? Try 1 in 60. And not fixed at conception, or you couldn’t have monozygotic (identical) twins of opposite sexes. Uncommon, yes.

      But Intersex – being born with a body neither 100% male nor 100% female in every respect – that’s more common than having red hair. Most cases take lab tests to detect though, it’s not obvious so neither the people themselves nor anyone else knows.

      Sex isn’t chromosomal. 1 in 300 men don’t have 46,XY “male” chromsomes. Some women do. Rarely and here we really are talking about rare cases, rather than millions of people in the US, so do the daughters they give birth to.

      J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
      A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

      1. You have now cited the same one case at least three times. You also have not cited the source for your 1 in 300. Are you saying that 1 in 300 men have an XX chromosomal profile? The what told the body to produce a penis instead of stopping at a clitoris? What told the body to drop the ovaries and turn the to testicles. Do these “men” have abnormally low testosterone levels? What about their neuronal pattern? Or are a number of these men just self-identified?

      2. I bet you’ve got some GREAT pictures of the Sphinx, yes?

        1. On Mars??!!!!11

  21. If I understand everything correctly the Charlotte city council felt as if they weren’t getting enough attention or something and created a law to troll the whole country with. The state of North Carolina stupidly took the bait and created some other stupid counter law. The state of New York then admitted they engage in rampant non-essential travel to North Carolina and banned it.

    I think this sums up the situation.

    1. LOL!!! How sad, but true! “The state of New York then admitted they engage in rampant non-essential travel to North Carolina and banned it.” This quote should be the lead story in the lame stream media….but it won’t.

  22. “Some residents of North Carolina don’t like the idea of sharing restrooms with transgender men and women”

    No, some women and girls don’t like sharing bathrooms with men and boys, and vice-versa.

    (I understand that you can get your birth certificate modified, in which case, under the statute, you can switch bathrooms)

    There’s a couple differences between this statute and the policies pushed by the LGBLTs –

    (a) The statute provides that private businesses and private organizations can decide for themselves which bathrooms trans persons should use, and no local government will be able to override the decision of the private organization. In contrast, the LGBLTs want local governments to force private organizations and businesses to let men into the ladies’ room and vice versa.

    (b) This is a dispute over *comfort* and *feelings,* and the statute says that in government-owned bathrooms (not private ones), the law will cater to the comfort and feelings of women and girls who only want to share their bathrooms with other women and girls, and the comfort and feelings of men and boys who only want to share their bathrooms with other men and boys. As against this we set the comfort and feelings of men who think they’re women and vice versa. You have to pick one group’s comfort or another’s, and the legislature decided to cater to the comfort of the normals.

    1. And the law goes beyond bathrooms by saying that local governments cannot add to the requirements of federal and state civil rights laws. So they can’t have laws like in at least one college town I heard about which requires landlords to rent to law students.

      For example, an Austin, Texas ordinance forbids landlords from discriminating based on “status as a student.” So too bad if you don’t want to take the risk of renting to students and would prefer stable families instead – you’re a bigot and can be punished!

      The North Carolina law prevents that sort of nonsense.

      1. (I couldn’t find the law student ordinance, but I found the Austin ordinance about “status as a student.” I don’t know if law students as such are protected.)

      2. Correction – I’m not sure if federal law allows you to discriminate based on family status, but federal and state laws *do* let you discriminate on student status, and so in North Carolina you could at least have a preference for non-students with actual jobs.

      3. Can city ordinance be held up to the constitution? How the hell is that constitutional to force a landlord to rent to any particular group??

        1. The feds have been doing this with race, religion, and family status for years.

          Austin just added another protected class.

          I didn’t say it was constitutional.

  23. it included a provision stipulating that transgender men may use men’s restrooms and transgender women may use women’s restrooms.

    Is a transgender man a former woman or is it a woman with a fake dick attached?

    1. A transgender woman is a man who feels like a woman, and vice versa.

  24. I am not going to take a strong position on this law because I really don’t give a shit and wish people would stop talking about this, but I do want to say I find it really amusing that Steve Chapman described a law with literally no overlap with the law as I’ve heard it described by conservatives. I don’t know which one is correct because again, don’t give a shit, but selective parsing of laws to fit your ideology is fun.

    1. The conservatives have adopted a statute which makes the laws of North Carolina more libertarian than it was before.

      See my Austin example above – they added to state and federal civil rights ordinances by saying landlords can’t discriminate against students in choosing their tenants.

      1. Austin couldn’t do that if it was in North Carolina.

      2. See my Austin example above – they added to state and federal civil rights ordinances by saying landlords can’t discriminate against students in choosing their tenants.

        That law would be “more libertarian”?

        1. No, North Carolina’s law is more libertarian because it wouldn’t allow a law like Austin’s.

      3. Except for the part of the law that mandates discrimination in government facilities.

        1. The bill leaves the matter to private parties, unless the government owns the bathroom. The bill’s opponents would force their vision of gender parity on all bathrooms, public and private.

          As to public bathrooms, you gotta have *some* policy.

          At worst its feels vs. feelz. Do we cater to the comfort of the large number of men, women, boys and girls who don’t want to share a bathroom with people of the opposite sex? Or do we cater to men who think they’re women, and vice-versa, and who frankly are going to be experiencing a lot of frustration and trauma independently of what bathroom they’re using, because they are simply so…eccentric. There’s no way to give them a fully safe space except, of course, by screwing over the normals.

          And how are we defining “discrimination” so as to apply to having men use the men’s room and women use the women’s room? This has been a thing for quite some time.

          1. As to public bathrooms, you gotta have *some* policy.

            THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAW! No their fucking doesn’t.

            There’s no way to give them a fully safe space except, of course, by screwing over the normals.

            You people are the ones demanding a safe space, they just want to use the facilities as is.

            1. So, one side’s discomfort is based on SCIENCE and the other side’s is based on right-wing hysteria?

              1. That’s a pretty accurate summary, yes. Though the hysteria has been very carefully bred by multi-million dollar campaigns by ultra-conservative groups such as the FRC. They don’t make any secret of that in their training materials.

                If anyone bothers to look at the past record in the 17 states and 225 cities and counties with similar laws to Charlotte’s, in every one there was the same scare campaign before passage, and in every one have there been no problems after passage.

                But those are facts, numbers, figures. It’s far easier – and usually more effective – to play on emotions, “Think of the Children!”. Just not Trans or Intersex children, the ones likely to actually die as the result of this manufactured panic.

                And yes, we have proof of that too, sadly. NC will provide us with even more data of course.

                1. “Just not Trans or Intersex children, the ones likely to actually die as the result of this manufactured panic.”

                  Speaking of panics, here is one now.

  25. http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..rdes-seleh

    The administration at the University of Toronto was recently enlightened on why two separate washrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residencies.

    The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

    There will never be a downside to any of this.

    It is idiotic issues like this one that cause people not to take Libertarians seriously.

    1. Threes Company was not an instruction manual!

  26. “Denying Sexual Reality in North Carolina”

    I assume from the lede Steve Chapman means North Carolina is forcing people to pretend that men are women (and vice versa). That’s what he means, right?

  27. Anti-Transgender Bathroom Laws Deny Sexual Reality: New at Reason

    Reason is quickly turning into The Onion. Just what do you think the term “transgender” entails if NOT the denial of sexual reality? If you’re talking about objective truths then what can there be more objective than the fact you are born a boy, or a girl?

    1. Robby expects us to believe that someone with a dick and XY chromosomes is really a woman. But we are the ones denying sexual reality.

  28. In February, the Charlotte City Council approved an ordinance strengthening protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification. It included a provision stipulating that transgender men may use men’s restrooms and transgender women may use women’s restrooms.

    That’s not true. The ordinance would have required private businesses to allow people of a different sex to use the bathroom not meant for them INSIDE THE PREMISES. Business people who want to avoid any liability (for instance, women suing the establishment for letting some creep into their restroom) would have to build a new restroom for ‘transgender’ people, increasing their business costs.

    Under the new state law, a woman who undergoes sex change surgery, takes hormones and has a penis, a deep voice and facial hair will be required to use the women’s restroom.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !

    Oh, God, what an IDIOT you are! The law does NOT mandate or require people do ANYTHING.

    1. would have to build a new restroom for ‘transgender’ people, increasing their business costs.

      And both Scott Shackelford and Robby think that is a great solution. Forcing businesses and schools and every single owner of any public establishment to build special bathrooms for the .5% of the population that has gone insane over what sex they are is now Libertarian doctrine.

      1. No, they don’t have to build special bathrooms. Just let transgenders use the bathroom of their choice. Now businesses should be allowed to discriminate but the government, including schools, should not.

        1. Now businesses should be allowed to discriminate

          In context, businesses who do will be hit with “equal protection”/protected class lawsuits, based on federal law.

          If they don’t “discriminate”, they will be exposed to employment lawsuits from their staff for creating a hostile work environment, where women don’t feel comfortable in “their” restroom because the owner refuses to keep “men” out.

          The refusal of some libertarians to acknowledge the reality of our current legal environment, and to assess what their principled solutions really mean in that environment, is extraordinarily frustrating.

          1. The principled solution is to write a law that was limited solely to private businesses but instead they spend half the bill saying that all PUBLIC agencies have to discriminate. I don’t know what is so hard to get about this.

        2. So the taxpayers should have the choice of spending money to build special bathrooms to accommodate this bullshit or be forced to buy into it. yeah, that makes sense.

          Just let transgenders use the bathroom of their choice

          Not if it is my bathroom. Fuck you, I own the business you will use the bathroom I say or you can leave.

          You are endorsing all kinds of government coercion to placate a small number of people who have a mental disorder. There isn’t a single bit of scientific evidence that supports the idea that these people are anything but delusional. And to think there is anything to it, is to endorse a super natural duality that says that there is self that exists totally outside and sometimes contrary too our bodies. It is one hell of a bit of irony to hear a bunch of self proclaimed rational atheists endorse what amounts to saying “I am a woman’s soul trapped in a female body”. And you people make fun of Christians and then buy into that bullshit.

          1. So the taxpayers should have the choice of spending money to build special bathrooms to accommodate this bullshit or be forced to buy into it. yeah, that makes sense.

            They don’t need to build new fucking bathrooms, just let them do what they want in government facilities.

            Not if it is my bathroom. Fuck you, I own the business you will use the bathroom I say or you can leave.

            I already said I agree with that. But this law also requires discrimination in schools and all public agencies. Read the fucking law. It doesn’t stop at private businesses being allowed to do what they want. They overreached.

            1. I already said I agree with that. But this law also requires discrimination in schools and all public agencies.

              So the taxpayers of North Carolina have to either let their children shower with the opposite sex at school or spend money that could be used elsewhere or gasp not taken from them at all to build special bathrooms because someone claims “I am a man’s’ soul trapped in a woman’s body”. And you think that is a good idea?

              And if the government has to accommodate the poor soul that is trapped in the wrong body, what doesn’t it have to accommodate? I am a sacred wolf child. I need to be able to pee outside on a pole to mark my territory. My friend here is the reincarnation of a sacred Indian Shaman and needs to have a special place to do his rituals at high noon every day.

              Why are those claims any less valid than this? The only difference is that the soul trapped in the wrong body is fashionable and the wolf child and reincarnated shaman aren’t. .

              1. Transgenders, and supporters of transgenders are taxpayers too. I have a solution though, we can abolish government schools and government agencies. So long as they exist though they can’t discriminate.

                1. Transgenders, and supporters of transgenders are taxpayers too. I

                  Sure. And if they can win an election and choose to spend tax money on this bullshit, have fun. In North Carolina at least, they haven’t. And the people who did win have every right not to waste money accommodating this bullshit.

                  1. They don’t have to waste money. In fact this bill could only being enforced by wasting money. No facilities have to change to stick with letting transgenders choose which bathroom to use.

                    The public facilities portion of the bill is a mandate on all government agencies. THAT is wasting tax money on bullshit.

              2. To be fair, a white reincarnated shaman is an egregious cultural appropriator.

                1. Isn’t thinking you are the other gender a cultural approbation? If it is offensive to claim to be say black or Indian when you are not, it is just as offensive to claim to be the opposite sex. You didn’t grow up with the body and the cultural expectations of that gender. Where do you get off claiming you understand it now?

  29. while we may have shared our restrooms with transgender people that was fine until they made a big deal out of it themselves. If they had not outed themselves it would have been fine but these days every group has decided to become militant SJW’s and only drawing attention to themselves while claiming they don’t want attention.

  30. The elevation of minutiae such as this to such enormous importance is one of the more galling things about contemporary American life. Who the fuck cares what bathrooms a miniscule bit of the population uses?

  31. I liked Libertarians a lot better when they still seemed to believe in private property rights and before they became just another group of social justice warriors.

  32. Dear Steve Chapman,

    You want reality? Here’s some reality; freedom and liberty reflect a near-dead notion not held by anyone but a vanishingly tiny minority of people in a minority race with regard to the globe. Even then, a significant portion of that tiny minority think it means taking rights away from some people to give them to an even tinier minority.

  33. The most populous country on the planet is well-controlled by a Communist regime. The next most populous and closing fast is a bit of a religious and industrial backwater that, equally, holds no explicit historical notions of freedom, liberty, and enlightenment. Even aside from these overwhelming numbers, the very nature of progress itself is being literally fabricated and fabricated in a manner that explicitly debases individuals and individual freedoms. Strides that were once made empirically and individually and, subsequently, spread worldwide are being replaced by hobbling imposed from vague amalgamous deductions of quantities unheld and/or unknown to individuals.

  34. So, when you say reality means freedom is defined by Charlotte and the State of NC and what they want to do about penises and vaginas that they may or may not know about that may or may not exist. Many of us who actually hold false notions about freedom and liberty both far and wide would rather declare the experiment over and nuke the resulting mess from orbit.

    Thanks.

    1. The fact that reason has jumped on this bandwagon shows they in some ways really are lefties who like pot. This whole thing is nothing but a contrived issue and excuse for the gay activists and left to bully people. Here is the thing about bathrooms, they don’t check your DNA when you enter. If you really are “transgendered” whatever the fuck that actually means, i would think no one would notice you using the other sex’s bathroom. The only reason this is an issue is that the transgendered people want to make a big fucking deal and rub their identity in everyone’s faces. If they actually believed what they claim, they would think of themselves as the other sex and use that sex’s bathroom without anyone noticing.

      1. The only reason this is an issue is that the transgendered people want to make a big fucking deal and rub their identity in everyone’s faces. If they actually believed what they claim, they would think of themselves as the other sex and use that sex’s bathroom without anyone noticing.

        This and ‘virtuous’ people *need* to yank an article of clothing off the nearest person and lay it across whatever obstacle these ‘oppressed’ minorities *must* traverse so that that ‘everyone’ can avoid getting soiled.

        Hilariously, Reason/we pretty much admitted that this is *the* case behind the more fanatical and oppressive claims of the gay rights movement and then proceed to march off in the next army of useful idiots.

        1. Everyone said this would be next. And reason denied it. And sure enough it is. Now the knuckledraggers are saying legalizing pederasty will be the next great civil rights crusade after we are done with the Trannys. Even I have a hard time believing that. But, considering that every single worse case prediction on these issues has come true in the past, I can’t say it is impossible.

  35. This is the preamble to the bill describing what it does:

    1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
    2 AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE-SEX MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY BATHROOM AND
    3 CHANGING FACILITIES IN SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES
    AND TO CREATE
    4 STATEWIDE CONSISTENCY IN REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC
    5 ACCOMMODATIONS.

    The part in bold is the objectionable portion. Its like 80% of the text of the bill and then they throw in the bit about statewide consistency in regulations. If they stuck to that part it would not be an issue.

    1. The part about limiting the power of local governments to screw private business is actually more significant in the broader scheme of things.

      While Stan/Loretta works himself into a lather because he has to use the gents when he strongly feels he’s a lady, businesses are being cut a break – and not just on bathroom issues, either.

      Now businesses won’t have to worry that some university town will require landlords to rent to students (as happened in Austin, TX).

      Businesses won’t have to worry about SJWs on some city council imposing a $15 minimum wage as happened in some municipalities.

      In short, businesses who comply with the state and federal civil rights laws and labor laws won’t have to worry about City Hall hassling them to meet even more burdensome regulations.

    2. Why exactly is segregrating bathrooms on the basis of sex impermissible discrimination but segregrating them on the basis of gender not impermissible discrimination?

      1. You’re not supposed to talk about Phase 2 when they’re still working on Phase 1.

        1. Well, Gillespie was at least consistent about his thinking even if it got him to a place very few people want to be.

  36. Seems like one of those situations where the government shouldn’t be getting involved on either side. How an establishment labels its restrooms seems like a decision best left to the establishment, and enforcement of those rules and social conventions also left to the establishment.

    Not everything needs to be a law.

  37. I am still stuck in badthink. I cannot get past my belief that sex is a biological reality and gender is a linguistic concept that should never have been transformed into a way of categorizing people.

    I believe that people should be free to live their lives as they wish, so if Bob wants to dress as a woman or have surgery to look like a woman, that is his right. No one should assault Bob for making this choice; however, Bob has to take the rough with the smooth. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to avoid associating with Bob, even if that means that Bob has a hard time finding a welcoming bathroom.

    On a related note, if a person’s feelings are in conflict with their biological reality, how is it anything but evil for anyone advising them to suggest surgery rather than counseling? Surgery can make you look like what you want, but it does not actually make you what you want, and transitioning back does not restore you to whole.

    1. If you are not the sex that your DNA and body are, then what is the “you” we are talking about? What does it mean to have the wrong genitalia? Unless you believe in some kind of soul that exists outside our your physical body, the idea that you could be something other than what your physical body is, is absurd.

      And yet, every self proclaimed rational materialist on this board seems to totally believe these claims are valid.

      1. If it were shown that gender dysmorphia had genetic causes would you drop this then, or are the sex chromosomes that only part of our DNA now?

        1. No. Because it still doesn’t change what you are. You are just explaining why people think this. That doesn’t get at the deeper question of whether you are what your body is or what you think you are.

          Suppose you do find a genetic component to it, why does that make any difference? The result is the same whether you think that way because of your genes or think that way because you like to think that way. You say you are a woman trapped in a man’s body because you have some genetic defect. I say the same because I just think I am. How is your claim any more valid than mine? Both of us think the same thing. You just have a genetic reason for thinking it and I just like thinking it. The thoughts are the same in both cases. And either the thoughts make us what we are or our bodies make us what we are.

          In both cases you still have the same problem, why do you thoughts determine your sex and not your body? And if your thoughts do determine your sex, then why are your thoughts not determinative of your other physical characteristics? If thinking I am a woman makes me a woman even though my body says otherwise, why doesn’t thinking I am a wolf make me a wolf?

          Beyond that, what if they found a genetic cause to people having other delusions. Would that meant he government should indulge those too?

        2. It would depend. If a set of genes other than the XX XY was discovered that mapped to a “male brain” or “female brain”, and if transgendered people actually were XX with male brain genes or XY with female brain genes, then I would have to reconsider my position.

          The brain genes of transgendered people would have to match the brain genes of non transgendered people of the opposite sex, just showing that there was a gene that correlated with dysphoria would just indicate that the delusion was genetic.

          1. ^^THIS^^

            You said what I wanted to say much better than I said it.

        3. If it were shown that gender dysmorphia had genetic causes would you drop this then, or are the sex chromosomes that only part of our DNA now?

          You know what’s funny? Dawkins is persistently indignant about having to indulge people with their ridiculous questions about *their* Sky Daddy fantasies while simultaneously inflicting/perpetuating countless derivatives of this Gene Daddy fantasy on laypeople and scientists alike.

          At least with the old, oppressive Sky Daddy if he didn’t turn into a pile of salt you were free to go about your sinning ways by yourself/amongst yourselves. The Gene Daddy, on the other hand, intrinsically invokes the specter of your ancestors to call forth unreal and/or here-to-fore unknown biological machinations to haunt you for the rest of your days, cast shadows on your children, as well as dimming the minds of those around you.

          The *best* evidence of genes-psychological behavior barely approaches the determinism of a coin toss and certainly nothing anywhere near the certainty of what can be explicitly induced exogenously.

          1. Either your genes determine your behavior, in which case we don’t have free will and we can explain and predict every behavior through them or you can ignore them in which case they don’t mean anything. Evolutionary psychology is one of the worst examples of cargo cult pseudo science in existence.

  38. As was pointed out above, Robby just assumes it is everyone else’ job to adjust to showering with the Tranny. It cannot ever be the Tranny’s job to adjust to societal expectations and shower next to people of his own physical sex. We are going to coerce the majority of the population to do something they don’t like so that maybe.5% of the population can avoid doing something they don’t like.

    Now tell me again how this isn’t about forcing society to adhere to SJW values?

  39. Trans want to use the restrooms of the sex they identify with. A lot of people, mostly women it seems to me, object to someone with different genitals using the restroom with them. Why should they be forced to do so?

    1. Because Trans are cool and fashionable. You are right. This is not a civil rights issue. Trannies don’t want to be forced to use the bathroom next to their own sex, non trannies don’t want to be forced to use the bathroom with someone of the opposite sex who thinks otherwise. Both sides are asserting a preference and neither preference is necessarily more valid than the other.

      Robby assumes that the Tranny’s preference is the valid preference because Trannys are cool and Robby is virtue signaling.

  40. The other problem with this is that it is discriminatory against non trans. If a trans man decides to use the women’s locker room, Robby, the law and all right thinking people applaud him. If I do, I am a pervert and get thrown in jail. That would be fine except that a trans can still use the men’s locker room. He gets to use whatever locker room is convenient or matches is feelings that day and I can only use the men’s. If the women’s locker room is crowded or dirty that day, he can slide over to the men’s because he still is genetically a man. I can’t do that. How is that not just as discriminatory against me as not letting him use the women’s locker room is to him?

    It seems to me that if you want to do this, trans should have to register with the government somewhere as what sex they actually are. That way if they are found using the wrong sex’s locker room or bathroom they can be treated like anyone else who does that.

    That of course wont’ happen because this has nothing to do with discrimination or reason.

    1. Google Buck Angel (you might want safe search on). You really think if he goes into the women’s room that “all right thinking people [will] applaud him”?

      1. I won’t look but if he is a tranny, yes, they will.

    2. John, this is Chapman’s article, not Soave’s.

  41. The stat I heard yesterday was 0.3% of the population is trans, which is roughly 1 million people.
    Are there really that many ? As small a percentage as that is, that still seems high.

    1. It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on current diagnostic criteria

      pulled that from the wiki piece

      1. It totally makes sense to tell 90% of the population to go fuck themselves so that 0.002% don’t have to feel uncomfortable.

      2. So a few 10’s of thousands, maybe 25 to 50 thousand. Which seems much more plausible.

  42. On this issues, could we avoid using terms like, “shove it down peoples’ throats”, or “rub your fact in it”.
    I find that triggering.

  43. It’s not as though anyone has a clue how to enforce this mandate.

    This is how it’s going to be enforced: The cops are going to send in a male cop in a dress to use the women’s room. If no-one stops him, they cite the business.

    Just think of the revenues!

    1. “Just think of the revenues!” Why do I think you just stumbled on the true reason for these statutes?

    2. Just think of the revenues!

      Actually, this might be self-sustaining. I’d pay to send (unarmed) police officers dressed in drag into a women’s room.

  44. It’s like the person who wrote this hasn’t read the bill at all (not sure why I am surprised).

    So there are a couple of fallacies given in this article and in basically every single thing I have heard said about this issue.

    1) Once you have gender reassignment surgery, you can change your gender on your birth certificate. Therefore, according to this bill, a fully transitioned person who has legally changed their gender can use their identified restroom.

    2) The bill applies only to public buildings (schools, universities, city halls, courts, etc.). This is in no way requiring that private companies or businesses or schools restrict their restrooms in any way.

    I’m not suggesting that either of those things make the bill right, but they do negate a lot of the arguments given. It’s important to make the correct arguments when debating a subject.

    As a libertarian, my biggest issue w/ this bill is that there is no way to enforce it. The government (local, state or federal) should not be in the business of enacting laws that they cannot (and don’t intend to) enforce.

    My suggestion as to what should be done (short of repealing the bill) is to require a certain number of single-occupant restrooms per square foot in all of the public buildings affected by the bill.

    1. My suggestion as to what should be done (short of repealing the bill) is to require a certain number of single-occupant restrooms per square foot in all of the public buildings affected by the bill.

      Sure just spend other people’s money to indulge the delusions of a few people. That money was taken by force from people who rightfully earned it. I can’t believe how caviler alleged Libertarians are about spending it.

      How about we put a surcharge on the income tax of the trans to pay for the new bathroom facilities. They are the ones who want it, why shouldn’t they have to pay for it?

    2. “Once you have gender reassignment surgery, you can change your gender on your birth certificate”
      Depends on what state you were born in, and a lot on the judge you try to convince. In many southern states it can be a real challenge. Especially when you remember that there’s no legal definition for “gender reassignment surgery”. Does a transman that’s had a masectomy and taking hormones undergone “gender reassignment surgery”? The options for transmen to do “bottom surgery” really aren’t that great.

      1. Sucks to be them. Radical dismemberment of your body tends to do that.

      2. Depends on what state you were born in, and a lot on the judge you try to convince. In many southern states it can be a real challenge.

        I’m severely tempted to call total bullshit on this. Birth Certificate and various other legal document forgery/fraud can be and is ridiculously easy. A Northern state will leave it at the sole discretion of a bureaucrat while a Southern state will leave it up to the signatures of two character witnesses. Many/most are more than happy to rely on other documentation that requires no real chain-of-custody-style record keeping; so finding a doctor willing to sign that they did a surgery (whether they did or not) is the most difficult and/or crucial part. Even then, none have any sort of ‘You get one chance with your assigned judge/bureaucrat.’ policy.

        If the Trans community is having trouble getting legit changes made to various legal documents, they might want to consult various other communities that have no real problems getting changes made legal or illegal, North or South.

    3. There is a means of enforcement, and there’s a reason for it. If my daughter is in the shower at a campground and a man walks in and takes off his clothes we can complain and he can be arrested. If transgenders can choose their bathroom/shower we can do nothing, what’s the legal difference between a naked male with a hardon and a naked transgender with a hardon, do we expect cops to be able to tell the difference? If a woman walks into the toilet while I’m pissing and squats on the urinal and I don’t complain then there’s no problem, the gender police aren’t checking genitalia at the door.

  45. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  46. If trans’ were likely already using the bathrooms they identified with, then why the fuck an ordinance? And beyond anecdotal, is there really evidence of widespread trans bathroom discrimination?

    There’s more to this. Using govt to force acceptance of their lifestyles (oh shit, excuse me.. identities) comes to mind..

    1. yes, this.

      Activists are using the government and our liberal society to force acceptance of their alternative lifestyles and/or tear down the traditions of those they feel have persecuted them (i.e. Christians)

      Gone are the days of “live and let live” and “what you do behind closed doors is your business”.

      Here are the days of “proclaim your acceptance of me or else”.

      History teaches that this will not end well.

  47. I identify as trans every time there is a line for my birth gender toilet, but as soon as I finish my business I go back to my normal identity.

    Don’t dare tell me that line length gender identify isn’t real.

  48. The issue is not the existance of transgendered people … it never has been. The issue has always been that unreassigned transgenders who are physically male make women in rest rooms feel uncomfortable and threatened. If they are physically female and are transgendering, then they would be in danger in a mens room.

    Go on downtown to the prostitution strolls and ask the working girls if they ever plied their trade in a public restroom.

    A woman entering a mens room is endangered. A man entering a womens room is in danger of being accused. There is no sign on peoples heads saying “I’m trans, ask me how” and so judgements will be made based on what can be seen.

  49. Maybe we just need a dress code for public restrooms – forget the biology and psychology.

  50. I’m trying to figure out the sign in the photo: separate rest rooms for fat & skinny people?

  51. Hmmmmm, let me just check again…………..yep, the site is still called “Reason”. So yeah, people can spontaneously change genders………….that’s a reasonable assertion.

  52. Want to earn from home by working basic work using your laptop for 2 to 4 h on daily basis, get paid 62 bucks fifty-eight minute ZA and get a paycheck every week and choose yourself your working time?Its original site…BNH006

    http://www.payability70.com

  53. I wouldn’t give a thimble of warm spit for a lady coming in and peeing while I do, I don’t really care. But there is no means for police to tell a naked biological male from a naked biological male ‘transgender’, nor determine his intentions. If I’m in a NC campground under this law and my daughter says a man came into the ladies showers and took his clothes off the cops can ask for ID and easily determine if he’s a male or a female, easier even if he’s naked. If we allow transgenders to choose which shower they use how do we determine whether a man is a male or just ‘transgender’ with a hardon? You can’t. If transgenders are allowed to choose their bathroom essentially that’s legally allowing anyone to use either bathroom. If no one complains when a guy goes to the women’s shower or vice versa then no harm no foul, it’s not like the cops are going to be posted at bathroom and shower entrances checking genitalia, but if a man is hanging out in the showers with my young daughter and I do want to complain I want there to be a legal means to do so. People seem to think that there is no harm in male transgenders using the ladies, but they seem to ignore the fact that anyone can claim to be a transgender.

  54. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  55. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/X6JhyG

  56. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  57. When the neighborhood weirdo decides he’s an eight-year old girl and wants to come to the author’s house to play with his daughter and friends, I believe he’ll alter his opinion of the bill.

  58. Bruce can use the girl’s room when his stuff his gone and he is objectively Caitlyn, not when he subjectively decides to be Caitlyn but keep his stuff. The room you choose should match the stuff you use.

  59. Also, the title of the article seems backwards — it’s those who believe in psychological transgenderism who are denying reality.

  60. …and the same thing is true of pro-transgender laws.

  61. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  62. I am nine to five work by one hour 85 dollars….I My old work was bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two Years have passed since And I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here at this what I do?

    http://www.alpha-careers.com

  63. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  64. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.paypost50.com

  65. Prediction 2016:All support will evaporate when the first XY forgets to lift the seat in the ladies room!!!

  66. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  67. “Transsexual” people do not belong in public restrooms. They belong in Arkham Asylum.

  68. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  69. I spotted a politically incorrect toon on the subject at https://countenance.wordpress.com and this blogger wondered if we allow “transsexuals” in the rest rooms, why not the shower room of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.

  70. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.