Transgender Bathroom Case Bounced by Supreme Court Starts Long Trek Back into the Spotlight

Federal court allows a Virginia student's case against school district to continue.


Gavin Grimm
Everett Collection/Newscom

The fight over which public school restrooms transgender students can use is winding its way back through the legal system, and it may be heading back to the Supreme Court.

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit by a transgender student who was barred from using the boys' facilities can move forward. Or rather, it can move forward again. The plaintiff, Gavin Grimm, was a central figure of a lawsuit that made it to the Supreme Court but then was punted back down after the Department of Justice switched positions.

Grimm, now 19 years old, sued the Gloucester County school board in Virginia in 2015 after they implemented a policy requiring him to use either the women's facilities or a single-stall unisex restroom. Grimm had begun the transition to living openly as a male and wanted to use the boys' restroom. He argued that the school district's policy violates Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, which forbids sex-based discrimination. But the law also permits schools to set up sex-segregated facilities to protect people's privacy, so there's been an ongoing conflict over which way to navigate the landscape is correct.

Under President Barack Obama, the departments of justice and education settled on an interpretation that favored Grimm, based on several federal court decisions—most notably Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, a 1989 case where the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of whether a person complies with gender stereotypes is a form of sex-based discrimination. That case involved a woman claiming she was denied promotions because she wasn't feminine enough. The Obama administration advised school districts that discrimination against transgender people is also a form of discrimination based on gender stereotypes.

Some states resisted, and we ended up with a collection of differing federal court rulings. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Grimm's case in 2016. But then when Jeff Sessions took over as attorney general, he rescinded the Obama administration's guidance letters to schools and decided to leave matters to the states, saying it was the Justice Department's position that "gender identity" is not a category protected from discrimination by federal law.

The Supreme Court then punted the case back down the legal ladder. This did not end the conflict in any way, and Grimm continues to fight through the courts.

This week's ruling, from Judge Arenda Allen Wright of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, will allow Garvin's case to move forward again. The judge rejected a request from the school district to dismiss the case.

In the judge's 31-page ruling (read it here), she notes that the school's policy stemmed not from complaints by boys that Grimm was in their restrooms, but rather by adults in the community who found out the principal had quietly accepted Grimm's transition and let him use the boys' room. She further notes that since Grimm has filed his lawsuit, he has progressed along his transition, taking hormones, surgically altering his body, and getting his birth certificate and state identification legally altered to list his gender as male. The state itself is treating Grimm as a male, even if the school is not.

Note that while the ruling is favorable to Grimm, the judge isn't actually determining in his favor (though she does seem to agree with his side's arguments). Rather, the judge ruled that Grimm has enough of a Title IX complaint to continue and that there are enough precedents friendly to Grimm's arguments to reject a call to dismiss the case.

And so the bathroom battles march on.

NEXT: Trump's New Secretary of State Is Pushing America Closer to War with Iran

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can we stop pretending that public schools are for education?

  2. In the judge’s 31-page ruling (read it here), she notes that the school’s policy stemmed not from complaints by boys that Grimm was in their restrooms, but rather by adults in the community who found out the principal had quietly accepted Grimm’s transition and let him use the boys’ room. She further notes that since Grimm has filed his lawsuit, he has progressed along his transition, taking hormones, surgically altering his body, and getting his birth certificate and state identification legally altered to list his gender as male. The state itself is treating Grimm as a male, even if the school is not.

    How dare we pay attention to the people actually affected by this nonsense. It is those kids’ jobs to suffer for the greater good I guess. Their interests and desires mean nothing. The judge says as much and Shackford agrees. Nothing says freedom like the courts telling you that your interests and desires are irrelevant and must accede to the preferred group’s.

    1. Dude, read your own quoted text. Complaints didn’t come from other students, it came from uninvolved adults.

      1. Good catch.

      2. uninvolved adults

        To be fair to John: it says adults in the community. That doesn’t necessarily exclude parents of school kids who in my mind (if not by law) have standing to bring a complaint on school policy. Adults with no children in school would only have standing if it was a revenue question (again in my mind, who knows in this country) like we need to spend 2 million dollars building a trans bathroom with your money.

    2. You just quoted where it said there were no complaints from students. By all appearances the only person being fucked with is the kid by busybody adults who don’t have anything to do with it.

      On the other hand, the constitution does say “Thou shalt not do anything which makes John feel icky.”

      1. You can do whatever you want Tony. You really can. You just can’t force people to like it. That is what you and Scott don’t understand. You are free as you like. And other people are free to tell you to go fuck yourself.

        1. John, you sound particularly worked up today. Usually you take my jabs in good humor, but today you were flinging poo right out of the gate. Everything ok? Girlfriend giving you grief? Job being stressful?

          1. Maybe you’re just incredibly tiresome and he had enough with humoring you.

            1. Nah, can’t be that. We’re all bros here.

        2. Just not free to use the bathroom that corresponds to one’s gender… if you don’t like it.

      2. Cannot, Tony – I clicked on this article only for your commentary…
        And that’s how you open?
        You better step it the fuck up downtread

        1. Fuck you Reason!
          *Damn it

    3. Grimm’s current staus with surgeries and birth certificate would be moot because thst eas after Grimm graduated.

    4. It is those kids’ jobs to suffer for the greater good I guess.

      What’s the problem? It’s not like the kid was wearing a red MAGA hat or one of those god awful ‘Border Wall Construction’ T-shirts. Then, no matter how much sense it would make for the school to kick xit out, they legally couldn’t do so.

  3. but rather by adults in the community

    Parents, Scott. They’re called ‘parents’.

    1. ^^This!

    2. Maybe. Maybe not. It’s a factual question: how are they identified in the lawsuit?

  4. Referring to this case as being merely about restrooms is not giving the full picture. It was about all segregation based on sex in school facilities and functions. Part of Grimm’s demands was that it was unacceptable that the school did not room Grimm with a male on overnight school trips (they gave Grimm her own room).

    Frankly, the logic of Grimm’s argument is difficult to follow, as segregation based on sex is impermissable discrimination, but segregation based on gender identity is permissible, but seems to be required.

    1. And he can play on the girls’ sports teams and shower with them and everything else. Moreover, that someone who is 18 has taken hormones and permanently mutilated his body can pass without any comment is pretty fucking astounding.

      And there isn’t a single shred of scientific evidence that shows these sorts of surgeries help these people in any way. But they are irreversible. Sure, if he is over 18, he can do it. But the cheerleading and the absolute assumption that him doing so is this great thing and something to be encouraged is a bit sickening. At some point in the future, a decent number of the people who have had these operations at a young age with the support and encouragement of the adults around them are going to realize what a horrible mistake they have made. When that happens the law suits against the doctors who performed these operations are going to be quite interesting.

      I seriously doubt the people getting them fully understand the effects and risks they are taking by having them.

      1. Grimm is female to male, if you had not picked tbat up.

        1. It is still irreversible and very damaging. Grimm can no longer have children or have anything approaching a normal sex life as either sex. I don’t know how you can’t feel very sorry for her.

          1. I don’t disagree, but Grimm’s complete self-absorption and lack of consideration for anyone else mitigates against any sympathy.

          2. Agreed. This is NOT the sort of thing a minor should be undergoing, not the least because the rate of “gender confused” minors spontaneously resolving the problem, and becoming comfortable with their actual gender, is very high.

            What we’re looking at here is an epidemic of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Parents who think they’re being “woke” or enlightened or whatever, by responding to a bit of teen confusion with mutilating surgery.

            1. Yes, in some social circles a “transgender” child has become a coveted fashion accessory.

            2. Munchausen syndrome by proxy is the whole of progressivism.

        2. And until he/she/it gets a Ding-Dong, he/she/it cannot pee standing up & will take heck from all the other genuine boy bullies!!!

      2. I more seriously doubt that the doctors are advising them much on the risk, either.

        1. They risk their careers by suggesting any course of action other than “transitioning”.

    2. And if a visibly female student can room with a boy on field trips, why not all girls? Sounds fun. Seriously, what is the difference? And lets say that Grimm is in the showers and one of the boys gets a stiffy having a girl showering with him–is that assault? Does the real boy get in trouble?

      1. If that shoggoth gives you a stiffy, you’ve got problems already

        1. Like teenage boys need a reason to get a stiffy? I remember what it was like, damn thing went off for any reason.

  5. So what if she’s had an addadicktome. Back in high school she was penis free, and that’s all you need to know.

  6. I’m telling you, lead in the environment. Has to be. We’re all going insane.

    1. Speak for yourself. Lead has made me more powerful than you can possibly imagine. Join me and we can bring order to the universe.

      1. Is that why Amerika circa 2018 has so many great leaders?


    1. That is nice but according to the courts, the state owns their kids. If the state in the form of a judge decides that their kid is supposed to believe the lie known as transgenderism, that is what will happen. Their job is to be the face to take the boot.

      1. Ive taught my kids to not be mean, but to not give in to a lie.

        1. Meaning what? Actively seek trans people to be rude to, or only be rude to them incidentally?

          1. Call them the name they ask. Do not call a boy “she”,

            1. Who are you trying to impress by promising to be a dick to perfect strangers?

              1. And demanding that other people participate in your fantasy life is NOT being a dick?

  8. Before some point in the very recent past, no one gave a shit where a tranny decided to pee. I know I didn’t.
    Q: Why is it a big issue now?

    A: Because the trans community wanted to drag it out into the political arena and make us all have opinions on it. And that’s how you get Trump.

    1. It was not long ago when saying that granting gay rights would lead to people demanding everyone believe in trans genderism made you a homophobe. For the longest time, the gay community did everything it could to distance itself from this. But after the gay rights fight was won, this immediately became the new cause everyone must embrace or face being branded a bigot.

      And after this fight is over, the left will move onto something else. It is as it always is with the left, nothing but a vehicle for power.

      1. Im a bit shocked trannyism is the cause celebre and not polygamy. But polygamy seems to be a “Mormon” thing and they skew Republican.

        1. Im a bit shocked trannyism is the cause celebre and not polygamy.

          Whenever I brought this up in the gay marriage debate, there were plenty who were befuddled about polygamy. There were others who saw it, or branded it, as everything they opposed: pro-religion, pro-family, pro-individual liberty, pro-sexual subjugation of women. Gay marriage was the change that was allowed to be made that was approved of.

          1. The Ogberfell decision is one of the worst reasoned decision in history. If you have a right to marry whomever you want, then polygamists have the same rights as anyone else. But the elite and judges don’t like polygamists and do like gays. So gays had to have their government marriage. So, Kennedy writes this absurd decision that says you have a right to be with the one you love unless it is incest and that is just gross. So gays got their pony and polygamists did not.

            My advice to polygamists and figure out a way to become popular with the media and law professors.

            1. Not marrying teenage girls and holding them captive in remote “compounds” would help them with that.

              1. If you’ve been on a dating site lately, you know polygamy is alive and well and supported, but rebranded as “ethical non-monogamy.”

                Which means a girl married a dude who can’t satisfy her, and isn’t man enough to leave her when she says she wants another Dick.

        2. It’s one of the great ironies that even in the midst of exploding traditional and empirical norms of the definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ that no one bats an eye at the implicit oddity of a pair of humans fucking is the only acceptable number of partners both legally and socially.

          Not to mention that I’d love to hear one of these tranny’s describe what it means to ‘feel’ like another sex when they aren’t that sex. Tell me, what does it ‘feel like’ to be a woman, and how would I identify that unidentifiable ‘feeling’ in myself when I am not that sex.

          It’s as if I were to tell my fianc? that I know exactly what it’s like to be her, and like every other woman, and that I happen to identify that unknowable something in myself. Can I also identify myself as a black woman as a white man, since it’s easily understood what that ‘feeling’ is?

          Also, the last thing I find amusing is that the inclusion of ‘transgender’ in the LGBTQ (or however many letters there are now) implies that gay and lesbian people are just as delusional as transgender people. I don’t see any relation between being gay and being a tranny, yet they are part of the same movement. Curious.

          1. All good points BYOB. Transgenderism is a total affront to feminism, modern or third wave or any other kind. And yeah, if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman and states no longer have the authority to define what a marriage is and is not because everyone has a right to government marriage, there is no way to justify the criminalization of polygamy beyond we like gays and don’t like polygamists. The whole thing is nothing but an absurd exercise in identity power politics. Yet somehow, Libertarians decided to play along because nothing says freedom like identity power politics.

            1. The point I’m trying to make is the reason why transgenderism is a delusion: because it requires knowledge of an unknowable factor. Sort of like saying that you’re Napoleon. How would you know that you’re Napoleon, when you have no idea what he felt like or thought?

              Which is why I have no issue, and never really have, with gay people. Their decisions don’t affect me, and they’re very up front about the whole thing. I can’t describe it as delusional, it’s a sexual preference which is entirely different.

              The very fact that a man-to-woman transsexual is likely to continue fucking women should be a big clue, but it’s brushed off like every other reasoned argument. It’s the literal equivalent of saying that you’re a lesbian trapped in a man’s body, which is laughable.

              1. I agree. Transgenerism is a delusion. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. The two are entirely different and really should not be discussed together.

          2. Can I also identify myself as a black woman as a white man, since it’s easily understood what that ‘feeling’ is?

            You’re asking me?

          3. As a woman, I can’t say that I necessarily know what it feels like to be a woman either. I definitely don’t think “I’m feeling especially womany today” when I happen to do something stereotypical like wearing a pink dress while eating a salad, or whatever. It sounds like something a robot trying to emulate a human would think about. “Beep beep initiate human woman sequence #42”

            1. Agreed, and I couldn’t really meaningfully describe what the ‘essential’ feeling of maleness is either even while I am one. Maybe it’s being too ‘meta’ or philosophical, but it seems like a meaningful point when discussing people who claim to have such certainty over a fairly subjective thing like ‘stereotypes’ or ‘gender roles’. Those things only exist in their heads.

              It’s one extremely long-form and muddied strawman, since they need to first create a binary set of false preconceptions that don’t really exist in nature to define themselves. Odd stuff, but even to your average layman it’s quite clearly a delusional point of view.

              1. All i have seen is that “feeling like a woman” involves dresses and makeup only. Not much of a desire for the less pleasant parts of being a woman.

            2. It is like trying to describe a color to a blind person. So much of describing the concept depends on shared frame of reference which kust does not exist.

      2. Right on. It was immediately after the Obergefell decision that this stuff came out of the woodwork. Christian commentators (and non-religious conservatives) predicted this would happen for years.

        It makes you wonder what will be next after the tranny BS is forced upon us.

        1. Some people claim it will be pederasty and pedophilia. I am not quite prepared to buy that but I honestly can’t say its impossible.

          1. NAMBLA is not involved in all this for no reason. If they were not a complete embarrassment to the gay community (which has always struggled against accusations and innuendo that it’s just about pederasty and pedophilia) the issue would have been pushed by now. It may be yet, but I tend to think that the gay community is slowing the whole thing down, not wanting some extreme result to start the snowball rolling the other way.

        2. Legitimately, read the critics. They tend to be really fucking accurate on this. And have been for years.

          And the media is always “Oh, that’s crazy”…until they immediately decide it is VITALLY important.

          1. The critics say it is pedophilia next.

            1. I don’t think that’s going to be the next cause, simply because even idiots can see the difference between consenting adults and children generally speaking.

              1. You would think so. But five years ago I would have said even idiots can see that you can’t become a woman by claiming to be one. Yet, here we are.

                Transgenderism has proven to me at least that nothing is unthinkable.

                1. I don’t know of anyone that says that just because a person is transgender that they don’t have the mental faculties to make decisions for themselves, but I suspect they’re out there at the very least in regards to some of the medical decisions they make for themselves.

                  That said, I still don’t see a huge difference between transsexual surgeries and your standard run-of-the-mill cosmetic surgery. Both have associated risks and doctors are going to be required to earnestly discuss those risks before the procedure is performed. In fact, if I’m not mistaken there are already provisions in many states (if not Federally) that demand a higher burden on these types of surgeries precisely because of the fact the people who get them are recognized as being mentally ill.

                  I might find it personally morally suspect, but I’m not a cosmetic surgeon so my morals aren’t a consideration.

                  It’s a mental illness, of that there is no question, but plenty of people have mental illness of a wide variety and function every day in modern society without having their autonomy questioned.

                  1. There are 18 year olds who are underdeveloped, and 14 yr olds who are unquestionably sexually mature (no comment on emotional states).
                    Read Lena Dunham’s book about her diddling hey underaged sister, and believe it is right around the corner.

        3. Legitimately, read the critics. They tend to be really fucking accurate on this. And have been for years.

          And the media is always “Oh, that’s crazy”…until they immediately decide it is VITALLY important.

      3. That’s why I don’t support the liberalization of anything anymore. The reasonable demand is only a gangplank for mounting a dozen unreasonable ones. It usually results in more freedom for a few freak shows, and a net loss of liberty for everyone else.

      4. If right wingers hadn’t been such dicks about gay people for all these years the whole LGBT Industrial Complex wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be having these issues now

        1. That is absurd. If the right had rolled over easier on gay rights, we would have had these issues earlier. And there is no such thing as the LGBT industrial complex. There is only the leftist industrial complex. They are one in the same.

          If the left had not infiltrated and coopted the gay rights movement, we would not have these issues at all because they have nothing to do with gay rights.

        2. Just as the Civil Rights Act couldn’t lead to quotas and Title IX couldn’t lead to men being penalized….

        3. Based on what? For years I’ve seen job ads for LGBT canvassers that say things like “did you know you can be fired for being gay in ‘such and such #’ states?” If conservatives were doing horrible things to gay people you would think that the LGBT people would come up with worse examples than “OMG an employer could hypothetically fire someone for being gay!”.(Like they can fire you for having a tattoo, eating too loudly, etc but who cares about that)

          1. Meanwhile Democrats ignore actual atrocities committed against gay people in Muslim countries. Such integrity

          2. The best they could do in that whole debate was a few horror stories about gays not seeing their partners in hospitals. Most of those stories were apocryphal and even then, it just meant gays had to get medical powers of attorney. The horror!!

        4. The movement to rid New York of Gay Bars that led to The Stonewall Riots was initiated and enacted by single-handedly by democrats.

          Harvey Milk was registered as a Republican in New York before he ran for office in CA.

          The man that assassinated Milk was a registered democrat.

          A lot of the cases of “Emergency Room Discrimination” were matters of policy and the majority of the people involved with the supposed discrimination (though not guilty of) were democrats or of mixed political affiliation.

          Not to exonerate the GOP for any and all acts past, present, and future, as much to point out that there’s plenty of shade to be cast on both parties and one party rather deliberately culturalizes and socializes/radicalizes settled matters of law to bludgeon its opposition.

          1. Yeah, history of LGBT issues is a lot more non-partisan then many think. You don’t really start seeing a divergence between the parties on LGBT issues until the 80s with Reagan bringing in the Evangelicals. That’s where it starts becoming a bipartisan issue, but it’s not until the 2000s that the divergence finishes. Before that point you find plenty of democrats that are anti-LGBT on all sorts of things (look at DOMA and DADT, for example).

            Which is to say, LGBT activists tried to get into both parties. But while they eventually succeeded with Democrats, they never really got anywhere with Republicans.

            Which is to say… if Republicans hadn’t changed from the Party of Goldwater to the Party of Reagan, LGBT issues probably would have never been a wedge issue.

          2. I have worked in the Estates field and done my share of Medical Powers of Attorney. It is pretty much standard procedure now, as most hospitals inquire of any new admittee if s/he has a Power of Attorney and the name of the Agent. All this completely avoids inquiry into marital status, sexual preference and so forth. In the day when it was not all that common, we did education with gay organizations to have their members arrange Powers of Attorney. The various, relatively simple legal arrangements we made then were equally effective as marriage in giving one’s “other” (perhaps even just a trusted friend) necessary powers and access to information.

            I once litigated a contested will. The deceased had end-stage AIDS and had written it on a nurse’s note
            pad, dated it and signed it. It was valid as a holographic will and the nurse testified that though he was generally delusional he did have periods of lucidity, and it was in such a period that he wrote the will. His long-lost relatives went to court. The judge was an old, rock-ribbed conservative who advocated the death penalty for jaywalkers, but he ruled for my client. All said and done, he respected the law. Great times.

      5. “And after this fight is over, the left will move onto something else.”

        The right to marry your dog.

        1. Once you can make your opposition call a man a woman, why would you bother with marrying dogs? Not giving will officially become taking, not supporting will become banning, and not towing the party line will be deplorably intolerant bigotry. Only members of the fascist party would take food from the mouths of the average American by enacting a budget cut*.

          * “cut” being defined as a reduction in the increase in spending.

    2. Like most culture-wide things, it’s complicated. Here’s a couple of other answers that give part of the picture.

      A: Having lost Obergefel v. Hodges, Republicans/conservatives looked for another “social” issue they thought they could rally voters off of. See how most conservative/Republican places that have pushed “bathroom bills” and “religious conscience exemption” legislation are in red states that didn’t have any protections for LGBT folks at all.

      A: With the growing social acceptance of LGBT adults, teens are feeling comfortable coming out at younger ages, which forces schools to deal with the issue. See also: increase in number of “school tried to ban boy from brining male date to prom” and “school tried to ban lesbian from wearing tuxedo” and so-on.

      That said, folks have always cared. Trans folk being included (and concerns over bathrooms) have sunk ENDA for something like two decades now as folks on both sides of the aisle claimed that they would support an LGB non-discrimination law, but that an LGBT non-discrimination law went too far.

      It’s just that with LGB issues rescinding from public view so much (even Republicans have mostly given up on bringing back DADT, for example) the T issues have gained more focus as they stand alone.

      1. “That said, folks have always cared”

        You say that, then admit they don’t

        “Trans folk being included (and concerns over bathrooms) have sunk ENDA for something like two decades now as folks on both sides of the aisle claimed that they would support an LGB non-discrimination law, but that an LGBT non-discrimination law went too far.”


        You were probably going for “receding” there.

        1. You say that, then admit they don’t
          I said nothing of the sort. Trans issues, including bathroom issues, have always been part of the fights over these things. It’s just that they used to be a smaller part because the overall issue was bigger.

          1. “I said nothing of the sort.”

            Yes actually you did.

      2. A. It was Democrats in Democrat dominated urban areas (Houston, Charlotte) in GOP dominated states that started pushing to force private businesses to substitute sex segregation with gender identity segregation. The states reacted to these efforts.

        The first salvo in this battle was fired from the Left, as per usual in culture war issues.

        1. Even if you want to treat non-discrimination laws that include trans folk as a “salvo”, those were the first by any stretch of the imagination, they were just when Conservatives pivoted in how they opposed them.

          1. What do you mean pivot? Conservatives have always opposed these things. And name me a single place that passed laws regarding this before Houston and Charlotte passed accommodation laws. This has entirely been reactionary from the right. The left never passed shit or did anything on this issue. In fact, they swore up and down that it was not related to gay rights and gay rights would not result in it. That was until they got gay marriage and needed a new cause.

            You have this entirely backwards. Shockingly enough, the Left is the aggressor in the culture war.

            1. What do you mean pivot? Conservatives have always opposed these things.

              To quote myself: “Conservatives pivoted in how they opposed them.”

              The opposition did not change. How they opposed them changed. In this case, focusing less on the “LGB” part, and increasingly focusing on the “T” part.

              And name me a single place that passed laws regarding this before Houston and Charlotte passed accommodation laws.

              Have a map.

              1. YOur map is for gay discrimination laws not Transgendered discrimination laws. It includes the T, but there is no indication that those laws actually cover transgender. So try again.

                They focused on the T part because the left wasn’t demanding accommodation. Job discrimination is not the same as demanding to use the same shower and the same bathroom. You are just lying here and pretending that the two are the same. The left changed its tactics.

                1. Actually, the map differentiates between laws that cover sexual orientation from those that cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

                  Similarly, you can look at different kinds of non-discrimination laws, of which employment is only one part of.

                  This isn’t relatively new ground for LGBT activists.

                  1. Job discrimination is not bathroom accommodation. You are playing two card monty with the issue here. Conservatives never concentrated on the T because it never involved men using woman’s bathrooms and showers until now. It was the left that created that.

                    1. You are playing two card monty with the issue here.
                      No, I’m saying that the map has different tabs. See where it says “Employment”, is a different color, and has a little triangle? That’s a tab. You can click on any of the fields to the right of there to see a different map.

              2. That map covers only employment non-discrimination laws, the issue at hand is non-discrimination in public accommodations (customers, not employees).

          2. What is the horsepower you put on those goalposts to make them move so quickly?

            1. … pointing out that the NC and Houston laws weren’t the “first” isn’t moving the goal posts, it was an attempt to correct a wrong fact.

              I honestly didn’t expect y’all to be so invested in those being the first. This entire reaction from John is very confusing. I mean hell, I’m not even arguing whether or not those laws are good or bad, I’m just pointing out that they go back decades.

              1. But they WERE the first.

                You’ve still not pointed out to other, EARLIER laws, requiring you to allow boys and girls to shower together as long as the boys felt that they were really girls (whatever that means).

                1. You’re right. I did not explicitly list any. Because I gave a resource that did all that work for me and thought (wrongly, apparently) that y’all could, being provided with a pretty comprehensive resource, be able to click though and find all the relevant info you wanted.

                  Shows me for having any faith that y’all were merely ignorant, instead of malicious.

                  So having clicked on citations for public accommodation, the first one I get to is California. Amended it’s non-discrimination law in 2005 to cover gender identity. Going through the list, the oldest one for sexual orientation is Wisconsin, 1982. Oldest for Gender Identity is Minnesota in ’93. And that’s just state-wide, if we went to localities it’d be even further back on both accounts.

                  And before you try to jump in with “those don’t specify bathrooms”, you should double-check the text of the Charlottesville ordinance you’re so against. It didn’t specify ’em either.

                  I really don’t know why you guys are hung up on Charlottesville and Houston being the “first”. They weren’t. They followed decades of work. There was nothing new or novel about them. Hell, at the time that Houston rolled back it’s ordinance, twelve other Texas cities had theirs for years.

      3. See how most conservative/Republican places that have pushed “bathroom bills” and “religious conscience exemption” legislation are in red states that didn’t have any protections for LGBT folks at all.

        That is simply untrue. Ground zero for all of this was Charlotte, North Carolina. There, it was the left that was demanding accommodation. Then the state pushed back. The left is the aggressor here. You are just making that up.

        A: With the growing social acceptance of LGBT adults, teens are feeling comfortable coming out at younger ages, which forces schools to deal with the issue. See also: increase in number of “school tried to ban boy from brining male date to prom” and “school tried to ban lesbian from wearing tuxedo” and so-on.

        “More comfortable at a younger age” is just another way of saying “demanding accommodation”, which is exactly the point that was made above. Yes, the left has decided to make this an issue.

        That said, folks have always cared. Trans folk being included (and concerns over bathrooms) have sunk ENDA for something like two decades now as folks on both sides of the aisle claimed that they would support an LGB non-discrimination law, but that an LGBT non-discrimination law went too far.

        They are two separate issues. Being gay has nothing to do with being a transexual. They are only linked because the left decided to link them.

        1. Ground zero for all of this was Charlotte, North Carolina.

          You’re off by a couple of decades.

          1. Bullshit. Show me where I am. Show me a single one of these laws that was ever passed before Charlotte and Houston. You are just pretending there were as a way of blaming the right for all of this.

          2. It is amazing how leftist memory hole shit and rewrite history. The left comes out of the woodwork and starts demanding that boys be allowed to use the girls’ showers in middle school and somehow it is now the Right who started the issue.

            How do you live with that much cognitive dissonance?

            1. Years ago, I had parents of a 15 year old girl come to my office because the gym teacher, backed up by the principal, had refused to let any of the girls shower with shower curtains.

              The girls were ordered to take showers after gym class and some of them, including the 15 year old client, refused to do so and they were warned that they would be disciplined if they refused to do so again.

              I called a reporter for the local paper and made an ass out of the principal. He burned that cuck good and hard. He retreated.

              Mind you, this is taking showers in front of other girls, not boys. I accept that the issue is different if we are talking about athletic teams in that a kid volunteers to be a member of the football team, etc.

              1. The point being why should young women be forced to shower in front of other young women without the benefit of shower curtains?

                Let me tell you another thing. Young guys can also be shy about the issue irrespective of whether they have little hands.

      4. A: Having lost Obergefel v. Hodges, Republicans/conservatives looked for another “social” issue they thought they could rally voters off of. See how most conservative/Republican places that have pushed “bathroom bills” and “religious conscience exemption” legislation are in red states that didn’t have any protections for LGBT folks at all.

        False. Those are a response to an action. NC sought the bill due to a city deciding to legalize it and forcing it in government facilities there.

        I live in a very red state and it’s a non-issue here. We’d prefer to not give a shit. But some activists have targeted my church to push this.

        I also told the pastor that if they cave on LGBT, shut the church down as they just, as completely as possible, violated Christian theology.

        A: With the growing social acceptance of LGBT adults, teens are feeling comfortable coming out at younger ages, which forces schools to deal with the issue.

        No, it’s pedophilia doing that. 8 year old trannies? Are you fucking kidding me? No, it’s a few pedophiles pushing this heavily and a few attention-whore families playing along. Sure, the child is fucked over royally and cannot be made whole again…but the child is the least of their concerns.

        but that an LGBT non-discrimination law went too far.

        Not sure why a mental disability should be protected.

        1. A mental disability is specifically already protected, but the relevant piece of legislation would be the ADA instead of the Civil Rights Act or Title 9. That someone would interpret the ADA into allowing people with mental disabilities to use a restroom of the opposite sex is something of an open question I suppose, but frankly I don’t give a flying fuck. People were using whatever restroom they wanted to before legislation, and they’ll do the same after.

          I’ve used the women’s restroom before when the situation demanded it, and I’m sure plenty of women have done the reverse. Shockingly, no one clutched their pearls until now. Probably because no one tried to shove a law about something so utterly ridiculous before.

          That transsexuals don’t want to use the ADA as the vehicle because they don’t want to admit that the condition is an actual and recognized condition, since anyone with two brain cells recognizes it’s a very real delusion.

          And yes, I have been banned from various forums before for pointing out that it’s by definition a delusion (and that I can’t think of a psychological association that doesn’t agree on that point). Facts and empiricism be damned, in this arena in particular.

          The question I can’t answer is why this condition in particular is special enough to rewrite the book for the 99.99999% of the rest of the population.

          1. That someone would interpret the ADA into allowing people with mental disabilities to use a restroom of the opposite sex is something of an open question I suppose, but frankly I don’t give a flying fuck.

            That is not an unreasonable point. The ADA is an absurd law. So, it makes sense that it would produce an absurd result like this. That said, using the ADA for this would at least have the virtues of applying the law in a sensible way and telling the truth that transgenderism is a mental disability.

            The Left would never do that because transgenderism is about forcing people to humiliate themselves and tell a lie and political power.

            The horrible thing about this issue is that they are taking kids who are in the processes of figuring themselves out and becoming full human beings and encouraging them to declare themselves “transgender” because it is the cause de jour and a way to get attention and coveted victim status. Parents claiming their 8 and 9 year old kids are “transgender” is about the sickest thing I have ever seen in this society. That is pure evil.

            1. I fail to see any appreciable difference between female genital mutilation and, say, a male-to-female transsexual surgery of a pre-teen. And I find it remarkable that if you deform your children because of a religious reason you’ll be prosecuted, but if you do it just because you feel like it there’s no real problem legally speaking.

            2. As Milo has said, all it is doing is basically stopping young gay men. They are being taught they are women when theyd be happy as gay men.

              1. I don’t know if I’d agree with that, since here we literally have the case of a young girl that demanded to have her own penis. We don’t know if she’s a lesbian or not, though, which is a separate thing entirely. I wouldn’t doubt the possibility that she wants to have sex with men with her new permanent dildo.

                That said, she in a minority of a minority, since most of these ‘transitions’ are male-to-female if memory serves. Most women who think they’re men don’t actually get surgery either, so she isn’t the general trend but an outlier.

          2. Good to know that there are other men who have used the ladies’ restroom when the situation demanded it.

            There are prudes who have castigated me for doing so. Can you believe it?

            1. At least you weren’t castrated for it, I suppose! (I know, a bad joke.)

              And yeah, I don’t know why anyone would get particularly pissed off for using the wrong restroom. When you gotta go, you gotta go and you’d need a be a special brand of asshole to make someone shit themselves.

              1. Well, prudes can be a special brand of asshole.

                One funny thing is that even good natured people, who like you, if you tell them about an incident where the situation demanded use of the ladies’ room, they will still castigate you in the sense that they will say something like, “you should have been more aware” or “you could have prevented it” or “why didn’t you go earlier?”

                1. Here in Texas, I think the worst I’ve gotten for it is a laughing ‘well of course you used the ladies room, you’re a pussy!’ but it’s usually good natured ribbing. Amusingly, this is something the women say, so maybe I just live in a strange area.

            2. When you gotta piss you gotta piss. And when the men’s room is at the other end of the building and the lady’s room is right there… well, we all look the same in a closed stall.

          3. I never used the women’s restroom because I was a janitor briefly in college and there is nothing in the world grosser than a women’s public restroom.

        2. Your church damn well better not cave.

          WTF is up with all of the churches and their genuflection to progressive principles and progressive principals?

          1. They will probably cave. They’re Methodists. I’m the only hardliner on the issue.

            “So, you’re saying God can make people…wrong?”. Minister didn’t like that question, but that is the core of his semi-support of supporting the LGBT community.

    3. Come on, you can’t see a Republican wedge issue when it’s in front of your eyes?

      Oh, guess not, and that’s how you get Trump.

      You being stupid, I mean.

      1. Yes Tony, those evil Republicans just won’t take your boot on their face. God damn it, don’t they know that they are supposed to lie when they are told to?

        Fuck off.

        1. You people are so ridiculous it’s actually funny.

          You’re worked up about this because you’ve been instructed to be. Take charge of your life man. Trans people taking a piss is never going to affect you.

          1. No Tony, we get worked up because the truth matters. You are so far gone you have no idea what the truth even is. All you know is to believe whatever your politics tell you.

            1. Good luck convincing the trans community that they’re all delusional. I’m sure that will work out great for you.

              1. I will not worry if a community who thinks mutilating themselves and pumping themselves full of hormones think they are delusional. Schizophrenics routinely do not think they are delusional either…but we have the decency to not pretend the invisible people guiding them are there.

                1. “mutilating themselves and pumping themselves full of hormones”

                  Stop talking about the Trumps like that.

                  1. It is nice to see that you admit that being gay is a mental disorder on par with transgenerism Tony. Good luck with that.

                    1. You know what’s a nice feeling? The absolute certainty that ridiculous bigoted old coots like you have already lost the culture war.

                    2. @John
                      you seem to be in conflict with yourself:

                      I agree. Transgenerism is a delusion. Homosexuality is a sexual preference. The two are entirely different and really should not be discussed together.

                    3. I think he’s saying you don’t choose to be transgender, but he can stop visiting the public restroom in the park for anonymous gay sex anytime he chooses; he just chooses not to right now.

                    4. No I am not. I am just screwing with Tony.

                    5. “No I am not. I am just screwing with Tony.”


  9. At 19, Grimm should have graduated by now. Maybe we should all be focusing a little more on the schoolwork and a little less on pee-pee time.

    1. Some people would consider staying another year around high school girls a fairy tale.

    2. Frankly, I am disappointed in all of you for not making a pun on this kid’s name earlier.

      1. Nice, but you could have added something about body mutilation. The Grimm tales are known for that

      2. I’m not surprised you’re disappointed, you seem to only be capable of terrible “jokes” and basic, uninsightful analysis, I’m not surprised you try to drag every conversation into your wheelhouse.

    3. I believe Grimm did graduate and the school system tried to get the case thrown out on the virtue of being a moot issue. This judge is keeping this case alive.

      1. Because the larger issue is always “how will the treat the next kid”, courts rarely dismiss the case just because some kid graduated. So that part isn’t unusual at all.

        1. Well, it does go towards standing one would think. Although in this case, it appears that since it was filed before graduation that she had standing when it mattered.

          1. Yeah, I haven’t heard of any of these cases getting started after graduation. You gotta file before then.

  10. You know nothing about nothing, Scooter Shacklefraud. My well reasoned response is WARGLEBARGLEGRRRRAAABBBBLLLEEEEEE

    1. Looks like all your other posts.

      1. Oh look, Just Say’n decided to drop in wearing his Tulpa costume. Welcome to the party.

        1. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings with the truth. Please stop crying.

          1. Don’t be sad, little camper. Everyone knows who you are. Now dry those eyes, steady that lip, and be the strong little man we all know you can be.

  11. Hopefully this will help the millions of tranny teens who have been holding it in all these years.

  12. I see the rugged individualist community is taking this slight twist on their conception of reality well. Y’all will do great in your cabins with no society and infrastructure and shit.

    1. Lying and pretending people’s delusions are true is just the price we pay for civilization, right Tony?

      1. Get your own material John.

        And yeah you’re gonna find a laissez-faire liberty maximalist society pretty trying if you can’t handle something as minor and harmless as trans people using the bathroom.

        You are a victim of politicians who know that you’re stupid enough to care about this and ignore the fleecing they’re doing.

        1. “if you can’t handle something as minor and harmless as trans people using the bathroom.”

          Trust Tony to really get to the heart of the matter

        2. This is about all sex segregated facilities and situations, not just bathrooms.

          1. Are you complaining that you don’t get to see naked women in the locker room? I’m still not understanding.

            1. Can you read?

              1. Mickey, no, he cannot.

        3. Tony: I can’t tell if you have kids but if you do or did, would you be ok with your girls having a pre-op boy who thinks he is a girl in the showers with them? Because this isn’t just concepts, there are real people involved.
          Now, if people want to go to nudist colonies, I have no objections, but middle/high schools are not and the people sending their kids there may not want opposite sex showers.

          1. I think communal showers in school are an abomination in the modern world.

            But surely an even more numerous problem would be gay males in male showers and lesbians in female showers. Lots more of those than trans kids. Should we interrogate all students and segregate them accordingly? But then you can’t put the gays all together, they’d just fuck. Obviously we simply must line them up against a wall and shoot them.

            Kids or not, don’t fall into a manufactured moral panic. It doesn’t do anyone any good.

    2. Please explain how segregating facilities like restrooms and common showers base on sex is impermissable discrimination but segregating based on gender identity is permissible.

      The arguments for this are illogical and internally self contradictory.

      1. I don’t know what you’re asking. I’m for a Starship Troopers bathroom world. Actually strike that, I’m for the banishment of all public restrooms to be replaced by private stalls. Not because trans people are gross, but because people are gross.

        1. I am asking you to defend what Grimm is actually asking for.

          Starship Troopers was a realistic take on mixing the sexes, really? Your disregard for women’s privacy is appalling.

          1. Because it means a whole lot of relief for Grimm and costs you absolutely nothing.

            1. Does it cost the boy who has to room with Grimm on overnight school trips because having a room to oneself hurts Grimm’s fragile self-identity?

              1. I gotta say that it seems like getting their own room was the best possible response, so the fact that she threw a shit fit over it proves that she’s not very man-like at all.

              2. Much to your consternation I’m sure, the kids are pretty comfortable with this stuff.

                1. That is so nice of you to assume that for those kids.

                  You still have not made a defense of the legal logic of Grimm’s demands.

                  1. It’s all in this very article. Even as schools are permitted to have sex-segregated facilities, not letting Grimm use the facility that corresponds to his gender identity is sex-based discrimination because it relies on requiring a person to comply with sex-based stereotypes.

                    1. Why is gender identity based discrimination permissable, then?

                    2. Or rather, gender identity based segregation permissable, arguably even required.

                    3. So, you got nothing, Tony?

                    4. And in one fell swoop you make all women’s private spaces and women only sports illegal. Using Title IX.

                      The irony is delicious.

                    5. Isn’t his belief that he “is a woman” based SOLELY on stereotypes, since she has no clue what “feeling like a man” actually is?

                    6. Yes. The belief that some thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are acceptable for only one sex, and that therefore ones thoughts, feelings, and behaviors must comport with the sex-related features of ones body, is called “sexism”. Transgenderism is sexism. Transsexual surgery and drug therapy is the most extreme endorsement and expression of sexism imaginable.

            2. Grimms relief trumps all others.

              1. How do you have a dog in this fight? Visit many school restrooms?

                1. I have two kids in school. What is your fascination?

                  As i have said, if trannyism is real, then homosexuality is not.

                  1. Uh, ok. Actually there are people who like dick and like having a dick at the same time.

                    1. Uh, ok. Actually there are people who like dick and like having a dick at the same time.

                      So, one can change one’s SEX…but not sexuality?

                      Try and grasp how idiotic that “logic” is.

                  2. As i have said, if trannyism is real, then homosexuality is not.

                    That…doesn’t really compute though. Plenty of transgender people still like to fuck their real chromosomal opposite sex, so they’re not gay. They’re, well, delusional.

                    My own opinion is that these people have a warped perception of how people might, say, open doors for a lady but they simply get ignored by everyone so they might really want to be an attractive woman because of the way attractive women are treated. Yet, they might still want to have sex with attractive women.

                    It’s just an armchair theory, and not really worth diddly squat, but there is undoubtedly something wrong with these individual in the same way that you could say there is something wrong with a bi-polar or schizophrenic person.

                    Gay individuals don’t have any illusions about reality, they just enjoy fucking their own sex. No lies, no dissembling, it’s just a sexual preference. You can’t say the same for transgender people.

                    1. In the end, as I told Tony, there is no rational explanation for the changeability of sex itself, but the genetic unchangeability of one’s sexual preference.

                      One of the two is encoded on a GENETIC level. No ifs, ands, or buts. THAT is the one that can change, though.

                      The other one, that is of some mix of nature and nurture…THAT is the one that cannot be altered.

                      It is utterly irrational.

                    2. What sex you’re attracted to seems more or less immutable (except for silly females who sometimes can’t seem to figure it out). What sex you are at a genetic level is also immutable. What people are changing when they transition is their gender expression. It is essentially cosmetic, though they will tell you, and you should believe them, that the desire to be seen as the other gender is as deeply held and immutable as the other things.

                    3. Except they do not know what being the other sex is. They have stereotypes only. And they demand that I lie about what they are.

                      I give no shits what you dress like. But i am not going to be forced to lie.

                    4. The only thing that forces you to be a polite person is social pressure. Be an asshole, see how far it gets you. Not sure why you seem to be boasting about being an asshole though.

                    5. Part of the problem is that Tony is such a retard that he doesn’t understand his own arguments. It’s why there’s usually a point of differentiating gender and sex, and one of the many things Tony doesn’t understand is that only sex is actually protected by Title 9 thus this whole line of reasoning is literally bullshit. You can’t use Title 9 in this way, and if you do you’re breaking the law (or that would be the case in a place that respects the rule of law, anyway).

                      The current way Title 9 is being interpreted in terms of transsexuals self-nullifies Title 9, and you’d need to be a special brand of illiterate fool to say otherwise. You can’t interpret it to both mean that women get their own separate-but-equal sports etc. while also demanding that men be included. And, remember, that Title 9 specifically singles out discrimination on the basis of sex, and that these people have differentiated sex from gender.

                      It’s a semantic nightmare, but that is their argument. That Tony gets this wrong says much about his level of understanding of his own politics. This is something I’ve noted many times.

                    6. I never said the Obama administration interpretation was airtight. I’m just for whatever makes for the most freedom for individuals. Obviously it would be better for the freedom of trans people for laws to clearly protect their right to be free from harassment from assholes like you guys. Thank God there are already laws preventing you from forcing people to take their pants off before you permit them to use the restroom. Dude looks like a dude. Would you really prefer him in the ladies’ restroom?

                    7. Again, tony this isn’t just about bathrooms but about showers/locker rooms in schools. If my gym wants to start doing this, I can choose another gym and I am an adult. Kids have no choice and are minors.

                    8. Gay individuals don’t have any illusions about reality…

                      They didn’t used to, but now Gay boys are being convinced that they are actually girls. “Transgenderism” is growing into a genocide against Gay males.

        2. Actually strike that, I’m for the banishment of all public restrooms to be replaced by private stalls.

          Whatever. Whom do you think should choose urinals vs. toilets, stalls vs. stall-less, stall height, curtains vs. doors, etc.? Owners and financiers or users and bystanders?

          1. I just think society should evolve naturally to be more civilized. We used to shit where we drank. Individual stalls is the logical next step.

          2. Didnt she sue after they offered her individual rooms, etc.

            1. The problem there was that he was the only one with an individual room. They were singling him out for different treatment.

              You don’t have to agree with the case to understand the distinctions being made.

              1. Grimm is biologically female and had unaltered female physiology while claiming to feel like a boy. Grimm was different. If there was an overnight function that had girls abd only one boy, would the boy be considered singled out different treatment if he wss the only one who had his own room?

  13. Identity is bullshit. You are only the sum of your actions. I would make one tiny exception though. If you want to use force and the state to bend everyone to your will, you identify as an asshole.

  14. Does Grimm have a dick that can get erect and balls that make semen? No?

    Then Grimm is a female and I don’t care how many times Shackford says “him” or “he”. I refuse to not say that the emperor has no clothes.

    1. Lots of wounded warriors lose their genitals, you know. Do they turn into women? Want to tell that to their face?

      Why do you hate our troops?

      1. But if you deliberately have your junk cut off, that DOES turn you into a woman?

        1. If that’s what you want to happen. It’s just a word after all.

          1. When you close your eyes, are you invisible?

  15. I wonder if Hooters can be forced to hire Chuck Schumer once he retires from his day job. He’s got the moobs for the job.

  16. Let us be clear about what it means to share locker rooms: a to-all-appearances girl (who thinks she is a boy) is allowed to get naked with the boys and shower with them. Most boys may not object to this but if the law is that sending a dick-pic in high school will get you expelled and put on the sex offender list, then why is actually showering with the opposite sex ok? If the girl can shower with the boys why does she need to wear clothes to school at all? Why not go naked? Please give me a clear dividing line here, those of you who say “live and let live” on this issue.

    1. Most public schools have already dealt with that particular issue by simply eliminating showering at school, except perhaps for team athletes.

      1. “most public schools”–data please? That is not my impression and especially not in at least one of the trans student cases, where boys were confronted by a girl in their locker rooms.

    2. Seriously.

      Personally I don’t mind having some tranny in the bathroom with me. I go to a freaky deaky club sometimes where this happens.

      However I am a proper adult, going to a private location where I know this happens. I am all for private places doing as they wish.

      As a KID in school, I think even that might have been a little uncomfortable, kids being all awkward and weird about a lot of stuff. But I KNOW it would have been super weird to have somebody of the opposite sex getting naked in the locker room.

      Frankly, I don’t know why all these weirdos think society has to cave to their whims. Trans are like .5% of the population TOPS, perhaps far less than that. I know some, and am friends. They’re nice people, but obviously a little mixed up. But why should 99.5% of the population have to cater to their whims? What ever happened to telling weirdos they have to deal with being weirdos and not getting their way?

      Once you go down this route it can get insane quick, which is where I think we are now. Should people be able to be nude in any public space, despite that the overwhelming majority of people would not prefer this? If they can be naked in ANY public space, does that include standing outside a Pre School? If it does, does that mean we have to respect their wishes if they wish to masturbate outside such school when class is getting out???

      1. There’s technically no HARM being done to anyone. Victimless crime and all. So why not let the guy rub one out??? It’s an affront to that dirty old mans rights if we don’t allow him to rub one out while watching the 4 year old girls get picked up by their parents!

        This, to me, is why you have to have SOME acceptance of the “average” preferences for the majority of the population. Catering to a 49% majority may be reasonable if it’s not too absurd a request… But catering to a .5% minority may not be. It’s all a bit fuzzy of course, but there must be a line somewhere…

        This is where being REASONABLE should come into play. The VERY UGLY girl should accept that she’s an odd ball, and that’s it’s not unreasonable for 99.5% of the population to not want to accommodate her request. Offering the private stall would be a reasonable proposal to a reasonable person. But that’s not good enough apparently.

  17. IN OTHER NEWS: The gay/tranny issue may be taking care of itself!

    I read awhile back that the self reported number of gay men is actually in rapid decline in the USA and Europe. The theory is that they are breeding themselves out of existence. In the past most gay men probably got married and reproduced, hence passed on their “gay genes” to future generations. As the ability to be openly gay has been made available to them, far fewer of them are choosing to have children, hence killing off the average prevalence of gay genes.

    Obviously they won’t all not breed, and gay gene potential is floating around in many straight people (I have a gay uncle, so presumably have the potential to pass those genes on at random to my kids, but probably far less of a chance than if my uncle had had kids since he actively expressed the genes.), but the percentages will likely decrease with time. IIRC the percent of gay men has dropped by about 20% in the last few decades alone in the USA.

    I found this information most interesting. I keep forgetting to bring it up with my gay friends though, might make an interesting conversation!

    Trans people likely fit the same bill, so may well make themselves a .1% minority within a few generations. Problem solved by letting them “do them” I suppose!

    1. Link or it didn’t happen. If Pat Robertson is the source, I get $5.

      1. Tony, I tried, but it was a really random thing I came across. My Google-Fu has failed me! I could only find a couple small things that reference some of the same info: special-post-the-decline-of-male-homosexuality/ born-this-way.html

        The other thing I saw broke down numbers better, but the 1st post there the guy shows that fertility is vastly lower for gay men, as one would assume, and how it has dropped by birth year. The 2nd link shows, almost perfectly in coordination with the lowering birth rates from the people born in the 40-60s, that their children are showing a far lower rate of homosexuality. His little controlled for age figure could show as much as a 25% drop in the number of gay men over just a couple decades, 4.6% versus 6%. If trends continue, and gay men have half or fewer as many children as straight men, it could cut the number of gays in half within the next couple decades.

        As I said the random thing I stumbled across before had either these figures, or similar ones, and also others. He also went through and explained/analyzed things a bit.

        It makes perfect sense though. If all people with red hair stopped having kids, the number of gingers would go down. There is no reason to assume homosexuality genes are not passed on just like every other kind of genes.

    2. I suspect part of the explanation is that many Gay boys and young men are now calling themselves “trans” or one of the other 57 “genders”. “Gay” is so 20th century.

      1. The way the stats I saw were broken down I don’t think that would be it. But I would imagine there is a lot more variation within “gays” now than in the past! Begin a regular old gay white man literally makes you part of the patriarchy in some corners nowadays!

  18. Why was this not dismissed as moot? At 19, it seems highly unlikely that the plaintiff is still part of the school district.

    While aging out does not automatically moot a case, it does usually trigger a second level of legal evaluation which requires that the case be one where the defendant could effectively evade review because any future plaintiff would also automatically age out. In this case, it seems that the change in Justice Departments was the driving factor in the change, not the plaintiff’s age.

  19. How is this still going on. Grimm has left the school and so isn’t it moot? Does he still have standing? see: /standing

    “The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

    “… It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.