Discrimination

New Frontiers in Gendered-Bathroom Battles

Regulations target transgender access to restrooms in federal buildings and beds in homeless shelters.

|

Chuck Liddy/TNS/Newscom

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is finalizing a rule stipulating that homeless shelters must allow transgender women to stay in women's areas and transgender men to stay in areas designated for men—setting off "a firestorm [that pits] LGBT groups against religious organizations that operate many homeless shelters," The Hill reports. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is introducing a rule guaranteeing that transgender people can use bathrooms consistent with their gender, rather than biological sex, when in federal buildings. The new regulation, which will be posted in the Federal Register this week, covers 9,200 properties owned by the General Services Administration (GSA), including federal courthouses, Social Security offices, and other spaces across the country.

BuzzFeed News first reported on the federal-buildings regulation, after obtaining a draft notice outlining the changes. The notice, circulated to federal agency heads on August 8, states that "federal agencies occupying space under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity." BuzzFeed notes that "the regulation builds on and reinforces a growing body of interpretations by the Obama administration to protect transgender people under longstanding civil rights laws."

In the past several years, federal agencies have begun holding that bans on sex discrimination—instituted to address disparate treatment of women—also cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. That is, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, LGBT discrimination is sex discrimination, they say. My colleagues Scott Shackford and Robby Soave have written extensively about these developments, including the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruling that applied the Civil Rights Act to sexual orientation, Obama's support for the "Equality Act," the states fighting federal rules on trans high-school kids, and why Title IX is a bad tool for extending trans student rights.

The trouble is that Title IX has also been used by the Obama administration to hold that basically any sexuality-related statement or action that makes any college student uncomfortable counts as sexual harassment, thereby creating a "hostile" educational environment and inviting the federal Office of Civil Rights to intervene. Under this same statute, the feds say transgender high-school students must be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. But what if sharing a bathroom with students born male makes biologically female students uncomfortable? They, too, would ostensibly have a claim under Title IX.

The homeless-shelter situation puts us in a similar bind, with the interests of transgender homeless people and some religious shelter owners in conflict. It makes little sense, to me, to house someone who identifies, looks, and lives as female with male residents, or vice versa. But, as The Hill points out: "Religious organizations see things differently." And in trying to do what's right for trans homeless people, the government is poised to force religiously-run shelters to operate in ways that violate owners' convictions and consciences—thus opening itself up to another wave of lawsuits. Catholic Charities USA and the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions have both raised concerns with HUD already.

"It makes no sense at all," Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told The Hill. "Good, Christian organizations that are trying to help people do not need Washington dictating their bathroom or bedding policies."

Though the HUD rule isn't final yet, a draft says homeless shelters must ignore "complains of other shelter residents" who feel uncomfortable being housed with someone transgender. "It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a perceived threat to health or safety that can be mitigated some other less burdensome way." The rule would only apply, for now, to homeless shelters that receive some form of federal funding.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Gary Johnson Gains Ground in Polls, Russia Uses Iranian Base to Launch Air Strikes in Syria, 15 Guantanamo Detainees Transferred to U.A.E.

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. setting off “a firestorm [that pits] LGBT groups against religious organizations that operate many homeless shelters”

    Obviously the solution is to close those homeless shelters.

    1. I am not sure why the government is involved in so many things.

      There is nothing wrong with being compassionate to our fellow citizens.
      A guaranteed minimum income can replace all social programs.

      It fascinates me that people have such strong urge to tell other people what’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. So instead of providing a basic guaranteed income, most people would rather ‘assign’ housing, food, job-search spendings etc.

      What’s best for me is best for the country. Isn’t it?

      1. It’s an interesting urge and perhaps the single personality trait that most distinguishes libertarian types from others.

        While I don’t feel an urge to tell other people how to live their lives, I will admit that there is something alluring about the idea of living in my ideal society, down to some of the details of culture and taste. Perhaps the delusion that one can actually achieve that is the root of this desire to direct how people live their lives.

        1. + One man’s Bolivarian socialist utopia is another man’s starving wife in line for eight hours to buy a three-pound sack of flour for $300.

          1. Because at the end of the day, if a private citizen wants to open a shelter on her or his personal property (with his or her own money), it is really nobody’s business to demand what her or his House Rules need to be.

            That does bring up another issue with tax exemptions.

            One low, flat tax rate. No exemptions, and people can do whatever they want with their own money/wealth/properties as long as no third party is physically affected unwillingly.

            A free-market society is a very cooperative society.

            1. Ah, but what if I tax you and then subsidize your homeless shelter? Now you have to play by my rules. I can withhold the subsidy, but you can’t duck the tax.

              Religious organizations aren’t subject to state tax because the state isn’t subject to religious tax. This is a very old compromise.

      2. A guaranteed minimum income can replace all social programs.

        “Here’s your $1000 check, retard!”

        1. why not $1500 or $2500…soon won’t be worth anything anyway…

      3. Dear “Wuzza”… “I am not sure why the government is involved in so many things.”
        ?
        Well, for starters, you might consider that it’s because so many citizens have asked/demanded that “the government” BE involved in ‘so many things.’

        For example, folks who think a ‘guaranteed minimum income’ WOULD/COULD ‘replace ALL social programs.’

        Did you get that subtle reference?
        I hope so.

    2. The solution is to eliminate federal funding for homeless shelters.

      If a homeless shelter only operates on federal funding, perhaps they ought to close.

  2. If a 98 lb. weakling thinks he’s superman, we call him delusional. If a biological male thinks he’s a woman we call him Transgendered.

    I’m sorry if it offends, but isn’t pandering to a delusion supposed to be bad?

    1. Bruce Jenner is just a guy playing dress up for attention. Oh,and I’m Napoleon.

      1. Just wait until everyone is required to provide litter boxes for furries.

        1. Standard libertarian disclaimer concerning private property owners allowed to do whatever they want concerning this matter.

          Just label the doors “XX” and “XY” – after all it’s very “science-y” SWJ just love science.

          1. Trying to parse what a “SWJ” is.

            Social War Jihadist?

            1. Single, White, Jewish?

              1. Who nose anymore.

            2. Socialist Whining Jackoff

          2. Just label the doors “XX” and “XY”

            Except “XX” is female and “XY” is male, plus you have the people who have had the surgery.

            Just eliminate sex entirely. Mark them “Urinal” and “Toilet.” Then use the one you’re plumbed for.

        2. No one will ever be willing to accommodate furries.

          1. That’s why we need the heavy hand of government coercion.

      2. Bruce Jenner is a human being obsessed enough to be an olympic champion, so his later mental imbalance is not amnew degree just amdifferent focus.

        I’m not saying that the transgendered don’t genuinely believe that they belong to a sex they weren’t born to. I’m saying that ther belief runs counter to observable fact and that I am unconvinced that pretending that it doen’t is good of anybody.

        1. Bruce Jenner is both a Republican and white. So he is a racist, and that outweighs his genital neurosis.

        2. I’m not saying that the transgendered don’t genuinely believe that they belong to a sex they weren’t born to.

          Maybe you should be saying that. As far as I can tell it isn’t true. They don’t believe that they are actually the other sex as far as I can tell. What they believe is that their minds and bodies don’t match up in some way. Which doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility. And for whatever reason, a lot of people have decided that living as the other sex is the way to deal with it.

          1. I guess I have limites patience with people who want me to chenge my life to accomedate their delusions. Which, when you get down to it, is my I am sick to the teeth of the Liberal/Progressive establishment;

            “No, Socialism is not a respectable belief, and hasn’t been for decades. No, the Soviet Union was not in any small degree matched for evil by the United States. No, Che as not a heroic figure; he was a brutal sadist.”

            I will ignore the delusions of the Transgendered so long as they a) allow me to and b) politely ignore mine.

            1. Well, CSPS, your use of words like “delusional” make it pretty clear that you use the external and visible genitalia as THE ‘measure’ of gender, sex or sexuality, and by that very narrow definition, everything you say and want is ‘logical’ and ‘makes sense.’

              Only problem is: a lot of ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ is in the individual’s MIND and not in their genitals. If you doubt that, ask ’em and see what THEY think and say, instead of what YOU have concluded for whatever reasons.

              In that sense, for YOU to decide they’re delusional is an attempt to exert control over THEM, and that’s just not very ‘libertarian’ of you, if you were claiming to be of that ilk.

              Who taught you they were ‘delusional’ in the first place? Something you read on a website where everyone agrees that LBGTQ people are delusional?

              That’s agreement and consensus, and neither one of those == Truth, let alone wisdom.

      3. @ Adans smith. Bruce Jenner is just a guy playing dress up for attention. Oh,and I’m Napoleon.

        So the news articles, interviews, award ceremony and speeches, and the reality TV show are indicative of and person who desperately wants to remain private?

        The facts are that he likes to dress as a woman and he likes publicity. It can also be said that he got all the publicity he obviously loves, for dressing like a woman.

        Is it a stretch to say he did what he did for publicity? There seems to be more evidence for that conclusion than for yours. He might have had a hard time keeping a lid on his transition if he wished to, especially given his attention whore family, but he went the other direction at light speed, hardly missing an opportunity for attention. Therefore, it is hard not to logically conclude that he did things the way he did for attention. He could have done the same thing and remained far more private than he did. He chose the other direction.

        You could go one step further and consider that he could have been fed up living in relative obscurity compared to Kim and the gang. I could see how a man of accomplishment like Bruce Jenner, might be a little sore about being out shined by people who are famous for nothing. He showed them who is famous, whether he meant to or not.

    2. If a 98 lb. weakling thinks he’s superman, we call him delusional.

      The best analogy I heard was from a priest who said, in effect, if an underweight teenage girl comes in dissatisfied with her body and trying to lose weight we categorically describe her as having a mental illness.

      1. I suppose it takes one to know one: after all, priests delude themselves into speaking to invisible spirits and into believing that wishing for something makes it happen, and hence also clearly suffer from a mental illness.

        1. The evidence of history is that Christianity ( and especially Protestant Christianity) is a delusion that serves rather better than the vast majority of the alternatives. I’m by no means persuaded that the transexual delusion serves anyone at all well, and that it is championed by people who also spread the Socialist delusion does not speak well for it.

        2. Sounds like you need a new priest!

    3. If he thinks he is actually, literally a woman in every sense, it would be fair to call it delusion. But that’s not the case for most transgender people. They have no illusion about what sex they were born as, what sex chromosomes they have or what body parts they possess. They are just more comfortable living as the other sex as well as they can. That’s not delusion. That’s a description of a person’s psychological state.

      Now, whether “transitioning” is the best way to deal with this psychological condition is hard to say. I have no idea myself. But to dismiss it as delusion really misses the point and gets a lot wrong.

      1. You know, Bruce still likes to bang his wife. Let that sink in for a moment. Bruce Jenner is saying that he’s a Lesbian.

        1. Aren’t we (every straight male that is) all?

        2. That’s interesting. But I’m really neither surprised nor not-surprised. As someone who is pretty content with my body, I can’t imagine what Jenner or any transgender person experiences. But I can’t deny that it’s a real psychological phenomenon.

          1. As someone who is pretty content with my body, I can’t imagine what Jenner or any transgender person experiences.

            I think this says more about your imagination or your desire/willingness to use it than it does about anything transgender people may or may not experience.

            Considering most all of us can imagine ourselves waking up as a human-sized cockroach and as the last son of Krypton, I don’t think Jenner’s “plight” is that unfathomable.

            1. Perhaps better put this way. I can’t know that I can correctly imagine what the experience is, so I don’t assume that I do.

        3. Google “middle aged guys who look like lesbians” and enjoy.

        4. I think what Jenner is saying is that he has a Y chromosome and is sexually attracted to females but, for himself, prefers the body image and behavioral traits that are most commonly associated with women in our culture. Which really isn’t the same thing as saying he’s a lesbian.

          1. That’s a good way to put it.

          2. Or, if you prefer shorthand: he’s nuts.

            That’s generally how we refer to people who behave in a way that’s contrary to reality, yes?

            1. But it’s not contrary to reality. He is just how Lynchpin describes. That is, in reality, how he/she prefers to live. No delusion, no denial of reality.
              Maybe some trans people suffer from delusion, but Jenner seems to be quite in touch with reality.

              1. It’s good to know that you buy into the post-mental illness society model being shoved down your throat. I’m not saying we shouldn’t understand these people, I’m saying that their mental illness is the #1 flag to predict suicide.

                But of course, we shouldn’t talk about that. After all, the reason they kill themselves more than literally any other demographic is because they can’t use the proper bathroom. Right?

            2. If you mean by numbers in the general population, we call them Progressives.

        5. Doesn’t that make him a transvestite? not a transsexual?

          1. No. A transvestite just likes to wear women’s clothes, but is still a man “inside”. See for example: Eddie Izzard, Ed Wood.

    4. You are not supposed to pander to the delusion, that would just be mean and patronizing, you are supposed to become delusional in your heart and mind. (see brainwashing)

      It is similar to pretending to hear voices when in the presence of a schizophrenic. It’s just not nice. You really need to jettison your privilege and work at actually hearing the voices. Until you do, you are just being patronizing and dishonest about your privilege.

      1. [shakes Sarcasmeter, holds it up near ear to see if it’s still ticking]

  3. What possible objection could there be? I guess I’ll just leave this here.

    1. Strange, he doesn’t look like a serial rapist.

    2. Well, he could be a transgender lesbian rapist.

      More seriously, on the other side of the coin, I could see it being not terribly safe for certain trans-women (that’s the word for men living as women?) in a men’s shelter.

      I think what it comes down to is that being trans is a difficult thing and there aren’t easy answers.

      1. there aren’t easy answers

        But you’re a monster for not accepting, without question, any answers that are decided for you.

        1. *Offers red pill*

          What if the answers are really easy and the whole point is to make them seem hard?

    3. Those women should have pretended it didn’t happen to prevent transphobia /European progs

  4. “It makes no sense at all,” Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told The Hill. “Good, Christian organizations that are trying to help people do not need Washington dictating their bathroom or bedding policies.”

    Look, this is just the policy. I understand that you don’t like the policy, but we have it in place for a reason. If you can’t comply, then you’ll have to make do without our help. Perhaps if you were better at facing reality, you wouldn’t need our help. Look at this as an opportunity to learn and grow as a functional person.

    /long, loud Munsen laugh

  5. Oh good. A giant shit show and a new front in the culture wars over something that effects .1% of the population.

  6. Alex, I’ll take hills I don’t want to die on for a thousand…

    1. Alex, I’ll take hills I don’t want to die on for a thousand…

      What about the hills your ‘opponents’ deserve to be murdered on?

      1. “Troops and light armored vehicles, on hill – drop 100 and fire for effect”

  7. I’m sorry, I am having trouble seeing the discrimination here. All people are being treated the same. No one is allowed their choice of rest room. All people are assigned to a rest room based on the biological equipment they possess, regardless whether they are cis or trans gendered, straight or gay, “identify” with one gender or another, or personal preference. It is not like gay marriage, in which same-sex couples were denied a privilege that straight-sex couples were allowed.

    What trans gendered persons are demanding is not equal treatment in this regard, but a form of reasonable accommodation. But the concept of reasonable accommodation requires a balancing of the interests of all affected persons. It is not clear to me why the interests of the trans gendered, legitimate though they may be, automatically prevail over all others — particularly in a culture in which we have been taught from birth that exposing one’s private parts in the presence of members of the opposite sex is literally a crime.

    1. It is not clear to me why the interests of the trans gendered, legitimate though they may be, automatically prevail over all others

      Anyone who is offended or bothered by sharing the restroom with a trans person is a bad person. So their interests don’t matter. They should be locked up in prison for being intolerant. Because tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance.

      1. There are only two kinds of people in this world that I cannot stand:

        A) People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures

        B) The Dutch

        1. If you ain’t Dutch, you ain’t much!

        2. You obviously weren’t watching the dutch chick on the balance beam.

          Yummy.

      2. Because tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance.

        You have that mapped to a keyboard shortcut, don’t you :/

  8. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is introducing a rule guaranteeing that transgender people can use bathrooms consistent with their gender, rather than biological sex, when in federal buildings

    I’m OK with this since the government owns those properties. I don’t even really see a need to justify it on the basis of Title IX or the CRA.

    1. I’m going to guess that they’re laying the groundwork for a later regulation applicable to private bathrooms.

      I know, I’m being paranoid.

      1. Of course they are. And they are opening a Pandora’s box.

        The people who warned that recognizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality were always on bad ground because there is a clear and logical dividing line between an adult human who can consent and everything else.

        But the people who are warning that anyone who just decides that they ‘feel’ transgendered can use any bathroom regardless of biology or outward appearance seem to be on stronger ground because basing something around feelings is inherently arbitrary. The only consistent approaches are using an objective criteria like sex (based on chromosomes, which I *think* is definitive) or doing away with sex/gender based bathrooms entirely. I have no particular objection to the latter but I think I’m in the minority.

        So look for this whole issue to turn into a shit show.

        1. Given that within, what, two years of Obergfell we have a mother and son openly trying to get married I don’t think the bestiality people were on bad ground. Extreme, possibly ridiculous ground, but once you start breaking down arbitrary limits like “one man, one woman” the possibilities become endless.

          1. once you start breaking down arbitrary limits like “one man, one woman” the possibilities become endless.

            And why shouldn’t they be as long as all parties are consenting adults?

            1. Why draw the line at consenting adults, Zeb? Who are you to judge what age limit or consent status makes a ‘relationship’ your CIS-Gendered shitlord? Stop oppressing those who don’t think consent or age are defining traits of their relationship status! In Afghan culture, it’s perfectly acceptable to show a young boy the ‘ropes’ you culturally insensitive jerk!

              /proglodyte

              1. Where’s Nicole at anyway? Someone should be defending the rights of children to manage their own lives.

          2. And why do you assume that “bestiality” is involved? Recall that marriage carries with it a boatload of legal rights and privileges. Example: it is much easier to pass on assets upon death to one’s surviving “spouse” to one’s direct descendants. I can readily see a mother and son wanting to “marry” to take advantage of the legal preference given to spouses on inheritance issues, with the son being allowed to seek sexual pleasure elsewhere.

            1. True story – I have a client whose net worth is north of $100 million. I suggested (not entirely in jest) that he marry his recently divorced daughter to avoid the $50 million dollar death tax.

              1. That would give a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Love Wins.”

              2. A slightly less creepy option is for both of them to marry the same man.

            2. I think the particular story referenced here is about a mother who gave up her son for adoption and when they met 30 years later they started a sexual relationship.

            3. Please see Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for a fictional example of “S Families” in which, through a sometimes contrived network of marriages, property was only ever inherited by a spouse and never children.

              I can’t remember if that one involved polygamy, but it was Heinlein so it’s possible.

              1. I can’t remember if that one involved polygamy, but it was Heinlein so it’s possible.

                Absolutely guaranteed is more like it.

                1. Recall that most of Heinlein’s early work was Science Fiction for children and young adults. It’s his later stuff that is mind bogglingly insane.

                  1. mind bogglingly insane

                    I found it intriguing.

                    1. I do too, I think I have every book he’s ever written. He’s been just about everything, from libertarian to fascist. A weird guy indeed.

          3. There is a big stolen base there in saying that the limits were arbitrary.

          4. Given that within, what, two years of Obergfell we have a mother and son openly trying to get married

            Within two years? That sort of thing has happened for as long as there have been human beings.

            but once you start breaking down arbitrary limits like “one man, one woman” the possibilities become endless

            The solution to that is simple: get government out of marriage altogether; it has no business being involved in the first place.

            1. Seeing that it has been involved in marriage for all (that I know of) of recorded human history, I think we can expect that suggestion to fizzle. Ideally, I agree with you. But I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

            2. That solution may be “simple”, but expecting gay people to carry the water for it has never been reasonable.

        2. It’s not bestiality that’s next. It’s polygamy.

          1. Indeed, especially considering this has already come up. Multiple times, in fact. It continues to be shot down, presumably on the grounds that you can still only marry one other thing even if what that thing is matters less and less. You’ll probably be able to marry a fence post before you can marry two+ people. Of course, that ‘fence post’ will be a self-identified fence post with a penis but who’s really keeping track.

          2. Good

          3. The thing is, as long as divorce law remains in its present state, any man who marries more than one woman at a time should probably be institutionalized for his own safety.

  9. “It makes no sense at all,” Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, told The Hill. “Good, Christian organizations that are trying to help people do not need Washington dictating their bathroom or bedding policies.”

    Hopefully this leads to fewer private organizations getting into bed (no pun intended) with the government for access to that sweet but oh so sticky federal money. Hopefully…

  10. But what if sharing a bathroom with students born male makes biologically female students uncomfortable?

    Tough luck, sweetheart! “Transphobia” is the newest item on the list of offenses that are exactly the same as racism!

    1. Yep. The only explanation for being uncomfortable is hatred. There is no other explanation. That makes anyone who feels discomfort a bad person who should be jailed or better yet killed.

  11. But it’s not the administration, or the Democrats, or the SJWs who are obsessed with this stuff, even though they’re the ones who keep pressing for “transgender rights.”

    No, it’s the critics who call attention to what the SJWs are doing – *they’re* the obsessed ones.

    Or at the very least, both the idiots pushing these policies and the sane people resisting them are morally equivalent “culture warriors.”

    1. And the media definition of “culture war” is “issues which do not fit within a narrow range of so-called ‘economic’ issues, even if they actually have economic implications.”

      So by that definition, guns and dope are culture-war issues just as surely as “public accomodations” (or a-commode-ations).

      So when you hear about someone being moderate or liberal on culture-war issues, you’re probably dealing with someone who wants “common sense” gun control and who won’t take the lead in ending the drug war.

    2. And you do not think that is the purpose? Keep the pot boiling, particularly in a presidential election year, so that the “culture wars” can be used by both sides as a rallying device?

    3. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an election coming up. That means each side needs to whip up it’s base. What better way to do that than to tweak your opponents so that you can rally your side around the belief that the others are a bunch of bigots.

      1. Election? Don’t you mean coronation? Trump’s going to be kneeling stool.

        1. Don’t forget the Congressional and local races. Still need to rally the troops for those

  12. …New Frontiers…

    Destroying societal norms, encouraging impropriety to punish conservatives is all this is. This not ‘new frontiers’.

      1. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was truly one of the most prescient (and quite effective) politicians of our time. I found him to be, for the most part, an honorable man.

        The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it’s so rare.

        -Sen. D.P.M.

  13. I’m still just amazed that this is the new big issue. What a silly thing to get worked up about.

    Here’s what should happen: people use whatever bathroom they can get away with. If you dress as a woman and pull it off reasonably well, the use the ladies’ room because that will be least disruptive to other people.

    1. What a silly thing to get worked up about

      I think if “first world problems” was in the dictionary, transgendered bathrooms would have to be part of the definition

    2. “…least disruptive…”

      The whole point is to be disruptive.

      1. Sure. My whole point is to encourage people to stop being assholes (on both sides) and everything will be fine.

        1. My whole point is to encourage people to stop being assholes

          One side’s entire point in making this a public fight is to be assholes. I doubt you’re going to get anywhere.

    3. But what if I feel like a woman tomorrow but I don’t feel like dressing or looking like one? How othering of you.

      1. Invest in some adult diapers and skip the whole bathroom mess.

      2. If the biggest objection you have to trans* folk using the bathroom is that cis* folk will behave poorly, the problem isn’t trans* folk.

  14. This also is a good illustration of what is wrong with the modern progressive movement, and what I think will ultimately destroy it (and maybe many other things). Namely, that the focus has shifted from equality to victimization.

    I’m not a fan of government trying to enforce equality, but as a cultural and societal value I think there is a lot of virtue, both practical and moral, in not discriminating against people for personal lifestyle choices or differences of appearance. But in their rush to find the next group who is facing discrimination, progressives have taken to rewarding victimization, and so of course people find new ways to be victimized. That hierarchy of victimization is what will ultimately destroy modern progressivism from the inside.

    1. That hierarchy of victimization is what will ultimately destroy modern progressivism from the inside.

      Oh, you are such an optimist.

      That hierarchy of victimization is what will ultimately destroy modern progressivism Western Civilization from the inside.

      FTFY

  15. Uhh…so where did these ‘homeless’ people get the cash to have their junk cut off/spliced on?

    Or are we now fully into the realm of ‘look, you say you’re a girl you’re a girl’?

    If we are in that second option, does this mean I can change my mind? How many times am I allowed to change my mind? What are the prerequisites for saying I’m this or that gender?

    Since we’ve already established that your sexual preference doesn’t matter either way, can we just admit that this is a complete non-issue and stop using this as some political wedge that affects less than .03% of people that, statistically, are going to kill themselves anyway?

    1. If we are in that second option, does this mean I can change my mind?

      I listened to an interesting podcast about someone who was described as changing genders spontaneously, sometimes a few times throughout a day.

      http://www.npr.org/2015/02/06/…..iges-story

      1. Really now?

        Can I change my gender and apply for a government contract as a “woman owned business?” Then change back to a man after I am awarded the contract?

        I get the sense of the government will be taking a completely different position on sexual identity in that case?

        1. As I said elsewhere, using self-defined*** criteria does seem to open a Pandora’s box. One possible outcome is that people will demand an end to government special treatment of various groups, which would force government to do less and focus only on things that truly are in the “public interest”.

          Unfortunately, I think a more likely outcome is that reactionary movements will grow stronger, with waring factions competing for government favor.

          *** I’m not discounting the possibility that biological and neurological factors could influence how someone feels about their gender. But I suspect any such factors would be far from definitive, so we’d still be relying on self-reported data as the final word on gender identity.

          1. As I said elsewhere, using self-defined*** criteria does seem to open a Pandora’s box. One possible outcome is that people will demand an end to government special treatment of various groups, which would force government to do less and focus only on things that truly are in the “public interest”.

            I was in this boat with gay marriage; that it would lead (back) to polyamorous, common-law marriage, smaller gov’t, and/or more freedom.

            At this point, I’m less than optimistic on either issue getting back to more liberty without Very Bad Things? happening in between. Free Shit with more free monitoring.

          2. Since you still can’t test for ‘gayness’, I wager you’re correct. Lets go on a journey!

            Biologically, I’m a man. That is science and can not be disputed since I’m not one of those unfortunate genetically damaged people that represent a faction of a faction of a fraction of humanity. Lets go for the gold though!

            I am now definitively a woman.

            Whoops, now I’m a man!

            Wait wait, now I’m an Ur-Child!

            No!

            Now I’m a Bronie!

            Nope, now I’m a woman again!

            Whew, what a journey in under six seconds! I think I learned a lot though, specifically I discovered that women like me love to be raped!

            Now I’m a man again, and I’m off to act on this new information! If you stop me, you’re a bigot by the way.

            If you really boil all this bullshit down, what you’ll discover is that basically they’re saying that we are currently in a post-mental illness society. Nothing is mental illness, it’s all just alt-normative behavior that must be respected. Since such a view necessarily means there can be no definitions you’re essentially saying that everyone is anything and nothing can be known, so logically the whole shebang is a farce since there can literally be no racism or sexism. It’s functionally impossible as everything is anything.

            Ugh…my head hurts…

            1. Of course this is all deliberate so that the elites can define reality as whatever the fuck they say it is.
              How many fingers, Winston?

              1. THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

                http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-…..hmodcm.jpg

            2. they’re saying that we are currently in a post-mental illness society. Nothing is mental illness, it’s all just alt-normative behavior that must be respected

              Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like *more* behaviors/conditions that were once seen as ill defined or a personality quirk are being reclassified as mental illness.

              I think there has been a push to define mental illness as something that is intrinsically harmful instead of something which is abnormal. That has caused shifting from both ends. But on balance it seems like the trend has been towards more illnesses and (surprise) more victims.

              1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like *more* behaviors/conditions that were once seen as ill defined or a personality quirk are being reclassified as mental illness.

                Mmmm, no, not really. If you’re making me choose “right” or “wrong”, you’re wrong.

              2. You’re both right and wrong Lynch. Formerly normative behaviors, like rambunctious children for instance, are now thing’s that must be heavily medicated to the point where children take up arms and blast away other children. Then, at the other end you have outright delusions that are being coddled.

                On balance, I’d say that the entry ‘mental health’ industry is in such flux that it’s impossible to say on any given day what is a legitimate mental health issue and what is not if you’re going by the industry rather than common sense.

                Personally it seems that any delusion that can be fixed with outright surgery seems to be considered ‘healthy’ whereas if it’s a delusion like you believe you’re Napoleon then you’re going to be tied down and medicated.

                This is actually another reason why I say we’re in a post-mental health era, so ultimately I’m really glad you brought it up. It’s always been a ‘fuzzy science’ but now the entire field is a subjective gateway to the good narcotics more than anything else.

        2. There is already a whole ecosystem of “woman owned business” that is run by the husband.

    2. I’m sure Medicaid either covers, or will soon cover, the necessary surgery.

      1. IMHO the reason it’s covered in the armed forces now is to encourage enlistment for trans people so they can say look at how many trans people are in the armed forces and use those growing numbers to push all sorts of new things to spend money on.

    3. Uhh…so where did these ‘homeless’ people get the cash to have their junk cut off/spliced on?

      They’re transgender, not transsexual. You’re describing the latter.

      Or are we now fully into the realm of ‘look, you say you’re a girl you’re a girl’?

      Now you’re describing the latter

      If we are in that second option, does this mean I can change my mind? How many times am I allowed to change my mind? What are the prerequisites for saying I’m this or that gender?

      Now you’re describing gender fluidity. You can change your mind as many times as you want. Presumably, your mind will change immediately after your landlord, boss, welfare case worker or bodega owner has made a multi-thousand dollar accommodation of your prior state of mind.

      1. Now you’re describing the latter former

        Obviously.

        1. If there’s a difference in there, I fail to see it. I’ve heard people called both terms that wacked their junk off so maybe it’s just a function of these groups failure to set forth actual definitions or maybe it’s my failure to care. Sadly, due to the second point, it’s moot.

          1. Gender is how you feel.

            Sex is your junk. Highly correlated with chromosomes.

            1. I’ve heard this over and over again and while I can understand the granuliarity between the two I also think that the person that overloads themselves on the role ‘society’ gave them (I.E. Gender) are the biggest whiney babies I can imagine. It also doesn’t explain their urge to change both, and in that sense both titles apply interchangeably.

              I’ve met plenty of highly effeminate gay men that don’t seem to have any urge to cut their dick off while actually being a woman in basically every other way that matters. At least this type of individual is unflinchingly honest in every respect. This, I respect and can be friends with.

              I’d say beware those that are not honest and try to hide themselves behind a mask of another gender. Why should I trust someone that’s more than willing to lie to themselves, not to mention everyone else they ever meet? They can do whatever they want if it doesn’t harm me, but they are undoubtedly broken. To pretend otherwise isn’t any kind of ‘help’ to these people, as evidenced by their far higher rate of self-murder.

    4. OK here’s what you do, people.

      If you’re the father or mother of a son is really good at math and science, and he wants some scholarships and he wants to go to good schools, then he needs to figure out the best way on paper to say he’s a girl as quickly as possible. Schools will fall all over themselves to get her in, and pay for her to go .

      And, really, who is going to be the bigoted prejudiced bastard that’s going to try to call him out on not being a girl? No one wants to be judgmental about the way a girl would go around acting and dressing and behaving, right? Maybe he’s a Tom boy who likes sports and dating girls, and fucking girls with his cock, and that’s just the kind of girl he is. What kind of college admissions board or scholarship board would want to judge that? Probably one full of racists, that’s who.

      It’s not like he can’t change his mind once he has his degree paid for.

      1. And your geeky son isn’t dating anyway, so there’s no reason not to check the “female” box.

  16. Let’s not forget these are ostensibly the most persecuted and discriminated against people in the country. I’m sure throwing them in with a bunch of drug addicted mentally ill homeless people of the opposite sex will work out fine and dandy.

    1. Throwing them in with a bunch of drug addled and mentally ill homeless of the same sex, while they are trying to be the opposite sex might not work out great either. It’s just never going to be easy being transgender. Which is why I’m inclined to think that it is better thought of as a psychological disorder.

      1. Saying this group is the most persecuted and discriminated group in the country is an absolute disservice to people who are actually persecuted and discriminated against for factors that are impossible to change instead of something that’s a decision you make in secret inside your unreadable grey matter.

        Jesus, get a grip. Last I checked a black man can’t hide that they’re a black man. It’s right there in the name.

  17. There is a lot of missing the point here.

    The left doesnt give a shit about trannies. In fact, when their glorious revolution is successful they will take all of them out and bury them in mass graves. This is just an issue that they can use to destroy propriety and divide society. It is also a very useful distraction from Cankles unfolding criminal scandals.

    Who is discussing the breathtaking failure of socialism in Venezuela and the humanitarian crisis there? Millions are on the brink of starvation, yet they focus their attention on two dozen people who cant use the bathroom of their choice? The whole thing is beyond absurd.

    1. Reason consistently missess opportunities to distinguish itself from the lowing media herd. Tons of reporting to be done on the Venezuela catastrophe. Mark Steyn’s lonely defense of the 1A. Digging into the multifarious Clinton scandals to cut through the fog of shell corporations and misdirection. All stories that are being memory-holed by the Fourth Estate, ripe for the picking.

      1. That’s why we have Wikileaks and Judicial Watch.

        1. *clears throat*

          Both ‘controversial’ groups.

    2. Thanks, Suthen.

  18. I take this as certain proggy/fascist/Total State elements in the government seizing an opportunity to drive religious organizations out of the homeless business.

    Because they hate religious organizations, and they hate private organizations doing what they see as the State’s job. The trannies are just the club of the day for beating civil society into a terminal coma.

    1. In IL, the SJW crowd drove them out of the adoption business….so what if that many more kids have no home to go to?

  19. First world problems.

  20. or control of GSA must allow individuals to use restroom facilities and related areas consistent with their gender identity.”

    Established when and how?

    1. “Yo brah, I feel like a chick today. Let me in to the ladies’ room.”

      1. Or how about the more realistic, “You brah, I need to make #2 and all the stalls are full, I’mma go into the lllllllllladies room.”

        If someone reports you, can security throw you out, and if so, why so, and if not, why not?

  21. Seems to me that if you are homeless, you have bigger goddamn things to worry about than whether the cock between your legs matches the pussy in your head.

  22. gender identity, and/or gender expression.

    So those are two separate things?

  23. It makes little sense, to me, to house someone who identifies, looks, and lives as female with male residents, or vice versa.

    It doesn’t make sense — even a little?

    As this is a fairly new political position, it makes me wonder just how simple-minded and easily lead people who make such claims really are.

    What other “self-identifications” do they take seriously?

  24. The homeless-shelter situation puts us in a similar bind, with the interests of transgender homeless people and some religious shelter owners in conflict.

    You know, it’s not just going to put ‘religious’ shelter owners in conflict. While I admit to not being hip to the current internal workings of your various “women’s shelters”, if I stretch my memory back to the 80s/90s when I had a few nail-chewing feminists in my midst, some of whom worked at womens’ shelters, I’m pretty sure they be pissed off to the point of veins bulging out the sides of their heads with the thought of having to allow a man into the women’s shelter just because he ‘declared’. I’d imagine these women would probably be referred to as ‘TERFS’ in the modern context, but still. Point being, this transgender thing is going to piss off more people than just religious folks.

  25. As usual the 1%ers run the show.

    We are the 99%!
    We are the 99%!
    We are the 99%!
    We are the 99%!

  26. But what if sharing a bathroom with students born male makes biologically female students uncomfortable?

    WAR AGAINST WOMEN

    How is a homeless person supposed to document his transgender status? Will he have a federal ID?

    If a voter can’t be expected to have an ID, how can a transgender person be expected to have one?

    1. But what if sharing a bathroom with students born male makes biologically female students uncomfortable?

      Welcome to your new home on the progressive stack, ladies. Don’t get too comfortable; your trip down the stack isn’t finished yet.

  27. A shelter employee made references to genitalia or to surgery as requirements for appropriate housing.

    Huh.

  28. All the whining about poor religiously-run shelters really runs into a brick wall when you get to “The rule would only apply, for now, to homeless shelters that receive some form of federal funding.”

    Whatever your concerns over the autonomy of a place, it’s entirely reasonable and ethical for someone, including the Fed, State, or your parents, to put conditions on them giving you money. You want an allowance from your parents? You do your chores. You want a grant from the State or Fed? You play by their rules of non-discrimination.

    And if you don’t want to do your chores or play by non-discrimination rules? You don’t accept their money.

    There’s only a “problem” here if you think that the group is entitled to the money.

    1. You want an allowance from your parents? You do your chores. You want a grant from the State or Fed? You play by their rules of non-discrimination.

      This analogy falls apart depending on what the rules are and who’s affected.

      1. “This analogy falls apart depending on what the rules are and who’s affected.”
        Sure, but not in this case.

        The only organizations are those who choose to seek out Federal funding. Don’t want to play by the Fed’s rules? Don’t seek out and accept Federal funding.

        1. The only organizations are those who choose to seek out Federal funding. Don’t want to play by the Fed’s rules? Don’t seek out and accept Federal funding.

          How about if I don’t want my tax dollars to go either to religious charities or to Title IX compliant organizations? How can I prevent my tax dollars going to those organizations?

          See, your argument fails because the federal government doesn’t have any funding; all it does is take money from (often unwilling) people and hand it out as political favors to people who serve the interests of politicians.

          1. “How about if […]”
            Then you’re not engaging in the same debate as everyone else and trying to start a tangential debate.

            You are of course free to do so, but if you don’t accept the premise of a discussion you shouldn’t expect people to treat you like a serious participant.

        2. “This analogy falls apart depending on what the rules are and who’s affected.”

          Sure, but not in this case.

          So the rules have little meaning and can be bent based on a constituency.

          1. More like “no analogy is perfect”.

            The analogy covers this situation just fine.

    2. One also wonders, given the pervasive nature of federal funding, how possible it is to run a homeless shelter without receiving a single nickel of federal funding.

      The hospital industry has fought a ferocious rear-guard action for decades against being classified as federal contractors even though, other than childrens’ hospitals, I am aware of precisely one (1) hospital in the country that doesn’t take Medicare, and maybe, maybe 2 or 3 more that could survive without it.

      The feds crowd out other funding sources, and force, via regulation and licensing, that federal funding and/or regulation be accepted to stay in business. If that’s the case for homeless shelters (and I don’t know if it is), then the funding hook doesn’t really solve the liberty problem.

      1. The feds crowd out other funding sources, and force, via regulation and licensing, that federal funding and/or regulation be accepted to stay in business.

        Serious question, is there any precedent for this activity, and the subsequent lack of private resources as a result of government action, being considered “coercive” such that it can be attacked legally?

        1. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.

          National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

          1. True enough, Bubba. But that was a federalism case, going on the limits of the national government to “coerce” the states. The same reasoning has never, and will never, be applied to private organizations.

      2. I think that Roberts doesn’t get enough credit for blocking Medicaid creep in Obamacare.

      3. It’s possible, but difficult. Essentially you have to run everything in-house or as part of a distributed network of explicitly anti-government funding Christian organizations. If you participate in, say, an emergency food box program but otherwise don’t receive government funds, you still have to follow every jot and tittle of government regulations.

      4. In some places it may be illegal to operate without some kind of government funding (which was part of how Massachusetts drove Catholic Charities out of adoption services in that state.)

    3. I fail to see the federal role in homeless shelters.

      Eliminate that part of the federal budget (and associated taxes) and then we won’t have a conflict.

      It is important to remember that “federal funding” first starts with “federal taxing.”

      1. well seeing how they’re the source for most homelessness, I think all the homeless should camp out on the mall occupy DC…

      2. It is important to remember that “federal funding” first starts with “federal taxing.”

        Not for at least a generation, it hasn’t.

  29. I volunteer for a homeless shelter, and it’s exactly this shit that we’re dealing with. It’s a goddamn mess to run a mixed-gender homeless shelter for all sorts of reasons that should be apparent to even the simplest, and that’s the practical effect of this legislation.

    But who cares, amirite? Fuck those homeless people, who may or may not have mental issues and who may or may not have suffered massive amounts of sexual abuse on the streets and in their past lives. This, just like everything else government is doing socially nowadays, is all about making neurotic upper-middle class white people marginally more secure in their status and about making suburban moms feel good about themselves and how nice they’re being to whoever the victim class is this week.

    1. Good on you for doing your part. I don’t even need to imagine what kind of insanity you’d need to put up with in a mixed shelter.

  30. I’m just curious: where does it say in the Bible: “thou shalt not dress as a member of the opposite sex”?

    1. It doesn’t, and religious homeless shelters (in my experience) have zero problems with housing transgenders, who are a substantial minority of the homeless — particularly of young homeless people.

      All shelters (religious or otherwise) chose to run themselves in this way to avoid the obvious problem of effectively not having women or men’s shelters. The secular shelters basically all folded in anticipation of these regulations to continue to receive grant money; I would reckon that religious shelters aren’t both for quasi-altruistic reasons (they think men and women’s shelters are the best way to run things and to give the people in them a better shot at life) and self-interested reasons (they would lose donor support if they ran their shelters like a damn proggie colony).

    2. I’m just curious: where does it say in the Bible: “thou shalt not dress as a member of the opposite sex”?

      I’m just curious: where in the Constitution does it say “Bible”?

    3. Where does it say in the Constitution that you have a right for people and institutions to treat you as a member of the sex opposite your biology?

      1. Right there in the Commerce Clause, like every other damn thing.

  31. It makes little sense, to me, to house someone who identifies, looks, and lives as female with male residents, or vice versa

    That’s because, in your rich white girl world, you’ve never come within spitting distance of running a homeless shelter, being homeless yourself, or interacting with the homeless population outside of giving a buck to some guy standing by the overpass.

    The extensive cosmetics work and effort needed to present effectively as a woman either requires an enormous amount of money (a la Caitlyn Jenner), or a pre-existing community dedicated to living in that style (a la Thai ladyboy). Neither one of these applies to transgendered homeless, who do not have the skill or money to live in that fashion and who are substantially more likely to have mental health issues even outside of not properly identifying with their gender.

    More importantly, men and women’s shelters are built differently and are sometimes at different capacities. Women’s shelters are often much nicer and, obviously, have women in there (which if you want sex, is no small consideration). Back when things made sense, no homeless shelter manager in their right minds would have a mixed gender shelter because of the enormous amount of abuse and the difficulties of socialization and sexual abuse in that context. Since you only have to claim to identify as a woman to get in, this presents problems with running a shelter where women there can feel safe.

    1. And, naturally, if any of the entirely foreseeable and predicted problems come to pass, that will be the shelter’s fault.

      1. Putting the transgender issue to the side (because in the end, this has little to do with transgender issues and has much more to do with broad freedom-of-association issues which makes me a big phat racist I know), I’ve known a number of people who worked in shelters. Most are pretty far left on the political scale. But whatever my opinion on their personal politics are, the ones who were serious about their shelter work use a form of discrimination at every step of the process to insure the safety of their residents. If we start taking the power out of the hands of shelter operators to make safety decisions, I can see trouble.

        People can be knifed or victimized in shelters in various ways. It also seems clear that in some cases, they’re trying to protect the transgendered person from being victimized by refusing to shelter them– or wanting to shelter them elsewhere.

        If you follow my link above from AmericanProgress, they found that transgender women trying to get into the men’s shelter were denied far more than men trying to get into the women’s shelter. What that suggests to me is that the shelter operators were far more concerned about a woman in the midst of men than they were about men in the midst of women. Which runs counter to the screams of ‘Yokel!” and claims that the only reason some of us cast a skeptical eye on these regulations is because we’re afraid our daughters will be groped in the women’s room.

    2. Unless the people running the shelter are extremely familiar with the person, there is no way they can tell that a given person identifies or lives as a woman. In other posts Shackford has said he is against requiring any certification of transgendered condition, but he apparently has a naive belief that no one who is not transgender would ever have reason to lie that they are.

      1. In other posts Shackford has said he is against requiring any certification of transgendered condition, but he apparently has a naive belief that no one who is not transgender would ever have reason to lie that they are.

        I predict that certification will come… at the demands of the transgendered.

  32. This is not a gender or sex identity issue. It’s an architectural problem…specifically how to get enough private stall with locks into old buildings…no more boys rooms or girls rooms, just water closets with fucking locks (and maybe a changing table for babies oh yeah & cameras for the common access area.

  33. What I find confusing about all this is… according to progressives, is it penises that are bad, or dressing like a man? What actually puts someone in the class of “privileged white male”?

    1. It does effective make me wonder why they don’t just self-identify as a privileged white male in the first place? They seem to believe that wishes make things happen, so why not this?

      1. *sigh* just erase ‘effective’.

  34. Well these issues usually spin off into philoso-space but there is this – within the last 20 years the ADA has been interpreted to mean that ‘reasonable accommodation’ (in public buildings and private businesses above ‘X’ threshold) requires a disabled stall in every public or private businesses’ bathroom. So why not all-stall bathrooms. With some stupid little logo on the entry door that is inclusive and non-offensive. One bathroom, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Not two or three bathrooms.

    Remember when we had ‘private’ bathrooms just for blacks so they could enjoy their down time within the confines of their own cultural relevance? That was racism. Why is it not sexism to segregate people as to their sexual preferences. (JOKE, people)

    What people do within the privacy of that stall makes no difference to me. And I could give a shit less who I wash my hands next to. Why all the fuss, just don’t get it.

    1. So why not all-stall bathrooms.

      Still requires conversion costs.

      Should not be forced on businesses. Period.

  35. Is there no aspect of the lives of normal people that the SJW freak show does not feel empowered to mess with??

  36. “As a physician, I think it is a good idea to have two separate bathrooms, one for people who wash their hands and one for people who don’t.”
    –the late Dr. Feldman, during the pre-nomination presidential forum/debate at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention.

    “Come to North Carolina; we assure you we have enough bathrooms for everybody.”
    — Rachel Mills, before announcing her delegation’s vote totals for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.