Sports

The NCAA and the ACC Oppose Discrimination, Sometimes

Say they are opposed to all forms of discrimination but that's not exactly true.

|

There was something very weird about the decisions by the NCAA and the ACC to pull a number of championship events out of North Carolina. The organizations did so to protest the infamous House Bill 2, which forbids localities to enact equal-protection measures for LGBTQ people and requires transgender individuals to use restrooms that align with their anatomical sex, not their gender identity.

The organizations did not want to lend even tacit consent to prejudice. As ACC Commissioner John Swofford put it, "the ACC Council of Presidents made it clear that the core values of this league are of the utmost importance, and the opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount. Today's decision is one of principle."

This is commendable, for all the reasons House Bill 2 is not. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination is an ignoble enterprise based on ignorance, fear, and disgust. Transgender people do not go down their road lightly; for some the path is so harrowing suicide seems less painful. Treating them with a little respect and common decency hardly seems too much to ask.

Still, the coverage of the moves by the athletic bodies was occasionally surreal. Here, for instance, is The New York Times: "Already, the University of Vermont had canceled a women's basketball game to be held at the University of North Carolina, and the State University of New York at Albany had canceled a men's basketball game at Duke. In addition to men's basketball, the affected championships are for women's soccer, women's golf and women's lacrosse in Division I; baseball in Division II; and men's and women's soccer in Division III."

Notice anything odd? You should: To protest discrimination, athletic organizations are pulling events that are strictly segregated. The irony is all the richer for the fact that the discrimination being protested—discrimination on the basis of gender identity—is the very sort of discrimination that occurs when schools field separate teams for men and women.

If "opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount," then why do the ACC and the NCAA abide a college-sports system that separates players by sex?

Sure, society has reasons for the distinction. For instance, having separate teams for men and women provides opportunity for twice as many people to play. But that's not much of a reason, is it? We could increase the number of players even more if schools further divided teams by race, so that schools competed for the white male basketball championship, the white female basketball championship, the Asian male basketball championship, the Asian female basketball championship, and so on. Nobody thinks that is a good idea.

Another argument: The average male has more upper-body strength than the agverage female. So what? Sports teams don't field average players—they field extraordinary ones. Two extraordinary women recently graduated from the Army's Ranger course; why shouldn't extraordinary women be permitted to play on men's sports teams, too? A league opposed to "any form of discrimination" should be pushing for—in fact, demanding—such a change, shouldn't it?

If you have what you think are valid reasons for separating teams by gender, then you are essentially making the point that some values outweigh the principle of nondiscrimination. But then, supporters of House Bill 2 make the same point: Some things matter more. Once you concede some things matters more, you're simply haggling over details.

Gender is hardly the only area in which discrimination is still widely practiced. At the University of Virginia, certain scholarships are limited to African-American students. Georgia Tech has a scholarship exclusively for male students, and another that grants preference to women and minorities. You can find many similar scholarships all across the country.

What's more, most colleges and universities support racial preferences in college admissions—and some of them, such as Duke, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to defend them from constitutional challenge last year. Many schools also practice discrimination by giving preferential treatment to "legacies"—the children of previous graduates. The NCAA and ACC seem perfectly fine with all of that.

You can argue—many people do—that exclusive scholarships and racial preferences in college admissions serve important social objectives, such as ameliorating the effects of historic injustices and providing a counterweight to contemporary bigotry. You also can argue—most people would—that those objectives make much better reasons for discriminating than the reasons that animate House Bill 2.

It's a fair point. But put less gently, it amounts to saying that some kinds of discrimination are better than others. And that is a far different position than opposing all forms of discrimination as a matter of basic principle.

Perhaps a far less righteous one, too.

NEXT: Gary Johnson Shatters Monthly Record for Fundraising

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. Intellectual consistency ain’t a hallmark of the left or right.

    1. 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://goo.gl/jPtLqx

    2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,.,.,,,

      ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  2. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination is an ignoble enterprise based on ignorance, fear, and disgust.

    Indeed it is. Too bad for Barton and the proggies that isn’t what the NC law does. They have to lie about it, because if they tell the truth its actually quite reasonable.

    (1) No laws allowed mandating that private parties have tranny-friendly bathroom policies. No state-sponsored discrimination there targeting anyone.

    (2) Allowing trannies to use the other bathroom, if they have official paperwork showing that they are, legally, the other sex.

    This is more of a compromise, to be sure, but this is a convoluted and complex area legally. “Sex” is a protected class, you know, and “gender” is not under federal law. Allowing men to use the women’s room whenever they want opens the door to lawsuits of its own – disparate impact and the like. As compromises to manage legal risk go, this isn’t a terrible one.

    1. That should be ” Allowing trannies to use the other bathroom in government facilities“.

    2. Dammit, you beat to that very sentiment, both about the law and the dishonest means of reporting on it.

  3. Two extraordinary women recently graduated from the Army’s Ranger course; why shouldn’t extraordinary women be permitted to play on men’s sports teams, too?

    An extraordinary female army ranger is the equivalent of a male who barely made the cut. In fact, often times it’s less since they face lower standards. Lest we forget how the first female Nazy Seal came into being… lower standards, special training from special officers, extra opportunities and a politically correct impetus to make sure she or anyone with a vagina manages to pass.

    Of course not all discrimination is created equal. In fact nothing is created equal. Equality isn’t just a myth, it’s an evil delusion.

        1. Nazy fo snazy!

    1. and it’s not about whether those extraordinary women should be “permitted” to play on men’s teams. It’s about their ability to make the team. Not a single WNBA player could play in the NBA. I daresay only a single digit number would be more than bench warmers on the typical Division-1 college team. Laws cannot do biological realities.

      1. The fact is, that if we had true equality in sports and no segregation, it would mean women have no opportunity to actually compete in sports and then they won’t get to pretend that they’re just as good as the men and deserve equal pay.

        1. Once again proving that lefties wanting equality is The Big Lie.

      2. Hayley Wickenheiser

        Also, about a dozen of goalkeepers.

        Mostly minor leagues, but still.

      3. I think you are being generous actually.

        The Australian national women’s soccer team played a team of 15 year old boys. They lost 7-0.

        1. …and of course this was already pointed out below.

          *kicks pebble*

        2. He is being very generous.

          My brother and I played a nice game of 2 on 2 against a couple of WNBA players in the park near his place in Charlotte. We had a great time.

          And we torched them. We had a slight height advantage – I was guarding a 6 foot (rather cute blond) woman, so she was my size, but my brother had about 4 inches on his matchup. They were really good shooters and in really good shape. But we were still able to work them on the boards and take them to the hole pretty easily. We played two or three games and won by 3 or 4 buckets each time.

          There is no division 3 men’s basketball team that has players for which this would be true. We’d get run right off the court in short order. Forget NBA players. The first guy cut from and NBA developmental league team would be an unstoppable force in the WNBA, scoring at will regardless of how many defenders they sent after him.

          Still, I don’t know why there are gender based divisions for sports like shooting. There’s no strength component to that at all.

  4. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination is an ignoble enterprise based on ignorance, fear, and disgust.

    and were the state targeting anyone, this would be a good point. But suggesting that men pee in men’s rooms and women in women’s does not seem like revolutionary thought. It is quite likely than trans people have used whichever bathroom for a long time without incident, which begs THE question that neither Hinkle nor anyone at Reason want to bother with: why did the Charlotte City Council believe it necessary to pass an ordinance requiring private business to accommodate gender identity?

    The state measure applies to state facilities only. Does it go too far? Maybe so, but that’s how a pendulum swings. The Charlotte Council grabbed a stupid stick and swung it, so the General Assembly grabbed its own stick and swung back at least as hard.

    1. What good is claiming to be different if you can’t force everyone to acknowledge your differentness?

      1. only a deplorable would disagree.

  5. Swing state, if you know what I mean. *Wink, Wink*

  6. Another argument: The average male has more upper-body strength than the agverage female. So what? Sports teams don’t field average players?they field extraordinary ones.

    Could you describe the national women’s soccer team of Australia as extraordinary? I mean they’re the national team, they’re presumably better than all the female players on that little continent. Yeah… they lost to a bunch of teenage boys younger than 15 years old.

    1. Soccer is not a sport.

    2. My high school of 300 students has beaten the women’s national hockey team.

    3. So basically women’s sports, with some exceptions like tennis, isn’t all that different from the Special Olympics. Except the disability here is a woman’s build and extra estrogen.

      1. Even today, the worst player on the men’s tour would easily win every event on the women’s tour. Even the Williams sisters wouldn’t be able to make a final in a men’s draw. They are amazing athletes, but the gap is just too big.

        But for regular people, tennis is a coed sport. Most folk aren’t good enough or athletic enough to make it a certainty that a man will always beat a woman. Heck, at the average player level it isn’t even a certainty that a 30 year old will beat a 55 year old player.

        The same goes for volleyball. Good female players can hang with the men at the beach courts in my area.

  7. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination

    Is not what that law did

  8. Don’t mentally ill individuals, in general, commit suicide at a higher rate than the general population?

    Why is it always inferred that the higher rate of suicide is due to “people being mean to them” or whatever?

    1. Because any other cause runs counter to the narrative and might remove their special victim status by opening up the help they actually need.

    2. Why is it always inferred that the higher rate of suicide is due to “people being mean to them” or whatever?

      A priest on NPR a while back gave the perfect example.

      If a teenage girl sought his counsel, saying she felt like a thin person trapped in a fat person’s body. She’s instantly regarded as having a mental illness without regard for her physical state and is examined/treated to correct not just her psychological abnormality but also any physical abnormalities her psychosis may have inflicted on her body. Otherwise, the risk that she might do something to bring about her own death is too great.

      On the other hand, if she walks in saying she feels like a boy trapped in a girls body and that it makes her want to kill herself. She’s to be encouraged that her mental state is completely understandable/normal/acceptable and that physical accommodations for her psychological state can and will be made.

    3. I honed in on that quote as well since it’s almost begging the question. I haven’t seen any research that indicates that their vastly higher suicide rate has anything to do with being ‘bullied’ or the like. It seems the chances actually go up post-op, which should be a massive clue to anyone that isn’t on board the Special Victims Bandwagon.

      Another blind-spot for your typical human is when you point out that homosexual men are by-and-large the biggest portion of HIV positive humans in the United States. People are uncomfortable with facts that explode certain well-crafted but utterly bullshit narratives, and some will even bald-faced disbelieve that it could possibly be true that a group could, as a whole, have behaviors that are deadly to themselves.

  9. To protest discrimination, athletic organizations are pulling events that are strictly segregated

    Nope. A baseball team will pick the best players. They happen to all be male. It’s unclear if a woman would be allowed on the other men’s teams mentioned, as they’re so far below the ability to qualify the question has never been answered. College football, men’s golf allow female players.

    1. in a possibly hoisted-on-your-petard way, didn’t Title IX already answer this? Women’s athletic programs expanded greatly, due in no small part to the fact that few, if any, athletically-inclined women would be able to make a unisex team. “Allowed” is not part of the equation.

      There is the occasional women’s kicker in football, and a few high schools have had girls wrestling in the lighter weight classes. But that’s about it. I recall a faux outrage some years back when some boys agitated to play in the girls’ field hockey team because no boys version existed. The law said they had to play and there was mass consternation about the unfair advantage that team had.

      1. I’m confused as to how you think this means these things are not “strictly segregated”

        1. Sorry, *ARE* strictly segregated

        2. Perhaps I explained this poorly. Sports are driven by ability; segregation is not the intent, it is the outcome of fielding a team of the best available players, like your baseball example.

          I’m just saying that Title IX’s forced expansion of athletic programs for women tacitly admits that if athletic teams were open to ALL students, hardly any women would be on them.

          1. No no, Title IX proves how the patriarchy was holding women’s sports down by giving all the money to football and basketball.

      2. Unless there is an explicit prohibition on women playing on the men’s team, they aren’t “segregated”. I’m not aware of any such prohibitions, but maybe they are out there.

        Now, you just about have to have explicit prohibitions on men playing on the women’s team, or it would turn into just another men’s team. So, yeah, there is segregation, but it targets men, not women.

  10. So, I’m just wondering, does China have transgendered bathroom rights?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..om-alibaba

    1. Per my brother who spends a few months there every year, they rarely use the bathroom. Ok, that’s an exaggeration, but he’s been in lines where they “drop trouser” right there to pee/crap. He also sees it on public transportation with little kids taking a piss on the train in the aisle.
      It really shocked him the first time he saw it…not anymore.
      His bride to be is from there, so he has to make trips to see her and her family. He used to like going to China, but not anymore.

  11. The perpetually leaky Weiner dribbles another foul mess.

    The disgraced former congressman sexted a 15-year-old high school girl for months, allegedly writing her lewd messages and send her shirtless pics of himself, according to a report Wednesday.

    The girl sent the Daily Mail screenshots of alleged sick chats with Weiner ? some of which happened in an encrypted app. She also told the site Weiner tried to get her engaging in “rape fantasies.” The messages indicate Weiner knew he was chatting with an underage girl.

    The two at one point talked through Confide, an encrypted app that deletes messages after a first reading.

    According to the report, Weiner sent her message saying, “I would bust that tight p—y so hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week.”

    1. Why can’t the dude just get a hooker? What a disaster of a human being.

      1. As far as I can tell the guy doesn’t want to bone, he just wants to be wanted. Has a single of his many tawdry affairs (e-ffairs?) resulted in Tony boning down? He seems way more interested in roleplaying sex than having it.

  12. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  13. “Transgender people do not go down their road lightly; for some the path is so harrowing suicide seems less painful. Treating them with a little respect and common decency hardly seems too much to ask.”

    Go do their road? Isn’t suicide prevalent regardless of whether they opt for surgery and/or hormones or not?

    1. Suicide is highly prevalent in this 0.003% of the population, and the prevalence increases in the post-op subset.

      1. But only because they’re discriminated against. It has nothing to do with the fact that genital mutilation and hormone therapy are extreme treatments for an extraordinary and poorly-understood condition.

        1. Shhh, you’re not allowed to be reasonable on this issue. Teh tranneyz are a poor and downtrodden minority, and it’s all the cis-shitlord white males’ faults.

    2. Not to mention respect or not is not exactly a/the issue.

      If I left a running woodchipper at my curb and it killed a significantly larger portion of the people who chose to walk on it’s side of the street vs. the other, I’m not disrespecting everyone who’s ever fallen into the wood chipper or walked on this side of the street by hanging a sign that says ‘Caution Woodchipper’ or ‘For Your Safety, Please use the other side of the street’.

      It’s only the socialist/collectivist idiots who demand every possible sacrifice in order to achieve (a false notion of) equality that think this is inherently disrespectful.

      1. “Treat with respect” in another one of those phrases that have no real meaning. Excellent for generating disdain or outrage in a pinch.

  14. I remember when one of the soccer girls tried out for our high school football team. She could not handle any of the contact in practice so she tried out for kicker. Of course we already had a male soccer player for that.

    1. She is aware of the hazing ritual, no?

      1. hazing ritual

        Do you mean all the towel whipping, hair shaving or the team-bonding homoerotic wresting in the shower?

        1. It’s not homoerotic if there’s womynz!

        2. Nah, just the sodomy.

  15. If you have what you think are valid reasons for separating teams by gender, then you are essentially making the point that some values outweigh the principle of nondiscrimination

    Maybe i missed it – but where exactly in the piece was the principle of non-discrimination described, and defended as valid in the first place?

    It seems to be assumed.

    I consequently took the piece as a tongue-in-cheek critique of its very validity; e.g. = “”Once you concede some things matters more, you’re simply haggling over details.””

    right. and the debates about those details are perpetual and ongoing, and perfectly valid reflections of free-association.

    You’re entirely free to merge the NBA and WNBA into one league. Getting people to pay to watch it would be a different issue.

    1. People pay to watch the WNBA? In fairness, I pay to watch women’s soccer, because (some) soccer women are hot and my wife likes soccer. Win-win.

      1. You’re calling it a win that your wife likes soccer?

        Just when you thought Florida couldn’t get any weirder.

        1. She gets to watch soccer. I get to watch women with great butts and legs run around and get sweaty.

        2. Houston Dash, terrible but hot team.

      2. I read in article at ESPN.com about a decade ago about the people who attend WNBA games. Mostly middle age fat dudes that are into tall women.

        1. dudes that are into tall women.

          Shoudn’t that read:

          dudes that that would LIKE TO BE INTO tall women.

  16. No matter what you think of the NC bathroom bill, there is nothing noble or even laudable about pulling games or championships from someplace because the state legislature doesn’t conform to whatever the goodthink is at any given time.*

    *Since the NCAA is ostensibly a private organization, it can do whatever the fuck it wants, but it doesn’t mean it’s right.

  17. The trannies are coming! The trannies are coming!

    1. Oh shit, almost forgot!

      *lights single lantern*

      1. Lights a flashlight “dressed up” as a lantern.

  18. It seems to be assumed.

    I believe there is some lesson of what happens when things are assumed. Anyway, Title IX served in large part to force the expansion of women’s athletic programs because the “valid reasons for separating teams by gender” were self-evident. When did self-evident truths lose that quality?

    1. Dude, nobody cares about the Declaration of Independence anymore.

    2. I have no idea what your point is re: my own.

      My point was that – as far as i can tell, there is no validity to a “Principle of Non-Discrimination” at all.

      As for Title-IX… it seems to have nothing to do with that idea… and presumes a different principle entirely: that “Equality” must be mandated and enforced in any areas where differences happen to exist.

      there is unequal participation in sports by men & women; title-IX presumes to “Fix” that by mandating that schools ‘balance’ their spending (*& recruitment).

      Even if there were no “sex-discrimination”, Title IX’s bullshit principle of fake-equality would still be a problem, because they’d have to struggle to source equal numbers of women for every male participant.

      What they’d likely do (and which schools have done all over the country) is simply get rid of male-dominated sports entirely. Soccer & Vollyball Uber Alles!

      1. the point is that assuming things does not make them so. It wasn’t a disagreement.

        As for Title-IX… it seems to have nothing to do with that idea… and presumes a different principle entirely: that “Equality” must be mandated and enforced in any areas where differences happen to exist.

        Words are interesting things and this could be a pedantic exercise, but the mandate of ‘equality’ in this case relies heavily on organization-sanctioned discrimination. It’s like affirmative action; still race-based discrimination but tilted to benefit the “correct” people. Only the state can come with ideas wherein the solution to something is a variant of whatever the initial problem was.

    3. Anyway, Title IX served in large part to force the expansion of women’s athletic programs

      And the reduction of men’s athletic programs, let’s not forget.

  19. It seems to be assumed.

    I believe there is some lesson of what happens when things are assumed. Anyway, Title IX served in large part to force the expansion of women’s athletic programs because the “valid reasons for separating teams by gender” were self-evident. When did self-evident truths lose that quality?

    1. assuming the squirrels might take a day off is also faulty logic.

  20. re: the White House report critical of forensic evidence: Lynch rejects all recommendations.

    1. So there you go: more “governance” by press release.

  21. “Teams” are inherently discriminatory. Why not assign the participants randomly on game day? Naturally, we would require random assignment not merely by “side” but by position. Think how much fun that would be.

    It would keep the bookies on their toes.

    1. But this would still lead to outcomes in which some teams arbitrarily “win” at the expense of other teams, a clear case of score inequality which proves that the game remains discriminatory. What’s needed is a fundamental restructuring of the sport itself such that unfair competition isn’t just discouraged but eliminated.

      1. All sporting events will continue until they can end in a tie.

        1. After players take the field, they sit en masse and make daisy chains* while braiding one another’s hair.

          *a friend in middle school was forced to play soccer by his parents. For awhile they stuck him in the goalie box before benching him permanently. He says he spent most of his time on the field stripping petals off dandelions.

  22. It’s been pointed out that these organizations play games in China and Cuba, while they complain about NC’s discrimination.

  23. “Are your bathroom papers in order?”

    1. “I didn’t number the roll, but it never unravelled.”

      1. We prefer to call them “undocumented defecators.”

        1. You really need to build a wall around those stalls.

          1. You also need to provide the proper toilet paper designed specifically to wipe transgender assholes.

        2. We prefer to call them “undocumented defecators.”

          As long as ‘brown people’ still works, we’re good.

  24. I’m going to apply for a government grant to randomly ship large ornate “Successful Participant” trophies to people.

    To boost America’s self-esteem.

  25. requires transgender individuals to use restrooms that align with their anatomical sex, not their gender identity.*^

    * This requirement is only for multi-use restrooms in government buildings
    ^ “anatomical sex” refers to the sex on one’s birth certificate, which can be changed by request in NC (after satisfying some requirements)

    And people wonder why the narrative that NC is teh tranzfobicks continues to persist to this day.

    1. * This requirement is only for multi-use restrooms in government buildings

      And, even then, makes no special recommendations, requirements, or budgetary allotments for bathroom attendants or guards so, presumably, isn’t an issue until a dude in a dress walks into the women’s room and pees on a few people and starts flinging shit anyway.

      1. Yep. And what the law actually does is provide a defense if anyone challenges a documented tranny.

        The alternatives are (a) no trannies in the other bathroom or (b) letting anyone use any bathroom they want.

        I think NC hit on about the best compromise available.

  26. This is commendable, for all the reasons House Bill 2 is not. Targeting transgender people in particular for state-sponsored discrimination is an ignoble enterprise based on ignorance, fear, and disgust.

    Why don’t you courteously extend your outrage at state-sponsored discrimination when it is the other way around, when private property owners are threatened by a city ordinance to provide a restroom they built themselves for their female (or male) customers to a person that is not of the same sex as indicated on the door?

    What exactly is libertarian about such ordinance and why isn’t the outrage equally as effusive against the city that purports to “defend” transgender people by trampling on people’s property rights? Or is the case that you accept government violence and aggression when it purports to cure a few property owners of their “ignorance and fear”? That is, at the point of a gun?

  27. If you have what you think are valid reasons for separating teams by gender, then you are essentially making the point that some values outweigh the principle of nondiscrimination

    But the answer to that is that there are many things worth doing in the name of nondiscrimination, especially when we can take someone else’s stuff by force and do so legally. Otherwise, the concept is fleeting.

  28. In among all the fine print readers, topic wanderers, spell checkers, and all the rest to this point, why is it that no one on a “libertarian” web site is commenting on the fact that the law in question is about a state government law override the local ordinance? Isn’t local control supposed to be one of the fundamental libertarian positions? Just wondering. Not that I am voting for either of the major parties, but just wondering if I have the right web site.

    1. why is it that no one on a “libertarian” web site is commenting on the fact that the law in question is about a state government law override the local ordinance? Isn’t local control supposed to be one of the fundamental libertarian positions?

      Local control is mere pragmatism, not a fundamental principle. Local control allows the whole “laboratories of democracy” thing.

      However, what is a basic fundamental libertarian principle is freedom of association, which includes property owners setting standards of behavior (like which bathroom to use) for guests on their property. When it comes to pragmatism (local control) versus a fundamental principle (freedom of association), the fundamental principle wins.

    2. Isn’t local control supposed to be one of the fundamental libertarian positions?

      Not in isolation, no. Billions of local laws replacing a handful of federal laws isn’t any more libertarian than billions of federal laws supplanting a handful of local laws.

      No/few law(s) overall is preferable. In that sense, local laws infringing on private property rights are entirely worthy of libertarian ire. Considering the courts of Charlotte weren’t and aren’t overrun with trannies trying to sue business owners and private citizens for throwing them out of public and private bathrooms mid-shit. Fewer laws in Charlotte (and NC) is the preferred libertarian position (not that the magazine would/does generally take that stance either).

      1. Er, “Considering the courts of Charlotte weren’t and aren’t overrun with trannies trying to sue business owners and private citizens for throwing them out of public and private bathrooms mid-shit the Charlotte law is straight up anti-libertarian power grab/gov’t oppression at worst and wasteful nanny-statism at best.”

    3. Isn’t local control supposed to be one of the fundamental libertarian positions?

      I would call it more of a rebuttable presumption. When the locals start violating people’s rights, like by imposing on their property and free association rights with special “public accommodation” privileges for politically favored groups, the libertarian hope is that a higher level of government will step in and slap the stupid out of them.

  29. I hope every conservative activist group in the country publicizes this article by A. Barton Hinkle, showing that a *consistent* application of the “trans rights” agenda means abolishing separate men’s and women’s sports teams.

    Alert every swing-state voter to this article. Alert every member of a sports team.

    Demand disavowals from Democratic and LGBLT leaders. Then if, after hemming and hawing and talking about right-wing distortions, they claim “of course we don’t want to abolish separate-gender sports teams,” then broadcast these denials under the headline “Democrats say if you like your separate women’s sports teams you can keep your separate women’s sports teams!”

    If some pol lets the cat out of the bag and admits that they want to abolish the separate teams, publicize the heck out of that.

    Hinkle’s article could prove highly useful.

    1. Then attach riders to the DoJ and Education Department budgets saying “no money appropriated herein shall be spent to challenge the legality of separate men’s and women’s sports teams.”

      Put the lonnie lefties on the defensive for once.

        1. Maybe Loonie identifies as Lonnie?

        2. Not all of them are from Canada; we do make our own.

  30. Treating them with a little respect and common decency hardly seems too much to ask.

    You’re right. Here goes:

    Dear Mr./Ms./Mx. Transgender Person,

    I can’t begin to understand what you’re going through. However, it is an enormous mistake to align yourself with the LGBT*** community. Transgenderism is a poorly understood phenomenon, and studies are indicating that you are more prone to suicide and other mental illness due to your transgenderism. The advocates who are supposedly on your side are sweeping the very real and very dire consequences of their advocacy under the rug while pretending to have your best interests at heart. All the while, the political change they’re foisting on our society makes it harder for you to get the medical care you need. They glorify medical procedures that are unnecessary, ineffective, and irreversible, and stigmatize everybody who is concerned for your mental health. Feeling like you’re in the wrong body is not normal, nor is it something to be ashamed of. I implore you to ignore the identity hustlers of the LGBT*** community and get medical and psychological assistance to better understand what you’re experiencing.

    Sincerely,
    Trshmnstr

    1. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT I HAVE MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE I WANT TO CUT OFF MY DICK

    2. Treating them with a little respect and common decency hardly seems too much to ask.

      Indeed not. Tell me, though, whats resepctful about holding someone to a different, lower, standard?

      As in “Men, you have to use the men’s room. Trannies, because your feelings are so delicate, you can use the ladies room if it makes you feel better.”

  31. “Transgender people do not go down their road lightly; for some the path is so harrowing suicide seems less painful.”

    Oh? Is that the reason they kill themselves all the time? I would appreciate a citation for that nugget of wisdom.

  32. Read the H2B law, it is only 5 pages. It does not effect private entities. It does not change or restrict single use bathrooms. It does prevent physically equipped boys from using multi-use bathrooms and showers designated for girls and vice versa, which is pretty much common sense. It requires trans people that are physically equipped differently than their gender identity to use a single use bathroom. I have used those bathrooms when the others were taken, no stigma attached. If that is discrimination then we have surely jumped the shark.

    The only part of the law that should be objectionable to libertarians is the wording that prevents civil suits based upon the law. That kind of wording is problematic and should be stricken from any law. No law should reduce the available avenues for individuals to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”.

    But, good point about male/female teams and “some kinds of discrimination”.

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

    CLICK THIS LINK???? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.