Trans

Title IX Is a Dangerous Tool for Extending Transgender Kids' Rights

Making trans kids more comfortable is a laudable outcome, but some concern is merited.

|

The Hot Chick
Screenshot via The Hot Chick / Buena Vista Pictures

The federal government informed schools Friday that they are obligated to grant transgender students access to facilities that correspond with their expressed gender—with a few key exceptions. Conservatives are outraged, as expected. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has vowed to defy "King" Obama and resist implementation of the guidance.

I admit my sympathies are mostly with transgender kids, who endure routine social discomfort at schools. I think the impact of the new guidance is positive in that it will make life easier for these students.

All that said, concerns about the method of ensuring these accommodations strike me as not entirely absurd. This is because the method is Title IX. Title IX, you will recall, is a one-sentence statute prohibiting gender discrimination in educational institutions that receive public funding, which is all well and good. But the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights—which is responsible for monitoring schools' compliance—has interpreted this statute very broadly over the past five years: even going so far as to force colleges to adjudicate sexual assault in accordance with illiberal principles, and redefining harassment to include virtually everything that offends any person for any reason.

Take, for example, Colorado State University-Pueblo believing that Title IX requires the institution to suspend a student for having seemingly consensual sex with another student. Consider the City University of New York instructing professors not to used gendered salutations because they might violate Title IX. It's not crazy to think very broad and confusing guidance relating to gender, teenagers, locker rooms, and schools will produce some bizarre side effects, especially given that this is an administrative dictate—not a new piece of legislation that was carefully considered by Congress. Again, that does not mean the overall impact of the new guidance will be negative—just that Title IX has proven to be an imperfect tool for curing societal ills.

It should come as no surprise that the guidance—which was jointly issued by the Education and Justice Departments—contains telling gaps. Broadly speaking, the guidance says this: "Under Title IX, a school must treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex."

Functionally, this means that teenagers are the gender they claim to be, rather than the gender assigned to them by virtue of their birth or public records. Schools must treat them in accordance with their gender identity, meaning that transgender kids get to use the restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their expressed gender. If this makes other students uncomfortable, the schools may provide alternative facilities for those students "who voluntarily seek additional privacy," but they are not required to do so.

The guidance contains a glaring exception, however: athletics. Read this:

Title IX regulations permit a school to operate or sponsor sex-segregated athletics teams when selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or when the activity involved is a contact sport. A school may not, however, adopt or adhere to requirements that rely on overly broad generalizations or stereotypes about the differences between transgender students and other students of the same sex (i.e., the same gender identity) or others' discomfort with transgender students. Title IX does not prohibit age-appropriate, tailored requirements based on sound, current, and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the students' participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport.

I interpret this to mean that schools may prohibit students who are biologically female (but identify as male) from playing on the boys' football team (and vice versa). This makes some logical sense, given the obvious physical differences between kids who were born male and kids who merely identify as male. But I don't know that it makes any legal sense, given the government's extremely gender-flexible interpretation of Title IX. Is there really a legal rationale for letting teens who are biologically male but self-identify as girls use the girls' locker room, but not play on the girls' softball team? Assuming that I'm reading this guidance correctly, it seems like a weird place to draw the line. But perhaps the government is merely leaving the sports question unresolved for now.

It's also impossible to ignore the extent to which the new guidance neglects the (perhaps illegitimate, but nonetheless real) privacy concerns of cisgender kids. What if a boy doesn't want to use the same locker room as a trans boy? It's his duty to use a more private facility—one the school has no obligation to supply.

I don't really have a problem with that—I'm not averse to the idea that extending equal rights to the trans kids is more important than protecting the feelings of the cis kids. But I'm a bit surprised the federal government feels that way, because it has consistently and vigorously interpreted Title IX in a manner that suggests any instance where someone is offended could constitute sexual harassment.

Look at it this way: Artwork and essays concerning consensual sexual relationships have been accused of creating a hostile educational environment under the government's interpretation of Title IX. Professor Teresa Buchanan ran afoul of Title IX for telling sexual jokes in her classroom. Could it really be the case that Title IX prohibits risqué jokes but requires young women to shower alongside people whose biological gender makes them uncomfortable?  The trend has been to always believe the purported victims and never question their experience—if they say they were harassed, then they were. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see if this logic still holds in the genuinely uncomfortable domain of teen locker rooms.

Michelle Goldberg reflects on many of these same ideas for a recent Slate piece:

There's no coherent ideology in which traumatized students have the right to be shielded from material that upsets them—be it Ovid9½ Weeks, or the sentiments of Laura Kipnis—but not from undressing in the presence of people with different genitalia. If we've decided that people have the right not to feel unsafe—as opposed to the right not to be unsafe—then what's the standard for refusing that right to conservative sexual abuse victims? Is it simply that we don't believe them when they describe the way their trauma manifests? Aren't we supposed to believe victims no matter what?

So far, progressives have mostly responded to conservative complaints about opening up bathrooms to trans people by loudly insisting that trans bathroom predators are a myth. This elides the fact that we have no working definition of what differentiates a trans woman from a man claiming to be a woman for iniquitous ends. There are, in fact, instances of men who've donned drag to spy on women in bathrooms or assault them in female-only spaces such as homeless shelters. There may well be more. Those who want to defend laws on gender-inclusive bathroom access should have an argument besides incredulous denial.

Rather than engaging in a victimology arms race, they might ground their arguments in the language of civil liberties. Civil libertarians know that we don't punish people as a group for the actions of individuals. They know that in a diverse, fractious, free country, sometimes other people are going to exercise their rights in a way that upsets or even scares you. And they know that protecting civil liberties sometimes means forgoing other kinds of protection. It would be easier for people on the left to make that argument now, though, if they hadn't spent the past few years arguing the opposite. 

Goldberg is exactly right.

While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong, the left's conflation of emotional harm with physical harm—particularly on college campuses—has empowered the right to disingenuously borrow their arguments in situations where it suits them.

At the same time, there are thorny legal issues at stake here—ones that the government clearly hasn't entirely worked out yet. It's wrong to discriminate against trans kids, but it's not wrong to worry about the unforeseen consequences of Title IX, given the government's terrible track record, penchant for overreach, and one-sidedness when it comes to gender harassment law.

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.

271 responses to “Title IX Is a Dangerous Tool for Extending Transgender Kids' Rights

  1. They’re entitleix*d to it.

  2. But I don’t know that it makes any legal sense, given the government’s extremely gender-flexible interpretation of Title IX. Is there really a legal rationale for letting teens who are biologically male but self-identify as girls use the girls’ locker room, but not play on the girls’ softball team?

    “Bona fide occupational requirement”.

  3. Rather than engaging in a victimology arms race, they might ground their arguments in the language of civil liberties.

    But civil liberty isn’t their objective, victimology arms race is.

    1. Anything that gives legal standing to this bizarre form of body dysmorphia needs to go.

  4. If men can identify as women, what is stop me, as a white, from identifying as black ?

    The result logically is the undermining of the very “civl rights”/Protected classes that the Civil Rights Act was supposed to enforce – where people can simply claim what they are (identify as what they choose).

    People are free to do this, but legislating this one r the other is totally wrong.

    However this could actually undermine the concept of class rights – could that possibly be good in the long run ?

    1. I’m not geneticist, but I would guess an unrelated Blackman and white man have less genetic difference than an unrelated white man and white woman.

      1. Well,besides that penis thing.No,besides skin color a black man and white man are far more alike, physically ,that a man and a women.

        1. Actually, a human male and a male pig have much less genetic difference than a human male and a human female.

          (and before the derp smugness takes over, the same applies to female humans and pigs).

          1. No, they don’t.

      2. You can define the terms around haplogroups but the level of granularity applied would substantially alter the implications of those definitions vis-a-vis “protected class” status (a form of Simpson’s paradox).

        It would be a stupid exercise on par with eugenics, but I would hardly be surprised to see it happen.

        1. Let’s think of it this way. For me to trans from white black I need make up, to trans from male to female I need surgery and a whole new wardrobe.

          1. You forgot to check your privilege.

            1. I don’t need to since I’m now black. You check your privilege, honky. Also I can now use the N word.

              1. +1 What do you mean, “you people”?

          2. I could just as well say that male-female transition is just a matter of clothing and makeup, while white-black transition requires extensive surgery to be convincing.

            If you’re thinking of Rachel Dolezal as a counterpoint, it’s important to note that she benefited from the unspoken “one-drop rule” of certain groups’ attitudes about race. Among different groups, she would not have been accepted as black at all.

              1. Excellent.

                1. @ commodious

            1. I’m not really arguing against the right to define yourself. I’m all for people identifying as whatever they want. I just think it’s silly to embrace sex as fluid, but not race. Also I think it is immoral to force others to recognize your self identify against their will.

              1. I’m arguing against it. These people have severe psychological problems. Probably exacerbated by hormonal issues in the case of trannies.

                Seriously, if we’re going to dignify all this crazy bullshit, let’s just go ahead and treat schizos like they’re not batshit crazy too. Or other serious forms of mental illness.

              2. “Also I think it is immoral to force others to recognize your self identify against their will.”

                you nailed it

          3. No,if a guy puts on a dress and make up he’s still a guy.He’s just playing dress up.If he has surgery he may be closer ,but,still a man.

            1. Yep, just mutilated.

          4. Check the current definition of transgender …., you DON’T need surgery. Merely to identify .

            Are they really going to enforce rights merely on the surgery you choose to have ?

            1. It’s something like this, I believe:

              transvestite = identifies as male, but likes dressing in women’s clothes. (or vice versa)
              transgender = identifies as female, but is biologically male
              transsexual = identifies as female, and has had gender reassignment surgery or at a minimum hormones to grow breasts.

              And vice versa for female/male trans.

              1. The Charlotte law also recognized gender expression, so any cross dresser had to be allowed, under penalty of law, into any public accommodations (such as the women’s shower)

        2. It would be a stupid exercise on par with eugenics, but I would hardly be surprised to see it happen.

          The progressives do have a rich tradition regarding eugenics.

        3. But what is it that makes someone (barring ambiguous genitalia or other physiologic anomaly) think they’re of the wrong sex? AFAICT, it’s based on such things as what sort of clothes one prefers, and other things that vary statistically (but none definitively) between male & female humans in society.

          Therefore one could identify as of the wrong race because of the kinds of foods or cigarets one prefers. It would all be based on stereotypes?same as with male/female!

          1. Exactly. What does it MEAN to “feel like a female” if you’re biologically male (or vice versa)? Isn’t that a rather big assumption to make? They’re simply trading societal construct A for societal construct B, trivial aesthetic preferences.

      3. You don’t have to guess about that – just self-identify as a geneticist and then you can cite your knowledge as a geneticist to validate your conclusion.

      4. You mean, besides one entirely different chromosome?

    2. Can I claim to identify as Tom Brady and sue for being denied access to Gisele’s boudoir?

      1. Roger Goodell says yes, but then again, he only self-identifies as a decent human being.

    3. The way they decided to do this is interesting because it literally goes against even the idea of the legislation in the first place. It was ‘supposed’ to protect women from discrimination, whereas now it protects men who identify as women as if they were women. In other words, it’s recursive bullshit.

      1. it’s recursive bullshit

        Recursion without a terminating condition is bullshit.

        1. So, what if I am a biological male, but I self-identify as a transgender woman who self-identifies as a male?

  5. While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong

    Where is this objection manifesting, exactly? Outside of places already rife with violence, which are hardly bastions of conservatism or libertarianism, trans people get about as much “acceptance” into society as everyone else does.

    1. The goal posts forever move. It’s not enough to leave people alone. You must be forced to into right think.

      1. Indeed, the problem is not one of language but of expectations. There’s a difference between being accepted and being embraced.

      2. you’re still missing where the real argument against this power grab is, John. It’s in the fact that about every writer covering this hasn’t even read Title IX and realized it applies to SEX rather than gender. That’s why it has impacted women’s sports…because they’re defined by the sex of the participants.

        Any challenge to this power grab requires only a dictionary and a few minutes time from social scientists describing the difference in sex and gender.

        1. They’ve already begun to handwave that distinction away. Sure, the drafters of the law meant a certain thing when they used the word “sex” but our understanding is so much more nuanced now, so sex = gender exception when it doesn’t but don’t think about it too hard, and hooray for “social justice”.

          1. But they’re not going to be able to wave it away and redefine a term overnight. Every other decision and/or ruling by the Feds for the last 44 years has specifically dealt with sex. Flipping a switch and saying it really addresses gender, which social scientists have been going out of their way to say is completely different for decades now, is gonna be a tough sell to a judiciary that tends to strictly define terms once codified (tax/penalty excepted)

            1. Legal definitions are only ironclad if the jurists want them to be. I’m not going to predict how SCOTUS will rule, but I’ve already seen at least one ruling from a U.S. Circuit Court judge that handwaved away the distinction (it was linked in another thread, but I don’t remember the name of the case).

            2. Legal definitions are only ironclad if the jurists want them to be. I’m not going to predict how SCOTUS will rule, but I’ve already seen at least one ruling from a U.S. Circuit Court judge that handwaved away the distinction (it was linked in another thread, but I don’t remember the name of the case).

              1. Thank you for this. Someone had pointed out to me Macy v. Holder which was an employment discrimination case and didn’t involve Title IX.

              2. Very interesting but I’m curious. I tried to read the entire case but had a little trouble following. I would finish say, for example, page 7. The last sentence on that page ended with a complete sentence and a period. The next page starts mid sentence and ends without you knowing what they were referring to. That occurred in several locations and I just wonder if there is a more complete transcription of the case. Why they do this is beyond me.

            3. It’s a gendertaxsexpenalty.

        2. See my post about gay marriage below. It is worse than you think. They are going to use the force of government to redefine sex the way they redefined marriage. Go ahead and get your dictionary. They plan to change it.

          1. Ain’t gonna happen here. Now when the current admin has been banging the progressive drum that “sex and gender aren’t the same, you yokels” for,quite a while now.

            If they hadn’t done that, they’d have a chance at redefining Title IX. But their heavy handed approach to schools that have even hinted at some form of discrimination based on sex pr vents them from redefining the word now.

            Also, how do they square this with a strict delineation between men and women as it,applies to who can play on which sports team and who can room with each other?

          2. “redefined marriage”

            Your marriage definition is /wrong/.

            The ONLY marriage TRULY VALID is one that occurs with total 100% parental consent, with the marriage vows including the words “Verily, we abide by the will of God”, and with the participants having separated from any prior spouses no less than a full year past.

            Any other “marriage” is invalid, as the above is the terms that God Himself has laid down to establish the institution of marriage. If you are married without meeting those terms, then you’re marriage is a FALSE one and is no true spiritual, Godly marriage.

            Or maybe we shouldn’t be in the habit of enforcing our own religious standards on the idea of marriage and get the infidel government out of the business altogether. You complain about the government “redefining” marriage as if they had any justification for defining it in the first place. The government definition of marriage is, was, and will always be invalid. I see no significant change worthy of bitching about. Only thing is now people like you get to know what it is like to have a government that sees fit to “define” marriage in a way you personally feel is blasphemous. Welcome to the club.

        3. It’s in the fact that about every writer covering this hasn’t even read Title IX and realized it applies to SEX rather than gender.

          Actually, that’s the insanity of the administration’s position. They’re insisting that for this purpose, sex and gender are essentially synonymous. Of course, if sex and gender are synonymous, then you can’t really make much of a case that. aside from a very few people with genetic defects, there anything other than two sexes. And that, in turn, is defined by genetics rather than how the person “identifies”.

          Whatever you think of the issue (Personally, I couldn’t care less what toilet they use), the administration’s rationale for completely reordering the rules of the nation’s public schools by executive fiat are self-contradictory and make a hash of language.

          1. From the FDA

            According to the Institute of Medicine Report Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?, a sex difference is defined as a difference due to the sex chromosome or sex hormones. Gender refers to a difference between men and women that occurs due to cultural or social variations in a particular sex. As it will often not be clear whether an observed difference in safety or efficacy is due to gender or sex, the FDA has used the terms interchangeably to describe any difference–cultural or social, genetic or hormonal–between males and females.

            Research has shown that sex as a variable contributes to differences in the safety and efficacy of drugs, biologics, and devices.

            I’m confused. How does gender by their definition change the efficacy of a drug?

            1. Because the staff recruiting subjects for clinical trials take their word for it as to whether they’re male or female.

        4. I believe the Fourth Circuit decision basically handwaved that “sex” is a term with an ambiguous meaning, therefore the court was free to make it mean what they wanted it to mean. The Fed Giv us the Red Queen now. Words do not mean things.

          1. No, they reversed the trial court’s dismissal because it used the wrong evidentiary standard and did not discuss the DOE’s new Alice in Wonderland guidance. No final ruling on whether sex and gender are the same thing has been made.

      3. The biggest difference between conservatives and progressives on this issue is force. I don’t see any conservatives advocating for force. But everything, and I mean everything that the left does, they do so with force.

        Yet they are the morally superior ones. Go figure.

        1. There may be a few crazies on the conservative side advocating for sodomy laws, etc. The difference is that there are a lot more crazies on the left, and the crazies on the left are the ones who are the leaders in government and academia.

      4. I refuse to lie to indulge someone’s fantasy, and that’s considered bigoted now.

        If you are a man but wish you were a woman, that’s fine. If you are a man but think you that you are a woman, you are delusional. Now obviously, crazy people shouldn’t be beaten up or anything like that, but we also shouldn’t force everyone else to respond to all their requires with “As you wish, Emperor Napoleon”.

        1. How about people who think they’re dead? Or raccoons?

          1. If they think they are dead, bury them. Raccoons? As long as they aren’t in my garbage. If they get in the garbage, they will be dead raccoons.

      5. Just wanted to drop in and say I was totally wrong about this issue Friday. The fact they’re threatening to withhold federal funding on this makes it a lot more than a ‘guidance’ from the administration, it’s more like a blunt object.

        It’s still a mandatory decree either way on which bathrooms people use, and I still don’t care about what bathroom a person uses, but I don’t recall any Unisex bathroom schools having their funding threatened before this edict so that part is definitely new.

      6. Let the progtards keep pushing. On day in the future THEY might be forced into landfills, face down.

    2. Maybe they meant “trance people”. You know: zombis.

  6. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

    Governor.

    1. An hour,later he’s still the governor.

      And Robby STILL hasn’t read Title IX.

  7. Title IX, you will recall, is a one-sentence statute prohibiting gender discrimination in educational institutions that receive public funding, which is all well and good

    The crux of the government’s argument lies in this sentence, as does Robby’s moderate support for it. Except for this: it’s fucking bullshit. Want to know why? Because if you read the actual text of Title IX, you will realize it says this: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:

    SEX. On the basis of sex. Not gender, not some “concept”, but rather on one’s actual sex. That’s what the law says. And you can search the DoL webpage I linked to for “gender”. It turns up zero results.

    I don’t want this power grab to stand because it is essentially rejecting the will of the people by attempting to rewrite an established law and replace the most essential word with a separate and totally differently defined word. And there’s no way in the fucking world that any competent state AG couldn’t demolish the Feds’ argument in about five minutes by pulling out a dictionary and calling in a few “social scientists” to explain the difference in gender and sex.

    1. You would hope so. But people made the same arguments about gay marriage. No one ever thought marriage meant gays u tip about 40 years ago. Leftists forcibly redefined the term to mean something new. They are doing the same thing here. Sex will be defined to mean gender and anyone who objects will be called a bigot and thrown out of society. Considering their track record of success, my money is on Robby and his leftist friends doing that.

      1. Um, no. Actually, they just told states they could no longer codify that one partner had to be male and one had to be female. There was no specific verbiage in a federal statute like there is here, since the Feds never addressed marriage requirements other than on IRS forms.

        1. John is referring to the common law understanding that a marriage was between a man and a woman. While there certainly have been exceptions in different times and places, that was certainly the Anglo-American tradition for a long time.

          1. An “understanding” and a strictly defined and codified word (sex, in the case of Title IX) are vastly different when it comes to latitude offered judges when making a ruling.

            1. I would like to see this strict definition in legal print.

              1. The word “sex” is right there in the law. The word gender is not. You’d be hard pressed to find a social scientist that’s gonna say the words are interchangeable, like “review” and “investigation” are for instance.

                1. Now you’re just begging the question. The word means whatever the fuck the judges want it to mean.

        2. Yes there was. It was DOMA and the 14th amendment. Marriage always meant man and woman and equally meant anyone could marry anyone they likes of the opposite sex until leftsts changed the definition. The same thing is happening here. Sex always has meant your biology. But Robby is hear to tell you the word no longer means that.

          1. equally meant anyone could marry anyone they likes of the opposite sex

            This part is quite debatable. English law was not favorable to marriages between nobles and commoners for a long time, and in many U.S. states, the law was not favorable to marriages between whites and non-whites for a long time, either. Moreover, the woman was generally held to have less say in the matter than the man.

            1. Marriage was always man and woman and defined by the legislatures.

              1. Marriage was always man and woman

                No shit, I said as much. That’s why I commented on your other statement about what was “equal” to that understanding.

                Marriage was always … defined by the legislatures

                Not really, no. First of all, the legislatures would have found little need to define the term, because as I noted there was a common law understanding of what it meant. Secondly, depending on the time under consideration, marriage would have been subject to the authority of the clerisy and not the vulgar parliaments.

                1. I think we are arguing semantics here

                  1. I think a lot of these people try to find sport in attacking anything you say. You must have failed a purity test or something.

              2. No, John, marriage was man & woman and not (until recently) defined by legislatures. Or was the missing word “not” a John-typo?

          2. What federal law said marriage could only be between a man and a woman? Other than DOMA, which was overturned upon being challenged.

            Title IX has already been upheld by the courts as a valid way to end discrimination by higher ed BASED ON SEX.

            1. DOMA. And it was struck down b cause the court decided that no one was allowed to have anything other than the new definition is marriage. It is the same thing here. The courts will just rewrite Title IX so that it uses the new leftist mandated definition of sex. Anyone who objects will be called a bigot. And any contradictions will be waived away the same way polygamy and such was ignored in the gay marriage decision.

              1. But the leftists have gone a million miles out of their way to say that sex and gender are totally different concepts. They’ve been doing it for a couple decades now. You think they’re gonna turn heel and run that million miles back in the opposite direction? Even if they tried, there are scads of papers out by social scientists, probably paid for by your tax dollars, saying the former.

                1. It won’t matter. Leftist hated gay marriage when it was first proposed. And there is an enormous pile of leftist academic work about the evils of marriage and the family. That didn’t stop them from deciding that marriage was not essential to human happiness once gay marriage became a useful tool to control and bully people. Same thing will happen here.

                  1. That didn’t stop them from deciding that marriage was not essential to human happiness

                    I think I found the “not” that John left out of a comment previously. Get back in your place, word!

                2. But the leftists have gone a million miles out of their way to say that sex and gender are totally different concepts. They’ve been doing it for a couple decades now. You think they’re gonna turn heel and run that million miles back in the opposite direction?

                  Why not? They’ve already done so in bringing up this whole business of gender dysphoria & “wrong sex” people. For years they were all about not confining people to sexual stereotypes. Now they’re saying we must accept the stereotypes, and see that individuals who don’t fit them are of the “wrong” sex, so we have to change their identity to conform to the stereotype.

      2. AFAICT, the legal reasoning in the case of marriage was that language (or custom) itself is in violation of human rights! But the same could be true of weights & measures, couldn’t it? Just as money units became whatever the sovereign decreed, rather than what the words customarily meant, doesn’t everyone now have the legal right to define their own pound, foot, volt, or whatever, and force you to accept it in business? The dog show has to allow you to enter cats, & vice versa, because you say what species they are. Same for ingredients of foods; you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet if you thought just “mayo” was contentious.

      3. “No one ever thought marriage meant gays u tip about 40 years ago”

        So what?? Your definition of marriage is and will always be false. Statists decided in 1913 to take it upon themselves to falsely define “marriage”. They defined it /wrong/, as true marriage only can happen through parental consent as mandated by God and His Prophets. So who cares if the leftists have changed the official definition to something else that is wrong. It was wrong before and it is still wrong now.

        Why the fuck should I care that this NEW definition doesn’t match your preferred (and equally incorrect!!) definition?? You didn’t seem to care that since 1913 the government has defined marriage in a way that contradicts my own beliefs. Why should I care or be sympathetic that suddenly now you’re in the same boat as me?? Boo hoo, marriage is defined in a way you don’t like it!! Join the club.

  8. Robby takes people’s objections to their 12 year daughters being forced to shower with boys and reduces them to feelings. Note the transgender have rights. Everyone else just has feelings.

    This is really a new high in the left’s totalitarian project. It is the government forcing people to adopt a new and alien form of sexual identity. Even the communists did not try to transform people that much. Sure Robby and his fellow travelers won’t force you to adopt the opposite sexual identity. But you must accept that your identity, whatever it is, is the product of your choice and not your biology. Anything less and Robby is there to call you a bigot.

    1. Even the communists did not try to transform people that much.

      You doth protest too much. New Soviet Man was at least as ambitious.

      1. It’s debatable. Lots of people through the years have sacrificed for the collective. Is there anything more fundamental to your identity than your sex?

        1. Aw, John. That’s just plumbing. Enlightened progressives understand that sex is whatever you want it to be. Nothing is written in stone. Plumbing is just plumbing. It doesn’t matter. It’s all in what you feel. Feelings define reality. Only a stupid conservative would insist that something silly like plumbing defines a person. Enlightened progressives know better. All reality-based people understand this.

        2. Is there anything more fundamental to your identity than your sex?

          I would hope so.

          1. Not much. It’s your dna.

            1. It’s a characteristic of your DNA which is shared by ca. 50% of the population. Most people don’t spend their entire day fucking, so generally speaking other things are going to be “fundamental” to their identities.

        3. “Is there anything more fundamental to your identity than your sex?”

          Err, just going off what I can think up in a minute or so: my faith, my career, my interests, my hobbies, my art, my personal projects, my ambitions, my goals, my desires, my fiance, my friendships, my relationships, my mind. All that stuff is more important to me than the plumbing I happen to possess.

          You really value the fact you have a penis more than those things?? You’re weird.

    2. It’s a very weird disparity that transgendered kids must be allowed to use the wrong bathroom just because it makes them feel comfortable, but normal kids’ comfort doesn’t matter, and also at the same time regular boys are banned from the girls room because that would make the girls uncomfortable.

      1. Yes it is. And Robby is either too dim or too intent on virtue signaling to even consider that issue

      2. normal kids’

        Using that word would almost certainly send a SJW into convulsions.

      3. It’s because whoever complains 1st is a victim: a higher class of person. Whoever makes the 2nd move loses vs. whoever makes the 1st. The normal kids can’t complain until the 1st complaint is made, so the normal kids must lose.

    3. This is really a new high in the left’s totalitarian project. It is the government forcing people to adopt a new and alien form of sexual identity. Even the communists did not try to transform people that much.

      This is true. In the advanced world, the “left” has stopped trying to push beyond the mixed economy in economics, and views communism as quaint & unsuited to the New Left. Instead it’s perpetual culture war, where no end point can ever be reached, because its object is “merely” to abolish all certainty as to…uh…anything, really. I mean you can’t even know what words mean, and you can no longer say what a thing is in any of its aspects.

  9. Furthermore, from the text of Title IX (No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:)

    Are the Feds subsidizing urination and showering now? Because Title IX prohibits discrimination in programs and activities receiving benefits from the Feds. It,doesn’t say how those benefits must be administered, it just says they cannot be subject to discrimination. And since “separate but equal” has been the standard when it comes to activities not related to academics on college campuses (sports, room assignments, bathroom labeling, etc), there’s no way they should be forced to allow people to self-select what shower or bathroom they use unless they want a bunch of dudes trying out for the women’s sports teams.

    1. They better not fuck up the NWSL for me. Go Pride!

    2. The situation w/r/t sports is going to be interesting. I expect lots of hand-waving and special pleading. Although I would find it darkly ironic if the judges were so far up their own asses as to say that a boy can play on a girls’ soccer team if he identifies as a girl. Then the whole thing will come crashing down from public approbation.

      1. Then the whole thing will come crashing down from public approbation.

        Either that or women’s sports teams will cease to exist.

        1. We’ll all be known as Beverly.

          1. Shirley. You jest.

            1. No, I don’t, and stop calling me Shirley.

              1. Everybody will have to name their children one of a few names on an approved list: Pat, Chris, Hunter, Jamie, Ashley, Taylor and a few others.

                Well fuck that. I’d have Banjos’ tubes double tied if I had to name a kid Hunter.

                1. Mason. Logan.

        2. Either that or women’s sports teams will cease to exist.

          That’d be a benefit IMO. Handicapping sports by sex is a weak implement’n of a good idea. Sports should be handicapped by ability. Instead of women’s teams, there should be not-so-athletic teams. We have that to some degree with JV, and we have numeric handicaps in bowling & golf. All we need do is extend the concept far enough that the sex distinction becomes superfluous.

          In children’s football we have age & weight classes, which at least are better than sex classes, especially since not enough girls want to play for them to have their own teams. But we should have speed classes for slower & faster players.

      2. GOOD. Sex-segregation of sports is stupid. The greatest volleyball player ever born in America might jolly well have been a coal’miner’s son from West Virginia. We don’t know. We don’t let boys play volleyball.

        Drives me nuts. We’ve come far enough that a woman scientist or a male nurse is no big deal, but the thought of a boy preferring softball or a girl being a good short stop is just a bridge too far? It’s illogical, hide-bound thinking.

        1. Forgot to add: Title IX is bullshit and always was. Hopefully this begins its downfall. It has rarely served as more than a cover for feels, and it gets worse with every iteration.

        2. If sports teams are not segregated by sex, there will be no women’s sports teams. Women cannot compete with men physically.

          1. But there would be traons-womens’ teams…

          2. Women cannot compete with men physically.

            So they won’t. Women’s sports can still exist in practice even if they nominally can’t exist by definition alone.

          3. That’s what tryouts are for – to see who can compete at the required level. Continue to keep the tryouts closed from all potential competitors, and I will continue to conclude that no one knows whether tryouts only selected the competitive, or just the competitive from those allowed to try out.

        3. Except one if the reasons there are more women’s volleyball teams is Title IX trying to enforce equal numbers of sports participation between men and women,and most schools would rather have football team than men’s volleyball.

          What Obama has done should break Title IX into a million pieces of arbitrary enforcement, but I suspect we are going to get comete cognitive dissonance before that happens.

    3. Here’s the thing I’m not really clear on – if the government is now going to equate sex with gender for these purposes, how can they restrict the right of men who identify as men from using the women’s locker room? It strikes me that saying only men who identify as women can use the ladies locker room is a clear case of discrimination, if gender and sex are now equated. I can’t see where you would be able to restrict this new “right” to only the transgendered.

      High school boys throughout the land rejoice!

  10. given the obvious physical differences between kids who were born male and kids who merely identify as male.

    Emphasis added. FUCK YOU!

    /prog

  11. Consider the City University of New York instructing professors not to used gendered salutations because they might violate Title IX.

    I trust “Comrade” is acceptable. I know “Citizen” is not.

      1. Check your privilege.

  12. Consider the City University of New York instructing professors not to used gendered salutations because they might violate Title IX.

    I suppose “hello” is out, then.

    1. Nice catch.

  13. This election year’s wedge issue. Yay.

    After this one we’ll be arguing over whether or not furries have the right to shit in public parks.

    Meanwhile, the debt grows.

    1. It’s about two things Lee. First it is about the ability of people like Robby to have a new issue to virtue signal and call people bigots over. Second it is about the left’s endless desire to control every aspect of people’s thoughts and lives. The election doesn’t have anything to do with it.

        1. Robby is a straight up leftist. Calling him a Cosmo is unfair to cosmos.

          1. Like Cosmo Topper? Cosmo Kramer? Or the entire cosmos?

      1. The election doesn’t have anything to do with it.

        I think you’re wrong there. This crap always comes up in an election year. Both sides get to posture and argue over how they’re going to use the government to tell you how you should live your life. I don’t believe for a second that Obama cared one shit about trans before it became politically useful as a distraction. And on the other side of the equation, the socons get to use it as a fundraising motivator while proclaiming that they will legislate the exact opposite. All this while the people who think that the government should just stay the hell out of it go pretty much unheard.

        The culture warriors on both sides really are the useful idiots of the two-party system.

        1. So you really think only Socons object to this?

          1. No, but it will be the socons and proggies who use this to draw support and motivate their bases. There won’t be any rational discussion of the issues involved. It will be fear-mongering on both sides.

            1. What did the SOCONs do? It is the left that as usual were the aggressor. The North Carolina law was only passed a n reponse to the Charlotte ordinance requiring everyone to buy into this shit.

              I know SOCONs are evil horrible people. I mean they are the worst. But I don’t think they deserve any blame here.

              1. The NC law goes beyond just forbidding the municipalities from imposing their own definition of sex and gender upon businesses and says that government facilities must segregate bathrooms on the basis of sex as determined by birth certificate.

                Just like how, in response to the issue of gay marriage, some states like VA passed laws saying that no relationship even approximating marriage can be recognized by the courts.

                Sometimes, the socons doth protest too much.

                1. And why is saying the state isn’t going to buy this shot going too far? The state doesn’t owe the tranny accommodation. What is wrong with the NC government saying that? Going too far would be telling private business what they could do.

                  1. What is wrong with the NC government saying that?

                    Nothing that warrants the involvement of the U.S. government, but it is on principle not the sort of thing I want to see enforced with the violence of the state.

                    I hate technocracy in all its forms.

                    1. I hate technocracy in all its forms.

                      This probably seems like a non sequitur, but the NC bill was sold on protecting women and girls from predators in their bathrooms. Yet assault and sexual harassment are already crimes. So the goal is to “minimize the chances” which is pure technocratic wishful thinking.

                    2. So a state making rules for its own facilities is a technocracy? That makes no sense. The rule has to be something and the state makes to rules for its own facilities.

                    3. It is not the rule itself per se but the reason for the rule, and the enforcement mechanism for the rule.

                2. Actually, the understood “libertarian” version of marriage is that consenting adults can enter into a contractual marriage agreement among themselves… that’s not a real social con position, that’s a maximum liberty position.

                3. The NC law defined access to govt facilities because those were the ones they themselves owned. It left privately owned public accommodations alone, out of govt’s reach. The Charlotte law enforced their version of privately owned facilities

        2. And how can the government stay out of it when people like Robby and Scott are demanding public schools buy into this shit? The SOCNs just want this shit out of the schools.

    2. we’ll be arguing over whether or not furries have the right to shit in public parks.

      It’s just a matter of time.

      1. And Robby and Scott will be calling anyone who objects a bigot. The future is a run down park filled with bums and curries taking a shit on the sidewalks

        1. The curry is the cause of the shit on the sidewalk.

          1. Damn autocorrect

  14. You know who else had a dangerous tool…

    1. Dr Seuss?

    2. Jerry Sandusky?

    3. John Holmes?

    4. Norm Abram?

    5. John Henry? Seems that hammer killed him.

    6. Peter North? Nick the Dick? Long Dong Silver?

  15. I admit my sympathies are mostly with transgender kids, who endure routine social discomfort at schools. I think the impact of the new guidance is positive in that it will make life easier for these students.

    …by inducing social disconfort for the 2399 cis- students each instead of constructively addressing the one student’s issues. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly bright approach.

    1. And why can’t Robby have any sympathy for the person who doesn’t want to shower with the opposite sex? Why is that bigoted? Basically Robby cares about the transgendered and everyone else can go to hell.

      1. why can’t Robby have any sympathy for the person who doesn’t want to shower with the opposite sex?

        He does, since he doesn’t seem to be clamoring for single sex bathrooms. He just doesn’t have any sympathy for the people who don’t want to pretend reality is defined by a person’s desires.

    2. …by inducing social disconfort for the 2399 cis- students each instead of constructively addressing the one student’s issues. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly bright approach.

      It’s almost like we should eliminate or otherwise void school administrators from caring about any and all social issues and insist that they teach and nothing else maybe even do away with public schooling altogether.

      Nah.

  16. The way Title IX keeps expanding I wonder if we can get it to mandate alt-text soon.

  17. This elides the fact that we have no working definition of what differentiates a trans woman from a man claiming to be a woman for iniquitous ends.

    This is not quite correct.
    The obvious choice is a diagnosis of and ongoing treatment for Gender Dysphoria under the DSM 5. The criteria include significant distress or impairment, a desire to transition, continuous for a minimum of six months.

    The real bathroom insanity are the single occupancy men’s rooms with a toilet and a urinal fitted. Yay government.

    1. Why is that insane?

      Urinals use less water per use than toilets. Some types do not use water at all.

    2. The urinal uses less water I think. Cost of plumbing Vs cost of water…..shrug.

      1. refresh? NEVER.

  18. has interpreted this statute very broadly over the past five years: even going so far as to

    That’s the administrative state in a nutshell. You put a bunch of regulators in charge, they’re going to find things to regulate. They need more time and money and personnel to regulate all the things to a complete standstill, but in the meanwhile they’re doing the best they can with what they’ve got. Be patient, they’ll get to you when they can. Just take a number and have a seat there until your number is called, the next available bureaucrat will be happy to issue your paperwork. Oh, the exit? Yeah, the exit doors are guarded, you can’t leave the waiting room without the proper paperwork. Just take a number and have a seat.

  19. I interpret this to mean that schools may prohibit students who are biologically female (but identify as male) from playing on the boys’ football team (and vice versa).

    I think it’s probably the vice versa that’s more the concern.

  20. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ?????? http://www.richi8.com

  21. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ?????? http://www.richi8.com

  22. “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong,”
    .
    Sorry, I call bullshit on this. This isn’t about “polite society”, it’s about locker rooms and showers.
    .
    There’s nothing bigoted, wrong or particularly conservative about my objection to a biological female in my locker room and showers. I don’t happen to be a nudist so I don’t want to hang out naked with the opposite sex, regardless of their gender identity. My wife says the same thing about biological males in her facilities.
    .
    This doesn’t make us bigoted. It makes us normal.
    .
    What’s sad about this is that I was planning on finally voting Libertarian this fall because I’m totally disgusted with both major parties. However, if this “bigoted” claim becomes part of the Libertarian platform then they’re not getting my vote either.

    1. I agree. I’m sick of the accusations of bigotry when one expresses objection to transgenders entering whichever bathroom they choose.

      The issue I have with libertarians like Soave is that he passive-aggressively inserts sentiments shared by The Left, all the while trying to portray himself as a neutral person.

      What you quote is just projection on the part of Soave. The fact that he calls normal people “cisgender” tells me he has little to no issue using the lexicon of those who ultimately want Title IX to expand to transgender kids. He admits that he doesn’t object to prioritizing the feelings of transgender kids over “cisgender” kids.

      In many ways, Soave is a traitor.

  23. Michelle Goldberg is herself rather notorious for her New Yorker hit piece on transgender folk, including the ludicrous allegation that trans women author graffiti such as “Real women have dicks”. Goldberg took pains to attribute such crap to a fellow feminist, but she is still deserving of the criticism she got as a Defamation Vector – as in, publishing damning but obviously misleading nonsense about transgenders. Read her carefully Robby, she’s the old fashioned type of priviledged uppercrust feminist, who doesn’t see transwomen as deserving of the same consideration of being ‘female’ as her own kind (rightly or wrongly). I think she’s a rather nasty person myself, and not very tolerant at all.
    .

  24. If sex is merely a matter of feeling not biology, then having sex segregated bathrooms and locker rooms at all is discrimination. It would be like having black and white water fountains but saying individuals should use whichever one makes them feel comfortable. Of course, elimination of the “binary” is the end game of all of this.
    If there is no male or female apart from the feelings inside one’s head, male and female sports will have to go. I guess that fits with the SJWs obsession with victimization. Anything that actually empowers women must go.
    Liberals have never been really comfortable with objective reality so I guess this makes sense.

    1. They love the “separate but equal clause” for things they are uncomfortable with, like sports, and especially sports and earnings.

    2. They love the “separate but equal clause” for things they are uncomfortable with, like sports, and especially sports and earnings.

    3. They love the “separate but equal clause” for things they are uncomfortable with, like sports, and especially sports and earnings.

      1. oblitory mention of squirls.

        Sorry, my heart just isn’t in it. These debates have just been too depressing.

  25. I think that Soave and some of the other people pushing to make high school comfortable for transgender students have forgotten what high school is like. Many kids experienced “routine social discomfort” even back in my day, long before anyone ever heard the word “transgender”.

    My point is not that transgender students aren’t picked on so stow the strawmen. Rather I mean to say that preventing “routine social discomfort” for them is a quixotic endeavor. A lot of the kids in high schools aren’t Socons; they’re just cruel little pricks. They’ll pick on any kid who is different regardless. In a way the “solutions” being pushed by progressives will make it worse by calling attention to transgenders; the asshole kids will see picking on them as “edgy” and “cool”.

  26. Finally i made $117/hr….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wish you have started today?????? https://www.realcash44.com

  27. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do??????http://www.realcash44.com

  28. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  29. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  30. It seems to me that the phrase “gender assigned at birth” is fraught with bad unexamined premises similar to the phrase “wealth distribution”.

  31. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.worknow88.com

  32. The overreach is already with us. AG Lynch’s statement that this fringe issue trumps (you should excuse the expression) privacy should be a warning bell. This is about a government that doesn’t believe in a free, private citizenry abusing a law to achieve its ends.

    Colossus wouldn’t let Forbin alone in the bathroom, neither will Leviathan.

  33. Can’t wait for the guy (hero) to identify as female and sue the school for not being allowed to play on the school’s women’s softball team. It will force them to add an amendment that only girls can play on boy’s teams, and in doing so invite another suit of violating Title IX. The stupidity and utter confusion of this law will collapse on itself.

    1. Maybe its not designed to actually “Help” anyone, and is actually designed to provoke more red-herring culture-war conflict so no one worries about shit like “The Budget” during an election year?

      1. The difference is the budget can’t go on forever as it is, Title XI stupidity can. I’m just giving a possible road map for it’s self-implosion. Of course it’s not meant to help anyone, it is there to enforce redistribution of wealth and resources by a “separate but equal” clause. No evidence or inquiry demanded.

    2. If I were in high school now, I would insist on being allowed to shower with the cheerleaders/girls volleyball team/any other hot chicks under threat of lawsuit.

  34. I think the impact of the new guidance is positive in that it will make life easier for these students.

    Well that’s a bit of unwarranted prognostication then.

    Because Robby has *no fucking clue* what the ‘impact’ of the guidance will be. Or whether how much ‘easier’ it theoretically makes the lives of some fraction of a %, versus the pain-in-ass it causes the vast majority.

    Because we don’t like in a world were you can just make sweeping generalizations like the below, and expect everything to just sort itself out into PC-nirvana =

    Unless expressly authorized by Title IX or its implementing regulations, a school may not segregate or otherwise distinguish students on the basis of their sex, including gender identity, in any school activities or the application of any school rule.

    “No more boys/girls anything! Kaythnxbai”/ OCR

    1. As per sloopy’s observation above, this statement that was slipped in the latest missive seems an attempt to simply ‘add language’ to Title IX redefining what was meant by “Sex” to now mean “Sex and/or Gender” and just hope no one super-sharp like Robby ever notices.

  35. Do you also support Furries?

  36. Maybe this means that schools will finally get locker rooms with individualized shower and changing stalls (if they don’t have them already).
    Honestly, when I was a teen girl, I was uncomfortable changing in front of other girls, even when everyone was cis-gendered. I imagine it’s the same for boys. Nobody really wants other people looking at their junk without permission, regardless of their gender identity.

    Let’s finally do away with making kids change in front of each other entirely. It might even cut down on , um, sex abuse on high school athletic teams.

    1. when I was a teen girl

      Weren’t you a dude not so long ago?

      just saying. I seem to recall everyone having to remember, “Hazel” is a guy.

      (no, i’m not thinking of Alice Bowie. but maybe someone else)

      1. When the fuck did that happen? I was never a guy.

        1. 🙂

          Hey, these things happen! Xu always looked very Xe-like to me, i just couldn’t be Xure. there’s some other personage around here who posts with an girl-sounding first name (*not Alice) who has repeatedly reminded people “Not a girl!”. can’t remember who.

      2. I always thought of Bo Cara as female, probably because “cara mia”.

        1. Where avatars are in use, I can’t help thinking of them as looking like the writers.

        2. Whatever happened to that sanctimonious turd?

    2. Honestly, when I was a teen girl, I was uncomfortable changing in front of other girls, even when everyone was cis-gendered.

      They weren’t all cis-gendered, shitlord. They were forced to deny their true selves because white men and stuff.

    3. Why do you call it “junk”?

  37. “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong,”

    What a load of bullshit Robby. I have yet to see one objection foisted by conservatives that had anything to do with actual trans people and everything to do with non-trans people masquerading as trans-people.

    I mean, the whole bathroom thing is kinda ridiculous to begin with, but can we please stop calling people we don’t agree with bigots and racists for fucks sake?

    1. Robby won’t. He’s gleefully fantasizing about a Cankles administration.

  38. “Transgender kids.”

    Your repeating this phrase so uncritically is worrying, Robert.

  39. I’m sorry Robby, Your position doesn’t come across as really hashed out and thought through. There is no historical analyst, no examination of biology, and no real line drawn between our libertarian ideal of a smaller government and the responsibility of that government to protect its citizens.

    “I’m not averse to the idea that extending equal rights to the trans kids is more important than protecting the feelings of the cis kids.”

    This isn’t a logical argument for Trans rights. You’ve picked the side that gets the most emotional positives in sounding like liberty. What you’ve done thrown the house upside down so you can call the basement the roof and the roof the basement. You’ve got the appearance of a liberty issue, but none of the backing. With all due respect, and I do have tremendous respect for you, your position is more about “extending special rights to the trans kids and protecting their feelings” not an argument for their equal treatment.

  40. If the public school was refusing ALL access to a bathroom that would be denial of an equal right and I would be fully on board with you. However, trans individuals are not being denied all access to a bathroom if they are required to use the one designed for their biology. It is the trans person’s feelings which are being taken into consideration and protected when the term “equal right” is adapted to infer that equality means using the bathroom of their choice. Case in point, prior to this very new change to our social consciousness, everyone Cis-, trans-, etc. was generally required to use the bathroom of their biology, Cis- members of society did not have a special right to the bathroom of their choice, they like every other person were faced with a societal and legal expectation to use the one assigned to their biology. No one was treated differently and the same expectation was applied across the board, therefore it was a case of equal treatment. What the use of Title IX is doing, and what you support, is the adoption of a special right for Trans individuals distinct from the expectation and legal understanding of biological sex that has existed until now. You aren’t advocating equal rights. We all had equal rights. You are now advocating for special rights. That would actually okay with me if that is your position, I just wish you were more honest about it. Though I don’t yet understand how one advocates for special rights and remains libertarian.

    1. One of the reasons why libertarianism has appealed to me was because I had come to believe that Libertarians by and large were thinkers who chose to think before leaping when it came to liberties. We generally want liberty on almost every front with minimal government interference except for a blatant violation of the “no harm” rule. Many libertarians are likely to disagree with me here, but I extend the government’s authority to the prevention of harm as well, in cases of extraordinary common sense. The big question here is does the historical bathroom practice constitute harm, vs. does the new bathroom practice constitute harm. The historical practice causes no harm, beyond hurt feelings (a condition which generally I thought we libertarians didn’t give two shits on when it came to liberties). No one was kept from the use of some form of bathroom facility, and everyone was held to an equal expectation based upon biological certainties so there was no unequal treatment. A Government making decisions on the basis of biological certainties for the protection and preservation of its citizens is no step outside of the common sense that governs our acknowledgement of the very real physical differences of the biological sexes and should not constitute an unacceptable government interference.

      1. For example, a Government should have an army to protect its citizens correct? The government is responsible in the keeping of that army to seek to prevent harm to its citizens, and even to the members of its military. Current social changes regarding females in combat aside, the physical realities and dangers of combat are overt and it was not anti-liberty of the government, in the past, to restrict combat to biological males. In accepting the biological differences, the government increased the chances of our military to succeed at protecting one another and our nation in the midst of field combat which fulfilled one of the few areas for which a government should exist, the protection of its citizens from harm. Now, how does this argument apply to bathrooms. Yes, the bathroom is no battlefield, I agree. However, if the government has an overarching responsibility to address harm, and even to prevent it, than the government (so long as it does not forbid any person the use of a restroom facility in some form) is fully within the “no harm” principle by averting the potential for abuse by those who would use multi-person open bathrooms for the wrong purpose.

        1. Yes, you would probably argue that the number of people who would abuse this new change is too small to constitute a harm issue. However, I am still not in favor of an almost overnight change to a policy designed and based around biological certainties on the basis of protecting Trans- feelings. Protecting trans- feelings is exactly what you are doing Robby. You’ve covered it over with a near perfect counterfeit semblance of equal rights, but I’ve already shown the flaw in that argument. There is no anti-equality effort in maintaining bathrooms based upon biological certainties so long as an equal expectation remains across the entire population and no one is actually denied the use of some bathroom facilities.

          1. Finally, I want to address the elephant in the room which is your essential declaration of a zero sum game, “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong”. Robby, this one had me really befuddled. You never struck me as the kind of person who would make sweeping generalizations with no support. Yet, this is exactly what you have done. Where is your evidence? Have you contemplated every argument, every thought, every facet of this complex issue? Have you interviewed and gotten to know the innermost thoughts of every conservative, or even libertarian, or liberal here? No, I daresay you have not.

            Where is your skepticism, your questions, your ability to keep an open mind, and to consider everything is open to change, even those things which by consensus appear most right in the moment? Libertarian is not synonymous with blind devotion nor should it mean an absence of constraint. Indeed, there are times when in the application of constraint we see more liberty, and greater imprisonment in the embrace of anarchy. You are coming across as an regressive SJW, not a thinking libertarian. Leave the broad stroked classifications to progressives would you, it should be beneath you, and I am sad to see you playing in the muck instead of engaging your intellect.

            1. He’s not a thinking libertarian. He wrote a lengthy article about Title IX and doesn’t take,a moment to note that the law only applies to “sex”. He even goes so far as to swallow the added language the admin is using in their heavy-handed “guidance” that is little more than blackmailing the states into letting them rewrite the law to include people the law never meant to advocate for. He also deliberately or stupidly refuses to acknowledge the contradiction in the language of Title IX and the spirit of the current position the admin is taking as it relates to equal access since one has strictly defined actors (men and women defined by sex) and the other lets people define themselves in ways that will either limit or eliminate programs being set up with the express purpose of creating equal opportunities (like women’s sports teams).

              Only a fool would equate sex and gender in today’s age.

              1. Robby is the byproduct of the recent trend in colleges of “thinking” with feelings rather than evidence, and putting out puff pieces that are shoddily researched, with many assumptions baked into them. I recently saw an Atlantic article that did much the same thing, jumping to conclusions without fairly assessing both alternative explanations that color the issue differently, or acknowledging the leap to conclusions made by the author.

  41. I agree some concern is merited, but my concern mainly is that people are enabling the crazy idea that someone is of the “wrong” sex.

  42. RE: Title IX Is a Dangerous Tool for Extending Transgender Kids’ Rights

    Umm, which gender are these transgender kids choosing to be, and does Title IX say anything about transgender kids?

  43. “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong”… There’s a difference between a person that has gone through the psych evaluations and had an operation and a guy in a dress walking into the ladies room after my 12 yo daughter. Sorry if you think wanting to make dam sure my daughter is safe makes me a bigot. But I don’t think it does anymore than making her come inside during a lightning storm makes me overprotective.

  44. Just as these sexual harassment laws and sexual assault laws in colleges are NOT to protect anyone but to pre emptively punish and criminalize men for being men, Obama’s trans edict has little if anything to do with the safety or physical or emotional well being of trans students. It has to do with punishing and criminalizing all those who are not trans or on board with the trans ethos. It’s simply about inexorably chipping away at all resistance to government unilateralism.

    1. And the irony is that the left will totally be on board with this being “Against the establishment” when they have been the establishment.

  45. In March, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio signed an Executive Order protecting “the right of every New Yorker to use City single-sex facilities consistent with their gender identity”. “Facilities” includes locker rooms, bathrooms and all single sex facilities operated by the government, for those in this thread who weren’t sure about that.

    Further “With this Executive Order, managers will be trained on policies that allow individuals to use bathrooms and locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity expression without needing to show identification or any type of proof of their gender. ”

    So, a completely male-presenting man decides to shower in the woman’s locker room at a municipal pool during girls’ swim team practice. Eighteen little girls are alarmed and leave the dressing room. They and their parents are told nothing can be done because the city’s new locker room policy specifies that people aren’t to be questioned about their gender identity when using the facility. The 18 girls are offered the use of the “family changing room” which has only one shower head. So, 18 girls must crowd into one unisex changing facility so that one man can indulge his need to use the locker room that was built for their use, during children’s swim practice.

    No, this isn’t a hypothetical scare-mongering story, it actually happened. And, will continue to happen.

    http://time.com/4324687/even-i…..y-parents/

    1. In the minds of the left, and I guess here at reason too, the problem isn’t the man with the beard that “thinks” he’s a woman, the problem is the girls are bigots. According to the writer of this article. “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong”.

      1. Exactly right. It boils down to “”You’re suspicious and uncomfortable about an adult male stranger using a public shower in the middle of NYC while young girls are present?”

        BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE!

        I remember Robbie’s other article arguing that exaggerated claims of rape culture are the cause of people’s discomfort with measures like this. He fails to consider that exaggerated claims of transwomen being attacked in bathrooms are the cause of their demand to have access to single sex facilities, in the first place.

        It’s all about protecting the safety and comfort of the latest fashionably oppressed minority at the expense of the needs, safety and comfort of boring old cis people.

        Abolishing Federal “aid” to education would be one step in the right direction, though. Schools should be free to handle these situations as they arise, case by case.

      2. If a liberal/progressive does something that offends a conservative, the reason is the conservative is a bigot.

        If a conservative does something that offends a liberal/progressive, the reason is the conservative is a bigot.

        That was easy!

    2. The end of McCarthyism has allowed subhuman garbage like DeBlasio to actually achieve positions of authority. That shitbag should have trouble getting job emptying wastebaskets.

  46. “Title IX, you will recall, is a one-sentence statute prohibiting gender discrimination in educational institutions.” Wrong. Title IX does no such thing and your statement is as false as the DOE’s interpretation. The language states:
    “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”

    The reference, and every court case dealing with it, refers solely to biological sex, not what “gender” you think you are today.

  47. If you are going to write about trans rights issues, you should probably do a little more research before giving uninformed opinions, particularly since the name of the magazine is “Reason”.

    The reasoning behind the guidance issued this week by DoEd and HHS is not some out-of-the-blue ideology that the administration just thought up. It is based upon the SCOTUS ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), in which the Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of gender identity constitutes impermissible sex stereotyping under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This also applies to Title IX. It is further bolstered by the Violence Against Women Act, under which recipients of certain federal funds contractually agree not to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

    Access to toilets, changing rooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and showers is not a competitive event, so your characterisation of trans girls’ participation in sport as a “glaring execption” is unfounded. In any case, sport governing bodies have been in the process of addressing trans participation issues for years, and the NCAA in conjunction with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who we might presume would have a particular interest in protecting the competitiveness of cisgender women, have issued, after much study, surprisingly liberal guidelines for trans participation. The IOC guidelines are more conservative, but display a high level awareness of the issues involved.

  48. Michelle Goldberg is not an authority on anything. Her insistence that “we have no working definition of what differentiates a trans woman from a man claiming to be a woman for iniquitous ends” is an outright lie that flies in the face of the extensive literature on trans issues, beginning with the American Psychiatric Association.

    Nevermind that it is irrelevant, because transgender status does not excuse illegal behaviour like voyeurism, assault, or even disorderly conduct or creating a public disturbance. In the 41 years of the history of transgender-inclusive anti-discrimination legislation in the United States, not once has any credible incident ever surfaced of transgender status ever being successfully used as a defense to counter charges of illegal behaviour.

    Yes, cis men prey upon women, cis and trans alike. Yes, cis men sometimes invade sex-segregated spaces in order to attack women. Yes, sometimes they even go to the extreme lengths of attempting to “dress up as women” in order to do so. If you think such men aren’t easily distinguishable from trans women, then you need to get out more.

    You do not have the right not to feel uncomfortable. You do not have the right not to be disgusted. You do not have the right to not feel fear. Human rights are not a zero sum game. The protection of the rights of trans people is not taking rights away from you. That is not how rights work. Inclusivity is not a denial of rights.

    1. “You do not have the right not to feel uncomfortable. You do not have the right not to be disgusted. You do not have the right to not feel fear. Human rights are not a zero sum game. The protection of the rights of trans people is not taking rights away from you. That is not how rights work. Inclusivity is not a denial of rights.”

      But isn’t the whole idea that transgender kids use the bathroom/locker of the sex the identify as rather than their biological sex based on feelings? Hasn’t it been argued that denying the trans-person the right to use the bath/locker room of their choice cause them psychological harm? There are, in fact biological differences and there are available and no one is being denied the right to use a bath or locker room, just that they use the one corresponding to their biological sex.

      In the Target restroom, no one is checking genitals, so someone that identifies as the gender opposite their biological gender, that has the out ward appearance of the gender they identify as, no one will notice or really care. but it schools saying the transgender boy changing in the locker room with girls because that’s how “ze” identifies is not really a denial of rights.

    2. ‘Gender’ is a fiction, a word borrowed from language and applied to people. People are not have ‘gender’ they have a sex. Male or female are the two non-pathological varieties. Legitimately transgendered people are mentally ill, and ‘sex reassignment,’ is mutilation. Trans people are not denied any rights currently, so you can go fuck yourself. People can be as weird as they want, I’m all for it, but don’t use the force and violence of government to make others accept your weirdness – peacefully find other people with the same variety of weird as you and weird-out together. I might join you, I like weird, but not at the point of a gun.

  49. gcvsa

    I’ve probably been practicing law longer than you’ve been alive, so don’t try to play this bullshit card on me. Hopkins had nothing to do with gender identity, the term appears nowhere in the decision. It dealt with sex discrimination, here is the quote from the opinion on the genesis of the case “When the partners in her office later refused [490 U.S. 228, 232] to repropose her for partnership, she sued Price Waterhouse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., charging that the firm had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in its decisions regarding partnership.” Yes, the decision uses the word gender, but this was 1989 when the general understanding was that biological sex and gender were synonymous. Yes sex stereotyping was involved, but it had nothing to do with Hopkins claiming she was really a man.

  50. There is overwhelming evidence that predatory men will do whatever they want to get access to women and children, ignoring existing laws against rape, sexual assault, or creating public disturbances, ignoring stick figures in skirts on the doors, and ignoring the basic humanity of treating others with understanding and respect. These men engaged in such behaviour long before trans-inclusive anti-discrimination laws existed, and there is zero evidence that such laws have increased the risk for anyone. The risk was always there, as most any woman can tell you, and it is always going to be there. This is why women often avoid going anywhere alone.

    This has nothing to do with trans people, and the idea that social conservatives are reacting in a manner consistent with the protection of women and girls is ludicrous, completely rendered false by the fact that when women and girls are assaulted, they are subsequently subjected to victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and effort to ban abortion even in th case of rape or incest.

    1. when women and girls are assaulted, they are subsequently subjected to victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and effort to ban abortion

      Huh?!

      You saying anti-abortionists can advance their cause by assaulting people?

    2. So you’re OK with lowering any existing obstacles to these predatory men?

    3. If the feelings of transpeople drive the debate, but the feelings cispeople are irrelevant, then where is there equal protection or equal rights?

  51. Why are we, as a society, normalizing mental illness in this way? it can not be good for these kids.

  52. Pardon me for overstating the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in my rush to comment. What I meant to say is that the Price Waterhouse case is the basis for other case law that has extended the sex stereotyping theory to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity, including:

    Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004);
    Macy v. Holder,, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995;
    Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 307-08 (D.D.C. 2008);
    Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2011);
    Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 733 (6th Cir. 2005)

    Congratulations to you for practicing law for longer than I have been alive, though of course, whether or not you actually know my age is a matter of some debate.

  53. “While the conservative objection to accepting trans people into polite society is bigoted and wrong”. Yes because not wanting your wife or daughter to be subjected to using a bathroom or locker with men dressed makes you a bigot. What bullshit. You’re free to live how you want but that doesn’t mean you get to subject the rest of us to it. That’s just statist bullshit.

  54. trannies need mental help, not surgery or hormone therapy, all of which actually hurts them more than helps them and should be banned. Wanting to cut your dick off is not a solution to anything and it certainly isn’t a sign of good mental health. Stop enabling these sickos and get them real psychological help. Also, stop using their sickness as a bludgeon against your political opponents. You’re not better people for it – you’re assholes and show your ignorance and stupidity as you clearly reject basic biology. stop being assholes. you’re not right.

    1. I could see a few rational reasons for wanting to have a sex change:

      “I want to get pregnant. And then abort, because childbirth looks icky.”

      “Yeah? Well I want to actually have the kid!”

      “I want to trade menstruation & menopause for prostate trouble.”

      “I have reason to think the orgasms the other sex has are better.”

      “I want to lower my risk of heart disease. And increase it for breast cancer. Or vice versa.”

      “I want to avoid the draft, or otherwise take advantage of a sex-based legal privilege.”

      But I’ve never heard those reasons given by someone who wanted such surgery. Once in a while it’s an intersex who just wants more sex-definitive genitalia, but otherwise it seems to have nothing to do with the plumbing or privilege.

      And when it’s about someone who doesn’t want body alter’n, but just to “identify” otherwise, that doesn’t even offer the possibility of the above excuses. I wouldn’t say it’s a sickness, just a really bad mistake.

  55. 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.Centernet40.com

  56. Obama will never be able to change title IX through congress, so he is using the threat of force via education funding in order to legislate through the courts. It’s clever, but a complete waste of time given the current state of the U.S. supreme court.

  57. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website?

    ————— http://www.nypost55.com

  58. From the DOJ submission:

    [30. Individuals are typically assigned a sex on their birth certificate solely on the basis of the appearance of the external genitalia at birth. Additional aspects of sex (for example, chromosomal makeup) typically are not assessed and considered at the time of birth, except in cases of infants born with ambiguous genitalia.]

    [31. An individual’s “sex” consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment. Among those factors are hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, chromosomes, and gender identity, which is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female.]

    [32. For individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment, the person’s gender identity is the primary factor in terms of establishing that person’s sex. External genitalia are, therefore, but one component of sex and not always determinative of a person’s sex.]

    [33. Although there is not yet one definitive explanation for what determines gender identity, biological factors, most notably sexual differentiation in the brain, have a role in gender identity development.]

    [34. Transgender individuals are individuals who have a gender identity that does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender man’s sex is male and a transgender woman’s sex is female.]

    That’s what numerous Federal Courts have ruled, based on scientific evidence.

    1. So when a persons sex and psychology are misaligned, they reassign their sex and ask everyone else to realign their psychology and deny reality. Got it.

    2. But the decree only requires a note from the student’s parents. All that you’ve quoted above is medical, but the schools are barred from examining or even requesting medical records to prove a claim that a student is transgendered.

  59. Then there’s this, for Title IX isn’t the only legislation in play here:

    Remember, a Republican Congress passed the following language and furthermore, a Republican Congress explicitly approved banning discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”:

    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103?322 ; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106?386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109?162 ; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 , and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

    1. Remember, a Republican Congress passed the following language and furthermore, a Republican Congress explicitly approved banning discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”

      WTF does the Republican Congress have to do with this? It was originally enacted under a Democratic Administration and Republicans have routinely opposed its reauthorization only to be bludgeoned with the ‘War on Women’ cudgel.

      This shitty confabulation of social issues really is a great way to simultaneously blame your opposition *and* distract from the fact that you’re making shitty laws and/or the general lousiness of the lawmaking process. Republicans opposing men entering the room the proprieter has clearly marked ‘for women only’ goes from plain-old libertarian-based common sense to being anti-woman because VAWA, oxymoronic because Republicans ‘approved’ the VAWA, and bigoted just because.

    2. Another example of why “Violence Against…” acts are stupid. WE shouldn’t have classes of people, some more favored than others. If violence is against the law, then prosecute it, regardless of the victim.

  60. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  61. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  62. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  63. For the life of me, I don’t understand what the concept “identify with another gender” means, other than the obvious aesthetic preference for the superficial trappings of another gender (hair, wardrobe, etc). All this stuff is a societal construct– one is simply trading man-made construct A for man-made construct B.

    If we’re to accept the premise that people “identify” with another gender, we’re obligated first to believe that the two genders are marked by distinct “identities”– common sets of behaviors or characteristics.

    Care to list the behaviors & characteristics distinct to each gender, Progressive forward-thinkers?

  64. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  65. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  66. The left keeps conflating sex and gender. There are many cases where gender, however you feel about it, is a moot point. Bathrooms were designed to separate people by body parts, not abstract mental state. If a young child, or anyone who didn’t want to, walks in on a naked member of the opposite sex in a public shower, does it really matter what their abstract mental state is?

    Also, sports. We separate men and women because a male body is generally superior at sports, not because a man’s abstract mental state is better at sports. Also, pumping a man full of estrogen won’t change his bone structure.

  67. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  68. You have a paypal account ? in the event if you do you can make an extra 750 week after week to your pay working on the internet two hours every day. go here to this page ….

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

  69. This latest “guidance” from the Department of Education violates the Tenth Amendment. I don’t recall any great need for ANY law, federal or state, to regulate the use of public toilets. This seems to be a case of federal and state intervention where NONE was ever needed. The Tenth Amendment leaves to the people control over issues having little or nothing to do with federalism or states rights. This bathroom access question is a perfect example of government sticking it nose where it doesn’t belong.

  70. As Lincoln stated: “How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

    What is a man who self-identifies as a woman? A man.

    There is no rationale whatsoever imposing on the privacy rights of women who want to shower separated from men since a desire to shower with the women cannot be considered a natural right deserving absolute protection.

  71. I can’t be the only one who thinks it’s disturbing to believe in the concept of a “trans” child, can I?

    The subtleties of one’s sexuality don’t really reach full development until after puberty (that’s what puberty is, the development of adult sexual characteristics), and full frontal lobe development isn’t complete until 25. But it’s supposed to be a good idea to take hormones and get surgery before that? Come on.

  72. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  73. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $94 per hour.

    I work through this link.————————- http://www.earnmore9.com

  74. This article is ridiculous and is antithetical to “reason”. Such subjectivism would allow anyone to claim anything. I’m not a man, “I’m an endangered species and therefore, I require protection under the regulations of the endangered species act.” Just because someone makes a claim doesn’t make it so. Today, I’m a woman, tomorrow I’m a man, the next day I’m a goat. There is NO evidence of reason contained in this article whatsoever. But hey, just so long as the trans kids are more comfortable at the expense of making the VAST majority uncomfortable… well of course. How could I not get that?

  75. And I thought the Left was tired of fighting Culture Wars.

    Unless President Trump sweeps away this bullshit, or someone beats me to it, the first time one of my granddaughters goes to school and is forced to shower with a person with a dick, there will be a Title IX lawsuit accusing the school, state govt and federal govt of facilitating this sexual harassment.

  76. My best friend’s sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $15950 just working on the internet for a few hours.Go to tech tab for more work detail..

    .Read more on this web site…

    See Here Now.———————— http://www.earnmore9.com

  77. The reasoning in this column, like the reasoning from the Justice Department, makes no sense. The reason for having sex-segregated restrooms (and especially locker rooms) is the general understanding that most people desire to, and should be allowed to, and generally should be required to, refrain from exhibiting their private parts to members of the opposite sex. If trans activists, or civil libertarians, or anyone else, think this assumption is no longer operative, they should say so directly. I expect that a huge majority of the population would reject this position.

    If there are legitimate reasons for sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, then there is no good reason for saying that transgendered people have a right to pick which facilities they use. This has nothing to do with bigotry, or hate, or religion. It also has nothing to do with affirming or accepting transgendered people.

  78. Given the upside down state of world affairs today, planes dropping out of the sky due to unknown reasons, attacks in Paris, San Bernadino, active TB patients all over Minn, porous borders, snowflake college students detached from reality, 19T in national debt, China attempting to take over the South China Sea and restrict open oceans (and threatening war), Russia flexing its muscles and doing Cold War fighter buzzes over our aircraft carriers, a military scrounging for spare parts to keep planes flying, a Secretary of State that commits what appears to be willful violations of money laundering, racketeering, influence peddling, and the Espionage Act, ISIS spreading its influence globally, and children that perform in math and science tests less proficiently than children in 20 other nations, our President prioritizes THIS as an agenda item? Wait, did he phone in this executive order from Andrews AFB golf course?

    This is what the world starts looking like when America retreats. Don’t listen to what Obama SAYS, watch what he DOES. He is truly a narcissistic Manchurian candidate, bent on the destruction of the US. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like the crazy uncle, but the facts speak for themselves.

  79. 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.Path50.com

  80. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  81. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…————————- http://www.cash-spot.com

  82. And one of those applications is Showbox app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

  83. Find more in this essay about transgenders’ issues. It contains some unique and impressive points about transgender life in different countries.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.