Trans

States Weigh in on Supreme Court School Transgender Accommodation Case

After change in administration guidance, several drop legal challenges.

|

Gavin Grimm
Oliver Contreras / ZUMA Press / Splash News/Newscom

The legal battle over which public school bathrooms and facilities transgender students should be permitted to use is getting just a little less complicated.

Eleven states this week are dropping their legal challenges over the rules. Originally they objected to the Department of Justice and Department of Education under President Barack Obama essentially ordering them to accommodate transgender students in public schools by allowing the students to use the facilities of their chosen sex. They filed a legal challenge against the Obama administration, and a federal judge in Texas granted a nationwide injunction, saying the administration had attempted to establish new rules without going through the proper procedures.

In February Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos revoked this federal guidance (though allegedly DeVos lobbied to keep it in place). President Donald Trump administration's kicking it back to the states, as much as it can. So now that the federal government isn't trying to force this guidance onto the states, those who object to the guidance are free to drop the case.

But to be clear, while that's one less legal case to pay attention to, there's still plenty going on and obviously this controversy is not abating. As things stand right now, the Supreme Court is still scheduled to hear Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (Gavin Grimm) at the end of March. Grimm, a high school student, is suing his school board in Virginia, demanding the right to use the male facilities rather than either the female facilities or unisex options the district has pushed upon him.

The Supreme Court case is tackling two questions: One, should the courts defer to executive branch's guidance in this situation (as it often does in matters where federal agencies are determining how to implement statutes and regulations); and two, should Title IX be specifically interpreted as to requiring transgender accommodation?

The decision by the Trump administration to rescind the previous administration's guidance complicates the first question and whether the Supreme Court would even consider it, but the second question is still relevant. So the clerk of the Supreme Court sent both sides of the case letters to see how they wanted to proceed and gave them a deadline of this Wednesday to respond.

Both sides still want the Supreme Court to hear the case and rule on the merits, though the school district wants to push the case to April. They would like the United States solicitor general's office to weigh in with a brief expressing the current views of the U.S. government, given the new administration and the change in guidance. Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog notes this would also potentially give time for Neil Gorsuch to possibly be confirmed to the court and hear the case.

Grimm's lawyers don't want a delay. Originally Grimm's side didn't want the Supreme Court to take the case at all and asked last fall for the court to deny certification. They didn't need to get the Supreme Court involved because at the time the federal rulings and the Obama administration were all leaning their way (the case had been found in Grimm's favor). The ruling in Texas and the new administration rescinding the guidance that schools must cooperate changes the situation significantly. That the Supreme Court may consider whether Title IX requires transgender accommodation might settle the matter once in for all. Alternatively, they could, like the Trump administration, leave it up to the states. Heck, even if they decide that Title IX does require transgender accommodation they probably wouldn't want to get terribly involved in what the solutions should look like.

There could be some news soon of whether the Supreme Court is going to change its plans. In the meantime, briefs of support for either side have started rolling in. The attorneys general of 18 states and Washington, D.C., sent in a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to find in Grimm's favor and require public schools accommodate transgender students' choices. Another 23 states sent in a brief calling for the Supreme Court to find for the school board and leave it to them to decide what policies to put in place. So 41 out of 50 states (and D.C.) have weighed in on what they think the court should do.

For self-described libertarians who for some reason find switching sexes unseemly or unnatural, check out Jason Kuznicki's piece from 2015 over at Libertarianism.org about how transgender transformations fit just fine within the heavily libertarian transhumanist movement. The idea that we should be able to improve everything about our bodies except for realigning our genders doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense. And transgender economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey has a piece in the April issue of Reason magazine, hitting the stands right now, about government's involvement in policing gender expression.

NEXT: Charles Murray Called a 'White Nationalist,' Shouted Down By Illiberal Students at Middlebury

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. demanding the right to use the male facilities rather than either the female facilities or unisex options the district has pushed upon him

    The hell, Gavin? If i were given the chance to have my own bathroom in high school, maybe i wouldn’t have held all those dumps until i needed surgery. Jesus.

    1. Yes, that’s the one thing that strikes me as ridiculous in this case — I would have paid good money to get a private locker room and bathroom when I was in high school.

  2. For self-described libertarians who for some reason find switching sexes unseemly or unnatural,

    For a writer who spends half of his time pissing and moaning about people mischaracterizing his positions, Scott seems to have very little interest in doing the same for others.

    The objection is not whether it is natural or not. The issue is whether people have a right to have the objection mean anything. Your actual opinion on the issue of whether transgender is “natural” whatever that means has nothing to do with the issue of whether governments should force people to accommodate them.

    1. So when the topic and its leaning is to your liking, writers and commenters can wander far afield with your blessing and encouragement.

      But when the topic is icky and you are afraid to admit you don’t like the way people lean, suddenly we must all stay on topic.

      1. Can you rephrase that in rational English? I have no idea what that mess of words is supposed to mean. Try again.

        1. Nah. You replaced principles with hatred long ago.

          It’s fun to bait you, because I don’t even have to try. Even when I try not to, it still baits you. Principles confuse you, so all anyone has to do is quote a principle and you lose it.

          You are also fun with the typoes once in a while. But that’s just icing on the inadvertent baiting cake.

      2. No. John has a point. People objecting to Leviathan mandating bathroom usage is not the same thing as objecting to transgenderism because it’s ‘unnatural’.

        Cheap shot, Shack Attack

        1. That is exactly what it is. But be kind to Scarecrow, he is a dumb as Cytoxic. So, higher forms of reasoning are not something he can do.

        2. Shack is right: self-described libertarians are not libertarians if they believe something is icky. Makes no difference if they are faithful to the NAP; feelz matter most.

          1. Consider changing this, Shack. Unless you think that opposing Leviathan from mandating washroom practices at local schools is totes libertarian.

            1. *totes not libertarian*

          2. Shack is right: self-described libertarians are not libertarians if they believe something is icky.

            That is completely wrong. Saying someone has the right to do something in no way obligates you to support it or in anyway accept it as valid. It is called the Non-Aggression Principle, not the “universal acceptance principle”. As long as you don’t try and stop people from changing their sex if they like, you can have and express any opinion you want about such consistent with Libertarianism. And you can refuse to accept or accommodate them however much you want, as long as it involves your property.

            1. I think the commentator was being sarcastic

              1. If so, my apologies.

            2. John I was being sarcastic. I know the past year plus has fried every sarc detector ever made, but I tacked on the phrase “feelz matter most”.

              Or maybe I’m off in not realizing you were just using my comment as a springboard.

              1. nah he probably just read the first sentence and decided it wasn’t worth reading the rest. I do that sometimes and miss the sarcasm clues in later sentences.

    2. “Switching sexes” is inherently unnatural. And a whole lot of people think it’s unseemly and creepy. Kind of like neck and face tattoos and extreme piercings, except even more unnatural and creepy.

      People have a natural right to do what they want to themselves. But they have no natural right to coerce other people to pay for it, or to accept it as being “natural” or “seemly”, or to associate with them in any way, which includes special accommodations so they feel comfortable among normal people and non-discrimination in employment, housing, etc.

      1. Tattoos are an interesting example. A lot of people love them and feel that having them all over their bodies is essential to their personal identity. A lot of people and employers are put off by that. If we are going to make Transgender a protected group, and Scott thinks at least in regard to government buildings we should, then why not make people with body art one too?

        1. Are you arguing that the government should be able to force people with tattoos to use separate bathrooms?

          1. I am arguing that employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people with tattoos and government employers like schools and police departments should not either.

            The mechanics of what a protected class means and how government discrimination law works is something that no one on this board sans RC Dean seems to be able to grasp.

        2. Right, because tattoos are just like sexual/personal identity. Try one out for a while, if you don’t like it have it inked over.

          Yeah, doesn’t work like that.

          1. sexual/personal

            should have read “sexual/gender”

          2. Thanks for begging the question. You think sexuality is special and tattoos are not. That is nice, but that is the entire fucking question. What makes gender identity any different or more worthy of accommodation than tattoos or anything else? Asking that question is the point of the example.

            God damn you people are dense.

            1. Well, sexuality is special. It’s kind of central to our existence.

              1. The people who get neck tattoos would say that is central to their existence. Why are they wrong? Doesn’t the individual get to decide what is central to their existence?

                No one can come up with a reason why transgendered should be accommodated and not the people who object to them other than “God damn it we like Transgendered and don’t like those who object”. That is all that is going on here.

                1. The people who get neck tattoos would say that is central to their existence. Why are they wrong? Doesn’t the individual get to decide what is central to their existence?

                  Something that is literally skin deep is not the same as something that is central to one’s brain.

              2. Our existence? That needs clarification. The truly natural genders are the only means to continue existence. Gender queering is only relevant to a single individual’s existence.

                Is anyone else getting a sense of Monty Python? ‘I want to be a woman. And I shall now be known as Loretta.’

            2. What makes gender identity any different or more worthy of accommodation than tattoos or anything else?

              As Zeb said, it’s kind of central to our existence. Which is why people who feel that they need to transition would bother to go through such an arduous process while facing the scorn of society.

              We only have rulings that prevent society from jailing homosexuals because the courts have acknowledged this.

              God damn you people are dense.

              When you argue with someone in person, do you always finish by insulting the other person? I ask because this is the second time in two days, just to me.

      2. I was a bit confused by that part as well. It’s obviously unnatural at face value since it requires literal medical intervention to make the change that didn’t even exist 30-40 years ago. Are breast implants now considered ‘natural’ one wonders? How about skull implants to give a person horns because they self-identify as a demon? (And yes, that’s a thing.)

        Maybe the mental disorder itself is perfectly natural, along with any other mental illness, but that would be the extent of it’s ‘natural’ state. Switching genders is something that only a few select species can accomplish, and Homo Sapiens ain’t one of ’em. Basic biology that mankind has know about for over 500 years tells us as much.

    3. I don’t get why Scott doesn’t care about the increased costs he is advocating or the never ending shitstorm of lawsuits.

  3. No matter how this is ultimately decided, I’d hate to be the guy on the spot trying to implement the resulting rules.

    On the one hand, if they say that bathroom use is decided by what the person “identifies” as, how the hell am I supposed to be able to know that? And what kind of legal shield would that provide if some dude goes into the ladies shower right next to a rape survivor or just somebody who’s touchy enough to sue?

    On the other hand, if they say that it’s done by what is on the person’s birth certificate, who the hell carries their birth certificate around everywhere they go? And how would I verify that the document is real anyway?

    Maybe this is something that just can’t be fixed by the government. I know that’s considered a weird thing to say nowadays.

    1. Unpossible!

    2. It is almost like these issues should be left up to society at large to work out through the market and the political process. That is an idea so crazy it just might work.

      1. I think it’s the only idea that has even a ghost of a chance of working.

        One aspect of it for me is the one-sided nature of the argument: the only consideration is what the transgenders want. That’s not how people get along in real life. Sometimes what I want has to take a back seat if I’m going to get along with people. Some people will never like me; that’s just how it is when you’re a grownup. And if you are radically different in some way, yeah you’re going to get a lot of static about it. That’s just how it is.

        1. Let elections decide this issue. It is like schools. If some communities think accommodating trans students is a great idea, good for them. If other communities don’t want to, that is also their right. Let communities and individuals work this out instead of courts putting boots on people’s faces so Scott can have another fucking pony.

          1. Fuck elections. Democracy is mobocracy, coercion incarnate. The whole point of our Constitution is supposed to prevent majority tyrants.

            You really do hate principles, don’t you?

            You and a bunch of others were happy to quote principles before the election, when it suited your purpose. Now that someone closer to your liking has won, principles, principles, what the hell are they good for?

            1. What principle do you have other than your side wins? Why are the interests of trans more important than the people who object to them? You don’t know. All you know is you like one side and don’t like the other. That is nice, but figuring out which of two legitimate interests should win is why we have elections. What you and others are trying to do is declare one side illegitimate by calling your side’s preference a “right”.

              If you can’t understand that, you are an idiot and there is nothing I can do to help you. If you do understand it, then you are being dishonest and pretending not to. Either way. fuck off.

              1. Who said anything about the trans being more important? You see, that’s what lack of principles does to a brain: confuses it. It has nothing to swing against. It’s like playing baseball against a water polo team. So your poor brain strains and sweats and comes up with completely unrelated strawmen, flounders around spits some spittle, and calls people stupid.

                Good work. Stay the course, John.

                1. Who said anything about the trans being more important?

                  You did. Otherwise, why are you demanding the courts force the government to accommodate them at the expense of those who object?

                  1. Show me where I demanded any such thing. I double dog dare you.

            2. I’ll bite. What’s your resolution? Imperial power decides the issue by fiat? Is that better than mobocracy? Or does everyone else just have to submit to an ideal they disagree with because someone decided this in their community? Oh wait, that’s the same thing.

              Where in the constitution does it mention anything about power over the bathroom? To John’s point, maybe this is for communities to decide. Maybe they choose elections, committees, or mayoral discretion. Should one community be derided by another over their decision on the issue? No, maybe, yes. Depends on the outcome details.

              At no fucking point is this part of the feds reach. As you peach of the constitution we should agree this is a states rights issue.

        2. Yes, the big problem with that is that many of the people making this a problem believe that not fully accepting and accommodating them is the same as denying them rights. As those people can’t be convinced otherwise, the issue will never be dropped.

          1. That is exactly what is happening. And it is being done as a way to get around having to convince anyone. Just declare your preference a “right” and in doing so make anyone who objects’ position illegitimate.

      2. Unfortunately, most Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that government must set a one-size-fits-all rule. And, of course, every American thinks that rule must comport with his own sensibilities.

        1. Amen.

          *This does not denote any adherence to any religion. I am decidedly agnostic.

    3. I really think it’s almost completely an invented issue and there doesn’t need to be a rule at all.

      If you look like you should be using the men’s room, then use the men’s room. If you look like you should be using the ladies room, then use the ladies’ room. Almost all of the time no one will notice or care.

      1. I would be more interested in this battle if it was between a punk rock, “fuck the law and use the room you want!” libertarianism vs the law ‘n’ order crowd. At least that debate would stir up more emotions for libertarians.

        Alas, we are stuck with another policy war with meddling control freaks against meddling control freaks.

      2. I can’t argue with what you’re saying, but there isn’t an innocent party in so many of these arguments. Both sides are equally at fault for trying to coerce others through unadulterated power grabs.

  4. The idea that we should be able to improve everything about our bodies except for realigning our genders doesn’t make a whole lot of logical sense.

    No one is saying you can’t Scott. No one on this board has ever argued that sex changes should be banned. They only argue that people have a right to refuse to recognize them or accommodate them.

    Scott continues to be reasons most dishonest writer. he is not the worst, but he is the most dishonest by a mile.

    1. “I’m only gonna say this once after the last time I said it: I wrote an article or blog post, or something resembling what you’re talking about, therefore I am exempt from criticism ever.”

    2. Scott continues to be reasons most dishonest writer. he is not the worst, but he is the most dishonest by a mile.

      This is why people hate agreeing with you ever.

      1. Tough shit. You don’t like some truths, too fucking bad. Scott is wildly dishonest. Look how dishonest he is being here. If you don’t like that being pointed out, tell Scott to be more honest.

        1. Well, to someone without principles, every other opinion is dishonest.

          You could at least be honest about having no principles. That would be a start.

        2. Scott is one thing that you aren’t (or are you?), he’s gay. As a gay man, he’s likely to have a wildly different perspective on things than you. Having a different perspective that doesn’t agree with yours is not dishonesty.

          Fucking dammitall, I hate ever agreeing with you even just a little because you’re such an asshole.

          1. And honestly, I wish you would wheel your shitapult off somewhere else. Fuck!

            1. People are far more critical of other reason writers than Scott and no one cares. I see no reason why he should get a pass when people like Doherty or Dalmia do not.

              1. People are far more critical of other reason writers than Scott and no one cares

                Oh for fuck’s sake. There’s a reason for that. Particularly, Scott isn’t Shikha or Brian.

                1. He isn’t quite Shika, but no one is. I don’t see how he is any better than Doherty and even if he isn’t, that doesn’t mean he is not worthy of criticism.

                  1. Are there any reason writers you DO like? Maybe you should apply for one of the internships.

                    We could all get a good laugh out of yet another illustration of the need for copy editors.

          2. I don’t care that Scott is gay. I hold him to the same standard I would anyone else. Him being gay doesn’t excuse him from the standards of honesty and rational argument.

            1. Yes, you hate everybody who doesn’t hold your opinion. You’re pretty consistent in that regard. But it still means you have no comprehension of what principles are.

              HBO had a TV show for you.

              1. You are as dumb as a fucking post. You don’t even know what principles are. Don’t use words when you don’t know what they mean. And stop boring me. I get it, you want your fucking pony and you call him ‘principles’.

    3. I feel sorry for people who obsess over where other people pee. Not that those other people are not just biding their time, waiting for the right moment to dress up as a woman and rape me, and if not me, then my hypothetical daughters.

      1. And no one gives a shit whether you feel sorry for people. Think whatever you like. No one cares.

        1. You cared enough to say no one cares, which is at best a non-truth; have you asked the entire world? I bet someone cares. I bet you are a famous liar.

          1. I care about your right to believe whatever you want. I do not care what that something is. It is a simple concept but one like so many others that eludes you.

        2. Shorter John: Don’t cry for me, Argentina.

      2. Exactly. That’s why no one should be mandating bathroom practices. But, the side that is mandating bathroom practices are the so called ‘aggrieved party”

        1. You mean the scared little conservatives who actually think this is a threat to them somehow?

          1. Dude, can you seriously just go back to Slate.com or something. Honestly, you don’t even pretend to be a ‘libertarian’ well- even by Reason’s extremely lax guidelines. In what way could the federal government mandating bathroom usage be construed as even remotely pro-liberty?

            1. I don’t think any government should mandate bathroom usage. That’s why it’s upsetting that the Republican party’s moral panic du jour has ended up in the courts.

              1. So you just entirely missed the part where this became an issue when the left started mandating bathroom usage?

                1. By that do you mean protecting trans people from hostile people and laws?

                  1. What hostile people, and what laws, necessitated the legislation that directly led to what you’re bitching about now? Only an idiot like you could think that more government intervention is needed to fix the results of the last government intervention.

                    What was Einstein’s definition of insanity again?

                    1. I understand that maybe one or two ultra-liberal jurisdictions took preemptive action on transgender bathroom access rights, then the Obama administration offered guidelines to public schools on the matter, and then cynical Republican politicians and their goober redneck voters set their hair on fire, and here we are.

          2. That’s exactly what they mean. The big, bad conservative he-men are afraid of trannies.

  5. The transgender movement has essentially put forth the concept that transgenders have the right to identify personal characteristics – in this case their gender – but have NEVER pushed for a general right to identify.
    For libertarians to support that concept of a right would lead to inequality of rights.

    Secondly all public property discriminates – they discriminate based upon the purpose those properties were built and maintained.
    IMHO , the simple claim that public bathrooms discriminate against transgender is NOT sufficient. They need to prove the discrimination is “UNREASONABLE”.
    IMHO building bathrooms by sex is NOT unreasonable.

    Lastly the whole concept of title IX is that some groups are allowed special protected by the state that other groups do not have – an inherently discriminatory position in and of itself.
    One class is sex – but NOT gender.

    1. The transgender movement has essentially put forth the concept that transgenders have the right to identify personal characteristics – in this case their gender – but have NEVER pushed for a general right to identify.
      For libertarians to support that concept of a right would lead to inequality of rights.

      You make a very good point. One guy wants to use the women’s shower because he is transgendered. Another man wants to use them because he doesn’t feel comfortable showering with men but does with women. Why does the transgendered preference win out but the second man’s do not? They can’t answer that other than with raw identity politics.

      Moreover, the movement ignores the rights of those people who don’t accept transgenders. On the one side we have transgender. On the other side, we have people who don’t accept that. Why is one side or the other necessarily entitled to win? Again, that is never explained or even considered.

      This entire issue is something that can only be left to the market and the political process. To turn it over to the courts and declare a “right” for one side to win, even if that only applies to government services, is nothing but identity politics at its most base.

      1. /\ This /\

        Waiting for the Dwarfism Accommodations protests…they can’t use either type of facility.

      2. This could all be handled with manners if people like you weren’t such moronic suckers for every moral panic the Republican party spoon feeds to you.

        Good manners means you stick to the bathroom designated to your gender. It also requires you to respect the gender identification of other people. You do not have a right to reject how other people self-identify, and you especially don’t have a right to drag them out of locker rooms because you feel uncomfortable.

        1. Too fucking bad Tony. Some people think and do things you don’t like. It is called freedom. And the fact that you can’t understand that goes a very long way towards explaining why you have such a natural aversion to freedom.

          1. ….Except the freedom to use the restroom that aligns with one’s gender identity?

            Do you promote jack-booted thugs dragging transgender people out of restrooms or are you content to call them names and throw spittle at them from the curb?

            And there is no excuse for rudeness John. Call it an assault on your freedom all you want; you act like a horrible jackass, people start spitting in your salad.

            1. And it really never dawns on you that you support jack booted thugs telling people they must accept them. You really only have an animal level of intelligence.

            2. Too fucking bad Tony. Some people think and do things you don’t like. It is called lynching.

              1. Well as long as they’re not taking a shit in a cubicle I don’t approve of.

              2. Cytoxic always brings the comically stupid. You are like 15 now and you are just as dumb as you were when you were 12. Does the woosh sound of every concept going over your head ever get old?

        2. So, the feelings of the mentally insane trump all? Got it.

        3. So, I don’t have the right to express reality. I am required to go along with delusions?.

          I’m stunned that factual reality isn’t enough.

  6. “And transgender economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey has a piece in the April issue of Reason magazine, hitting the stands right now, about government’s involvement in policing gender expression.”

    To be sure, segregating things by ‘sex’ (such as bathrooms) is not policing gender expression. I like McCloskey, though. She is probably the best thing to come out of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Besides myself, obviously.

  7. Interesting. Things are looking grim for Grimm. Thanks for the update, Snack. Keep up the good work.

  8. I heard on Fox & Friends this morning that the FBI broke up 15,000 bathroom terror plots. And yes, every single terrorist was from…San Francisco.

    1. I heard on Fox & Friends this morning that the FBI broke up 15,000 bathroom terror plots. And yes, every single terrorist was from…San Francisco.

      *Files comment into “Unworthy Anecdotes* folder*

      *Throws folder in trash*

      *Burns trash can*

  9. This is old news, when are we going to discuss the very real problem that people who think they are Bonaparte don’t have access to throne rooms?

  10. I have zero negative opinion on transfolk reworking their vessel in whatever manner that suits them.

    I do have a fucking problem with trans-boys flipping their thigh pinky out in little girl bathrooms.

  11. I find it amusing that Title 9 is used to explicitly undermine the reason it was created in the first place. It was intended to curb gender discrimination and formed the basis for all-women’s sporting teams, and now those same all-women’s sporting teams are now required to take men if they say they feel like it. In other words, the statue is so vague that it now encourages entities to do the opposite of it’s original intent.

    Rule of law, anyone?

  12. “The idea that we should be able to improve everything about our bodies except for realigning our genders doesn’t make a whole lot of logical sense.”

    Conservatives approach politics with the part of their brain that handles disgust reactions. That’s why they’re obsessed with sex and other bodily functions and things like race and other biology-based tribalisms. Uploading your brain to a computer, even though far more radical, is of course less of an abomination than a man getting boobies, because these people aren’t so much logical as they are ape-like.

    1. Yes, but what about the bathroom-rape epidemic that the Bible-hating trannies have fostered on our God-fearing Christian babies?

      1. I’m starting to think conservatives need to give their daughters a little space before it starts getting creepy.

        1. Too late (Trump*cough*Ivanka).

          1. Surely you’re not referring to the person a certain John defends and boot-licks on a constant basis, the same John screeching for moral normality here?

            It can’t be the case that a defender of sexual uprightness thinks a raping, cheating, piss-play incestuous pedophile should be president. That would be ridiculous.

            1. a raping, cheating, piss-play incestuous pedophile

              Come on, Tony. There’s no definitive proof that Trump likes Russian hookers to pee on him. Unless they’re trannies. Kidding!

      2. There are as many bathroom rapes as college campus rapes.

        Just seems odd that the same group obsessed over a non-existent campus rape “crisis” think that having dudes in a girl’s bathroom/locker room is a non-issue.

    2. Conservatives aren’t the ones pushing this.

      1. Then what’s the controversy?

        1. The controversy is that the left wanted to create a solution to a problem that didn’t exist in order to create another wedge issue to try an shore up their rapidly dwindling voter base. This had the end-result of Democrats losing nation-wide and giving Republicans control of most of the United States.

          Or, to be it in another way, Democrats stabbed themselves in the brain and when you point out that maybe they should stop they twisted the knife.

          1. Democrats did not take up transgender rights because they wanted to secure the oh-so-valuable transgender vote. Democrats, unlike their counterparts, actually, from time to time, do things because they think it’s the right and decent thing to do. And yeah it sometimes costs them dearly in elections (though Republicans have not universally benefited from their hateful stance on this issue–why do they always take the hateful stance, by the way?).

            1. GOP tried to force people to celebrate what they found deplorable? When?

        2. Conservatives are offended that some people are confused about their god-given and birth certificate-guaranteed private parts. It just ain’t Christian, dangit!

  13. You know, if you want to dress like a woman, nobody is going to check. It’s the “LOOK AT ME!” drama queens causing this. If trans is real…it isn’t, but let’s humor the insane…nobody would know you’re the wrong gender. The dufus dipshit in the case is a damned idiot and should be slapped for wasting people’s time.

    1. I’m guessing you have a real problem with leather chaps, especially in your dreams.

      1. No. I have no body dysmorphia. Tranny has no appreciable difference with anorexia.

        1. Where did you get your MD?

          1. Feel free to explain the difference. Anorexics view themselves as fat in spite of all evidence to the contrary. “Trannies” view themselves as the “wrong gender” in spite of all evidence to the contrary. There is zero appreciable difference, except adults don’t applaud minors who think they are anorexic. They try and help them.

            If we treated anorexics the way we treat “trannies”, you’d see people telling anorexics “You know, you are kind of tubby, you fat sack of goo. Drop that food, tubbo!”

      2. Why to throw you the homophobic slur Cytoxic. We all know in your mind that there is nothing worse you can accuse a man of being than being a queer.

        God you are disgusting.

  14. Would anyone who sincerely believed in limited government really tell a 17 year old Deirdre McCloskey she has to use the men’s room?

    1. If Deirdre dressed and looked like a man, nobody would give two shits.

      It’s the drama queens driving this.

      Hell, doesn’t NYC have laws saying you cannot “misgender” people? Meaning it’s now LAW that you must abide by lies.

  15. This is awesome

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.