The Transgender Bathroom Wars Continue in State Court

The Withdrawal of the Obama-Era "Dear Colleague Letter" (which made transgender access to the bathrooms of students' self-perceived gender rather than their anatomical sex mandatory on schools) was the right thing under federal law. But now the arguments are being made under state law.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The transgender bathroom issue hasn't disappeared. It's just that we don't hear about it as much since the Obama-era "Dear Colleague Letter" has been withdrawn and the highest-profile case—Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.—has sunk from view. But just last week the Supreme Court of Missouri heard oral argument in R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District. This case relies at least in part on state law (specifically on Missouri's Human Rights Act).

The Blue Springs case is similar to Gloucester County case in the sense that it involves an anatomical girl who psychologically identifies as a boy and wants to be permitted to use the boys' bathrooms. It is the female-to-male cases that tend to get litigated. They are thought to be more palatable to judges (and the public), since boys' sense of sexual privacy around anatomical girls is less likely to be viewed as a problem. But a real Title IX issue would exist if a school district had a policy of allowing female-to-male transgender students use the boys' room without also allowing male-to-female transgender students to use the girls' room. So courts will need to treat them the same.

R.M.A. went so far as to get a new birth certificate issued with the sex changed. But like G.G., R.M.A. remains an anatomical female. While the Blue Springs School District allows R.M.A. to play on boys' sports teams, it drew the line at bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Instead, it decided that R.M.A. should be assigned to a private bathroom, locker room and shower. The trial court decided that the school district had acted properly and that R.M.A. was not entitled to be given exactly the same treatment as anatomical boys.

Back in 2016, the Supreme Court initially granted Gloucester County School District's cert petition in G.G.'s case. But when the Trump Administration withdrew the notorious Dear Colleague Letter that commanded federally-funded schools to assign self-declared "transgender" students to the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers of their declared "gender" rather than their anatomical sex, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the Fourth Circuit. In turn, the Fourth Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine if the case was moot on the ground that G.G. was now an adult and no longer a student at Gloucester County schools.

For the reasons I explain in my amicus curiae brief (with Peter Kirsanow) in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., I am confident that Sessions did the right thing under federal law. Title IX specifically allows schools to separate students by sex for the purposes of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. We could argue about what "sex" means until the cows come home (though I think that argument is fake), but it doesn't matter, because the separation is permissive, not mandatory. Schools can separate students on the basis of astrological sign, first letter of their surname, or anatomy if that is what they prefer. Title IX does not interfere with their flexibility.

But now the issue is in state court and state laws will be at issue. So the beat goes on.

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.

366 responses to “The Transgender Bathroom Wars Continue in State Court

  1. XX, XY; that’s it. The rest is science denial.

    1. Gotta wonder why the party of science can be so wrong on virtually every science subject except PC/social science.

      1. Are you aware of anyone from the party of science who denies XX or XY?

        Please enjoy this video from the party of not science.

        1. Society has tolerated accommodation of people who teach and claim to believe nonsense (by accrediting “educational institutions” that teach that the earth is a few thousand years old). I sense we can similarly accommodate transgender people, for whom life seems tough enough already without the authoritarian imposition of old-timey ignorance.

          Those exhibiting intolerance today in this regard will, 10 or 20 years from now, deny it ever happened.

          1. Great. Now tolerate and accommodate the views of people who don’t want their nude bodies to be viewed by people of the opposite sex.

            This isn’t just about whether you need to tolerate one person or another. This is about whether you must be nude or partially nude in front of someone else. Have enough respect for others to offer them at least that level of dignity.

            1. “Now tolerate and accommodate the views of people who don’t want their nude bodies to be viewed by people of the opposite sex.”

              Tolerate? Sure. Some people are just shy.
              Accommodate? Maybe THEY’RE the ones who should have limited choices, since they’re the ones with the hangups?

              1. Modesty and a desire for privacy are not hangups.

            2. Indeed I would say that any person. has the right not to be viewed nude by anyone. That’s why bathrooms have stalls and showers have curtains.

              I would be rather upset at anyone that violated.

              1. “Indeed I would say that any person. has the right not to be viewed nude by anyone.”

                So if I streak your event, YOU’RE violating MY rights?

                1. I do not believe that you are incapable of deducing the intended meaning of my words.

              2. A further “indeed,”

                (1) Maintenance of bodily privacy is a constituent norm of our (American) culture.

                (2) It is so fundamental that there have long been laws criminalizing unwanted viewing or showing of “private” parts.

                (3) Still further, early teaching about private parts is standard in the socialization of children.

                (4) Typical responses to invasion of areas that require nakedness are embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification.

                (5) This has been a major problem with TSA’s airport duties, to the point that x-rays that could show breasts, penises, etc., had to be adjusted to not be so invasive.

                (6) Among the first interactions with inmates of total institutions (a) at admission, and (b) [in totalitarian institutions ] prior or torture is the forced disrobing of the victim. That is, humiliation and mortification are fundamental parts of the process.

                1. None of this indicates that gender should enter the equation in allowing folks privacy in their nudity.

                  1. You are correct, in that I neglected to mention this, but sex-specific bodily privacy is the major portion of the package. Which is why all-men and all-women restrooms and locker rooms work, and why a female doctor or nurse is always present when a female patient must disrobe.

                    1. ” but sex-specific bodily privacy is the major portion of the package.”

                      I’d argue that non-sex-specific privacy is the larger portion. But people get over it.

                      ” a female doctor or nurse is always present when a female patient must disrobe.”

                      This would have been a strong piece of evidence in support of your argument, if it were true. But it isn’t.

                    2. a female doctor or nurse is always present when a female patient must disrobe. [Citation needed]

          2. I really wish Reason’s comments section allowed filtering by username. Having to manually skip Arthur’s repetitive rants is tiresome.

        2. The Big Fail of evolution is that of origins. Did life spontaneously arise from non-living material? Richard Dawkins believes that life on earth originated from some outside “designer” or a “higher intelligence” elsewhere in the universe. But from where did that first originate? So, it appears that evolutionary biologists are not against the idea of a designer or outside intelligent life, They are just opposed to the idea there is a God. Because if God exists, then there are moral standards and maybe even judgment.

          Excerpt of interview with Dawkins: https://bit.ly/2Kw6Vxk

          1. Not a question evolution needs to ask to be an operative theory.

          2. “The Big Fail of evolution is that of origins.”
            In the sense that evolution neither addresses, nor claims to address, that question?

            ” it appears that evolutionary biologists are not against the idea of a designer or outside intelligent life”
            Science and religion are compatible. If you want to use faith to argue matters of religion, nobody will stop you. It’s the attempt to use faith to answer questions of science that causes problems. See, for example, heliocentrism. To the religiously powerful of the day, it seemed absolutely crucial that Earth be at the center of the Universe. Why, even suggesting that it wasn’t was grounds for SEVERE punishment. But, it turns out, religion is working just fine even though heliocentrism is rather well-established nowadays. The religious folk stopped trying to resolve a scientific question with the tools of faith.

            ” if God exists, then there are moral standards and maybe even judgment.”

            Indeed. But HIS judgment, not yours.
            Have you ever noticed that whenever somebody starts talking about what God wants, it turns out the person talking ALSO wants whatever it is? Every time. Hmmm. When God tells me what He wants, I’ll listen to Him. He hasn’t taken the time as yet, which I choose to interpret as indicating that I’m already on the right path. Perhaps I will arrive at Judgment and learn how wrong I’ve been. Perhaps not. I can wait.

          3. *sigh*

            1) Evolution and the origin of life are different questions. Though the mechanism was likely similar.

            2) Richard Dawkins does not believe ‘that life on earth originated from some outside “designer” or a “higher intelligence” elsewhere in the universe.’ He just stated it was a scientific possibility for life to have been created elsewhere and seeded on earth, and he never agreed to anything that Stein would consider to be an “intelligent designer”.

            3) Ben Stein is untrustworthy.

    2. Nope!

      Politics and law are not science.

      They’re about human beings trying to, “. . . form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . . “

    3. You have indeed identified a scientific fact about chromosomes.

      Now explain why that entails anything about bathrooms used for excretory functions, scientifically speaking.

      1. Why don’t you explain why it is not a sufficient basis for legislation determining who may access a particular bathroom?

        1. Well, we got by just fine without needing legislation telling us what bathroom to pee in. That’s a pretty good sign that such legislation is not needed, absent other information.

          1. You have the aggressors backwards.

            It’s the transes that are demanding laws and facilities desexed.

            It’s not as if the transes were always going into the wrong facilities. Only the very few that could pass would even attempt to sneak in and trick the people in there.

            1. I bow before your obviously MUCH more expansive knowledge about other peoples’ bathroom usage.
              If the transes weren’t going into bathrooms to pee, where were they going?

              (Hint: Maybe it’s not about tricking people.)

              1. It doesn’t take a genius to know men in dresses that still look obviously like men haven’t been going into the wrong restroom as a matter of course.

                The transes who couldn’t pass, which is nearly all of them, were probably showering and using the locker rooms in the right bathrooms.

                1. Right. You’ve confirmed what I assumed last time, that don’t know what you’re talking about.

          2. James Pollock: “Well, we got by just fine without needing legislation telling us what bathroom to pee in.”

            They’ve been around since the early 1800s — which is to say, since the beginning of large scale urbanization. They were certainly around before laws requiring them came into being. In the U.S. women-only restrooms came to be required once women entered the industrial workforce (19th century).

            It isn’t as though — as you seem to be implying — people suddenly decided we needed sex-specific restrooms and dressing rooms once the social issue of trans-people arose.

            (please see my comment at 10:14 p.m.)

            1. “It isn’t as though — as you seem to be implying — people suddenly decided we needed sex-specific restrooms and dressing rooms once the social issue of trans-people arose.”

              It’s as though– as I seem to keep stating clearly– people suddenly pretended that we needed laws regarding where to pee once the social issue of trans-people arose.

              Even though people were managing to pee, successfully, all along.

              1. In North Carolina, whoever owned the peeing joint decided who could use it. No law involved. The normal system for using property without troubling the courts.Then Charlotte decided to introduce a law saying who could use which peeing joint.

                So the law entered the world of pee-ing at the instigation of the Charlotte liberals, who wanted to insist on making the owners of pee joints confirm to Charlotte’s views of who should pee where. The NC people then retaliated, but instead of keeping the law out of peeing, foolishly decided to follow Charlotte’s example and made where you can pee subject to law state wide.

    4. There are various chromosomal combinations.

      1. That’s not a particularly good argument. Most XXX and XXY individuals won’t realize their trisomy and the occurrence of each is relatively low in the first place (~0.1% occurrence each in girls and boys respectively). XYY is more noticeable but also only affects 0.1% of boys.

        A better argument is along the lines of hormonal issues, ie. AIS.

        1. Not common, but they still need an answer. “Hold it until they get home” isn’t good enough.

          1. Why do they need to hold it until they get home when there’s a designated bathroom for them? Stalls are still private, go in there. Why does everything have to be about force with the party of compassion?

            1. “XX, XY; that’s it.” denies they exist, so does not designate anything. Adding “it’s only 0.1%” says yes they exist but ignore them anyway so does not provide the missing designation.

        2. Its a better argument than “XX, XY; that’s it. The rest is science denial.” which is nothing but an blatantly false premise.

        3. And if they themselves do not know exactly how would they run afoul of the law?

    5. That shows a very weak knowledge of science.

    6. “XX, XY; that’s it. The rest is science denial.”

      You, uh, need more science class, because XX and XY are not the only possibilities.

    7. For the 99%, maybe. Get to 99.7% and you have to accommodate Klinefelters and related genetic abnormalities that do in fact go beyond merely XX and XY.

      And remember that while there are only a few incidences per 1,000 births, that still works out to about one per average elementary school.

      1. C’mon, be honest. It is not the 0.2% of genetic anomalies that have given rise to this legal issue. I was surprised that a birth certificate could be reissued in a manner contrary to a DNA typing. Of course such certificates could have an “other” box to record genetic anomalies at birth.

        1. A fine policy argument But lots on here are going beyond policy to making grand general pronouncements that reality provides some pretty handy counterexamples to.

      2. It’s more like 99.999%. Neither chromosomal abnormalities nor ambiguous secondary sexual characteristics create ambiguity as to sex. Only ambiguous primary sexual characteristics do that, and the primary sexual characteristics are the gonads – which determine which type of sex cell you can make (or could make if they worked properly.) Human sex cells come in only two types – male and female.

        So only those with ambiguous gonads are really “intersex” and those are only about 1 in 100,000.

        However as others have pointed out, even this very small number indicates that there are more than two sex categories for humans (human organisms that is, not human sex cells.)

        And when it comes to bathrooms, people tend to be more concerned with the secondary sexual characteristics – genitals, beards and so on.

        1. “Human sex cells come in only two types – male and female.”

          Still no.

          1. Interesting. What are the other kinds ?

            1. James asks each cell how each identifies.

            2. Start here, then examine primary sources.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

              1. When you’ve got nothing, it’s best to remain silent. Or say “I got nothing.”
                Doubling down on with the BS is the mark of a teenager.

                1. “When you’ve got nothing, it’s best to remain silent”

                  Why didn’t you take your own advice? Are you a teenager?

                  1. OK, son, identify for us the bit in your link that tells us about the kinds of human sex cells that aren’t male or female.

                    1. When you get a little older, and go off to college, you’ll find out what “examine primary sources” means. Until then, ask your mommy.

                    2. Why won’t you answer his question?

                    3. Because he’s got nothing. Except a bright pink face.

                    4. Today I learned: Wikipedia is a “primary source”

                    5. “Today I learned: Wikipedia is a “primary source”

                      Carerful. That attitude will keep you out of college…

                    6. Since James said “Start [with the wiki link], then examine primary sources”, it’s clear you learned nothing at all, Gompers. To noone’s surprise, I add.

                    7. Welcome to the dscussion, Otis. Are you able to answer the question that James is dodging ?

                    8. He hasn’t dodged anything. He provided you a link to wiki, which provides the sources from where the wiki entry derived its information. Do you need him to read it all to you?

                      I mean, this is just classic internet. Because you’re too lazy to follow a link, or more interested in arguing than learning, you just keep claiming he’s refusing to answer your question. What he’s likely refusing to do is waste his time typing out explanations you won’t read anyway. Or will read and then challenge him for his sources. Or read and then say his sources are BIAS and not worth reading. Or any variation on those themes.

                      It’s tedious.

                    9. The wiki link doesn’t say anything about any third type of human sex cell. Not a word. Indeed there’s only a single reference to sex cells in the whole piece :

                      “During fertilization, the sperm adds either an X (female) or a Y (male) chromosome to the X in the ovum”

                      James alleges that somewhere in one of the cited sources for the wiki article, or links (I haven’t counted but there must be a hundred of them) there’s something about a third type of human sex cell. You really expect me to chase down all the citations and inks and then read them, in a forlorn hunt for news of this third type of human sex cell ? But we all know that’s nonsense. There isn’t a third type of human sex cell, and linking to articles that say nothing about them and then saying “it’s in the primary sources” is just arm waving. If he had an actual point he’d be waving it triumphantly to prove me wrong.

                      Yes, this is classic internet. He said something utterly ridiculous, got found out and is now making smoke. He’s got nothing and neither have you. Except an enhanced reputation for belligerent foolishness.

                    10. So you concede that your game plan is as follows:

                      Step 1: Assume the answer

                      Step 2: Refuse to do any research

                      Step 3: Conclude that your original assumption is correct

                      Step 4: Belittle anyone who calls you on it.

                    11. Indeed there’s only a single reference to sex cells in the whole piece :

                      “During fertilization, the sperm adds either an X (female) or a Y (male) chromosome to the X in the ovum”

                      That’s three right there, and you haven’t accounted for transcription errors yet.

                    12. “During fertilization, the sperm adds either an X (female) or a Y (male) chromosome to the X in the ovum”

                      That’s three right there, and you haven’t accounted for transcription errors yet.

                      That’s a single sentence, ie one reference, in which two sex cells are mentioned.

                    13. Let me make it super easy for you.

                      Is a human sex cell with two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome male, or female?

                    14. Is a human sex cell with two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome male, or female?

                      I’ll make it super easy in return. The sex of a sex cell has absolutely nothing to do with whether it contains an X or a Y chromosome, or even multiple copies of them. It’s either a sperm (a male sex cell) or an egg ( a female sex cell.)

                      Sperm can contain an X or a Y chromosome. A sperm containing an X chromosome doesn’t make it a female sex cell. It remains a sperm. Doh !

                      To make a new human you need a male sex cell and a female sex cell. There’s no third kind.

  2. The bigger issue is abusing someone with extremely severe mental issues and treating the mental disease as if it was a biological problem that can be solve with a nip and tuck surgical procedure and as if it was a sex discrimination problem on which bathroom to use.

    1. Or, ya know, you could ask those people how best you can support them. A shocking suggestion . . .

      1. Do we usually ask mentally ill people how to “support them”?

        Mentally ill people lack the ability to make rational decisions because they are, wait for it, mentally ill.

        1. “Do we usually ask mentally ill people how to “support them”?”

          Yes, of course. Always. WTF is wrong with you?

          1. So, NToJ, when you ask a gambling addict how he wants to be supported and he says ‘by giving me more money’, do you give it to him? When someone with severe depression asks for help committing suicide, do you give her the knife?

            “Do we usually ask mentally ill people how to ‘support them’?” Usually. Not always.
            Do we automatically do whatever they say? Much more rarely. Only when that support request is determined by the caregiver to be in the patient’s best interests.

          2. “Yes, of course. Always. ”

            By “support” I assume you mean give in to their demands.

            If someone had a delusion that the Devil was in their hand and cutting off the hand would cure them, would you agree to do it?

            1. ‘Give in to their demands,’ Jesus, treating them as if they’re fucking terrorists.

            2. If someone wishes to be a sex they aren’t, and procedures are available to make that come true, why wouldn’t I let them? What do I care? My wife dyes her hair. I hope you understand that a guy who wants to be a girl isn’t under the insane delusion that his penis does not actually exist, right? Please tell me you understand.

              1. NToJ|5.3.18 @ 2:47PM|#

                If someone wishes to be a sex they aren’t, and procedures are available to make that come true, why wouldn’t I let them? What do I care? My wife dyes her hair. I hope you understand that a guy who wants to be a girl isn’t under the insane delusion that his penis does not actually exist, right? Please tell me you understand.

                The delusion is that accommodating that delusion (in furtherance of social goals ) will somehow improve the mental illness of the transgendered person.

                Quite frankly it is evil to encourage such an undesirable outcome.

                1. “The delusion is that accommodating that delusion (in furtherance of social goals ) will somehow improve the mental illness of the transgendered person.”

                  Hmmm. On the one hand, this random Internet poster keeps calling transgender “mental illness”. On the other hand, the experts who study mental illness, don’t.

                  Who to believe?

                  1. Hmmm. On the one hand, this random Internet poster keeps calling transgender “mental illness”. On the other hand, the experts who study mental illness, don’t.

                    Setting aside what makes them experts, that’s not true. Gender identity disorder — relabeled gender dysphoria in the most recent edition — is in the DSM.

                2. “Quite frankly it is evil to encourage such an undesirable outcome.”

                  If it makes the person happier it isn’t evil. But even if it doesn’t make the person happier, respect for human autonomy would still militate towards letting people engage in self-destructive behavior. Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal?

                  1. Ntoj – “If it makes the person happier it isn’t evil. But even if it doesn’t make the person happier, respect for human autonomy would still militate towards letting people engage in self-destructive behavior.”

                    It makes the social justice warriors happier – very rarely (extremely rarely) does it make the person with the mental illness happier.

                    Ntoj- “Do you think cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal?”

                    That question is not even remotely relative to the discussion on hand

                3. A it’s not a mental illness it is more akin to a physical disorder please do get an education
                  B study after study shows that social acceptance and transition lead to much healthier and happy lives in nearly all cases

                  1. Alexiawolf|5.4.18 @ 6:51AM|#

                    “A it’s not a mental illness it is more akin to a physical disorder please do get an education
                    B study after study shows that social acceptance and transition lead to much healthier and happy lives in nearly all cases”

                    If B is true – then why is the suicide rate higher post operation. Likely that those social science studies have a few flaws.

            3. Sadly, this is real: http://nationalpost.com/news/c…..ing-bodies
              and very sad.

        2. Let me guess about the source of your expertise on mental illness… you watched some TV?

        3. A sane society realizes this and takes the decisions out of their hands. Liberal societies don’t, which is why we have random mass shootings and other acts of crazies.

          1. Blaming transgender people for shootings now. Right.

            1. I didn’t say that.

              1. Oh thank God because it looked in your comment as if you were trying to link the two but actually you meant the lack of proper mental health services coupled with a high availability of guns are leading to some shootings, none of which has anything to do with transgenderism.

                1. “Oh thank God because it looked in your comment as if you were trying to link the two but”

                  Even if he was, it was clearly not a causative link that would justify accusing him of “Blaming transgender people for shootings”.

                  To the extent that he linked them, it was in the sense that they have a common cause, not that one causes the other.

                  A causes B, could be described as blaming A for B. However, what ActualRightWingPatriot actually said was at most, C causes A. C causes B. No matter how hard you try to say otherwise, this does not imply any direct relationship between A and B. C causes A and B is not blaming A for B.

                  1. So now alphabets cause transgenderism and shootings and blaming people for things. You people are off the hook.

        4. Yeeeeees? One might even say listening is a vital part of mental health care, but the mental health problems experienced by transgender people usually arise from nasty scutters like you attacking them as having a ‘mental disease’ and insisting you know the right treatment for them based entirely on a personal prejudice. So congratulations. Horribly wrong on treatment for transgender people AND horribly wrong on treatment for the mentally ill. You’re a danger to society!

          1. oh grow up.

      2. Ableism is in the exact same spectrum as the class you seek to protect. Do you support those who feel they should be crippled in some manner by allowing them to cut off a limb? Why are they not granted the same deference you seek for your preferred class of victims?

        1. It’s like you people think that ‘Whataboutery’ is a diagnostic tool in health care.

        2. What do you suggest? That we outlaw people mutilating their own bodies?

        3. notice none of them answered your question. I don’t believe there is a bulletin from the democratic party on how to feel about this yet.. stay tuned for them to passionately defend transableism.

          1. He’s also still waiting to hear an answer as to why broken legs aren’t treated by removing appendixes. Stay tuned.

          2. Making analogies too fraught to warrant an answer to own the libs.

          3. I apologize for not answering the question. Here is the question:

            “Do you support those who feel they should be crippled in some manner by allowing them to cut off a limb?”

            My answer: I don’t think we should put someone in jail for mutilating themselves.

            1. Ntoj ‘s comment – “My answer: I don’t think we should put someone in jail for mutilating themselves.”

              We should encourage the treatment of the mental illness instead of encouraging the mutilation. Same with the transgender, we should treat the mental illness instead of encouraging the mutilation of the body under the pretense of treatment (and often false pretense).

              However, to a progressive, social science and social justice agenda’s are more important that real treatment and real science.

              1. So what you’re saying is medical expertise should give way to amateur emotional and visceral certainties about correct or appropriate treatments. Can’t believe you lot weren’t around to intervene when I got mutilated to have my appendix removed.

              2. “We should encourage the treatment of the mental illness instead of encouraging the mutilation.”

                Gender reallocation surgery is a treatment of gender dysphoria. By all means, let’s examine the treatment to ensure that it actually operates like a treatment. But at the same time, if a willing person wants to have plastic surgery to mess with their private parts, why is that any of your concern?

      3. In a free society mentally ill people who pose no harm to others should be able to choose their own course of treatment. If there are medical providers willing to play (or egg) them along then so be it.

        But nobody else is obligated to join in the festivities.

        Nor is any polity required to enshrine or endorse their acts or beliefs.

    2. The bigger issue is why the “party of limited” government continues to push for laws and regulation that solves no real problem. And just marginalizes a minority that doesn’t have the voting power.

      Because they lost on the same sex marriage debate and they needed another group to stoke up unfounded fears from their core base.

      1. “debate ”

        Is that Latin for “Tony Kennedy’s decision”?

      2. We didn’t “lose” on the same sex marriage debate. Most people still don’t want their kids to be gay (even if they claim it’s just because they’d have a “harder life”) and don’t want their kids playing at the house of a gay couple. The left has used its influence to beat everyone down, but that doesn’t mean they “won” in any philosophical sense. Second, it’s not about “solving a problem.” It’s about being told that we have to deny an objective reality. We don’t, and we won’t.

        1. “We didn’t ‘lose’ on the same sex marriage debate.”

          Yeah, you did. In every philosophical sense.

          This issue is about letting people decide for themselves questions about their core identity. I’m for that. You’re against it.

          1. It is about enabling people who are confused about their core identity to remain confused and not helping them as we do other areas of psychological confusion. We don’t put anorexics on weight loss programs. We don’t put people with ableism into surgery to remove limbs. We help them come to terms with who they are. Johns Hopkins has the largest subset of studies on gender disorders and it is on the same spectrum as the other two. The fact that suicide rates rise post op should be a nice big red flag for you, but you are too ignorant and bought into victimization to even see obvious facts.

            1. “The fact that suicide rates rise post op should be a nice big red flag for you, but you are too ignorant and bought into victimization to even see obvious facts.”

              That is because the social agenda is far more important to those “who care” than actually helping solve the real problem.

            2. The suicide rate might have something to do with how much they are hated and reviled by people who think they have the right to insert their opinion into someone else’s health care and medical treatment. Having people who hate you demand a say in your health care isn’t good for anyone’s mental health.

            3. “It is about enabling people who are confused about their core identity to remain confused and not helping them”

              Telling people where to pee is “helping them”?
              Criminalizing people for using indoor plumbing, who have nothing whatsoever to do with transgender people, somehow helps some one?

              How about this as a legislative outline:
              If someone is in the “wrong” bathroom because they want to show off their personal genitalia to people who have different from theirs, make it a crime to exhibit one’s personal genitalia in a public place. Oh, we already have that law? OK, then.

              If someone is in the “wrong” bathroom because they hope to view another person’s personal genitalia who has different than theirs, make it a crime to invade another person’s privacy to observe them in a state of undress. Wait, we already have that one, too.

              So… what problem is harassing the transgendered while they’re trying to pee supposed to solve?

              (Also note that criminalizing being in the “wrong” bathroom punishes people who are not transgendered, but either A) accidently walked in without looking at the sign, misinterpreted the sign because the signage is “clever”, or are just looking for functional plumbing, because one of the bathrooms doesn’t have any available.)

            4. actually all science shows it goes down significantly especially in areas where jackasses like you do not exist to tell them they are wrong about a core identity about themselves

              1. Alexia, you are what is known as a useful idiot. I even cited the collection of research, JHU. You cite nothing. You’re a useful idiot. You don’t know what you are talking about.

                1. “Useful idiot” is (likely) a Leninist term, and inapplicable to Alexiawolf.

                  Just drop the “useful”, then it applies.

        2. Yea, conservatives lost. Another generation and people will view laws against gay marriage like they do laws against interracial marriage today…a sad part of a bygone era. Where’s Kirkland when you need him to say this? (I’m not saying this is right or wrong, just engaging in realpolitik)

          You are correct, however, that biology, evolution, and culture will still make it so that virtually all straight men will always find the visual image of two men having sex as disgusting. And biology, evolution and culture will also always make it so most people will want grand-kids.

          So, you’re half right.

          1. In another generation or two, America won’t exist in its current form. There will be a reset.

            1. You know, I hear and read that alot. But it seems, even given the waves and wind that our ship is getting battered with, that our culture and institutions are weathering it well. This is not to say I like it, or that we shouldn’t do anything to keep our ship afloat. In fact, I’m sure the few steps conservatives have taken have kept America from getting capsized.

              I would say, though, that this hard reset, should it happen, won’t come about through the means you think it will. It if happens, it will be via a plague or meteor strike or EMP, etc, and not through any form of revolution or Detroit level collapse.

              1. I think it’ll be from the collapse of the dollar and the ensuing civil unrest.

                1. Well, I won’t disagree that it is not a possibility that such a thing could happen. The Democrats are going 90 mph towards the cliff of fiscal insolvency and Republicans maybe 45 mph.

                  Even assuming it happens you have to assume that it won’t be a slow decent rather than a rapid collapse. Historically, civilizations tend to have a slow decline unless conquered. Resources are recalled from the frontier, crime gets bad, trash goes uncollected, corruption increases as people look out for themselves and their families first, and the average guy just tends to get by day by day, a little worse off than last year. If the dollar collapses, we are looking at Argentina in the 2000s, or 1990s Russia, not EOTWAWKI.

                2. “I think it’ll be from the collapse of the dollar”

                  You’re welcome to send me all your dollars, so you’ll be fully insulated.

          2. I don’t think evolution is driving hetero men to find 2 dudes going at it ‘disgusting.’ Else why not lesbians, else what about Greece and Rome?

            Just because you and I are a bit squicked by the idea, don’t biologicalize it.

            1. It’d biological to be homophobic, but not to be transgender, apparently.

              1. Well, apparently the whole argument is fake anyhow.

              2. Gender dysphoria is a mental illness where one feels that they are trapped in the body of the opposite gender. Just because we don’t fully understand the causes and treatments of a mental illness, such as schizophrenia or autism, doesn’t mean we can’t recognize it as such. Give Western medicine time, should people actually investigate this, and we will fine a reason people are wired correctly.

                1. I don’t think illness is proven.
                  People don’t call cerebral palsy a mental illness.
                  Or homosexuality, for that matter.

                2. Don’t look at me, look at the people above who wish to assert their unqualified authority to determine treatment for transgender people based on nothing but their own personal prejudice.

            2. That is a thoughtful comment.

              So: Why are modern heteros “squicked” (nice word!) and ancient Greeks and Romans no so much? Perhaps it’s socialization, perhaps it’s that modern homosexuality differs from ancient in the frequency of anal penetration, perhaps something else?

              I don’t know. But count me squicked and respectful simultaneously…which is not a natural pairing. No pun intended.

          3. I don’t think evolution is driving hetero men to find 2 dudes going at it ‘disgusting.’ Else why not lesbians, else what about Greece and Rome?

            Just because you and I are a bit squicked by the idea, don’t biologicalize it.

            1. The gay rights advocates always trot out ancient Rome and Greece, but homosexuality was not the norm, just more tolerated (not celebrated), and even seen as akin to bad habit.

              There is actually a fair amount of Evolutionary Psychology literature that looked into the questions below:

              Why do straight men find gay men disgusting (and they do)? It universally across human cultures through time, that public displays of homosexual acts by men, even just kissing or holding hands, were and are discouraged;

              Why is it that straight men do not get disgusted at lesbianism, nor straight women, and why do women “play” at lesbianism, and why does it turn men on?

              Even further, ask yourself why straight women are known to watch gay porn, some 37% of viewers of which on porn hub are women?

              Humans are not a blank slate, we have instincts the same as horses and birds. This always seem such a shock to people.

              1. Homosexuality is a norm. There have always been homosexuals. If homophobia is biologically programmed in some way, it seems evident that plenty of human beings are quite capable of overcoming that programming and not being homophobic, which suggests it isn’t all that deeply embedded as biological instincts go.

                1. Homosexuals make up about 3 percent of the populace, so while homosexuals have always existed, they have not been and never will be, anything other than a small minority. Homosexuality is more, or less, tolerated in various cultures over time, but will never be a “norm” in the manner in which you mean.

                  And I didn’t say homophobia was biologically pre-programmed, just a straight man’s disgust when looking at images of homosexual men engaging in homosexual acts, which *perhaps* is the biological mechanism that the source of homophobia.

                  Incest generates the same feelings of disgust, and is universally discouraged as well. The biological and evolutionary reason you don’t f*ck your sister are very obvious to everyone after a generation or two. However, given your logic, and modern contraception, why don’t we train people that it’s okay?

                  1. I don’t know that anyone is arguing to grow the homosexual population, m_k.

                    Disgust at incest is certainly not something inborn – history is replete with counterexamples.

                    Remember, not everything that is a bad idea for the individual is selected against; evolution is a threshold process, not an optimizing one. If it’s not so bad that the collective species will be outcompeted and all die out, natural selection don’t care.
                    Which is why I don’t think evolution sees homosexuality at all. 3% of the pop? Drop in the bucket compared to, say, how many babies died in childbirth before modern medicine.

                    1. I”m beginning to think you people on this board don’t know what the word “norm” means, because legal training leads one to look for exceptions to everything, and if it is accepted at point X, why not everywhere.

                      Disgust at incest is evolutionary and biological, no matter the kind: brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son; counter examples of the Egyptian royalty don’t discount the universal norm. Think of it like this, murder is universally discouraged as well, but also tolerated in some circumstances and not in others. In America if you had a duel and killed somebody you’d be charged with murder, but not in 1776.

                      I never argued that homosexuality wasn’t part of the evolutionary process, you put words in my mouth. There is some evidence that it might be, as last born children are more likely to be gay then first born ones, etc. What I’m saying is that disgust at homosexual acts by straight men does indeed have a basis in biology. Further, evolution doesn’t have to make logical sense all the time either. Our mental firmware makes many men want to copulate and leave, yet raising our offspring to take care of us in our old age takes years and years of dedicated labor. Does that make sense, no, but it is still evolution in action.

                    2. When I say evolution doesn’t see homosexuality at all, I don’t just mean people who are homosexuals, I mean ain’t nothing biological having to do with homosexuality.

                      Just because you think it makes sense, and you can point to societies otherizing homosexual men, doesn’t mean you’ve hit on anything biological or evolutionary.

                      Else, down that road you start arguing for women to not hold jobs, and all sorts of other stuff that’s sociologically common but hardly biologically mandated.

                    3. Well, we don’t know if homosexuality is something wrong with the brain, like autism, or a mutation that may in some circumstances be a favorable, or if it is just something that keeps getting passed on. Throughout history, homosexual men usually had children, but not so much today. Further, homosexual men tend to have slightly higher IQs so they did get the chance to breed more, even if their kids aren’t more likely to be gay than straight parents. I guess in 500 years we’ll know, since gays get married now and don’t have their biological kids. It will get interesting if we find out there is a “gay gene” or some such, and parents can opt out of that with selective editing.

                      As for women working, they always did, in primitive times and today.

                    4. “Disgust at incest is evolutionary and biological…”

                      No it isn’t.

                    5. “What I’m saying is that disgust at homosexual acts by straight men does indeed have a basis in biology.” OK then, but remember that homo sapiens are just one of the three species of chimpanzees, and in another species of chimp, the bonobo, nearly all individuals are flagrantly bisexual and they are obviously not disgusted by it.

              2. “Why do straight men find gay men disgusting (and they do)?”

                Some do. Some don’t care. Some just don’t think about it.
                Perhaps it’s just that some people are more easily disgusted than others, and those are the ones who can’t seem to stop thinking about gay sex?

            2. They are a norm in the sense that they have always been around. If you had any principles of personal freedom your disgust at homosexual acts would be acknowledged by you and everyone as, by rights, of monumental irrelevance and indifference to everyone in the universe but yourself. Why should attitudes to incest have anything to do with attitudes to homosexuality? They have nothing to do with each other beyond a similarity of emotional response in you, an issue entirely of interest to only yourself. Any causal links between your emotions and evolution are entirely supposition.

              1. Nige, that was the single longest paragraph of stream of consciousness SJWisms I think I’ve ever read, and that’s saying something. The only think missing was saying “news flash” at the beginning and “it’s 2018 already” at the end.

                You can’t understand why attitudes towards incest and homosexuality are directly related?
                Here is a simple model that explains both:

                evolutionary pressures -> Human biology -> human rationality -> culture -> laws

                Next thing you know, you’ll argue that bestiality ought to be allowed just because someone’s disgust at a woman getting f*cked by a donkey doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t divorce ourselves from those feelings, and further we must TRAIN OUR OFFSPRING to ignore their basic biological feelings on the matter (because seriously, who ever teaches disgust at bestiality to their kids, they sort of learn it on their own) and therefore we should allow donkey and horse brothels.

                1. No. Next thing is YOU’RE arguing that. Everyone else spots your ev-psych pseudo-scientific rationalisations as a way of giving your homophobia and slippery-slope pearl-clutching think-of-the-children moral panic a grounding in something beyond personal sexual preferences that by right should remain private. You can tell this because the thoroughly simplified little flow chart you supply that is supposed to explain the link between homosexuality and incest draws absolutely no connection between either.

                  1. I want to piggy-back on Nige – ev-psych is not really much of a thing these days; too hard to isolate the nature from the nurture, especially since societies also have a survival of the fittest component.

              2. “They are a norm in the sense that they have always been around. ”

                What a very peculiar understanding of the word norm when what the writer describes is a rather statistically static minority population.

                1. Inasmuch as their existence is normal. It’s assholes who find that existence some sort of personal affront that are the problem.

                  1. And with that last reply, you dictated your inability to make a logical conclusion on this matter, rather than letting your feelings dictate your position. Universally, across time, male homosexuality was tolerated at best, and got the death penalty at worst. Why? Evo-psych provides a better answer than “assholes get offended.”

                    1. “Evo-psych provides a better answer than ‘assholes get offended.'”

                      Does this better answer apply to other persecuted minorties? Say, left-handedness?

                      We live in a world where “they pray funny” is used to justify homicidal rage. “Assholes get offended” is a readily-observable fact.

                    2. you dictated your inability to make a logical conclusion on this matter

                      Ahh yes. ‘See, my argument is rational. I am sad you cannot be rational. Oh well, I guess I will have to accept another victory from myself.’

                      You are appealing to a science that was a brief thing about 10 years ago. It was dropped because it turned out to be less science than wankery. It made no operative predictions, and was merely after-the-fact descriptive.

                    3. If you think that evo-psych disappeared, you’re sadly mistaken. Further, academic disciplines, like fashion, come and in popularity. They are still there plugging away at dispelling ignorance.

                      It’s easy enough to read Nige in this, he is likely gay himself based on the depth of passion he brings to his responses. Frankly, I don’t care, other than it makes it transparent that he took me stating a simple finding of fact, that straight men are repulsed by images of gay men engaging in sexual acts, and spun into an Eiffel Tower’s worth of historical oppression and homophobia to try to dismantle in series of blog comments.

                    4. It’s descriptive, not predictive. It’s not falsifiable. It’s not science. Maybe there are still academics plugging away but it’s definitely become a lot more obscure than it was in like 2009.

                      It’s bad form to speculate about the background motives of commenters.

                      And I still dispute your universalizing of straight men’s disgust at gay men doin it.

                    5. That historically homosexuality has been oppressed is hardly a controversial statement. What I take issue with is your evo-psych bullshit justification for homophobia. Not even that, but spuriously linking homosexuality to incest and bestiality. But fuck it, even if it were an evolved trait, we don’t have to accept it or be ruled by it, as increasing acceptance of homosexuality across many modern societies shows. You could say our attitudes are evolving.

                    6. ‘Assholes getting offended’ will always be the bedrock explanation, I’m afraid. Religious and pseudo-scientific evo-psych flourishes to wrap it up in are also prevalent, however.

                    7. You think evo-psych researchers and religious groups are in some sort of Legion of Super Villains team up? Damn, that’s laughable.

                      Take a second, seriously, and ask why, almost universally across the world, straight men get offended? Further, that offense goes across so many religions, cultures, and historical time periods. Do you, then, have an explanation then other than a handwavy, “they must be assholes.” Saying everyone who thinks differently as you as suffering from false consciousness is intellectually lazy.

                    8. ask why, almost universally across the world, straight men get offended

                      1. This is not proven, except by your insistence.
                      2. There are lots of broad sociological trends that exist across cultures. That does not mean they are biologically driven.

                    9. This is just the tip of the iceberg, you’re debating from a point of ignorance. Here is the title of just one of the articles on this:

                      What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary ?-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images
                      Breanna Maureen O’Handley, Karen L. Blair & Rhea Ashley Hoskin
                      Psychology and Sexuality, Volume 8, 2017 – Issue 3

                      Take your you’re lunch break and go on a deeper dive through JSTOR if you dare. It’s biologically driven.
                      Furthermore, I’ve yet to read any kind of refutation of how gay men’s homosexuality is universally tolerated at best, and given the death penalty at worst, throughout human history, other than “assholes” that is. Which is ironically a funny one word refutation if there ever going to be one.

                    10. What, even amongst straight entomologists and fishermen?

                    11. Straight men across history do not get offended. The ones who are assholes do.

      3. Because they have never actually been the “party of limited government”. They talk a good game on limited government for the rubes, but it’s just lip service. They never do anything to advance a limited government agenda unless they are in the minority in Congress.

      4. Regexp – “The bigger issue is why the “party of limited” government continues to push for laws and regulation that solves no real problem.”

        On the other hand – the party of science wants to abuse someone with a severe mental issue and worsing a mental problem by pursuing a social agenda.

        1. What does your understanding of what constitutes mental issues have to do with science?

      5. Hey regexp… you may not have noticed… but it is the liberals pushing for laws to force others into blind acceptance of gender as an ideology and not biology.

        1. Or maybe it’s certain schools pushing people into blind acceptance of the gender binary as the only possible ideology.

      6. It depends on your reference point:
        500 years common law: everyone figure this out ad-hoc
        executive order/city of Charlotte: here’s how everyone must handle it
        new legislation: figure this out ad-hoc

        Transgender issues/problems aren’t new.

      7. “And just marginalizes a minority that doesn’t have the voting power.”

        Like the other Sacred Minorities, the gender-confused have litigious assholes and the courts on their side and therefore don’t need votes.

        1. You mean like Hobby Lobby?

      8. “…why the “party of limited” government…”

        Are you really trying to argue that bathroom access laws are en example of excessive government?

        Because that is exactly what you just did.

        Surprising that the topic never came up until now.

        Wonder why that is?

        1. Are you really trying to argue that bathroom access laws are en example of excessive government?”

          Are you seriously claiming that they’re not?

    3. Lets take this a step at a time.

      1) I think we can all agree on the existence of biological hermaphrodites. Therefore, it should be apparent that biology does not always create perfectly defined males and females.

      2) If you took me, a typical man, and surgically altered me into a perfect female, I’m pretty sure I’d still identify as male for reasons beyond the fact I grew up in a man’s body. I suspect you are the same. In fact, I find conservatives far more than liberals believe there is something biologically different between the brains of men and women.

      3) If you accept #1 (which is undeniable) and #2 (which seems quite apparent) I’m not sure how you can deny the existence of transgender as a biological issue.

  3. The law barely matters these days, I fear. The agenda is all.

  4. If you think the argument is “fake,” well, what’s the point really?

    Title IX specifically allows schools to separate students by sex for the purposes of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.

    Isn’t the core matter of debate here what “sex” the person is and what that means when determining what services they can enjoy? As the brief for GG noted (see SCOTUSBlog case page for briefs):

    “When a school has separate restrooms for boys and girls, all boys and girls, including those who are transgender, must be able to use those restrooms. ”

    A girl gets to use a girl’s restroom, including if the girl is transsexual. The ability to separate by sex doesn’t answer the question there by its lonesome.

    1. But a trans girl isn’t really a girl; it requires everyone else to engage in a polite fiction, like saying that dress doesn’t make your wife look fat or that so-and-so doesn’t look a day over 30.

      1. And what do you think of the sort who call their wives fat or tell people they’re looking old?

        1. Rude, but that doesn’t mean we should all be obligated to card the old people who self-identify as teenagers.

      2. If accepting a different definition of girl than the one you learned as a child, (and which you seem to believe to be the only true and correct definition), is a ‘polite fiction’, then acting as if transgender girls are the same- and must be treated the same- as boys must be an impolite fiction. Whats your motivation in denying the classification of transgender girls as girls? Some moralistic, groundless religious beliefs, perhaps?

        1. “Whats your motivation in denying the classification of transgender girls as girls?”

          They are boys.

          1. And she is fat..
            Even assuming you’re right, why you gotta be a dick about it?

            1. Nobody is saying we should be dicks about it (even if I agree that several commenters are being dicks about it). But it’s also fair to say that we can ask that we respect the privacy of those who don’t want to engage in the fiction when changing in the locker room.

              For example, my gym very politely tells me I cannot enter the women’s locker room. As much as I predict I’d enjoy being there, I don’t think they are being dicks about it.

              1. Right. Exactly. If some girl wants to play dress up, who am I to judge? But the minute she (or the school system) expects me to be complicit in a lie, or in this case her fists are no longer swinging in the air but hitting someone’s nose, they have a right to be a dick about it.

                Look, you wanna know something funny? My favorite gun shop has a tranny working behind the counter. Perhaps they lost some business because of it, but frankly I don’t give a crap, because the guy is not asking anything out of me other than human politeness.

                1. … because the guy is not asking anything out of me other than human politeness.

                  Yet, but calling him a “tranny,” you couldn’t even afford him that.

                  Also, if you’re going to be on my side of the debate, have some class so my job isn’t as hard. Thanks in advance.

                  1. Did I call him a tranny to his face, or anonymously on this board?

                    Tranny is common enough slang, and I’m not on anybody’s side of any debate but my own. If other people’s opinion’s co-inside with mine, all the better.

                    1. “Tranny is common enough slang,”

                      Yeah, it is, but it refers to something else entirely. Hint: That’s why it’s offensive to people who care.

                2. And in calling them a ‘tranny’ you fail even at that.

                  1. Your efforts to shame people as a way to police language usage is a transparent attempt at controlling the terms of the debate.

                    1. Nice switch into victim mode. They’re not trying to control the debate. They’re calling you a dick. Me, too.

                    2. I don’t think you are losing any utility in not being able to say ‘tranny’ since like many slurs there’s an easy switch to an equivalent term. ‘Transgender’ or even ‘transsexual’ (a bit iffy) say the exact same thing losing only the offensive component.

                    3. No switch to “victim mode.” Perhaps you’re so used to being offended and victimized, you’re engaging in projection. Calling him a tranny was mocking him. Sure. I cop to it. Offensive, whatever. But don’t pretend that turning on the language police lights and sirens isn’t an attempt to control the debate.

                    4. Just don’t use the term in the future – it indicates things you don’t want to be saying.

                    5. Well, you are correct, and on mere points of practicality it nothing else, I should. Thanks.

                    6. It’s a biological and evolutionary revulsion against slurs, biologically designed by evolution to stop people being assholes thereby making us more attractive to potential mates, sorry.

      3. Second marriages after divorce aren’t really marriages. Just a polite fiction.

        Well, not really. Being “fat” is often a subjective thing as is, with people not really fat at all thinking or being thought as fat. But, anyways, sex is a biological thing, and either the line doesn’t quite fit in two boxes especially with various chromosomal mixtures, or the person very well fits in the “girl” category using quite logical rules.

        1. “Second marriages after divorce aren’t really marriages. Just a polite fiction.”

          I think you’re going to just spin your tires on that one, outside a few select circles.

  5. Sex in the statutes is a noun.
    We all know what the verb sex means
    the political correct social science wants to ban based on the adjective sex.

    1. “We all know what the verb sex means”

      I’m not convinced that you do.

      I look forward to your discovery of what a “chicken sexer” does.

  6. “R.M.A. went so far as to get a new birth certificate issued with the sex changed. But like G.G., R.M.A. remains an anatomical female. While the Blue Springs School District allows R.M.A. to play on boys’ sports teams, it drew the line at bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. Instead, it decided that R.M.A. should be assigned to a private bathroom, locker room and shower. The trial court decided that the school district had acted properly and that R.M.A. was not entitled to be given exactly the same treatment as anatomical boys.”

    The fact that these people refuse to take their own private bathroom as a solution shows that their purpose is to get everyone else to acknowledge and celebrate their illness. No, sorry, we won’t.

    1. You tolerating a transgender person in the bathroom is absolutely not a requirement that you ‘celebrate’ them. You also need not ‘acknowledge’ them at all, just put your head down and look the other way. You aren’t being harmed here.

      I bet they would let those incapable of tolerance (like you, apparently) use a private bathroom as a solution.

      You prove time and time again in your comments that you aren’t able or willing to think critically or argue rationally, so i think we will just have to wait for the bigots to die off…

      1. So why not just eliminate sex segregated bathrooms, then?

        1. Most bathrooms in America are not sex-segregated, and the plumbing somehow manages to handle whatever pee falls in the bowl.

          1. Funny, I’ve not been to a single gym anywhere in America that has co-ed showers. Please let me know where these supposedly common things exist.

            1. In every house in the country?

              1. Don’t be obtuse. Nobody is complaining that the single-user restrooms in schools get used by both boys and girls. The biggest issue is common areas, where multiple kids simultaneously use the restroom, disrobe, or shower.

                1. Yes, you missed the point because *I’M* obtuse. Sure.

  7. I’m still waiting for the day that men and women can use common bathrooms and showers like in Starship Troopers.

    1. But only if all the rest of them look like the people in Starship Troopers.

      1. That would cause more problems then if everyone looked ugly.

      2. “But only if all the rest of them look like the people in Starship Troopers.”

        In the future, they’ll just use transporter technology to beam the nasty stuff out of your bodies, without needing any plumbing. That’s why the Enterprise doesn’t have any bathrooms. Sure, occasionally you’ll materialize in a universe where everybody has weird little beards, and sometimes you’ll be split into “good” and “bad” versions of yourself, but that’s the price of progress.

    2. Or Ally McBeal. Well, bathrooms. Showers are trickier though you’d figure with technology, it shouldn’t be too complicated, especially soon, to have private areas for each person. An open shower in gym class isn’t necessary now. It is the 21st Century after all.

      1. “An open shower in gym class isn’t necessary now. It is the 21st Century after all.”

        Technically, just because open gym showers have been the usual case, doesn’t mean that they were ever necessary.

        1. Compare the costs of the two options and then tell me about what is “necessary”. In any case, most schools have existing facilities that they must deal with, not the ideal that you are imagining.

    3. Actually, we are more likely to see the end of multi occupancy bathrooms and showers, and a proliferation of single occupancy public bathrooms. The transition will be slow, because it’s difficult to retrofit an adequate number of single occupancy bathrooms into a building designed with/for multi-occupancy bathrooms.

      I expect that within a decade or so we will start seeing new commercial/public buildings being designed with banks of single occupancy bathrooms rather than multi-occupancy bathrooms.

      1. And the result of that will be significant expense, unnecessarily wasteful use of resources and space, and problems that can come with having areas where you have less concern of being caught doing something.

      2. Considering how many buildings are not ADA compliant and that was the 1990s, it’s going to be longer than that.

  8. ” their declared “gender” rather than their anatomical sex”

    Anatomical sex is redundant. Sex is defined by anatomy – if your gonads are ovaries, you are female. Got testicles? Congratulations, you are male. That’s the female and male sexes.

    And while I’m at it, gender is a linguistic term, referring to the assignment of nouns to particular categories. The masculine and feminine genders are only trivially connected to sex.

    From Mark Twain: “To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female — tomcats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it…”

    Gender was hijacked by academics to create something that never existed. What, exactly, is the word for the man who thinks that he is Jesus? We have such a word for a women who thinks she is a man – it’s man. Somehow. This is wrong, and we should not buy into is in any way. When it comes to human beings – and all animal life – there are no ‘genders.’ there are sexes. Two of ’em. The End.

    1. Gender was just a polite term for sex which has a double meaning [man/woman and the sexual act].

      It was never a separate category.

    2. I support transgender rights but this is a bad argument. You’re arguing from (recently defined, c. 1960s) definitions with people who don’t agree to those definitions. It’s like a Catholic arguing with a Calvinist about idolatry and insisting that their own definition is the correct one.

      While “gender” comes from linguistics, that happened before English was ever a language and was used to refer to sex since the 15th century (to avoid using the word sex and for humor).

  9. Americans have generally been far more tolerant of each other’s, ah, eccentricities than the people of other countries.

    In some other country, if the Emperor Norton went around saying he was the real ruler and handing out his own currency, he may have been hanged. But in the US, people not only put up with it, they were even friendly to him and to some extent circulated his notes (I don’t know if that would happen today).

    So of all the countries to be confused about your sex, this is probably the best country to act out your, er, misconceptions. And there’s no reason not to be friendly and even, to some extent, to humor these nice folks, just as we expect our political and sports preferences to be humored.

    But when it gets to a question of legal rights, I wouldn’t say the government has to accept Emperor Norton or the sexually confused at their own assessment. In a limited government, of course, these sorts of clashes would be minimized in any case.

  10. Would it not be easier to simply argue that sex segregation violates anti-discrimination laws, or the equal protection clauses of the state or U.S. Constitution, than trying to argue that a person’s sex is solely based on feelings?

    1. So it would be easier to outlaw all segregated school facilities/activities?

      You couldn’t have separate bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers at all? No separate boys and girls sports teams?

      1. It would make more sense than segregating bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers based on one’s internal feelz.

  11. Heriot: Title IX specifically allows schools to separate students by sex for the purposes of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers […] Schools can separate students on the basis of […] anatomy

    Marty Lederman argues Title IX preemptively prohibits sex segregation, although the state overcomes it burden when it comes to sex-segregated bathrooms for most students. But in the case of transgender students, the state does not meet its burden and the discrimination is illegal (I’m guessing the same analysis applies to state law).

    1. So a normal girl does not get to change in the locker room with the boys, but a trannie gets to?

      That discriminates against normal people.

      How would that even satisfy rational basis scrutiny?

      1. You do know trannie is a slur, right?

        I don’t know how being transsexual interacts with Title IX.
        I do know discriminating against people who have decided this offends them isn’t actually a thing.

      2. In addition to Sarcastr0’s comment that “trannie” is a slur, so too is the conclusion that a transgender person is not normal. instead, the bathroom policy discriminates against cisgender students by allowing only transgender students to use the bathroom that does not correspond to their biological sex.. But as Lederman argues that discrimination is justified because cisgender students, unlike their transgender counterparts, aren’t harmed by that policy.

        1. Correction: But as Lederman argues that discrimination is justified because cisgender students, unlike their transgender counterparts, aren’t harmed by the policy that requires everyone to use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex.

    2. The part you miss is that Title IX expressly addresses sex, not gender identity. People pushing for transgender rights claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that gender identity should be understood as automatically falling under sex discrimination.

      1. Lederman did not argue that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

  12. A meeting of Libertarians For Nanny State Government convened by Prof. Gail “I Self-Identify As A Non-Republican (When I Want To Use The Democratic Door To A Federal Commission”) Heriot.

    Carry on, Clinger-Conspirators.

  13. I take the usual side, but I’m not one of those to get super het up about this, since it really is a vanishingly small portion of the population about which the usual suspects are pretty excited hump into comfortable past lines of battle.

    But I do have a bit of a question, just to cause trouble:
    There’s a subset of people transitioning that look a lot like their gender (i.e. trans men with stubble, trans women with breasts and hips that wear skirts)
    Do those of you with concerns think it would be more or less disruptive for those folks to go into the bathroom of their gender?

    1. I agree that it’s hard for public policy to catch up with everyone’s eccentricities – if a guy really looks like a gal he’ll probably be able to use the ladies’ room and get away with it, and vicey-versey for a gal who looks like a guy.

      1. Not only able to – positively should, in areas where people are worried about genders and bathrooms.

        1. I’ve heard a lot of “worrying” on both sides.

          Guys who think they’re gals started publicly worrying about not getting the accomodations they wanted. This was met by the other side worrying that this isn’t a good idea.

          And it’s not as if a Grand Compromise will be permitted, where people who look like ladies can use the ladies’ and people who look like gents can use the gents. There will still be accusations of bigotry to be made in the case of people who simply *think* they’re the other sex.

          So the only compromise that will be permitted will be to let people use the bathroom of whichever sex they *think* they are, regardless of how much they look like the sex they believe themselves to be.

          Which I suppose is fine – if you’re of the school which thinks that this is the self-evidently just rule and anything less is basically Jim Crow.

          1. As I said in my initial comment, I see a lot of people on all sides getting sincerely heated about this, but it’s more a proxy culture war than anything else.

            I’m not seeking grand compromise, I’m kinda stirring the pot when it comes to people declaring grand semantic truths via some real-world practicality.

            You want a solution – my old law school now has M, W, and mixed bathrooms. But since this is a proxy culture war, this is going to have a long, dumb, tail.

            1. My suspicion is that this will go on until the holdouts, tired of being screamed at, accused of bigotry, and getting their jobs threatened, will shrug and agree to “trans bathroom access” or whatever it’s called.

              Not only that, they’ll be happy to amend the civil rights laws to require “trans bathroom access” in the private sector.

              Anyone who described people as being the sex they actually are will get marginalized.

              This sort of thing works in the US, as opposed to, say, Kuwait or wherever, because Americans (a) like to think of themselves as tolerant and (b) like a quiet life, and of course they’re probably used to all sorts of PC silliness at work, so their instinct will be to shrug and go along with the latest “social justice” crusade and hope they don’t stumble and say something that will get them in trouble (like calling a man “him”).

              1. Well let’s hope there’s an accompanying decrease in the levels of violence against transgender folks while this sad state of affairs where people live in dread and fear of using an incorrect pronoun and being corrected comes about.

                1. We really ought to pass and enforce some laws against assault and battery, why do the transphobes refuse to do this?

                  1. And there are certainly no violent overtones to the government correcting your pronoun usage.

                    I mean, the only time violence would even come into the equation is if an employer/landlord/etc repeatedly uses the wrong pronoun, then fails to pay the fine imposed for such a violation, and then the cops have to proceed against him to collect the money.

                    1. So a bit like literally every other law about everything then. Even the laws against assault and battery. Damn those SJWs threatening violence against the violent and such.

                    2. “So a bit like literally every other law about everything then.”

                      Sure, which is why the government should be cautious about creating new laws, except to address real problems which aren’t already adequately addressed under existing laws.

                    3. Good, so no new laws restricting transexuals from using bathrooms, please.

                    4. New laws? What’s wrong with the old ones?

                  2. Laws don’t catch all associated behaviors.

                    That’s why you need norms.

                    1. Norms against assault and battery?

                      I think these norms exist, it’s just that there are people who for all sorts of reasons violate those norms.

                      If the norm is against assault and battery, the law needs to come in to address those people who choose to ignore the norm.

                    2. I know there are some people who seem to think there’s a continuum which starts with using incorrect pronouns and ends with murder, but I hope nobody here is that simplistic.

                    3. Using incorrect pronouns is rude. Doing so on purpose is being a dick on purpose.

                      I’m sure there are some anecdotes of such dickery leading to violence. I’m also sure that there are many more anecdotes of transgenders being victims of violence. A statistically significant number in fact.

                      Doesn’t excuse either side, but neither side excuses being a dick either.

                    4. Do you mean factually incorrect or politically incorrect?

                      Or do you mean that it’s impolite to use the factually *correct* pronoun to someone who doesn’t like the underlying facts?

                      A lot of politeness involves lying to people to avoid hurting their feelings or giving needless offense or hassle.

                      “I’m doing great!” is arguably a better way to say how you’re doing than “let me tell you about all my problems.”

                      “Your Honor” is generally a better way to address the judge than an honest statement about what you *really* think the judge is.

                      So by that principle, lying to confused people so as not to aggravate them may be a tactic which keeps everybody happy and avoids a scene.

                      But let’s not use the term “incorrect” for something that’s factually correct.

                      From time to time someone will say the Emperor has no clothes, or that the Emperor is actually an Empress. You can shush the inconvenient truth-teller, but only on the basis that he should have known to lie instead of blurt out what’s actually going on.

                    5. Well so long as we can agree that both are different degrees of transphobia targeting a vulnerable group of people who generally do no more harm to anyone than the average but who are disproportionately hated and despised for no good reason, then I suppose we can also agree that one does not necessarily lead to the other.

                    6. I don’t know of anyone who said that beating people up – even transgender people – is OK or should be exempt from punishment.

                    7. I don’t know of anyone who said that anyone said that.

                    8. Do you think every assault and battery is prosecuted?

                      It’s a counterfactual, but I’m comfortable wagering that many more of both are punished or deterred by social opprobrium than by the justice system.

                    9. Fair enough…does there need to be more social opprobrium against assaulting transgender people?

                      Otherwise, begging your pardon, I may have missed your point. 🙁

                    10. So if one particular group is disproportionately targeted purely because of their identity, then we should ramp up the social opprobrium around that particular bigotry and see if it reduces the incidences of assault and battery? Okay, worth a try.

                    11. So describing a guy with a dick as “he” leads to assault?

                  3. Did I say there weren’t such laws? I’m sure I’d remember if I did.

                    1. I think you were trying to link violent attacks against transgender people to…whatever it is we were talking about before.

                    2. I was merely comparing the disproportionate risk of violence against trans people to the appalling inconvenience of being corrected when you use the wrong pronoun and the hope that in the bright future you envision both burdens would grow less over time. You seemed to think I was doing something else, such as denying the existence of certain laws?

                    3. i thought your point wasn’t really coherent unless you’re going to claim that your side of the argument have a monopoly in punishing assaults against transgendered people. Do “transphobic” jurisdictions (Utah?) have a habit of giving slaps on the wrist to criminals whose victims are “transgender”? If not, I don’t see the relevance.

                      Also I was suggesting that legal violence – which is of course a form of violence – is the form that “correction” seems to take – at least based on the threats of New York City officials.

                      You seemed to be calling for some kind of displaced aggression – punishing people who misuse pronouns as compensation for trans people getting beaten up by other people.

                    4. It’s just a matter of perspective, is all, the relative trials and tribulations of people who are transgender versus those of people who have to adopt to shifting social conventions around pronouns. I suspect you know that, though.

                    5. I still don’t see how your point makes sense unless of course there’s a political group which wants to legalize, or inadequately punish, assaults against transgendered people.

                      Anyway, why should transgendered people in American complain about *anything,* because at least they aren’t in *Iran* or getting killed by ISIS.

                      See how that doesn’t make sense?

                    6. I agree. If people want to be transphobic, they should go to Iran and join ISIS.

                    7. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, either.

                    8. I know! What will these wacky transphobes do next?

                    9. I take it that “transphobe” includes, not only criminals who assault people, but also people who use the term “he” to refer to men and the term “she” to refer to women.

                      They should all go to Iran!

            2. my old law school now has M, W, and mixed bathrooms.

              The trans-activists don’t accept this solution. They seek social validation so the only acceptable solution is to de-sex all facilities and allow males into the W restrooms and vice-versa.

              1. “The trans-activists don’t…”

                Really? Every single one speaks with one voice?

                1. Ugh, how tiresome is this?

      2. “if a guy really looks like a gal he’ll probably be able to use the ladies’ room and get away with it, and vicey-versey for a gal who looks like a guy.”

        Transgendered people have been peeing, successfully, for rather a long time. They didn’t just develop the need for indoor plumbing a couple of years ago.
        Looking back, the extreme unrest and turmoil caused by this, over all those years, is what led to this sudden interest in where people pee, right?

        1. Looking back, the extreme unrest and turmoil caused by this, over all those years, is what led to this sudden interest in where people pee, right?

          It’s the sudden rise of laws and regulations requiring communities and businesses de-sex their facilities that has generated this sudden interest.

          1. So. its imaginary, then?

    2. Do those of you with concerns think it would be more or less disruptive for those folks to go into the bathroom of their gender?

      The premise of this argument is that clearly it is problematic for people who do not look like they belong to be in the wrong bathroom.

      Since you realize and accept this as a valid concern, then surely you have empathy for the other side who do not want “non-passing” transes in the wrong facilities.

      1. The premise of the argument is thatthere is a “wrong bathroom” and people are in it.

        If someone is in a bathroom, peeing, that’s the right room for that activity.

        If you go into a bathroom, and there’s someone in there that you don’t want to share a bathroom with, for whatever reason, turn around, walk outside, and wait until they leave. Problem solved. No one else need take an interest.

        1. I get it, you are opposed to sex segregated facilities.

          Surely you have considered why we have sex segregated facilities to begin with, right?

          1. “I get it, you are opposed to sex segregated facilities.”

            You don’t get it.

            The point is, the people IN the facilities should be making decisions about which sex-segregated, or not sex-segregated facilities they use.

  14. The author is a conservative who at times trolls.

    This entry is more brief and conclusionary (tosses aside she thinks something is “fake” w/o comment) though.

    1. If there is a debate over what sex means, that sounds pretty fake to me.

      1. The laws in this country defining sex aren’t consistent so even beyond the fact there aren’t just XX and XY individuals, there is a debate all the same on some level at least.

  15. There are only two sexes and it’s not possible to change your sex.

    “Gender” has come to be a useless and sexist term.

    1. And gay should mean happy *stomps foot* making your social argument semantic doesn’t make it any more viable.

      I didn’t think it would happen, but for better or worse the social momentum for gay marriage does not seem to have abated as it rolls up on increasing transgender rights. Partially because the opposition can’t seem to hide some bitterness as they make their arguments.

      1. Not to mention the opposition’s propensity to wear short skirts. It’s like they’re *asking* for public-policy results they disagree with!

        1. You’re always going to have provocateurs. And those who try to make those the poster children for the entire class of people.

          Anecdote doesn’t mean data.

          1. That’s certainly true, could you clarify the application of these observations to the topic? Maybe I’m really slow.

            1. Or maybe I am.

              I thought you were talking about how transgenders always wear short skirts. I…kinda missed the boat on your main point there. 😛

              1. That’s the problem with sarcasm…I was trying to riff on what I took to be the meaning of your remark, linking the progress of the transgender movement with the bad attitudes of the opposition.

                If I didn’t get your meaning right, I will acknowledge my error.

      2. Are you a bot? That’s what your word salad seems like but maybe it’s just me.

        I’m not making any argument about what words should mean. I’m just accepting whatever semantic premises are put forth and proceeding from there.

        I have no idea what this has to do with gays or gay marriage. Gay marriage is a settled issue and feels like a lifetime ago already, it’s like talking about women’s suffrage. How’s the social momentum for women’s suffrage doing, we almost there yet?

        1. This is just about the exact two sides, ML. You don’t feel deja vu to gay marriage threads on this blog?

          From your comment above, it looks to me like you’re NOT accepting the semantic premises put forth, at least with respect to the word ‘gender.’

          1. No, I am accepting the semantic premises.

            Sex refers to a binary biological classification. You can’t change from one to the other, despite what science-deniers may say.

            Gender refers to the “attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex.”

            The ideology of transgenderism, while not coherent enough to be distilled concisely, involves a sexist reinforcement of gender stereotypes (if you behave or feel like x y and z then you must be a “girl”), and a delusional denial of basic biology where in order to “treat” a persons disorder you should encourage and affirm their delusions.

            1. ” You can’t change from one to the other, despite what science-deniers may say.”

              Is “science deniers” your term meaning “people who stayed awake during science class”? Because nature does indeed provide organisms that change sex from one to the other. (That’s “biology”)

              ” a delusional denial of basic biology”

              Are you referring to yourself, there? Because you appear to keep deluding yourself that you know biology. I’m not supporting your delusion.

              1. We’re talking about humans, here. You can’t change your biological sex — you can’t change your chromosomes, or acquire a vagina, or a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, etc.etc.

                1. ” You can’t change your biological sex ”

                  It can be done.

                  “you can’t change your chromosomes”
                  You sure can. That’s the danger of ionizing radiation.

                  “, or acquire a vagina, or a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries”
                  Yeah, you can. And bones, teeth, abdominal organs, and skin.

                  I’m just going to go ahead and ignore your “knowledge” of “science”, ‘K?

                2. “We’re talking about humans, here.”

                  Before, you SAID you were talking about “biology”.
                  When you got called on your misinformation about biology, now we’re suddenly NOT talking about biology.

                  1. ML,
                    You are all over the map on this.
                    Gender has ‘come to be a useless and sexist term.’
                    But also there is a universal definition which you accept to the point of insisting on (which you helpfully provide, and which conveniently begs the question of biology disposing the issue.)

                    Any chance of alleviating me of my confusion here?

                  2. James,

                    Thanks for the laughs. You may be the most scientifically illiterate person to ever post on the VC. Everything you said is incorrect. Just so you know, biology is indeed science, and human anatomy is biology.

                    1. “You may be the most scientifically illiterate person to ever post on the VC”
                      How can that be, with you here?

  16. Transgendered people make the issue about bathrooms all about them, their feelings, their rights and what gender they think they are. But not a single one of these is an immutable characteristic like skin color. And nothing stops a person who thinks they want to be a woman on Tuesday from changing their mind on Friday. None of their demands take into consideration the impact on every other person they will come in contact with in the course of their “transition”, or indecision, or waffling, or confusion.

    This is a segment of the population that is clearly undergoing turmoil in their own minds. We have a very substantial responsibility to children and young teens to give them good stable examples in their lives, and to not subject them to any more turmoil than necessary. As a society we do not owe a person with mental turmoil any help in enabling their turmoil. So, do not ask (let alone demand) that I go along with the turmoil as if nothing is amiss, because a great deal is amiss with many transgendered people.

    As to bathroom and showers at a school, if you look like a boy from a distance, you are only to use the boys bathroom and shower, no matter what you think yourself to be. Period. Don’t get mad at me for declining to enable your own confusion.

  17. One is supposed to use free speech to work the powers of persuasion to change the law in a democracy. Science adds to your argument.

    Declaring the world different so you can change it without democracy is nothing grand, and has historically not worked out so well.

  18. I keep expecting that the next raunchy high school movie will have a teen bragging to his buds, ” Yeah. I told them I felt like a girl, so they had to let me use the girls’ locker room. You wouldn’t believe the %$#@ I saw!!!”.

    1. Proving, as always, that the real danger looming here isn’t transgender people, it’s straight men, apparently. I mean, if feminists said that you’d call them man-haters.

  19. Has anyone else noticed that only the OP is calling the transgender bathroom argument fake? I could be missing something or misinterpreting, but everyone in the comments looks to be calling the left dumb or crazy, but this seems an area where the right doesn’t think the left is lying, at least.

    Except for Ms. Heriot.

    1. That’s not really a full and fair assessment of his argument. He’s calling the argument over the meaning of “sex” in the statute “fake.” Obviously, it’s an argument, so it’s real. I take it to mean that he contends that the people arguing this don’t really believe “sex” means a person’s subjective feelings about his/her own gender.

      Of course, if lawyers only took positions we actually believed, we’d all have much lighter workloads.

      I agree that nobody thinks “the left” is lying. I think they believe they are kidding themselves and ignoring the rights of others to be free of having their bodies seen by people of the opposite sex.

    2. She’s clearly referring to the ridiculous actions by the judges in the 4th Circuit where they dug up historical dictionaries and concluded that “sex” at the time of the CRA clearly meant gender identity too.

  20. Forgive me if someone else has already brought this up, but in schools having difficulty with transgender bathroom issues, what are they doing for phy-ed classes and locker rooms? Or is the bathroom argument automatically extended to phy-ed?

    1. That’s the biggest objection, so it’s not surprising that its an issue that I believe litigants have tried to avoid. For example, in the Gloucester County case, G.G. didn’t participate in phy-ed. From footnote 2 of the 4th Circuit opinion: “G.G. does not participate in the school’s physical education programs. He does not seek here, and never has sought, use of the boys’ locker room. Only restroom use is at issue in this case.”

      While the discussion has been on bathrooms, there’s no reason why schools would not also be forced to allow transgendered students to use the locker rooms of the opposite biology as well.

      1. “While the discussion has been on bathrooms, there’s no reason why schools would not also be forced to allow transgendered students to use the locker rooms of the opposite biology as well.”

        People gotta pee when they gotta pee. They don’t gotta change clothes at school. So there’s no reason why schools would also be forced to allow transgendered students (or anyone else) to use the locker rooms of the opposite biology, either.
        Look at what happens when girls play varsity football. It’s not quite the same thing, but it has some similarities.

        Here’s the reasonable accommodation:
        People who don’t want to use a locker room with a transgender person should use a locker room that they, personally, own and control, and limit access to only themselves. Boom… nobody gets discriminated against, and no legislation required.

        1. J.P.: “People gotta pee when they gotta pee. They don’t gotta change clothes at school. So there’s no reason why schools would also be forced to allow transgendered students (or anyone else) to use the locker rooms of the opposite biology, either.”

          And yet they are coerced into doing it.

      2. See the link at my 11:01 p.m. post.

        Yes, they are forced to open locker rooms and have been trying to thread the needle.

        1. Looked through your story.
          Didn’t find the part where anyone was forced to undress. Did you post the wrong link?

    2. Grade schools handle it by not having students change clothes for PE. High schools that have girls on boys’ teams use both locker rooms. Yes, that second one is a different issue. Ignore if so inclined.

      1. The bathroom is just a pre-cursor for that second fight. If you say it’s okay for biological females to use the male restroom (where men will expose their penises when using the urinal), then there’s no reason to prohibit biological females from male locker rooms.

        I don’t know why you think there will be some line between restrooms and locker rooms. The rationale for access – the ostracism associated with being forced to use an area contrary to the self-identified gender – applies equally to bathrooms and locker rooms.

        1. “I don’t know why you think there will be some line between restrooms and locker rooms”

          Maybe because that line is really, really obvious, and was described above?

          Let me drop this on you. I think it’s perfectly fine for girls to pee in a men’s restroom. There are a number of cases where the need arises… cases where plumbing is out of order or inadequate by design (for example, way back in olden times, I lived in a men’s dorm. Female visitors either had to leave the building to pee, or use a men’s bathroom. Nobody was traumatized by either choice. Second example… I was a single parent. My offspring is female. When she was little, and developed a need to use a bathroom while we were away from home…)

          I don’t see any need to criminalize entry into a restroom to pee. That’s what they’re there for.

          1. People like you should advocate for a single facility with more privacy at each stall. Our current gender based bathrooms only make sense for practitioners of Wahhabism!! I have been to many places with no family restroom and it makes more sense to retrofit the old restrooms to accommodate both genders for the very reason you specify which quite frankly wasn’t an issue when fathers played a smaller role in their children’s lives. For example Trump has apparently never changed a diaper!?! Gen X men play an equal role in the raising of children.

          2. You don’t get it, do you? There’s no reason to separate locker rooms from rest rooms under the rationale that people have been using.

            The objection to using neutral bathrooms is that the person feels ostracized by using a facility not of his/her identity. That ostracism will exist whenever you have sex-segregated facilities. If you feel ostracized being forced to use the female rest room, you’ll feel ostracized being forced to use the female locker room. Or worse, you could be forced to use rest rooms of one gender, but locker rooms of another.

            When I was a teen, I worked at a gas station that has small rest rooms. Occasionally, two people of the same gender would need to both go, and one would use the rest room of the opposite gender. Nobody cared, since they were single-occupant rest rooms (okay, nobody cared as long as guys didn’t pee on the seat of the women’s room). It’s the exposure of private parts that becomes an issue.

            1. So you are fine exposing your private parts to gay dudes?

        2. But gay dudes can stand right next you at a urinal and “sneak a peak”!?! That is why I won’t pee at a trough style urinal and don’t even like urinals without partitions. I just don’t understand why in 2018 everyone wouldn’t want more privacy to the point it doesn’t matter if we don’t have gender based bathrooms at all and just have one facility for everyone.

    3. Don’t know if I could find a link for it now, but I recall reading about one case of a male->female transgender where they had male and female gym teachers and each had their own private bathroom / shower. They had the student using one of the gym teacher’s facilities.

      1. M.S.: ” they had male and female gym teachers and each had their own private bathroom / shower”

        Something like that has been the usual approach used by schools — to find an accommodation for the child that doesn’t infringe on the bodily privacy of other students. Neither the Obama administration nor the transgender activists groups would have anything to do with such an approach. From their standpoint, gender identity by itself trumped all else.

  21. In the legal sense this has nothing to do with whether trans people are mentally ill or not and is also not about “respecting” their beliefs. The question is entirely are they to be allowed to use the locker rooms and showers of the opposite sex (defined by XX XY). The claim is that this is their “right” but the rights of others are being ignored here. Remember we are talking about high school where most are minors and where someone sending a dick pic by text can become a sex offender for life, but now can be allowed to shower with the opposite sex (in either direction) since these trans people have not had surgery yet. If a girl who thinks she is a boy can shower with the boys, why does she need to wear clothes at school at all? Likewise for the boy who can now shower with the girls? And don’t say “single stall showers” because very few schools have them–too expensive. The claim that no one needs to change clothes at school is also stupid. What about swimming? You going to go run a mile in your jeans? For bathrooms themselves, the boys restroom has urinals–is the girl who thinks she is a boy going to say the boys exposed themselves there? Won’t the boys be a little freaked out?

    1. “The claim is that this is their “right” but the rights of others are being ignored here.”

      Elaborate this “right”.
      There is a right to exclude others from property… but that’s a right that goes to the owner of property and to people who contract for it.

      Sometimes, we override a person’s right to exclude others from their property, such as the case of public accommodations laws, which forbid excluding others from property that is used for certain commercial uses based on reasons of race, religigion, national origin, etc.

      You have one group of people who say “I don’t want to use the bathroom if THEY are allowed to use it, too.” and actually express this as “I don’t want any of THEM to be allowed to use the bathroom.”

      1. That’s not their argument. Their argument is I don’t want someone of the opposite sex seeing my nude or partially nude body.

        They are perfectly happy to allow the transgendered kids to use the bathroom – provided it’s one where there’s no chance that they will invade the privacy rights of others. Unfortunately, the options offered for that to happen (e.g., using individual unisex restrooms) is unacceptable to them.

        Your strawman is quite disingenuous.

        1. I’m not following how one will be required to expose one’s nude or partially nude body when using the bathroom. In the girls bathroom, you are in a closed stall. In the boys bathroom, you have the option of using a closed stall or the school can put barriers between the urinals.

          1. How can you allow transes in bathrooms, but forbid them in showers and locker rooms?

            1. Privacy concerns.

              1. How does the argument for allowing transes access to bathrooms allow for the exclusion of showers and locker rooms?

                1. As I said above, in a bathroom – unlike in a shower or locker room – no one is required to expose one’s nude or partially nude body.

                  And the phrase is “the transgender”, not “transes.”

                  1. The argument for allowing transes into the wrong bathrooms is so they aren’t ostracized by being “outed” as a trans.

                    How does that argument not extend to showers and locker rooms?

                    And the phrase is “the transgender”, not “transes.”

                    You don’t control my speech.

                    1. The argument for allowing the transgender into the bathroom that matches their gender identity is that is medical treatment for gender dysphoria. The same applies to the locker room or shower. However, even though the benefit to the transgender is the same, the privacy concern of others is not the same (again, as explained above). The legal outcome depends on weighing these two concerns, and thus the outcome need not be the same in the three cases.

                      Of course I do not control your speech. But, your speech is disrespectful.

                    2. Going into a bathroom with a particular label is medical treatment?

                      lol is this real life?

                      Of course I do not control your speech. But, your speech is disrespectful.

                      The plural of trans is transes. I don’t care about your mindcontrol.

                    3. Going into a bathroom with a particular label is medical treatment?

                      Yes. From respondents SCOTUS brief in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G:

                      “Gavin came out to his parents as a boy and, at his request, began seeing a psychologist with experience counseling transgender youth. […] The psychologist also gave Gavin a “treatment documentation letter” confirming that he was receiving treatment for gender dysphoria and stating that he should be treated as a boy in all respects, including when using the restroom.”

            2. “I don’t know why you think there will be some line between restrooms and locker rooms”

              Your obsession is showing.

        2. ” Their argument is I don’t want someone of the opposite sex seeing my nude or partially nude body.”

          The obvious response to that is “then don’t show someone of the opposite sex your nude or partially nude body”

      2. The right to bodily privacy. Especially in the presence of the opposite sex.

        1. This “right” of bodily privacy… does it extend to when you choose to disrobe in public?

          1. Disrobing in a sex-segragated locker room isn’t in public.

            1. Have you ever heard of gay people? You have probably disrobed around gay dudes which is the same thing as a transgender man in a woman’s restroom.

            2. “Disrobing in a sex-segragated locker room isn’t in public.”

              You’re going to have a tough time redefining “public bathroom” as “non-public”.

              Good luck with that.

  22. State court is where these matters should be.

  23. Man, conservatives discovering unenumerated rights all over this thread!

    1. Not sure why this is surprising. Conservatives have generally believed in unenumerated rights. Unenumerated rights are also the premise of the Declaration of Independence. And the 10th Amendment is premised on unenumerated rights and powers.

      It’s the unenumerated rights that 5 ivy-tower unelected jurists in Washington, D.C. magically find written between the lines of a document drafted 200 years ago that drive Conservatives crazy.

      1. “Conservatives have generally believed in unenumerated rights.”

        WHAT?!?

        I though PENUMBRA was the rallying cry.

        (Did I spell that right TrueAmericanParrot?)

        1. I suspect most conservatives would say there is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that’s not enumerated in the Constitution. Nor was it enumerated in anything before Thomas Jefferson referenced them in the Declaration of Independence. So I don’t understand the surprise.

          1. Perhaps not “the pursuit of happiness”, but life, liberty, and property predate the Declaration since at least 1689.

  24. Sarcastro — replying to the thread above,

    Biology is dispositive of the issue of sex. A man who thinks he is a woman is, in fact, a man, if we are talking about sex. That’s biology.

    As for the newspeak concept of “gender,” I agree with you that it begs the question in some sense. I’m afraid your confusion cannot be alleviated too much because the concept itself is nonsensical as it relates to transgenderism.

    For example, gender is supposedly the cultural stuff associated with sex. Ok — but there are only two sexes. So how is it that there are now 60, 70, or maybe over 100 different genders? Because this is all just made up nonsense, that’s why.

    More concretely and empathetically, some transgender folks sure seem to be in a tough and painful place where they just “feel” like they want to be the opposite gender, or may be the opposite sex. But you can’t be the opposite sex (by definition). Why not just accept truth?

    But, can you be the opposite gender? Well, how is it that you can “be” a set of attitudes, feelings, and behaviors? You can’t, but you may exhibit those things. Logically, that just means you don’t conform to societal expectations. Lots of people don’t conform to general societal expectations, maybe even most people in at least some ways.

    1/2

    1. If am a girl who likes to ride dirt bikes, am I now transgender, or just a girl who likes to ride dirt bikes? If I am a boy whose parents allow me to wear panties and dye my hair pink — ? Same question. And isn’t it technically sexist (or genderist?) to maintain such stereotypes as a definitional aspect of gender identity?

      There’s no logic here, just a repurposing of the concepts of male and female, extinguishing the biological meaning and replacing it with frivolous cultural norm-bending and hostility to the basic truth of human nature and biology. The small number of suffering individuals, although they represent the critical human element here, are crushed under the weight of a broader ideological battle. What does it mean, for humans, to be male and female? Or take one half step further: What does it mean to be human?! Transgenderism is a proxy war, implicating much more than meets the eye. Transhumanism is on the horizon.

    2. “Ok — but there are only two sexes”

      … that you know of. There are organisms with no sex, and organisms with more than one, sometimes more than one at a time and sometimes transitioning from one to the other.

      You should have paid attention in biology class.

      1. Humans are born male or female; the mammalian reproductive structure is centered around binary division of the sexes. To pretend that the reproductive structure of non-mammalian species matters in this debate is to distract from the fact that binary sexuality is a core facet of humanity. Deviations from this plan are mistakes and abnormalities.

        The bathroom thing is ultimately about accommodating people who are mentally ill, instead of counseling them to accept what they are. I don’t really care about who uses the bathroom. But it’s not about my particular feels, or theirs: this is one facet of fight to change language to radical leftist purpose.

        Like mandating people use a person’s chosen pronoun. Trying to make it criminal to be an asshole is where I draw the line. It requires me to be an asshole out of principle.

        1. Intersex people are a thing.

          Nor, is this really some sort of “radical leftist” thing. The book, e.g., “Becoming Nicole,” e.g., involved a pretty conservative dad supporting his daughter. Not some outlier either.

          Things are rarely “binary” when it comes to humans though people might wish to simplify and think that way.

          1. Intersex people are such a statistical outlier they don’t deserve any more thrift than the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles because some sexual predators identify as homosexual.

            It’s absolutely a symptom of radical leftist dogma. It’s certainly not the alt-right pushing this nonsense.

            1. Hang on now.

              1 in 6 boys is sexually assaulted. 1in6.org
              Only 1in 100 men are homosexual.

              Those aren’t good stats.

            2. “Intersex people are such a statistical outlier”

              Unless, of course, the core of your argument is that all people have one, and only one, clearly identifiable sex, in which case a whole category of people who don’t fit that assumption blows the assumption out of the water.

              Now, if your argument is that people who don’t fit neatly into a category are rare, then the low incidence rate of intersex people supports that claim. But I can’t give you credit for advancing yhe claim that the low incidence of intersex people proves that intersex people don’t exist. Not even when I’m feeling generous.

              1. When asked to describe the anatomical traits of humans, do you list reliable occurrences like 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, 4 limbs, etc, OR do you list every myriad possibility in which the body plan differs from the norm? I would say you would not only confuse whoever asked the question, you’d exhaust yourself trying to cover every base, and almost certainly still fail.

                Normal biology is male or female, into which 99.5% people (probably closer to 99.9%) neatly fit. The ones who are clearly biologically male or female, but claim to be something else, are dealing with mental illness or being obstinate. The marginal leftovers who are legitimately intersex, while unfortunate, are not evidence that humans are intended to be anything but male or female. Even if they can reproduce (doubtful) they will likely produce either male or female offspring.

          2. Joe,

            The full blown transgender ideology is a far left radical thing, and I mean far, the vast majority of lef-leaning people don’t even agree with it.

            See below about intersex. Things are rarely “binary” with humans on a social level which was exactly my point above really, but on a biological level they are binary. Why people have to look at societal gender roles so strictly to the point that they think that non-conformance means you can actually be the opposite sex, and deny elementary school level biology, is beyond me.

        2. Except right now gay dudes get to shower with hetero males!! How is that acceptable to have hetero men getting the short end of the stick in this dynamic?? The solution is a single facility with more privacy for everyone.

        3. “Humans are born male or female; the mammalian reproductive structure is centered around binary division of the sexes”

          Humans are born male, female, or intersex. Buy a Goddamn clue. At eatly embryonic states, humans are undistinguished, then later they are all female, then some of them develop differently. Usually, though not always, the end stage is either clearly male or it.s clearly female.
          That’s the biology.

          ” It requires me to be an asshole out of principle.”
          Alternatively, you’re just an asshole by nature, and you can’t help or avoid it.

          1. James,

            There are only two sexes. Intersex is not some third sex, nor does it have anything do with transgenders, despite transgenderist ideologues attempting to use it as a smoke screen.

            Every aspect of human anatomy will occasionally manifest abnormalities and malformations. Very rarely, this occurs in such a combination that makes the binary biological classification of sex ambiguous. That medical condition is called intersex.

            1. Why get down in the scientific weeds on this, M.L.

              Can’t you just be happy you and your fellow clingers have someone to bully? Society has been spoiling right-wingers’ fun with respect to blacks, Jews, the Irish, Catholics, women, Italians and others for at least a century — just be glad you have transgender Americans to direct your bigotry toward.

              1. I don’t want to direct any bigotry toward anyone, Arthur. If you’re talking about the so-called “bathroom wars” it’s more of an imaginary issue; I don’t see the need for government to do anything about it.

              2. Suck a dick, dumbshit!

            2. Right. There are only two sexes, except when there isn’t.
              That’s what I said.

              1. How many sexes are there in your mind, James?

  25. The reality is currently gay men and lesbians are getting to fill their “spank banks” with the current gender based restrooms and lockers. The only solution is a single facility with more privacy at each stall similar to a carnival portapotty set up. That would also solve the father going out and about with his young daughter situation.

    1. What are you, 11 years old?

      1. Gay male teenagers dread gym class because of the lack of privacy. Gay adults love going to the gym to fill their “spank banks”. My position protects gay teenagers at the expense of gay males. Your position will lead to more suicides by gay teenagers so you are an awful human being.

      2. 11 may be high.

        1. A gay dude appears to be upset that I support shutting down his little peep show…just be happy you have had a good run filling your “spank bank”.

          1. I guess it’s a bummer that you couldn’t get any of the gay dudes to give you any attention. Keep trying,… the right one is out there for you, you just have to find him. Good luck!

            1. You are such an idiot. Up above you highlight a problem I see all the time in our society which is parents with children of the opposite sex trying to find a family restroom. Maybe your daughter wasn’t embarrassed but I see mothers dragging embarrassed little boys into the restroom all the time. What about gay teenagers being bullied in gym class. Your solution is just to keep the status quo except let dudes in dresses into the women’s restroom. You are a f’n dumbass!! The status quo is unacceptable for everyone!!!

        2. Sebastian may be high.

  26. .
    The article and the many of the defensive responses are off-beam.

    Genes do not generate gender, hormones do.

    No one has their genes mapped before self-identifying their gender.

    Any gene test is legally private and not legally discoverable by anyone else, and has no superior rights over someone’s Constitutionally protected equality under law.

    The majority of people with genetic variances and anomalies do not know, so males with XX chromosomes and females with XY chromosomes and people with XYX and XXX and XYY and so on chromosomes may never know they have genetic variances and anomalies.

    Considering that hormones, not genes, determine gender, then a genetic map would not be a useful determinant in identifying someone’s gender anyway.

    Considering that ONE SHOT, one injection of the hormones of a trans gender person’s self-identified sex / gender, opposed to the sex / gender assigned at birth, brings instant relief from the stress and discomfort of their body gender not matching their brain gender is clear testimony and evidence that gender is generated by hormones.
    .

  27. .
    Again and again, for those unaware or confused about what being trans gender, or ANY gender, is all about, here’s a partial summary, please watch autobiography videos, movies, and read posts, blogs, and books for more:

    – In the womb before birth, our various endocrine subsystems develop their sex / gender under hormone presence, receptivity, and resistance, our brain and our gonads develop at different times, and may develop different sex / gender from each other, all naturally, all in the womb, all before birth.

    – Birth-certificate-witness-doctors can only see our genitals, and they assign / register sex / gender for us accordingly.

    – However, we all self-identify our own sex / gender around 3-years-old according to our own growing self-awareness of the sex / gender of our own.

    – And, if our brain is a different sex / gender than our genitals, then some of us change our sex / gender assignment through new legal registration with our federal, state, and local self-governance, no operation necessary, that’s the same and equal for all of us, the same for cis gender people, and the same for trans gender people alike.

    – So a trans gender female is legally equally female as is a cis gender female, and a trans gender male is legally equally male as is a cis gender male.

    – And yes, that means there are legally equal females with a penis, and there are legally equal males with a vagina.

    Welcome to the land of equality under Constitutional law.
    .

  28. .
    A transition process, if any, is personally variable, and may or may not include any of the following, some of which have absolutely no impact or effect on the sex / gender of one’s body, including reproduction:

    – Presenting as one’s own self-identified sex / gender – hair, shoes, clothes, makeup, and so on,

    – Changing one’s name,

    – Registering one’s own self-identified the sex / gender with any territorial self-governance ( no surgery necessary in the US ),

    – Hormones ( now we enter the realm of possible interference with reproduction ),

    – Surgery, including:

    – – top ( secondary sex / gender endocrine subsystems ),

    – – bottom ( primary sex / gender endocrine subsystems ),

    – – face and voice ( self-identity, as well as safety, especially for trans gender females ).
    .

  29. .
    C’mon, folks, let’s all search the web and our local libraries and educate ourselves on what may be new to us, but is so important to understand, the same for cis gender people and trans gender people alike, try these keywords:

    [ in womb brain sex gender development ]
    … for reports of 20+ years settled science, biology, medicine, endocrinology, psychiatry, and law.

    [ age of transgender self awareness ]
    … for self-testimony on self-identification.

    [ spack transgender thrive ]
    … for the applied life-saving endocrinology support for people worthy of equal happiness, equal participation, equal success.

    [ register sex gender ssa ] and [ sex gender visa passport ]
    … to register our own self-identified sex / gender, and secure national and international US visa and.

    [ transgender 101] and [ transgender stories books autobiographies ]
    … explore real people’s experience, testimony, and references, and connect with the wonderful and challenging worlds of people who have incredible and inspirational stories to share.
    .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.