Trans

Trump May Be Paranoid About Immigrant Predators, but Not Transgender Ones

Doesn't subscribe to bathroom panic scenarios

|

Trump
Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

So we've reached the point in the transgender bathroom debate that every presidential candidate is expected to weigh in on the controversy. It might want to make a person want to throw up his or her hands, but given that there are a whole host of state-level laws being considered, and the Department of Justice is successfully getting courts to buy into the idea that transgender people are protected by federal laws that cover sex discrimination, it's a culture war battle that has policy implications.

And that, like a flower turning to face the sun, leads us to Donald Trump. Trump has weighed in on North Carolina's transgender bathroom law, and thinks it's a bad idea. He thinks transgender people should just use whatever bathroom they want. Via Politico (covering his appearance on Today):

"There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump said. "There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic—I mean, the economic punishment that they're taking."

Matt Lauer then asked whether Trump has any transgender people working for his company.

"I really don't know. I probably do. I really don't know," Trump said, answering that he would allow, say, transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower.

It is a little odd (but very Trump) that the reaction from businesses—who, as a reminder, will still be able to set their own bathroom policies under the North Carolina law—is what's important when deciding whether the law was good or bad. But good on him for noting that people have been dealing with sharing the bathroom with transgender folks for some time now without incident.

Sen. Ted Cruz has been open and vocally taking the side of the bathroom panic crowd, unsurprising since he has been rallying for the religious conservative vote from the very start. He previously said "men should not be going to the bathroom with little girls," and repeated that sentiment today in an interview with Glenn Beck. He probably thinks this is all an example of Trump's "New York values."

Gov. John Kasich has been his paternalistic, condescending self, looking down on the whole thing and talking about it such a way that, even though he probably takes the most libertarian position—questioning whether we actually need new laws to solve this problem—he is essentially telling people to shut up and do what they're told. He says he would not have signed North Carolina's bill into law. Via the Advocate:

"In our state, we're not facing this, so everybody needs to take a deep breath, respect one another, and the minute we start trying to write laws, things become more polarized, things — they become more complicated," he continued. "Obviously I don't want to force people to violate their deeply held religious convictions, but we'd have to see what that's all about. I wouldn't have signed that law from everything I know; I haven't studied it."

At the clip's end, Kasich appeared frustrated with the proliferation of new laws, whether they be aimed at protecting so-called religious freedom or otherwise settling arguments in the public sphere. 

"Why do we have to write a law every time we turn around in this country?" Kasich asked. "Can we figure out just how to get along a little bit better and respect one another? I mean, that's where I think we ought to be. Everybody, chill out and get over it if you have a disagreement with somebody."

When I read quotes like that it makes me wonder how the heck Kasich got the reputation for being the policy-driven candidate, or the mature one, or the "grown up." He actually seems to have very little interest in crafting policy. His awful response to surveillance issues and tech encryption was to get a bunch of people into back rooms to secretly hash out how much privacy Americans should be permitted without us (and I guess, Congress?) getting a say in the matter. Also, he wants to blow up the world.

And he's all over the map on these issues. He says "everybody, chill out," but also has said that bakers should just make gay couples their wedding cakes. But he doesn't think people should sue over being denied them. He just wants people to shut up about the whole thing, which is a perfectly fine attitude for, say, your dad, but the Department of Justice is intervening and attempting to force certain outcomes through the courts. The next president's administration will be playing a role in whatever this leads to. And It's easy to say "chill out and get over it" when you're not the one being sued, threatened with arrest, or having your business threatened.

On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have spoken out in opposition to laws that tell transgender people that they have to use the bathrooms of their birth sex. Sanders said he would do everything in this power to try to overturn these laws, which I imagine means he would push the Department of Justice to continue its legal interventions using the federal civil rights laws. Clinton's platform on LGBT issues calls on using federal engagement to fix any and all ills.

I'm still inclined to believe that LGBT issues will not be playing a major public role in this general election. But given the high unfavorables for the frontrunner candidates right now, these issues may be used by both sides—especially if the GOP candidate is Cruz—in "get out the vote" drives. 

NEXT: Trump Wants Changes to Republican Party's Abortion Platform

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. What about transgender immigrants?

    1. I’m not sharing the same border wall as someone born with female genitalia, I’ll tell you that much.

    2. do those immigrants want weed?

      1. Ideally, they will bring some with them.

        1. In a just system, that would move them further up in the line to citizenship.

    3. What about transgender immigrants?

      Some of them, I assume, are good people.

  2. Panic! in the Bathroom, the artists behind A Lifestyle Choice You Can’t Sweat Out and Too Cis to Live, Too Transgender to Die!.

  3. I’m a libertarian. I don’t want laws. I want women with pepper spray and guns to feel free to defend themselves from any pervert peeking, masturbating, flashing, attacking -or just being a CREEP in the ladies room. That should be enough to keep the guys who can’t pass as women out.

    Meanwhile Trump the cheapskate and friends better start building single stall gender neutral bathrooms. These transexuals and transvestites aren’t women and they don’t belong in womens private spaces – including the prisons that convicted sex criminals and women murderers are trying SO hard to get into. It’s not just bathrooms.

    And Cruz is right to say men should keep the hell out. He may not be the Christian Messiah, but he might be the women’s private bathrooms Messiah.

    1. Private spaces should be private, like a business owned and operated by a private citizen.

      1. Indeed they should. And anyone who thinks this whole kerfuffle isn’t battlespace prep for expanding protected/privileged classes, and also expanding the definition public accommodation (which has already been proposed as a package with adding gays to the protected/privileged classes) is being willfully naive.

        IOW, if you want businesses to remain freeish, be very cautious signing on to this movement to open up single-sex bathrooms.

        1. Indeed. This is cultural Marxist bullshit. It’s yet another way of attacking Western civilizational norms, creating ever-smaller victim classes, and giving those tiny victim classes control over the society at large. The fact that it overlaps (kinda-sorta) with libertarian ideals does not make the Bathrooms Wars some sort of libertarian victory. The activists intend to use it against libertarian principles.

    2. But I WANT women in my private space!

    3. Nobody deservers to get pepper sprayed just because they’re rubbing one out in the bathroom.

      1. Well, unless in the moment before completion they start yelling “Pepper spray me! Pepper spray me now!”

      2. She didn’t even say that, she said “being a CREEP”, which in womyn speak means a guy that a womyn finds off-putting for any, or no, reason at all.

        1. Curt Schilling posted a great tweet of a creep. It was worth getting fired for! Only a slightly more extreme image compared to some absurdities I’ve seen walking around.

          1. Plus women have a right to tell one of these creeps they don’t belong, but since they tend to be crazies, you have to have your pepper spray ready. And we all know what a guy pleasuring himself sounds like. A little pepper spray drifting over the top of the stall should make the point. Especially if it happens every time he pervs. This goes even more for showers and locker rooms…

            1. What about capsaicin fetishists?

            2. 1. Advocates pepper-spraying nonviolent people who displease her.
              2. Calls other people crazy.
              Yeah, that makes sense.

              1. I wonder which side of the crazy/hot line she’s on?

                  1. Obviously the wrong side.

    4. Ok. But how do the shape-shifting Zionist Lizard People fit into all of this?

      1. Mr. Lizard can figure his own shit out.

        1. When you’ve got a retractable hemipene, the world is your unisex bathroom.

          1. I’m going to self-identify as a dog, that way the entire world will be my toilet.

          2. Ahem: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..x/abstract

        2. Mr. Lizard will not show his face around here after the tongue lashing I gave him. This is a mammals only safe space. Besides, we can’t even figure out its sex without a cloaca probe.

    5. That’s understandable, Carol. I don’t think anyone is supporting people “peeking, masturbating, flashing, attacking -or just being a CREEP in the ladies room.” Those things are, and will remain, illegal. And exactly how many times have you run across, or even heard about, a transsexual woman doing any of those things in a woman’s bathroom?

      1. There are hundreds of cases in the last decade documented on a variety of feminist websites. Unfortunately no one’s put together a downloadable database. Hmmm, that would be something to crowdsource for and hire a good data base person…

  4. Trump and tranny bathrooms in the same article? This is the most important thing Reason has published this year.

    1. Trump said something that wasn’t ball-slappingly stupid. I call that news.

    1. She’s local. The end was not graceful.

  5. Of all the issues to freak out about, how did bathroom apartheid become the one? Was there a committee that chose it. maybe? What were the runners-up?

    1. It’s a sign of a wealthy society, unfortunately. It all comes down to bathrooms and cakes now.

    2. A few jurisdictions, the Charlotte City Council among them, voted to foist this issue into the public’s consciousness. Trump is right here – people have been using the bathroom without incident for a long time. But Charlotte and other locales moved with measures that demand that everyone notice and acknowledge what heretofore had been ignored or unknown. And the SJWs were surprised that not everyone cheered this development.

      1. You will be made to care.

        1. Exactly what I’m saying, and not everyone likes being made to care. This is one instance where the ‘advocates’ harmed their cause rather than helping.

      2. Bull shit. Men have been pulling this crap for years and have been getting prosecuted for years. For everyone even reported to police, probably a dozen go unreported. I’ve had may a dozen disgusting incidents directed at me in public over the years and never reported them. The guys run off and the cops don’t care. So don’t give women this total BULLSHIT that there are no incidents.

        1. That has always been illegal and will remain so.

        2. Where the hell do you go that you are running into so many disgusting perverts?

            1. She’s just pissed off that they’re circumcised.

        3. Try reading. For the most part, society has somehow managed with the trannies. This guarantees that there will be more incidents, or at least more reports of them, and some will end very badly. The incidents which have occurred are not so much about trans people, but about creepers and perverts who use clothing as a means of going where they shouldn’t. Go thank the SJWs for their efforts in making this sort of thing even easier.

          1. Transgender has become a catch-all for transsexuals who have had balls/penis removed, hetro men who just like to dress up (transvestites) and a lot of men who think they really are women but intend to keep their penises and use them (!?!?!). They have the same rate of criminal behavior as normal men. And then you have the perverts who pose as women to perv, which just ads to the number. (Women who take testosterone to “become men” have higher crime rates than normal women; testosterone poisoning evidently.) See the only long term study on this topic: http://journals.plos.org/ploso…..ne.0016885

        4. I had no idea, Carol. I don’t remember your having stories about such incidents yrs. ago.

        5. I had no idea, Carol. I don’t remember your having stories about such incidents yrs. ago.

      3. The SJWs totally overplayed their hand here. I think residing in the echo chambers of Facebook and college campuses convinced them that the entire world agrees with their positions. Hardly anyone gave a fuck about which bathrooms trannies used without getting the state involved until recently, yet the issue seemed to work itself out just fine. Now, SoCons are going to fight this one pretty fiercely.

    3. You won’t be so snide when a group of Muslim crossdressing Syrian refugees are running a train in your 5 year old daughter at the local Burger King restroom, you fucking cuckmo!

      1. It’s the price we pay for civilization.

          1. Oh, now you tell me!

          2. Eh. Civ III was the pinnacle of the series.

      2. Yeah! MEXICAN Syrians!

    4. “Of all the issues to freak out about, how did bathroom apartheid become the one?”

      Because progressives in Houston and Charlotte tried to force private businesses to change their bathroom policies to line up with current far left orthodoxy. Then people complained about it, voted against it in Houston, and tried to stop it in North Carolina, at which point the media claimed supporting property rights means you’re an evil trans-basher, a bunch of trans activists hilariously and offensively began comparing their “plight” to Jim Crow, and Reason decided everyone is at fault, even though only one side is trying to expand the already unlibertarian accommodation laws.

      1. I think another major factor is the concept of transsexual, as well. I don’t think anyone questions that gender dysphoria is an actual condition, but many do believe that humoring the delusion is not the best way to treat it. I feel like your average person is empathetic enough to imagine that it must be terrible to feel like you don’t belong in the body you’re born with, and have no problem addressing a person as their chosen name/gender pronoun. But the bill is basically mandating that we universally accept that deciding you want to be a woman makes you a woman, even if biology disagrees. I don’t think most people are on board with that. And how is that determined, anyway? Do you need a psychiatric diagnosis, or just wear a dress today? On the reverse side, how do you enforce the ban? Do you do a penis check whenever someone questionable enters? And since that person will be using a stall either way, what the fuck difference does it even make?

  6. it’s a culture war battle that has policy implications.

    Pretty much all those battles have policy implications considering that the SJWs want to solve virtually all problems with legislation. I can’t think of a culture war issue where policy implications are either not on the table, directly or indirectly.

    1. I was kind of thinking the same thing. Hell, hand wringing over your cable boxes now has policy implications.

      1. “Social justice” is a creeping totalitarianism with the goal of basically becoming the operating system of all human interaction and I do mean all human interaction.

        1. But can’t we all agree that the goals of social justice are worthy?

          /ENB

          1. Is that something she said?

            1. yes, in a piece for another site a couple of years ago

              1. As if philandering with other sites wasn’t bad enough, she’s doing stuff with them she would never do with us.

                1. This is the journalistic equivalent of cheating on your husband and giving the other guy anal that you would never allow your husband to do.

          2. My goals of social justice, yes, absolutely.

            1. “social justice” is a euphemism for emotional satisfaction at all costs, including that of actual “justice”.

  7. Politicize every aspect of life, especially the obviously personal things. What could go wrong?

  8. I think people are misunderstanding what conservatives have argued re: transgendered bathroom usage. What I’ve been seeing is them arguing that any man could claim ‘oh, I’m trans’ and thereby gain access to a woman’s bathroom. Therefore, this could help potential predators.

    Now, that may be paranoid and a bit of a moral panic itself, but I haven’t seen anyone arguing that the problem is that trans people themselves are all rapists. The criticism is that predators would have access to women’s bathrooms/locker rooms, not that trans people are predators.

    And holy fuck, how does Shackford have a problem with this:

    “”Why do we have to write a law every time we turn around in this country?” Kasich asked. “Can we figure out just how to get along a little bit better and respect one another? I mean, that’s where I think we ought to be. Everybody, chill out and get over it if you have a disagreement with somebody.””

    This is pretty much 100% right and it’s the only thing John Kasich has ever said that isn’t stupid as shit.

    In this situation, progressives are trying to force private businesses to let trans people use certain bathrooms. They’re the ones who are trying to impose their will on private citizens, so can Reason please stop saying ‘A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES!’ every time progressives do something ridiculous and Republicans complain about it?

    1. yeah, I thought it was odd for Shackford to get bent out of shape about that particular comment given the treasure trove of revolting statements Kasich offers for ridicule.

      1. It’s especially irritating when Reason claims saying “don’t pass laws” means someone isn’t interested in policy. “Don’t pass this law” is a policy statement – it’s a policy statement in favor of the status quo and against whatever the law advocates.

        Saying otherwise basically buys into the progressive narrative that the only way to “govern” is to constantly pass laws without consideration of their impact.

        1. It’s especially irritating when Reason claims saying “don’t pass laws” means someone isn’t interested in policy.

          Its of a piece with previous articles arguing that repealing ObamaCare isn’t a serious policy proposal, that we must “fix” it, ensuring that the odious bureaucracy,gargantuan spending, and micromanagement are expanded, not eliminated.

          1. Come on, RC, it’s just common sense that if you cut out a tumor you have to replace it with something!

    2. Then the response should be: do predators not now have the ability to surreptitiously lock themselves in a stall and wait for potential victims? What really does it change if they’re wearing dresses and makeup? Hell, if they’re dressing the part they’re at least advertising their presence. A woman has no forewarning if she’s ambushed.

      1. I agree to some extent, although there was the situation where men in a Toronto college that went to gender neutral shower rooms were filming naked women by putting their phones over the shower divides.

        It’s way more difficult to do something like that if men aren’t even supposed to be in the same shower room. I think that’s pretty obvious.

        1. Where would one find these videos? Asking for Warty.

      2. Let’s be honest, it’s not like these laws don’t actually make things a little easier for the predators. This guy gained access to a women’s shelter to assault women by claiming to be transgender.

        1. I’m all for businesses opening themselves up to lawsuits over whether they were criminally negligent in protecting patrons from predators, just not laws requiring, and presumably shielding them from the consequences of, transgender-friendly bathrooms. Nor, for that matter, laws categorically denying businesses that privilege.

          1. Good point. Businesses supporting such laws to shield them from lawsuits of women attacked by men. Freaking bastards… No wonder Trump the pimp supports them.

            You know his girlfriend turned wife worked for Trump Models and posed nude on his plane for the cover of CQ?? How much money did he make for that? A

            nd how many of his other models and swimsuit contestants were pressure to be “friendly” to Trump friends and business associates. That’s why I call him “Dirty Don the Pimp”.

            Nothing wrong with sex work, of course, if it is Voluntary…

      3. It makes it lot more difficult to make someone you think is there for illicit reasons to leave, as they can claim a right to be there on criteria that are largely invisible and subjective.

    3. I think Scott’s problem is more due to Kasich’s hypocrisy:

      He says “everybody, chill out,” but also has said that bakers should just make gay couples their wedding cakes. But he doesn’t think people should sue over being denied them.

      I don’t see the problem for calling him out over talking out of both sides of his mouth.

      1. How is he talking out of both sides of his mouth? I think bakers should bake cakes for gay people because I have no problem with gay people. If a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay person, I think he’s wrong to be prejudiced against gays, but think he has the right not to do so and shouldn’t be sued.

        I basically agree with Kasich’s position and don’t understand where the supposed hypocrisy lies.

        1. No offense, but do you want me to just retype Scott’s article in my own words? If you follow the link he provides:

          As previously reported, just last month, Kasich had backtracked remarks that some interpreted as suggesting that businesses should have to agree to forms of participation in events that conflict with their religious convictions.

          “[I]f they ask you to participate in something you really don’t like, that’s a whole other issue. Okay? Another issue,” he said during the Fox presidential debate in Detroit on March 3. “If you go to a photographer to take pictures at your wedding and he says, ‘I’d rather not do it,’ find another photographer. Don’t sue them in court.”

          Kasich said at that time that if people of faith are being forced to participate in something that conflicts with their convictions, then laws should be crafted to protect them?if necessary.

          “At the end of the day, if somebody’s being pressured to participate in something that is against their deeply held religious beliefs, then we’re going to have to think about dealing with a law,” Kasich outlined. “But you know what? I’d rather people figure this out without having to put another law on the books and have more arguments in this country.”

          So again, at what point does it become necessary to craft a law? When can’t people ‘figure it out’? It seems basically at Kasich’s fiat.

    4. Kasich’s viewpoint falls in line with McCrory’s description of the NC measure as common sense, with the implication of how far society has tumbled that common sense requires some degree of regulation.

      There is one other piece of potential fallout in addition to the moral panic you cite over predators – someone is going to call the cops on the suspicion that the other person in the bathroom is not the ‘correct’ gender. It’s a bit like all the hysteria with people calling the law about unsupervised children. Something that was innocuous has now been put front and center; don’t act pissy when people do exactly what the SJWs demanded that they do – notice.

    5. A swedish study found that male to female transgenders have the SAME rate of crime as normal males. So we can assume that would be about the same for sex crimes. They are just as dangerous as regular guys. (And women to male trans are MORE violent than normal woman cause they are all hepped up on testosterone.) http://journals.plos.org/ploso…..ne.0016885

      1. You know what other category of people are accused of having a latent propensity for violent crime…

        1. The Irish?

        2. Hit’n’Run commenters?

          1. That was just pillow talk, baby.

        3. The Gypsies?

          1. A friend was sorta-mugged by a group of gypsies in Chile. They rifled his pockets while he was getting his palm read by an old woman with the kung fu grip.

            1. I think that in the Negative Ethnic Stereotype Sweepstakes, the Gypsies win. They really are very likely to be thieves, con artists, and welfare cases.

        4. The Jews? Carol’s site has exposed the Zionist genocide of Arabs, the kind of genocide where the victim population increases.

    6. Now, that may be paranoid and a bit of a moral panic itself, but I haven’t seen anyone arguing that the problem is that trans people themselves are all rapists.

      These people *do* argue explicitly that all trans people are disgusting mentally ill freaks who should be shunned from society, so I’m not sure I see the difference.

      1. all trans people are disgusting mentally ill freaks who should be shunned from society

        That poor strawman!

        No, most of “these people” argue that these are mentally ill people who have been failed by the system because of the Marxist embrace of anything that tugs at the threads of western civilization.

    7. I think people are misunderstanding what conservatives have argued re: transgendered bathroom usage.

      Indeed they are, and I have a feeling its intentional.

    8. The criticism is that predators would have access to women’s bathrooms/locker rooms, not that trans people are predators…

      I mean… that’s absolutely legit! C’mon! These laws strike down the magical barriers that currently bar predatory men from entering women’s bathrooms!!11!!#!!

      1. They certainly make it easier for them to do so.

  9. I actually need an education. What is the definition of “transgender”? My 18 year old daughter said I didn’t know.

    I thought it meant people who have the medical condition where they have a physical combination or commingling of male and female genders.

    My daughter said it was people who had sex change operations or were “transitioning” to that.

    Or, is it people who identify as the other gender but don’t want to change physically, ie, they’re in drag all the time?

    1. Ugh. SO problematic, i literally can’t even.

    2. A male with male genitalia and chromosomes who has the delusion that he is actually female is a male-female transgender.

    3. The definitions have changed over the years. I’ve already been burned on this. There used to be specific categories. Transsexual, transgender, transvestite etc.

      One specifically identified cross-dressing, people who identified as the opposite sex, people who had surgery to CHANGE sex and so on.

      They’re all merging into one thing.

      Your best option is just to carry on as if nothing is happening.

      1. Yeah I’ve been noticing this as well. It bothers me no end.

        Far too many people have also seemingly stopped caring about the difference between “sex” and “gender”, for that matter.

        1. Best to wave the white flag on that one. You can explain the difference to people until you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a dent. I used to make the distinction but I gave up.

        2. I think it was California that had some law or pronouncement about “birth gender”, which is nonsense. Nobody has a gender at birth. You have a sex, but not a gender.

        3. The Obama Administration’s regulatory interpretation is gender overrides sex where distinctions are made on sex.

        4. What bothers me the most is the use of “gender” as a euphemism for “sex”?a euphemism that suggests that “sex” is now a dirty word. I see it all the time now on forms to be filled out.

      2. They’re all merging into one thing.

        Remember when the gay rights/marriage movement was just L, G, and, maybe, B? And the government *needed* to get involved because love was love?

        Neither do I.

    4. I think your last sentence is correct. If they get the operation, they’re transsexual and not transgender.

      1. Transsexual has been deprecated as a term.

        Transgendered individuals are anyone who feels mismatched between with their physical sex and their mental gender, where they outward present (crossdress) or are in any step along the path of changing their physical sex characteristics.

        1. This just seems to me like one term trying to encompass too many concepts.

          There’s a clear difference between a person’s physiology (“sex”; generally binary), and clusters of behavior that a given culture associates with a given sex (“gender”; not necessarily binary; e.g. wearing lipstick, being emotional).

          I’ve wondered how many reassignment surgeries are due to the seemingly general lack of distinction between the two — dissatisfaction with the behavior clusters society pushes a person into being mixed up with dissatisfaction with physiology.

          I am not a psychologist, of course. That’s just a line of thought I’ve speculated on.

          1. Interesting Col. If you’re a guy and you act effeminate or “like” a female, you get made fun of. But if you dress up as a female (so well that people don’t notice you’re a guy), then you get to act like you want and people are nice to you.

            And for some, this get so unbearable that they physically mutilate their bodies to ease their pain.

        2. AFAICT, “sex” & its derived terms have been deprecated.

    5. thought it meant people who have the medical condition where they have a physical combination or commingling of male and female genders.

      That’s intersex.

      My daughter said it was people who had sex change operations or were “transitioning” to that.

      Or, is it people who identify as the other gender but don’t want to change physically, ie, they’re in drag all the time?

      The trans label covers both.

    6. In the old days they were transexuals who had sex changes and transvestites who were men who dressed as women. Now they call themselves “transgenders” so they can keep their penises and get access to womens spaces and force others to call them women even when they obviously are men (even men with hardons). There are a lot of rich transvestites who are funding transgender groups. They’ve infiltrated liberal, conservative and libertarian organizations with both money AND blackmail, blackmail of bisexual and transvestite guys. That’s what’s really going on and it’s disgusting. Let people freely and publiclly be what they want, but don’t make others be forced to accept them as women (or men) or to have to associate them. Freedom of association means nothing if you don’t have freedom to NOT associate…

      1. I don’t buy into the suggestion that a cabal of wealthy transvestites is engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to trick us into accepting transsexuals, but I strongly support your individual right to associate or not associate with whomever you please for whatever reason you like–and I think you’ll find that most of us libertarians, here, feel pretty strongly about protecting freedom of association.

        . . . no matter how much money wealthy transvestites throw at the situation.

    7. What is the definition of “transgender”?

      Empirical evidence would suggest most of the time it’s someone so fucked up that they have trouble figuring out which restroom to use one day to the next and so obsessively narcissistic that they need *everyone* around them to support them constantly in whatever choice they make.

      A tiny fraction of the time, it means someone who, for reasons varied and undetermined, decided and/or managed to switch bathrooms without anyone noticing.

      1. and so obsessively narcissistic that they need *everyone* around them to support them constantly in whatever choice they make

        While simultaneously whining about how everyone constantly asks them personal questions about their genitals.

      2. … so fucked up that they have trouble figuring out which restroom to use one day to the next…

        Now, now… those are called “gender fluid”…

        1. I don’t want your gender fluid.

  10. Doesn’t subscribe to bathroom panic scenarios

    Right. Panics. As if any of this had to do with the rights of transgender people and not the violation of Property Rights by the State.

    And so it begins:

    DC’s Government has a Website Where You Can Report Private Businesses for Not Having “Gender-Neutral” Bathrooms

    It will become your civic duty to rat out your neighbors.

    1. Name names, tovarisch!

    2. Obama has asked for people to snitch on people in the private sphere who don’t adhere to the narrative has he not?

      Unfortunately, the snitching stops at Snowdon.

    3. What right it is, exactly, that privileges a person to ignore the wishes of the property/business owner as to where they can and can’t go on his property is still something of a mystery to me.

      1. Some people feel entitled or deserving of special consideration. Or what blinds their reason is the mentality of the thief, which is still prevalent.

        But the main point I’m making is that all these bites at the edges of property rights by the State are being construed by the self-righteous as some sort of moral crusade against social ills that are mostly imaginary. Guys like Shackford and others seem to think that these laws meant to protect private business owners are designed to keep certain people from using what should be the appropriate restroom for their gender. He is, of course, missing the point entirely: THOSE RESTROOM DON’T BELONG TO THE PATRONS. They belong to the business owner, and the business owner placed them there out of courtesy to HIS or HER customers and not for the social justice shock troops.

        1. That’s it, all bathroom privileges are revoked! If you need to go, use the alley!

  11. “It is a little odd (but very Trump) that the reaction from businesses?who, as a reminder, will still be able to set their own bathroom policies under the North Carolina law?is what’s important when deciding whether the law was good or bad.”

    Not odd at all.

    Large companies which already have LGBLT-friendly policies believe that they won’t be affected by “gay rights” laws, but their more conservative and Sky-Daddy-ish competitors *will* be inconvenienced. That’s a feature, not a bug.

    Bear in mind that the North Carolina law doesn’t just apply to public bathrooms, but also protects businesses against city and county “civil rights” laws which go beyond what the state requires.

    In other words, what the LGBLT-friendly businesses wish is for their competitors to be hassled by “civil rights” lawsuits and bureaucrats at the local level in addition to state and federal.

    “We support laws telling other companies to do what we’re doing already – if our competitors have a problem with it, it’s their fault for competing with us in such a rigged environment.”

    1. As ever, these burdens don’t really scale with the size of the business. It will be small businesses that are damaged the most if the current movement succeeds in its ultimate goal of adding transwhatevers (I, too, find the nomenclature confusing) to the list of protected/privileged classes, with all that entails.

      1. Exactly, you don’t hear about the Sara Lee corporation getting fined and put out of business for failing to make gay cakes. It’s the Christian couple trying to make an honest living, naive enough to believe in the American dream of going into business for themselves.

        But when the large corporations “paradoxically” call for regulations on their small competitors, the media eats it up – “these right-wingers claim to support the free market, but look at all these big businesses who want to deny freedom to small businesses! What a contradiction, derpity derpity derp.”

        1. Haven’t you heard? Nobody doesn’t like Sara Lee.

  12. In other news, Prince may or may not be dead. Someone died at his house according to the lowlifes at TMZ, but they aren’t sure who yet.

    1. It has been confirm. Dead at 57.

      1. Well, shit, that’s unfortunate.

        Celebrities dropping like flies this year.

        1. Wait, it seems only a few places are confirming that he’s dead. What the fuck is going on.

          Is Prince Schrodinger’s Cat?

          1. The AP is running it now with a statement from his publicist, so yeah, it’s true.

            So, lately Lemmy, Bowie, and Prince have died. Can’t we lose people who suck instead?

            1. Nickelback will live forever.

              1. Scott Stapp isn’t going away, either.

              2. Now I’m bummed out. Fuck you!

                1. My bummed out comment was directed at SugarFree’s Nickelback assertion, which caused me to have pain.

            2. Can’t we lose people who suck instead?

              We did.

      2. So it goes.

    2. Oh, that’s terrible.

      And not that off topic. Wasn’t Prince kind of transvesty?

      1. Well, he did like to dress purty, yeah.

        His early career played around a lot with the idea of his sexuality, but lately he grew quite insistent that he was definitely not into anything but plowing women.

  13. As always, it’s the STATE that is the problem. It’s the STATE that pits group against group as they all grasp for power to lord it over the “others”.

  14. “men should not be going to the bathroom with little girls”

    Why?? Because pedophiles??

    Well then gay men should not be going to the bathroom with little boys.

    Might as well start implementing many single-toilet unisex bathrooms in place of the gender-segregated mass bathrooms that we currently use if you REALLY want to prevent pedophiles from oggling your children in the bathroom. Because that’s the only solution I can see.

    1. + 1 Penn State shower

  15. This is why I prefer Asia, where people just piss in the street. Avoids these issues.

  16. Search “transgender george orwell” and you’ll find a lot of articles by various people comparing the mindfuck of transgenderism to George Orwell’s prediction the govt would make us believe absurd things and punish us if we did not. The liberal statist govt is doing that right now with transgenderism. If Cruz is elected, he’ll do away with that. But maybe start lecturing us on how we have not constitutional right to masturbate and start mind fucking us on that one…. It’s about control… remember, if you don’t start calling yourself “cisgender” and Hillary gets elected you could be in BIG TROUBLE….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.