Trans

US 4th Circuit Rules in Favor of Trans Teen; May Impact North Carolina Law

Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the bathroom wars.

|

Updated at 9:46 P.M. to clarify original case. See below for corrections.

One battle in the bathroom wars has just ended. Or maybe a truce has been hammered out for the time being.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court has ruled in favor of a female-to-male trans student who was banned from using his school's boys bathroom. A lower court had issued a preliminary injunction against the student while the case was moving forward. Now the Circuit Court, whose rulings also cover North Carolina (site of a contentious new law covering similar issues), ruled the injunction was illegal and has ordered the lower court to hear his discrimination lawsuit.

"The Department [of Education's] interpretation resolves ambiguity by providing that in the case of a transgender individual using a sex-segregated facility, the individual's sex as male or female is to be generally determined by reference to the student's gender identity,"Judge Henry Floyd wrote in Tuesday's majority opinion.

Read more here.

Update: My original summary of the case involving Gavin Grimm misstated several basic facts. Currently a high school junior who transitioned during his sophomore year, Grimm attends school in Gloucester County, Virginia. During his sophomore year, he was allowed to the use the boys restrooms at his school for several weeks which, according to The Guardian, passed without incident. At the start of his junior year (and after a series of public school board meetings), he was denied access to the boys room and was instead instructed to use a unisex facility that the school built specifically for him. He and his parents sued the school district under Title IX for discrimination but that case was dismissed last fall.

In The Guardian's summary of today's action, "Tuesday's ruling orders the lower court to reconsider his petition to access the boys' bathroom while the case is ongoing, but it is not the final decision in Grimm's case." The lower court will adjudicate the case following the Circuit Court's interpretation.

As NPR noted in its coverage of the ruling, in 2015 the Department of Education issued a memo saying that when public schools receiving federal dollars (read: all of them) separate students based on sex, they "generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity."

Thanks to Hans Bader of Competitive Enterprise Institute for pointing out my misreading of the case.

Go here to read recent Reason musings on North Carolina's new bathroom law and, perhaps more important, the weird, long, and awful history of how governments at all levels can't stop setting policies for private establishments while also being openly discriminatory in how they run the facilities that they actually operate.

I'm willing to bet the farm that even within a few years, if not sooner, we will all look back on the absolute panic evinced over the issue of unisex bathrooms and wonder just what the fuck we were all smoking.

As a good libertarian, I believe that private establishments (including those deemed public accommodations under antidiscrimination statutes) should be given as much latitude as possible to decide how and if they want to serve customers. Having said that, to the extent that antidiscrimination laws already apply to protected racial and gender groups, there seems to me no good reason to exclude sexual orientation and gender identification from those categories.

So yes, the state should GTFO of all of this, but as with marriage, if it's involved, then it should treat individuals equally. It seems to me that conservatives, having lost battles over public homosexuality and marriage equality, are now glomming onto another losing reactionary position when it comes to trans identity. I find it appalling that any baker or florist anywhere has been punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple; it's especially screwed up when they essentially get sent to state-mandated therapy to fix their minds. And yet that doesn't let the state (and conservatives) off the hook for decades of refusing to treat gays and lesbians equally. To be clear: I think that people who refuse to serve gay people or accommodate trans people are bigots, plain and simple, and I don't really care if they think that way because they are religious or secular or just hung up. But I also do not think it's the role of the state to cure them of their stupidity.

It strikes me that the popular conservative argument that private businesses which are in no way religious somehow become faith-based entities the second the proprietor decides he doesn't want to provide some services to some customers is both mendacious and a lost cause in the long run. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a religious outfit that exists only to bring greater glory to God as they define him; that's why they have broad sympathy in fighting government mandates that contradict their theology. When it comes to businesses whose primary concern is turning a buck, it's a different story, though. As someone who takes the right of conscience very seriously, I'm bothered by reactionaries who are simply willing to drag religion in to slag whatever lifestyle they happen to find distasteful.

Conservatives generally are not willing to make a principled case against antidiscrimination laws because doing so is unpopular; the long history of conservatives supporting racial segregation well past the rest of the country had moved on from it can't be easy for them to revisit. Instead, they are trying to recast their particular positions against accommodating trans people (and before them, gay people, and before that, racial minorities and women) as some test of religious freedom because they say the Bible is against Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner or something. Good luck with that. I get it: You're freaked out by trans people, even to the point of trying to force business owners to make sure that all customers use bathrooms based on the sex listed on their birth certificates (as a Florida legislator attempted to do last year).

In the best of all possible worlds, private schools would do whatever they want. Public schools can and should figure out ways to accommodate the vanishingly small number of trans students in ways that respect individual rights and don't inflame fear or hatred (of course, this is already happening but such stories don't generate headlines). Schools, especially public schools, have a long and inglorious history as incubators not of individualism and intellectual growth but as miniature versions of the island in Lord of the Flies. You look at the picture of that kid up at the top and you figure that he's almost certainly taken more shit in his brief 16 years than all of us "normals" reading this piece will in our combined lifetimes. Life shouldn't be that way, should it? Especially not at school, where attendance is mandatory.

Sadly, the state has never been great at treating people equally before the law. But the ruling in Virginia today is at least one baby step in the right direction.

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.

269 responses to “US 4th Circuit Rules in Favor of Trans Teen; May Impact North Carolina Law

  1. I’ll say it first: “NICK IS A BELTWAY-LOVING COSMO!!!111@@@@!”

    1. Why can’t we all just have a series of unisex bathrooms anyway?

      1. I don’t know. More to the point I don’t care. To me, this whole thing is a bullshit issue, what with real actual problems going on – but that requires real, actual effort to address so of course the oh-so-caring progs would rather just look cool than work.

        Personally, I’m just waiting for the day that some really fugly lady sues one of these states over some false-arrest charge.

      2. Are you offering to pay for them?

        1. They can be built by those who would worry about the “wrong” people using them. I don’t care who is pissing next to me.

        2. Sure.

          All I’m gonna do is troll around town for a bit, taking down all the “Mens” and “Womens” signs and then sell ’em all for scrap. Not that hard to get a pure unisex bathroom situation going on.

      3. Because women really don’t want them

    2. Cosmo, yes, I guess so. But Beltway loving? Not so much.

      1. Humbly withdrawn, then.

    3. Progressitarian.

  2. “The Department [of Education’s] interpretation resolves ambiguity (..).”

    The departments’ interpretations of Title VII and IX dissolve principle. It’s like the freaking commerce clause.

    1. Check out Glazer’s Affirmative Discrimination, Harvard UP.

  3. Unfortunately, all of my fucks have been classified 4F. That is why I cannot muster a single one.

  4. Public schools can and should figure out ways to accommodate the vanishingly small number of trans students in ways that respect individual rights (this is of course already happening; we just don’t hear about it because it doesn’t cause headlines) and don’t inflame fear or hatred.

    Yeah, by playing tyranny of the vanishingly small minority.

    1. Public schools can and should figure out ways to accommodate the vanishingly small number of trans students in ways that respect individual rights

      Do the other non-trans individuals using bathrooms have any rights that we need to respect?

      1. Exactly what a normal privileged person would say.

      2. I guess they have the right to remain silent. Well, unless trans-person X feels like compelling them to go “yes, X, you are a real man/woman/whatever”. New York must have codified that.

        1. What are they?

          Well, let’s start with the right at issue here: the right, as near as I can tell, to use a bathroom appropriate for your gender where you will feel comfortable.

      3. Do the other non-trans individuals using bathrooms have any rights that we need to respect?

        As a majority group, no. However, exceptions could be made for other marginalized groups for whom support could be used for social status signalling.

      4. “Do the other non-trans individuals using bathrooms have any rights that we need to respect?”

        The right too … what exactly??

        To not be ogled in the bathroom??

        I don’t see you clamoring for a ban on gay people in bathrooms. Without such laws you aren’t respecting those rights.

        The right to “feel safe” in a bathroom or something??

        Sure, THAT’S what we need in this country. More entitled safe spaces.

        The right to have a bathroom free of people you don’t want in your bathroom??

        Then all the disgusting, facial-hair-less men who frequent the same bathrooms as me should REALLY respect my rights and GTFO. Seriously, baldfaced men are GROSS.

        Not really sure what rights you’re talking about. Anything I could imagine that is construed as protecting rights of non-trans-people in bathrooms sounds stupid when I say it out loud.

        1. Not really sure what rights you’re talking about.

          Honestly, neither am I. Of course, that includes the “right” of a transgender person to use the “other” bathroom. I’m curious as to how that right can be articulated in a principled way. The best I can come up with is above, and its a right that everyone has that will be violated no matter which way you go on this.

          1. Only rights that should matter:

            Right to not be forced to use a bathroom you do not want to.

            Right of a private organization to refuse bathroom services to anyone they deem.

            Right to use whatever bathroom you damn please if you are forced to associate in the building you are in, such as in schools.

            1. Right to not be forced to use a bathroom you do not want to.

              Would that the right not to be forced to use the same bathroom as someone of the opposite sex?

              Right to use whatever bathroom you damn please if you are forced to associate in the building you are in, such as in schools.

              Thus denying other the right to not to be forced to use the same bathroom as the opposite sex?

              1. “Would that the right not to be forced to use the same bathroom as someone of the opposite sex?”

                No one’s forcing you to use the bathroom. Not comfortable with using the bathroom because there might be Trans people there?? Not comfortable with using the bathroom because my bisexual ass is in there?? Then stay out.

                I’m not comfortable sharing a bathroom with people who shave their faces, because men are supposed to have facial hair, and baldfaced people are disgusting. Therefore, I’ll just hold it if there is no alternative, no need to mandate that I have a special Mustache Only bathroom in all public buildings.

                Personally, I am of the opinion of a public service, if you want to force me pay for it, you’ll damn well let me use it. Bathrooms included. I shouldn’t have to pay for your bathroom at all, but if you’re making me pay for it, I should be able to take a piss in it.

                1. No one’s forcing you to use the bathroom. Not comfortable with using the bathroom because there might be Trans people there?? Not comfortable with using the bathroom because my bisexual ass is in there?? Then stay out.

                  You realize this same response could be made to any transgender demanding to use the other bathroom, yes?

                  I’m still looking for something that reconciles the demand of transgendered folks to use the bathroom of their choice, and the demand of “normals” to use the bathroom of their choice (which will generally be a same-sex only bathroom).

                  1. I’m still looking for something that reconciles the demand of transgendered folks to use the bathroom of their choice, and the demand of “normals” to use the bathroom of their choice (which will generally be a same-sex only bathroom).

                    You’re not going to find it. Sometimes preferences are incompatible.

                    What seems rather odd is that the 99%.

                    I don’t condemn the trans for their preferences. I don’t condemn the cis for their preferences either.

                    I couldn’t care less if some chick with a penciled in mustache wants to sachay about the men’s room. But I’m not digging all this vitriol against cis people who want a little personal privacy from the other sex in the can.

                2. I shouldn’t have to pay for your bathroom at all…

                  Really?! A business should provide you a place “to take a piss” at their own expense? Sounds a bit authoritarian to me.

                3. Not comfortable with using the bathroom because there might be Trans people there?? Not comfortable with using the bathroom because my bisexual ass is in there?? Then stay out.

                  I see that Trans and Bis get that privilege. How about an evil CISLord like myself?

                  “If woman aren’t comfortable with me sachaying through the ladies locker room, they can stay out! ”

                  Where can I sign up?

    2. I guess I don’t see the problem. Are they using the facilities to relieve themselves? Great. A bathroom is the right place to be. Similarly, washing hands in the sink. Take out all the mirrors and there’s no problem. Also, I just don’t care enough to supervise. But I don’t have daughters using public facilities where creepers who might claim to be trans to hang out i the women’s restroom live. (How vanishingly small is that minority?)

      1. Who are these creepers anyway and why aren’t they just using the bathrooms of their victims right now and claiming they simply a very ugly member of the bathroom’s designated gender?? It’s not like we have the TSA outside each bathroom to check your genitals.

        And WHY are people only addressing the STRAIGHT creepers?? What about the gay creepers who don’t have to insist their gender is different from their birth gender to creep?? Until we see calls for mandatory one-stall bathrooms or a ban of all gay and bi people from all bathrooms, I don’t think you guys are at all serious about addressing the creepers.

        1. I think that’s really the issue, ultimately. If everyone just shut up and calm the fuck down, the problem would sort itself out. I think trans people have been using the bathroom of their “identity” for years now without this being an issue, and a feminine dude in a dress is going to be at least as disruptive in the men’s room. It seems to me, though, that the objection is more the result on the government’s trying to force on us this silly notion that by pretending to be a man/woman automatically makes you so. I don’t really see it as a bathroom thing necessarily, this is just the subject through which it has manifested.

        2. Who are these creepers anyway and why aren’t they just using the bathrooms of their victims right now and claiming they simply a very ugly member of the bathroom’s designated gender??

          Because somebody would probably ask them to leave, or do something even less polite, if they were caught doing that now. Passing accommodations laws that require gender-free restrooms removes that as a possibility. Some dude could camp out in the ladies’ room and if the store manager asks him to leave, he has committed a crime.

        3. … and why aren’t they just using the bathrooms of their victims right now…

          Because… see?… that sign on the door that identifies the bathroom as for ladies-only… it’s magical… and it magically blocks predatory men from entering!!1!!1111!

  5. No, what are we gonna do for the dog-fuckers?

    We’re libertarians, damn it. We can’t just forget about the dog-fuckers!

    Besides, if it wasn’t for trans-tweens, dog-fuckers, and human trafficking, we’d be stuck stuck talking about taxes, spending, or (God forbid) global warming, and believe me, you don’t want to have to write about that stuff.

    That shit comes with graphs and charts and maps all other manner of evil.

    1. Like the fact that 45% of people pay zero taxes.

      1. Which is being treated equally according to nick.

      2. Unlikely to be true.

        Some people pay no *income* tax. There are a million and one other taxes, and million and one ways the government extracts money through regulation and enabled rent seeking.

        Probably the majority of the earnings of the peasants are extracted through taxes, fees, regulation, and enabled rent seeking.

        1. However, personal income taxes are the primary source of funding for the Federal government, and the primary drivers of Federal spending are transfer payments.

          Thus, about 45% of the country is collecting a benefit that the other 55% are paying for, give or take some percentage points on each side depending on your method of accounting.

    1. Well duh

  6. I guess I’m more interested in what they have to say about the high school kid that wanted to use the girls gym showers because that’s where the rule of law meets actual restistance.

    1. Indeed. Let’s see what the good libertarian makes of this. Compelled association under the shower, quite free. But hey. that’s sui genderis, pardon, generis. You can’t generate that shit up.

      1. Pardon: genderate.

      2. I think the real travesty in all of this is that gym showers are still a thing.

      3. “Compelled association under the shower”

        Why is this only a problem when trans people are involved??

        Sure, it’s perfectly okay to forcibly compel underage highschoolers to strip naked and shower with one another, regardless of the sexual orientation of those they are forced to shower with, or the sexual orientation of the /adults/ assigned to oversee the locker room.

        But once we start forcing the kids we forced to be naked to be naked alongside someone who has different junk, ONLY THEN does this compelled, coerced strip-and-shower association become bad!!

        1. Why is this only a problem when trans people are involved??

          Because, like all such things, the status quo is widely accepted while the proposed deviation is not.

          We are seeing the real breaking points of the “equality if not liberty” mentality. There is so little liberty in many of these matters that any attempt at ensuring equality–especially for increasingly parochial causes–is going to be seen as reinforcing illiberal attitudes and institutions.

          Not to mention that, as R.C. Dean points out aptly above, we are now at the point where the right being argued for is comfort. Well, why does your right to comfort override mine? The only rejoinder I have seen offered is “well, it’s not *that* big of an imposition!” which is both facilely reversible on the arguer and ultimately utilitarian rather than principled.

          Really, there is an abundance of hypersensitivity. Pointing out that many who consider themselves among the majority are themselves hypersensitive hardly immunizes you from the same charge. The problem is that there is no fair squaring of the conflicting demands of two groups of hypersensitive people.

  7. I just wish all people–straight, trans, gay, cis or whatever–would stop shitting in urinals.

    1. NEVER!!!

    2. They all want urinal cake.

      1. “It’s so… minty.”

        American Psycho, Bret Easton Ellis

    3. Don’t piss on the shitter should be rule #2

  8. “As a good libertarian, I believe that private establishments (including those deemed public accommodations under antidiscrimination statutes) should be given as much latitude as possible to decide how and if they want to serve customers. Having said that”

    Here it comes…

    “to the extent that antidiscrimination laws already apply to protected racial and gender groups, there seems to me no good reason to exclude sexual orientation and gender identification from those categories.”

    Ah yes, sure in theory he’d love to get rid of these laws, but since we can’t, the least we can do is make them worse and more intrusive, and make their reach extend broader than ever.

    And I suppose he’s against legalizing marijuana, too, because if we’re going to have drug laws let’s at least criminalize as many drugs as possible.

    “When it comes to businesses whose primary concern is turning a buck, it’s a different story, though. As someone who takes the right of conscience very seriously, I’m bothered by reactionaries who are simply willing to drag religion in to support whatever lifestyle they happen to find distasteful.”

    Almost by definition, if they have a conscientious scruple against providing certain services, then they’re not primarily concerned with turning a buck. Not to mention that some religious people think they glorify God by following an honest calling.

    1. “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10

      Ya got a problem with that, hippie?

      1. And why am I sitting here trying to argue the legitimacy of “turning a buck,” or saying that even people trying to turn a buck have First Amendment rights?

        What is this, Salon?

        1. No shit. That is just appalling. I would have hoped a libertarian writer would have said something more along the lines of “When it comes to businesses, they should be left alone, regardless of whether their primary concern is turning a buck or following a godly calling.”

          And people laugh at us when we say we detect a certain aroma of progderp emanating from Reason when it comes to culture war issues.

          1. Business owners are well below the chromosome science deniers on the libertarian totem pole of virtue.

          2. A libertarian writer would have.

            1. Seems to be a battle for editorial control between Progressive Nick and Libertarian Nick’s Jacket.

        2. And why am I sitting here trying to argue … that even people trying to turn a buck have First Amendment rights?

          Because in Progressitarian land, as in Progressive land, identity privilege trumps all rights. Because cocktail parties.

    2. Um… is it wrong to say that all should be treated equally under the law… even while disagreeing with the law?

      1. He wants to expand the “public accomodations” laws in order to make sexual orientation and gender identity into suspect classes.

        Is that a good thing or not?

    3. So, Eddie, and I ask this not as a “gotcha” but because I’m genuinely curious, let’s say there was a law on the table that repealed all drug laws, but only for white people. Laws and penalties for all other races would remain exactly the same. Would you support such a law?

      1. I really don’t know, I guess I’ll just wait until that happens before deciding what to do.

        It may be a long wait.

        You can spend the extra time trying to persuade me that man/woman marriage and women’s bathrooms reserved for women are the equivalent of Jim Crow. Rather than simply assuming it.

        Meanwhile, since compulsory gay cakes are already happening, are you for free association or against it?

        1. So your answer is “I will dodge the question and accuse you of saying things you did not say”. Noted.

          1. You’ve been here a while, pa… Did you really expect an honest answer?

            1. If you didn’t have your tentacle up your butt you’d realize who was being dishonest – it’s the one who’s stealing a rhetorical base by asking me to simply assume that separate men’s and ladies’ rooms are the new Jim Crow, or that refusing to make Adam and Steve a cake is the same as a hotel refusing to provide lodging for a black family, thus making them sleep in their car.

              1. “free association or against it?”

                Pro free association. Except when Government involved. Since a government is inherently anti free association. I do not wish to associate with this government, but it makes me anyway, particularly during tax collection. So if it’s going to do that, then it should not have the right to deny me its association when it doesn’t want to.

                “or that refusing to make Adam and Steve a cake is the same as a hotel refusing to provide lodging for a black family, thus making them sleep in their car.”

                You aren’t truly pro-free association then. Personally, I’d say they are the same. And refusing cake making because your concerned with the junk of the cake-buying couple or refusing lodging due to melanin content is both permissible if you aren’t a hypocrite.

                1. I think the anti-race-discrimination laws have largely served their purpose – and they *did* have a purpose back in Jim Crow days, when black people were locked out of many parts of the economy and, yes, had to sleep in their cars in many cases.

                  Nowadays a company which announced it’s whites-only will either get boycotted to death or cater only to a niche market, so the urgency is reduced.

                  In contrast to gay cakes, where there never *was* a crisis warranting a law.

                  1. I wonder if a transwoman with male junk would be welcome at Curves. I know I’m not.

      2. It’s a stupid comparison that has no relevance so why should he or anyone else answer the question? People talk about how this is just a matter of what bathroom some sliver of people want to use and won’t ever involve building new facilities despite it already taking place right now. This isn’t a case of black people not being able to sit at the same counter as whites for that reason alone.

      3. Incrementalism should work both ways, shouldn’t it?

      4. Of course.

        And keep fighting for a total repeal.

        Duh.

      5. I’d support such a change. I’d even be for one repealing all drug laws except for persons named Homer, other than a particular named one of them.

    4. There is the difference that extending marriage rights/privileges to gay couples is not an infringement on anyone else. Gay couples are not now required to get married, and even if you think marriage laws are bad or anti-liberty, the couples still have to opt in to it. They impose the bad deal upon themselves.

      Using the same logic for an on-going imposition is just doubling-down on a bad law. Yes, if you do think non-discrimination laws are legit, you probably have to admit that gender is just as valid a criteria as race. But if you think these laws are currently infringing on people’s liberty, well… that’s that. Don’t support the premise, then don’t offer approval of the conclusion.

      1. “There is the difference that extending marriage rights/privileges to gay couples is not an infringement on anyone else.”

        Have you been following the news lately?

        “Yes, if you do think non-discrimination laws are legit, you probably have to admit that gender is just as valid a criteria as race.”

        No, you don’t.

        1. “No, you don’t.”

          You only say that because you’re a pro-non-discrimination law anti-free-association socialist.

          1. What does that even mean?

      2. “if you do think non-discrimination laws are legit, you probably have to admit that gender is just as valid a criteria as race.”

        How about gender identity being just as valid as racial identity.

        Is Rachel Dolezal eligible for Affirmative Action quotas?

  9. Is that a picture of the teen or did you just google “Depressed lesbian gym coach”?

    1. Some say he hunts blutbaden on his free time.

      1. Bauerschwein if ever there was one.

        1. Bauernschein. Try “Schweinehund”. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3c2xeo 16:40

    2. It is a photo of Orange in the New Black’s newest cast member.

  10. You look at the picture of that kid up at the top and you figure that he’s almost certainly taken more shit in his brief 16 years than all of us “normals” reading this piece will in our combined lifetimes

    Some people enjoy wallowing in shit. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. They need bathroom access too

    1. Nobody has been denied access to a bathroom. Some have been denied access to the bathroom of their choice.

      1. If it’s a state run bathroom, GTFO statist. You force me to pay for this bathroom, I’ll damn well use it if I feel like it.

        1. The state is not your bitch. Other people paid for it as well, and I’m going to guess a fair few of them don’t agree with you.

          There are always going to be “state-run” bathrooms, even in a minimalist state. Should they accommodate your urinal shitting?

          It may well be that the best answer is unisex bathrooms, which as someone pointed out above is trivially easy to accomplish–just take the signs off the damn things.

          But as long as there are signs on the doors it’s not a travesty of justice that you have to use the one that aligns closest with your birth certificate rather than your chosen identity.

  11. “So yes, the state should GTFO of all of this, but as with marriage, if it’s involved, then it should treat individuals equally.”

    Isn’t that just a non-position? You could equally apply the standard, “use the bathroom of your birth sex” or “use the bathroom of your gender identity”, no?

    “To be clear: I think that people who refuse to serve gay people or accommodate trans people are bigots, plain and simple, and I don’t really care if they think because they are religious or secular or just hung up.”

    I think you’re little more than a useful idiot at this point. Ignoring people’s beliefs and just calling them bigots: Libertarian moment! (To be fair, they very well may be, but this approach isn’t going to help advance libertarianism)

    1. He’s not ignoring their beliefs, their beliefs are the source of their bigotry.

      1. He’s not ignoring their beliefs, their beliefs are the source of their bigotry.

        As long as they’re called bigots in the end.

        1. You get to exercise your religion, not be free of all criticism because of it.

          1. You get to exercise your religion,

            You will note that Nick is opposing laws intended to protect the free exercise of religion.

            1. A) Nick’s his own man and B) I was addressing TT’s narrow concern about public accommodation and service.

              Although I find it hard to square “I find it appalling that any baker or florist anywhere has been punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple” with your assertion.

              1. You may recall his almost incoherent article where he derided North Carolina for slapping down forced association laws at the city level, while claiming to be against forced association laws.

                Don’t know if he’s chimed in on RFRA laws, but I can’t imagine that he would support them as a hedge against forced association laws. Maybe he has.

                Nick has the admirable ability to say, gosh, I just hate me some anti-discrimination laws aimed at private businesses, while noisily opposing attempts to restrict anti-discrimination laws aimed at private businesses.

          2. “You get to exercise your religion, not be free of all criticism because of it.”

            Oh, I thought you were joking before.

            I’m not arguing that he *can’t* just call people bigots. Just that doing so doesn’t help libertarianism.

            1. And all I’ll I’m saying is that he wasn’t ignoring their beliefs, he just doesn’t treat it as a get of out criticism free card.

              1. And all I’ll I’m saying is that he wasn’t ignoring their beliefs, he just doesn’t treat it as a get of out criticism free card.

                Eh, that’s fine. This statement: “I think that people who refuse to serve gay people or accommodate trans people are bigots, plain and simple, and I don’t really care if they think because they are religious or secular or just hung up.” really does read like he’s willing to ignore their beliefs and just “bigot” away. (Nor do I think calling someone a bigot is really a criticism.)

                But it doesn’t have anything to do with my point, if I had known it’d cause a fuss I would have worded it more carfully.

                1. There’s no reason to because Nick himself argues in the same article they should have their rights infringed upon by the state because, well, the state is already doing it in other areas.

                  It’s not even the same as gay marriage as one imposes a burden on private citizens and the other is a state benefits package at this point that doesn’t take anything away from anyone else.

                  1. Who do you think pays for those benefits?

                    1. I’m unaware of any handouts given to married couples. I am only aware of tax breaks at most, and not being a prog who thinks all money is really the property of the state, its their money and I don’t begrudge them getting to keep it. It imposes not positive burden on the single regardless of whether it is completely fair.

    2. I don’t think it takes any religious convictions to be a little miffed at the prospect of some dude in a wig waving his dick in front of one’s granddaughter

      1. Oh, that’s what they’re trying to legalize?? HOLY SHIT THIS IS CRAZY

      2. Yep. That’s what this is, dudes in wigs waiving their cock and balls in your little girls’ faces. Think of the children. *bullshit detected*

        1. Yeah, for hundreds of years bathrooms have been segregated by gender for absolutely no reason at all, Spencer.

          1. Yeah, for hundreds of years bathrooms have been segregated by gender for absolutely no reason at all, Spencer.

            I’m curious. For how many hundreds of years, would you say?

            1. Since the 2-Holer! Or the spread of indoor plumbing over the last century and a half.

              1. Or the spread of indoor plumbing over the last century and a half.

                From what I’ve read, it’s closer to 2 centuries. But in the US, it actually took up to the 1920s state laws to legislate the existence of women’s public restrooms in many places.

                1. Fair enough. I live in the South so most of our structures are less than 150 years old for some reason. But many had at least rudimentary plumbing for rich people.

      3. OMWC is not just “some dude”!

    3. It is funny that some facially equal laws (only two people of the opposite sex can get married, only people born a male can use the men’s room) suddenly become discriminatory, no?

      The difference here, I think, is that requiring other people to recognize gay marriage is a relatively light burden on them (leaving aside the ongoing expansion of public accommodation laws). However, requiring other people to share bathrooms is not, to many, such a light burden.

      Why is it that “anti-discrimination” turns into “forced association” so easily? And why can’t people admit that this is the way it works in our society, and take it into account?

      1. I am really starting to think that there may be something to the “cocktail party” hypothesis.

        The Reason writers dearly want their leftist associates to like them and not call them bigots.

        They know that if they stick to their libertarian guns on the freedom of association, their lefty associates might not like them any more – “I didn’t know you were such a hatey racist hater!”

        So they’re desperately signalling that they’re still cool, they’re not haters, and they don’t really want to obstruct the LGBTQ steamroller.

        Hopefully, it won’t work, and they’ll get called bigots anyway. Serve them right.

        1. Hopefully, it won’t work, and they’ll get called bigots anyway.

          Sooner or later, they will. The Prog Stack is always churning, always throwing up new “oppressed” people, and making yesterday’s top-o-the-intersectionality victim into today’s oppressor bigot.

          1. There are a number of cunts on the left who classify all libertarians as racist already. There are arguments put forward with a straight face that all those who argue for limited government or state’s rights are racist. It’s all code for hating black people, apparently.

      2. There’s “equal” and then there’s “equal”.

        (Hutz did this better than me.)

      3. Why is it that “anti-discrimination” turns into “forced association” so easily? And why can’t people admit that this is the way it works in our society, and take it into account?

        This is an important point. Only statists/progressives would want the government to force the vast majority of innocent citizens to accommodate an extremely small minority in their gender misidentification.

        I have no problem with people identifying as anything that they are not. But forcing others to play along is just plain stupid.

        1. ^This.

        2. Elegantly put, Hyper. That’s exactly where I am.

          In person, I am scrupulous about calling people by their preferred pronoun and name. To me, its just good manners. I imagine that the life of someone who believes they are trapped in the wrong body is plenty hard enough.

          BUT, here we are crossing a line, and talking about forcing others to play along in bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.

        3. Pretty much, yeah. That’s what’s mind-blowing about all this silliness – five years ago, did anyone give a shit about any of this? Was it remotely controversial with anyone but an extremely tiny minority that there are men’s rooms and women’s rooms? Yet now it’s apparently the equivalent of Selma 1965.

          Additionally, we’re reaching a point at which reality is ceasing to exist among proggie types. To them, reality is whatever you want it to be. I have sympathy for the kind of mentally ill people who are utterly convinced that they somehow ended up in the wrong body, and I have no problem using whatever name they wish to be addressed by, but in the end a man pretending to be a woman is still a man, and vice versa. That’s simple biology. Why exactly are the rest of us compelled to play along with this delusion? What about the people who are convinced that they’re really cats or wolves or lizards/dragons or whatever else? What about crazy people who think they’re Napoleon Bonaparte? Are they all to be indulged with the force of law behind them?

          If we as a society start rejecting plain biological facts based entirely on feelz, that’s a pretty dark path. If one truth can be waved away because someone wants to, where does it end? But hey, the self-anointed media elite will give you a warm smile for playing along, so it’s all worth it in the end.

        4. Ah, Hyperbolical, the thing is, it’s not “stupid.” It’s a power play. It’s cultural Marxism. It’s just the latest SJW bullshit meant to attack what they see as oppression (a.k.a. the whole of Western civilization, with the exception of Marxism and its offshoots). They are running out of major causes, so their concerns become increasingly trivial. We’ve gone from established, universal rights and majority rule to invented rights and rule by the tiniest possible minorities.

          The reason they are on a roll is that most people want to be nice and polite. They don’t want to be called racists and bigots. So the group-rights types march ever onward. In this case, supported by many libertarians.

          Note the recent reversal: not so long ago, protecting women from sexual assault was a top priority. Now, the top priority is letting anyone in the women’s room as long as they say that they’re a woman. I’m not saying the NC law is well-written or a good idea, but the idea that everyone has a “civil right” to enter any same-sex space on their own say-so is just bullshit.

    4. I think you’re little more than a useful idiot at this point. Ignoring people’s beliefs and just calling them bigots: Libertarian Progressitarian moment!

  12. I’m willing to bet the farm that even within a few years, if not sooner, we will all look back on the absolute panic evinced over the issue of unisex bathrooms and wonder just what the fuck we were all smoking.

    Applies at least as much to this article as anything else on the subject. We are aware that the only reason this issue is in the public eye is thanks to unfounded claims that a) transgender students are psychologically scarred by having to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex, and that b) there is a great amount of anti-transgender abuse currently ongoing in our nation’s bathrooms.

    At least as important, it’s worth pointing out that the hysteria on the right is largely manifesting in bills allowing private property owners to maintain the status quo and that the hysteria on the left has motivated mandates against people doing what they want in terms of bathroom access.

    1. I’m waiting for the avalanche of Title IX lawsuits against schools regardless of how they try to deal with this.

      Allow trans people to use the the shower/bathroom they identify with and lawsuits from terrified or opportunistic normals. Force biologically expressed bathroom use and it’s an unsafe and hostile environment for trans people.

      There really is no winning.

      1. Sometimes preferences are incompatible.

  13. Involuntary commitment needs to be brought back in this country. Sane and insane appear to be in the process of switching places and I’m not sure I’d mind being stuck in a padded cell wondering what happened to the world.

  14. I just…I just don’t care.

    1. How dare you!

      1. Get back to me when we’re discussing the economy and taxes.

        1. These “antidiscrimination” laws have already resulted in closing down small businesses…how much more economic do you want to get?

  15. Don’t be such a dweeb, Nick.

    There is nothing reactionary in refusing to kowtow to our new cultural overlords .

    It’s a matter of rejecting their bad taste and worse manners.

    1. Not so much. It’s picking a fight with a minority of extremely fragile people for no reason instead of just solving the problem.

      1. Invasive demands do not evidence fragility.

  16. I’m willing to bet the farm that even within a few years, if not sooner, we will all look back on the absolute panic evinced over the issue of unisex bathrooms and wonder just what the fuck we were all smoking.

    I’m guessing the people having a PSM over unisex bathrooms are less likely than average to be smoking something to chill out.

    1. We demand smoking bathrooms for fragile smokers.

  17. “So yes, the state should GTFO of all of this, but as with marriage, if it’s involved, then it should treat individuals equally”

    Too much nuance for this crowd.

    As for schools, a collection of floor to ceiling private stalls solves all problems.

    1. As for schools, a collection of floor to ceiling private stalls solves all problems

      But then how will Gavin be able to show off their chosen identity. Come to think of it, what kind of male cares about a woman in the bathroom with them anyway? Gavin needs some man lessons

      1. I don’t think Gavin would care.

    2. They took off the stall doors in my school because kids were smoking in there. Nobody took a shit unless they really couldn’t make it.

      1. I always assumed the absence of stall doors in boy’s school restrooms was due to fear of masturbation.

    3. So we should be enforcing drug laws uniformly. Time for some busts in CO.

      1. You take that unnuanced analogy out of here, Skippy!

    1. Its also not free. And if we go that road, many businesses will be forced to close because they either can’t accommodate, or can’t afford, a third bathroom.

      1. Who ever said anything about mandating a 3rd bathroom?

        1. As a voluntary deal, sure, no problem.

          I said “if”, to mean that if this becomes the standard, it will be imposed on “public accommodation” businesses to their great detriment. And it could well become the standard if we follow this “fluid gender” road to its end, as there are people who claim not to identify as either of the standard issue genders. LGBTQWERTY is a joke for a reason, you know.

          And if we are just talking about government buildings, well, those new bathrooms will still cost tax money.

        2. Who ever said anything about mandating a 3rd bathroom?

          South Park.

    2. “A 3rd bathroom. It’s really not all that hard, people.”

      Would a 3rd bathroom even be sufficient at this point? Seems like treating a transgender-male differently in any way from the others is still too much bigotry for this world to take.

      1. God willing, this will get to the point where schools that give up and only have unisex bathrooms will then be attacked because using a unisex bathrooms doesn’t affirm the adopted identities of trans students.

        1. No doubt; they’re already bitching about “cis” men wearing skirts.

        2. Its coming, Tak.

          The purpose of being allowed to go through the door maked “Chicks” is precisely to affirm their identity. There’s no functional reason for it; the toilets flush the same in both bathrooms.

          No, its purely about feelings. The funny thing is, the transgendered person’s feelings about bathroom usage are all-important, while the feelings of everyone else are totally disregarded.

          1. The funny thing is, the transgendered person’s feelings about bathroom usage are all-important, while the feelings of everyone else are totally disregarded.

            Because the majority is the new Bourgeoisie in the Marxian class struggle and, therefore, have no say or rights. Only the proletariat/victim groups have standing.

      2. “he was denied access to the boys room and was instead instructed to use a unisex facility that the school built specifically for him. He and his parents sued the school district under Title IX for discrimination but that case was dismissed last fall.”

        That was fast.

  18. But why do transgenders want to use the bathroom of the sex they were not born with? Is it because they are embarrassed to use the more gender/genitalia appropriate facilities? If so, why is it so goddamned important for the vast majority of girls and boys to suffer similar embarrassment so that a small fraction of one percent of the population can avoid it?

    Nick, your progressive victim baiting potential is showing.

    1. Why is anyone embarrassed by it at all? Do you check out the junk of people in the bathroom?

      1. Do you check out the junk of people in the bathroom?

        Yes. Don’t you?

        1. See my comment below. You may not be given the option of ignoring their equipment.

      2. Gillespie’s logic is not and cannot be limited to bathrooms.

        He is actually proposing eliminating any distinction between male and female accommodations for government facilities and programs. That means unisex locker and bathing facilities, without exception. That means an end to women’s sports in government run schools at every level.

        It is a radical cultural rearrangement that he wants treated as a fait accompli.

      3. If they were female, probably yes. Male: not so much. But school kids do other things in bathrooms, like change clothes.

        As has been said already, few men/boys would care if a woman/girl used their bathroom. And I can’t speak for women because I’m not one. But I don’t want my daughter to have to shower with men/boys–because this is coming next.

        Why do you think they put stalls in public bathrooms? Is it just a tradition? The only solution is to make all restrooms unisex. I’m fine with that.

        1. It is nice that you are fine with that. Does anyone else get a say beforevwe impose that standard on our society?

    2. Why not just use a stall in whatever gender bathroom you currently pass for? I really don’t give a fuck as long as nobody gets hassled because of your issues.

  19. Would if he would loosen the top button.

    Is the supreme court going to rule on Gavin’s physical well-being?

  20. I’m willing to bet the farm that even within a few years, if not sooner, we will all look back on the absolute panic evinced over the issue of unisex bathrooms and wonder just what the fuck we were all smoking.

    Already there, sir. I want to punch everyone who writes another article about bathrooms.

  21. You look at the picture of that kid up at the top and you figure that he’s almost certainly taken more shit in his brief 16 years than all of us “normals” reading this piece will in our combined lifetimes

    Either you think very little about the range of people your magazine reaches or you’re horribly unaware of the lived experience of people in this country. I grew up as a poor jibaro in a large family in Puerto Rico, at a time when Puerto Rico’s average income/capita was somewhere around 1/2 that of Mississippi’s (the poorest state in the continental US). There were plenty of times that I went without and was treated badly for it. There are people in the continental US who grew up in a state where they were legally discriminated against across the board in most ways. I have a friend who grew up in Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution. There are commenters on this board who experienced the breakup of Yugoslavia. I’ve helped refugees who were in Darfur.

    It is sheerly pathetic to suggest that us “normals” have no comparable experience with life’s hardships simply because we’re happy with our dick and balls as they were assigned to us, or that we’ve never been on the wrong side of someone else’s malus. On the scale of human experience this is the definition of First World Problem, worse than being “normal” or than the even more pathetic fare brought forth by feminists but still not particularly awful for it.

    1. Impressive.

    2. Very good point. This is a first-world problem and, as I commented earlier, Nick is letting his progressivism show. Only socialists/progressives are so concerned about class warfare and victimization created by it.

      1. One fallacy of relative privation (TIT’s) doesn’t cancel out another’s (Nick’s).

        1. It is what it is, HM. If we’re going to start ranking suffering (which is what Nick directly suggests in his quote), then it’s simply wrong to say that one sexually confused teenage boy’s experience is obviously much more wracked with the stuff than the entirety of Reason’s readership. Hunger, sickness, war — all are much more universally noted as forms of suffering across cultures and times than something as culture-specific as gender identity. A Byzantine court eunuch would almost certainly consider himself better off than a Greek peasant, and the peasant would likely agree. Plenty of people in the US have experienced those things. So long as we’re playing Oppression Olympics, I can think of a lot of people who’d win that game over the 16 year old.

          If this is an actual problem, it should be addressed without the absurd idea that the sufferings of the gender confused are such that we can merely assent to whatever demands they might have of mainstream society. This idea is far too common and unsubstantiated in identity politics and should be knocked off its horse, even if adjustments in bathroom policy are appropriate.

    3. he’s almost certainly taken more shit in his brief 16 years

      Remind me again why someone else’s suffering creates any claim on people who didn’t cause it?

      1. Mommy values.

  22. Within a few years, we will all look back on how we took this “gender identity” fad so goddam seriously and wonder just what the fuck we were all smoking.

    1. Who’s “we”, kemo sabe?

  23. Time to get a Bally’s membership, I guess.

  24. True story, from the past week:

    We have a trannie who has the official paperwork reclassifying xit as a female. Pre-op.

    So, naturally, she wants to use the women’s locker room. Fine, she’s got the paper. When she gets there, though, she doesn’t use a private stall to change or otherwise take other people into account in any way. We have multiple complaints that she parades around completely nude, literally waving her junk in everyone’s face. We have many women who are justifiably offended by this.

    As always, if people wouldn’t be assholes, many problems would be solved. But, trannies do not tend to be notably discrete, and those who demand to use the other bathroom tend to be, well, demanding. This is not unexpected, when you think about it, and there will be more of it as this lunacy spreads.

    So why do women, who have every right to expect a junk-free locker room, have to sacrifice their comfort in order to make a tranny comfortable?

    1. I mean, if you can’t be naked in the locker room, what’s the fucking point? It follows for me. The fact that this person is not ouwardly female (yet) doesn’t matter to them. It’s just a defect to be corrected with plastic surgery.

      1. The point is that she had ample opportunity to be a decent, civil person. Change in a stall. Wear a fucking towel around your waist to and from the shower. Etc.

        But refused to do so. She made a point of making sure everybody in the room got a good look at her junk.

        The idea that this will be done with minimal offense and upset to other people is absurd. That was my point. And, the idea that other people shouldn’t have to put up with this kind of behavior is, obviously, lost on a lot of people.

        1. It’s because the dominant class/majority doesn’t matter to socialists. Only the victims of the dominant class matter. They don’t really believe in equality. They believe in subordinating the bourgeoisie/straight people/white people to the victim class. It’s not about equality, but about Marxian class struggle.

        2. I get it. I’m not saying anyone should be forced to indulge or accept this person’s body dysmorphia, but trying to explain to someone who has taken a milittant commitment to being a woman that other women aren’t able to see past the outside is going to be a trying conversation.

        3. The point of power is to rub other people’s noses in it.

    2. RC, no anti-discrimination law ever made protects that sort of thing. Make sure to document any complaints there are (and such complaints may well be actionable if there are anti-harassment policies where you are) and also whatever disciplinary measures taken to deal with the problem and there won’t be a problem.

      I get that you oppose AD laws on principle, but in practice they’re really easy to get around.

      1. Of course not. When it actually happens, it must not be happening because we were told that such a thing would never actually happen.

        1. Nothing’s impossible (except, maybe, for the Eagles winning the Super Bowl) but it would take a lot of unlikely circumstances to make that happen.

          1. Agreed. The law simply doesn’t allow such a thing. The fact that it has happened is not evidence that such a thing could happen. Even if we were to concoct a scenario where such a thing would even be theoretically possible, it is so unlikely that it must not have happened.

      2. Susan, if you think taking disciplinary action against a trannie for using the other bathroom won’t catch a massive lawsuit, well, I think you’re wrong.

        1. On what grounds? So long as you have the documentation in order, and that you can show that such behavior would not be tolerated from anyone, you’ll be fine. AD laws generally don’t protect poor job performance or actively disruptive behavior.

          1. On what grounds?

            Discrimination. Duh.

            Would we win? Probably. But the process is the punishment, don’t forget.

            AD laws generally don’t protect poor job performance or actively disruptive behavior.

            I can assure you, they most certainly do, in practice.

            1. Discrimination? With what’s on paper, your company is being very accommodating so she likely won’t be able to provide any paperwork showing otherwise. The process really wouldn’t go further than someone having a chat with your legal department. As to the last bit, it’s only because people are generally unaware about how these things work.

              1. With what’s on paper, your company is being very accommodating

                Not once we take disciplinary action.

                The process really wouldn’t go further than someone having a chat with your legal department.

                Not once, in my experience, has any non-discrimination claim that landed on a lawyer’s desk (government or civil) ever ended that way.

            2. Here’s a link to a paper on the subject. It’s from 2001, and is fairly general but still may answer some questions

              http://digitalcommons.law.lsu……ext=lalrev

    3. Maybe the end game here is the elimination of male genitalia. No more junk to wave, problem solved.

      1. Maybe the end game here is the elimination of male genitalia.

        Yes, that would be just like those insidious Jewluminati, am I right?

    4. Is there some reason this situation could not easily be handled with gender-neutral rules against lewd and harassing behavior in the locker room?

      1. It could be even more easily handled by maintaining the integrity of male and female spaces.

        1. Ah, the classic fable of the lizards and snakes.

          SKINNER
          Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

          LISA
          But isn’t that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we’re overrun by lizards?

          SKINNER
          No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They’ll wipe out the lizards.

          LISA
          But aren’t the snakes even worse?

          SKINNER
          Yes, but we’re prepared for that. We’ve lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

          LISA
          But then we’re stuck with gorillas!

          SKINNER
          No, that’s the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

      2. Because telling people that they can not be in a lewd state of undress in a locker room defeats the purpose of having a locker room.

      3. We could call it the Rahm Emmanuel rule.

    5. But, trannies do not tend to be notably discrete, and those who demand to use the other bathroom tend to be, well, demanding. This is not unexpected, when you think about it, and there will be more of it as this lunacy spreads.

      Considering that their disorder is all about how other people perceive them, it makes sense that they’d be so outward, if not just in-your-face, about their gender identity.

      So why do women, who have every right to expect a junk-free locker room, have to sacrifice their comfort in order to make a tranny comfortable?

      Because they crave recognition and usually just plain ole attention. Though I don’t see how waving your dick around the ladies locker room will garner you much recognition of your femininity.

      1. I don’t see how waving your dick around the ladies locker room will garner you much recognition of your femininity.

        Well, nobody said she wasn’t deeply confused.

    6. who have every right to expect a junk-free locker room

      Do they?

      Are they being hurt?

      Do they have the right to not hear language they don’t like?

      Do they have the right to not have to look upon the ugly, crippled, black…if they are offended by such?

      Check your premise.

      1. So if a flasher walks into a women’s locker room and waves his dick around, would that be a violation of their rights? Yet if that flasher thinks of himself as a woman, then no such transgression?

          1. Is the trannie being harmed?

            You can’t have it both ways. Either the transgender is harmed by being forced to use the restroom of his/her true gender and the woman/man forced to share a bathroom with her/him is also being harmed, or neither is being harmed.

            1. Horseshit!

              I can do a I please, provided I don’t violate the rights of others. There is no right to not be offended.

              1. You can certainly do as you please under those circumstance, but you can’t force others to do what you want.

    7. trannies do not tend to be notably discrete

      Sure they are: they come in ones (with the possible exception of Siamese twin transsexuals).

      Now being discreet is another thing …

    8. We have a trannie who has the official paperwork reclassifying xit as a female. Pre-op.

      Sorry, in My World, the paperwork isn’t effective until he *commits*. Bruce is still Bruce until he chops his junk off.

      My solution is that we put pictures of junk on the door, and you go to the bathroom that you match. That’s the best I can come up with.

      Sorry, hermaphrodites. You do whatever you’ve been doing, and let’s all hope no one ever notices.

    9. I wish people wouldn’t call it “junk”. It’s not something you want to get rid of.

  25. WHEN will Uber style App, bathroom, and drone technology FINALLY merge into one service? Just get your phone out, order a crapper, one flies to you, you do your business, it flies away to treatment plant/community compost heap, done and done.

    Privacy? What privacy? In twenty years we’ll be so stripped of pride and privacy that dropping a deuce in the middle of Times Square won’t be thought twice about. Bathrooms will be so 20th century.

    1. No, no, no… It’s a car with a toilet that takes you to your destination while you crap in majestic luxury.

      We’ll call it Poober.

        1. Le Shitter Royale. (That’s the Mercedes option.)

      1. You ride up top like the Popemobile, except (obviously) this is the Poopmobile and there’s no full length windows.

    2. I still think the solution is the chamber pot.

  26. Ostensibly, this is not about unisex facilities, this is about a person of one sex using the opposite sex’s facilities because what they think of themselves overrides their sex, somehow. While we are still claiming that the facililty is segregated by sex.

    Maybe we should have unisex everything, but that is not the decision being framed here, and that maybe is not something that should be imposed by the courts.

  27. Nick is taking the position of bigger, more intrusive government.

    Color me shocked.

    Maybe if “libertarians” like him abandon the rest of our principles, the far left will think he’s cool! And isn’t that the ultimate end game of liberty, so a bunch of wannabee fascists think you’re cool?

    1. What kind of latrines do they have in those DC parties?

  28. NO VAJJ’S WHERE I POWDER MY NOSE. It’s just common sense.

    1. These masturbation euphemisms etc…

  29. This is amusing to say the least.

    Some say there is a biological a difference between gender and sex. That might be true, but there’s no set national standard. Perhaps I could wear a dress and a wig tomorrow and enter a woman’s bathroom or shower at my pleasure. Why do I have to trans OR normal? Maybe I want to identify as both at given times.

    Your rights are NOT violated because you can’t use the bathroom of your choice. Is Serena Williams a victim of discrimination because she can’t play Federer on the man’s side? The NBA doesn’t have single female player. Oh, it’s the return of Jim Crow.

    This is an absurd theater of culture wars. It’s first world problem. And notice the double standard on the left – if a white dude wore an afro and started acting black, they would cry “cultural appropriation” or some other nonsense. If a company accused of not hiring women chose a transgender female CEO, they’ll be real confused. Of course, they’ll say and do nothing if a mother was arrested for allowing her kids to walk 15 minutes somewhere unsupervised.

    America deserves Trump or Hillary as president. It deserves a wipeout of a depression to snap its focus back to issues that matter. And we’ll be hit by terrorist attacks again. It’s a given.

    1. Some say there is a biological a difference between gender and sex.

      There is. Sex physically exists; “gender identity” is just a fad concept.

      1. But the administration is saying that your gender identity determines your sex.

    2. Perhaps I could wear a dress and a wig tomorrow and enter a woman’s bathroom or shower at my pleasure.

      Why are you imposing antiquated stereotypical gender roles on gender? A woman doesn’t have to wear a dress!

      I’m gender fluid. My gender flows to pre op tomboy transwoman lesbian when I want to traipse about the woman’s locker room. No need to change my masculine stereotypical clothes. It’s all about my feelz.

      I’m a pre op tomboy lesbian transwoman. Hear me roar.

  30. I’m Tom Brady trapped in a short, nearsighted body. Obamacare should pay to cover my identity-transition surgery. Furthermore, I demand that the government force the Patriots to let me lead them to the playoffs.

    Also I want to bang Gisele.

  31. Maybe I’m just open-minded. Maybe I just don’t care. But I will say that they are a lot of people I’d rather not share a bathroom with than a female-to-male transgendered person.

    To wit:

    That guy who never seems to eat any food that contains any fiber whatsoever.

    Anyone who tries to strike up a conversation.

    The groaner. He may or may not be the zero fiber guy, but shut the fuck up or go to the hospital.

    The non-flusher. No yellow is not mellow and brown must go down.

    Whoever is shedding a goddamn FOREST of pubes all over the urinal.

    1. Whoever is shedding a goddamn FOREST of pubes all over the urinal.

      How dare you pube-shame me!

      1. Seriously, cool it with the pubes. Are you shaving in there? The urinal looks like Gabe Kaplan.

        1. I’m the guy who strategically places a bundle on the lip of the urinal.

    2. “Maybe I’m just open-minded.”

      Maybe you’re just like your father, too
      Maybe you’re just like your mother, she’s never satisfied.

    3. Agreed. Fuck all those people.

    4. “Maybe I’m just open-minded”

      No, no, it is definitely not that.

    5. The one who’s in there to avoid work. Some of us use that stall for shitting in and don’t need the 10 minutes of Angry Birds preamble to take care of business.

  32. I’m sorry, I just really don’t give a fuck about this. At all. Everyone is blowing these issues way out of proportion. This is the state of things as I see it:

    1) People with actual gender dysphoria are incredibly rare. That’s got to suck. I feel like that South Park episode where Mr. Garrison became a woman and Kyle got a negroplasty sums up this issue pretty well, however. Whatever you fee like you are on the inside, it doesn’t change the fact that you are.

    2) Being transgendered is becoming the trendy protest thing that young SJWs are doing, similar to tattoos, piercings, weird hair, etc. As is making up ten thousand different genders and sexual orientations. Being normal is out, so this is how to be “different” for many of them. I just straight up don’t buy that the number of people suffering from gender dysphoria has increased 10,000,000,000% in the last decade.

    3) I think a lot of this is backlash to the gay marriage decisions. The SJW crowd thinks they’ve got public opinion on their side because they can’t understand the difference between, say, gay marriage being legal and forcing someone to cater an imaginary gay pizza wedding. SoCons who feared that legalized gay marriage was just a harbinger of a full-on assault on their values are being proven correct, and are going to fight this one head-on.

  33. The problem being that one cannot change one’s sex. It is impossible. That is science. Your mental illness does not give you any rights. More importantly, so-called libertarians are now enthusiastically embracing the armed State, ready and willing to kill Americans or destroy their lives who refuse to accept this nonsense.

    If you aren’t free to discriminate, then you aren’t free. So libertarians are part of the problem of oppressive government. Thanks for nothing “libertarians.”

  34. We are all in agreement that the TSA can fondle everyone, right? That’s still cool?

    1. I always identity as female so I can get a chick.

  35. I just have one question…

    What am I supposed to do with the toilet seat?

  36. It seems to me that conservatives, having lost battles over public homosexuality and marriage equality, are now glomming onto another losing reactionary position when it comes to trans identity

    That’s probably true in this example.

    But i think the perspective from the conservative POV is probably equally true;

    namely, that the demands for special-protections for ‘marginalized people’ will continue far beyond merely being forced to provide tranny-friendly toilets and gay-friendly wedding cakes, to the point where social-conservatives will be barred from any kind of free-association or expression of their beliefs in public without crossing the line into “hate crimes”.

    this isn’t me taking sides, but simply pointing out that there are millions and millions of conservative Christians in this country, and while nick might feel “it’s not the role of the state to cure them of their stupidity”, the vast majority of liberal and progressive constituencies in the US most certainly *do*…. and they aren’t likely to stop.

    I think when it comes to “who pisses where”, its easy to just say, “Everyone shut the fuck up and just deal with it”, and ignore the free-association issues as being too trivial to be worth making a stink about. At some point however it may be harder to avoid.

    1. nick might feel “it’s not the role of the state to cure them of their stupidity”,

      Yet he often takes the same side as those who do. Oh, sure, he gets the disclaimers out, but at the end, he opposes the North Carolina law that would prohibit expanding forced-association laws at the city level, for example.

  37. Yeah, of course private organizations should not be compelled to accommodate anyone.

    But on a certain level, being opposed to “trans people in bathrooms” seems stupid to me. Any reason you could be concerned with a person of a different sex than you using the same bathroom being a problem also applies to gays and bisexuals using the same bathroom as you. Yet I don’t see the women who ardently profess their desire to use the bathroom free of men also calling for a ban on lesbians in women’s restrooms.

    If you’re really worried about creeps creepin’ in bathrooms, why not worry about the gay creeps?? I know a handful of creepy gay people. You sure you want them in your bathroom but not a woman creep?? The lack of concern about homosexual people using the same bathrooms as the people they are attracted to just makes the concern about creeps in bathrooms seem… weird to me. Like it’s only been half-though-out or something.

    And calls to outright OUTLAW people using certain bathrooms based on Junk is stupid virtue signalling unless you are also proposing the TSA to guard every bathroom to inspect the junk of prospective bathroom-goers.

    1. But on a certain level, being opposed to “trans people in bathrooms” seems stupid to me.

      I’ll not argue that. I also think that the reasons why people don’t want trannies in their bathroom are exactly as stupid as the reasons trannies have for demanding to be in their bathroom.

      This is pure feelings on both sides. Yet the discussion elevates (one might even say “privileges”) the feelings of one group over the other.

      Should there be laws making it illegal to use the other bathroom? No. Should there be laws mandating that people use the other bathroom if they want? No. Private businesses should be left alone (which is unlikely).

      Government buildings are a little stickier, I suppose. Unfortunately, this isn’t a situation where everyone can be satisfied. Somebody is going to use a bathroom they would prefer not to. Maybe this is one of those rare situations where we can just count noses, and go with the policy that discommodes the fewest people?

    2. as they say = everything before the “but” doesn’t matter.

    3. Probably because gay sex creeps are a small minority of a small minority and it is at any rate customary for gays to use the bathroom appropriate to their sex; it’s less reasonable for a person of your own sexual orientation but opposite sex to demand access to your bathroom.

      Granting that pre-op transsexuals ask for this privilege for non-sexual reasons, that still leaves a large heterosexual population — and some of those can pretend to be pre-op transsexuals for less than licit reasons. This may very well be an overblown fear, but I can at least see how it’s a more reasonable concern than caring about the relatively small number of gays who have always used the bathroom of their sex.

    4. You’ve no idea how many times I’ve wanted to show TSA my junk – but they said I would be arrested.

  38. Any reason you could be concerned with a person of a different sex than you using the same bathroom being a problem also applies to gays and bisexuals using the same bathroom as you.

    Wrong. Gay men are men. Gay women are women. The issue is the legitimacy of sex-specific spaces.

    1. _Seems_ like such a simple distinction, doesn’t it?

    2. The sex specific spaces are only an issue because people want some sexual privacy from people getting titillation from their junk, which makes homosexuals in rooms with cis gendered people a real issue. But as long as homosexuals aren’t getting in your face about it, cis people are *tolerant* of sex matching homosexuals and say “whatever”.

      The trans issue is different predominantly because now it is evil penises invading female spaces. Woman will be tolerant of other woman checking them out, but not of men.

      Vaginal privilege over penises trumps homosexual privilege over cis.

      I would note, that from the cis male perspective, many of us would be perfectly happy with One Bathroom to Rule them All.

  39. “The Department [of Education’s] interpretation resolves ambiguity …”

    Oh, well, if a bureaucrat has thus spake, let it be so; fuck all this freedom of association bullshit.

    How many years have I wasted laboring under the delusion that judges were supposed to have a brain in their well coifed heads? Whoa is me.

  40. Male and female have different bathrooms for a reason – they have different equipment. Men can use urinals, women need stuff like sanitary napkins.

    You can’t legislate away biology.

    1. As someone who has worked as a public buildings janitor, I can attest that what goes on in the “ladie’s” room is quite different from what happens in the men’s room, and the differences go beyond what can be attributed to “different equipment”. A lot goes on in there that has nothing to do with urinating or defecating. I can understand women not wanting to share that space with males. Just ask some women you know how they would feel about this.

  41. There’s another odd aspect to this “however you identify” nonsense: it’s not applied consistently. If a guy with a dick and XY chromosomes can “be” a woman because he “identifies” that way, why are millions of Muslim terrorists and their supporters “not real Muslims”? They self-identify that way, and they follow the Koran to the letter. That’s all it takes to “be” a Muslim. To the evidence of our senses, they make a heck of a lot better case to be considered Muslims than a guy in a dress who claims to be a woman.

  42. “It strikes me that the popular conservative argument that private businesses which are in no way religious somehow become faith-based entities the second the proprietor decides he doesn’t want to provide some services to some customers is both mendacious and a lost cause in the long run.”

    What a dishonest way to frame their argument. The argument is that they cannot be required by law to shut down their beliefs and ability to say “no” just because they operate a business.

    “Public schools can and should figure out ways to accommodate the vanishingly small number of trans students in ways that respect individual rights and don’t inflame fear or hatred (of course, this is already happening but such stories don’t generate headlines).”

    From what I have seen public schools have made good faith attempts to accommodate such children without burdening the other students rights and sensibilities. These efforts have been totally rejected by the transgendered child’s representatives. They are satisfied with nothing less then absolute submission to their conditions.

    Gillespie is the last person who should be casually throwing around “mendacious” on this issue.

  43. What Nick conveniently leaves out is that the school provided three restrooms for the student. The student claimed that accommodation was too stressful.

  44. It strikes me that the popular conservative argument that private businesses which are in no way religious somehow become faith-based entities the second the proprietor decides he doesn’t want to provide some services to some customers is both mendacious and a lost cause in the long run.

    I know! Business owners give up all their individual rights once they put up a shingle! Every Progressitarian knows that!

  45. I, a biological male that identifies as a male, have been known to use the women’s bathroom at convenience stores. These visits occurred when I was traveling in my car, in desperate and urgent need of a toilet, and the men’s room was occupied. No women were injured nor inconvenienced, I swear. And I always put the seat down afterwards.

    1. Heh. I always make a point of leaving the seat up when i did that.

  46. Is anyone else concerned that the State is furthering the delusions of a mentally ill child?

    1. I think it’s just you and me.

    1. Wait a minute?how can you “falsely” claim to be “transgender”? Isn’t claiming to be transgender the only acceptable evidence of being transgender? Is there some other test I haven’t heard of?

  47. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7179 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site….

    +++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.