Rape

Sow Rape Culture Hyperbole, Reap Transgender Bathroom Paranoia

People are bombarded with misleading statistics about rape, child abductions, and sex trafficking. Should we blame them for being afraid?

|

Kidnapping
Dreamstime

Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice? The problem, many conservatives insist, is that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys. 

That argument strikes me as absurd. But I'm surprised it's not more persuasive among liberals—particularly a certain kind of liberal, the feminist anti-rape activist—who believe we live in an actual rape culture where sexual assault is an everyday occurrence for as many as a quarter of all women. 

On college campuses, the left has defined "rape culture" down to indict not just forcible assault, but nonconsensual touching, harassment, and in some cases, offensive but clearly constitutionally-protected expression. Activists have done this with the explicit goal of convincing people, particularly women, that they live in uniquely perilous times: sexual assault has reached epidemic levels, they say. Consider this ad campaign from the co-creators of The Hunting Ground documentary, which warns incoming female students—in no uncertain terms—that their college memories will include "being raped by someone you thought you could trust." 

These efforts have been underway for years, despite solid evidence that sexual assault is decreasing nationwide, less prevalent on campuses than other places, and not overwhelmingly the work of serial sexual predators. [Related: Junk Science and Campus Rape.] 

Scaring people has consequences. College administrators, with the federal government's backing, have accepted rape panic and used it as a pretext to regulate students' sex and social lives to an extent unprecedented since before the 1960s. 

Which is not to say that stoking unnecessary fears is the exclusive domain of the left. A great many safety panics are caused by the right. Others are more difficult to pin down ideologically, though equally destructive. 

Here are some other things people are afraid of. 

At Reason, Lenore Skenazy documents the incomprehensible public panic over kids playing in parks by themselveswalking to and from school, and waiting in cars. Paranoid moralizers, busybodies, authority figures, and local news reporters have all played a role in drumming up bizarre support for the idea that an unsupervised child is an endangered child. The American public—and in many cases, local law enforcement—have bought into the notion that sociopaths are lurking around every corner, ready to abduct any child left alone for more than a second. 

To say these fears are overblown gives them more credence than they deserve. Streets, parks, and schools have never been safer. Violent crime has plummeted. Most child abductions are caused by someone the child knows—usually a family member, often as the result of a custody dispute—rather than by a stranger. The same authority figures who demand incessant supervision of children grew up with far greater autonomy in far more dangerous times. 

Nor are hundreds of thousands of underage girls being kidnapped by sex traffickers and forced into underground prostitution rings. My colleague Elizabeth Nolan Brown has repeatedly debunked this particular public panic. 

In summary, the American people are constantly bombarded with misleading statistics, gross exaggerations, and outright lies about sexual assault, child safety, child abductions, sex trafficking, sexual predators, and related subjects. Is it really so surprising, then, that a lot of people are suddenly worried about children being sexually assaulted in public restrooms? 

Popehat's Ken White, a Reason contributing editor, states the matter perfectly

I don't find transgender people scary, and I'm not concerned they are out to molest my kids. … 

But here's the thing: in viewing the situation that way, I'm fighting against what our culture is screaming at me to think. 

Our kids are much safer than they've been in generations, but our culture relentlessly demands that we be terrified for their safety — specifically including their safety from "stranger danger." The very media outlets that will spend today suggesting that you're bigoted and ignorant if you worry about "a man in my daughter's bathroom" will tomorrow go back to making money by scaring the living shit out of you about how your daughter is in constant peril from kidnappers and rapists and child molesters and crime, crime, crime. The culture that tells you today that your fear is irrational will tomorrow return to telling you to embrace fear you can't rationalize. This message isn't all law-and-order, either. The leftward-leaning side of the culture telling you today that you're a bigot for fearing rape in a Target bathroom will return tomorrow to telling you you're living in a rape culture and that you ought to be accepting of the stories, insights, and fears of the people who face that culture. In short, having long refused to hold you accountable for your fears, and having stoked them and encouraged you to indulge them, the culture is now abruptly demanding that you justify them logically. That strikes me as unfair. 

Full thing here

It's a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public's irrational fear. Supporters of the transgender community ought to urge people to be less bigoted. But they should also persuade people not to be so irrationally fearful about a great many other things. When we sow fear, we reap demagoguery.  

NEXT: Greener Earth Thanks to Extra Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuels, Says New Study

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. Is there a problem with sows being raped?

    1. Have you ever heard a pig give affirmative consent?

      1. Must we bring Deliverance into every conversation?

        1. “Machines are gonna fail, and the system’s gonna fail, and then…survival.”

      2. You reap what you Soave.

      3. SugarFree|4.26.16 @ 3:51PM| block | mute | #

        Have you ever heard a pig give affirmative consent?

        Isn’t that the basis for the plot of the porno-version of Charlotte’s Web?

        1. You’re thinking Babe: Pig in the Clitty

          1. I’m ashamed at how hard I’m laughing at that. Seriously people are starting to stare.

          2. Is that a real movie? Sounds like it could be. You have to hand it to porno makers, they come up with some hilarious porn-version names from popular films.

            One of my personal fave porn parody names (never saw it, though) was Pulp Friction.

      4. Weeeeeee?

    2. Don’t be pigging out on those sows, I want my fair share too!!!!

      Oink Oink Oink Oink Oink Oink Boink Boink Boink!!!!!

      (I took my vows with the sows, got my license, so don’t be sow judgmental!!!!)

  2. It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear.

    What discrimination, again?

    1. Not being discriminated against. They feel left out – like the last kid picked for a playground team sport.

    2. They want equal representation under the law. Thus, not giving them .03% of cisgender bathrooms is discrimination.

    3. Not being allowed to go pee or poop in the bathroom in their choice (in certain states)?

      Clearly that’s every bit as bad as Jim Crow.

      1. Not being allowed by who?

        Business owners? Not a violation of equal protection and thus not discrimination that needs to be addressed legally.

        Are there actually any laws on the books prohibiting business owners from allowing people into the other bathroom? This has been such a swirl that I can’t recall if there is.

    4. No kidding. What has happened to Reason that this kind of crap would get posted.

      Any rational thinking person will understand that the number of those ‘discriminated against’ because they feel bad about what washroom they use is significantly less than those, especially females, that will feel ‘discriminated against’ because they are reasonably concerned about a non-female using the same washroom. Since wen did freedom not have limits?

      There are always some limits and they aren’t necessarily discriminatory. I have a penis so the limit of my washroom freedom is that I can’t use a women’s restroom. That isn’t discrimination. It is a reasonable limit to freedom.

  3. It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination

    “Mentally ill men have to use the men’s bathroom just like sane men do” is not “discrimination”.

    1. Ah yes, if we don’t understand someone’s lifestyle, they must be mentally ill. That, my friend, is a dangerous road to take. How far are we from people declaring Christianity a mental illness?

      1. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Academy of Pediatrics declared gender politics is child abuse. Johns Hopkins stopped performing GRS because it violates the hippocratic oath, in that the suicide rate of post op transsexuals increases after their surgery.

        Go ahead and keep believing that believing your gender is self assignable ISN’T a mental illness. While you are at it, my good man, go ahead and let bullemics and anorexics undergo voluntary liposuction and plastic surgery at will. Why don’t we also let them get tax payer money for these surgeries.

        1. The tax payer money issue aside, I have no problem with bolemics and anorexics undergoing voluntary liposuctions or transgenders undergoing GRS. We believe in a thing called self-ownership around here.

          1. Right. Interesting premise.

            Do you believe in “capacity” or is that not a libertarian concept?

            1. Once again, a dangerous road. There is universal agreement that a dog or a five year old lack capacity, but an adult who wants to chop off their dick? I doubt you will get anywhere near universal agreement there by either the population or the courts. As long as they can clearly demonstrate they are in control of their faculties and understand their choice, the State has no right to interfere.

              1. There is universal agreement that a dog or a five year old lack capacity, but an adult who wants to chop off their dick? I doubt you will get anywhere near universal agreement there by either the population or the courts.

                So we’re going with some sort of “finger on the scale” majoritarian test? That’s… erm… bold. Tony is going to be a good friend of yours now.

                1. “So we’re going with some sort of “finger on the scale” majoritarian test? That’s… erm… bold.”

                  You can come up with all sorts of “objective” definitions for legal concepts, but it always reduces to some sort of majoritarian test in practice.

                  1. You can come up with all sorts of “objective” definitions for legal concepts, but it always reduces to some sort of majoritarian test in practice.

                    In practice, yes. However, isn’t that one of the problems that libertarians have with modern governance… that it punishes the icky and rewards the goodthink? Restated: that might makes right?

              2. Fair point. Then transsexuals suing plastic surgeons for damages shouldnt bother you.

                1. But that might have a ‘chilling effect’ on the amount of ‘doctors’ who are willing to take your money to cut off various bits you find irritating. Personally, I don’t see any particular use for my legs but finding a surgeon to cut them both off without there being something actually wrong with them is surprisingly difficult.

              3. Agreed. I just want the freedom to chose a medical insurance policy that says “those who chop off their dicks will not be covered”. You want covered for dick-chopping-off? Pay for it! Under our socialist idiotic regime, I have no freedom to chose that kind of restriction (and reduced prices) on my insurance policy. Space alien abduction therapy will be covered (and paid for by me) whether I like it or not… Ditto dick-chopping off…

            2. Capacity is absolutely a libertarian concept. Libertarianism is founded on the agency of individuals, which in turn implies that individuals that have capacity.

              And, in addition to being an essential concept, it is a very difficult and slippery one to define objectively, since it goes to something purely subjective (what and how a person thinks).

          2. I have no problem with bolemics and anorexics undergoing voluntary liposuctions or transgenders undergoing GRS.

            Do you have problems with “reasonable” restrictions on such procedures until the person can be evaluated as competent to make their own medical decisions?

            My point being that it’s not out of the question that somebody be appointed medical guardian over a mentally ill person who is set on self-harming.

        2. Academy of Pediatrics declared gender politics is child abuse

          That is incorrect. The faith-based College of Pediatricians (founded 2002) declared that.

          1. Because they are faith based, they are somehow qualified in a specific manner?

            1. I’m not sure I understand your question.

              1. Why include “faith based” as a qualifier in your link. Perhaps to scoff agnostically about “principles” or to disqualify or differentiate religious people who practice medicine from the atheists who practice medicine? Which Association of Kid Doctors is the “true” Association of Kid Doctors?

                Or is it simply that the assertions can only be attacked ad hominem because of their cogency?

                More or less what I was going for.

                1. Well, horseshit like this certainly makes them suspect:

                  Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence.

                  1. Would agree. Not arguing the merits of their belief systems.

                    Instead, I would like to know why their statement that gender politics is child abuse, and their ensuing arguments, is able to be written off or dismissed.

                    Dismissed because of an ancillary belief of adolescent reproduction?

                  2. Recognizes the physical and emotional benefits of sexual abstinence until marriage and pledges to promote this behavior as the ideal for adolescence.

                    Um, how exactly is that “horseshit”? Show me a pediatrician who recommends sex for adolescents.

                    1. Show me a pediatrician who recommends sex for adolescents.

                      Show ME a pediatrician who recommends sex for pre-teens.

                      Pleeeeeease.

                    2. I like how he dropped off the “until marriage” part. But they expect to be engaged in good faith.

                2. That’s a rather pompous response to having been caught mendaciously slipping in the name of a respected and distinguished learned academy in place of a fly-by-night institution founded by no one of particular reputation of expertise for the sole purpose of imposing a particular religious ideology upon certain medical practices.

                  Which Association of Kid Doctors is the “true” Association of Kid Doctors?

                  Of course, the views of the Church of Christ, Scientist or Narconon International are as valid as those gleaned from evidence-based medicine.

                  Or is it simply that the assertions can only be attacked ad hominem because of their cogency?

                  Example 756,256,982,588 of someone misusing the term ad hominem. It’s not an ad hominem when the credibility of the individual or the organization is a premise of the argumentation itself. But, of course, you knew that already, that’s why you replaced the term “College of Pediatricians” in your original statement with the more widely recognized as credible “Academy of Pediatrics” in your original post.

                  If you’re going to lie, you have no right to get all shirty when someone calls you out for being a fucking liar.

                  1. Medacious? Perhaps, although I dont think my inadvertant misrepresentation defeats my argument. Here is why I am not concerned.

                    Not once have you addressed their argument’s substance. If they aren’t credible to your standards, so be it. Remove them from the minor premise. Replace with “Some licensed professionals who collect together believe gender politics is child abuse, and their arguments are rational and thoroughly corroborated by the DSM-V and federal records.” Not a light statement, but enough to suggest the science is far from “settled” no?

                    Please address ANY of the points they listed with their references.

                    1. Yes, it is a common tactic among hacks when faced with incontrovertible evidence of their falsehoods to stridently accuse their interlocutors of whatever as a distraction from being found out as a liar.

                      You see, this isn’t about me; it’s about you. Whether or not “faith-based” has any contribution to the perception of ethos for College of Pediatricians is irrelevant to the fact that you claimed the American Academy of Pediatrics held views they do not hold.

                      And I have not addressed their argument because that is not the argument at hand; again, the argument at hand is that you claimed one organization with a long and august public reputation held views they do not hold. Furthermore, I don’t buy it was “inadvertant [sic]”. The terms are too far apart morphologically and semantically for it to be a simple substitution. You attempted to bolster the ethical appeal of your argument by citing an authority falsely. Period. I have no wish to interact with liars; and by lying you, and your ‘arguments’, as they were, have not earned the privileged of being dealt with in good faith.

                    2. Suit yourself, Dr. Samuel Johnson. This is quite the tirade about an incorrect minor premise that had been rectified. Furthermore, the issue of the exactness of my reference has been clarified by you, and I offered a substitution in order to continue the discussion about their argument, which is used to support my belief that transsexualism is a mental illness. And for the record, taking such a stand on such a small issue is extremely telling. It’s like you are refusing to interact with the argument because of the speaker’s perceived mendacity; is that not fallacious? Should anyone else claim what I claimed with the substitution I made, would you deign to interact with that argument then?

                      and by lying you, and your ‘arguments’, as they were, have not earned the privileged of being dealt with in good faith

                      I have consistently asked for ANY critique of their position. You make none, because you have none; or in the alternative, you have some, but they are weak. Claiming superiority is one thing, proving it is another, and no amount of flamboyant vocabulary is going to make up for your lack of addressing their arguments.

                      Pick one, there are 8 to choose from. Will wait with bated breath for your heroic response.

                    3. This is quite the tirade about an incorrect minor premise that had been rectified.

                      Wow, the projection! This is getting tiresome.

                      Furthermore, the issue of the exactness of my reference blah, blah, blah

                      Your repeated attempts to shift the discussion serve merely to distract from the fact that you lied. Why would I cooperate in shifting attention away from that? And it’s not as if this were the first time you were consciously mendacious. For example, on 4/19, you claimed that I view Title IX witch-hunts ‘non-issue’ when I had explicitly stated that I felt they were an important issue on 4/13.

                      So again, refusing to engage with a known liar is not any sort of concession to any argument they may make. It’s just refusing to engage with them. You have no right to any particular response to me and we interact with each other at our pleasure.

                      no amount of flamboyant vocabulary

                      Aww…someone feels intimidated.

                    4. Wow, the projection! This is getting tiresome.

                      Your repeated attempts to shift the discussion serve merely to distract from the fact that you lied

                      Aww…someone feels intimidated.

                      Cognitive Dissonance, refusal to allow a concession, AND a twat?

                      Definitely heroic.

                3. Why include “faith based” as a qualifier in your link.

                  Because that’s the opposite of “evidence-based.”

                  As the wise Mencken said:

                  Such quackeries suck in the botched, and help them on to bliss eternal. When these botched fall into the hands of competent medical men they are very likely to be patched up and turned loose upon the world, to beget their kind… What is too often forgotten is that nature obviously intends the botched to die, and that every interference with that benign process is full of dangers.

                  In such matters, I am convinced, the laws of nature are far better guides than the fiats and machinations of medical busybodies. If the latter gentlemen had their way, death, save at the hands of hangmen, policemen and other such legalized assassins, would be abolished altogether, and the present differential in favor of the enlightened would disappear. I can’t convince myself that would work any good to the world. On the contrary, it seems to me that the current coddling of the half-witted should be stopped before it goes too far if, indeed, it has not gone too far already. To that end nothing operates more cheaply and effectively than the prosperity of quacks.

                  1. Expect interactions with one of the Horsemen to bring the others to its side.

                    I am in no way trying or attempting to advance any ideology held by individual members of that collective or the collective itself. I merely referenced it, inaccurately, in order to advance their argument in the discussion. I should also add I am a staunch atheist, in case some presumptions are being made here.

                    Because that’s the opposite of “evidence-based”

                    If they are opposed to “evidence-based,” then attack the contentions they and I have provided you, my good man.

                    And surely your statement is an indictment upon all the licenses granted to each of those individuals within that organization. Surely your statement disqualifies all religious individuals from operating at the same empirical level as the non-religious.

                  2. Expect interactions with one of the Horsemen to bring the others to its side.

                    You hear that? You’re a Horseman! I’m guessing I’m Famine, because, well, you know. Maybe you’re Death, because you’re old as….

        3. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Academy of Pediatrics declared gender politics is child abuse. Johns Hopkins stopped performing GRS because it violates the hippocratic oath, in that the suicide rate of post op transsexuals increases after their surgery.

          You don’t have any idea about the studies on which this BS was based, do you? The miniscule sample size? The confirmation bias? The total lack of controls and the subjective opinion counted as “data”? The incomplete data sets?

          Forming an opinion on known faulty data? Tsk-Tsk.

      2. Ah yes, if we don’t understand someone’s lifestyle, they must be mentally ill.

        “Lifestyle” has nothing to do with it. It isn’t insane to act like a woman when you aren’t one. It is insane to believe you’re a woman when you aren’t one.

  4. More garbage by Reason “over” transgenders who can’t define who they are or who they are not … other than the claim they are of another sex than born.

    Next reason will be allowing children to identify as adults and vice-versa … All to appeal to a new minority group and seem cool.

    Well Reason …. YOU define them for US ! Do they include men who want to identify as being women for the purpose of entering the Women;s room. And how do you exclude them as transgenders ? Or perhaps Reason thinks it doesn’t matter.

      1. Hpearce tranny de tranny. tranny de trannyity trannyy tranny. Until one day, the tranny tranny trannytranny. tranny de tranny. Da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, hpearce is Da tranny Dee tranny Da Teetley tranny tranny Dumb. Rated PG-13.

    1. Next reason will be allowing children to identify as adults

      Fuck you for reminding me that Bugsy Malone was a thing.

      1. You didn’t like it?

        1. No, even as a kid, I thought the premise was absurd and I couldn’t maintain even the level of suspension of disbelief necessary to enjoy it as a comedy.

          1. But pies as weapons, HM, pies as weapons!

    2. Reasonable needs AI so it can detect idiotic troll posts and replace it with “herp derp herp derp” or porn or something.

      1. How about porn that has something do with the subject of the post? So instead of this guy’s brainfarts, for example, you’d see tranny pron.

      2. Where can I get Reasonable? I’m assuming that’s an app to block users whose posts I don’t want to read, correct?

    3. “Next reason will be allowing children to identify as adults and vice-versa … All to appeal to a new minority group and seem cool.”

      I am gonna be the first one here to stand up for cytotoxic. If he wants to call himself an adult, I support his right to do so.

    4. The real question is, why did you put quotation marks around “over”?

  5. “That argument strikes me as absurd.”

    Why? It seems pretty sensible. I thought the challenge was just that the greater number of people who would take advantage of the new laws was still so extremely small that it was worth it.

    1. To me, the more difficult challenge is articulating a right to use the bathroom of your choice, without also giving people the right to choose a same-sex bathroom.

      Or, you know, that mandating trans access to the other bathroom is a violation of property rights and perhaps association rights as well.

      1. “To me, the more difficult challenge is articulating a right to use the bathroom of your choice, without also giving people the right to choose a same-sex bathroom.”

        You’d think so, but you probably don’t think the argument “that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.” is absurd anyways.

        They don’t need to justify their increasingly impossible demands and requests, as they can just call people who even question them bigots.

        1. You probably don’t think the argument “that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.” is absurd

          Actually, I do.

          1. Actually, I do.

            My mistake. Could you explain? As I said above, it seems pretty sensible to me.

            1. Kinda like gun control, I think:

              Just like gun control laws don’t prevent people bent on murder from killing people with guns, laws on bathroom access won’t prevent people bent on rape from raping people.

              1. “laws on bathroom access won’t prevent people bent on rape from raping people.”

                I didn’t know anyone was arguing that they would.

                1. I thought it was implied by the argument “that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.”

                  1. I thought it was implied by the argument “that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.”

                    It may have been, but I never inferred it. I don’t think one taking advantage of a law is the same as someone bent on committing a crime.

                    1. I don’t think one taking advantage of a law is the same as someone bent on committing a crime

                      Given the context, this is completely nonsensical. The entire premise is that they’re “bent on committing a crime” and this law allegedly facilitates their criminal act.

                    2. “Given the context, this is completely nonsensical. The entire premise is that they’re “bent on committing a crime” and this law allegedly facilitates their criminal act.”

                      The context of what? The argument at the top?

  6. Sow Rape Culture Hyperbole, Reap Transgender Bathroom Paranoia

    Props, Robby. Someone is finally connecting the dots.

    1. IDK, it’s somewhere between a stretch and a red herring, IMO.

      I see no evidence that the Bathroom Rape Paranoia was in any way invented in response to and/or pursued with the earnestness of the College Rape Pandemic and the ‘LGB Rights is to fining bigot bakers as T rights is to…’ fear is too direct and real.

      1. The reason for the popularity of the “bathroom rape paranoia” angle is that most of the media — Robby included — take it as a given that only bigots believe crazy-ass things like “people with dicks should stay out of the women’s bathroom”.

        The conversation *should* go something like this:
        Some dude: I think I’m a woman, so I will use the women’s restroom
        Some business owner: No. Use the men’s room or leave.
        Some dude: Bigot! I’ll sue!
        Some judge: Go fuck yourself. And pay the business’s court costs while you’re at it.

        1. Yes! The only reason bathroom transgender rape paranoia exists is because “I’m the proprietor, buy something or get out.” isn’t good enough. The reason it isn’t good enough is because, “I’m a baker who just happens to have an unpopular opinion about homosexuals (whether I serve them or not).” has proven to be afoul of the law.

          Further, the situation has been compounded because Title IX, supposedly, covers transgendered individuals as well. So, you can get a tautological double-secret bigot probation for having nothing to do with a non-crime. A cis-man bumps into a trans-person leaving the restroom and despite the fact that no rape occurred and the desired effect is that no women were involved, Title IX means you have to do an investigation at the trans-person’s request (but not necessarily at the cis-man’s) lest you be an unlawful bigot who hates women and transgendered people.

    2. Come to think of it, I’d say it is a Red Herring as the people crying about Rape in the Bathroom aren’t the ones expanding Title IX to cover Transgendered individuals.

    3. I agree. This was a very sharp pickup, that its very difficult to generate hysteria over there, without it getting splashed over here as well.

      The fact that different groups are driven to different places by the hysteria doesn’t really affect the overall point.

  7. Heh… Yeah. Laws passed by bigots to prevent transgendered people from using the poddy of their choice are really the fault of people who don’t want people getting raped on college campuses. You guys are like the biggest victims of Gloria Steinem ever.

    1. You have to be the most boring person I’ve never met.

      1. Maybe. I’m pretty secure with myself. It helps that I don’t think i’m being emasculated by feminists and people on college campuses who don’t think women should just put up with non-consensual, shitty sex from frat boys.

        1. It helps that I don’t think i’m being emasculated by feminists and people on college campuses who don’t think women should just put up with non-consensual, shitty sex from frat boys.

          You are so brave.

          1. I don’t think so. I just don’t think that people on college campuses who think their college campuses should be inclusive, democratic places that are free of coercion are much of a threat. I’m also not terribly threatened by 18- and 19-year olds that have passionate– but maybe wrong-headed– opinions that haven’t been fully thought through. I thought that’s why you went to college. To learn.

            1. inclusive, democratic places that are free of coercion

              An oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one.

              1. If that’s what they are after, maybe (not sure what “democratic” is doing in there, other than as a Freudian slip).

                But, going by their actions, what they want are insular, exclusive places that are kept that way by coercion.

        2. If rape is anywhere near as prevalent as rape culture activists say it is, there aren’t enough frat boys to be responsible for 100% of campus rapes. Why haven’t we taught liberal boys to not rape???

        3. It also helps that you have no respect for due process.

          1. What makes you think that?

            1. Because you support the Title IX star chambers.

        4. Again the true intent bubbles to the surface. It’s only rape if frat boys are involved. In fact, it seems most of the campus issues of recent years seems to be entirely predicated on trying to portray everyone else in the world as the helpless victims of members of college fraternities.

          So you weren’t the fraternity type, so what? Move on. College is only four years or so of your life. There are much bigger fish to fry than harboring resentment over the people who were in the college greek system. Ooh, some of them were smug, or more popular than they deserved to be! Boo-hoo.

          Just so you know, most of us left college completely behind within a couple of years of graduation. Perhaps have a few friends left from those days, but not much more other than the occasional reunion. Try looking forward in life rather than basing it on being angry about the past, you’ll be amazed at how much better things will be.

          1. I have seen the Joshua Jackson vehicle The Skulls dozens of times, so I know exactly what takes place inside fraternities, and let me tell you I am appalled they are allowed to stay open.

            1. That was an amazing documentary. How he got access to film what he did, I’ll never know.

        5. I’m pretty secure with myself.

          No, you’re a sociopath, there’s a difference.

          It helps that I don’t think i’m being emasculated

          But you do. By bankers.

          should just put up with non-consensual, shitty sex

          If it’s non-consensual, what does the quality of it matter? If it was good but non-consensual, then they should put up with it? And since when was rape made legal?

    2. Yeah, how crazy is it to suggest that cultivating mass hysteria about rape might lead to bad laws steeped in mass hysteria about rape?

      1. Is it anti-rape activists on college campuses that are pushing these laws or people who listen to the daily hysterics on AM radio?

        1. Why can’t we have both?

        2. It is both. Have you seen what the TERFs are posting on the subject??

    3. Tell us again about the time you “ran the blockade” to visit Cuba and went around lecturing the locals about how good they have it compared to us EVUL KKKAPITALISTS. That one never gets old.

      Just go eat your fuckin’ cake… retard.

      1. Wait, did he really do that? Christ, what an asshole.

          1. Holy shit, what a sick, stupid fuck.

      2. Yeah, I went to Cuba because I think that stupid laws shouldn’t be obeyed. I am a libertarian, you know.

        I didn’t say anything to anyone while I was there preferring to keep my mouth shut. I maybe did tell someone that there were a lot of crazy Cuban refugees in South Florida, but that it seemed like the next generation didn’t really give a shit about Castro one way or the other– and that I thought that was a good thing.

        I *thought* to myself that it seemed like a lot of Cubans were pissed off that they weren’t living in Miami with their distant cousins. Given that I have had some experience with parts of North Miami I thought that maybe they were being sold a bill of goods. But that’s about it. Otherwise, I was just a run-of-the-mill boring tourist.

        1. You are as Libertarian as Adam Lanza.- Sheldon(broken clocks can be right 2 times a day)

        2. american socialist|2.11.16 @ 7:14PM|#

          Nick, I’ve been there. Cuba has its ups and downs, but I think it probably compares favorably to places like Mexico and El Salvador. I got absolutely stranded on the streets of Havana at 4 am before my flight out and had zero problems. I wouldn’t want to do the same in Mexico City, I’ll tell you.

          Lots of people there seemed pissed off that they were there and their cousins were living the good life in Miami. I tried to tell them that we have our own problems with crime, obesity, and the desperately poor And that capitalists, as they will, probably were selling them a bill of goods. If I were them, I’d probably be ambivalent about prospects of hoards of Americans coming south. Better to keep the dive bars of hemingway’s days the way they are rather than turning it over to Hard Rock Havana.

          In addition to being a retard, you’re also a lying sack of shit.

          1. Better to keep the dive bars of hemingway’s days the way they are rather than turning it over to Hard Rock Havana.

            The self-described libertarian who’d rather people be trapped in a police state than have a Starbucks on their street corner. Hilarious.

            1. I’ve been in Buenos Aires for a bit more than 24 hours on my short trip here. So far, in traveling around this city, I swear I’ve seen at least 30 Starbucks.

              1. A few forced labor camps would really tidy that place up.

                /american derpulist

              2. I’m FROM Buenos Aires, and I say we kill ’em all.

            2. I enjoyed meeting my first writer on my first trip to Cuba,but then Castro came along and Hemingway left.

              Haven’t been back since.

    4. Unintended consequences are a myth, just like the idea that you have to pay your mortgage!

      /american socialist

      1. Amsoc to Cuban dissident being beaten with a baton in the depths of a Gulag:
        *Thwack (scream)
        AS: You know, it could be a lot worse-”
        *Thwack (scream)
        AS: “I mean, there are so many fat people in America”
        *Thwack (scream)
        AS: You really don’t know how great you’ve got it down here!

    5. Laws passed by bigots to prevent transgendered people from using the poddy of their choice

      Are there any?* Around here, people are more concerned with laws preventing business owners from doing what they want with their own property. Like, you know, putting up signs on their bathrooms and enforcing access to various parts of their business.

      *Seriously. Don’t recall if any such laws have actually been passed.

  8. It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear.

    It’s a terrible shame that having to piss in the family bathroom is the civil rights issue of the day.

    Supporters of the transgender community ought to urge people to be less bigoted.

    Perhaps if the “supporters of the transgender community” focused less on ginning up irrational fear about bigots hiding in every bathroom stall and focused more on getting transgender folks into suicide prevention programs, people would take them more seriously.

    But they should also persuade people not to be so irrationally fearful about a great many other things. When we sow fear, we reap demagoguery.

    You mean like the fear of that evil business owner telling you to use the unisex bathroom instead of the ladies room?

  9. “But I’m surprised it’s not more persuasive among liberals?particularly a certain kind of liberal, the feminist anti-rape activist?who believe we live in an actual rape culture where sexual assault is an everyday occurrence for as many as a quarter of all women.”

    The first priority is to fight conservatives. They’ll get to Women only and Everyone bathrooms eventually.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2…..53970.html

  10. Simple solution: if you feel unsafe in public restrooms, conceal carry.

    1. Dudes who are concealing what they’re carrying is precisely the issue!

      1. Who amongst us supports open carry in the bathrooms?

        1. I work in a pretty nice office building, but there are still plenty of guys from the insurance company down the hall who unholster before they get anywhere near the urinal.

          1. Some of us do not like waste time unzipping in front of a urinal, friend.

            1. Why bother with zippers at all, eh? Just go for the crotchless jeans, it’s your constitutional right. I don’t remember the 2nd Amendment stating that cocks are not arms.

              1. I don’t remember the 2nd Amendment stating that cocks are not arms.

                Some might as well be.

                …ladies.

                1. I’ve seen a couple that might as well be arms -not the delightful treat one might expect.

              2. Button fly’s intimidate me

  11. I am totally confused. Who is going to savagely have their way with my hypermasculine body? Who is going to tear my pants off and ravish my fresh and pure starfish against my will? Who is going to do force me up against a toilet stall wall and make my warm, inviting mouth their human fleshlight? I need to save myself from their powerful, overwhelming force. Make it clear!

      1. Crusty will be in his bunk.

    1. [raises John’s hand]

      1. Did you just call Crusty fat? He’s got thyroid issues, you insensitive monster!

        1. Is John a chubby chaser? Did not know.

          1. That’s sort of his thing, along with amazing Freudian typos and mind-reading.

            1. I dunno if John is so much a chubby-chaser as an anorexic-avoider.

    2. Paging Warty, please come to the Dungeon courtesy phone, paging Warty.

  12. That argument strikes me as absurd.

    Because it is absurd.

    1. What? The argument that that facilities segregated by sex is abhorrant discrimination?

      Indeed, it is an absurd argument.

      1. The only argument that holds any water is that it’s pointless discrimination; you go in to relive yourself, not commune with the members of your sex.

        But that ignores the cultural preferences of the majority.

        The only functional solutions (besides not giving a shit) will be a) to remove all the signs from the bathrooms or b) to make all bathrooms individual. The first is trivial but likely to please no one, and the second is expensive and thus of debatable utility.

        1. Well, you may go in to relive yourself, but most go in to relieve themselves.

        2. And if all bathrooms become unisex, say goodbye to urinals.

          Think of all the additional wasted water!!!

          /concerned Californian

        3. Woman absolutely go to the ladies room to commune with each other. Why do you think we always go together, when possible?

  13. I think the fear of transgendered people in bathrooms is somewhat exaggerated, but that’s not the core objection that I see online. The valid objection I see is that allowing anyone who “self-identifies” as female into women’s bathrooms (and next: locker rooms, spas, etc.) is opening the door for every pervert, prankster, and asshole to do just that. And since the population of perverts, pranksters, and assholes far exceeds the population of transgenders, this is going to cause more problems than it solves.

    1. Easy solution: let private parties regulate their bathrooms how they see fit. Anyone who doesn’t abide gets kicked out and/or cited for trespassing.

      1. let private parties regulate their bathrooms how they see fit.

        Isn’t that how this whole NC bullshit started? The City of Charlotte wanted to regulate private parties’ bathrooms, and NC stepped in and said no?

        (BTW, the answer to both questions is “Yes”)

      2. That is the solution the social progressives are throwing a hissy fit about.

        1. Yeah, it’s seen as just as terrible as “let bakers make wedding cakes however they see fit.”

      3. Agreed, but that solution doesn’t seem to be satisfactory to the left.

    2. Easy solution: A National Bathroom ID Card. Then we put swipers on all public bathrooms and issue everyone an access card. If you are transgender, you get certified as a transgender and then get an ID card to access women’s bathrooms.

    3. It’s already open to those people. It ain’t that hard to make yourself look womanly enough to pass as at least an ugly woman or boyish enough to pass as a feminine man. Trans people and perverts alike already use the bathrooms of the opposite sex, and legislating for or against it won’t change anything.

      1. And if you can’t be bothered to even dress up enough to get into the bathroom you’re perving in, you can alternately just be sneaky about it, and sneak in when no one’s paying attention.

      2. One can also be raped by someone of the same birth sex/gender/whatever.

      3. Hell, normal people use the other bathroom without undue incident right now.

        The key is to be discreet and respectful. If you’re equipped as a dude and you’re in the chick’s bathroom, don’t piss in the sink, get it zipped up before you leave the stall, and keep your filthy, perverted eyeballs to yourself, that kind of thing.

        1. Discretion and manners must be replaced by GOVERNMENT, you oppressor!

    4. Exactly, the cure is potentially way worse than the disease, such as it is.

  14. I don’t know one man who gives a damn if a woman were to come into the men’s bathroom and go into a stall. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. But I know a bunch of men who don’t want a man going into the woman’s room when their daughter is in there, and most women don’t want men coming in their bathroom.
    If it is so damn uncomfortable for a man who thinks he is a woman to use the men’s bathroom, then why won’t same transgendered individual realize that it might not be bigotry that makes women uncomfortable about “him” coming into their bathroom?

    1. I have GI issues. The last thing I want is a woman in the stall next to me while I’m recreating a Cali mudslide.

    2. I have GI issues. The last thing I want is a woman in the stall next to me while I’m recreating a Cali mudslide.

      1. Good Chippers’ slide came out,
        after Feast of Stephen

        Is that sort of how it goes?

      2. I’ll go one farther…. I’d rather not have anyone in the stall next to me when I’m dropping the kids off at the pool.

        But as to the original premise, I’d say the ratio of the intensity of the objection is about 100:1. I know I’ve had women wonder what I was up to when I simply stood at the door to the women’s room waiting for my 5 year old daughter to come out. I can only imagine the reaction if I were to go in to retriever her.

  15. There’s no contradiction between the prog agenda regarding rape culture paranoia and the potty wars. Both are bullshit issues created to give state more power over more areas of human interaction. Progressivism is basically pure technocratic totalitarianism; any other ideal or agenda is subordinate to and in service of that.

  16. Transgendered people have already been using the bathroom of their choice forever and will continue to do so. But it’s all about playing the “noble” victim.

  17. Penis-free zones prevent rape just as well as gun-free zones prevent shootings. Your move, Bitter Clingers.

  18. Remember when SoCons were climbing the walls about how explicitly supporting Gay Marriage would precipitate a rending of the social fabric; that linking rational basis and equal protection would generate a ‘cats and dogs living together… mass hysteria’-type situation?

    Good to know they were completely and utterly wrong.
    Good times.
    Neither do I.

    1. Dude, that was like months ago, written by white cis-hetero bigots. I mean, who even knows what any of that means any more?

  19. I’ve had a rather exotic sex life, but unlike the British Prime Minister in Black Mirror, I have never raped a sow.

    1. so it was consensual…

  20. Define transgender. Do you believe in a gender binary or gender fluidity? Do you believe that a person can be a lesbian trapped in the body of a man? That’s an old joke and what LGBT SJWs proclaim. How much horseshit is society supposed to swallow so that government can have a new client population to protect?

    1. Yes, there is plenty of research to show that gender identity and sexual attraction are controlled by different areas of the brain and can be independently altered.

      Hence you get Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner who is not attracted to men. Or the original version – Renee Richards – at least I think she was still attracted to women after she became a woman.

      If you don’t know any of these folks, you might not believe it. But if you have ever seen it up close you’d know that they are how they are and pretty much always have been. How much effort do you put into deciding your gender and sexual orientation? Pretty much exactly zero, right? You are who you are and you like what you like.

      So how about we all just go with “live and let live”?

  21. here’s a better idea. Stop playing along with people’s insane delusions. If you were born with an XY chromosome and a penis, you’re a man. If you’re born with XX and a vagina, you’re a woman. That doesn’t change ever, regardless of hormones or surgeries or fashion. The science is settled. Now use the appropriate bathroom, fucktard.

    And no, that decision doesn’t deserve an ounce of fucking respect or dignity, weirdo. You want act all crazy, be prepared to be treated as such, freak. be a dipshit on your own time and stop trying to force the rest of us to conform to your fantasyland, especially in public restrooms.

    normal people have a right to privacy in the use of these restrooms. If you’re a woman, you probably don’t want a man in there, even if the man is statistically speaking probably harmless. why take the chance? That the man is a fucking lunatic wearing a dress and only reinforces the need for privacy. That’s human nature and its rational.

    1. If you were born with an XY chromosome and a penis, you’re a man. If you’re born with XX and a vagina, you’re a woman. That doesn’t change ever, regardless of hormones or surgeries or fashion.

      Advances in CRISPR are really going to fuck you up, aren’t they?

      1. Advances in CRISPR are really going to fuck you up, aren’t they?

        Do you fucking love science?

        CRISPR will fundamentally change societal norms the way relativity overturned the way gravity works for all of humanity and vaccines made paupers out of virologists the world over.

        There’s tons of biology with n-ploidy genomes that completely lack or even invert our notions of ‘X’ an ‘Y’ we still manage to capture large swaths with the notions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ and we did so well before we had any notion of genes or chromosomes.

      2. When we get around to genetically engineering people, bathrooms will be least of the issues raised.

        1. When we get around to genetically engineering people, bathrooms will be least of the issues raised.

          Au contraire, I suspect the privilege of just *knowing* which restroom to use and then persecuting that privilege will continue unabated; autotrophic modifications will come with legal obligations to take pointless lunch breaks and sit on the toilet and do nothing.

          1. No chance. When we get full genetic body modification it will be game over. Because of all the guys who are too busy dragging their penis behind them to get any work done, obviously.

      3. No, they’ll just have non-GMO bathrooms.

      4. Why would advances in CRISPR be necessary? You seem to think that men can transform into women simply by declaring themselves to be women. 🙂

  22. Excellent, excellent, excellent. We do indeed reap what we sow. Thank God there are some saner voices out there — you and Lenore strong among them. Do not stop writing and printing the truth.

  23. Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice?

    BECAUSE IT IS NOT *THEIR* BATHROOM, YOU COMMUNIST!

    The bathrooms you allude to belong to the OWNERS of the business, venue or private property.

    The problem, many conservatives insist, is that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.

    i don’t give a SHIT what ‘conservatives’ argue.

    MY ARGUMENT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TELLING *ME* HOW MANY BATHROOMS *I* SHOULD PUT AND TO WHOM I SHOULD OFFER THEM.

    In what WORLD have you been, Robby? Local councils want to MAKE business owners let weirdos enter the restrooms THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS placed for THEIR customers! This fight is about PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! Maybe this is ALIEN to you. Just say so so we know where you stand.

    Capisci?

    1. Preach it, OM.

      To libertarians, it seems to me bog-simple that government shouldn’t be dictating, one way or the other, to private businesses what they do with their bathrooms.

      The only interesting question should be, what should government do with its own bathrooms?

      But the swirl on this is so intense, and the gravitational suction from activists who want the government in the bathroom is so strong, that apparently Reason writers can’t quite formulate what should be second nature to libertarians.

      1. Re: R C Dean,

        The only interesting question should be, what should government do with its own bathrooms?

        It is an interesting question, one that I don’t have to answer because I really don’t give a rat’s ass about government and its special little needs.

        apparently Reason writers can’t quite formulate what should be second nature to libertarians.

        That’s because the Reason staff is full of libwaps who believe libertarians should only harbor beautiful thoughts. My only ‘beautiful’ thought I harbor for them is a raised middle-finger, because they’re being quite ridiculous and stupid.

  24. It’s a terrible shame that transgender people have to suffer discrimination as a result of the public’s irrational fear.

    I am crying all over for the poor transgenders. See my tears? They’re there. Just pull my finger…

    Stop being so melodramatic for cripes sake. Just because a person decided one day he or she wants to be a different sex does not confer him or her any SPECIAL RIGHTS that supersede MY or YOUR property rights.

    By the way, here’s my violin paying a sad song for the poor, poor transgender (and bathroom-less) people.

  25. Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice?

    Why should transgender people be the only ones with the privilege of bathroom choice?

    Why shouldn’t any man be able to traipse through the women’s locker room whenever the whimsy takes him?

    The problem, many conservatives insist, is that rapists and sexual deviants will take advantage of looser bathroom laws in order to assault little girls and boys.

    The broader problem is that most people aren’t nudists, and want to choose who derives sexual gratification from checking out their naughty bits.

    For the majority, straight and cis gendered privileged scum that they are, there is no problem. The asexual are similarly privileged in this regard. Girls go to the girls room, and boys to the boys room, and no one is checking anyone out. No problem.

    But other sexual/gender varieties are incompatible with that desire for sexual privacy and bathrooms where naughty bits are exposed anywhere but in a single serving stall.

    1. Currently, straights tolerate gays in the bathroom on a “we’ll pretend no one would be interested in my junk” policy. As long as no particular person rubs your nose in their preference for your type of junk, no one gets excited about the potential for that issue.

      But with the obvious “man in a dress”, the issue is unavoidable and focused on a particular person. There isn’t a good solution to this.

      I really don’t care if a woman with a penciled in mustache wants to sachay about the men’s room, but some men do. And some women similarly object to a man in a dress in the lady’s room. I don’t condemn either of them for their desire for sexual privacy, and don’t agree that their preference’s are evil and bigoted, while a transexual’s preference about who they pee near or change in view of is sacred and holy.

  26. “Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice?”

    Because the point of separate men’s & women’s bathrooms is that you don’t get a choice. You use the bathroom assigned to your sex, for the sake of all the other people using the bathrooms. And because it is for the sake of all those other people using the bathrooms, “your sex” for this purpose is best determined by the shape of your exterior genitalia.

    If you’re a “woman trapped in a man’s body” then it’s the “trapped in a man’s body” part that should count, and you should use the men’s bathroom Likewise, if you’re a “man trapped in a woman’s body,” then you should use the women’s restroom in accordance with your woman’s body.

    1. Likewise, if you’re a “man trapped in a woman’s body,” then you should use the women’s restroom in accordance with your woman’s body.

      Unless you are really, really hot, amirite?

      1. No. Not all men are horn dogs. And even among those of us who are, we usually set it aside when taking care of business.

  27. While the legitimate fear that pervs will perv on women in women’s spaces is real, the bottom line issue is that big government is trying to redefine truth and shove it down our throats: the climate is changing and its all our fault; just because a man with a penis THINKS he’s a woman we all have to grin and bear or risk getting fired from our job and even fined by the government. Forcing businesses to have any kind of a bathroom policy is just one more statist bid for control. And all these quasi-libertarians pushing this crap need their butts kicked out of the libertarian movement til they change their evil statist ways. Meanwhile I’m buying pepper spray in case I feel threatened by any of these deluded and pathetic individuals in womens private spaces. Do your thing boys, enjoy your fetishes, but don’t force it on anyone else…

  28. I bought brand new white Ferrari by working ONline work. five month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then $85/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to believed her Now i am also making 85$/hr if you want to try. Check Here…….JU04

    ===== http://www.Buzzmax7.com

  29. OH wow man now that makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.Complete-Privacy.tk

  30. So, let me see if I’ve got this straight.

    People who were born to a certain sex shouldn’t have the right to a same-sex bathroom because that abrogates the right of people who weren’t born a certain sex to have the right to a same sex bathroom of the sex they choose to be?

    And there’s lots of fun ways to say this–

    The rights of chicks with dicks override the rights of chicks.

    You have the right to a same sex environment so long as you weren’t born into the sex of the environment you’re exercising the right to be in.

    What fun.

    1. We can go even further with this.

      People (women) want to continue using same sex bathrooms & changing facilities because they’re bigots and because there’s so much “fear mongering” about rapes, beatings & peeping/videoing incidents that actually happen.

      Trans people, on the other hand, should not be forced to continue using said same-sex facilities for the sex they were born, because they supposedly get raped and beaten up. No one has presented evidence that such things actually occur, but whether there’s evidence or not, using rapes & beatings as a basis to change long-standing social custom is not fear-mongering because….

      1.) It’s okay when “oppressed” groups fear monger?
      2.) Fuck you, that’s why?
      3.) It’s not fear mongering when “we” do it?
      4.) I’ll kill myself if you make me provide evidence?
      5.) All of the above?

  31. Want to meet a girl? Welcome to http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

    1. Peddle your wares elsewhere Karinka-Bot. This is obviously a pig fuckers thread. Or so I assumed before I read it all. And WTF is up with these clickbating writers here. Do they not get the whole “Phrasing” thing? (Or are they genius level at it?) Somewhat OT; you and Barry? Still an item or is he just a bit too metallic for your tastes these days?…./(Seriously just asking for a friend.)

  32. This writer starts: “Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice?” But why restrict the question to just transgender people? It applies to all people: “Why not let people use the bathroom of their choice?”

    The answer is nothing to do with the sort of people choosing, it’s about the other users. And young girls and women, especially those growing in their sexuality, most of us understand, don’t want to share such private moments with the other gender.

    Why do the sensibilities of the few transgender people override those of the natural bathroom users? For me as well as many Americans, they don’t!

  33. Rape culture is maybe an overblown way of calling out a real problem. Out of my 6 daughters, 2 of them have experienced sexual assault, and one was on a college campus. One of them seems to have “shrugged it off,” but the other was shattered and required therapy, medication, and time (essentially, proper medicine) to get past her experience. That said, the threat of male predators of females is everywhere: Whether you look at mass transit in Europe, rape on campus, and other issues, it is a problem orders of magnitude larger than what locker room a sensitive high school trans can use.

    I see this ending public restrooms.

    The reason is that the real victims in this cultural tussle are the owners of public restrooms. How do they avoid lawsuits from the queer communities who are anxious to be offended and feel they are carrying a righteous torch for their kind? Simultaneously, how do they avoid lawsuits that say they didn’t do enough to prevent sexual assault when that inevitably happens in one of these spaces with “new rules” for bathrooms/locker rooms? The only logical way to prevent this kind of punitive nonsense is to give everyone “private but equal” accommodations. When the threat of lawsuit reaches the point that “offending” someone is more expensive than hiring a contractor to change the locks and walls, such public spaces will just quietly disappear.

    Meanwhile, near Seattle: http://tinyurl.com/q76pf4a

  34. I feel fortunate I went to college in the 1970s.

  35. “Why not let transgender people use the bathroom of their choice?”

    Unofficially, sure… who cares.

    But I’m leery of government deeming bathroom-freedom-of-choice as a protected “civil right” because doing so literally criminalizes the reasonable convention of same-sex bathrooms/ locker rooms.

    When government endorses the dubious notion that gender’s a “matter of opinion” in an effort to protect a tiny –albeit sainted– minority group, the female population is then at the mercy of any & every predator, voyeur, lout, thug, lug, masturbator, hornswoggler, or sidewinder who fancies taking advantage of this easily-exploited loophole.

    Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side.

  36. Does anyone know what the Carolina law actually requires? Like, what does it actually say?

  37. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

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

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

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

  39. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.