Supreme Court to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Panic

Does Title IX mandate accommodation?


Imagecom /

The Supreme Court announced this afternoon it will hear the case of a transgender student in Virginia fighting with his school district over which bathrooms and facilities he should be allowed to use.

The transgender teen, Gavin Grimm, has been ordered by the school board in Gloucester County, Virginia, to refrain from using the male restrooms or facilities at his school. They do offer unisex bathrooms, but Grimm is fighting for the right to use the mens' room.

Grimm's argument (and the argument by the Department of Education and Department of Justice) is that denying him access to the bathroom of his chosen gender expression is a form of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Opponents argue against such a broad reading.

Title IX has nothing to say about how to treat transgender students and that become part of the conflict. Under a previous Supreme Court precedent (known simply by the "Auer deference" as shorthand), government agencies are generally given deference from the courts to determine how to implement statutes or regulations unless they do something that is contradictory to what the law clearly says.

Some federal courts have agreed with Grimm (and the Obama administration) that such federal deference should apply here, but some schools (and states) have resisted, and other judges have ruled that the administration hasn't followed proper procedures. It seemed inevitable that the Supreme Court would eventually get involved. The court put a temporary stay on the most recent ruling (in Grimm's favor) while it considered whether to take the case.

Today they said yes. The school district asked the Supreme Court to consider the entire concept of the Auer deference precedent, but the court said it will not do so. The Supreme Court will consider whether the Auer deference should apply to the letters sent out by the administration to attempt to resolve this culture war conflict and, much more importantly, whether the administration is correct that Title IX obligates school systems to respect the chosen genders of transgender students to use sex-segregated facilities that match the way they present themselves.

More information about the case from SCOTUSblog here.

NEXT: FBI Investigates More Clinton Emails, Paul Krugman Can't Even Right Now, Halloween Costume Craziness: P.M. Links

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The court put a temporary stay on the most recent ruling (in Grimm’s favor) while it considered whether to take the case.

    But the kid’s bladder is going to explode!

    1. Check me if I’m wrong Sandy but If they put a stay on the ruling isn’t Grimm is free to use whichever restroom pleased until the court decides?

      1. No, the ruling was in Grimm’s favor and staying the ruling stops it from going into effect. The locals had said the kid could use whatever bathroom it identified as matching its gender and the state said “no, no, no, we’re not going to allow the locals to do that sort of stuff” and that’s when the Fed Dep Ed got involved and said that taking a dump is obviously a Constitutional issue and got a judge to agree with them. I don’t know where Trump and Hillary stand on the issue, but I know SMOD is in favor of killing everybody involved in this nonsense and that suits me just fine.

        1. I’m making over $12k 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… http://www.Trends88.Com

        2. I’m making over $12k 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… http://www.Trends88.Com

        3. I don’t know where Trump and Hillary stand on the issue

          Trump rescinded the federal order, so it’s back to local decision making.

          Where Hillary stands doesn’t really matter anymore, does it.

  2. “denying him access to the bathroom of his chosen gender expression”

    So he’s a boy? Why are they denying him access to the boy’s room, then?

    1. The next wave: your gender is that which everyone else identifies you.

      1. And by “everyone else”, you mean the State, right? RIGHT?!

        1. Government is the gender we assign together, Rich.

          1. Forget the Death Panels…

            Sex Panels!

            1. Never Mind the Death Panels, Here’s the Sex Panels

              Sorry, couldn’t resist!

      2. This and because a school in NC said somebody can’t use the boys room businesses everywhere will have to put up with people shitting wherever they please.

    2. Shackleford proves he is a leftist, not a libertarian. He sides with the nanny staters who find that Title IX somehow says the Government can tell us that we need to ignore the biological of every species above the level of earthworms has a male and female gender. Rather, the Government can tell schools to allow boys into the girls shower because they identify this week as a girl.

      And of course, Shackleford employs the usual leftist technique of ad hominem. If you object to the science denialism and nanny statism, you are PANICKING. Sorry, but I am not “panicking” when I want to do away with the Department of Education and Title IX and the rest of them.

  3. More excellent alt text, Shqqqqqqq.

    1. I’m out of superlatives for his alt-text. Can the next funding drive devote some donations to making some kind of a laurel crown for Shackford?

      1. Never forget Crusty’s first Iron Law: you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

        1. I thought Crusty’s first Iron Law was, “Wood”.

        2. Don’t make me nastygram you for infringement, crusty.

          1. You should trademark them.

      2. Can the next funding drive devote some donations to making some kind of a laurel crown for Shackford?

        YES PLEASE!

    2. It’s vulgar and I won’t have it.

  4. They do offer unisex bathrooms, but Grimm is fighting for the right to use the mens’ room.

    You’ve got to fight for your right to potty!

    1. +1 Eddie Murphy

      My baby likes to potty all the time.

      Potty all the time.

  5. “The Supreme Court will consider whether the Auer deference should apply to the letters sent out by the administration to attempt to resolve this culture war conflict…”

    Ambiguous (-ly gay) sentence there. Who is attempting to resolve the culture war conflict? The Court or the administration?

    Also, does the act of dictating law granting one side victory really deserve to be described as an attempt at “resolving conflict”?

  6. ALL public property discriminates as they are built and used for a purpose

    Assuming discrimination by the state is wrong there are only 2 choices.
    1) ban public property
    2) Deny that discrimination is inherently wrong when it comes to public property – SO LONG as the discrimination is not unreasonable – which people are free to claim

    The burden for transgender is now to show that public bathrooms by sex is UNREASONABLE – as bathrooms by race are.

    I personally believe they would fail that test.

    1. I’m totally on board with option 1).

    2. The burden for transgender is now to show that public bathrooms by sex is UNREASONABLE – as bathrooms by race are.

      Interesting point. I would like to see a debate if separation by sex is the same as separation by race.

      1. Remember , that ones’ gender is not the same as one’s sex – which Title IX protects

        1. This. It’s completely arbitrary.

    3. At the very least, I hope we can finally parlay it such that the white race is no longer guilty.

      Since white people don’t walk into a bathroom full of black men and walk out slave owners, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed that transgendered people walking into the bathroom will walk out rapists, molesters, etc.

      Fortunately, I’m with Gojira and the 10A. As long as the school(board) isn’t stoning them when they run home to take a piss, it’s the State of NC’s business. Experiment in democracy and all that.

      1. Its not that transgenders walking into bathrooms would become rapists and molesters, its that rapists and molesters will claim to be transgendered…

        1. And claiming to be trans-gendered somehow absolves them of being rapists and molesters?

          1. not RELEVANT,this just “opens the door” for guys to go into the ladies restrooms. It makes it so no one can question a guy who goes into a women’s restroom,because they may “feel” that they are a woman,and “who are you to ask?”

            don’t be so obtuse.

            BTW,this has already happened several times since these “new policies” have gone into effect.

            1. Why would a guy wait in line to use the ladies room when the mens room is right there?

            2. yes it has happened and the creepers were arrested even in states that allow transgenders to use whichever bathroom. Hanging out in a bathroom to perv out on the occupants is still illegal. People got arrested before transgender accomodation happened and they got arrested after transgender accomodation. Nothing to see here.

              1. You are in fact wrong. A woman complained to a security guard that a man dressed as a woman was in the ladies room at some mall in the NE. The security guard escorted the man/woman out. The security guard was fired. A man went into the ladies locker room at a YMCA and the staff refused to do anything about it due to gender freedom.
                The point is NOT about rape, it is about privacy. In your home, does your wife let guests in while she is in the shower? NO? why not? This is about showers too you know. And no, bathroom stalls are not viewing-tight, and no, “creepers” are not arrested in bathrooms as you claim.

                1. The point is NOT about rape, it is about privacy. In your home, does your wife let guests in while she is in the shower?

                  The public locker room is analogous to your private bathroom?

                  If you are serious about this “privacy” argument, it seems you should be objecting to the status quo, where girls and boys are expected to shower, naked, in view of each other. That you apparently do not object to this suggests that your actual concern is something different.

        2. Absolutely nothing would stop rapists and molesters from entering whatever bathrooms they want to begin with; it’s not as if restrooms are heavily guarded. What a dumb objection.

      2. it shouldn’t automatically be assumed that transgendered people walking into the bathroom will walk out rapists, molesters, etc.

        The air tight counter argument to all this bathroom and locker-room panic is a single word :


        1. Isn’t the air tight counter argument that people are going into bathrooms to poop and pee and stuff, not do sex stuff? What is sexual at all about a room full of pooping and peeing people?

          1. That’s why I included “locker-room.” I agree with your point regarding bathrooms.

          2. What is sexual at all about a room full of pooping and peeing people?

            You’re obviously not kinky enough. Or, I suppose, you could ask Larry Craig.

          3. I enjoy rubbing one out in public restrooms from time to time. Truck stops are the best.

    4. The problem is showing why segregating bathrooms by race is ‘unreasonable’.

      1. There really aren’t any arguments to use to keep transgenders out that can’t be repurposed for use with any other difference.

        1. Such as for keeping heterosexual males out of the ladies room?

          Because transgender males don’t have any less rights than anyone else equipped with testicles.

          1. Like keeping Blacks out of the White restrooms?

            You’re worried about heterosexual males being in women’s restrooms but not about lesbians being in there? Or gays in the men’s room?

            1. Like keeping Blacks out of the White restrooms?

              Oh snap! Game, set, match. Here’s an even better one: Laws keeping males out of female bathrooms have the direct effect of keeping black males out of the females’ bathroom! Bam! now it’s not indirectly analogous to racism, it’s directly racist!

              Seriously though I got your point the first time. I think you missed mine.

              I’m not worried about anything. Well King president dictating moral progress kinda annoys me.

              1. Oh, snap! Racism racism racism.

                No, I don’t think you got my point.

                My point is that all these rules are arbitrary. All we’re doing is arguing where to draw an arbitrary line yet everyone seems to think *their* position is objective.

                1. I don’t think it’s ever possible to make an argument claiming some decision is “arbitrary” without it being a circular argument that starts by ignoring all possible reasons that would not be arbitrary. I guess there may be some pure cases where people cynically created an arbitrary line, but the existence of urinals in one restroom and feminine napkins in the other rather kills that here.

  7. What a ridiculous waste of time.

    1. NO!! Think of the JOBS!!

      1. LOL yeah.

  8. Does Title IX mandate accommodation?

    Accommodation to what?

    1. *ahem* A commode

  9. So taken to its logical end, nondiscrimination law would seem to imply, according to Obama et al., that everyone gets to use the same bathroom regardless of gender or what not.

    So, argue why this is such an undesirable result.

    1. Watch out, I’ve been making this argument from the beginning, because there’s no metric (and honestly you wouldn’t one because gross) so the only answer is all bathrooms are unisex (which I also have no problem with). It’s amazing how few people understand this.

      1. Yeah, it seems as though the people freaking out about boys in the girls’ room is more about the “eww” factor than any sort of cogent reason why that is such a terrible thing.

        I mean yes, you could I suppose have an increase in sexual molestation in the bathroom if boys and girls get to pee together. Is this really a “thing”? Are there any data on the likelihood of this occurring? Or is it just that girls don’t want their powder room safe space invaded by the boys?

        1. My problem with the whole thing is the rather dry, boring subject of legal overreach by an administration that lacks a guiding compass, except to placate smaller and smaller niche special interest groups– because civil rights– or something.

          The counter argument is very Trumpian in nature– if you question the government’s legal “guidance” on the issue in that it’s a pro forma example of executive overreach, you’re accused of wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat and having an irrational fear for the weak wimmenz in society, who’ll be terrorized by the transgender penises finding their way into the fairer sex’s bathrooms.

          The guidance by the Obama administration is fantastically stupid on its face, because they call out transgender people as a special protected class, but no one, including the transgender have any clear way of identifying themselves. The second presumption is that non-transgender are still locked into the bathrooms of their birth sex, and the third presumption is that if they cross over into the wrong bathroom, they can be dragged out, sued, arrested, what have you. It’s another case of the administration having no fucking idea what they’re asking for.

          1. “if you question the government’s legal “guidance” on the issue in that it’s a pro forma example of executive overreach, you’re accused of wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat and having an irrational fear for the weak wimmenz in society, who’ll be terrorized by the transgender penises finding their way into the fairer sex’s bathrooms.”

            Honestly, the objections I see *are*, in the main, irrational and based on transgender penises terrorizing helpless women.

            I agree that a much firmer ground for objection is the nature of the federal overreach. But that’s not nearly as sexy and doesn’t stir up the culture warriors to start manning the battlestations.

            I honestly think that for Obama’s second term, he just let the administrative ideologues loose, and didn’t really care what they came up with.

            1. I agree that a much firmer ground for objection is the nature of the federal overreach. But that’s not nearly as sexy and doesn’t stir up the culture warriors to start manning the battlestations.

              *ding ding ding*

              I didn’t say those former objections don’t exist, I’m saying that the way to de-legitimize anyone who finds the executive overreach troubling is to dismiss them as a yokel.

              Sure executive overreach and guidance, that’s just your brownshirt dog-whistle for busting tranny heads!

            2. “Honestly, the objections I see *are*, in the main, irrational and based on transgender penises terrorizing helpless women.”

              Wow, you sure love to argue in good faith.

              Here’s the thing though, all of the women I’ve spoken to who are concerned don’t give two shakes about transgender penises, they care about perverts.

              Which, isn’t irrational, just highly unlikely.

              1. And, as a man, I’m not too keen on sharing a bathroom with, say, the women at work. Can we still keep some things private?

                1. And, as a man, I’m not too keen on sharing a bathroom with, say, the women at work.


                  Your comment echoes something I typed in response to Nikki quite a while back when I wanted to give her a different point of view than she seemed to be expressing (which as I understood given the context was that a great many of the reasons to oppose communal restrooms were based upon heterosexual prejudices).

                  It seems to me that many of us, regardless of personal views (sexual orientation or otherwise) are embarrassed to have our natural bodily functions overheard/otherwise communally experienced.

                  1. Well, yeah. Duh. Seriously, this girl, and her fellow travelers, just want attention. And, in order to get this attention, they are willing to make millions of their fellow citizens uncomfortable as all hell.

              2. Here’s the thing though, all of the women I’ve spoken to who are concerned don’t give two shakes about transgender penises, they care about perverts.

                Bisexual perverts do not exist, so this is a totally great argument.

                1. Your snark sucks.

                  1. Your snark sucks.

                    Thanks. “Your” “logic” about risk in bathrooms sucks, so I guess we’ll just suck… together.. in a bathroom?

            3. If transgendered men in women’s restrooms isn’t an issue to worry about ….


              One in five women is sexually assaulted isn’t an issue to worry about….

              Yet progressives freak out over one and conservatives freak out over the other.

              But on another note guys, do realize that unisex restrooms aren’t going to have urinals, so get ready for the kind of lines women’s restrooms have….

              1. Objection, your honor. Supposition; assumes facts not in evidence.
                “We” (the ruling class of (real) males) can require urinals in ALL bathrooms, and “they” can just back up.

                The lines are caused by the mirrors that allow loitering to do make up, and by the noted social phenomenon of NEVER going alone if (in your mind) you are female.

                On a side note, everyone does realize that persons of a given biological sex have been using the bathroom of whatever sex they want forever. It has just become a contentious debate in the last few years as a small group wants to insist the world recognize their opinions as fact. To which I quote “it’s not your opinion, you are just wrong”.

              2. Nah man. Just remove the stall from around one toilet and we’re good. Dudes’ll just stand in a circle and piss all over everything because none of them want to watch where they’re aiming lest they be accused of ‘looking’.

        2. There’s not a lot of data since the media is already rallying in favor of the Transgenders, but there’s been regular reports of women being peeped on by men claiming to be transgender. Some sexual assualts have been noted and a couple of physical assaults.

          So, there’s just enough incidents that signal there will be a lot of misery for women, but few enough that skeptics will dismiss them as an actual trend.

          Of course, part of the problem is that the media aren’t really focusing on the bathroom abuses.

        3. Why don’t you ask the girls why not share with boys? It is about modesty. Women change clothes in bathrooms (and so do men). Women don’t want to see dicks without giving permission. Yes, that ends up being about sexual stuff. People get partially undressed to do their business, or haven’t you noticed.

      2. No. In this case she doesnt want to go to the bathroom with women in it. See? First she doesnt want to go in a room with women. Ok, she’s given a unisex. Nope that won’t work either. It has to be the one with boys in it. And along comes the next one with special demands. If you suggest everyone just have their own personal bathroom then they will complain that some will be better, nicer not fair not fair.

        There is no coherent argument to be found and no workable solution. That is what this insanity is designed to create. They aren’t looking for solutions. They are looking for strife.

        This is cultural marxism in all of it’s glory.

      3. yeah, unisex bathrooms aren’t a big deal.

      4. It’s amazing how few people understand that this isn’t just about bathrooms. It’s about locker rooms and showers too. You want to make all those unisex?

        1. It’s about locker rooms and showers too.

          Why is it ok for lesbians and bisexuals to share locker rooms showers with straight people?

          1. It’s not just about who is attracted to whom. There’s basic biology of separating the sexes based on their reproductive roles. That’s been the reason for doing that for 1000s of years. IOW, lesbians can’t get each other pregnant.

            But the more common concern is that there is a certain expectation of privacy in high school showers. Many girls don’t want men with penises showering with them, as crazy as that sounds. That might be your fantasy, but not theirs.

          2. “Why is it ok for lesbians and bisexuals to share locker rooms showers with straight people?”
            It is because you mostly can’t tell if a homosexual is sharing a bathroom or locker room with you, but a naked man in the ladies shower rather stands out and scares the crap (heh) out of most women.
            Oh, and a man with breasts & penis is pretty disturbing to most men.

            1. Ah, so… it’s not about sharing a locker room with someone who is attracted to you, it’s … having to end your illogical denial about it due to increased likelihood? Gotcha.

              1. “… having to end your illogical denial about it due to increased likelihood?”

                There’s nothing illogical about the assumption that there are more males-attracted-to-females than there are females-attracted-to-females.

                Males –on the whole– also have greater physical strength & a stronger sexual drive than females. This explains the custom of segregated spaces where people get naked.

                The fact that there could theoretically exist a super-powerful lesbian with a man-like sexual drive doesn’t suggest that the rational convention of separate-gender bathroom spaces should be discarded. Hard cases make bad law.

    2. I see one problem with this is that the transgender movement is not pushing for unisex bathrooms – just to use the bathroom of their choice.

      I see that as a window onto their motivations!

      But yes, one would think the conclusion wold be unisex bathrooms

      1. Yes, it is a window into their motivations. They clearly want to be accepted as truly being of their gender of choice. Not some quasi-recognition, but actually officially recognized by everyone as being truly male [in this case]].

    3. So, argue why this is such an undesirable result.

      1. Because Obama et al. has and had fuck all to do with building and using the toilets in the state of NC.
      2. Because the bill is and never was explicitly or strictly about public toilets but exempting private toilets which Obama et al. had even less of a fuck to do with and the State of NC recognizes that even it has nothing to do with it.
      3. Because it introduces inconsistencies in the law making both bathroom user and bathroom owner more vulnerable to state intervention. No longer can a state (or private!!!) employee ask about gender based on government issues paperwork nor can transgendered people rely on said paperwork to accurately reflect… whatever.

      1. 1. I agree, the feds shouldn’t have any business dictating anything about bathrooms at local establishments. But that is a procedural opposition. If a state or municipality had mandated the same thing that Obama is doing, would you drop your objections?

        2. Well I don’t know about what the bill specifically said and IMO it doesn’t really matter because it is more about the principle of the matter.

        3. I would imagine that if an employee is *not* being compelled to ask about a patron’s gender identity, because all restrooms are unisex anyway, that it would be a net positive, not a negative.

      2. No longer can a state (or private!!!) employee ask about gender based on government issues paperwork nor can transgendered people rely on said paperwork to accurately reflect… whatever.

        As a libertarian – good. I’m good with this. I’m not sure why there’s this heavy reliance on what’s printed on a *government issued* piece of paper as reason to oppose.

        Don’t get me wrong – you have other reasons to oppose, but ‘its what is written on your birth certificate’ shouldn’t hold a lot of wait with libertarians.

        1. If you couldn’t be whimsically punished one way or the other based on something as obnoxious as a pronoun, I might agree.

          As it is, I speak differently to one gender than I do to another and people generally act and conduct commerce differently between the sexes. There are members of the transgender community who’s sole purpose in life is to ambush people with this/these ‘gotchas’.

          Moreover, I don’t consider a birth certificate to be some onerous social burden. Were it carved in stone and signed in blood with storage and oversight costs doubling every 5 yrs., I might understand that needing to be changed or eliminated.

          I’m not asking for the protection, but it should/does already exist and the greater problem is that I shouldn’t have to.

    4. It would also aplly to clo th hes changing areas and sex segregated sports, which would destroy the rationale of women’ s sports.

      1. No, the rationale for sex-segregated sports is that women and men can’t compete fairly on the same level due to biological differences. If you want to measure who is a better athlete, you have to have a valid set of individuals with which to make the comparison. It is a measurement problem, not a discrimination problem.

        1. How do you keep males from joining women’s teams if it is illegal to discriminate by sex for any reason?

          1. In the same way that if you want to decide who is the best speller in the 5th grade, you discriminate against 6th graders.

            1. What part of “illegal for any reason” can you not grasp?

            2. But what grade a student is in, is an objective standard. So is sex. But since the trans crowd has redefined it to be based on “gender”, then if a biological male feels they are female, then there is no logical reason that can be applied to this that wouldn’t have already been thrown out by the bathroom/locker room argument.

          2. Under the current administration you can’t. And that is a problem. Some real women are going to be cut out of scholarship opportunities:


    5. Public sex seems to be the main reason.

      There’s a reason you don’t use the men’s bathrooms in Forest Park here in St. Louis. It’s a place where gays like to cruise for sex.

      1. Would that stop, then, if women were allowed in?

    6. this crap isn’t only being applied to restrooms,but to locker rooms,showers,etc.
      guys do NOT belong in womens restrooms or the other places. Some males are a threat to women and young girls.

      1. No, some males are *threatening* to women and young girls. Not the same thing. And a man who *is* an actual threat, if he’s willing to violate our cultural taboo about that, is not going to be stopped because the the sign says ‘Ladies’ and its not *legal* for him to enter.

        1. Actually, a lot of them are stopped because they aren’t allowed to enter the girl’s showers.

          1. Who is is stopping them from doing that? The police? As we know here, police *prevent* very little crime, they’re mainly good for cleaning up after the fact.

            1. If I entered the girls showers at the local school, I’m pretty confident someone would call the security guard or the police.

              1. Too late, too late! Will be the cry.

      2. Some males are a threat to women and young girls

        Why are lesbian or bisexual women not a threat to women and young girls?

        1. For the record, I’d like to point out that “John Rohan” has deliberately refused to answer my question, which I know he saw because he responded to the post just above it.

          I presume he is not responding because he has no answer.

          1. Personal conservatism is more dominant that his libertarian views.

            That is to say I have personnel view on things that I don’t care for, but that doesn’t mean I think the govt should legislate them.

          2. I have answered that elsewhere. I don’t have an obligation to report to you personally.

            The issue is an expectation of privacy, as well as safety from ogling, harassment, sexual assault, and even pregnancy. It’s not just about who is attracted to whom.

            1. This answer is nonsense. A female in a locker-room with a lesbian or bisexual woman is not free from ogling, harassment, or sexual assault, if those things are caused by attraction.

              Pregnancy resulting from rape, which seems the least-likely-outcome, is in fact a point in “your” favor. If your argument has to rely on that, however… yeah.

              1. The “expectation of privacy” line is the nonsense, to be clear. Lesbians and bisexual women are just as likely to be sexually attracted to someone they are showering with than a heterosexual male. Women do not rationally currently have this expectation of privacy, unless they pretend that lesbians and bisexual women do not exist.

                1. Women respond differently to a man in their shower than a lesbian in their shower–it is the outward appearance of maleness that freaks them out.

                  1. So in other words, it’s purely aesthetic? Thanks for playing.

                2. The expectation of privacy is that you are changing and showering in front of other women, not men. Again, privacy isn’t the same issue as who is attracted to whom.

                  Answer this question honestly. Do you want your daughters in a school where the male teachers can walk in and join them in the locker rooms and showers?

                  1. you are changing and showering in front of other women, not men

                    If the issue is not attraction, what is the issue?

                    If you are a woman, why is it worse to be seen by a gay man (who is not attracted to you) than by a lesbian (who is)?

                    Do you want your daughters in a school where the male teachers can walk in and join them in the locker rooms and showers?

                    Is anyone actually proposing this? No, they’re proposing things regarding “transgenders” …

                    But sure, I’ll answer your question : I am as comfortable with male teachers in the locker room as I am with lesbian or bisexual teachers. If you aren’t comfortable with it, you can feel free to send your children to non-state schools.

                    I’m comfortable with this idea because I use my logic to counteract the illogical taboo which apparently drives you. You keep suggesting that there is some logical thing (violation of “privacy”) to be afraid of in this case other than sexuality.. if you can explain what exactly that is and why men, by virtue of being men, necessarily produce it, please do.

  10. Everyone needs to start carrying their own little doggie bags or buckets or whatever and just doing their business wherever they’re at, like the animals we are. Solves all problems. Except for handicapped people and retards I guess, but fuck’em, those things aren’t really human anyway.

    1. Finally someone else is on board with my “bring your own chamber pot” solution. When it gets full dump it in the largest local body of water you can find. There are no downsides to the plan.

      1. Does the company aquarium in the reception area count as a local body of water?

        1. How many companies can afford an aquarium?

          Water fountain dude.

    2. Except for handicapped people and retards I guess, but fuck’em, those things aren’t really human anyway.


      1. Whatever happened to him?

        Someone needs to check the Canadian obits for the last two months. There’s like 100 people in that country, can’t be too hard to figure out who he was.

        1. Pretty sure he’s from B.C. or somewhere out west, probably just got a job (I recall him mentioning looking for one before he left) where he can’t write on Reason all day.

          1. “probably just got a job where he can’t write on Reason all day”

            Who the hell would accept a position like that?!

        2. I think he’s a little busy with his duties as Prime Minister. Do I have to think of everything, guys?

          1. PM Zoolander wishes he was as mature or informed as Cytotoxic.

            1. Pan I dare you to read his book. It’s one of the most shallow attempts at political philosophizing I’ve ever seen. That, and all the eye-rolling “growing up as Prime Minister’s son’ stories.

              But anyway DO IT, YOU MUST KNOW MY PAIN.

              1. Hmmm…. I am a connoisseur of stupid. But he doesn’t strike me as a man capable of true, deep Stupid. Just a paddler in the shallows.

      2. He’s the only Canadian to ever actually be deported back to Canada.

  11. I live not too far from the school district in question. My understanding is that the kid was determined to make a political statement from the beginning of this fiasco. Not certain who is the driving force behind it all.

    1. Why the hell is there a transgendered high schooler? If she hasn’t actually has an operation (and if she’s not eighteen what ethical surgeon would do this operation), then she’s not “transgendered”, she’s a tomboy.

      1. “what ethical surgeon would do this operation”

        I would ask why an ethical surgeon would do this to someone of any age, but, yes, hormones, puberty-disrupting drugs, and surgeries are now being used routinely on “trans-gendered” minors.

      2. You clearly haven’t been reading The New York Times or Slate, where there have been articles written by the parents of transgendered six-year-olds (“He always wanted to wear a dress!”). I think that’s insane for grade-school children, but I do think that anyone past the age of puberty should be free to claim whatever gender identity they want.

        1. “Claiming” a “gender identity” is an entirely different matter from being poisoned and mutilated in pursuit of that fantasy.

      3. what ethical surgeon would do this operation

        The same ethical surgeon who chopped off my foreskin?

  12. Transgender Bathroom Panic

    Nice band name.

    1. Eh. Not quite as good as “Carlos Danger Sexting”

      1. I just heard they found super-secret Hillary emails on Tony Weiner’s cell phone. Anthony Weiner could single-handedly fuck up Hillary Clinton’s otherwise untarnished legacy.

        1. Yeah I read that too. That would be all too amusing.

    2. ……in the Disco!?

  13. So is Grimm’s argument that facilities should be unisex or that they should be segregated but Grimm should qualify as a male just because?

    If segregrating facilitied by sex is illegal, then segregating them by gender should also be illegal, not to mention absurd.

    Given that there are unisex facilities available, the only one succumbing to “bathroom panic” appears to be Grimm, as any compromise is unacceptable.

    1. He wants to be recognized as male. In all things, in all places. He does not want to be treated as a “pretend” male. Or as a “we will tolerate you dressing up as a boy, but you ain’t really a boy” male.

      It is a perfectly understandable psychological situation.

      As is the desire of any number of random people to have unisex bathrooms.

      Unfortunately these two sets of desires are at loggerheads. For adults, don’t ask, don’t tell seems to work just fine as a policy. But in the case of children, things get a little dicier. Momma bear will definitely maul anything she perceives as a threat to her cubs. And with all the layers of administration and authority, it would be tough for a teen to just skate through on “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

      So there will be no reasonable answer. Whatever comes of the court case, it will create a perpetual controversy that the political class will eat up to gin up fake controversies for years to come. So we’ve got that going for us….

      1. It is understandable given Grimm’s apparent psychological condition. It is not reasonable that the law compels an institution to accommodate that condition the Grimm demands.

        1. “…the way Grimm demands”

          1. So, zhe doesn’t hunt down supernatural beings, like on the TV?

            You know who is really at risk? Some male-identifying preop with working female parts, being “taught a lesson” by troglodytic male-identifying males with male parts and no moral values restraining them from assaulting zim.

            Time to start a “if you bone a preop who is transitioning to male, that’s gay, dude!” meme? maybe the squick will save someone from a beating, or worse.

      2. Gavin might want to be recognized as a male, but she has a vagina, not a penis. The possession of which is pretty much the definition of a woman, not a man.

    2. “If segregrating facilitied by sex is illegal, then segregating them by gender should also be illegal…”

      No, that doesn’t follow, since sex objectively exists, whereas “gender” does not.

      1. That is one reason segregating by gender is absurd, but apparently acceptable under Grimm’s argument.

  14. About time.

    Of course, they’ll probably end up ruling 4-4 on it.

    Isn’t politics wonderful?

    1. Roberts would break the tie and allow transgender bathroom-switching with a justification based on the right of the govt to tax.

    2. that IS the scam; if the SCOTUS deadlocks,the lower ruling stands. it becomes “law”,and PRECEDENT,which later courts are very loathe to overturn.

  15. Has someone already fixed on the point that Title IX specifically talks about “sex” and not gender?

    1. Two more words: Lllllllllllllllllllllllliving constitution! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeee………

      Sorry, that was three words.

    2. but the liberals/”progressives” are all about “interpretation”,so they claim that “sex” really meant or includes “gender”.
      With them,a word’s meaning is variable,depending on how everybody feels at the moment.
      So written law is essentially meaningless,it all boils down to whatever the judge of the day feels like ruling.
      Like the kings of olden times.

      1. Which is hilarious since it was them that were insisting that sex and gender were *not* the same thing – hence the existence of people who consider themselves transgender.

        1. Progressives have no intellectual history, which is why they can and will turn their arguments around 180 degrees from one day to the next depending on the needs of the moment.

  16. RE: FBI Reopens Investigation on Clinton’s Private Email Server (UPDATE: Connections to Anthony Weiner)

    I sure am glad the SCOTUS has something to do.
    Now they finally got a case in which we’re all just so anxiously awaiting for their decision on this matter.
    Now we can sleep at night.

  17. The only question I can really ask is ‘Why in the fuck is our highest court hearing such stupidity?’. Are we going to hear a case about scary clowns next? What after that, whether or not wearing a sombrero on Mexican holidays is unconstitutional or a hate crime if you’re not Mexican?

    1. The only question I can really ask is ‘Why in the fuck is our highest court hearing such stupidity?’.

      Because if they don’t, there’s the possibility that lower courts might decide that extant law demands that every public bathroom in a state be demolished and replaced with unisex ones? OR! that trannies have no “rights” at all, since there’s really no historical guidance at all on how the law is supposed to treat people’s “Self-Identification”.

      basically, because they have to?

      My feeling is that the courts will actually decide that this “I feel like a girl” shit is stupid and that pre-op transpeople have to deal with being legally recognized as their biological gender until they’re post-op.

      But my feeling is often/usually wrong, because my feeling assumes that people will choose the simplest and most-logical option.

      1. Understood. My tirade was more to the effect of ‘how the fuck has it come to this?’. I mean, are those conspiracy theories about stuff in the drink water actually true?

      2. I have always had my doubts about transsexuals (i.e. those who truly feel that their biological sex is opposite what they feel it should be), but at least, those people have a process to go through, and, to the extent possible, actually transition from one sex to the other. (I am not going to argue whether or not this is actually true or not.) From a legal perspective, once a person is post-op, hormone treatments, lives life completely as their new sex, etc. they should be considered that sex.

        The problem is the transgender bullshit. That human are not sexually dimorphic, but exist on a spectrum. Humans come in 2 varieties, male and female. A tiny percentage of genetic or physical anomalies doesn’t contradict that. Sexual preference, and personal behavior is a spectrum (a beautiful, diverse, perverted, nasty, kinky spectrum). If a 16 yo kid has a penis, testicles, facial hair, etc. they are a male. If they want to wear pink, fine. If they grew up playing with tea sets instead of guns and trucks, so what? If they are sexually excited by other males, so what? It doesn’t make them female. And vice-versa.

      3. But “pre-op” and “post-op” are no more meaningful than “I feel like a girl”. The drugs, hormones, and surgeries enhance the illusion, but it’s still an illusion.

  18. I’ve got to hand it our seemingly less than bright elected leaders. They have deftly handed the public a basket of shiny objects to wonder at, while they go on about their business of destroying all that is sane and good in this world.

    1. Ahh, Panem et circenses, a nice bookend to the Molon labe thread from earlier.

  19. Supreme Court to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Panic

    “But I want to go to the boys restroom!”
    “Wha… What difference, at this point, does it make where you deposit your gawd-damned PEE, you stupid mo…er fu…er?”
    “I want to feel included! Waa!”
    “You’re going to feel something, all right! Your legs all wet, and it ain’t because of rain!”

  20. After they do transgender bathroom panic, are they gonna clown panic?

    1. Won’t someone think of the transgender clowns?

  21. Behold the car of the future, now with 25% fewer wheels:

    1. So its a Can-Am Spyder for the ‘too old and fat for a Can-Am Spyder’ set?

      1. it’s for motorcyclists who don’t want to get rained on,and to stay out of the wind. Who want “full-body protection” and comforts.

        1. So its a Can-Am Spyder for the ‘too old and fat for a Can-Am Spyder’ set?

    2. More bulky and cumbersome than a motorcycle, just as dangerous, and still unable to carry any other stuff?

      yeah, i don’t really see it.

      1. And how much gov subsidies does this one get ?

      1. Fuck me dead, for 45 large I want a whole lot more than a fucking tricycle.

        1. my point was more that the design is 100 years old, not that the Morgan is an economic-competitor

          The price-tag on those things is mostly for the snob-factor. If i were made of money, i’d have an aero-8 just because that is how a pimp should roll.

          1. It’s the perfect car for people who want a Segway, but aren’t quite ready yet.

      2. the “Demolition Man”,”SanAngeles” future….

        “all restaurants are Taco Bell.”

    3. I’ve seen a 3-wheeled car on the road,the front was only one wheel,two in the back,and it was a regular car body,not a glorified motorcycle. it looked like one of the electrics from Zap.

    1. Damnit, Maverick engage! consult the ROE, then…Maverick? Do you copy?

    2. An act of unprovoked aggression against our peaceful vessels in the Gulf of Ton…ah, Syria.

    3. “It appeared the Russian pilot had simply not seen the US jet, as it was dark and the planes were flying without lights.”

      So neither of these aircraft had radar ?

      They are dependent upon the pilots eyesight ?

      What a crock of shit.

      1. They both have radar. They both have the radar turned off. You only turn that on when you’re in the shit – otherwise you try to have an AWACS or other remote station providing targeting information.

        Turn on your radar and everyone knows you’re there and *exactly* where there is.

  22. After the toilets – or is it already a thing? –

    If the court rules that Title IX requires schools to recognize someone self-identified ‘gender’ in place of their biological sex for the purposes of the law…

    …wouldn’t that mean that anyone who identifies as a girl gets to play on the girls’ sports teams, and vice versa?

    Title IX was originally applied to sports, being where sex-discrimination was often most pronounced (other than toilets)

    I can only assume it goes back to its familiar territory

  23. You have to strip the language of meaning to apply Title IX or the civil rights laws to any gender issue, as they refer solely to sex.

    1. OK, not to be stupid, but could someone please explain the difference?

      1. Sex is biological, objective. Gender is subjective, social/personal.

        1. So, female is arc, woman is gender? Is there really that much difference? I mean, I really just don’t get it.

          1. Sex discrimination laws don’t support transgender privileges and may in fact prohibit them due to the disproportionate impact on females (many more men identify as women and would be using the women’s room).

          2. Yes. A pretty large difference. Gender is a set of social roles and behaviors – *some* are probably (fairly) innate, most are learned.

            There’s a difference between being male and being a man.

            This whole thing is sadly funny in that there’s been a huge fight to unlink gender from sex in order to get people to understand why the transgender exist – then these people are turning around and retrying to link them back together so they can use a *sex* segregated bathroom by conflating sex and gender.

            Because unless you’re *physically* transgender then you’re either a male or female whether or not you think you should pee standing up or sitting down.

  24. Amusing: Clinton minions wanted to use shirtless Sanders pic to embarrass him…..e-pic.html

    Kenneth Corcoran, 61, a machinist in New Hampshire, said this kind of campaigning is what turns him off from national politics. The former Sanders supporter said he is on top of the issues and has followed the WikiLeaks dump and has been unsatisfied with her explanations.

    “If I’m in a particularly foul mood on [election] day, I may vote Trump,” he said. “Just to stick a pen in the Clintons.”

    Come to the dark side, Kenneth

    1. Would this be Kenneth’s first Republican vote? Because it doesn’t sound like he votes Republican with any frequency.

      1. Your Pun-Fu is strong, Grasshopper.

    2. Burn him? How? By showing a picture of an old man relaxing? Because *Clinton* is just a picture of youthful vitality by comparison?

      Fuck me, Kenneth – but if I had to bet, I’d be betting that Sanders will reach 2020 live, not Clinton.

  25. File under “me today, you tomorrow”: Famous leftwing atheists mad that their friends put on SPLC hate watch list for criticizing Islam

    1. “But citizen Robespierre, I thought we were friends! I mean, vive la revolution, right?”

      1. Citizen Robespierre eventually had his own appointment with Madame Guillotine too.

  26. Junior Thought Police, while tearing down posters: “This is my free speech”

  27. Someone dares to call CNN “the Clinton News Network” on the air

    honestly, i end up sympathetic to the CNN anchor (at least in the beginning); the whole “talk over people before they can finish their sentence” thing makes me want to strangle people. I also give her credit for deftly turning the knife back on her hostile guest.

    But the huffy indignant reaction from news-people when you point out they’re part of baldly-partisan-institutions is really sort of lame and silly. Just own it. The news media in the UK is super-partisan, and its normal. here we need to maintain this charade that they’re superior and above the political fray. You can’t have your Chris Cuomo and then pretend that you’re all carrying on the tradition of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

  28. What the world looks like to Agile Cyborg

    (consider the implications of that before clicking at your own risk)

        1. Agile Cyborg seems rather unique, and the words with which he is wont to “decorate” these H&R threads are certainly unlike any of those from other posters, according to my recollection.

          What say you of this ?

          The expression on the face at approximately 2:17 stands out to me with regards to AG.

  29. Will the Islamophobia ever end? 800 Christians killed and 100 Churches burned in Nigeria in 2016.


    1. Hey, maybe it’s the neo-Odinists reenacting the sack of Lindsfarne?

      1. It is the best way to get your Religious Authority up so you can reform the faith after all.

        1. It’s how I did it! Only Rome and Venice were the targets.

          Poor Venice. I finally had to conquer them and turn them into Tortuga of the Med. To protect them from raiders, you see. Horrible, murdering raiders like me.

          1. Venice got so lucky in my nomad playthrough. Burned, raped and pillaged my way across Hungary and Austria, got to Venice, wanted to continue burning and pillaging.

            “Wait…how do I get over there?”
            *Checks vassals, they don’t have enough ships to land fifty thousand horse archers*
            “DAMN YOU VENICE!”

            So instead I murdered four different Popes thanks to raiding.

            1. Well your nomad chieftain has his spiritual ancestor to blame

              Attila returned in 452 to renew his marriage claim with Honoria, invading and ravaging Italy along the way. The city of Venice was founded as a result of these attacks when the residents fled to small islands in the Venetian Lagoon. His army sacked numerous cities and razed Aquileia so completely that it was afterwards hard to recognize its original site

              1. It’s bullshit that I can’t just build a bridge a la Alexander at Tyre. EU4 does Venice better, you have a strait crossing but ships can prevent army movement across it.

      2. PZ, you are like a goddam world history encyclopedia. Impressive.

        1. All I’ll say is, if GJ was a Crusader Kings 2 player, he’d not have an Aleppo moment.

          Or at least, it would have been cooler

          “What would you do about Aleppo?”
          “Let’s see…Holy War CB for the whole duchy would destabilize the area, so I’d have my chancellor fabricate the claim, park my retainers on the border, then do a DW as they march in. Wait, are we treating current Syrian Civil War as a Peasant Revolt or Decadence Revolt?”

          1. The CK2 reddit overwhelmingly argues that it’s a Decadence revolt. I don’t play Muslims enough, all I know is that whenever the Caliphate collapses into infighting I pray that I can DEUS VULT as soon as possible.

            1. I have no idea what any of you are saying, but I am going to find out. *opens Steam*

              1. If you’re curious, Humble Bundle store has a Paradox sale. It gives you a Steam key and part of the proceeds goes to charity (you can pick which).

  30. OK, time for some weekend trolling.

    Here is a combined Halloween/Christmas gift about an undead Abraham Lincoln coming back in the 1960s.

      1. That’s music to the ears of a troll.

  31. I’m not exactly sure exactly what Gavin’s problem is here. If her equipment is still female. what is the problem with her using the bathroom that other people with female equipment use? After all, it’s not like the girls are going to see his wee-wee and embarrass him, after all he doesn’t actually have one, so there’s no problem with him sitting in privacy in a stall and doing his business.

    OTOH, I’m not sure what problem the boys have with him using the boy’s room. After all unless he’s going to use a urinal and go standing up how is anyone going to know that he doesn’t have a wee-wee? Unless, of course, they already think of her as a he and are afraid she’ll laugh at their little wee-wees.

    I’m not exactly sure why any teenager would open her/himself up to this kind of exposure, when he/she could be quietly sitting in a private stall doing his/her business.

    While I would normally applaud this kind of courage in the face of “the man’s” oppression I have to wonder if this is not a hill too far etc and so on….

    1. OTOH, I’m not sure what problem the boys have with him using the boy’s room.

      Its the same with the trans-person’s own objection to using the girl’s room.

      Its not about the issue of “where is most-appropriate to pee”

      Its about demanding that the institution of the school enforce perceptions.

      If the student were required to use the girl’s room, it would be acknowledging and affirming the majority’s perspective that “regardless of what you ‘identify’ as, you can’t make anyone else “see” you as a boy“. Go ahead and play-pretend all you want! You just can’t force other people to play along.

      But that’s really what they are asking of the law. Not just that the student be “allowed” to use the bathroom of their choice = but that the institution and every other student be required to pretend that, regardless of biology, that person is exactly what they “identify” as.

      Other institutions are already implementing penalties against anyone who fails to ‘use correct pronouns’ or mis-recognizes someone’s self-identified gender. The “bathroom” thing is really just step-1 in that process, because it grants the official acknowledgment that “you are what you claim to be”.

      There are people who think that if we just all had unisex toilets, that this whole issue would vanish overnight. I think that’s probably wrong.

        1. There! Are! Four! DICKS!

          1. You mean this guy? Illacme tobini has four penises. Peni. Penae… Whatever… it’s got four of them.

        2. I am not sure why i need to be forced to recognize ‘gender’ at all.

          As Jeffrey Dahmer used to say, “they’re all pink on the inside”

      1. Something something Vaclav Havel

        THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

        The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

        1. Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

          I like the cut of this man’s jib

          1. Now you see why I’m being reminded of my upbringing in notionally-Marxist society?

            I will accept “oncoming senility and old-mannism” as alternative explanation, though.

    2. You clearly don’t remember high school locker-rooms. People get naked in them.

  32. The most important issue of this, or any, era..

  33. 100,000 Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attacking Mosul. ISIS has about 5,000. Yet the offensive has stalled because ISIS fighters are largely protected from artillery and airstrikes by their extensive tunnel system.…..ystem.html

    1. PERSIANS!!!

    2. An entirely unheard of strategy never before seen in warfare. Except for every other guerrilla war that has ever been fought.

        1. I took a chance and opened that link, HM, having the entirely unwarranted impression that you weren’t offering another “This Kills The Man” type of image.


  34. The government better get to the bottom of this shit.


  35. So that Jacob Hacker guy wrote a book.

    American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper


    1. Two conflicted men. Lee took the full five years to free his father-in-laws slaves; Lee’s father had advocated the Constitution provide for gradual emancipation. Jackson was a criminal under Virginia law, having taught slaves to read and write in Bible study classes at Lexington Presbyterian.

    1. Probably more musically-informative=

      Death Metal is just Surf Rock, sans Distortion

      This is technically accurate in many ways. From the chugga-chugga rhythm sections, extensive-use of tom-toms, the use of semi-tones and long chromatic runs in guitar lines, 32nd note picking, extended unresolved moody chords as the basis for the verses…

      this guy tries to explain it, after a lot of hemming and hawing about other things

    1. The California Raisins?

    2. Asians?

  36. All humans defecate through their anus.
    If we weren’t so prudish couldn’t schools and businesses just put, “MEAT TUBE” or “TINY APERTURE” on the doors? Problem fucking solved.

    1. I don’t think we want the Aperture Science guys in charge of toilets, no telling where everything would end up.

      1. Nor would I. But I’m an adult and I really don’t care where people go potty, My favored local bar recently put “Whichever” signs on both of the toilets. I still try the one on the right first– because oddly enough I know it’s the one with a urinal.

    2. All humans defecate through their anus.

      Fuck you for micro-aggressing against people with colostomies, you fucking ableist shitlord!


      1. You’re right. I am profoundly sorry for forgetting that some people are so fucking broken that they require colon vacuums. I guess I was raised as an abelist –because my father told me at a young age, “If I ever have to shit in a diaper take the .357 Highway Patrol model and put one in my head!”

  37. So which party is denying science here?
    Any information on why the obvious solution of unisex is not acceptable?
    Can there be a tranny tax to pay for all the building renovations?
    Does ANYONE actually think this is a serious national political issue?
    WHEN did Virginia give up on Sic semper tyrannis?

    1. Well, I mean, I dunno. Back in the Stone Age when I was a child, it was pretty clear and no one was freaking the fuck out over it. If you had a penis, you went to the boys room, if you had a vagina, you went to the girls room. I mean, I’m not sayin this is the ultimate reality, all I’m saying is that it wasn’t a problem, not even a little one, let alone something that needed taking to the Supreme Court.

    2. which party is denying science here?

      I didn’t realize the outcome of this court ruling was a political matter. Or that scientists were involved.

      1. Political scientists

    1. I think there is a large segment of the Humankind that communicates through similar forms of fart-sniffing.

    2. Otters are vicious.

      1. That’s only Canadian otters; US otters have all been mellowed from all the antibiotics in the waterways.

        1. Nope. That’s upstream bear whizz.

      2. Was your sister bit by one?

    1. But hey – Russian’s should keep out of US elections!

  38. A couple of people have mentioned Pournelle and Niven (Tarran referred to ‘Inferno’) and I’m intrigued. What’s a good first book to read from them?

    1. I’m not sure, i didn’t see the references. If you are talking about Larry Niven, Ring World.

    2. Lucifer’s Hammer and Footfall are big disaster fun novels.

    1. The reporting on the issue is actually pretty simple and clear. The FBI isn’t doing this because it wants to , they’re doing it because formality demands it.

      iow, there’s nothing to “explain” about why the FBI is ‘continuing to investigate’. There was a trove of email they didn’t know about.

      ‘The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.’

      This is sort of a left-handed claim that somehow there was a dearth of facts to share.

      What is definitely sort of screwy is that… the way Comey informed congress… he knew that it would hand them a huge PR moment to claim that Hillary was still “being investigated”. I can only assume is that there was some other bureaucratic means by which the FBI could acknowledge there’s more stuff out there they needed to check. Maybe someone on an oversight committee demanded a letter? I don’t know. I feel like it could have been done far more under-the-radar without creating the false impression that “previous conclusions are now invalid” and the “investigation is renewed”, when that’s not really the case.

      I know what she wants = she wants them to get up and say, “This is just a routine matter for the sake of formality and Hillary is still [not “innocent”, but ] not being charged with anything based on what we know now”…

      but i don’t think that’s going to happen.

      1. So, is she calling for more information because she knows the is nothing (more) incriminating in there emails? Nothing has really stuck so far – seems to me that she has more to fear from speculation than facts

        1. So, is she calling for more information because she knows the is nothing (more) incriminating in there emails?

          sort of.

          She wants another public-exoneration before the election.

          She is furious that this letter gave the opposition the opportunity to *suggest* that there’s a “re-opening” because of “new evidence”. Its not really the case – yes, there is “new evidence”; but most are probably cc:’d emails that they’d previously screened; and frankly, if the FBI found nothing problematic/prosecutable from the things they already had? There’s absolutely nothing they could find in the ‘new’ source that will change things.

          But the mere suggestion that the situation has somehow ‘changed’ hurts her perception of de-facto innocence. Its now “to be determined”, as far as the public knows.

          She will maybe try and use this as an opportunity and rant and scream that this is some kind of trick and the right-wing conspiracy is working against her. I don’t know how that will help tho. i don’t know what the FBI can do other than make a simple PR statement that “they are legally required to vet new sources that they had failed to include in their prior investigation” or something…. and that “she’s not expected to be charged unless there are surprise disclosures”, but i don’t see it ever being worded in a way that doesn’t still leave plenty of room for critics to exploit.

    2. Like the senator asking for ‘specificity’ when Nixon got nailed; she’s betting the FBI can’t do that, and sure hoping they won’t.

      And when I looked for the senator’s name, look what I found:
      “Hillary Fired For “Lying, Unethical Behavior” on Watergate Committee”
      “It turns when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”
      Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.
      “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”…..l-behavior

      I know, “old news”. Of course it’s “old news”; that hag has been duplicitous since day one.

      1. Error!

      2. Site seems to be down but found another link.…..-behavior/


        She’s beyond rotten.

        1. I thought you were joshin’; I checked and the link in my post works in Firefox.
          But thx for digging up one that works in your browser.
          Yes, pathetic.
          Dunno if you are old enough to have followed that mess, but there was concern that Nixon might not yield the office even if the SCOTUS told him to scram.
          Regardless, there was partisan slime in abundance and it seems the hag was involved in it even then. Ya wonder if that dishonesty is what attracted Bubba to her? Or the other ‘way round?

          1. Well, they’re both clearly sociopaths so misery loves company at the very least.

            I’m curious to know if Chelsea is the same.

            I was but a mere toddler during those years.

            1. “I’m curious to know if Chelsea is the same.”

              If she weren’t so homely, I’m sure the hag would have pedaled her off to the highest bidder once she passed legal age. It’s not like HRC has any scruples; if she wins, presume the WH plumbing fixtures will end up on ebay.
              Hell, she sold ‘blue-light specials’ on political access. Any honest person would call that ‘influence peddling’, but there are no honest people anywhere close to the hag.
              Oh, and I’m sure hag-II has learned her lessons well.

            2. I haven’t met her, but from various reports I’ve read, she was born on third and thought she hit a triple.

              She thinks it’s only natural for NBC to pay her $600,000 a year to do heavy hitting reporting like interviewing the Geico Gecko, despite the fact that there are Sophomores working the school newspaper who have more reporting experience than her. Because she’s just that awesome. It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that NBC’s parent company GE wanted to give her a nice fat paycheck for a do nothing job, a setup any mobster can recognize.

              OTOH, She also ordered an audit on the CGI which indicates she’s well-meaning, just not very smart, especially when it comes to her parents.

              1. She also ordered an audit on the CGI which indicates she’s well-meaning, just not very smart, especially when it comes to her parents.

                Late teenage rebellion.

    3. Furious Clinton goes to war with FBI director with extraordinary press conference demanding it explains new email probe ‘without delay’

      It must be late and I’m tired.
      Am I the only one who first read this as “Clinton…..demanding new anal probe ‘without delay’. ?


  40. Bombshell: This was the picture Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl which prompted an FBI investigation – which now imperils Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House

    not *quite*. Oh, UK press. I thought you’d be willing to go there.

    1. Or is it, really? No hog-in-hand?

  41. “They do offer unisex bathrooms, but Grimm is fighting for the right to use the mens’ room.”

    Not ignoring people who can never be satisfied is a serious mistake. What is she gonna bitch about if they let her use the boys room?

    This screams oppositional defiant disorder.

    1. NO IT DOESN’T!!!!

  42. Funny how they choose to hear a case about a chick who wants to use the guys bathroom which no one gives a shit about. Of course that will set the precident for the reverse.

    1. How long until we get a sexual harassment suit by a woman outraged that men could overhear her excreting.

    1. What is that BS?

      Art my ass.

      1. Art my ass.

        Where’s Swiss when you need him?

        *narrows gaze*

    1. A) WTF is wrong with you.
      B) I’m sure I would pay better.

    2. HM, I’ve seen this for a while, and like any other blind link, no way in hell am I gonna click on that.
      Got a description? Or just wiggin’ and hopin’?

      1. Spin the wheel and maybe win a prize.

        1. Nope.
          Betting on blind luck is a fools game. You know that as well as I do.

  43. This bathroom stuff has me so pissed off I can’t even shit straight.

  44. Just lost my cool and told some guy, rather loudly, that he was an idiot who should stop talking to me. Some transplant from Cali trying to impress with how well traveled he was. I was talking to somebody else, and mentioned the fictitious restaurant “Shenanigans” from the carton tv show South park.
    “Oh, I’ve been there, been all over south park, Colorado. Shenanigans has a great kitchen.”
    Dude, the only thing worse than a know-it-all, is a blowhard who doesn’t even understand that he’s a complete idiot.
    He got offended and moved to a different bar stool.

    1. So turd is a neighbor?

      1. You know, Sevo, it’s a wonder that I don’t get into bar fights every night. I put up with stupidity at work, all day, because I have to. I’ll be damned if I’m going to put up with it when I’m drinkin’.

        1. DJ, I live in SF. Most of the SF population is more than tolerant of those who do not look like the observer or fuck the same people, and that’s just fine. Dunno if you caught that link earlier to the tattoo place vandalized ’cause owner’s BF likes Trump; you better not think differently!
          I have had people end long (supposed) “friendships” because I would not agree that the Brit NHS is what we need here. That was not a friendship; that was a presumption that I would not call him/her on bullshit. I finally got fed up with listening and did so.
          If you check the O-care threads, you’ll find mortiscrum who believes s/he is here to educate us regarding how socialized medical care can work if we just XXX, since no one here has ever thought of the insights mortiscrum is posting. We’re all just not as smart as mortiscrum and haven’t given it sufficient thought.
          We all have to decide the level of bullshit we’ll tolerate, and while there are many who claim ‘crotchety old fart’, there are others who claim to have listened to that crap long enough without responding honestly.
          I no longer have to.

    2. There’s a bar space here that has gone through a lot of owners and all of them have been gakked by the ABC assholes, the latest name was Shenanigans.

  45. So A. Weiner cant quit dicking around with underage girls on the internet and whose missteps inadvertently bring down the most powerful political dynasty in the most powerful nation on earth. We are living in historic times people. Historic.

    I see Carlos Danger as Gollum; the creepy, selfish little lunatic whose compulsive behavior destroys Mordor and Mordor never sees it coming.

    I have been busting my ass, haven’t slept in 48 hours and am seeing double. I will check todays comments tomorrow to see if I made any sense at all.

    Goodnight all.

    1. I’ma check tomorrow’s comments today!

    2. “So A. Weiner cant quit dicking around with underage girls on the internet and whose missteps inadvertently bring down the most powerful political dynasty in the most powerful nation on earth. We are living in historic times people.”

      S, you’re getting ahead of yourself.
      That hag has ducked chin-music many times so far, to the extent that I’m left to wonder if she hasn’t been given a permanent pass.
      And then, you’re hoping more people vote for that blowhard regardless of her dishonesty? Trump has spent entirely too much time digging the hole he’s in for that to happen.
      Suffice to say, I’m willing to be amazed, but that’s what it would take.
      And guten abend to ya.

      1. I’ll say it will help Trump for the simple reason that most people despise both major candidates. So whenever one of them is in the news for whatever reasons. everybody just goes, “Ugg, not another 4 years of that asshosle.” All Hillary had to do yesterday was go to a couple of rallies in battleground states, let her ground crew tie it up, and let Donald Trump stick his foot in his mouth again, and she would have it all sewn up.

        Now her and her usual gang of idiots have to go around answering all sorts of questions about Hillary’s ethics.

  46. the kid is NOT a boy,no matter what she imagines or “feels”. So stop calling her “he”. stop being politically correct.

  47. The other day in Pittsburgh, I saw the self-driving Uber cars. They looked so very science-fiction.

  48. It’s starting to get cold up here in the north, and I am grateful for all that I have.

  49. Ugh. Cubs lose 1-0 to go down in the series two games to one. Now the Indians’ ace, who also shut them out in game one, goes tomorrow against the Cubs’ weakest starter. It’s looking pretty bad. Cubs may not score a run again in this series.

    1. The most boring World Series Ever.

    2. And by getting blanked tie a record that has stood since 1905.

  50. Prolly get a lot of ‘my eyes glaze over’, since civil engineers build targets, but:
    There are two ways to ‘found’ a very large building: pilings to bedrock or ‘friction’ pilings. In SF, if you had to go to bedrock, there would be no downtown towers.
    SF has a major residential tower, founded on friction piles, which had sunk 16″ (which is something you can see; .needs another two steps) and is leaning 2″ (which you can’t. The thing’s 600′ high; that is an irrelevancy).
    Well, the building was planned, engineered and built and all was fine, but then moonbeam stood on the mountain and said “THERE WILL BE A TERMINUS FOR MY CHOO-CHOO!” in SF and lo, and behold, there was a plan to build a ‘legacy’ structure to dos so.
    Which structure (now mired in huge taxpayer debt, since lefty ignoramus changed the rules and the contractor bailed) required pumping ground water out from under the tower, meaning the original calcs are now void.
    So now lefty rag finds:
    “Violations found in repairs to sinking, tilting luxury high-rise”
    “San Francisco’s Department of Building Inspection has filed two notices of violation against Millennium Tower, saying the owners made unauthorized repairs to address issues caused by the building’s sinking.”…..421476.php
    Yep, those darn guys tried to make things work for the residents without asking permission from the same TOP MEN who are causing the problem.

    1. In SF, if you had to go to bedrock, there would be no downtown towers.

      Maybe “Downtown” is in kinda a stupid place that used to be a cove?

      1. Nope. There’s no reason the buildings can’t be built there, so long as someone doesn’t change the rules.

          1. I love how in most of the reporting about the sinking tower there is very little, if any, mention made of the giant hole being dug by the city right next door to the tower. Lord knows that a huge glorified bus station is exactly what downtown SF needs the most.

    2. The guardian story seems to have more background and detail.

      Though it opened in 2009, just after the housing market crashed, the 420 units eventually all sold, for a total of $750m. As recently as February, a three-bedroom unit was listed for nearly $9m.

      Much of that value of appears to have vanished when news of the sinking broke in August. The same three bedroom is now listed for $3.79m, and owners of 163 units have applied for property tax adjustments. In aggregate, the appeals claim a reduction in value of those 163 condos from $374m to $153m, according to city records. Owners of 40 of those units are claiming that their residences ? currently assessed at $563,000 to $5.1m ? are worth $0, $1, or $2.

      what’s property tax in SF? I’d guess more people are whining about the loss in tax-revenue

      1. It’s about 1.2% of assessed value, plus a couple add ons. The city of SF gets incredible amounts of property tax. It is never quite enough though.

      2. Owners of 40 of those units are claiming that their residences ? currently assessed at $563,000 to $5.1m ? are worth $0, $1, or $2.

        I will gladly purchase their apartments for what they claim they are worth.

        1. probably a four figure association fee every month already, that will have to get jacked up to cover the new construction costs. Unless they have some kind of sinkage insurance, or can force the developer to pay it.

    3. Wealthy progressives made their bed there, let them try to lie in it as the building slowly topples over and crushes the transit terminal under it. It’s poetic justice for all involved. Schadenfreude &c.

  51. Where you take a piss, or drop the kids off at the pool is an election issue. =D

    This country is unhinged.

    Let the blood flow into the streets.

  52. For those who were commenting on Paul Krugman’s twitter rants regarding the new Hillary “bombshell”. … The MSNBC Clinton campaign embedded reporter clued us in on the origin and nature of his tweets.

    After stepping off of the campaign plane she explained that during her flight the reporters were in the dark as to the nature of the FBI announcement and thought it was all just rumors. But she heard Clinton and her team repeatedly huddling and strategizing their response. She said that their decision was to focus on the FBI and Comey’s decision – and to push them from a position of strength, demanding “full disclosure”.

    This set of talking points was distributed to their surrogates while the candidate was still in the air. And immediately afterward Krugman begins tweeting exactly this. Does anyone still believe he’s got his own voice?

    Or any of the other media, for that matter? CNN wasalso immediately treating the main story as “why is Comey/FBI doing this?” They had analyst after analyst analyzing competing theories that Comey was being partisan or being a boy scout. No need to burn calories on “does the existence of perhaps tens of thousands of perhaps previously undisclosed emails make a dent in the violation of the open records act, national security violations with regard to handling of classified information or failure to cooperate with the federal investigation. Those questions are not really relevant.

    1. I didn’t get the chance to watch any of the others. But if their primary take is “why did the FBI announce this” or “why did Comey take this action” then they are not a news organization, they are carrying the water for the Clinton campaign.

      At least MSNBC is out of the closet on that matter. Their secondary take was that Wiener’s inability to control his sexting had brought down his political career, and now it threatened the glorious, historic election of the first woman president of the United States.

      The notion that they shouldn’t have been handling classified information in this way was not on the table. Nor was the notion that they should not have been flagrantly avoiding the open records act.

      1. “The notion that they shouldn’t have been handling classified information in this way was not on the table. Nor was the notion that they should not have been flagrantly avoiding the open records act.”

        Nor that she destroyed subpoenaed evidence and treated political access as a product for sale on aisle 6 over there while she was S-S.

  53. First Bill, and now Weiner. Hillary must be apoplectic about men and how their inability to keep it in their pants is once again threatening her career. As a man, I wouldn’t want to be within a hundred yards of her if she were carrying a knife.

  54. For those who support Gavin Grimm’s side of the case, I have a question. If Gavin was arrested for a crime, would you insisted (s)he be sent to a male or a female juvenile detention facility?

    If you put Grimm in a male facility, you are locking a women with a vagina among men. That won’t end well. But if (s)he was sent to a female center for safety concerns, well, obviously there would be a lack of separate facilities for boys bathrooms and showers there. Yet forcing Grimm to use the female latrines would violate the administration’s own policy, right? So they would have to send Grimm to a female center and then set up separate boys shower room there? There is no end to the costs of special considerations and trouble for simply avoiding the obvious fact that Grimm is biologically a female. How (s)he sees him/herself is irrelevant.

    1. I would send her to male prison. But then, I’m intellectually consistent. Most people on “my side” would not send her to male prison.

    2. How about we have prisons where people don’t get raped as a matter of course? OK, I know, that’s the idealist in me showing through…

      1. How about we have prisons where people don’t get raped as a matter of course?

        Ok… how?

      2. I guess we could prevent that by not allowing child molesters, rapists, and other people convicted for sex crimes to enter prisons.

        1. How about we have prisons where people don’t get raped as a matter of course? OK, I know, that’s the idealist in me showing through…

          Any State that can whimsically convert large numbers of pathological murderers and rapists to accountants and middle managers with wide success/applicability can certainly and much more easily convert one Gavin Grimm “back” to a girl. Some people are beyond reform and I’m definitively against my government as a tool for reformation; thus ends my case for the death penalty.

          Even easier than reforming violent felons or definitively converting a transgender child one way or the other is to generate an irrational genderless malaise among the general populace. That greases all kinds of wheels.

  55. Let us say we allow this girl to use the boy’s locker room/showers, and thus must allow boys to use the girl’s locker room/showers. If we allow this for minors (boys and girls showering together), how can we possibly arrest them for sexting? If we can’t keep a man (who claims to be female) out of the changing rooms at the beach or the showers at the YMCA, why on earth do they need to wear clothes at any time? We have just made modesty illegal and exhibitionism legal, so how can you draw a line at only locker rooms/bathrooms?

  56. 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,,,,,,,

  57. 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.


  58. So you got guys identifying with women. But those said women don’t want those self identified guys. And the lesbians and gays don’t want to switch bathrooms cause they love the way it is. So we got the straight guys and girls holding it all day cause, well, they aren’t so cosmopolitan and all those trans gender gay and lesbians hanging out waiting for love.

    Only way to straighten out this mess is to put everybody together and let themselves sort it all out.

  59. Make all the damn bathrooms unisex. Problem solved.

  60. As far as I am concerned, “transgenders” can use whichever bathroom they want. As long as it’s in Arkham Asylum.

    Seriously, we need to revive the custom of locking crazy people up and throwing away the keys.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.