Trans

Radical Feminists Take Their Rejection of Trans Women to Federal Court with Lawsuit

What happens when we give the government authority to decide what gender means.

|

Restroom signs
Matthew Clausen / Dreamstime.com

It's not just conservatives (many with religious objections) who are attempting to block the Department of Justice, Department of Education, and the Obama Administration in general from implementing policies that mandate that transgender people be accommodated in government and school buildings. At least one feminist group is not happy and has filed a federal lawsuit to try to stop it.

There's a lengthy history of some feminists—particularly those who classify themselves as "radical feminists"—rejecting transgender inclusion and the concept that sex can be changed. There's even a term for it, "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist" (TERF). It can get pretty nasty.

One group, the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF), has filed suit against the Justice Department and the Department of Education in New Mexico, saying the guidance document that the Department of Education has put out telling schools that they must accommodate the wishes of transgender students to access the facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms, et cetera) of their chosen gender is a violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination and allows for sex-segregated facilities in education.

The lawsuit argues that Congress has made it clear when crafting laws that references to a person's "sex" specifically mean biological sex and not gender identity. Gender identity has historically been treated separately by lawmakers, and WoLF notes that Congress has specifically rejected attempts to add "gender identity" to civil rights laws.

The lawsuit also, interestingly enough, engages in the same panicked rhetoric from the right that transgender accommodation increases the vulnerability of women to rape and sexual assault by biological males looking for prey.

WoLF is undoubtedly accurate that there's very little evidence that lawmakers ever intended to lump biological sex and gender identity together when crafting laws. Indeed, while this conflict is playing out, Democratic lawmakers are pushing the Equality Act, which actually would add "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" to federal civil rights laws.

But lawmakers aren't in direct control of how laws get enforced once they're enacted. What has happened here is a confluence of executive branch and judicial branch interpretations of the law. A Supreme Court decision years ago determined that sex discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits stereotypical gender traits is a violation of the federal civil rights laws.

From that precedent, there have been subsequent lawsuits that have attempted to extend that argument to transgender people—meaning that anti-transgender discrimination is based on stereotypes that men and women are supposed to dress and behave in certain ways based on their biological sex presentation. And there have been federal court rulings that have determined that either the Supreme Court precedent does apply here or—in the case of public schools—the vagueness of language in the legislation itself gives the administrative leeway to determine what the policy should be.

Right now the Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a case over whether a transgender teen can use the facilities at his Virginia school that match his expressed gender. If the court rejects the case, it will leave in place a court ruling in the administration's favor. This doesn't mean the WoLF lawsuit has no chance or merit, because it's in a different court district. But that federal court would have to disagree with the 4th Circuit's ruling in order to satisfy WoLF, and if that split happens, the Supreme Court will be called upon again to address the conflict.

In the meantime, the Obama administration is pushing forward with measures to increase transgender facility accommodation in federal government buildings and homeless shelters. Elizabeth Nolan Brown blogged about those efforts earlier this week.

NEXT: The As(s)ininty of An Ideological Test That Donald Trump Would Fail

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. If a restroom sign has both male and female figures on it, that means you can fuck in there. True story.

    1. What does it mean if a restroom sign is clearly an occult reference to the Illuminati?

      1. You can fuck in there, but only while wearing an animal mask.

        1. No, furries haven’t been added to the civil rights list. Yet.

          1. Who said anything about furries? Dude, it’s like you’ve never been to a secret Illuminati bathroom orgy.

            1. There was this one time in college….

              I think I met Jesus’s great(^60) granddaughter there.

            2. I think this is a good place for a rant about how True Detective could have been the greatest show ever, but totally bombed with that awful second season. Yes, I am still bitter.

          2. When it does, does that mean, after I get a job working at a funeral home, I can wear a Big Bird costume to work while I’m explaining the arrangements to the family of the deceased?

      2. Then only all-seeing eye-fucking is allowed.

        1. TransMale Gaze.

        2. How does that work? Does one fuck the eye socket?

          1. Eye-fucking is more an aggressive ogling. Imagine Wotan staring at your junk.

            1. Imagine Warty just looking around.

          2. “I will gouge out your eyeball and skull fuck you!”

            1. Private Pyle, you had best start shitting me Tiffany gold cuff links, or I will definitely fuck you up!

          3. There are certain horrible experiences I remember from college, like that one time I walked into a party and my friend ran up to me all excited:
            “There is someone here you should meet. He actually skull-fucked this girl with a glass eye.”

            [horrified silent stare]

            “I don’t think that is as much of a universally admired thing as you apparently believe.”

        3. So anal then.

          1. When you stare into the browneye, the browneye stares back.

            1. Shirime, the Japanese butteye ghost.

              1. I like how Shirime’s whole thing is tricking people into looking at his butteye, and that’s all that happens.

                1. “What the hell, dude!”

                  [end of story]

                2. and that’s all that happens.

                  A lot of Japanese ghost stories are like that. As with the giant foot that demands to be washed or the demon that cleans your bathroom.

                  1. I need that demon to infest my bathroom, especially since one of the cats keeps shitting in the tub.

                3. tricking people into looking at his butteye

                  Kind of similar to the penis showing game from Waiting.

              2. Again, I learn something new from you SF. This is not necessarily a good thing.

                1. I am a font.

                  1. You are comic sans.

                    1. I think autocorrect is making the world a much worse place.

                    2. Not nearly as bad as broken threading…

              3. Sometimes I wonder if you’re inspired or broken.

                1. Can’t it be both?

                  1. He is broken, in an inspirational way.

                    1. Diabeetus has that effect.

                    2. TIL SugarFree has a BA in Japanese Demonology.

                    3. Naw, he just has one of those yokai watches.

      1. That sign means you’re still gonna get fucked, but not in the way you WANT to get fucked.

      2. STEVE SMITH NOT FURRY! STEVE SMITH VOTE FOR TP RAPE MAN!

        1. ACCUSE STEVE SMITH OF BEING FURRY AND SEE FURY!

      3. Free Toilet Paper is our right as Americans?

        1. You already have a left hand.

    2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://bit.do/ctDjs

  2. It’s not just conservatives (many with religious objections) who are attempting to block the Department of Justice, Department of Education, and the Obama Administration in general from implementing policies that mandate that transgender people be accommodated in government and school buildings

    No, no it’s not. There might even be jus’ regular secular folks who might be uncomfortable with a completely out-of-the-blue, ill-thought policy on transgender bathroom use.

    1. Especially those of us with some understanding of how sweeping federal rules tend to play out for hapless, well-meaning citizens who run afoul of them…

    2. If you disagree with our superiors you are by definition some kind of crazy extremist.

    3. and also those who respect grammar, and understand that no matter how hard these morons try to make up a bunch of bullshit “genders,” it all goes out the window, because facilities are signed according to sex

  3. Every problem in this country is a nail and Title IX is the hammer.

  4. Yup. The feds should just butt out of it.
    If some places want to accomodate transgendered women, they should be allowed to do so. if a Radical Feminist club wants to exclude trannies they should be allowed to do so.

    And if a trans-woman is convincing enough that nobody can tell, then what difference does it make?

    1. And if a trans-woman is convincing enough that nobody can tell

      It’s the ‘telling’ that can lead to scary results. If the law is crafted in a way that allows… or forces people to “tell”, then the results might get ugly.

      1. John McAfee can tell, but he has to take them out for dinner and drinks first.

        1. “Baby, wait! You didn’t show me your surprise!”

          1. [Hugh’s date drops trou, bends over, shows butteye]

            1. MY GOD, HE IS DATING A JAPANESE GHOST!

              1. Are you surprised? Who else would date him?

    2. And if a trans-woman is convincing enough that nobody can tell, then what difference does it make?

      What if it’s a mannish cis-woman? Which bathroom should (s)he use?

      1. The bucket out back

    3. 80% of transgenders are still sexually attracted to the biological opposite sex. Odds are, they’d be ogling women just like most other biological males would if they were in there.

    1. down three chins
      Trickled the tear-drops and the bloody drivel.

      CNN promptly offered him a spot on their evening lineup.

    2. Protip: ALWAYS click on a Heroic Mulatto link.

      1. Heartily seconded. He is like unto a Dave Burge like treasure.

    3. Also wrt the jpg, is that meant to be Big Bird or Duck from DHMIS?

      1. I’m guessing with the whole “yellow” theme….

        1. It’s been a good long while since I was a child, but I don’t recall Big Bird having that vacant PTSD look in his eyes.

          1. Those are definitely Big Bird’s legs, though.

          2. Hey man, if you saw what happened to Mr. Hooper, you’d have the 1000 yard stare too.

  5. Except it is the pro-transgender rights side that is pushing the administration into unilaterally deciding that the subjective criteria of gender legally overrides the objective criteria of sex in almost everything.

    1. Everything but procreation, which is where it matters.

    2. the real irony is that the tranny community’s argument has been that gender is a social construct, and is not a synonym for biological sex; being that facilities are legally assigned according to biological sex, they’ve actually made an argument against their own interests.

  6. Or we could, you know, go back to acknowledging that, with the very rare exception to true hermaphrodites, Trans people are mentally ill, and stop pandering to their illness.

    1. I guess there are two possibilities: one, gender dysphoria, a person believes or intuitively feels they are the wrong sex. That’s a delusion, though it may have a physical explanation. In the other, the person knows exactly what they are, but wishes they were the other sex. I can’t really see why that’s mental illness, it’s just a subjective preference. If it becomes obsessive and leads to self-mutilation, maybe, but it’s the obsession that is the mental illness, not the preference.

      1. If it becomes obsessive and leads to self-mutilation, maybe, but it’s the obsession that is the mental illness, not the preference.

        Not only are you drawing distinctions where none are or may be known to exist, this is pretty valueless and arbitrary. Considering CSP is talking about refusing to pander rather than actively seeking out and treating, not only are you making distinctions that don’t exist, you’re doing so for no (or inactive) reasons.

        Elon Musk is pretty obsessed with going to Mars even if it kills him. Thus far, his obsession has been a (highly debatable) boon and his preference for Mars being somewhat reasonable. More or less obsession being a drop in the bucket relative to preferring a different destination like the surface of Jupiter. All of which is pretty irrelevant if done on his own dime and/or without any of CSP’s unwilling participation.

        1. Also, going to Mars … Or Jupiter, for that matter, is theoretically possible. If you are genetically male, you are not, in the present stage of medical science, going to be female. Ever.

          That may change. At which point, I will expect most places to distinguish according to which equipent you have rather than which you were born with.

    2. Trans people are mentally ill, and stop pandering to their illness.

      Trans people are no more and no less “mentally ill” than Christians or Muslims or anybody else who believes in invisible spirits and gods that talk to them. Trans people are no more or less “mentally ill” than people who go into a panic when they see a man dressed in women’s clothes.

      The real issue is that who uses what bathroom is none of the government’s business, it ought to be up to the owner of the bathroom.

      1. Trans people are no more and no less “mentally ill” than Christians or Muslims or anybody else who believes in invisible spirits and gods that talk to them. Trans people are no more or less “mentally ill” than people who go into a panic when they see a man dressed in women’s clothes.

        This New Atheist bit of wisdom brought to you by the letter “D”, as in “Daddy, I hate you because you made me go to church when I was a kid.”

      2. cool deflection bro

    3. Speaking of mental illness, I wonder at what point we’ll see a concerted effort by people with multiple personality disorder to get separate votes for each of their personalities?

  7. A Supreme Court decision years ago determined that sex discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits stereotypical gender traits is a violation of the federal civil rights laws.

    This is an interesting sentence, and I had to read it several times to parse it. Not because Scott wrote it poorly, but I’m trying to figure out how this supreme court ruling might work either for Transgender accommodation laws, or against them.

    The problem as I see it is the Transgender issue is not really similar (even though it’s been cast that way) as the fight for gay marriage. While we still sometimes colloquially call it ‘gay marriage’, there really is no gay marriage. There is ‘marriage’ and gays can no participate. That’s a ruling about simple equality.

    Every ruling I’m seeing from the federal government seems to be calling out transgender people specifically– as being able to use a facility of their choice, and all the wording I’ve seen or intent I can grok seems to wall off Transgender people into a particular category– which leads me to believe that we will go the way of Ireland and start certifying the transgender.

    1. Uh, no. Gay people only fought for gay marriage for decades so they could have the ability to sue the tiny fraction of wedding cake makers who refuse to bake cakes for them. That’s it. There was no other reason. And all gay people were in on it.

      1. It was the most fabulous conspiracy EVER.

        1. [glitterbomb]

          1. “Yoohoo!” one of the conspirators says.

        1. I dunno. It wasn’t one of Les Claypool’s better efforts.

      2. Oh, phew, when I read the first two words, I thought you and I were going to have an argument.

        But we totally agree. It was a conspiracy by the gay illuminati. But I admit to having succumbed to their charms.

        1. “Vhere are your gender identity papers?!?”

          “I left them at home…”

          “In your vallet, perhaps? Or vas it a…PURSE?!?”

          “It was a fanny pack! A fanny pack!”

          “GUARDS! Take this creature to the NO POOPING ROOM!”

          1. Uh, if it’s a fanny pack, then it makes her a lesbian. *ducks*

            Or a man with zero fashion sense.

            1. Maybe a lesbian and a man with no fashion sense are really just the same thing.

              1. Whoaaaa.

                *backs away very slowly*

              2. [head explodes]

                1. Do I wish we could post gifs in the comments??

                  [thinks about the retinal rape that HM, Crusty, and SugarFree would inflict]

                  No. No I don’t.

                  1. Crusty would be a threat, sure. As would SugarFree, although his gifs would only work about a third of the time. Why don’t you want to see all the amazing twerking gifs that HM would post, though?

        1. I hear the people who sued were not even gay. A gay would never do that. It was a false flag operation. Everyone knows that.

      3. they wanted a few other things like not to have to make a will. You have to admit the ability to sue anyone you don’t like into bankruptcy is pretty fucking awesome. It is not like any gay person ever said “I want to get a marriage license but I don’t want the ability to sue anyone who isn’t sufficiently gay affirming into bankruptcy.

        Suing evil fundies into bankruptcy wasn’t the only reason but it was a nice bonus. Doesn’t that make you happy? It should. You wanted it awfully badly.

      4. 10 years ago, fags insisted that marriage was an archaic practice that needed to be abolished by the government

    2. “A Supreme Court decision years ago determined that sex discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits stereotypical gender traits is a violation of the federal civil rights laws.”

      That is kinda poorly-worded. The idea is that one can’t discriminate solely on the grounds that a man is (acting) feminine. (Whether a person stereotypically exhibits gender traits.) However, if femininity is a bona-fide occupation requirement (let’s say in nursing), you can exclude male and female Rambos.

      1. [occupational]

      2. How many male Kindergarten teachers have you heard of?

      3. And, I’m still waiting to see the first woman on the back of a garbage truck…

    3. “There is ‘marriage’ and gays can no participate. That’s a ruling about simple equality.”

      Except that is a stupid fucking lie statist fucks tell themselves to pretend to a libertarian facade, as gays could always participate, but when that’s pointed out, said statist fucks pretending to be libertarian hand wave it away.

      1. No, you’re a towel.

        1. If marriage doesn’t exist independently of legal recognition, why do libertarians claim to want to get the government out of marriage? Doesn’t that statement imply that marriage is something separate from government thus it is something to get the government out of? If marriage exists independently of government, why did gays need government recognition?

          1. You know what I’ll answer to all of those questions.

            Equal protection.

            1. Zeb

              I tried to marry my sister in 2005- she was a post-menopausal lesbian that was “terminal” with liver cancer. Not one “gay” organization stepped forward to help us in our cause.

              It was a total “money grab”- she had paid into Socialist InSecurity for almost 30 years and we decided to try to fuck with the system. And they gave us $255 for her funeral…

              You know… Equal!

      2. as gays could always participate,

        Gays couldn’t get the tax breaks or legal favors that came along with marriage.

        Now, the right thing would have been to abolish all forms of government recognition of marriage. But until that happens, marriage for any two consenting adults is the next best thing.

        1. I think what Hassan is saying is that gay dudes have always been just as free to marry women as straight dudes are? I could be wrong. It’s quite a spittle-flecked comment.

          1. That’s what I figured he was getting at.

        2. Or provide some type of legal status (let’s call is “Civil Unions”) with the same rights and obligations as Marriage, but just don’t call it marriage. But, no. That wasn’t enough. It will never be enough. It won’t be enough until we are all gay and have a gay pride parade every other day, which would really get old after a while. So, we stop having children and the human race becomes extinct because of it.

          1. I… what?

          2. Why would it be enough to call it something else? I don’t buy your separate but equal logic.

        3. Explain to me why it’s “the next best thing’ for an unmarried person like me to now have to finance needless tax breaks for gay married couples in addition to straight ones?

      3. says the stupid fucking statist who is essentially arguing that it is OK for the government to regulate marriage in the first place.

  8. What’s that phrase? Something about reaping & sowing? Or was it raping & sewing?

    1. STEVE SMITH VERY MUCH INTO RAPING AND SEWING. LIKE HIS NEW DOILIES?

      1. DISCLAIMER: WHAT STEVE SMITH CALL “SEWING” JUST EUPHEMISM FOR RAPE.

  9. The lawsuit also, interestingly enough, engages in the same panicked rhetoric from the right that transgender accommodation increases the vulnerability of women to rape and sexual assault by biological males looking for prey

    Rhetoric from the right? It is an axiom of the left, of SJWs and feminists in particular, TeRFS included, that ALL men are ravening rapists just waiting to make their move.

    It is so strange that when their rhetoric can be used against them it temporarily becomes the purview if their foes.

    1. Well, I like the term panicked rhetoric like it voids any and all arguments rather than validating the fact that these people have tried plain-old “Go away!” and “Leave me/us alone!” are *still* about to have the FYTW put to them.

      It’s like a scene from a gangster film noir movie where the hitman has whacked so many people that he’s gotten tired of all the same routines that people go through when begging for their lives.

    2. “The lawsuit also, interestingly enough, engages in the same panicked rhetoric *from the right* that transgender accommodation increases the vulnerability of women to rape and sexual assault by biological males looking for prey.”
      This is offensive. Why is it unreasonable for women not to want biologically male persons in their locker rooms and restrooms. Or for fathers not to want men (who feel like women but still have all the hardware) using the same facilities as their daughters? Why is that a neanderthal position? It is not just about rape. Women do not want to shower with a naked male stranger–these laws apply to locker rooms, not just bathrooms with stalls (which, by the way, never have perfect privacy). It would also mean that in dormitories a girl could get assigned a male (becoming female) roommate, and is in trouble if she complains. And this applies to high school gym class and even lower grades. I’ve seen dozens of men over the years changing clothes in airport bathrooms because they need to–is that ok now in the ladies room? It doesn’t matter how rare transgender are because there is no way to verify that a man in the ladies room is actually transgender: you can’t ask and he has no proof. So any man can walk in.

  10. (also, that’s what all those tumblr blogs meant when they said “go away terfs!”. I thought it was a euphemism for some kind of scumbag man. Would have never guessed they were talking about other women!)

  11. “The lawsuit also, interestingly enough, engages in the same panicked rhetoric *from the right* that transgender accommodation increases the vulnerability of women to rape and sexual assault by biological males looking for prey.” [emphasis added]

    What? Are these radical feminists somehow guilty by association because they say the same kind of stuff that right-wingers would say?

    And as for calling these feminists TERFS – why not call them URFMBCBWHDIGMLTA, “Us Radical Feminists May Be Crazy But We Haven’t Descended Into Gibbering Madness Like the Transgender Activists.”

    1. Indeed. Which is it? We live in a rape culture with men constantly on the prowl for rape victims, or there’s no reason to fear that giving men access to women-only spaces will put women at risk.

      How many people are flogging rape culture and bathroom access rights without even acknowledging the cognitive dissonance.

      1. It’s not that far apart, really. If you believe that rape is a result of “toxic” masculinity, then any biological male capable of raping would be incapable of claiming to be a woman in order to facilitate rape.

        #believeher when she says she’s been raped, #believeher when “she” says she’s a woman.

        It’s curiously naive, but not inconsistent.

        1. I bow, as ever, to your insight into the twisted nether regions of the human mind.

          1. I’ve always been quite concerned about my ability to emulate the thought processes of stupid people.

            1. Emulate?

        2. If rape is the result of toxic masculinity, are women who embrace masculinity and pretend to be men just as toxic?

          1. Yes, because they reject what is “good and pure” (womanhood) for that which is “base and evil” (manhood). They just can’t admit it in public for fear of shunning.

  12. The most important issue of our time.

    1. I get the impression that progs have a two-pronged strategy whenever they’re trying to ram some idiotic policy down the country’s throat:

      1) First they say the issue if the next civil-rights crusade, and they must prevail AT ONCE as a matter of UTMOST MORAL URGENCY.

      2) Then they mock their opponents for being so obsessed with such a trivial matter.

      On the one hand, they rally the True Believers to get their retarded policy adopted.

      On the other hand, they try to wear down resistance by persuading normal people that this isn’t a hill worth dying on, it’s only a minor issue, if you try to protest you’ll just get yelled at and maybe driven out of a job, so for the sake of a quiet life it’s best just to just let it happen and hope that the progs will finally be satisfied and won’t have any further demands.

      1. 3) Wait approximately 1 Overton window and repeat (not necessarily with the same issue).

        This is how you get on the right side of history/We have always been at war with Eastasia.

        1. ^this.

  13. Germaine Greer: ‘Just because you lop off your dick and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman.’

    Proper.

    1. Germaine was old school. I kind of get where the TERFs are coming from, even though I don’t agree with their root cause: Identity politics.

      When a group spent a bunch of time fighting for rights and set-asides for a particular group, they’re going to be uncomfortable allowing johnny-come-lately’s and interlopers in who simply declare.

      But as I’ve said repeatedly in these transgender threads: the transgender issue has the possibility of destroying the identity politics industry from the inside. When your entire existence is built around an identity group: be it sex, race, what have you, if anyone can just *poof* declare they’re part of your group, it kinda waters down message. Which is why I suspect the transgendered will, at some point, demand (and get) certification. And the rest of the identity politics industry will be vigorously nodding and applauding.

      1. Bodhidharma originally refused to teach Dazu Huike. Huike waited outside Bodhidharma’s cave all night during a snowstorm; in the morning, Bodhidharma asked him why he was still there. Huike once again requested that Bodhidharma teach him, and Bodhidharma refused. At that moment, Huike cut off his left arm, at which Bodhidharma, finally convinced of Huike’s resolve, accepted him as a student.

        If cutting off one’s arm is good enough to join the fucking Shaolin, cutting off a penis is good enough to join womanhood.

        Fuck Greer.

        1. At least Bodhidharma didn’t charge an arm *and* a leg.

            1. Is that the ear and fingers guy?

                1. Thank you, I was waiting for you to set up my punch line…

                  it was Mark Anthony who said “lend me your ears.”

                  1. My son has my eyes

                    1. I have the heart of a child. I keep it a jar on my desk.

        2. If cutting off one’s arm is good enough to join the fucking Shaolin, cutting off a penis is good enough to join womanhood.

          Greer has an outdated view of transgender.

        3. That could be the dumbest assertion posted by anyone ever, primarily because it doesn’t even follow.

          No one said anything about good enough you fucking retard.

      2. Which is why I suspect the transgendered will, at some point, demand (and get) certification.

        Because there’s no way letting the government develop a list of people with some arbitrary trait (be it trannies or, say, gun owners) could ever backfire. Never.

      3. It may be “identity” politics but clearly, actual women have a lot more in common with each other than they do with trans-women. It’s much like how gays, lesbians, and everything else under the kitchen sink gets lumped together simply by being non-norms – but it real life it’s more often the case that each “identity group” has to fight its own battles.

        1. Just wait, when universities start offering a ‘Statistics for Gender Studies Majors’ class, they’ll start teaching that if the mean of a distribution is 0, then -100 and +100 are closer to each other than either is to 0.

    1. I wonder what are her thoughts on Nate Parker.

    2. I can absolutely see Bill Clinton doing this (then, not now) and not even thinking of it as rape, but thinking of it as dominant, alpha sex. I can see a LOT of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the ’80s, “hey, that is rape, do not do that.” I can see YOUR NICE GRANDPA doing that, back the

      “Its in the past marge! Stop living in the past! No one know what rape was until like, god, uh, 2005 when everyone was suddenly informed by Jezebel what was NOT COOL MAN. We can’t expect cavemen to have understood our sophisticated society!? Why should we expect rapey-Bill-Clinton to have adhered to today’s mores?

      Oh, but Seriously? Bill Cosby is still a criminal and should be jailed.”

    3. It’s just so obvious that feminism is just an arm of progressivism and they have no concern for women, per se. I wish more women would realize that.

  14. The lawsuit argues that Congress has made it clear when crafting laws that references to a person’s “sex” specifically mean biological sex and not gender identity. Gender identity has historically been treated separately by lawmakers, and WoLF notes that Congress has specifically rejected attempts to add “gender identity” to civil rights laws.

    They are correct on that issue. No federal agency has any authority to mandate gender-identity anything.

    I don’t know if they are making the argument, but mandatory access to bathrooms based on claimed gender identity will have a disparate impact on women, as far more men will be using the women’s room than vice versa, and this kind of disparate impact has been ruled consistently to be discriminatory. The gender-identity rules being mooted about are in pretty direct conflict with protections of women against disparate impact.

    1. Look, sex means gender when we want it to, and sex and gender have nothing to do with each when we want it to. I don’t understand what you right-wingers are having such trouble grasping here.

      1. If women start using the mens bathroom, has no one considered how tough it’ll be for the men to go pee when they all have boners?

        1. Not everyone has a piss fetish, Paul.

          1. Leave Paul alone. And besides, it’s not really a urine fetish, but that hissing noise they make when they pee he really likes. A leaky steam pipe would give him the same problem.

            1. Hey, i’m not judging. Paul can be into whatever he wants. I’m just going to be wary about letting him stay at my house for any length of time.

              1. Is your bathroom door hollow or solid core?

                1. Bathroom door? No. We don’t have any secrets at my house.

          2. ‘Asking for a friend’ was presumed.

        2. Just raise the urinals a foot or two higher.

          *Who the hell would get a boner? And what woman would be nuts enough to go into the pig sty that is the men’s room?

          1. Have you ever seen a women’s restroom, or heard a lady speak of it? That women are inherently less gnarly than men is one of the bigger lies of the modern age.

            1. As someone who has worked in jobs involving cleaning public restrooms, I can testify as an expert witness that women’s restrooms are horrific. Public men’s rooms are consistently much cleaner. The “disparate impact” would be on men if public restrooms become unisex.

              1. +1 toilet so badly clogged with tampons that it has to be replaced

              2. Public men’s rooms are consistently much cleaner.

                This is probably true, women have more reasons to use the bathroom than men. They also are much more likely to have children in tow.
                But when alcohol is involved, guys’ bathrooms are much worse.

            2. This.

              In most mens rooms the worst you will encounter is splatter from poor aim and an unflushed toilet, in womens rooms you get blood and shit all over the place from the squatters whose derrierres are too prescious to allow to come into contact with the toilet seat and don’t clean up after themselves.

            3. Hovering. Its a thing, and holy shit does it create messes.

              Which requires more hovering, more messes, etc. ad nauseum.

              1. And a very idiotic thing at that. Unless the seat is wet or smeared with blood or shit, it is almost certainly cleaner than your ass.

            4. Have you ever seen a women’s restroom

              NO CITIZEN X, BECAUSE I’M NOT ALLOWED TO GO IN THERE!!!

              1. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

            5. ^this

              I had to clean the bathrooms at my first job- Chuck E Cheese.

              Men’s room- Wipe up the piss on the urinals from drunk men with bad aim and clean the boogers off the wall.

              Women’s room- Yikes!

    2. but mandatory access to bathrooms based on claimed gender identity will have a disparate impact on women, as far more men will be using the women’s room than vice versa

      I don’t see how this follows at all. IME *women are already* using men’s restrooms – and have been doing so for decades – because (especially in crowded venues) the women’s restrooms usually can accommodate fewer simultaneous users (all toilet stalls instead of stalls and urinals).

      And culturally, men are more likely to tolerate women using men’s facilities and have a stronger taboo prohibiting then from using communal women’s restrooms.

      1. As a policy, it will result in more biological males using the women’s room. The fact that women “overflow” into the men’s room now is irrelevant to the impact of the policy change. This new policy will have a disparate impact on women, and thus crosses into sexual discrimination territory.

  15. A Supreme Court decision years ago determined that sex discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits stereotypical gender traits is a violation of the federal civil rights laws.

    What the Court said was that practices that were a violation of the laws against sex discrimination could be applied to protect a man presenting as a woman, which is somewhat different. And an unfortunate blurring of a objective test with an edge case.

    Example: a company with a practice of illegally refusing to hire women can be sued by a man presenting as a woman who is not hired because of that practice. IOW, you can’t refuse to hire women or men presenting as women. That’s different from saying you will hire men or women, but not trannies. There is no statutory prohibition on the latter.

    1. Example: a company with a practice of illegally refusing to hire women can be sued by a man presenting as a woman who is not hired because of that practice. IOW, you can’t refuse to hire women or men presenting as women.

      Help me out here, how is the man presenting as a women not a transgender? Isn’t this the entire issue? That in a brief couple of years, transgender moved from someone who went through years of counseling, hormone treatments and then surgery (commitment) to the ‘gender-fluid’ who can declare and shift from day to day?

      1. Transgender means you perceive yourself as want to be the opposite “gender”. Presenting as a woman just means you try to portray yourself as a woman to other people. I can dress like a woman and try to have other people think I’m a woman without being transgender.

        1. *without wanting to be a woman

        2. Transgender means you perceive yourself as want to be the opposite “gender”.

          Is there some kind of standard question and answer session to determine this? Will there be a Bladerunner type test to see who’s in what category?

    2. No it is not, RC. The Supreme Court case they are talking about is about a firm that refused to promote a woman because she was a woman. The evidence for this conclusion was the fact that they said that she did not behave “feminine enough.” In other words, the comment about her supposedly lack of femininity was used as evidence that sex was a motivating factor is decision not to promote her.

      Somehow that has been morphed into a holding that merely perceiving a woman as “not feminine” or a man is “not masculine” is itself discrimination. But that is not what the Supreme Court said.

      1. You are correct, Number 2. I was going off of a memory of a discussion of how that case might be applied. It was an actual sex discrimination case, but one that tied the discrimination to lack of feminine characteristics, not their presence.

  16. The radfems have something of a point.

    What does it mean, if anything, to talk about women and inherent disadvantages resulting from being a woman if you cannot exclude anyone from the definition of “woman”, including people with penises who would have thus been born into “male privilege”?

    1. It’s a question, for sure. I’m no expert on feminist theory, but I’d strongly suspect there’s a lot of shared experience and nods to historical discrimination that comes into play when talking about societal disadvantages.

      To Greer’s (and HM’s point) if you cut off your penis, sure it shows commitment, but does it mean that you show up to the party with the years or decades of discrimination felt by women who were born women, and if not, are you a woman? Are the years of discrimination, glass ceilings and other disadvantages earned or are they acquired?

      The TERFs seem to think not. Regardless, the transgender thing is seeming to do what I predicted it would do: cause rifts in the identity politics industry. And it’s forcing people to [defensively] define what it is to be a thing (class) of person: be it female, male, black etc.

      1. This would never be a significant issue if the government weren’t handing out special rights to particular groups.

        It’s beyond retarded.

        1. That genie’s way, way outta the bottle. Another hill we weren’t supposed to die on.

          1. Sometimes it seems like we’re running out of hills.

      2. Of course it’s all rendered absurd from the fact that people don’t inherit the victimhood of people who suffered in the past because they were similar to them somehow. To my hypothetical African American interlocutor: “You (plural)” Didn’t suffer centuries of slavery. Other people did, maybe some of your ancestors did, but “you (singular)” didn’t endure that any more than I (a white person) did.

        All the ‘collective pain’ people belonging to purportedly marginalized groups from historical events is self-imposed. If they hadn’t been told about what happened back then they wouldn’t feel any of it.

  17. Why not just replace the mens/women’s signs with penis/vagina signs? Then, if you identify with the opposite sex, your not offended by the wording on the door.

    1. “Not all women have vaginas,” etc.

      1. But that becomes irrelevant. These rooms are no longer for men or women, but for those having a penis or not having one.

        If you’ve got one you use the door with a dick. Doesn’t matter if you’re wearing a dress at the time or not.

        1. I can totally get on board with anything that allows me to say, “Excuse me, I have to go to the penis room,” in everyday life without repercussions.

        2. “But that becomes irrelevant. These rooms are no longer for men or women, but for those having a penis or not having one.”

          Yes, and attach penis and vagina signs to drinking fountains. … Beyond the immediate “complications”, note the historical reference.

          1. Non sequitor alert.

            We have men’s and women’s restrooms – we don’t have men’s and women’s water fountains. So I don’t see the immediate complications nor the historical reference.

            Unless you’re saying that having sex segregated facilities is and has always been equivalent to ‘Separate but Equal’.

            Allowing *-who-identify-as to use the restroom of their choice still does not fix the above ‘problem’ as there still would be male and female designated restrooms so the American Apartheid regime lives on.

            1. Take the “unless”. If selection based on skin color is arbitrary then so presumably is selection based on genitalia. The “nice” thing is, that if you want to make selection meaningful, you open up the field to the battle over what “essential”, “bona fide” – whatever – differences are. And that’s where the debate over who is – over what is – male and female takes place. It’s a part of that, or certainly can be made part of it, by whoever wishes.
              So you either have arbitrary selection, which is incompatible with the basic rule of law. Or you have the debate over meaning, which you wanted to avoid.

              (Others are likely to deem your selection based on anatomy as sex discrimination. And others are likely to see it as gender discrimination: It certainly creates the strongest possible “disparate impact”, if one where rely on gender (identity). Sex – anatomy – massively correlates with gender, female sex with female gender.)

              What I suggest is to rely on these elements: preference of the majority of tax payers; preference of the majority of members of institutions; pluralism (sex segregated; unisex). That’s for public property. Private property is ruled by its owners.

    2. Or how about we leave everything the way it was because it wasn’t a problem and didn’t need to be fixed.

  18. all this for .03 % of the population

    1. Where do these numbers come from. Everyone seems to come up with a different (all quite small) number for how many transgender people there are.

  19. These “anti-transgender” feminists are like the Girondins and Mensheviks protesting against betrayal of the Revolution. They are shocked and appalled that their righteous crusade has been hijacked, in a totally unpredictable development which is totally a shock and a surprise, but don’t worry, soon things will be set right and the Revolution will get back on course.

  20. Maybe I’m just being a spoilsport, but what portion of the population is actually “transgender”? It seems as if there is a lot of energy being expended for a negligible result. Or have we completely succumbed to the thrall of the tyranny of the minority?

    1. Even if 60% of men thought they were women and vice versa, they’d be wrong and it would be wrong to force normal people to cater to their foolishness.

      1. Um, if 60% of people were transgender, they would be normal people. And the cis-whatever would be wrong to insist on bathrooms segregated by what’s between your legs.

        1. It would still be wrong to force the weirdness of the majority against the sane minority.

    2. what portion of the population is actually “transgender”?

      The Rand Corp study which was used to evaluate the issue of ‘Trans in the military’ provided some summary of the historical estimates and meta-studies.

      its safely said to be in the “0.3%-0.5%” range. Which includes everything from pre-op, post-op, ‘in therapy’ pre-application for transition, and leaves open some wiggle-room for “the un-acknowleged” that may live their lives as the opposite gender w/o ever seeking reassignment.

    3. Maybe I’m just being a spoilsport, but what portion of the population is actually “transgender”? It seems as if there is a lot of energy being expended for a negligible result. Or have we completely succumbed to the thrall of the tyranny of the minority?

      I think your question is a good one, but it exposes a problem here.

      The people pushing hardest for these laws and making public-policy priority out of the “Trans” issue…. are not necessary trans-people themselves.

      The people pushing these issues and making the most political noise are actually just regular old “Progressive Feminists”. Or the “SJWs” in common parlance.

      The mistake being made is to assume these people represent anyone except themselves. iow – Don’t blame actual Trans people for their “Allies and advocates” who are the most-vocal.

      Certainly there’s some overlap. but as you note = the amount of light & heat generated by these people far exceeds their social relevance.

      1. “far exceeds their social relevance.”

        Far exceeds “reasonable”, proportionate accomodation and dedication of public property. Rights to free association collide here; the decision is a matter of ownership, and then of utility (pun noted).

        As for implementing positive rights and social engineering in general, recall Pareto’s 80-20 rule. Cf. micro-aggressions.

        1. Didn’t you just up above say that Men’s and Women’s restrooms are equivalent to White and Coloured drinking fountains?

          1. I’ve replied to you, above. Incidentally, that may clear up the concern you have here. Let me know if it doesn’t.

        2. Pareto was a fascist, you despicable chauvinist, how dare you legitimize him!

      2. Yeah, it’s a crusade for activists and doesn’t necessarily reflect what trans people actually want or need.

        I can only speculate, but I would imagine that most legitimately gender-dysphoric people aren’t interested in making a big political stink about anything because it’s hard enough as it is to figure out how to be comfortable with yourself, have romantic relationships and try to live a decent life. And having official sanction to use a bathroom really isn’t going to help with those things very much.

      3. The people pushing hardest for these laws and making public-policy priority out of the “Trans” issue…. are not necessary trans-people themselves.

        +1 Blair White

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5bpeIDNVEA

    4. “…what portion of the population is actually “transgender”?”

      Zero. “Gender identity” is a fad concept with no objective reality.

    5. Or have we completely succumbed to the thrall of the tyranny of the minority?

      Yes.

  21. POPCORN HERE, GET YOUR POPCORN… LADIES 2-FOR-1 SPECIAL…. sorry sir, i said…. oh, my apologies.

  22. If women start using the mens bathroom, has no one considered how tough it’ll be for the men to go pee when they all have boners?

    Assuming they’re not pissing on the ceiling, that is., Won’t somebody think of the janitors?

  23. HOORAY FOR EQUALITY!

  24. Amusing. You apparently don’t see it as a problem when government decides that sex doesn’t exist, that gender is abritrary, and then proceeds to compel association. What the hell is the neutral principle? Government decides, and compels, you like one decision (“inclusion”, you don’t like the other (“exclusion”). This a “tyranny of the minority” situation.

    1. Amusing!

  25. How many midgets are there in America? Don’t they need special accommodations? Who will speak for the midgets?

    1. Also, Brooksie, Midget is not the preferred nomenclature…. Diminutive-American, please.

      1. Let’s not get short with each other.

        Midgets can easily be overlooked.

        1. That’s a low blow, Eddie.

    2. I would suspect considerably more.

      But again, many here still run with an outdated view of transgender.

      The whole ‘gender-fluid’– and recognizing those who have simply declared one gender or another (expanding beyond the old-timey ‘they-had-surgery’ definition) I suspect that the percentage just went up.

      1. As it becomes more socially accepted, fewer people will try to hide it as well. But I’d still bet most of the apparent increase is weird teenagers finding some new way to get attention.

  26. Howwwwwlllllllllll!

  27. Sometimes I wonder if I’m on the right side of this whole “radical Islam” thing. Maybe 8th century theocracy is better than where we’re headed. Lesser of two evils kind of thing. If one making we want to jump off a tall, tall building is a little less likely than making me want to douse myself with gasoline and set myself on fire, then I gotta go with the gasoline one. Having trouble figuring out which is which, though.

  28. Women’s Liberation Front is perhaps worried about competitive market forces. From my own obviously anecdotal evidence, in terms of analytical aptitude, the xy femgenders consistently and well out-perform the xx femgenders. (It is likely a selection effect regarding who makes it to the xy femgender category, but who knows?) Perhaps it is only my overly-academic vantage point, but when considering the earning of big-brother gov’t points for hiring “women,” I could easily see a generalized preference for the xy type.

  29. I see a lot of discussion in this thread over the specifics of the issue.

    Let me clear it up.

    This is the result of radical agitators. They don’t give half a shit about minorities, police brutality, who is allowed in what bathroom, women’s rights, rape culture, income equality, etc etc etc. Their whole purpose is to create strife and division, to stir shit. That is all.

    Discussing and criticizing their arguments is a waste of time. Tomorrow they will just change the argument or find a new one.

    1. I think most people here know that.

      Everything we do here is a waste of time for any purpose besides entertainment and socializing.

      1. I should be working…

    2. Can’t we put them all in a Thunderdome-like cage, hand them all broadswords, and see which side survives?

  30. I’ve run out of sarcastic things to say about restroom signs. Sorry.

    I’m so disappointed in you.

    Here, I’ll supply one:

    Stop in and unload anything you’re carrying around inside you, except your political baggage.

  31. C’mon people… we’re losing voters! We need more fucking problems!

  32. I dont think privacy or validation are reasons people go to homeless shelters. If not having their prefered bathroom denomination is a hobo’s biggest complaint, I think we can call that interaction a success.

  33. I dont think privacy or validation are reasons people go to homeless shelters. If not having their prefered bathroom denomination is a hobo’s biggest complaint, I think we can call that interaction a success.

  34. Wasn’t it the idea of female brains that got Lawrence Summers in trouble at Harvard?

    1. Yeah. But, see, it’s different when they do it/

  35. There are
    newborns with gender ‘unknown’ or mixed female / male genitals. I have witnessed during my RN years. I was not privy to how their parents dealt with this issue..where do these kids fit into these suits and courtroom dramas?? Who advocates for kids born with “undetermined” sex??

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

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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.