Trans

Appeals Court Won't Reconsider Ruling That Applies Title IX Protections to Transgender Students

Transgender boy demanded right to use men's room at school.

|

restroom sign
Credit: Eric Richardson

A transgender student who sued his school district in Virginia in order to use the men's restroom at his school (rather than the unisex bathroom offered to him) will be able to do so for now. (CORRECTION: The case goes back to trial court, where it will reconsider its previous ruling based on the appeals court decision.)

The 4th District Federal Appeals Court in Virginia has declined to give a full court en banc hearing that the school district had requested in an attempt to overturn a panel decision requiring the school to accommodate the student, Gavin Grimm.

The ruling affirms the current positions by the Department of Justice and Department of Education (and the Obama administration generally) that federal civil rights laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination against people on the basis of being transgender.

Part of the justification for this interpretation is based on a past Supreme Court decision that determined that sex discrimination laws cover discrimination against a person based on whether he or she exhibited stereotypical gender-based traits. The foundation of the case revolved around a woman denied advancement opportunities after being told she wasn't "feminine" enough. This precedent is being used successfully in the courts to apply to transgender discrimination.

In this case particular, though, the court ruled that because Title IX's provisions about sex-separated facilities are ambiguous about dealing with transgender students, the court should defer to what the Department of Education has recommended. And that guidance is for the schools to allow transgender students to use the facilities of the sex they identify as, if that's what they choose to do. (Read the ruling here.)

The court turning the review away means a possible attempt to turn to the Supreme Court. But as it stands, because we don't have contradictory federal rulings here, it's not entirely clear whether the Supreme Court would take up a case, or at least this particular case. Certainly the lawsuit by a group of scattered states trying to halt the Obama Administration's school rules are an effort to try to force the debate up before the Supreme Court. The case from the states, Politico notes, could end up right in this same federal court first.

NEXT: David Brooks Wants to Talk About Love

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: A shooting at UCLA.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/l…..story.html

    1. Can you imagine if your town went on “lockdown” and thousands of residents were “running for safety and barricading themselves” every time there was a shooting? Why is this considered normal just the “town” happens to be a college campus?

      1. The insanity of in loco parentis.

        1. How the hell does that apply to adult college students?

          1. It has been dying out since the 1960s, but there are still ideas that at least get thrown around in academia based on it, like campus-wide alcohol bans.

            a pdf about it

            1. UNM is a dry campus. I had a party broken up by an RA who made us pour out the hooch and then kicked us out, presumably to go somewhere less institutionally liable for the school.

              1. Every campus in the North Dakota SU system is dry. There is even a golf course in Grand Forks where you can’t drink because it is state school property.

      2. Can you imagine if your town went on “lockdown” and thousands of residents were “running for safety and barricading themselves” every time there was a shooting?

        Pepperidge Farms Boston remembers.

          1. My parents live on the Southside and this is the first time they ever discussed possibly moving from that area.

        1. That was MUSLIM TERROR! so totally different.

        2. That’s only when a cop gets shot.

          But damn, those are some disturbing pictures.

          1. Yeah, and I wouldn’t be so quick to rush to judgement against Bostonians when fucking tanks are chasing them down the streets. That whole insanity was on “law enforcement”.

            1. Shelter in place probably was a good idea to avoid any confrontations with the police, that is true.

              I guess I’d never really seen a lot of pictures from that. Looks like an invading army. To find two guys with handguns and firecrackers.

            2. You know who else had tanks chasing them down the streets?

    2. Have they rushed to blame it on an unhinged Trump supporter or a “Tea Party activist” yet?

      1. Although my money’s on either generic nutjob or, if there is a political motivation, BernVictim.

        1. Murder-suicide – could be lovers’ quarrel.

        2. generic nut job

          Nice band name.

          1. Sounds painful.

      2. I don’t even have to look to know that.

  2. I stopped reading at they offered him a unisex bathroom and he sued anyways. I’ll take the heat for NRTFA.

    1. But she would feel different then. And we can’t have that. We must call upon the boot of government to stomp the faces of anyone who doesn’t indulge her and accept her. Its the libertarian thing to do.

      1. You absolutely nailed it. People of their ilk don’t only want to be accommodated, they also want to force people to make them feel special or at the very least stop looking at them odd.

        1. “Keep staring at me. I might do a trick.”

      2. “Validate my self-image!!!”

        1. Isn’t that why many people post comments?

          1. “Validate my pseudonymous online self-image!!!”

    2. Yeah, no, fuck that. You were given a reasonable accommodation.

    3. This seems to be heading at warp speed towards unisex bathrooms for all.

      1. Yeah, interesting that the courts are going to lead to the elimination of sex-segregated bathroom despite the lack of public and legal opposition to them.

        1. Not really. That might be some places *reaction*, but every court that’s touched this issue has been happy with just letting the transmen using the men’s room, and transwomen using the women’s room.

          And in most schools, cities, and states that have done this, there hasn’t been any issues.

          This fear is about as reasonable as claiming that if gays can marry that straight people will stop marrying. It’s like, yeah, that might be the choice of *some* people, but it’s a choice, not a necessary consequence.

      2. I’m ok with that. It would save on building cost if you only had one bathroom. Keep the urinals, just add a little more cover so it’s more private.

        1. Keep the urinals,

          Um sexist…

          1. Why? Woman can use them if they want to use the three finger lift, spread, pee.

            1. We’ll have to go back to the old urinals that went all the way to the ground.

            2. No. Women must use the urinals! Disposable paper funnels work.

              Women are nasty. They put down the seat, then hover, and piss all over everything.

        2. I was thinking more along the lines of ADA-style retrofitting of every public bathroom into individual toilets. It’s the only logical outcome to all this.

          1. Ding. Ding.

            There’s no money to be made just putting different signs on the same old doors. No, urinals in unisex bathrooms will be verboten, because (a) men pissing more or less in public makes women/trannies/whoeverthefuck “uncomfortable” and (b) urinals are inherently discriminatory.

            This is heading down the greased chute of massive lawsuits and huge expenses being imposed on private businesses and on the public fisc. Reason, to its credit (I guess) is at least ambivalent about this particular culture war clash.

            1. The ADA was already bad enough for that sort of thing.

            2. This is all driven by the envy of people that can’t pee standing up, man..

            3. Once they’ve won this, it will be on to YOUR bathroom. So if a person who feels they are the opposite sex decides they want to use your bathroom, you have to let them in and your bathroom better be transgender approved by the new Bureau of Bathrooms, or you’re in for some huge fines and probably jail.

              1. I needz ta chack ya peehole!

          2. And god forbid you put the toilet 2 inches too close to the wall.

            1. I shit you not I have on multiple occasions had to relocate sinks and toilets because they were 1/8″ out of compliance.

              1. I was just about to write that when I read Zeb’s post.

              2. I shit you not

                ISWYDT

      3. Or heading for no bathrooms at all.

        1. Chamber pots coming back, FTW!

            1. “Pray, bring me a sponge on a stick”

      1. Wait, no, that doesn’t make sense.

        Don’t be a pussy, kid.

        Fuck I need some food.

      2. No, I think “grow some balls” is about right in this particular case. That would solve the whole problem.

        1. “Grow some balls and don’t be a pussy” would be most correct.

        2. But it doesn’t work as a double entendre! Suing to get your way is arguably more ball-full than going along with what the authorities deigned to give you.

  3. The foundation of the case revolved around a woman denied advancement opportunities after being told she wasn’t “feminine” enough.

    “But doggone it, people liked her!”

    1. Expecting a woman to meet some standard of femininity is not the same thing as pretending that she is a man. The former is discriminatory because it requires women employees to meet a standard not expected of male employees. If her employer refuses to treat her as a man, they are not discriminating against her on the basis of her sex, provided they also refuse to treat men as if they are women when they demand so.

      You cannot square this bullshit with any kind of rule of law. And I suspect Scott realizes this, unless he is retarded he has to, and that is why he doesn’t talk about he merits of the decision very much. Give Scott credit for at least not trying to defend the indefensible, though he lacks the courage to tell the truth and admit how absurd this all is.

    2. Indeed. You have to be seriously “results-oriented” to get from “its sex discrimination to deny a woman a promotion because her tits aren’t big enough” to “its sex discrimination* to deny a man access to the women’s room because he has a dick.”

      *Note: no federal statute outlaws gender discrimination.

  4. So doesn’t Reason oppose the feds using the same tactic to create a 21-year old drinking age?

    The ruling affirms the current positions by the Department of Justice and Department of Education (and the Obama administration generally) that federal civil rights laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination against people on the basis of being transgender.

    So imperial presidency and loose interpretation of laws is good when it gives Reason what they want. What a shock.

    Also I’m sure court rulings on bathrooms also means that government is staying out of social issues and will end the culture wars.

    1. Reporting information is not an endorsement. Yeesh.

      1. Scott, aren’t you going to point to misunderstandings of your posts driving clicks as a reason you should get a big raise?

        We’re just trying to help you out, is all.

        1. Hell no. He should just point upon his alt-texts and say “Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

          He’s so far above the rest of the staff when it comes to alt-texting it’s not even funny anymore.

      2. Scott, you should give up now. Winston’s Mom is an expert at the subject of “women in men’s bathrooms”.

        It’s her career, after all.

      3. Not in the Reason Comment Section!! Here, failure to not adequately posture and engage in moral signalling to denounce a certain thing is the EXACT SAME as pledging eternal undying support and loyalty to that thing!!

        1. You’re just a shill for BIG PLUMBING!

    2. Never mind that nowhere did Scott side with the student in the article.

      Why bother writing anything at all, Scott? Dipshits will read anything they want into it anyway.

      1. Well I was thinking of this Gillespie piece:

        https://reason.com/blog/2016/04…..of-trans-t

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

        1. One of Nick’s more incoherent posts. And that’s saying something.

      2. Please don’t *you* stop writing just because dipshits read stuff into your work.

      3. Wait! You guys read the article?

          1. Liar. You read all the bathroom parts.

            1. I do so while I’m in the bathroom.

              1. But which bathroom? And which article, the one Scott actually wrote, or the one where he defended the court’s decision because he’s just another COCKTAIL SIPPING COZMO!!1!!1!!!11!!!!!!

        1. REEDING IZ 4 FAGZ.

      4. You have to wear the special glasses that allows to see Scott’s real article, the one where he defends the court’s decision and applauds this “stunning and brave” student.

        Here, put these on.

  5. I’m sure sex-segregated bathroom supporters will become the new bigots despite the fact that Reason hasn’t been on that hobbyhorse until just recently. I’m sure Nikki and Hugh Akston will be happy.

    1. I’m sure Nikki … will be happy.

      De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.

      1. Look, either the article confirm’s Winston’s bias or he will pretend it does. So you lose, dammit.

      2. Are you trying to tell me Nikki is dead? You know I don’t speak Spanish.

        1. THAT IS GREEK, DUMMY!

          /idjut

  6. (CORRECTION:

    Editor? Duffy! Duffy!

    1. Which bathroom does your mother use, Winston? or does she prefer the hydrant? or your mouth?

      1. Yo Mamma so fat that she gave you diabetes in vitro.

        1. OK, so your mouth.

          1. Yo Mamma’s so fat that John McCain would even fuck her.

          2. Should I drop the your momma atom bomb? Or wait?

      2. Kinky

  7. I predict an imminent explosion of ‘transgendered’ people in society. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

      1. I note that the 3 year cost back then is about equal to one year now

    1. I keep getting adds on reason with those click bait headings, “you won’t believe these 25 celebrities are transgender!”. It’s usually Daniel Radcliffe and Julia Stiles as the teaser pic.

      1. Why you no adblock, yo?

          1. And he likes to read that ad.

        1. Speaking of AdBlock, what’s the method for making sure it kills ALL auto-launching video? Because it seems to work some places but then is helpless at stopping CNN, NBC etc.

    2. I predict more weirdo teens who would have just been “freaks” in a simpler time will start identifying as transgender (or “non-binary” or whatever). But I think most will get over it.

      It may also very well be that more people actually are transgender (whatever it is) than earlier thought because of greater social acceptance and more people knowing it’s a thing at all.

      But the fact that it has so quickly become a legal issue is bound to make it all suck whatever it is.

  8. When I was in school I simply held it until I got home. Which is weird because I was homeschooled.

    1. Outhouse?

    2. Didn’t work for Kepler.

      1. Tycho Brahe!

        1. Kepler worked for him.

        2. Dammit, you got me there. Kepler was Brahe’s assistant.

          1. Tycho is also a cool-ass name.

            1. It does rhyme with psycho.

            2. FWIW, Tycho Brahe is already taken as a band name.

              1. Be a good name for a big cat, like a Maine Coon or a Norwegian Forest Cat.

            3. And he knew how to party. Unlike Kepler.

          2. Dammit, you got me there.

            That’s what your mom said last night.

    3. Me, I just pissed everywhere. I insisted it was an art project.

    4. Fist of Etiquette|
      When I was in school I simply held it until I got home.

      New Reason Contest. Best comment about Fist and holding it.

      Go.

  9. What is this nonsense? You haven’t told me how you feel about it or how I’m supposed to feel about it! This isn’t news, this is…this is…something abhorrent! Damn your facts, I need emotions Scott!

    1. + 1 Soave-disclaimer

      1. Nice.

    2. I think it’s pretty obvious by the very posting of this information how Shackelford feels about things.

  10. If you want to know why Progs have latched onto this insanity, I think Theodore Darylrimple provides part of the answer. In talking about life under communism he made the following observation.

    Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    Could there be a bigger and more humiliating lie than forcing someone to pretend another person is the opposite sex from what they are? This is why Progs won’t settle for any kind of reasonable accommodation. Doing so would defeat the whole purpose.

    1. Could there be a bigger and more humiliating lie than forcing someone to pretend another person is the opposite sex from what they are?

      Just wait a few months.

      1. Fair enough. I am sure they are working on the problem. And when they come up with it, Scott will be here to call anyone who won’t tell the lie a bigot.

        1. Don’t you get tired of putting words into other people’s mouths?

          1. Yea, Scott seems okay. It’s Robby who’s lost all benefit of the doubt.

          2. Scott has repeatedly said anyone who objects to this is a bigot. What reason is there to think he won’t say the same thing about the next SJW crusade? What has he done to earn the benefit of the doubt?

            Nothing that I can see. Maybe he will surprise me but he hasn’t yet and i seriously doubt he ever will. What makes you such an optimist?

            1. Scott has repeatedly said anyone who objects to this is a bigot.

              A link would be helpful. I want to see an article written by Scott calling people bigots.

              1. The only time “bigot” has appeared in a Shackford article about transgender issues is here.

                Everything else is a matter of cultural debate and negotiation, and right now it feels awfully shrill and entrenched. Everybody wants to use the law to fix it. Such a method therefore requires a constant fight for control over the levers of power. Trying to shame the “bathroom panic” people as bigots seems to be a poor strategy, particularly given the big victory in Houston in fighting its pro-transgender ordinance.

                1. And he seems to be criticizing the tactic of shaming people who are against trannies using the bathroom of their chosen identity as bigots. But hey, John is a super mind reader and knows what Scott really thinks about this issue, whether Scott himself even realizes it or not. /sarc

                  1. Sorry asshole. I forgot that Scott was gay and therefore above all reproach. I am not sure what got into me that would cause me to question a societal better let alone a member of the sacred class.

                    1. Beat that strawman some more shitstain. I never even made any kind of reference to Scott’s sexual preferences. In fact, I had forgotten about him being gay. It’s not about that at all, it’s about you assuming to know what’s going on in someone else’s head.

                2. Saying it is a poor strategy is not the same as saying it is not true. And if Scott doesn’t think people who object to this are bigots, why does he support accommodation in public schools and government buildings? Why would accommodation be justified if not giving it was not bigoted?

                  I seem to remember him directly saying it was bigotry to object. Perhaps it was Soave and not Scott. Scott does so much equivocating and chin scratching on this issue it makes more sense that it was Soave. And Scott is of course gay and everyone knows that makes him a special and wonderful class of citizen.

                  1. Saying it is a poor strategy is not the same as saying it is not true.

                    This is laughably weak, even from you.

                  2. Shackford’s thing has been to dismiss opposition as a panic. Which really is not much less insulting than “bigot”.

                    1. Which really is not much less insulting than “bigot”.

                      There has not been a public panic about gay marriage and transgendereds in the bathrooms?

                    2. That is awfully loaded and biased language to use to describe the reaction to be told you concerns about privacy do not matter.

              2. Mostly it was in the comments, when John read his mind and told Scott to stop calling him a bigot.

                Look for any article written by Scott

    2. Moldbug: “For example, in many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.”

    3. I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate

      George Orwell – 1984

      “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.

      Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?

      Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face ? forever.”

  11. I remember at DePaul, they had a debate on whether the school’s health insurance should cover sex changes. Obviously the student body and faculty were for this until they learned that the cost of the health insurance would increase.

    People love social change until they are forced to pay for it.

    1. No elective procedures should be covered by insurance. Full stop.

  12. A transgender student who used his school district in Virginia in order to sue…..

    FTFY

  13. What the hell has this once great country come to? Very sad.

    http://www.Complete-Privacy.tk

    1. Oooh, bot in with an almost relevant site name!

  14. For Firth’s sake, Gavin was offered reasonable accommodation, as Scott pointed out and SugarFree repeated.

    It is reaching the point where I wouldn’t be surprised for someone or a group of people demanded “Cis-Normative” designated restrooms.

    Hmm… If I operated a business I would consider remodeling all of the restrooms so that they could only be used by one individual at a time, yet be certain to have a small number of them set up with diaper changing stations. Any flaws?

    1. Wait, you transition from a girl to a boy and the new name you choose for yourself is Gavin Grimm? wtf

      1. It’s pretty good. It’s not Max Power, but good. I would have gone with Beef Hardcock myself.

        1. STEVE SMITH ALREADY TAKEN!

        2. Gavin only makes me think if this: “In England, everyone only has one spoon!”

      2. With the name Grimm being involved, I’m somewhat surprised that you haven’t run with the Fairy tail angle.

        I must away to do a bit of shopping, good luck.

        1. Alliterative names always goes to superheroes for me.

          Glenda Grimm, mild-mannered reporter for her school newspaper, was bitten by a radioactive man and turned into GAVIN GRIMM, TOILER AVENGER.

    2. One flaw. Opening a business in America.

    3. I won’t be surprised if earnest objections start to come when women are forced to always use the same public restrooms as men.

      When I’ve been on job sites where there were significant numbers of women in need of facilities, they flat out refused to use the same Honey Buckets as the male workers, and insisted on have their own “women only” restrooms.

      And seriously, can you blame them?

      1. I agree in principle; but the men will be objecting to the women’s, um, foibles.

      2. Say goodbye to quick trips to the mens’ johns at concerts and sporting events.

    4. Any flaws?

      Yeah. You’re spending a shitload of money with a zero ROI.

      Do you even business, bro?

    5. It is reaching the point where I wouldn’t be surprised for someone or a group of people demanded “Cis-Normative” designated restrooms.

      Simpsons South Park did it!

    6. That’d be great, if the fucking government didn’t force you to provide more than one toilet per sex based on occupancy. Most small retail stores won’t have a problem. Restaurants and other places considered “assembly” occupancies would be royally fucked.

      1. if the fucking government didn’t force you to provide more than one toilet per sex based on occupancy.

        Don’t worry the government will move sensibly from “you can’t have unisex bathrooms you rapist pig!” to “you must have unisex bathrooms you bigot!”

    7. I don’t know about this case, but I do know in other cases the “reasonable accomodation” offered has been a single restroom (typically the restroom in the nurse’s office). In these cases it’s often a logistical problem for the student to use the restroom in a timely manner because of where the nurse’s office is in relation to their classes.

      So yeah, I can see why an “accommodation” that means you’re consistently late to class if you need to pee might not considered “reasonable”.

  15. In this case particular, though, the court ruled that because Title IX’s provisions about sex-separated facilities are ambiguous about dealing with transgender students, the court should defer to what the Department of Education has recommended.

    It’s not ambiguous, it’s completely silent on the matter. Title IX deals with “sex discrimination,” not “gender discrimination.” They’re not the same thing. If the SJW’s want to extend anti-discrimination law to cover the latter, then it’s up to Congress to pass a new law. This is about much more than whether transgendered people should be able to use the bathroom of their chosen identity, there’s a much larger principle at play here:

    Instead we have an Executive Dep’t deciding to extend Title IX protections to trannies, and now the court has put their seal of approval on it*.

    Gee, I can’t see how that precedent could possibly end badly…

    1. Neither can Shackelford.

      1. OK, I’ve now re-read the article twice and I don’t see where Scott is saying that this decision is good or bad, he’s just reporting what the court’s decision was. Is not condemning the same as condoning now or something? Seriously, could you or Winston loan me the special glasses you use to see the real articles on H&R? You know, the ones where the writers applaud every progressive policy like something you’d read in Salon or Mother Jones.

        1. OK, I’ve now re-read the article twice and I don’t see where Scott is saying that this decision is good or bad,

          If Scott can’t figure out whether the case is good or bad, then he clearly doesn’t understand how it could end badly or he would say so and therefore be telling us why the case was bad.

          I don’t have super glasses. I have this skill they taught me in the second grade CALLED READING. If you can’t read what he is saying and see the implications of it, that is your problem not mine. But just because you can’t understand how that is done, doesn’t make it magical or mind reading.

          1. Somebody is getting testy.

          2. If Scott can’t figure out whether the case is good or bad, then he clearly doesn’t understand how it could end badly or he would say so and therefore be telling us why the case was bad.

            … I have this skill they taught me in the second grade CALLED READING

            That’s making broad assumptions based on what someone didn’t write. Here’s a novel idea: maybe Shackford was limiting this particular post to stating the facts of this court decision and not including his own opinion because his personal thoughts on the matter irrelevant. Or maybe he figured his readers are smart to form their own opinions on whether this is a good decision or not.

            You haven’t explicitly denied fucking sheep, so that must mean that you enjoy getting freaky with some sheep every Friday night. If you don’t like bestiality, then why won’t you just go ahead and say so? Why don’t you tell us why fucking sheep is a bad thing? It must be because you like fucking sheep, what other reason could there be?

    2. Especially funny because the PC mantra is that sex and gender are totally not the same thing.

      1. Apparently it is when they want it to be.

        1. Kind of like climate and weather.

          1. Or Penalty and Tax.

        2. La Wik:

          Blackwhite is defined as follows:
          this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

          ??Orwell, 1984

    3. Title IX deals with “sex discrimination,” not “gender discrimination.” They’re not the same thing. If the SJW’s want to extend anti-discrimination law to cover the latter, then it’s up to Congress to pass a new law.

      Bwahaha! What country do you live in?

      In my country, Roberts will just declare that sex and gender are the same thing when the government wants them to be the same, and different things when they want them to be different.

      See Obamacare penaltax for details.

  16. Thanks again Obama for making a big problem where before, there was no problem. The instigator in chief. ‘Hey look over there, something shiny! Hey guys, we got em going now, quick and steal a few trillion, kill some more of that pesky bill of rights while you’re at it, they’ll never notice!’.

    1. He enjoys more than anything fucking with people. He loves it when people are angry. And he loves most of all using government to humiliate and screw with his enemies. It makes him feel important. That is all this is. It is one last chance for him to screw with people and feel important.

      1. I think it’s some of that, but it’s also calculated moves to get people at each other’s throats over non-important issues so that he can get his new Bolshevik revolution that he’s wanted his entire life, that all the left wants. Or at least if things start getting violent enough, he can declare martial law and suspend elections. I look for the left to get violent this summer, especially at Trump rallies and for the media to paint it as being the right causing it.

    2. Well it is for an issue Reason likes so who cares?

    3. The Socons ought to shut up and accept it which means the end of the culture wars and the libertarian moment since giving the SJWs everything they want can’t possibly lead to anything bad since they don’t disagree with libertarians on anything important /Gillespie.

      1. You’ll never give the SJWs or any of the other grievance monger warriors everything they want. Everything they get will only make them want twice as much, no matter how absurd or unreasonable. That should already be obvious to everyone.

  17. Personally I’m waiting for people to change their ages. After all it is just a government document and there are precedents to change birth certificates and wasn’t there that guy who self-identifies as a baby girl?

    Amusing to see what will happen to child labor laws. Judging by what I read about the chorus girls and Hollywood an easy way to avoid them was to “self-identify” as older. This of course would cause problems when you got older and wanted to state your true age which would make yourself look younger…

    1. This of course would cause problems when you got older and wanted to state your true age which would make yourself look younger…

      Why? Just transition back.

      1. Well I mean it looks like you are lying to make yourself look younger which was another thing actresses like to do…

    2. Age is a social construct. I consider myself 70, give me my SS now, fucksticks!

    3. Age really is a dumb metric. I’ve met 90 year olds that are still mentally sharp and in good shape. I met mature teens, more than capable of being on their own. Laws based strictly on age are ridiculous.

      1. But did they self-identify as being that age?

        1. The point, you missed it. She could say she is 7 or 700, it doesn’t change her abilities/disabilities. Age is an imprecise metric. Watch all the new parents panic when their infant misses some milestone at 2 months. The kid is fine. We all mature differently. Setting rigid laws on imprecise metrics is the problem, not self identity.

          1. I got your point. The ways things are going I don’t think people will be thinking that setting laws based on age are a problem because people develop differently but they will have a problem if people start claiming that age is just some arbitrary metric like gender due to all the age-related laws.

        2. I self identify as a 21 year old, but when I sidle up to a young woman, she keeps insisting that I’m like 48 or something.

  18. The bathroom issue tells me there are a lot of libertarians who can’t distinguish between positive and negative rights.

    1. Enough about Johnson and Weld.

    2. And you have no clue what a moral imperative is.

      1. Responded to that in the other thread, but perhaps you can explain to me where there is a moral imperative for anyone to live. I don’t know, here I just thought there was a right to live, not a moral imperative to do so.

        1. A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect.

          The desire to stay alive is pretty much the most basic and common moral imperative there is.

          It takes like two seconds to find that. Two seconds.

        2. Only if you confuse an urge with a principle. I didn’t know the two were the same. So in your view it’s morally wrong to take actions that put ones own life at risk?

          1. A strongly-felt principle is just that. A more strongly felt principle might override it.

            Let me strangle you and we’ll see how little you innately care about staying alive.

          2. Every strongly-felt desire that compels a person to act is not a moral imperative. That is not what the quote provided implies or says. You seem to be skipping past having to define the key word in the sentence which is principle.

            More over, it’s closer to a moral imperative that someone who opposes the draft should probably at some point do so openly for their own sake as well as that of others. Your use of moral imperative basically highlights the entire point I was making which is that Trump was not and is not acting from a place of principle.

            1. I said strongly-felt principle, bitch. Ain’t nobody talking about desires but you.

              You don’t understand what an easily defined philosophical term means and you keep misstating as though that will change the meaning.

            2. You are lumping a desire to live under a principle. You have not defined the word principle which is key to the definition of moral imperative. I tried pointing out the contradiction and issues with however you are defining it above, but you didn’t answer it.

              Does someone who risks their life for another act immorally? Does someone who wants to end their life have a moral imperative not to do so? Your position makes no sense. It’s just sloppy thinking.

              1. OK, go ahead and play dumb then.

                1. There’s no playing dumb. I’ve asked you very basic questions that you refuse to answer because it would immediately reveal the flaws in your argument. More to the point, I never condemned Trump or anyone else for dodging the draft itself. That’s a strawman you put together in your head. You want to conflate different concepts, and then run when someone questions your logic.

                  No one has a moral imperative to live. Even with your scenario of being choked, you can at best say I have a moral imperative to defend myself. It’s not the same as saying I have a moral imperative to live in all contexts. You have conflated principles with rights. Principles are the basis for rights. A right is not a principle.

                  1. You just refuse to understand that “moral imperative” is a phrase that has a meaning and that given that meaning you are using it incorrectly.

                    A moral right and a moral imperative are not the same thing. You can hem and haw and whine all you want, but you don’t get to collapse the two of them together for your pro-slavery argument.

                    So you are either stupid or playing stupid.

                    1. I love how you won’t address the questions at hand. You can’t define a principle. You don’t know what a principle is, and so you are lumping anything strongly-felt feeling that compels you act as a moral imperative. I really hate the Jews and blacks. Obviously I have a moral imperative to off them. I really want that pie. Obviously, that is grounded in principle and I have moral imperative to eat it.

            3. The only moral imperative is getting even with Kent.

              1. Look, it was hot and I was hungry, okay?

                1. You’ll rue the day!

                  1. Who talks like that?

      2. Neither do you. You just assume that anything you like is a moral imperative. If you think there is some kind of moral imperative on either side of this issue, you have no clue what the term means and should stop using it.

        1. Your mind-reading powers are at all all time high, John.

          1. So in other words you have no position that you can articulate. If I misrepresent what you think, then correct me and tell me what you actually do. If you refuse to do so, then live with the conclusions I make.

            1. Seriously, you should be hitting the big poker tournaments.

            2. Now there’s a non-sequitur.

  19. God I hate this redefinition of language. Isn’t that a feature of totalitarian societies? Shackford is marching right along. He says:

    Transgender boy demanded

    student who sued his school district

    unisex bathroom offered to him

    You know, I’m tolerant by definition since I’m a libertarian. But I just can’t go along with brazen redefinition of words. This person is not a boy, she is a girl. It’s not him, it’s her. Anybody can imagine themselves to be anything. But that doesn’t mean I have to indulge them and say that, yes, you are a purple pony. If you have a dick and balls, you’re a boy.

    So Gavin is having issues. Let’s accept her and help her through it. Let’s accommodate her. But she’s being a total cunt by forcing her views on the rest of society.

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    1. This person is not a boy, she is a girl. It’s not him, it’s her.

      Unless you’re checking inside every person’s underpants, you can only by outer appearances. Chances are you’ve probably mislabelled one or more people in your life without even knowing it.

      1. Rhywun, I agree with you completely. That’s why this issue just chaffs my ass. It was never a problem; people never knew. And the the SJWs went and fucked everything up.

        1. This is yet another attempt at an election-year Republican wedge issue to distract from the fact that Republicans have no real ideas about anything. That’s why years-old laws are suddenly giving state legislators the vapors. It’s 2004 and gay marriage all over again, this time with more bathroom panic. The reason your ass is “chaffed” is because that’s exactly what they want from you.

          1. Obama created this wedge issue where no issue existed, you moron.

            1. The notion that the GOP is trolling us with SJW issues is an extra dimension of chess I don’t think they have.

          2. Republican wedge issue

            I don’t think it was the GOP that reinterpreted Title IX.

            But yeah, it is an election year wedge issue completely designed to distract from larger issues.

          3. How are the Republican’s responsible for these court cases, the Obama administration’s absurd interpretation if Title IX, and localities expanding the malevolent public accommodation laws?

            1. Obviously you don’t understand the deviousness of the Republicans.

      2. I don’t think this was at issue in this case, right?

    2. It’s only good manners to address people as they wish.

      1. Ok, Tony. You’re a purple pony. How would you like to be addressed?

        1. Tony, thanks.

          1. Ok, Tony it is, asshole.

          2. Actually, Tony, welcome back! You haven’t been around lately.

        2. Ol’ Paint.

          You are now, Ol’ Paint..

          1. I never knew he was a paint! But I now I see those little pink patches on his rump!

          2. +1 Tonto

        3. He should always be addressed as fascist asshole.

      2. It is also good manners to not expect people to read your mind, especially when you denying your reality.

      3. Ok, asshat.

      4. Which shitter they’re in is a helluva goal post shift from addressing them.

    3. Opposition to this nonsense doesn’t require rudeness of any kind. I can both use the gender pronoun someone prefers while at the same time rejecting some inherent right to use whatever bathroom one pleases. The discussion really can and, in my view, should be separate from the entire discussion of whether claims of transgenderism have merit.

      In terms of this very specific application of the law, the Obama administration is purposely confusing the definition of sex and gender. So if I were focusing on redefining words, I’d start there.

  20. The kid was not allowed in the girl’s bathroom because if being transgender, but rather due to being of the male sex and fully equipped as such. Which would seem to be a defensible reason for having segregated facilities. Instead, the court is allowing segregation of facilities on an utterly irrelevant characteristic, that is, gender identity in order to salve one person’s tender feelings at the expense of the sensibilities of the female student body.

    The reasoning here by the administration and the court in inane.

    * My spellcheck attempted to substitute “Obama” for “inane”. Heh.

    1. I think you have the sexes reversed in this particular case.

      1. Yeah, I noticed that after I posted it.

  21. The ruling affirms the current positions by the Department of Justice and Department of Education (and the Obama administration generally) that federal civil rights laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination against people on the basis of being transgender.

    […]

    And that guidance is for the schools to allow transgender students to use the facilities of the sex they identify as, if that’s what they choose to do. (Read the ruling here.)

    I’m still confused about this and have yet to receive a clear answer.

    Obama’s Title IX interpretation, plus this blogpost, plus everything I’ve heard in the news calls out Transgender people explicitly. It does not say “people” have the right to use the bathroom of their choice, it says “Transgender” people can’t be barred from the bathroom of their choice.

    This to me suggests that people who AREN’T transgender are barred from using the bathroom of their choice, or by law must attend the bathroom of their sometimes-called “birth sex”.

    How does a school, and what criterion does the school use to determine if the student is part of the protected class?

    1. That’s a good question. Will they need some kind of certification from a psychiatrist or something? Or just take people on their word? The pants-shitters (sorry, I hate that term, but I’m being lazy and you know what I mean) on this issue seem to think it’s the latter. But I doubt that is how it will really be (I could well be wrong).

      My theory is still that you should use whatever toilet you can get away with. If you act and dress like a boy, then you should use the boy’s room because that will be least disruptive. No special laws should be necessary. Or people should just stop worrying about who is in the room while they take a dump. But I’m not holding my breath on that one.

      1. The Obama administration’s guidelines are just a written notice. Having a medical determination of any physical or mental condition is not required

    2. I don’t think so. I think the Obama administrations definition of transgender is a lot broader than you think. And if it’s not, it will be tomorrow. I thought that their definition was ‘the sex a person identifies as, including neither’. That to me says, if I feel like a woman right now, but I’m a man, then I’m transgendered. And I can change my mind tomorrow, or even 3 times yet today. If that’s not the definition, then any person with a wee wee is a male, period.

    3. determine if the student is part of the protected class

      I am guessing that any laws will be written generically just like previous cases. I.e. you cannot discriminate on the basis of “desired gender” or some such. The end result of course is that any man can use the ladies’ room and vice versa.

    4. I think that they are positing a two-pronged idea, that there be no pre-use challenge to anyone based on looks and that a claim of trangendered status after the fact is a good faith defense.

      I also think that a) this is just signalling so they are as obnoxious about it as possible which b) makes it unclear exactly what they are demanding be done.

      1. I think that they are positing a two-pronged idea, that there be no pre-use challenge to anyone based on looks and that a claim of trangendered status after the fact is a good faith defense.

        It seems to me (and I’m responding not just to you, but to all, including you Rhywun) that they’re setting themselves up for some odd kinds of discrimination that I suspect the Transgender community will actually demand. They either accidentally declared all bathrooms unisex, or if they stick with the protected class tack, the Transgendered are heading for a pink star of David on their lapel.

    5. Question for the legal types:

      Are there even any actual laws on the books regarding gendered bathrooms and who’s allowed to use them, or has that always simply been left to social convention?

      IOW, were there ever any laws stopping transgenders from using the bathroom of their choice anyway?

      1. It’s social convention. Including the Transgender folks. It all seemed to work fine until the Trans-obsessed wing of the progressive movement started setting their sights on creating a new protected class. So-cons, seeing this coming (I dunno, possibly feeling the sting of losing the gay marriage battle) essentially said, “Not in MY bathroom” and started preemptively passing discriminatory laws.

        This in turn, feeds the notion that Transgendered ARE discriminated against (and to be fair, well, yes, now they are) which essentially forces the entire Identity Politics wing into a corner: do we make Transgendered a specific class, and if so, how will it be legally defined, and if not, then we have to decide if we just let each locale stick to custom and tradition, or (the third option) all bathrooms are unisex.

        I strongly suspect we’re heading towards #1, and we’ll do what Ireland did: create a special class managed by a bureaucracy. You apply to an unelected Czar asking them to recognize your application for Transgendered status. That bureaucrat can affirm or deny your application, you get one appeal, and if you’re still denied, you’re denied, end of story. Add in a whole bunch of other red tape and rules about proximity to a divorce, timelines, limits on how many times you can switch. Again, all administered and ruled by unelected bureaucrats. Some call it “freedom”, I call it “creepy”.

        1. started preemptively passing discriminatory laws

          What laws would those be?

          NC has a law saying businesses can do what they want. Not discriminatory.

          They also have a law saying that, in government buildings, you have to be a woman, or have registered your sex change with the state, in order to use the women’s room. Also not discriminatory.

          1. in government buildings, you have to be a woman, or have registered your sex change with the state

            These are the laws I was referring to, however, I had not heard that NC had a system for registering your ‘gender’ with the state.

            Is there an ID checking process that occurs* as you enter a bathroom?

            *By “occurs” I mean to say that if there is any question by any official in a specific case at a moment in time, that there is a process to verify this so-called ‘registered gender identity’?

            1. How is requiring people to use the sex-specific bathroom of their actual sex discriminatory?

              And, yes, NC does have a process that allows you to change your legal sex.

              The legal recognition of your sex change will also show up on your drivers license, I believe. Aside from people’s lurid fantasies about being groped by men and women in uniform before peeing, I suspect that proof of sex will be used purely as a defense when somebody claims you are using the wrong bathroom.

              I can’t think of a more reasonable accommodation/compromise than the NC approach. Can you?

              1. RC, I believe the problem stems from recent and broad definitions of ‘transgender’ which now encompass the so-called ‘non-binary’.

                “I’m not a man OR a woman, accommodate me!”

                Also this: “puts in place a statewide policy that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex.

                Again, going to the rapid evolution in ‘gender’ we’ve been witnessing, can you not be ‘trans’ but still maintain your ‘biological sex’?

                Unfortunately, because of the awful state of modern journalism (devolved into McGuffinization of News) I can’t get the details of NC law, or the process to changing of your legal sex in NC.

                All I get from the major media are “The Republicans want it, the Democrats don’t want it, and here’s what strangers on Twitter are saying!”

                1. I read the NC law, and it is as described above.

                  Not sure how their official recognition of changed gender process goes. But, c’mon, if you are serious about it, you’re talking about years of treatment and multiple surgeries. What’s a few forms?

                  The great thing about the NC approach is that it totally ignores the conceptual shithole that is “gender”, and focuses on biological sex (with an escape clause if you have legally changed your sex). With the exception of what may be one or two people in NC who don’t have a biological sex, everyone is covered, regardless of their subjective/delusional state of mind.

                2. I read the NC law, and it is as described above.

                  Not sure how their official recognition of changed gender process goes. But, c’mon, if you are serious about it, you’re talking about years of treatment and multiple surgeries. What’s a few forms?

                  The great thing about the NC approach is that it totally ignores the conceptual shithole that is “gender”, and focuses on biological sex (with an escape clause if you have legally changed your sex). With the exception of what may be one or two people in NC who don’t have a biological sex, everyone is covered, regardless of their subjective/delusional state of mind.

                  1. You do know that not all states will do a legal sex change, right? And if you don’t actually live in the state that your birth certificate was issued in, it can be a serious trial to get it done.

                    And that’s not even acknowledging the reality that man transmen never get “bottom” surgery, which in many states is a necessary condition for getting the legal sex change on the birth certificate.

                    Given all that, what’s the consequence (assuming everyone actually follows the law that will out them and subject them to harassment and possibly violence)? Hairy bearded men with deep voices in the women’s room because that’s where the law says they should be.

  22. And of course this will inevitably lead to battles over changing rooms, spas, etc.

    Meanwhile, in Europe, they are busy accommodating Muslims by re-introducing sex-segregated swimming pools, etc.

    It will be interesting when these two forces collide.

    1. Gay rights too…

      1. Yeah! An apocalypse movie!

        White transgendered “girl” in burka infiltrates female sex-segregated muslim swimming pool while gay christian men parade around in thongs outside a mosque…

        These terrible events lead to a titanic struggle for civilization itself while alien filmmakers swoop in to make a movie in a movie!

        You will be left breathless by the astounding conclusion!

        1. Needs David French yankin’ it while peeking out of the cabana.

    2. It’s not just Muslims. NYC just told the hasidim they can’t have ladies-only public pool hours.

    3. The thing is, you could ignore someone who was being discreet and get management to ask someone to leave who was not. Making it a right means management will be reluctant to ask the obnoxious to leave.

      1. get management to ask someone to leave who was not.

        If you wish to be sued or arrested.

  23. What we are seeing here is a leftist government drive towards making exact meaning of anything ambiguous. Boys are not necessarily boys, girls are not necessarily girls, that Constituion and Bill of Rights don’t necessarily mean what it says. The idiot serfs might think this is something else, but it’s not. The definition of all things is fluid and only our experts can interpret the real meaning, and that might change tomorrow, for the children.

    1. Life is complicated. I’m sure it’s sorry for the imposition.

      1. Repeal the blanket bans and blanket mandates. Life is so much simpler.

      2. Life is especially complicated for Tony. Sometimes his mum cuts off the booze and internet for months. Although that does the rest of society a great good.

      3. Tony:

        War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    2. “What we are seeing here is a leftist government drive towards making exact meaning of anything ambiguous.”

      Seems like they want to make simple things more complicated than they need to be anyway.

      Say what you want to say without government interference so long as you don’t violate anyone’s rights–doesn’t mean what you think it means. The First Amendment is something so complicated only experts from top universities can really understand it.

      On the other hand, that makes it simpler, since you don’t have to think for yourself. Just listen to NPR, and do as you’re told.

      Transgender bathrooms? Well that’s a very important issue that deserves all of our attention. But don’t worry, the top men will figure it out. They’ll apply it to the states through the 14th Amendment, or whatever, and as long as the Christians are angry, we’ll know that everything went okay.

      Then we’ll move on to the next important topic, be it gorilla shootings or making homophobes bake wedding cakes.

      1. No, we’re already past those issues, homophobes have to bake gay cakes and if it’s between shooting a gorilla and letting it rip a child into a hundred pieces, clearly the gorilla wins.

        Next, it’s on to something so absurd and unreasonable, it will make all these things seem perfectly reasonable.

        1. Cephalopod squatter’s rights.

  24. When we’re done talking about transgender bathrooms, can we get back to the really important topics like how Donald Trump hates Mexican babies and sharia?

    As long as we don’t talk about completely insignificant issues like taxes, spending, regulation, or the economy, I think we’ll be okay.

    Do you think transgender people ever think about economic opportunity when they’re going to the bathroom? It would be kind of demeaning to assume they only care about where they pee, right?

    1. Mexican babies and shariah are the only things that can save us.

    2. This is why mendacious concern trolling twats like Tony love these miniscule proxy battles in the war on the bourgeoisie, because it derives mouthbreathers on both sides into a frothing lather and none of their failure-riddled shitheap achievements get any attention.

      1. United health coughed up details on their exchange plans after trading yesterday. Looks like they’re leaving the exchanges completely in 31 states.

        The insurers that are staying are asking for double-digit premium increases–and the $130 billion or so the taxpayers are supposed to owe the insurers for losses on the exchanges are being declared unconstitutional.

        But, yeah, let’s talk about where the transexuals should pee.

        1. Yep. My insurer is asking for a 37% increase on top of 20% last year.

          1. Jesus Christ!

        2. United health coughed up details on their exchange plans after trading yesterday. Looks like they’re leaving the exchanges completely in 31 states.

          The exchanges are burning hotter than Venezuela right now, and it’s barely a blip on anyone’s radar.

          1. Burn baby burn.

    3. You do know that “where you can pee” *is* an economic issue, right? Think about it, if you’re a trans student at university and the university says you have to use the bathroom of your birth sex, that probably means exposing yourself to the possibility of harassment and violence to use the restroom and campus (assuming you comply). The alternative is to go home and use the restroom there.

      If you opt for the “safer” option of goign home, that means you’re going to be increasing your trips from home to school, which means budgeting for travel time and/or expenses (depending on distance and mode of travel), as well as arranging your class (and possibly work, study, and so-on) time to suit.

  25. I always assumed her name was Dana Kirpatrick.

  26. Does this mean I can watch your wives and daughters pee?

    1. It means you can sue struggling business owners into early graves when you’re thrown out of the women’s toilet.

      1. At the request of the women who are already in there.

    2. Are you gonna pay?

    3. As long as I get to watch my wife beat the shit out of you afterwards. *pops popcorn*

  27. Good News is that the next remake of The Front Page can have a transgendered Hildy Johnson. Who cares about cisLady Ghostbusters?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.