Executive Power

On Transgender Students, Do the Right Thing in the Right Way

Don't make excuses for even more unchecked executive power.

|

A man stabs a woman to death in a crowded store. Dozens of people see him do it. For good measure, he then confesses on tape. Should he be tried for murder, or should society skip the trial and just lock him up?

Most people would agree he should be tried despite his overwhelmingly obvious guilt. A nation of laws ought to abide by them. Besides, skipping the trial in this case would set a dangerous precedent. People might want to skip the trial in the next murder—where guilt isn't quite so clear-cut.

Here's another scenario: A woman stabs herself to death in a crowded store. Dozens of people see her do it, but nobody tries to stop her. Someone then writes to a federal employee, asking if the failure to stop a suicide qualifies as murder. He says yes, even though the law is silent on the matter. Should the witnesses be charged with murder based merely on his say-so?

These are abstract hypotheticals, but they have a real-world parallel in the case of Gavin Grimm—a transgender student in Gloucester, Va. Last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

There's a long backstory, but the upshot is that the Gloucester school system doesn't want to let Grimm, who is anatomically female but who identifies as a male, use the boys' restroom. Grimm has sued, claiming the policy violates federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in public schools.

That question is hard enough to answer as it is, because Title IX does not spell out how to treat transgender students; when it was written, the concept had yet to appear. In Grimm's case, the question has been muddled further because the Department of Education has essentially rewritten the law by fiat. The department's view that transgender students must be treated according to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, was first voiced in a letter.

Last January James Ferg-Cadima, an acting deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Office of Civil Rights, sent a three-page letter in reply to a query from Emily Prince, a regulatory lawyer and transgender activist. In his letter, Ferg-Cadima said schools "generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity." The department subsequently reiterated the position in a "Dear Colleague" letter issued jointly with the Justice Department.

So to get back to the hypotheticals: On matters of regulatory interpretation, the courts generally defer to the executive agencies, under doctrines known as Chevron and Auer. This can cause—and has caused—immense problems. As an amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute in the Grimm case points out, gratuitous judicial deference to agency interpretation undermines bedrock principles of the rule of law.

First, the law should give clear and fair warning—that is, people should be able to figure out in advance if they are breaking it or not. But if an agency can change regulations simply by writing a letter to a private individual, then the only people who know what the law actually says are the bureaucrats in charge of enforcing it. The law thus becomes subject to their arbitrary whim.

Second, letting agencies rewrite the law at whim undermines the separation of powers. Those who write the laws are not supposed to enforce them, too. That is why we have three branches: Legislators create laws, agencies apply them, and courts settle disputes about them. If an agency can rewrite the law at will simply by issuing a letter, then agencies can "both write the regulations they are charged with enforcing and later declare just what the ambiguous words of those regulations say, with little-to-no oversight by the courts."

In making these points, Cato stresses that it does not support Gloucester's policies on transgender students—or for that matter Grimm's request that the courts strike the policy down. Its concern has to do with the scope of executive power. There are supposed to be checks and balances. Procedures ought to be followed.

In this instance, the right way to craft rules about transgender students is to draft a proposal and submit it through the normal rule-making process—which includes public notice, comment, and so forth.

An even better way to go about it would be congressional legislation amending the 1972 law so that law-makers, rather than law-appliers, craft the new rules.

It's worth noting that the ACLU—which represents Grimm—takes a similar posture regarding the bedrock question of how to accommodate transgender students. The ACLU says "that question may ultimately warrant this Court's attention, but this is the wrong case at the wrong time. Consistent with its usual practices, the Court should allow the issue to continue percolating in the lower courts until a more appropriate vehicle arrives." For now, it just wants the court to defer to the Education Department and let Grimm use the boys' bathroom.

If and when Congress or the courts do get to the bedrock question, they should rule in favor of the Gavin Grimms of the world. Transgender individuals present no threat to anyone, and their accommodation can be managed with simple measures such as enclosed bathroom and changing stalls that protect both their privacy and the privacy of others. A few modest measures like those would hardly obliterate every distinction between the sexes.

Treating transgender people with respect and dignity is the obviously right thing to do. But even obviously right things need to be done the right way.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Advertisement

NEXT: Libertarians Denounce Bill Weld

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. So to get back to the hypotheticals: On matters of regulatory interpretation, the courts generally defer to the executive agencies, under doctrines known as Chevron and Auer. This can cause?and has caused?immense problems. As an amicus brief filed by the Cato Institute in the Grimm case points out, gratuitous judicial deference to agency interpretation undermines bedrock principles of the rule of law.

    Talking about this cuck legal stuff and executive power is a smokescreen for Trump support.

    1. Hinkle is a Trumpeltarian!

  2. We don’t really need politicians making rules regarding a tiny percent of the population that suffers from a delusion involving a type of body dysmorphic disorder.

    1. but would society comport itself if not for directives from TopMen? Oh, that’s right; sort of like it’s managed taking a leak for decades before that became politicized.

    2. Uh well you already have politicians making rules regarding who is allowed to use what bathroom.

      1. Personally, I think that the NY-style rules (de facto everyone gets to use whatever bathroom they want) are principled and straightforward in a certain way, and hasn’t shown signs of leading to problems (assault, or even abuse from people who don’t really believe they belong to the opposite gender); I can’t imagine that it won’t at some point, but it hasn’t so far and three cheers for deflating a moral panic for once. Plus, they amount to more freedom of behavior of individuals on public property, and that’s always prima facie a good thing.
        .
        The NC-style rules, on the other hand, are weirdly unprincipled. Your bathroom use is determined by the sex on your birth certificate, meaning your status is forever in the hands of officials from your birthplace. Manhattan? Provo? Riyadh? It’s up to them to change it. Ridiculous.
        .
        Three cheers to NC, of course, for pre-empting asinine local laws telling private parties what their own stance on this issue should be (instead of imposing them like NY). But as far as public facilities go, I love NY.

  3. “both write the regulations they are charged with enforcing and later declare just what the ambiguous words of those regulations say, with little-to-no oversight by the courts.”

    We have to adopt to the modern, fast moving world of twitter. We can’t go back to the old, quaint way of running the country. Let 10,000 pens and phones bloom!

    1. I read that as “let 10,000 penis phones bloom”

          1. The Weiner Republic, known for rapid inflation… engorgement, if you will.

  4. The ACLU says “that question may ultimately warrant this Court’s attention, but this is the wrong case at the wrong time. Consistent with its usual practices, the Court should allow the issue to continue percolating in the lower courts until a more appropriate vehicle arrives.” For now, it just wants the court to defer to the Education Department and let Grimm use the boys’ bathroom.

    Mmkay. Let’s just defer to the president and intern the Japanese citizens for now, and let it percolate in the lower courts until a more appropriate vehicle arrives.

    1. For now, it just wants the court to defer to the Education Department and let Grimm use the boys’ bathroom.

      Shorter ACLU: it wants to “defer” because it sides with the Executive. Just wait till some meany president decides that boy using the boys’ room and girls the girls’ room makes sense.

    2. Did you really just equate *choice* of *public* toilet with Japanese internment?

    3. You might want to use a different example, considering how Korematsu was decided.

      1. Kay, fine…

        Let’s just defer to the president and let the $30,000 a day fine accrue on the couple building their 2 bedroom home and let the wetlands issue percolate in the lower courts until a more appropriate vehicle arrives.

        The point which is being missed is, the ACLU seems to be fine with an abuse of executive power while the case rattles around in the lower courts– in hopes that some “appropriate vehicle arrives” whatever that is.

        I understand that in the case of Grimm, the harm here is really non-existent- some kid who identifies as a girl gets to use the urinals in the boys’ bathroom. No biggie.

        The issue which seems inevitable given past performance is that at some point, someone’s suing LA Fitness because some dude who “declared” wants to use the womens’ changing room. Customers get pissed, a brouhaha ensues, lawsuits are filed and suddenly the owner of LA fitness is having to spend tens of thousands reconfiguring his changing rooms to give the non-transgender clients ‘privacy’ from the sole transgender guy in the women’s room.

        Anyway, the business owner (I know, no one gives a fuck about them) is stuck with a bill and lawsuit payouts while the ACLU suggests we ‘defer’ to the executive whose agency rewrote the law by issuing a letter.

        1. Nothing says “freedom” like empowering ever smaller minority’s to jerk around the majority.

        2. I was unaware LA Fitness received government Title IX funding.

          I agree this is a great abuse of power, but this particular issue isn’t about “business owners” but rather state-sponsored schools.

          1. 2 words:
            “Public accommodation”

          2. Well, Hinkle brought up the NC law which was in response to Charlotte imposing its regime on everyone in ots jurisdiction. He also contrmplates in his closing making everone comply through legislation or court order.

          3. I agree this is a great abuse of power, but this particular issue isn’t about “business owners” but rather state-sponsored schools.

            You’re (aggressively) skirting my point.

            Title IX today, private business tomorrow under “public accommodation” or what BearOdinson said.

            If you don’t think the Obama administration (or a Hillary or Trump administration to be fair) won’t have a pack of rabid lawyers creating new interpretations of existing rulings and then issuing guidance on them, you haven’t been paying attention for the last eight years.

            I can easily imagine a fanciful guidance letter being issued on ADA rules on this stuff- which would absolutely affect private business.

  5. Yes, lets die on the hill of public-toilet squabbles.

    Because having our own candidates disown us in public isn’t brand-tarnishing enough.

      1. So now I can’t shit either? I can’t keep anymore.

  6. Jeezus f-ing Christ on a flying biscuit. Anatomically female answers the bathroom question on its own. If Gavin can convincingly look like a man and use that restroom without drawing attention, then he ought to fucking do so. But it’s not about taking a leak, is it? Oh, no; this is more SJW shit, designed to force the rest of us into caring about and noticing things we have no interest in or want to ignore.

    1. Yeah, he ought to fucking do so, which works in a typical public setting. In a school setting, however, people tend to know who you are, being that the same people gather there every day.

  7. Slippery slope. Do we just skip the trial for that hate speech? Everyone on Facebook votes ‘Liked’.

  8. Ok here is the thing. First off, I’ll give you the word gender, there can be as many genders as you like and each special snowflake can custom make their gender to suit their current mood. So we’re just going to talk about your biological sex from here on out. So girl, no longer refers to a gender, it refers to those in possession of two X chromosomes and a vagina, boy similarly refers to someone in possession of at least one Y chromosome and a Penis. If you are someone who is truly one of the very very rare people who are inter sexed and born with some characteristics of both or neither then you are lucky you get to pick.

    If you are a girl and want to be a boy or vic-versa that is great, we are all cool with that, let your freak flag fly and all that shit but understand YOU are the aberrant one, you are choosing to push societies boundaries and norms and as a result you have no right whatsoever to expect society to make room for you or accommodate you. I don’t want to hear this bullshit that you have always felt that way, nobody cares. You simply do not have the right to force someone, anyone to accommodate or indulge what is at the end of the day your mental illness. If they are willing to out of their own free will, great, if not you need to shut the hell up and recognize that it is their right to treat you that way and it is you who is the freak that need to be more accommodating of their preferences.

    1. If you are someone who is truly one of the very very rare people who are inter sexed and born with some characteristics of both or neither then you are lucky you get to pick.

      it is impossible to miss how none of those rare people are the ones agitating on this question. They have long since figured out how to tend to their business without making a spectacle of it. At some point, the LGB’s are going to toss the T’s off the train.

      1. At some point, the LGB’s are going to toss the T’s off the train.

        I disagree, and here’s why. A lot of the LGB’s today aren’t the LG’s of the past. They’re some intersectional mix of sexual orientation, gender identity, identity dysphoria, and fetish. I think this is especially true of bisexuals. There are still quite a few run-of-the mill lesbos and gays, but I’ve never met a square bisexual. Usually they’re some mess of identity dysphoric, gender fluid, and identified by their fetish. This is often combined with being so horribly unattractive (usually due to a combination of being morbidly obese, poor personal hygiene, and intentionally unattractive personal style choices) that they’ll fuck anything that moves… thus the bisexuality.

        As the alphabet soup train rolls on, the “squares” in the normal LG circles are either pushed off and shamed, or they become intersectionally fucked up in order to stay in the spotlight. The Ts aren’t gonna fall off the train. The normal LGs are going to be pushed off by the Ts and the rest of the letters.

        1. You can only add letters!!! Now we need a fucking Q for the people who dress like the opposite sex but don’t want to cut themselves…..

    2. How does any of that apply to Barton’s column about procedural lawmaking?

      1. Hugh Akston|11.2.16 @ 12:19PM|#

        Uh well you already have politicians making rules regarding who is allowed to use what bathroom

    3. Cis hetero shitlord….. 😉

  9. I see no reason to let the lunatics run the asylum, let alone the whole country.

  10. I can stay employed forever by just updating the gender checkboxes on some web forms.

    1. +Not having to switch restrooms

  11. Transgender individuals present no threat to anyone, and their accommodation can be managed with simple measures such as enclosed bathroom and changing stalls that protect both their privacy and the privacy of others. A few modest measures like those would hardly obliterate every distinction between the sexes.

    Treating transgender people with respect and dignity is the obviously right thing to do. But even obviously right things need to be done the right way.

    You know… I guess the Grimm case deals specifically with public schools, so sure, re-configuring the nation’s school bathrooms might be considered a decent stimulus project. I get it.

    How long before lawyers who are transgender activists start filing entrepreneurial test lawsuits in private places where being forced to reconfigure your bathrooms or changing rooms might be an expensive proposition, to name only one problem with this.

    And imagine the ACLU wanting to defer to the next round of executive diktats while this stuff percolates in the lower courts?

    1. Well good news is that Grimm doesn’t want to use a private single-stall bathroom that the school provides. Grimm wants to use boy’s bathroom as-is because fuck you, you will acknowledge Grimm’s reality. So no, reconfiguring is not acceptable and won’t be on the table. People submitting to the diktat of their betters is what is on the table, and that comes with no monetary cost. Win-win!

    2. How long? That train has left the station. This is how the whole mess in NC began, with the Charlotte City Council passing a measure requiring private businesses to provide such accommodations, even no one had asked for such accommodations.

      It is important to remember, and I lived there at the time and saw/read it, this was led by a newly-elected Mayor whose platform included making sure that female municipal staffers were paid the same as men. This pledge came IN SPITE OF her own admission that she had no idea if this was even happening, which it likely isn’t as govt pay scales are about the job, not who is doing it.

    3. I used to have a guy dressed in drag (think Georgina from Blackadder Goes Forth) visit the branch where I worked as a teller. After the first encounter I didn’t care. Do your thing, man. And that’s generally been my attitude toward trannies of all stripes. Until they started pushing for mandates, and pushing for children to be indulged. That first part is routine proggy shite, but the latter is NAMBLA-level asininity: some of these children haven’t even gone through puberty, and worse yet, some of them are currently pubescent. I don’t care what it says it wants, it’s no more capable of determining for itself what gender it wishes to “identify” as in a decade or more.

      Politics ruins everything.

      1. meant to add, no more capable than a pre-teen boy is of consenting to pederasty.

      2. Well, good luck trying to inject logic and reason, let alone biology into this political power play. Remember that those who are female (really female, as in pregnant) can choose to have an elective medical procedure without the consent or knowledge of those individuals who are supposedly responsible for her upbringing.

      3. I’m not sure if it’s a question of “indulging” children, I’m getting a whiff of munchausen-by-proxy and conversion therapy going on in some cases. But whatever, they’re not my kids and I’m not paying the therapy bills.

        There’s a case going on here locally where a fucking toddler is being pimped to the media by his mother as “transgender” because the kid said “I’m a girl” one day, with all of the clarity you’d expect from a toddler.

        News flash, my own daughter said she “was a boy” when she was about 2 and half. That’s normal. We “indulged” her and she got over it all by her lonesome.

        1. My 2-year old told us he is a puppy dog. We are now treating him with dog hormones.

    4. How long before lawyers who are transgender activists start filing entrepreneurial test lawsuits in private places where being forced to reconfigure your bathrooms or changing rooms might be an expensive proposition, to name only one problem with this.

      As anyone who’s had to share a private restroom and/or had siblings or family members of the opposite sex can tell you, it doesn’t take much to discern the gender of the person using the stall next to you without directly observing them.

      Can’t wait until college kids start accruing Title IX allegations by peeing in a sexual-aggressive manner.

    5. Mark my words, in ten years urinals will be a thing of the past because all “men” won’t be able to use them..

  12. …the Gloucester school system doesn’t want to let Grimm, who is anatomically female but who identifies as a male, use the boys’ restroom. Grimm has sued, claiming the policy violates federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in public schools.

    If this Grimm must be allowed to use the boys’ restroom / locker room, then presumably a male who identifies as female must be allowed to use the girls’ restroom / locker room. Does this also apply to sports teams? It seems to me that following Grimm’s logic leads to the end of girls-only teams, which would obviously be a terrible thing for pretty much everyone.

    1. Does this also apply to sports teams? It seems to me that following Grimm’s logic leads to the end of girls-only teams, which would obviously be a terrible thing for pretty much everyone.

      You mean like this?And like this? Is it at all surprising that dudes who transed would be nationally competitive female swimmers and olympic runners?

    2. t seems to me that following Grimm’s logic leads to the end of girls-only teams, which would obviously be a terrible thing for pretty much everyone.

      Or it leads to dudes who trans completely killing their female competition when they join the female sports (see the MMA fighter, the olympic runner, and the Harvard swimmer)

      1. The squirrels are working in overdrive today!

    3. “which would obviously be a terrible thing for pretty much everyone.”

      Oh no. That’d be the end of such thrilling sports as women’s basketball. How terrible.

  13. Mostly solid reasoning, but I find it amazing that an essay will use so much hedging-language like “the question has been muddled further because the Department of Education has essentially rewritten the law by fiat”.

    No, it isn’t “essentially” what they did, it’s what their end-term goal was which they “absolutely” did and with much gusto.

    Then in the same essay Hinkle throws out “Transgender individuals present no threat to anyone”. Fantastic superlative and blanket statement…. Wonder if he has any evidence?

    1. Transgender individuals form a cabal of the most violent and skilled warriors in the world.

      Obviously, this would be a more accurate statement.

  14. So Hinkle breezily states that schools and others should be forced to spend their money to build “simple measures such as enclosed bathroom and changing stalls” for transgender people.

    Forced to spend money for a tiny minority with a mental problem? Adding separated changing stalls in a locker room seems like it might not be cheap. Restrooms already have stalls.

    As usual, there is no consideration for the perspective of the boys and girls that have to deal with this. In men’s rooms, guys are standing there taking a piss, which is not really private, and in comes a girl. I wouldn’t have a problem with it, and maybe most wouldn’t, but some would be very uncomfortable.

    Whatever happened to idea that if you’re different, you sometimes have to suck it up and deal with social norms. The norms might change over time, but it’s wrong to use force to make everyone bend to your every idiosyncrasy.

    1. I think “breezily” is a good way to put it. I don’t have a problem with Hinkle’s analysis of the legal abuses here, but the flippant, “Hey man, can’t everyone just reconstruct their bathrooms” as naive, and fails to realize how one executive abuse begets another.

      For that tiny, infinitesmally small percentage of the population that has real gender issues and may occasionally suffer indignities and bullying, I feel for them. I really do and I don’t want to see anyone’s rights abused, but I admit I still labor under the old, outmoded definition of transgender. But currently, gender has become an evolving and moving target and using the nation’s domestic army to enforce accommodation for things like “gender fluid” creates a huge amount of confusion and in the flailing around to accommodate this rapidly evolving concept, a lot of rights are going to be violated while this gets sorted out.

      1. Exactly that Paul. Suddenly money is no longer fungible and it is just no big deal to expect taxpayers to accommodate this shit.

        Reason loves their Prog cultural biases more than they love liberty.

        1. Reason editors and columnists love to use transgender and LBGTWTF issues as a way to virtue signal.

  15. OTOH, supporting things like this would be a good way to hasten the demise of public schools, which is a libertarian goal IIRC.

    1. See my comment above. Stimulus project, more union dues, rinse, repeat.

  16. I don’t give half one flying fuck about where the mentally ill do their business. If the property owner says “nay” to the bathroom of your choice then fuck off. If that property is a public school, then let the principal decide and he personally can take the heat one way or the other.

  17. Transgender individuals present no threat to anyone, and their accommodation can be managed with simple measures such as enclosed bathroom and changing stalls that protect both their privacy and the privacy of others.

    Nothing says “Libertarian” like demanding other people spend their money to accommodate your cultural tastes. You don’t think they are a “threat” and people should spend money accommodating them, good for you. Other people disagree. And they have every right to and no one should demand they lift a finger accommodating anyone or anything unless they choose to do so.

    It is really that simple.

    1. State steals money to build bathrooms in accordance with John’s preferences.

      John says naught.

      People propose that the state’s stolen money should build bathrooms against John’s preferences.

      NOW John has an issue with the stolen money.

      1. You want the government to spend money on your preferences. I want them to spend it on mine. Why do your preferences win and mine don’t? Don’t we have elections to settle those issues? Reason is claiming that there is some kind of moral claim of their preferences on tax dollars. No, there isn’t.

        You really are stupid aren’t you? You are just not bright. But you make up for it by emoting about your various culture war issues.

      2. State steals money to build bathrooms in accordance with observed biological reality

        John wasn’t born when this happened.

        People propose that the state’s should steal MORE money and build bathrooms that do not accord with observed biological reality but instead to current political fads.

        NOW John has an issue with the stolen money.

        FTFY

  18. One of these does not belong with the others.

    Can you guess which one ?

    20 Trillion in debt

    2 major wars for over a decade

    military actions in a dozen more spots

    record setting tax revenue along with ever increasing deficits

    criminality at the highest levels of politics so far given a pass

    where do .02% of the population get to pee

    1. Hey man, reason has to worry about the important issues. And you forgot Uber in that list.

      1. Uber actually be on that list, because the future of capitalism is the gig economy and statists will not tolerate that getting in the way of the 100% unionized utopia!

    2. where do .02% of the population get to pee

      Either this hill doesn’t belong because it doesn’t have a pile of bodies on top of it or it does belong and needs a pile of bodies on top of it like all the others. In any event, it’s a completely different hill, totally not worth dying on. All those idiots, dying on hills, are idiots.

      1. I never understood the phrase ‘a hill to die on’ (I get the reference, but…)

        I always felt a better term would be ‘a hill to kill on’.

        (rhetorically…..always rhetorically, and it’s sad that I have to add THIS to it).
        …Hi Preet, how they hangin’?

        1. I never understood the phrase ‘a hill to die on’ (I get the reference, but…)

          I always felt a better term would be ‘a hill to kill on’.

          Point being, where are you (or what drug are you on), that libertarians are generally the ones killing it?

  19. I like that second example:

    “Here’s another scenario: A woman stabs herself to death in a crowded store. Dozens of people see her do it, but nobody tries to stop her. Someone then writes to a federal employee, asking if the failure to stop a suicide qualifies as murder. He says yes, even though the law is silent on the matter. Should the witnesses be charged with murder based merely on his say-so?”

    It’s not just a twofer, it’s a threefer – (1) murder is not a federal matter except in narrow circumstances not applicable here, (2) even on the state level, definitions of murder are a legislative matter, and (3) on the merits, being a bystander to a suicide, without having some kind of trust, guardianship, contract, etc. relationship with the victim, shouldn’t be a crime.

    Likewise with the bathroom case: (1) it’s not a federal issue, (2) even on the state level, the law should be made by legislatures not executive or administrative bodies, and (3) on the merits, private businesses should set their own bathroom standards and public bathrooms should assign girls to the girls room and boys to the boys room.

  20. https://www.facebook.com/voteforzilberg/

    How did this guy get on as a libertarian? Unbelievable.

    1. Doesn’t even have the decency to run under his new name, Khalid Zilberg.

    2. Wow, so I signed in to leave a comment while reading another article, and somehow ended up here…well anyways, discuss.

  21. The harm done to Grimm by not letting Grimm use the boys facilities is…what, exactly?

    Given that there are sex neutral facilities in the school, the answer to that seems to be that it hurts Grimm’s feelings that school does not agree that Grimm is a boy. There is no general right that other people or institutions have to treat you as what you think you are, especially if there is ample evidence to the contrary. Grimm’s insistence that others have to view her as she sees himself denies dignity and respect to the other people in the school.

  22. . . . acting deputy assistant secretary for policy . . .

    That, that right there – that’s a big, obvious, sign that you don’t have a real job, that your work contributes nothing to society and that we would not miss you if you dropped dead right this second.

    Its the name of a position that no one would ever *voluntarily* pay for it to exist and so exists solely through the forced extraction from taxpayers or on the sufferance of donors.

  23. So, what percentage of the population identify as their non biological sex and what percentage does not want to share restrooms with members of the biological opposite sex?

  24. Lets us accept the proposition of Grimm that he is a boy. Boys do not care where they piss. Never once in my life have I heard a boy demand he piss in the boys bathroom. Boys being boys, don’t need bathrooms. What is Grimm complaining about?

    1. If Grimm were a “real boy” he’d pee in the shower like the rest of us.

  25. my Aunty Mila just got Toyota Highlander just by some part-time working online with a pc…
    Get More Information>>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/h5r9tme

  26. Watch Now….!!! Recomended Streaming Online :
    If This Sound Good For You
    Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Available Here:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  27. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week… ………………… http://www.jobnet70.com

  28. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  29. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.