Trans

Transgender School Bathroom Battle About to Get Even More Complicated (UPDATED)

Trump to withdraw Obama administration's guidance, but that doesn't actually stop case moving forward.

|

restrooms
Rafael Ben-Ari/Chameleons Eye/Newscom

President Donald Trump's administration is expected to formally announce (possibly today) that it is withdrawing the legal guidance distributed to public schools by both the Department of Justice and Department of Education that they are obligated under federal civil rights and education laws to accommodate transgender students in restroom, locker room, and other sex-segregated facilities.

Assuming this is true (and Press Secretary Sean Spicer said so in a presser, so there's no reason to believe otherwise) it complicates this legal battle, but to be clear, it doesn't end it. There's some lazy headlines suggesting that the administration is "withdrawing protections" for transgender students, but there's a Supreme Court case in play right now and other court rulings pro and con. Withdrawing the Obama administration's guidance should not be taken to mean that even this one battle has ended.

While it is true that the Obama administration has attempted to use executive authorities to push transgender accommodation on all public schools, the idea behind it (transgender protections are included in sex discrimination protections) has precedent in legal decisions that actually go back prior to Obama's presidency. The argument is that discrimination against transgender people counts as sex discrimination on the basis of whether somebody's appearances or mannerisms match "sex stereotypes." A previous Supreme Court decision established that discrimination on the basis of these stereotypes counts as forbidden sex discrimination—you can't discriminate against a woman for being masculine or a man for being feminine. There have been a handful of court cases that have ruled in favor of such positions also applying to transgender people.

And when it comes to schools, the argument here by Obama's administration is that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 also requires such a reading. That Title IX actually says nothing about transgender students is relevant. In the case being considered by the Supreme Court, the justices will consider whether a legal concept known as the Auer deference should apply. This is a principle from a Supreme Court precedent that the courts generally give government agencies deference to implement statutes or regulations as they see fit unless they are doing something that directly contradicts what the law states.

Assuming the Trump administration does revoke the Department of Justice and Department of Education's guidance to schools, this is naturally going to undercut student Gavin Grimm's case, because the federal government is no longer attempting to implement Title IX this way. But, the Supreme Court is considering more than just agency deference to interpret the law. The court will be considering whether the text of Title IX obligates public schools to accommodate transgender students. If they decide one way or another on Title IX itself, that could possibly bypass the consideration of deference to the administration.

So: It's complicated. Resist the urge to assume the case is going down. And even if it did, the Trump administration's position is that states should handle the rules, not that transgender students shouldn't be accommodated.

As for what schools should do, I'm on the record as supporting the concept that schools, as long as they're government-run and publicly funded institutions, should be required to accommodate the needs of transgender students. I am perhaps not so strict on what that looks like as perhaps some transgender activists should demand (I think this can be solved by increased body privacy in facilities), and I'm not fond of the manner by which the Obama administration attempted to just push this on school districts while it was still a focus of dispute, which certainly contributed to a cultural backlash.

Also of interest to those who were watching the partisan fights over Trump's cabinet nominations play out: According to sources talking to both The New York Times and The Washington Post, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did not want to withdraw the guidance from the Obama administration. She wanted to keep the federal requirement to accommodate transgender students in place. Apparently Attorney General Jeff Sessions convinced Trump otherwise and left DeVos in little position but to go along. She apparently was able to get language included demanding that schools protect transgender students from bullying.

Note that Democrats went hard against DeVos and she just barely scraped by the Senate vote, thanks to opposition by education unions and also her family's history of anti-gay activism. Sessions actually faced less of a struggle (and even landed one Democratic vote from the Senate). Guess those rumors that DeVos was actually a supporter of LGBT issues, family history aside, were true.

UPDATE: Sessions and the Trump administration officially released two letters this afternoon rescinding the Obama administration's guidance that public schools must accommodate transgender students to comply with Title IX. The letter to "colleagues" noted that federal courts are split over the enforcement of the law and says:

In these circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved. The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.

A second letter sent to the Supreme Court also informed the court that it had withdrawn its guidance, and this does impact the Grimm case. The letter specifically mentions the Auer deference precedent and the fact that the Court of Appeals used this deference to find in Grimm's favor. So The Department of Justice is outright telling the Supreme Court that it is withdrawing the very administrative guidance that the appeals court deferred to in this case.

You can read the two letters here.

NEXT: Universities Lean Left, but Are Diversity Laws the Answer?

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. There is no reasonable way you can read Title IX as meaning schools must accommodate trans gendered students. That means to rule for the plaintiffs, the courts must either take the position that Title IX says something it clearly doesn’t or the courts must declare transgender to be a protected class under the 14th Amendment and read transgender into the statute as a matter of equal protection. Either result would be a disaster for the rule of law and the credibility of the courts.

    1. Call your congressman and tell him you support H.R. 1217 the “Why Didn’t You Go Before We Left Home?” Bill.

      1. I’ve been trying to pass that bill in our household for years.

    2. I like libertarians. I wish they would stick to their guns. When there is a choice between siding with social conservatives and big government leftists, they choose the leftists because the left is more cool.

      This should be a non-issue with the Reason folks.

  2. … I’m not fond of the manner by which the Obama administration attempted to just push this on school districts while it was still a focus of dispute, which certainly contributed to a cultural backlash.

    AND GOT TRUMP ELECTED.

    1. We have a conflict between two groups of people. One group claims that it is really a different gender from its biology and wants to use the showers and bathrooms of that gender. The other group doesn’t buy that and wants the rule to be you go to the bathroom and shower of your genetic gender.

      This is the sort of sticky social issue that we have local elections and federalism to solve. Instead of using the democratic process to let society figure out a compromise, the activists went to court to basically tell the other group to go fuck themselves that they didn’t get a say. Gee, that produced a backlash. What a surprise.

      1. I think there’s probably more than two groups, but yes applying federal standards to settle an ongoing cultural discussion is always a recipe for something those doing the applying never seem to expect.

        1. That is really the heart of the issue; whose interests win out, the interests of the guy who claims to be a woman or the interests of the woman who doesn’t buy it and doesn’t want to shower with him?

          And the activists expect one result, for a judge to tell the other side FYTIW. They know they can’t win an election or win the issue on its merits. So they go to court and try and win that way.

      2. The third group that just doesn’t give a shit about this whole mess is a victim here, also. We’re spending all of these calories and expense debating on accommodating where 1/2 of 1% of the population pees. It’s not worth all this diligence.

        I get the sense that most of us just don’t care. If someone gives someone else a hard time about which bathroom they’re about to use, they should be expected to be told to fuck off, and rightfully so.

        As a small business owner, I’m awaiting the day that I’m required by the heavy hand of law to add a third and fourth option for my customers. On that day, I’ll note to them that all my bathrooms are unisex, and that the handwashing sink is shared for all to see.

        1. You may not care now but eventually, you will care. At some point, the government is going to come down and mandate that you snap to attention and salute a mandated lie that does matter to you. Him today, you tomorrow.

          1. And who brought this issue up to the attention of the government? Pants-shitting socons, that’s who.

            1. No. The the Trans lobby did. This was never an sissue until the trans lobby demanded accommodation. Good to see you are believing the lie as you are told. Somehow I am not surprised.

              1. With the issue specifically concerning schools and not public establishments, isn’t a concern of getting beaten up or bullied at the heart of the matter? If a boy identifies as a girl goes into the boy’s restroom and other boys continually beat him/her up for being different, isn’t it safer and easier to let the student use the bathroom they are most comfortable with? Aside from a few rough schools, most girls are much more welcoming and accepting than boys.

                Boys/men generally seem more uncomfortable with any gay/lesbian/transgender person. The girls restroom seems like the safer option, and females only use stalls, removing any awkward exposure. Wouldn’t boys/men be more uncomfortable watching a person put on makeup in the bathroom mirror next to them? I am so confused why men would want a trans-female using a mens restroom in the first place.

                1. My anecdotal evidence is just the reverse. Men I’ve talked to generally don’t care if someone without a penis wants to use the crapper in the men’s room or shower in the men’s locker room or put on makeup. On the other hand, most women seem to express negative thoughts about someone with a penis using the women’s room or women’s shower. Admittedly, these were mostly people over 40 so maybe millenials are fine with everyone crapping and showering together.

                  1. I would think millennial could care less, but I imagine certain prejudices and fears might hold strong in certain parts of the country.

                2. False dichotomy. Men want weirdos to not be weird, or to go into some other place they don’t know anything about to be weird in private.

                  But definitely they also don’t want men “identifying” as women to go in the women’s restroom and be pervs.

                  People who are beaten up for being weird have historically learned to conceal their differences or adapt in other ways. This is sad but it isn’t a cosmic tragedy. Schools can deal with bullying of transgender kids, or not, however they deal with bullies of any other kinds of kids, without rewriting the bathroom laws from DC.

                3. People keep trying to sanitize this by mentioning stalls, but it is also about showers. Don’t bait and switch and expect to be taken seriously. Also, girls change and adjust their clothes in high school bathrooms (as well as locker rooms, obviously). Privacy privacy privacy is the issue. If we allow a trans girl (was a boy) into girls locker room, who is still anatomically male, how can we keep others out? Non-trans boys going in will get severely punished, remember.

                  1. You people need to realize when you’ve been had. Haven’t Republicans instigated enough of these absurd moral panics for you to catch on by now that it’s absolutely nothing but a GOTV effort?

                    If you want to stop sexual assaults in bathrooms, go after the straight men who commit them.

          2. At some point, the government is going to come down and mandate that you snap to attention and salute a mandated lie that does matter to you.

            It already has done so, for example with anti-blasphemy laws and laws against non-piv sex. Now, that doesn’t justify these new silly laws, but let’s not kid ourselves: when conservatives (what’s now the senile core of the Republican party) were in power, they were hardly any better.

        2. Dear customer: Due to the uncertainty surrounding who can use our restrooms, they are currently unavailable to the public.

          Thank You.

          The Management

          1. Just put some port-a-potties outside. They are cheaper and unisex.

  3. Holy came from Miami, F L A . . .

  4. Holly, dammit

  5. it complicates this legal battle, but to be clear, it doesn’t end it.

    OH THANK GOD

    She apparently was able to get language included demanding that schools protect transgender students from bullying.

    LOL what a cuck

    Any guess as to how the robed 8 will rule, Scott?

    1. Shouldn’t schools protect every kid from bullying? Do you have to wear a skirt to keep from getting beat up now?

      1. Leave it to John to be at the forefront of Lost Privilege Whinery.

        1. What does that even mean? Can you at least try and make sense. You are dumb as fucking post, but you can least try can’t you?

        2. Oh my God, you are using the term ‘privilege’ now in an article about which pee-pee to use? Christ, this is like Slate.com now

        3. I love their Cab-Malbec blend.

          1. Thou shalt not mix Malbec with lesser varieties.

      2. No, you’re right. Every kid has an obligation to get the crap beat out of him or her at least once, unless they are dressed as the opposite gender.

      3. The plot of A Boy Named Sue would have turned out very differently if written in 2017.

        1. Uneasy Rider ’88, OTOH, remains a factual account of Trump supporters assaulting people during a trip to New Orleans for a Trump rally.

    2. I’m hesitant to predict. I initially thought that the justices might use the Auer deference to essentially punt it and give the Obama admin a technical win without actually interpreting Title IX’s meaning. This is in line with the court being generally deferential. Alternatively they could rule in a very technical fashion that the administration didn’t follow rule-making procedures properly, which is an issue that has been brought up here by sharper minds than mine. Again this would avoid establishing any sort of precedent on transgender discrimination.

      But if the guidance gets yanked and the Supreme Court doesn’t have that option, I’m really not sure. I know folks will want to use conservative/liberal reputation to guess, but I believe even Scalia signed on to that Supreme Court precedent about stereotype-based discrimination.

      1. Thanks, cuck.

        I think I understood the different options open to the SC last year, but as you say, now that the directive is repealed I’m kinda at a loss as to what they could do, would do, and what the immediate consequences would be. I think I’ll go back to ignoring it until the decision is released.

        1. You seem to really like the word cuck. I am told there are entire webistes out there devoted to the term and all its permutations. Maybe you would be more at home browsing some of those. NTTAWWT

  6. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said so in a presser, so there’s no reason to believe otherwise

    Good one.

    1. Came here for the expression of skepticism in the reliability of Sean Spicer as anything other than a source of comedy; left satisfied. (Seriously, regardless of how one feels about Trump in any regard, how the hell does Spicer still have a job?)

      1. Spicer’s real job is to troll the media, and he’s doing just fine.

  7. I, like millions of Americans, can not find the energy to care where you pee. However, if you do not wash your hands, I will publicly humiliate you.

    1. But this is where THE CHILDREN pee! Surely you have the energy and the interest to think about all the little girls peeing, and little boys in dresses pulling out their tiny dicks, urinating and pooping and farting. I know it’s all I can think about.

      1. You don’t have a problem with your teenage daughter showering with the football team, who chose to identify as women that day because they saw her headed for the locker room?

  8. Hey, if you want transgender bathroom accommodations in federal law then force Congress to pass legislation to do that. Why no push for such a law? Because that would never pass, because the vast majority of the American people will think the law was stupid and ridiculous. And that is how progressives further their agenda through the dark recesses of judicial fiat

    1. Stupid and ridiculous laws would never get passed in Congress!

      1. Stupid and ridiculous laws that are unpopular never do get passed

  9. Where did these people pee before trans stuff became the new political hotness? Why can’t they just keep doing that? It didn’t seem to be a big deal then. Now everybody has to have a political opinion on a stupid issue.

    1. Here is a better question, name a single example of a kid claiming to be trans before the year 2000.

      1. They were probably enslaved in their hetero normative suburban basements until the progs bravely freed them.

        Its like a reverse of the gender revolution of the 50s. Won’t someone think of the little boys who want to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

      2. Yeah, that’s one of the things that gets me when I read cases such as a school figuring out how to accommodate a transgender 8 year old. At 8 years old, is it really the kid making this decision? How does an 8 year old have any sense of what being transgender really means? Seems like those examples almost have to be parents pushing the kid in a particular direction based on “transgender evidence” that’s very thin at best (“My son said he’d really like to try on a skirt.”)

        That said, I’m not advocating state intervention that would tell parents they can’t raise a child that way. I also think that schools should treat every student with respect, and therefore should – preferably on a local basis – work out how to accommodate transgender students. And I think that single-person facilities are generally the best way for the schools to go about that.

        1. Most of those 8-year olds actually identify as a fire truck or as an eagle that shoots missiles.

  10. What exactly is the discrimination against transgender students? If saying a male who identifies as girl cannot use the women’s restroom or locker facilities is unallowable discrimination, why is preventing a boy who identifies as boy from using the women’s restroom or lockers allowable? Both are discrimination. What sense is there that segregating such facilities on the basis of gender identity is permitted, but segregation on the basis of sex is not?

    1. There is none. This is about raw identity politics and using the power of the state to force people to accept the latest bit of state-mandated group think. That is all that is going on here.

      1. As I see it, you can discriminate on the basis of sex for privacy reasons or to accommodate the real physiological differences between males and females or you cannot, ever. If the latter, that means no separate facilities in a government controlled facility are permissable, ever.

        There is ansolutely no good reason to segregate on the basis of gender identity.

        1. The only reason is to force people to adopt the idea that there is such a thing as gender identity independent from biology. And that is what is going on here. It is utterly totalitarian.

  11. The answer seems rather simple to me.

    As far as privately-run institutions are concerned, it comes down to property rights. Whatever the property owner says, goes. Patrons who don’t like it can patronize other businesses. I guess that makes me a “hater” (or as John might call me, a “leftist”) but it doesn’t matter. Seems like that is a pretty good libertarian answer to the problem.

    1. The government owns the property you half wit. Moreover, why is the government obligated to accommodate one group at the expense of the other?

      1. “As far as privately-run institutions are concerned,”

        1. We are talking about government run ones. Why must the government accommodate transgender at the expense of those who object to it?

          1. Your objections seem pretty fucking baseless. I pee, wash and leave. Never make eye contact. You need to stop making eye contact. That’s your problem.

            1. I get it. You find the objections baseless. Good for you. Others don’t. That sounds like something we should have an election about.

              Sorry but saying “fuck you I am right” isn’t really much of an answer.

              1. Elections are the “fuck you I’m right” way of answering these questions.

            2. Lots of eye contact and talking at the piss trough is just good manners, right?

              1. If you’re not making constant eye contact you can’t be sure the tranny isn’t trying to rape you.

                1. If you are making eye contact, at least I know you are not staring at my member.

            3. In some cases, though, it’s not just school bathrooms. It’s school locker rooms, where students are also changing and taking showers.

              FWIW, I don’t support the just revoked guidance from the Department of Education, nor do I support the state-level “bathroom bills”. My preference is to leave this one to local school districts to work out on a case-by-case basis. And, in a lot of cases, I think that reasonable local accommodation will be to see “we’ll let a transgender student use a single stall bathroom or changing area”. IIRC, that’s the exact situation that Gavin Grimm is challenging in a lawsuit.

            4. Not everyone thinks and reacts like you, but I’m sure you’d like government to get that corrected.

    2. These are public schools we’re talking about, so it doesn’t really answer anything.

      1. So, once again, school choice is the answer!

    3. Agreed, but what Reason never mentions (because it upsets their ‘woke’ identity) is that many cities now force private businesses to allow the transgender to use any washroom that they choose. That seems like a bigger reason to write an article on this topic in a supposedly ‘libertarian’ publication, but ‘private property’ rights is so uncool.

      1. Reason had a case of the vapors objecting to the North Carolina law which did nothing except say cities could not force businesses to accommodate the transgendered. Reason will pretty much buy anything if it comes wrapped in the cloak of “tolerance” and offers a way to stick it to the hated Fundies.

        1. This subject is mostly Shackford’s beat with occasional input by Gillespie and a couple others. The private property aspect seems to be a hill they are willing to take maybe a grazing wound on, but not a mortal blow. Outright confrontation with the LGBT activists just does not interest them.

          1. NO it doesn’t. It is just like the gay wedding cake cases. Scott adopts the view that they are all about freedom of association and have nothing to do with free exercise, as if the free exercise clause is rendered moot by the association clause. That is of course not true. And Scott knows it. And he also knows that the free association argument is an exotic one that is accepted by no one outside doctrinaire Libertarians. He knows it is a weak argument and that is why he makes it and avoids the stronger free exercise one.

      2. Pretty gay ass private property rights. I’d really like to meet the people who police bathroom doors. We’ve taken everything from those poor people.

        1. Fuck you. You don’t get to determine how people use their own property. You don’t like it, don’t go there.

          1. You’ve obviously never been in the ladies restroom or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They have flowers and it smells so nice in there. The walls are painted. The first time I walked in one I was shocked and angry almost. I felt discriminated against on the basis of my penis becuase our men’s bathroom sucked so bad. I vowed to return one day and I have my friend. I made another promise that day that I would tell other men about the women’s bathroom, the flowers, the good soap that looks like a flower, and those painted walls, the sweet clean smell. And now you know the truth John. Take a little time.

            1. Go build your own and you can.

              1. I would never force a private property owner to open his bathroom door for me. I would probably just pee on the side of the building.

            2. They have couches! COUCHES!

              1. The toys in the candy machines are shitty though. They really ought to go with balloons in the women’s rooms too!

        2. Who polices bathrooms? The general public. If a man is found in the ladies room, the ladies run out and call for help, men (the management or men in general) come running and escort the man out. If there are several women and the man isn’t too tough looking, they throw him out themselves. If the man totally looks like a woman (remember, this is not about showers here) no one knows, and nothing happens.

  12. accommodate transgender students in restroom, locker room, and other sex-segregated facilities.

    Which of course can’t be done under the Obama administration guidance.

  13. (transgender protections are included in sex discrimination protections)

    Is this a term of art, or is there a distinction between sex discrimination and gender discrimination?

    1. It is a term of art. The CRA says

      No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

      The statute says sex not gender. It was never meant to mandate the accommodation of transgender.

  14. “discrimination against transgender people counts as sex discrimination on the basis of whether somebody’s appearances or mannerisms match “sex stereotypes.””

    Can we say XY chromosomes = Men’s restroom/locker room and XX chromosomes = Women’s restroom/locker room

    or is that too sciency and not enough feelz

    1. Maybe I do fucking love science after all….

  15. This is old news, what about my demand that every building must have a Golden Toilet suitable for my belief that I am Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France.

  16. I am perhaps not so strict on what that looks like as perhaps some transgender activists should demand (I think this can be solved by increased body privacy in facilities), and I’m not fond of the manner by which the Obama administration attempted to just push this on school districts while it was still a focus of dispute, which certainly contributed to a cultural backlash.

    That’s the problem, no one knows what it looks like, least of which the Obama administration.

    I know you’re on record, Scott, saying that you’re against certification for the transgendered which is commendable. But if we keep going down this path, people are going to realize that without certification, it’ll be nigh impossible to “accommodate transgender students” without some sort of measuring stick.

    In the end, if the concept wins– transgender students are accommodated sans some type of certification– the schools will have no choice but to just let everyone use the bathroom they want.

    1. the schools will have no choice but to just let everyone use the bathroom they want.

      And that is never going to happen because doing so would put the schools afoul with a number of laws regarding sexual harassment, hostile environment not to mention the potential liability for any infringements on personal safety that resulted.

      So yes, the end result of accommodation in schools will be a government registry of the properly certified trans gendered. Maybe the government can issue stick on yellow Stars of David while they are at it.

      1. Silly John. Governments only protect rights. It is inconceivable that the feds mandating shitter inclusion policies have any unintended consequences.

        Also, women who don’t appreciate a cock and balls on a man with tits parading around their locker rooms are repressed cisnormative fascist shitlords who have been brainwashed by the patriarchy. It is known.

        1. Men. Women. These concepts are soooo last century. I’m going to Bally’s to shower in the ladies locker. The monthly membership is cheaper than going to a gentleman’s club and the view is just as nice.

    2. some sort of measuring stick

      Now that’s funny. 🙂

  17. When will the federal bathroom genitalia compliance inspector jobs be posted? Perhaps as an arm of the TSA (Toilette Sexuality Administration)?

  18. Now who is a science denier?

  19. We should mention those multiman urinals while we’re talking about this. Any chance those are unconstitutional? I’m asking for a friend?

    1. Bro code says that judges never use strict scrutiny while all lined up at the common urinal.

  20. “As for what schools should do, I’m on the record as supporting the concept that schools, as long as they’re government-run and publicly funded institutions, should be required to accommodate the needs of transgender students”

    In all cases that I have heard of on these matters, the school did try to accommodate the transgender student in some fashion. They also tried to accommodate the privacy concerns of their students who are the opposite sex of that student. In the cases that have been publicized the student or their representative rejected any accommodation that did not allow full access to facilities and programs reserved to the opposite sex. Basically on the basis that it hurt their pride to have it suggested they were not the sex opposite of what they were born as.

    When you invoke absolute concepts like “rights” and “unjust discrimination” you leave no room for solutions that are not strictly black and white.

  21. “I think this can be solved by increased body privacy in facilities”

    Speaking as someone making a living in building design, that costs money, materials, energy and space. High population buildings have their restroom facilities ganged together for economical reasons as well as code requirements. Where are you making up the extra money to put in these facilties in new buildings as well as all the existing building stock that was designed to the current standards?

  22. Updated: The DOJ has released the letters formally rescinding the guidance from the Obama administration.

  23. For activists, “accomodation” means that boys who think they are girls get to use the girl’s locker room and restroom. If you just use the word “accomodation” it sounds so neutral. Making a separate private area for the plaintiff in the case in question was rejected by that plaintiff: he (she) wanted to be with the girls. Let’s be clear: any other boy who goes into the girl’s showers with the girls will be suspended or possibly face a sex crime conviction. Somehow, a boy who still has male organs but wears makeup doesn’t. This is quite different from an airport bathroom where no one gets undressed and an odd looking person may only trigger suspicious looks. AND it is high school–or even lower grades. One boy who feels uncomfortable with other boys is to be allowed to absolutely freak out all the girls in the school. Does this seem just?

  24. Let’s consider another case, not a high school but a government building or beach locker room. We do not have people known to the building/facility managers, who can be “accomodated” but the general public. Since transgender status is internal and even Bruce Jenner still has his junk, any man who wants to use the women’s showers can do so–how can you stop him? He can just insist he is a she on the inside! Some people claim this won’t happen or is “rare”, but just the fact that it is now allowed with greatly increase anxiety among women. If you can’t stop them you have opened the door to bad behavior. They need not do anything like assault–just being in the showers with the women is horrifying enough to the ladies.

  25. The argument is that discrimination against transgender people counts as sex discrimination on the basis of whether somebody’s appearances or mannerisms match “sex stereotypes.”

    Yes, and it’s a stupid argument.

    I really don’t care whether we have gender-segregated bathrooms or not, but as long as we do, enforcement should be based on an objective criterion, namely the sex on your birth certificate. You can have that legally changed if you cut off your dick or have a dick attacked to you.

    Forcing schools and businesses to conform to the arbitrary whims of people who “feel like a natural woman” today is incompatible with the rule of law.

    1. I would suggest that the presence or absence of male genitalia isn’t the best way to distinguish the difference. Current military policy is a reasonable standard: before a transgender person can be considered as such, they must first be diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a military medical provider.

      As the spouse of one of these providers, I can say that it’s a fair standard, and that transgender patients have so far been open to this process. It’s better than problematic “sex stereotypes” as well as distinguishing based on genitalia, which many trans people leave intact for any number of reasons–e.g., the extremely high cost of surgery.

      1. I would suggest that the presence or absence of male genitalia isn’t the best way to distinguish the difference.

        This was an eliding of the original/traditional state of affairs, IMO. When you’re born, the doctor’s and nurses don’t do a genetic test and then stitch on the appropriate parts. So, you get a birth certificate with an assignment based on empirical observation. I have yet to see a serious proposal about bathroom policing that involves crotch grabs.

        1. Agreed, we all get a gender upon birth. And we seem to agree that crotch grabs will not sort out the who-should-go-where issue.

          All I’m saying is that there is peer-reviewed science in psychology and neuroscience to support the fact that some people cannot identify with their assigned gender and suffer as a result. Hence, a scientific diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which opens the door to useful medical care.

          If we don’t mind if Person A has depression and gets medical care for it; or if Person B has diabetes and gets medical care for it; we shouldn’t care if Person C has gender dysphoria and also takes medical measures for that. Leave out the issue of bathrooms for now–do we agree that as far as medical issues are concerned, we all have the right to address them insofar as treatment will make our lives better?

          1. Leave out the issue of bathrooms for now–do we agree that as far as medical issues are concerned, we all have the right to address them insofar as treatment will make our lives better?

            Assuming the treatment doesn’t require 3rd or other potentially unwilling parties’ participation? Possibly/probably even if the treatment doesn’t make their lives better. Sure.

          2. It’s not at all clear that measures like castration and massive hormonal realignment make lives better — the high suicide rate for the transitioned argues otherwise.

            1. I agree. But, **assuming everyone involved is a willing adult**, the problem should solve itself without my/our legal intervention.

            2. Nor does the science support that it makes life worse. It’s difficult to sort out how the social effects of a lifetime of bullying, etc. are mediated by the surgery. A lot of problems might solve themselves if it’s more widely understood that transpeople are dealing with a scientifically real problem.

              Like mad.casual said, as long as a patient consents to treatment (anything from therapy to hormone replacement therapy to surgical intervention), what treatment a person seeks for any medical problem is their business.

              The whole nuanced picture of the suicide study:
              http://transadvocate.com/fact-….._15483.htm

              1. A lot of problems might solve themselves if it’s more widely understood that transpeople are dealing with a scientifically real problem.

                The subjective anguish of sufferers doesn’t get any realer or more “scientific” after psychologists and neuroscientists wave their peer-reviewed hands over it and change its social label in the DSM. Such a feeling is a very serious life problem, but if the “scientific” label is used to insist that extreme medical interventions are the only way to deal with it, it will do more harm than good. Psychologists and neuroscientists have also confirmed the severe anguish of anorexia nervosa sufferers, but it does not follow that stapling their stomachs is a good idea, even if it became a social fad to demand it on their behalf.

                On the suicide study, one might skip all the nuance and spin and go straight to the actual study, http://journals.plos.org/ploso…..e.0016885, which says “Mortality from suicide was strikingly high among sex-reassigned persons, also after adjustment for prior psychiatric morbidity.” So, even with some adjustment for a lifetime of bullying. One might put oneself into the shoes of a sufferer, by the way, and see that after transitioning the chance of bullying and other traumatic encounters is as likely to go up as down.

              2. Nor does the science support that it makes life worse. It’s difficult to sort out how the social effects of a lifetime of bullying, etc. are mediated by the surgery. A lot of problems might solve themselves if it’s more widely understood that transpeople are dealing with a scientifically real problem.

                Now this is the part that’s absolute bullshit and you’re leaving out or equivocating a key part of what I said. Injecting nuance into an issue that’s not exactly nuanced. I’m not saying that surgery does or doesn’t help, but there’s science/’science’ showing that favorable social interaction helps everything from house plants to terminal disease/cancer patients. It’s been thoroughly established that if you give people free insurance, they feel better about having free insurance whether that insurance actually improves their health or not.

              3. Plenty of people get bullied pretty terribly and are fine. It’s funny that less than a decade ago, people would’ve rightly recognized the ideas associated with this sort of movement as thought policing and rejected them out of hand. Now, it seems like large swaths of people are totally okay with legislating rightthink as long as you can establish a link between it and some hypothetical common good.

                Bullies are free to taunt and ridicule these kids all they see fit right up until their fist touches the trans kid’s nose. I, as I’m sure many of us have, been the bully, the bullied, and both stood up and sat down while others were bullied. Legally requiring people to stop bullying or stand up to prevent bullying is an unequivocal loss of freedom that only appeals to people who think they’ve never been a bully or never sat one out while someone else gets/got bullied. If the proprietor wants to exclude anyone any part of the property for any reason, it’s their absolute right to do so. To allow it for rednecks, belligerent drunks, homicidal maniacs off their medication, loitering, trespassing, soliciting, etc. but not because they’re sad and don’t like their genitals is the hypocrisy/inconsistency.

          3. do we agree that as far as medical issues are concerned, we all have the right to address them insofar as treatment will make our lives better?

            No, “we” don’t. Libertarians recognize negative rights, not positive rights. If your “gender dysphoria” makes you unhappy, that’s unfortunate, but it isn’t justification for using the federal government to force me to associate with you in a (fe)male-only bathroom or any other setting. Many property owners may choose to use their private property that way, many local jurisdictions may choose to run their schools that way, but others may not, and it isn’t the job of the federal government to impose a single rule on everybody.

      2. I would suggest that the presence or absence of male genitalia isn’t the best way to distinguish the difference.

        Well, sex reassignment surgery happens to be a common legal criterion for the sex given on your birth certificate; you’re welcome to lobby for others.

        My point is that if we are going to have legally mandated sex segregated bathrooms, we need clear rules, and the birth certificate (which can be legally changed) is what determines your legal sex.

  26. A trans woman is just a man who is so enamored of female sex stereotypes as to identify with them. It’s his actual, genetic, natural sex that some women and girls are objecting to when he walks into the little girl’s room, not “sex stereotypes.”

    There’s a whole planet of weirdness still largely unexplored here. Those tiresome 70s and 80s progressives who gave their children unisex names and insisted on their not playing with gendered toys — are they really buying into the 21st century progressive creed that as long as the child who wants to be a Disney princess is a genetic boy, then his flouncing around in pink dresses really does make him a girl, and people should lose their jobs for not reinforcing his stereotypes?

  27. Is it fair to say that the socon backlash is not about bathroom access? At the voter-with-an-opinion level (as opposed to the nuanced legal level), it seems hypocritical to resist reasonable accommodations for trans people. After all, don’t we all just want to go about our business–in the bathroom, and everywhere else?

  28. I think transgendered people deserve a life free from discrimination. I personally feel like it is a psychological disorder. LGTQ activists feel it is a physical disorder. Whatever. wrong fit between body and mind. That’s all I know.
    having said that, I think both sides are being too stubborn on his. No, transgendered people wont be molesting your kids in the bathroom, you religious fanatics. But come on lefties, the whole segregation of bathrooms by gender is a community standards concept anyway. And if there are any gender specific amenities, transgendered people dont menstruate. And if they are preop, then a Caitlyn Jenner type person has a fucking dick and they can use the urinal as an option too. The men’s room works functionally for the Caitlyn Jenner types. hell, if you go to a club, women break convention and use the mens room to get away from the long lines at the women’s restrooms.

    And what kind of men object to a woman transitioning to a guy using the men’s room? No big deal.

    1. I think transgendered people deserve a life free from discrimination. I personally feel like it is a psychological disorder.

      You are literally talking about invoking the thought police and/or biasing them in favor of people you describe as having a psychological disorder.

      This is the part of the transgender bathroom law that is not nuanced. One side isn’t just a peculiar minority, it’s a peculiar minority seeking inherent special treatment of its own personal brand of idiocy through force of law.

    2. I think transgendered people deserve a life free from discrimination.

      There is no such thing as a “life free from discrimination”, for anybody. And for government to try to make a “life free from discrimination” happen for some chosen groups, whether Christians or transsexuals, stomps all over subsidiarity and the right to freedom of association, for something that is completely unachieveable.

  29. The Gavin Grimm case is one where the student in question refuses to use a single-stall unisex bathroom. The school has attempted to make that accommodation (not forcing the student to use a shared bathroom with others of the same biological sex), but Gavin believes that it is not enough.

    In smaller facilities, it’s relatively easy to have only single stall bathrooms and just make them unisex. For larger facilities, single stall bathrooms are more expensive than larger shared bathrooms, but as a short term accommodation I can understand why the school tried that route.

  30. Also of interest to those who were watching the partisan fights over Trump’s cabinet nominations play out: According to sources talking to both The New York Times and The Washington Post, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did not want to withdraw the guidance from the Obama administration. She wanted to keep the federal requirement to accommodate transgender students in place. Apparently Attorney General Jeff Sessions convinced Trump otherwise and left DeVos in little position but to go along. She apparently was able to get language included demanding that schools protect transgender students from bullying. ???? ????????

  31. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit========= http://www.net.pro70.com

  32. Also of interest to those who were watching the partisan fights over Trump’s cabinet nominations play out: According to sources talking to both The New York Times and The Washington Post, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did not

    ????? ????

  33. I would suggest that the presence or absence of male genitalia isn’t the best way to distinguish the difference. Current military policy is a reasonable standard: before a transgender person can be considered as such, they must first be diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a military medical provider.

    ????? ????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.