Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Bullying

The New York Times Implausibly Implicates Oklahoma's Bathroom Law in the Death of a Nonbinary Student

Don’t let culture war politics overwhelm a commitment to the facts.

Jacob Sullum | 2.22.2024 1:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Nex Benedict | Sue Benedict
Nex Benedict (Sue Benedict)

Nex Benedict, a 16-year-old Oklahoma student who identified as nonbinary and preferred they/them pronouns, died on February 8, a day after a fight at Owasso High School. It is unclear whether the injuries that Nex suffered in the fight contributed to their death. But in a story published on Wednesday, The New York Times implicitly blames the altercation on an Oklahoma law that requires students to use restrooms that correspond with the sex "identified on the individual's original birth certificate." Details that the Times omitted cast doubt on that framing, which The Independent also pushed in a story headlined "Oklahoma Banned Trans Students From Bathrooms. Now a Bullied Student Is Dead After a Fight."

Nex, whose given name was Dagny, was biologically female, and the fight happened in a girls' bathroom, where Nex and another student reportedly were assaulted by "three older female students." Although Nex apparently was bullied for identifying as nonbinary, it looks like the location of the fight was incidental.

That is not the impression left by the Times story. "Anti-Trans Policies Draw Scrutiny After 16-Year-Old's Death in Oklahoma," says the headline. The subhead adds that "the student, who did not identify as male or female, according to their family, died a day after an altercation in a school bathroom." The story is illustrated by a photo of transgender rights activists during a 2023 demonstration at the Oklahoma Capitol. "Under state law," the caption notes, "students must use the bathroom that aligns with their birth gender."

Even though that is what Nex was doing at the time of the fight, the second paragraph again cites the law as if it explains the altercation: "Under an Oklahoma law passed in 2022, students must use the bathrooms that align with their birth gender." The next paragraph notes that the fight happened "in a girls' bathroom at Owasso High School" but does not acknowledge that Nex was complying with the bathroom law, perhaps because that would require acknowledging Nex's "birth gender." Although that information is clearly relevant in this context, the story does not mention it at all.

Reporters J. David Goodman and Edgar Sandoval return to the subject of state policy later in the story:

The death renewed scrutiny of anti-transgender laws passed in the state and rhetoric by Oklahoma officials, including the state superintendent for education, Ryan Walters, whose agency has been forceful in trying to bar what it calls "radical gender theory" in schools.

"It's dangerous," Mr. Walters said in a video made by the agency last year. "It puts our girls in jeopardy."

The video highlighted a fight in a bathroom the previous year in which, according to a lawsuit, a female student was "severely" injured in a fight with a transgender student.

Advocates for nonbinary and transgender students said that the state's policy on gender and bathrooms had led to more reports of confrontations in schools.

"That policy and the messaging around it has led to a lot more policing of bathrooms by students," said Nicole McAfee, the executive director of Freedom Oklahoma, which advocates for transgender and gay rights. Students who do not present themselves as obviously male or female find themselves questioned by other students, they said. "There is a sense of, 'do you belong in here?'"

The cause of Nex's death remains unclear. The New York Post reports that Sue Benedict, Nex's grandmother and guardian, said Nex fell and hit their head during the bathroom fight.* The Post also quotes the mother of the other victim, who reported seeing the assailants "beating her head across the floor." But according to a statement that the Owasso Police Department posted on Facebook yesterday, preliminary autopsy findings indicate that Nex "did not die as a result of trauma." The statement adds that "toxicology results and other ancillary testing results" are still pending and "the official autopsy report will be available at a later date."

Nex was examined at Bailey Medical Center the day of the fight and released that night. After coming home, Sue Benedict told the Times, Nex "complained of a sore head." The next day, "Nex collapsed at home and was rushed to the hospital." In an interview with KWGS, the NPR station in Tulsa, on Tuesday, Benedict complained that "school staff didn't call an ambulance" and that "medical professionals performed a cursory exam before discharging Nex." But Benedict also said "she is not certain yet how much [the] altercation contributed to Nex's death."

Whatever the cause of death, the case raises troubling questions about the response to the fight. "Students were in the restroom for less than two minutes and the physical altercation was broken up by other students who were present in the restroom at the time, along with a staff member who was supervising outside of the restroom," the Owasso Public Schools (OPS) said in a statement issued on Tuesday. "Once the altercation was broken up, all students involved in the altercation walked under their own power to the assistant principal's office and nurse's office."

What happened next? "Physical altercations between students are unacceptable," OPS said. "Any student/s engaging in such action, jeopardizing the safety of others, will receive disciplinary consequences. These consequences can include out-of-school suspension for a first offense. Due to federal privacy laws, we are unable to disclose the exact nature of disciplinary action taken against any student." But Sue Benedict told The Independent that school officials "informed her Nex was being suspended for two weeks."

Under "district protocols," OPS said, "the parents/guardians of students involved in a physical altercation are notified and informed of the option to file a police report should they choose. Should they choose to file a police report, school resource officers are made available to the parents/guardians either at that time or they can schedule an appointment, if they choose, at a later date. These practices were followed during this incident."

The afternoon of the fight, police say, "an Owasso School Resource Officer was assigned to respond to Bailey Medical Center where Nex Benedict was being examined. The School Resource Officer interviewed Nex and their parent concerning the altercation at the Owasso High School. The following morning, the School Resource Officer followed up with the parent." That same day, "Owasso Fire Department medics were dispatched to a medical emergency involving Nex Benedict, who was transported to the St. Francis Pediatric Emergency Room where they later died."

Police said they were "conducting a very active and thorough investigation of the time and events that led up to the death of the student." As of Tuesday, the Post says, "it remained unclear" whether Nex's assailants "would face charges."

More generally, the incident raises questions about Owasso High School's response to  bullying. An OPS spokesman told the Times that "students who identified as transgender or nonbinary would be treated 'with dignity and respect, just like all students.'" But Sue Benedict said Nex had been repeatedly harassed by other students at school. "The Benedicts know all too well the devastating effects of bullying and school violence," the family said in a statement, "and pray for meaningful change wherein bullying is taken seriously and no family has to deal with another preventable tragedy."

Did Oklahoma's policies encourage such violence? Goodman and Sandoval clearly think so. "In addition to the bathroom law," they note, "Oklahoma passed a ban on gender-transition care for minors last year. And in 2022, the state was among the first in the nation to explicitly prohibit residents from using gender neutral markers on their birth certificates." They also think it is relevant to note that "the state education agency" recently appointed "Chaya Raichik, who runs Libs of TikTok, an account on X that has posted anti-gay and anti-transgender content, to serve on the agency's Library Media Advisory Committee, which reviews the appropriateness of school library content."

The implication is that state policies are reinforcing the intolerance from which Nex suffered. Maybe. But anyone who has attended high school can testify that teenagers do not need official encouragement to pick on students they see as different. And in this case, the bathroom law that the Times repeatedly highlights seems like a red herring.

*CORRECTION: This sentence has been revised to reflect updated information about Sue Benedict's relationship to Nex.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Jen Psaki and Nancy Pelosi Push a Conspiracy Theory About Trump and Putin

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

BullyingGender IdentityGenderLGBTToleranceViolencePublic schoolsPoliceOklahomaCriminal JusticeNew York TimesJournalismMedia Criticism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (356)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Minadin   1 year ago

    "It is unclear whether the injuries that Nex suffered in the fight contributed to their death."

    It's not unclear. The NYT is double-lying.

    https://nypost.com/2024/02/22/us-news/nonbinary-student-nex-benedicts-death-was-not-caused-by-injuries-from-school-fight-police/

    "The death of 16-year-old nonbinary student Nex Benedict was not caused by injuries sustained in a fight in a school bathroom the day before, authorities said Wednesday.

    A preliminary autopsy report by the medical examiner’s office indicated the Oklahoma teen did not die from trauma, Owasso police said."

    " . . . further comments on the cause of death are currently pending until toxicology results and other ancillary testing results are received"

    It appears that it was a possible OD or suicide.

    1. Beezard   1 year ago

      So you’re sayin there’s still a chance they can milk this into a #TransFloyd event?

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        The narrative is set. They will milk it regardless of changing facts.

        1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

          They will milk it regardless of changing facts whether or not the nipples are attached to a man.

          FTFY

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Gross but fair.

            1. Rob Misek   1 year ago

              The tragedy is the woke cheerleading for mental illness.

              People are either binary or disordered.

              Get over it.

      2. Dillinger   1 year ago

        >>#TransFloyd event?

        careful with that axe, Eugene.

    2. Illocust   1 year ago

      Interesting thing in the NY post article is the texts where she tells a friend the reason she got 'jumped' was because she threw water onto one of the girls. Seems kind of important that she started the fight.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

        Not to mention the fact that trannys consider anything less than performative celebration of their mental illness to be "bullying."

        1. mad.casual   1 year ago

          Not to mention that female non-binary specifically indicates trying to deliberately miscue this sort of situation, in the moment, with the intent to play it to their advantage after the fact.

          1. Stuck in California   1 year ago (edited)

            Oh, geez. The trans community activists would NEVER do a thing like that.

            I mean, they would never, ever, use something for outrage.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Yeah, the ones I've run into like to get in your face and try to provoke you into saying or doing something they can misconstrue and abuse you with.

          Like the joke about Vegans. How do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you within a few minutes of meeting them. Same with the sexual freaks.

      2. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        the reason she got ‘jumped’ was because she threw water onto one of the girls.

        Transphobes hate that.

      3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        Well according to the article she was suspended by the school so they apparently believed she was an antagonist and not a victim in the altercation. That may or not be true but it looks like the story is more complicated than her mother would like.

        1. MasterThief   1 year ago

          They have zero tolerance rules. Even if you get jumped the standard practice is to discipline you if you did anything to fight back. It wasn't quite as bad when I was in school, but they threatened to suspend me after I was attacked at my locker (in fairness, I had been running my mouth beforehand)

          1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            I was in high school in the 80s. Pretty much the same deal. A kid punched me in the back in Geometry class. I picked up a chair and hit him with it. They wanted to suspend me for a week and the other kid would get nothing. My dad went in and yelled at the principle and got it 3 days suspension for each of us. That kid didn't like me very much after that. But he didn't try any shit.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          The one thing I'll say is that, if she did hit her head, there might have been a chance of an aneurysm, but she wouldn't have died from being concussed.

          We know it wasn't suicide, because the mother would have jumped on that if that was the case, since it ties into the bullying narrative. But the chances she's trying to make her into the Pooner Matthew Shepherd--another case where the facts didn't fit the narrative, but became the cause celebre for gay activism in the 90s--are pretty high.

      4. Vigilant Observer   1 year ago

        It seems that the water-throwing incident was in response to previous bullying.

        Let's not make assumptions about "who is to blame". From where we sit, we cannot possibly suss out the truth of the whole thing.

        1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Statute of limitations on replying to a bullys assault is maybe 15 minutes at best. It's like disciplining a puppy for pooping in the house. If you don't rub it's nose in it right away it does nothing for purposes of training. Either beat the shit out of the bully then and there or get the fuck over it.

      5. MasterThief   1 year ago

        I should have read before commenting. Knew there was more going on, but it doesn't fit the narrative

      6. gck105   1 year ago

        Came to say the same. Sounds like she initiated the confrontation.

    3. mad.casual   1 year ago

      It appears that it was a possible OD or suicide.

      A girl gets bullied by other girls until one of them ODs?

      [crosses arms with barbecue tongs in hand Gillette 'toxic masculinity ' ad-style]

      Girls will be (mostly) girls.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        ^^ people who don't understand playground rules often go to far.

    4. MasterThief   1 year ago

      I do think we need to see the toxicology report before jumping to that conclusion. Too many details of the fight are missing and they strangely avoided a cause of death. Give me a cause of death related to internal injury or concussion and I'll further entertain the theory that the fight was a cause. Give me some indication of prior drug abuse and I'll lean towards an OD. I'll even entertain some sort of accident or exposure to dangerous substances (like CO) as a cause. The missing information and one-sided narrative here suggests to me that she was probably the one who provoked the fight and also that it had nothing to do with her death. Somehow Sullum in trying to check against their misleading narrative crafting has engaged in the same due to his own woke-influenced assumptions

    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      Isn't it just standard operating procedure to perform a toxicology analysis even if there is no suspicion of overdose?

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        No. Ask Mrs. Scalia.

    6. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      I think we cal all agree, when a psycho narcicist dies, society wins

      1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

        Yes, because after that happens, we no longer get Trumpled Underfoot!

      2. I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction   1 year ago

        Is this your suicide note? { finally to be rid of this hideous perverted moral monster !!!]

    7. the_tanstaaflizer   1 year ago

      Jacob Sullum is a discredited Trump supporter that has no business being published here. He's FAR from being rational or a supporter of liberty. Here he shows his right-wing bias by simply ignoring the truth that what adults do and say has a direct impact on what kids do and say. When adults get murderous in their attitudes it rubs off on kids - I've seen it real-time myself when I was that age. I grew up in the Deep South during racism so don't try to tell my differently, I saw it and lived with it. Here Sullum shows he simply hates LGBTQ+ people and is comfortable with trans kids getting beaten up in school and potentially killed.

      Fuck Sullum. End of story.

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        Jacob Sullum is a discredited Trump supporter

        I remember my first beer. Welcome to Reason.com! Read literally anything written by Sullum before this post and it will disabuse you of this notion.

      2. Smith1   1 year ago

        Of course you don't get to decide when it is "End of Story", particularly when you use a logical fallacy to declare the story false,

      3. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago (edited)

        Jacob Sullum is a discredited Trump supporter…

        Were you born yesterday, or did you just discover Reason like 2 minutes ago?

        Jacob Sullum has one of the worst cases of TDS of the entire Reason writing staff. It’s well-known and has been well-documented for years.

        1. Shlomo's Shiksa   1 year ago

          Old-timers know Sullum as a Trayvon-Truther.

      4. R Mac   1 year ago

        There has to be a limit on parody accounts, right?

        1. Minadin   1 year ago

          It's asymptotic, unfortunately.

    8. alconnolly   1 year ago

      "The preliminary autopsy" Was not actually released. And is preliminary. Some cop made a claim about the preliminary autopsy. Cops regularly lie or use deceptive language. For instance a cop could say "indicated" simply becuase there was more than one noted injury or medical issue. That in no way closes the issue. You'l notice no medical professional made any claim. So your use of "lie" on the subject is at least as innacurate as the original report itself that you termed a lie.

    9. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

      It’s not unclear. The NYT is double-lying. … It appears that it was a possible OD or suicide.

      Yeah, this is a pretty clear case of “I can neither confirm nor deny…”/unspoken truth between the lies retardation.

      If her skull, several ribs, several vertebra were all fractured there would be no need for a tox screen to determine what killed her. If she got in the fight, went home and took a bunch of pills to the point that you have to wonder if the fight killed her or not well…

      Maybe there’s a case that the drugs she took beforehand and the drugs she took afterwards as a result of the fight killed her or the drugs she took thinned out her blood to the point that injuries sustained in the fight caused her to hemorrhage fatally. However, still, if you punch me in the head and I go take a borderline lethal stack of warfarin and aspirin that causes me to bleed into my skull and die, you didn’t kill me, the aspirin and warfarin did. Even if you caused the bleeding, you had no idea what drugs I was on or would do subsequently.

      Even with the story as "she fell and hit her head during the fight" it seems evident the fight had little to do with her death.

      Feels an awful lot like we're waiting on the tox screen to determine whether Jackie Coakley was fatally raped through broken glass coffee table.

  2. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    There was no non-binary student because there's no such thing as non-binary.

    "The New York Post reports that Sue Benedict, Nex's mother, said Nex fell and hit their head during the bathroom fight"

    hit HER head. don't succumb to their game sully.

    1. the_tanstaaflizer   1 year ago

      You lying sack of shit.

    2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      "Misgendering" in print can be punished in at least two states I know of. New York and California. There are probably more. Not to mention foreign countries that probably would be allowed to seek damages under the Biden Admin. Thus publications have to play it safe and use the "preferred pronouns" or face large fines.

  3. Mazakon   1 year ago

    ""the student, who did not identify as male or female,"

    Last time I checked, schools usually don't have non-binary/gender-neutral restrooms. So, I'm guessing that absent this restroom law, she would go into whichever restroom was closer.

    1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

      That was my thinking as well, which bathroom would they have been using absent the law?

      1. MasterThief   1 year ago

        One would assume it's still the women's. Less stalls in the men's bathroom and probably way more piss on the seats. Unless the girl used that funnel thing she wasn't using a urinal.

    2. gck105   1 year ago

      People need to stop the charade. You can't choose male or female. I don't care what clothes you wear, but you can't change the facts.

      1. the_tanstaaflizer   1 year ago

        Learn something about human biology before you open your mouth and prove beyond any doubt how unintelligent and uninformed you are.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

          We know about human biology and how chromosomes control which sex (there are only two) you are. You are an idiot.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Has biology changed that much since I took it in 1985? At that time there were, in mammals at least, only two genders. Egg carriers and sperm injectors. There were no other options. Fish and frogs had some weird exceptions but they were quite firm on mammals.

  4. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    Yeah, she would never have been bullied in a boys' room. Nobody ever has been bullied in boys bathrooms at school.

    1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

      Truth be told, I'm sure the bullying is much worse in the girls' restroom.

      1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

        Nowadays, you're probably right.

      2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        That’s almost certainly true. Toxic femininity.

        1. Stuck in California   1 year ago

          There is no more cruel human, on average, than a 13 year old mean girl. They will pick at any weakness, are relentless, and try to destroy a rival's entire reputation.

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            Which is weird because seven to nine year old girls are some of the kindest, most compassionate people there are.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Not really. 7-9 year olds aren’t thinking of how to get the alpha males to mate with them. 13 is when those instincts start to develop.

          2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

            I grew up with all sisters, can attest.

          3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            Don't have to add the "mean girl" part. They are all fucking evil. They also don't change much over the next 40 years...

  5. Truthteller1   1 year ago

    You mean to tell me that regime media is a rotting corpse?

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      I have seen the use of the term 'regime' around here before. Where did this come from? This is referring to the government? Why refer to the government as 'regime'?

      1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

        Perhaps you think you can get away with pretending you are that stupid, but I will enlighten bystanders who you confuse.

        "Government" has a secondary meaning of "the people in power" as when they talk of a "government falling" when the prime minister loses a no-confidence vote or an election. This usage is not restricted to parliamentary systems.

        "Regime" refers to the same meaning: the people in power, as opposed to the minor bureaucrats who take phone calls to fill potholes, issue dog licenses, and file forms.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          So why use 'regime' when 'government' has the same meaning? Is it to imply that the government is authoritarian and illegitimate?

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            “Government” has a secondary meaning”

            Doubles down on playing stupid.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Why do you choose to use the word 'regime' when the word 'government' would suffice? What is the additional meaning you wish to convey with the use of the word 'regime' instead?

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                Why do you choose to use "choose" instead of "select" or "pick"?

                Why do you choose to use "use" instead of "utilize"?

                Why do you choose to use the unnecessary "the word" in front of the quoted words "regime" and "government"?

                Why do you choose to use "suffice" instead of "be sufficient"?

                The world does not wonder.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Okay, if you insist, I'll answer your four questions.

                  Why do you choose to use “choose” instead of “select” or “pick”?

                  Because 'choose' is grammatically more correct.

                  Why do you choose to use “use” instead of “utilize”?

                  Because it is less wordy.

                  Why do you choose to use the unnecessary “the word” in front of the quoted words “regime” and “government”?

                  To emphasize that I am referring to the word choice and not the concept to which each word refers.

                  Why do you choose to use “suffice” instead of “be sufficient”?

                  Because it is less wordy.

                  There, happy?

                  1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                    Damn you're a sucker.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Why?

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Why do you think, hmmm?

                    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      Jeff was being retarded on purpose.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I don't understand the point you were trying to make. But whatever. I answered your questions, hope you're happy.

                    5. R Mac   1 year ago

                      You didn’t answer my question.

                2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

                  Most people use contact as a verb. It is not. Make contact. My contact. The contact. That's the proper use.

              2. R Mac   1 year ago

                Was Victoria Nuland part of the government during Trump’s administration?

                Is Obama currently part of the government? Is John Brennan part of the government?

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  I believe the answer to all three of your questions is "no". What is your point?

                  1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                    Four further questions await your insightful reply.

                    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      How many times can a sea lion jump on one breath?

                    2. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      We're about to find out.

                  2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                    His obvious point is that someone can be in a position of power and influence over the government, and therefore part of the regime, even without technically being a government officer.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I'll ask you the same question.
                      How does Obama, now, have power over you?

                    2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      "someone can be in a position of power and influence over the government, and therefore part of the regime, even without technically being a government officer."

                    3. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                      Hey chemjeff radical individualist, your four questions continue waiting. Wassamatta, cat got your tongue?

                  3. R Mac   1 year ago

                    They’re part of the regime.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      So you are referring to people who do not hold formal power yet still have some measure of influence over the government? Okay, fine. But so what? Sure it's easy to imagine that Obama's advice on a particular topic will carry some weight in certain circles. Ultimately though Obama can't do anything with any power. If Obama advises Biden to do something, and Biden does it, that's on Biden for accepting that advice and using his formal power to implement that idea, not on Obama for giving it. What is the point of recognizing these people outside of government?

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Lol. Classic Jeffey.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      How does Obama, now, have power over you?

                    4. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                      Hey chemjeff radical individualist buddy ole boy, those questions are still unanswered.

                    5. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Do you really think Biden is running the executive branch?

                    6. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Well, I don't think any president truly "runs" the executive branch, it is just too big, so every president must necessarily delegate a great deal of authority to advisors. It would not surprise me to learn that Biden has delegated more than most considering his mental state.

                      Do you think Obama (still) runs the executive branch?

                    7. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      To some extent, yes.

                    8. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      How so?

                    9. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Here’s Lying Jeffy pretending he wants to understand a certain perspective, but the rest of the thread shows he really doesn’t.

                    10. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago (edited)

                      No, I do. But you are doing your best to sabotage it.

                      If your definition of 'regime' does not agree with Vernon's, then why not point that out instead?

          2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

            Funny how libertarians might use terms indicating they disdain the government or people in power. It just makes no sense!

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              Why would Jeffy know anything about what libertarians think?

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                What would you know about it?

                1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                    Fine, then your response to me is an ad hominem, insulting me by suggesting that I am not actually a libertarian.

                    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      I just asked a question.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Ha right. It was an insult packaged within a question.

                    3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                      What? Vernon stole one of your tricks, Jeff?

        2. Nazi-Chipping Warlock   1 year ago

          He's not pretending. He's really that stupid.

          1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

            I know, but it's fun to give him an opening to look even stupider.

        3. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

          He's not pretending

      2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        The term 'regime' strongly implies authoritarianism.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Right - a 'regime' in my mind, when referring to a government, implies that it is not just authoritarian but also illegitimate.

          1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            It's always 'regime' change. Never 'democratically elected government' change, or 'dickbags we put into power' change. 'Regime' means bad guys. Them.

            1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

              Bad guys. You.

              Good guys don't remove their opponents from a ballot. Regimes do.
              Good guys don't use political lawfare against their political opponents. Regimes do.
              Good guys don't censor speech. Regimes do.

        2. Minadin   1 year ago

          'Regime' implies order or structure. As it's the root word for regiment.

          For example, someone could have a 'training regime', or a 'health care regime'.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Wasn't gonna say anything. But ill add regime to words sarc doesn't know.

            1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

              At this point, it may be far more productive to make a list of terms Sarc actually understands. It's probably much smaller.

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

            *types "define regime" into google*

            Dictionary
            Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
            re·gime
            /rāˈZHēm,rəˈZHēm/
            noun
            1.
            a government, especially an authoritarian one.
            "ideological opponents of the regime"
            Similar:
            government
            authorities
            system of government
            rule
            reign
            dominion
            sovereignty
            jurisdiction
            authority
            control
            command
            administration
            establishment
            direction
            management
            leadership
            2.
            a system or planned way of doing things, especially one imposed from above.
            "detention centers with a very tough physical regime"

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Add the concept of multiple definitions to the long list of ideas that Jesse, ML, ICP and the rest of the idiots (they know who they are) can't grock.

              1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                "The term ‘regime’ strongly implies authoritarianism."

                Apparently it's you and jeff who don't understand multiple definitions.

              2. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                Did you read your post?

                Multiple definitions. You chose one. Ignored the others. Then accused others of what they meant when it was obvious to everyone else.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                  When talking about governments, the use of the word ‘regime’ is most likely meant as a system or planned way of doing things.

                  Check.

                  Add context to the list of concepts you can't grock.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    So you’re asking us what we mean when we use the word, but then you decide which definition and context we’re using it.

                    In other words, when you guys act like you’re trying to understand why we’re using the word, you’re lying.

                  2. JesseAz   1 year ago

                    And you double down on being wrong.

                    Going great today sarc.

                  3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

                    "Add context to the list of concepts you can’t grock."

                    I guess it would be pedantic to point out that it's "grok", not grock. But since sarcjeff are being pedantic AF in this discussion, it seems fair.

      3. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago (edited)

        Today, Jeff says something stupid, and sarc goes all in to defend it.

        Tomorrow, sarc will say something stupid, and jeff will go all in to defend it.

        Today was Jeff's serve, in a game of ping pong played by idiots.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          They have no tribe!!!!

        2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          What was stupid about it? It is a legitimate question. The word 'regime' has multiple meanings and it is used rather frequently now usually by those on the right. I don't travel in right-wing circles, I don't read their blogs or follow their tweets, so I'm asking what is the deal with the use of this word.

          1. Minadin   1 year ago

            I usually just say 'Administration', myself. But I think it's pretty popular on either side of the aisle to refer to an administration that you don't particularly agree with as a 'regime'.

            It's not inaccurate. I don't recall seeing anyone losing their minds or anything when people referred to the Trump Administration as the 'Trump Regime'.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Do you use the word 'regime' to describe the government when you like the people who are in power?

              No?

              Why is that?

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                You're ass-u-ming he likes any government in power.

            2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              But that is not how many people in this discussion are defining the word 'regime'. They are using it to describe people outside of the administration who have power or influence over the government.

              So I suppose that would be like referring to Sean Hannity as part of the "Trump regime".

              1. Nobartium   1 year ago

                People referred to Limbaugh the same, so again, nothing new.

              2. R Mac   1 year ago

                You think Hannity has more power than Obama?

                Nobody believes that. This is why you’re called Lying Jeffy.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  Well, I picked Hannity for a reason.

                  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/sean-hannity-donald-trump-late-night-calls.html

                  While he was president, Trump and Hannity would talk on the phone nightly, sometimes many times a day. That certainly sounds like influence to me.

                  So why wouldn't Hannity during the Trump presidency meet your standard of 'regime'?

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                  And no I didn't say Hannity has more power than Obama. That was you dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Liar.

                  My claim is that based on the definition you all gave me for 'regime', Hannity would count as part of the 'Trump regime' during Trump's presidency. Seems straightforward to me.

                  But if I'm wrong, please explain why I'm wrong.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Dumb as fuck or dumb on purpose?

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      So when a private citizen has access to the president, to the extent that the two have nightly phone calls, that person should not be considered part of the 'regime' even though that person has way more influence on the president than the vast majority of other private citizens.

                      It is starting to sound like your term of 'regime' only refers to left-leaning people.

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      Subtitle of your link:

                      “Life inside the bunker of Fox News’ resident Trumplegänger”

                      But it gets better from there:

                      The call to the White House comes after ten o’clock most weeknights, when Hannity is over. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Sean Hannity broadcasts live at 9 p.m. on Fox News, usually from Studio J in midtown, where the network is headquartered, but sometimes from a remote studio on Long Island, where he was raised and now lives.

                      All White House phone numbers begin with the same six digits: 202-456. Hannity calls the White House switchboard, a number listed publicly, and reaches an operator. The operator refers to a list of cleared callers, a few dozen friends and family members outside the administration who may contact President Donald Trump through this official channel — among them his adult sons, Eric and Don Jr.; private-equity billionaire Stephen Schwarzman; media billionaire Rupert Murdoch; real-estate billionaire Tom Barrack; Patriots owner and also-billionaire Robert Kraft; and Hannity.

                      The operator then dials the president, who leaves the Oval Office around 7 p.m. and who, by this point in the evening, is almost always by himself on the third floor of the executive residence (the First Lady reportedly sleeps in a separate bedroom). He tells the operator to put Hannity through.

                      Their chats begin casually, with How are yous and What’s going ons. On some days, they speak multiple times, with one calling the other to inform him of the latest developments. White House staff are aware that the calls happen, thanks to the president entering a room and announcing, “I just hung up with Hannity,” or referring to what Hannity said during their conversations, or even ringing Hannity up from his desk in their presence.

                      Trump and Hannity don’t usually speak in the morning, which the president spends alone, watching TV and tweeting. During the first months of the administration in particular, the tweets launched at the beginning of the day landed like bitchy little grenades directed at the programming and personalities that angered him on MSNBC and CNN. “Early on, usually we could count on the president watching Morning Joe first thing, at 6 a.m.,” one White House official told me. “He’d watch an hour of that. Then he’d move on to New Day for a segment or two. Then he’d move on to Fox.”

                      Senior staffers worried about this pattern of behavior: By the time his day was formally under way with the daily intelligence briefing in the Oval Office — scheduled as late as 11 a.m. — the whole world was often thrown off course, wondering whether there were “tapes” of his conversations with a fired FBI director (May 12, 2017, 8:26 a.m.) or if a TV host had been “bleeding badly from a face-lift” at Mar-a-Lago (June 29, 2017, 8:58 a.m.).

                      Yes Lying Jeffy, this story is convincing that Hannity has as much influence as Obama, Nuland, and Brennan.

                      You’re a fucking retard if you believe this. But I don’t think you do, I think you’re a disgusting liar.

                    3. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I never said that Hannity had "as much" influence as Obama, Nuland or Brennan. That is a strawman that you invented.

                      I am willing to believe that Obama, Nuland or Brennan have more influence now than Hannity had on Trump. I am simply pointing out that, I think, Hannity falls under Vernon's definition of the term 'regime'.

                      I am starting to get the impression that 'regime' is a derogatory term that you only apply to the people you don't like, and that even if it applies to a person on your team, you object to the use of the term even if it fits.

                    4. R Mac   1 year ago

                      “and that even if it applies to a person on your team”

                      You just can’t help yourself. It’s pathological.

          2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

            The word ‘regime’ has multiple meanings and it is used rather frequently now usually by those on the right.

            Seriously? "Regime" has regularly been referenced in the news in this exact same context since at least the Vietnam War era. If anything, it has seen fewer references since becoming very overused during the invasion of Iraq when "regime change" was all the rage.

            You seem so very desperate for validation. Maybe you should take a break from Reason.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

              Let me clarify - it seems to be used rather frequently now usually by those on the right to refer to our own government.

              1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

                Geez you're ignorant. I've used it in reference to management at places I've worked. Sportsball players and fans use it to talk about management. It means what it means, and you trying to pretend you don't understand it just makes you look like the fool you are.

    2. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

      jeffsarc now pretending that using the word regime to refer to a US administration is somehow unseemly.

      Just for fun, I went to the WAPO site, and typed the word regime into the search engine, and saw a number of references to the "trump regime" I expect I could get similar results at most sites, left and right.

      Why do you care?

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        I simply find it curious that this term is used so routinely now. I'm asking what is the additional meaning you wish to convey by referring to the government as a 'regime'. That you merely don't like them? That you think they are authoritarian? That you think they are as authoritarian as, say, some third world dictatorship? That you think they are illegitimate?

        1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago (edited)

          This is another example of you pretending to be offended by a common practice, similar to your fake pearl clutching about “dehumanizing language” and “language of genocide.”

          Give us a break.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            I didn't say "offended". That is you projecting onto me what you think I mean.

            1. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

              You didn't say offended, but you acted offended.

              Again, give us a break.

          2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

            I read an article recently that described a phenomenon where if you repeat a word a bunch of times in a row, it will suddenly lose meaning to you. Found it here:

            Words Seem to Lose Their Meaning When We Repeat Them Over and Over. Why?

            I am not saying that has happened to Jeffy. He is just being a disingenuous cunt.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              It’s pretty obvious when they said they wanted to understand why people were using that word they were lying.

              They just don’t like us using it. Kinda like how sarc gets upset when we accurately call out fascism.

              1. R Mac   1 year ago

                Oh, I forgot you’ve been gone for awhile. You missed sarc getting very upset several times when people accurately described fascist actions by the regime.

                1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                  Here is the thread.

                  https://reason.com/2023/12/12/texas-abortion-law-test/?comments=true#comment-10354105

                  One of many.

                  1. R Mac   1 year ago

                    Now they’re doing the same with the word regime. And Lying Jeffy is comparing Obama’s power to Sean fucking Hannity.

                    And you’ll note he ignored “ex” CIA agent Brennan and Victoria Nuland.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      Then you all need to clarify what you mean by 'regime'.

                      Vernon defined it as:

                      “someone can be in a position of power and influence over the government, and therefore part of the regime, even without technically being a government officer.”

                      So it sure seems like Sean Hannity, with his nightly personal phone calls to the president, certainly would count when Trump was president.

                      I'm not saying that Obama or Nuland or Brennan wouldn't count under your definition. I'm asking why Hannity wouldn't count under your definition.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      What influence do you think Obama has over the government right now?

                    3. R Mac   1 year ago

                      You first Lying Jeffy.

                    4. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      What influence do I think Obama has over the government? I don't know. I really don't. I don't keep up with what Obama is doing. All I know is that he still lives in DC. I am sure he probably gives advice and has a perspective that others are willing to listen to.

                      What influence do you think he has?

                    5. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                      I see that there is a recent article in which the Obama people and the Biden people disagree about Biden's re-election strategy.

                      https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/14/biden-obama-2024-00135446

                      Okay, fine. Is this type of thing what you are referring to?

                    6. R Mac   1 year ago

                      If you really can’t understand the difference between Hannity and Obama, Nuland, and Brennan, I don’t know what to tell you.

                      Although I don’t believe you can’t.

              2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

                Sarc is not a facist he just wants the combination of goverment and corporate power!

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          That the people with the power and influence to rule over us through government power are not limited to those who hold government offices.

  6. BYODB   1 year ago

    With the way the story is framed, one wonders if the beatdown this girl would have received in the boys bathroom might have been worse.

    Or were the girls who allegedly beat her to death trans-women? Would would add an additional layer of irony for sure.

    1. mad.casual   1 year ago

      Yeah, funny thing with the LGBTrans stupidity I linked above. Your average 16 yr. old girl would have the decent sense not to splash water and pick a fight with a group of boys in the boys room and the average boy, if a girl accidentally splashed water, and admitted it was accidental, would between politely excuse the issue, profusely apologize for getting in the way of her water, or even encourage more splashing... but butch retards gotta butch retard.

  7. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    This seems more like a school fight that got out of hand, rather than some direct result of a stupid bathroom law.

  8. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

    I'm really sick of these stupid bathroom wars. Why not just have one bathroom? Men, women, trans, nonbinary, whatever, can use it. Have stalls, urinals, open troughs, whatever.

    Only partially joking here.

    1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

      I had to explain the old stadium-style troughs to my wife once. She was mortified.

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        It was worst at Wrigley - they had double-sided troughs at one point.

        1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

          Lol, yep, those are the exact ones I described to her.

        2. Vigilant Observer   1 year ago

          omg that is awful.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            Grow up.

          2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            I think we had those in the barracks when I was in basic at Benning. Maybe it was only in the field training sites. It's been... well... a long time.

        3. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

          That must have been awful. Being a cub fan is the pits, always knowing your inferior to the south siders

    2. Minadin   1 year ago

      We actually have gender-neutral and unisex toilets in existence, and the trans-advocates have made it very clear that these do not meet their demands. They want to go into the other restroom.

      1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

        Remember when the proponents of gay marriage said these things would never happen?

        1. Vigilant Observer   1 year ago (edited)

          Yes, the Slippery Slope.

          Well, I believe that these things *wouldn’t* have happened, outside of a decidedly inorganic/astroturfed “trans movement” being originated and amplified by those with an agenda to demoralize and destabilize our nation.

          Trans folk are not that organized. Most are not wealthy, and much of their day-to-day energy is spent navigating their own personal challenges of health, appearance, interpersonal/social relationships, and survival. No way that they formed a powerful nationwide coalition amongst themselves and “made it happen”.

          If it had been organic, the leaders/originators of that movement would be widely hailed.

          No, someone else has been pushing that cart forward.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Oh here we go. There's a SINISTER PLOT to DESTROY AMERICA using transgender bathrooms as the vehicle of destruction!

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              That's only one small aspect of the war to destroy our society. It just gets lots of press because of the shock value to normal people.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

                Who's the ringleader of the plot? Where are the meetings held?

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  If I thought you were genuinely curious, I’d try to explain it to you. It’s clear you’re not.

                  Stay safe Lying Jeffy!

                2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  Harvard.

            2. R Mac   1 year ago

              TRUST TOP MEN!

      2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

        Well, I can understand that. It probably makes them feel stigmatized that they have to use "that one bathroom". But we all have to compromise a little bit.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Problem with that is that some people still have this silly notion that biology actually matters. Biology! How quaint.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            Problem with that is that some people still have this silly notion that biology actually matters. Biology! How quaint.

            Biology relates to sex. Gender is not sex.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

              If gender isn't sex, then they don't need the reconstructive surgeries or hormone injections.

              1. Smith1   1 year ago

                Excellent point! There is a difference between having different genders and body dysmorphia. Body dysmorphia is a mental disorder (and I do not mean that as a pejorative - it is a disorder in that the "mind" has a disconnect with the "body"). You can be more or less masculine and more or less feminine and fluid in your sexual proclivities - that's gender. Body dysmorphia is something different yet the public parlance has conflated the two.

        2. Think It Through   1 year ago

          we all have to compromise a little bit

          Literally Hitler transphobe.

          1. Vigilant Observer   1 year ago

            Nah.

            "Everyone who disagrees with me is Literally Hitler"

            Shutting down Drag Queen Storytime at your local library is way different than putting people in gas chambers.

            THINK IT THROUGH.

            1. Think It Through   1 year ago

              Where's the sarcasm button?

            2. BJPG   1 year ago

              Shutting down Drag Queen Story time at your local library is way different than putting people in gas chambers.

              Ha! My twin sons' mother and I took the boys to drag queen story time in Ptown frequently when they were kids. Now they play college football and ooze heterosexual masculinity.

              1. R Mac   1 year ago

                And everybody clapped.

              2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                Considering the parents, it's not a surprise they ended up retarded.

              3. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

                Was that before or after you took them to feild trip to pluto?

              4. Azathoth!!   1 year ago

                My twin sons’ mother and I took the boys to drag queen story time in Ptown

                ...aaaaand I think we're done.

              5. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

                College football requires college education. Unless they Doogie Howarded their way into college around ten years old that makes them in their 20s.

                The term "kids" is used for offspring younger than their teens.

                Thus you has Drag Queen Story Hour in "ptown" whatever that is, over 10 years ago? I have a hard time believing that. I may need a link to prove that existed.

                I won't ask you for proof of the twins or their college records.

        3. damikesc   1 year ago

          "But we all have to compromise a little bit."

          I'll bite --- why?

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            Because we all have to coexist on some level in shared public spaces.

            1. damikesc   1 year ago

              You are the one demanding a massive change with no input from others.

              Why should we not just tell you to go fuck off?

              You have to provide a reason for this massive change. You have never once done that.

    3. JeremyR   1 year ago

      Because people will have sex in them.

      Okay, that is true for the male bathrooms in a lot of parks, but it's the main reason they are.

      Beyond that, men can use urinals, women generally can't. You can get like 2 urinals for every toilet, more if they use troughs like in old stadiums

      1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

        more if they use troughs like in old stadiums

        Seriously though, do you know of any modern restroom that has a trough?

        1. JeremyR   1 year ago

          No, but I imagine they are still a viable option where there are a lot of men drinking a lot.

          1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

            We could bring back the vomitorium and solve another problem at the same time.

            1. Minadin   1 year ago

              A vomitorium is an exit to a stadium.

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          There were troughs in the local bars back in the day. Drunks have notoriously poor aim. Of course the urinal stalls have pretty much eliminated any size comparison disputes so that's an improvement.

        3. Minadin   1 year ago

          I saw one in a Zaha Hadid building in Germany.

          1. Ajsloss   1 year ago

            The last time I "saw" one was in an episode of American Dad, wherein Steve asked a stranger why he was standing so close to him, given the length of the trough. To which the gentleman replied, "Oh, I'm the weird one? You haven't peed one drop since I've been watching."

            1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

              The last one I saw was Sun Devil Stadium ~1999.

              1. Dillinger   1 year ago

                still there for the 2004 Fiesta Bowl ...

              2. damikesc   1 year ago

                Williams-Brice Stadium (S Carolina Gamecocks) had them as recently as 2005.

                1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

                  They should put a trans bathroom in the Gamecocks stadium and just have the sign on the door read, "Girlcocks."

    4. John Rohan   1 year ago

      People use shorthand "bathroom" but the bigger issue are actually locker rooms and open showers in schools.

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        Women have a need and a right to have single-sex spaces where they can be together, even those that have nothing to do with elimination or disrobing. Men pretending to be women need to be kept out of those spaces.

    5. Bertram Guilfoyle   1 year ago

      Perhaps because women don't want to be ogled by men?

  9. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    The New York Times lying is not news.
    It is the ordinary course of events.

  10. Public Entelectual   1 year ago

    " It is unclear whether the injuries that Nex suffered in the fight contributed to their death. "

    Another victory in the war against grammar.

    1. Longtobefree   1 year ago

      Grammar is racist.

    2. BJPG   1 year ago

      Grammar lesson compliments of Merriam Webster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/nonbinary-they-is-in-the-dictionary)

      We recently announced the addition of the nonbinary use of they—that is, they as it's used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary—and a lot of people had some questions, "why?" being primary among them.

      The answer to that question is no different than it is for any other word. All new words and meanings that we enter in our dictionaries meet three criteria: meaningful use, sustained use, and widespread use. Nonbinary they has a clear meaning; it's found in published text, in transcripts, and in general discourse; and its use has been steadily growing over the past decades. English speakers are encountering nonbinary they in social media profiles and in the pronoun stickers applied to conference badges. There's no doubt that it is an established member of the English language, which means that it belongs in Merriam-Webster's dictionaries.

      Nonbinary they takes a plural verb, despite its singular referent, which can make the grammatically conservative uncomfortable. It's helpful to remember that the pronoun you was initially plural, which is why it too takes the plural verb even when it's referring to a single person. "You are" has, of course, been perfectly grammatical for centuries, even when the "you" is an individual.

      The language's lack of an exclusive gender-neutral pronoun is a famous deficit, and they has been quite ably filling in for more than 600 years. Its use largely goes unnoticed in such constructions as "No one has to use it if they don't want to"—a use that has long been covered in our dictionaries—and it's quite possible that the nonbinary they is headed for a similarly unremarkable fate.

      1. R Mac   1 year ago

        Yes, we know you cultural Marxists like to change definitions.

      2. Stuck in California   1 year ago

        Geez fuck, whose sock puppet is this?

        I mute the trolls for a reason, then I don't bother them. They should just stick to their name and remain a grey bar.

  11. Jerry B.   1 year ago

    Apropos of nothing, there’s a hotel in Louisville (can’t remember the name) where the lobby men’s restroom has the urinals mounted on a one way mirror wall, looking out into the lobby. Pretty good test of your self confidence.

    1. defaultdotxbe   1 year ago

      Until someone unexpectedly turns off all the lights in the lobby and people realize one way mirrors are really one way at a time mirrors

    2. mad.casual   1 year ago (edited)

      A number of regional (Mid-Western-ish) sports bars, some I believe partially-owned by Jerome Bettis, have a habit of making the mirror behind the bar one-way glass so that you can stand at the urinals, in the bathroom behind the bar, and still watch the game(s).

  12. Quo Usque Tandem   1 year ago

    I read the NYT morning briefing every day just to see how whacked out (biased) they are. It is beyond Pravda and I’m amazed that anyone is dumb enough to believe what they print.

  13. Dillinger   1 year ago

    chicks ...

  14. JeremyR   1 year ago

    One also has to wonder if she was driven to this by being named after an Ayn Rand character

  15. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

    At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the child pictured above is obviously a female human being. A creature commonly referred to as a girl in the English language. When discussing these creatures in the third person the language provides popular universal pronouns to describe them. She/her. The language also provides pronouns for more than one individual and when referring to individuals whose gender is unknown, they/them. There is no question about the gender of the child in the photo. She is a girl. The transgender cult insists that we participate in their dishonesty. Sorry. I'm a conscientious objector.

  16. John Rohan   1 year ago

    "The New York Post reports that Sue Benedict, Nex's mother, said Nex fell and hit their head during the bathroom fight"

    Were two people attacked in the bathroom?

    Why is the author using these ridiculous plural pronouns?

    1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

      Merriam Webster answers your question:

      A Note on the Nonbinary 'They' (It's now in the dictionary.)

      (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/nonbinary-they-is-in-the-dictionary)

      We recently announced the addition of the nonbinary use of they—that is, they as it's used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary—and a lot of people had some questions, "why?" being primary among them.

      The answer to that question is no different than it is for any other word. All new words and meanings that we enter in our dictionaries meet three criteria: meaningful use, sustained use, and widespread use. Nonbinary they has a clear meaning; it's found in published text, in transcripts, and in general discourse; and its use has been steadily growing over the past decades. English speakers are encountering nonbinary they in social media profiles and in the pronoun stickers applied to conference badges. There's no doubt that it is an established member of the English language, which means that it belongs in Merriam-Webster's dictionaries.

      Nonbinary they takes a plural verb, despite its singular referent, which can make the grammatically conservative uncomfortable. It's helpful to remember that the pronoun you was initially plural, which is why it too takes the plural verb even when it's referring to a single person. "You are" has, of course, been perfectly grammatical for centuries, even when the "you" is an individual.

      The language's lack of an exclusive gender-neutral pronoun is a famous deficit, and they has been quite ably filling in for more than 600 years. Its use largely goes unnoticed in such constructions as "No one has to use it if they don't want to"—a use that has long been covered in our dictionaries—and it's quite possible that the nonbinary they is headed for a similarly unremarkable fate.”

      1. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

        Fancy english professors are now pushing that black people should absolutely be (B)lack people.

        The christian moral majority was replaced with what is postmodern woke PC culture. All the experts agree on all kinds of stupid shit. Its up to you to decide if wearing shoes on your hands or drinking with your ass unstead of your mouth is prudent because some mental freaks rose to power and a bunch of experts agreed with them to virtue signal. If the mob is telling you water is in fact not wet and they have 1000 experts drinking that kool aid, its up to you to parse out that they are retarded and it is in fact wet.

        1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Fancy english professors are now pushing that black people should absolutely be (B)lack people.

          Cruel irony, as English professors should be the ones pointing out that that the word black is very poor descriptor and completely unnecessary in most cases.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            As concerns North America, I disagree. Here, "Black" refers to an actual subculture, a sub-nationality, created and maintained by slavery and segregation. I don't begrudge them a capital B.

            1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

              Your confusing black with nigger

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

              1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                No, I'm not.

        2. BJPG   1 year ago

          Wow. I completely missed the news about the hand shoes and the ass drinking.

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            If you get your way, I guarantee you’ll be against the wall before I am.

      2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how people currently use words. If enough people use a term in a way that is incorrect or nonsensical, that usage will enter the dictionary.

        1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Yeah, like using vaccine to describe an injectable that does nothing to prevent a viral infection.

          1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            Airborne Fizzy Tablets are a vaccine now. They should add that to the label. It would sound better than a teacher got tired of getting colds when they flew.

        2. BJPG   1 year ago

          Yup, and the meaning evolves and that's how it is with language. Dictionaries don't cause the meanings of words to evolve, people do that.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            And sometimes, the people are wrong, and a term "evolves" into something incorrect or nonsensical, that is subject to legitimate disagreement and criticism.

          2. R Mac   1 year ago

            You commies aren’t really people.

          3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

            Yes, thus a language devolves into nonsense. Decimate as a synonym for devastate is a good example of that devolution. I've had some idiots claim that "could care less" means the same as "couldn't care less" because language evolves.

        3. John Rohan   1 year ago

          Can confirm. The word "ain't" is even in the dictionary.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t

        4. Azathoth!!   1 year ago

          Dictionaries were descriptive, now they're prescriptive.

          FTFY

  17. XM   1 year ago

    Say, did you guys hear the story about how the Lakewood trans shooter had a Palestine sticker on the gun? That he / she put antisemitic rants on social media, including a not so veiled threat to shoot pro Israel demonstrators with the very gun used in the church shooting?

    But wait a minute. What happened? Where's the media outcry on the squad and the pro Jihad Harvard kids for their violent rhetoric? Why do women's group remain silent on Palestinian Shrek voting "present" on condemning Hamas rape.

    How strange. It's almost as if the media biased, and the left only cares about "equity" or "diversity" for only SOME group of people. You learn new things every day.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago (edited)

      The left is completely unabashed about having different standards for different people. They make no pretense about everyone being equal. That’s why they demand “equity” rather than equality.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

        When you marginalize everyone else, then the left is actually the center. See how that works?

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          That's not an exaggeration, either--it's what Kimberle Crenshaw promoted in "Mapping the Margins."

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      How dare you!

      Our official state religion tells us that all gun bullet shooter types are MAGA white males indulging their primitive urges for genocide. It is entirely proper for NYT, WAPO and other church newsletters to keep our narratives pure.

  18. BJPG   1 year ago

    "The implication is that state policies are reinforcing the intolerance from which Nex suffered. Maybe."

    This sums it up nicely, and everything that came before it is biased speculation beyond the level of any similar alleged bias in the NYT or the Independent. Kids will be kids, yes, and they get into fights at times. When adults (politicians, school boards, state legislators) behave badly by passing laws that silence the voices of families (children and parents) that are experiencing medically documented gender non-conformance (not sex non-conformance), in order to allay the irrational fears of the ignorant, it goes without saying that your average school-girl/boy bully gets new material to work with, and new innocents to victimize.

    The toxicology this writer refers to in an effort to infer that the deceased child may have been an illicit drug user is despicable wishful thinking.

    To the commenter who suggested that Nex started the fight because they threw water at another student, where, exactly, were you standing when you confirmed that water being thrown was the very first action or statement leading to the fight.

    Google "gender vs. sex." One's gender is in their brain; one's sex is in their pants. Good news: Though trans hate is the new right-wing wedge issue. It'll certainly fade away just as the same sex marriage issue did. Then we can get back to being communities of kindness, acceptance, and equity until some politician offers up the next wedge to divide us for political gain.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      >>trans hate is the new right-wing wedge issue.

      projection always easier than amateurjection.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        Trust me, but feel free to verify. Start here if you like: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/transgender-people-gop-candidates-find-latest-wedge-issue-rcna17933

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Sure, the "right" wing is the part of our society doing the most wedging and dividing. But you be you.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            You're right. And, thanks for the permission to be myself.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

              Liars gotta lie.

        2. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Yes, shitlibs don't like it when they're insane theology is resisted.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

      When adults (politicians, school boards, state legislators) behave badly by passing laws that silence the voices of families (children and parents) that are experiencing medically documented gender non-conformance (not sex non-conformance), in order to allay the irrational fears of the ignorant, it goes without saying that your average school-girl/boy bully gets new material to work with, and new innocents to victimize.

      Oh come on. I seriously doubt that a fight in the bathroom is motivated by some stupid bathroom law. Your claim is basically projecting adult politics onto these kids. Yes the bathroom laws are stupid, but sometimes a fight is just a fight.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        Sometimes a fight is just a fight, but in this case, a student lost their life. I agree with you that these bathroom laws are stupid (thanks for saying so). You don't think that parents political biases filter down to their kids, and if trans people are being talked about negatively at home that kids inclined to bully wouldn't bring it into school? Similar to the fact that adolescent school mass murderers typically have "gun enthusiasts" for parents.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          Sure it is possible that these kids got into a fight over political disagreements about the bathroom law, or because the bathroom law triggered some bigoted response in kids. But I think it is FAR more likely that they got into a fight over petty kid things, like about 99% of the fights involving kids.

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Similar to the fact that adolescent school mass murderers typically have “gun enthusiasts” for parents.

          Cite? Because that is almost certainly pulled straight out of your ass.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            The most striking similarity between school shooters is the early use of antidepressant drugs.

          2. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

            Cite?

            PROTECTING AMERICA’S SCHOOLS
            A U.S. SECRET SERVICE ANALYSIS
            OF TARGETED SCHOOL VIOLENCE

            https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/Protecting_Americas_Schools.pdf

            (Page 22) FIREARM ACQUISITION: From the Home: Nineteen attackers (76%) acquired a firearm from the home of a parent or another close relative. In half of the firearms cases (n = 12, 48%), evidence indicates the firearm was either readily accessible, or it was not secured in a meaningful way. For example, some firearms had been kept locked in accessible wooden or glass cabinets, locked in vehicles, or hidden in closets. In four cases (16%), the firearms were kept in more secured locations, but the attacker was still able to gain access to them. In these instances, the firearms were secured in a locked gun safe or case, but the attackers were able to gain access to them because they knew the combination or where the keys were kept, or they were able to guess the password or combination. In three cases, it is unknown if the firearm had been secured.

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              So you're saying all firearm owners are "gun enthusiasts"?

              1. BJPG   1 year ago

                Did I?

                :::Checking:::

                Nope. I didn't say that.

                1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  Yes, you did.

                  "Similar to the fact that adolescent school mass murderers typically have “gun enthusiasts” for parents."

                  Then you cited this:

                  "Nineteen attackers (76%) acquired a firearm from the home of a parent or another close relative."

                  1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

                    No, I never said “all firearm owners are ‘gun enthusiasts.'” You quoted what I said and it wasn’t that.

                    > I’ll change “enthusiasts” to “owners,” (though I’ve never been a gun owner precisely because I’ve never been enthusiastic about such ownership). If more than 3/4 of adolescent school mass murderers obtained their gun(s) from a parent or another close relative, I’d say that qualifies as “typical.”

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Well if you can't trust Google...

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        Good point. Search it in Duck Duck Go.

        1. R Mac   1 year ago

          Well if you can’t trust Microsoft…

    4. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      Agreed. The "trans" nonsense is a passing fad that will fade away.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        ^ What folks said about the push for legal same sex marriage, legal recreational marijuana use, women voting and having credit cards in their own name, and the Black civil rights movement.

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          Names? Cites?

    5. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      "gender non-conformance" has been around like...forever? It doesn't need to be medically documented. Throughout human history there have been great grandmas who were tomboys as a child and great grampas who played with dolls. Nobody freaked out about. This girl claims to be non binary a category of human being being that only happens in the event of chromosomal abnormalities. But she still has her sex in her pants. Glad to hear that. We can like it or not but our biology precedes us by millennia and the biological clock is a much more powerful force than gender dysphoria or social contagion. It's likely that if this girl's illusions were not indulged by the adults in her life she'd be figuring out how to be an adult woman and would probably have succeeded. In any case we don't know if her delusions had anything to do with the fight or her ultimate death. What we do know is that the transgender cult is eager to exploit this tragedy to promote their agenda.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        "This girl claims to be non binary a category of human being being that only happens in the event of chromosomal abnormalities."

        Wait. Are you talking about intersex? 'One of these things is not like the other.' There's actually a definition for 'non-binary.'

        1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   1 year ago

          Just because it is defined does not mean it isn't imaginary. I can find a definition of a unicorn. I will never be a unicorn.

          The person in question was a girl. She identified sexually as non-binary. Which is fine, and probably completely irrelevant.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            The person in question was a girl. She identified sexually as nonbinary. Which is fine, and probably completely irrelevant.

            The person in question was (allegedly) assigned female at birth as a result (presumably) of possessing female genitalia. Their sex at birth was declared by an obstetrician to be female.

            Nex identified their gender as nonbinary (not fully a girl and not fully a boy or possibly even no gender at all) from their core beliefs and feelings about their identity. Nex's core beliefs about their identity may have changed as they matured. Nex may have eventually concluded that they were a trans man and might have abandoned they/them pronouns for he/him/his, or they may have ultimately identified as a cis woman and adopted she/her/hers—or they may have identified as nonbinary indefinitely. This is internal to Nex and it has absolutely no relationship to what anyone else thinks based on their rigid embrace of the gender norms of Western society or their intrusive demands that everyone in Western society follow them.

            Whatever Nex may have ultimately decided, Nex would have always known that their sex was female, but that would be irrelevant because in a free society Nex can decide how to physically present in public: what name to be known as, what clothing to wear, what mannerisms to employ, and what affirming surgical procedures to undergo.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago (edited)

              Having used the fake term “cis,” everything else you’ve typed can summarily be ignored, troon.

              Dagny wasn't "assigned" as anything, actual human biology created her that way.

              1. BJPG   1 year ago

                Having used the fake term “cis,” everything else you’ve typed can summarily be ignored, troon.

                — Cis: An actual word in the dictionary.
                — Troon? Are you a golfer, "Red?"

                Dagny wasn’t “assigned” as anything, actual human biology created her that way.

                — "Sex assigned at birth:" The actual correct term.
                — https://youtu.be/qO-U2WlgroQ?si=GgCcKdRCyHQMOukZ

                1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                  Cis: An actual word in the dictionary.

                  A made-up word by lefty activists.

                  — “Sex assigned at birth:” The actual correct term.

                  "Sex documented at birth:" The actual correct term.

                  1. BJPG   1 year ago

                    I'm good wit dat.

                    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

                      Because that's the biological reality, not what your cult brainwashes these kids into thinking they're "born in the wrong body."

                    2. R Mac   1 year ago

                      “not what your cult brainwashes these kids”

                      Pretty sure BJPG is one of these brainwashed kids.

            2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

              Doctor: Well I'm no expert but (opens anatomy textbook) that looks like a vagina to me. What have you got?
              Nurse: We've got the pre natal testing and the chromosomes match up with your observation.
              Doctor: Well I've got this damn birth certificate but I'm reluctant to make the call. I mean what if this baby's gender doesn't match it's chromosomes? What if this creature has no gender at all?
              Nurse: Maybe we should get a second opinion.
              Doctor: OK somebody call Dr. Jones. She's always looking for billable hours.

      2. BJPG   1 year ago

        "It’s likely that if this girl’s illusions were not indulged by the adults in her life she’d be figuring out how to be an adult woman and would probably have succeeded."

        Didn't they say the same thing about gay kids a long, long, long, LONG time ago?

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          Some people said that, but they were wrong. Today, the people saying men can have babies are full of shit.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            Males cannot have babies, for sure, but trans men can get pregnant and have babies. #TheMoreYouKnow...

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              "Trans men" are women.

              1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

                @Vernon, Trans men are biological females. I’m pretty sure they don’t deny that. They don’t identify as the male sex, they identify as men. Who would you be to deny that a person feels the way they feel? I guess it’s OK that you don’t like it, but why would you think you should have any say in how some other person identifies?

                To clarify, we’re not talking about biology here, we’re talking about a person’s core beliefs about their identity—how they feel about who they are, how they dress or what appearance they present in public.

                Medical science has determined that a person identifying as a gender that is different from their biological sex is not “mental illness.” The “mental illness” is the distress they experience as a result of the mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity and from the (often raging) disapproval of society. That distress is called “gender dysphoria” effective with DSM-5, which replaced “gender identity disorder.”

                https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis

                Quoted from the above link: “With the publication of DSM–5 in 2013, ‘gender identity disorder’ was eliminated and replaced with ‘gender dysphoria.’ This change further focused the diagnosis on the gender identity-related distress that some transgender people experience (and for which they may seek psychiatric, medical, and surgical treatments) rather than on transgender individuals or identities themselves.

                The presence of gender variance is not the pathology but dysphoria is from the distress caused by the body and mind not aligning and/or societal marginalization of gender-variant people. It needs to be ego-dystonic to qualify as a diagnosis and having a discussion with our patients about the diagnosis prior to charting it is necessary and good care.

                The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity is not in itself a mental disorder.”

                Good discussion. What other questions do you have, Vern?

                1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                  If you don't see what's wrong with sexism, encouraging delusional thinking in young people, and poisoning and mutilating people in pursuit of trying to reify their delusion, then I'm at a loss as to how I would explain it to you. There's something very wrong with your brain.

        2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          To be clear. Some adult women are attracted to other adult women. We call them lesbians. They've been around like...forever? But the vast majority are not delusional about their sex. Being gay is not a delusion. Gender dysphoria is.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            @Gaear, Transgender people aren't "delusional" about their sex. They understand biology. They know they are biological females. This is separate from their core identity as having a gender that differs from their biological sex. Gender dysphoria is not a delusion, it is a DSM-5 diagnosis that describes the mental distress experienced by trans people whose core gender identity (which they generally cannot change) differs from their biological sex and from the maltreatment they experience from society (which maltreatment you are demonstrating in your above statements).

            Perhaps it will help you understand if you take note of the generally accepted terms related to this subject. The terms "male" and "female" describe biological sex. Transgender people don't usually say that they identify as male or female; they are more likely to say they identify as a man or a woman (or in the case of children, a boy or a girl). They're not telling you what their sex is, they're telling you what they feel like in their core identity (gender identity).

            The dictionary may not have totally caught up with this, but that's not a denial of the reality. Sex is biological and immutable: male or female (or intersex). Gender is the term trans people use to communicate how they feel, which often corresponds to how they wish to appear in public by way of dress, jewelry, makeup, or whatever. Many, but certainly not all trans people will seek some degree of surgical treatment to assist in matching their appearance with their perceived gender (which they presumably hope will help to alleviate their mental distress: dysphoria).

            Think about it for a moment: if a trans woman can achieve an appearance that "passes" your test of what a woman should look like, and you have no idea that you're looking at a trans person, that person won't need to worry about your misguided disdain, and you can both go about living your lives. The trans person won't be triggered into a state of dysphoria and you won't be triggered into a state of "trans panic."

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              There is no such thing as "gender".

    6. Nobartium   1 year ago

      Then we can get back to being communities of kindness, acceptance, and equity until some politician offers up the next wedge to divide us for political gain.

      This has always been a retarded talking point.

      "I'm for good!"

      5 minutes of hate later:

      "Fuck'em."

      Maybe you should challenge the premise that people are good intrinsically.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

        This has always been a retarded talking point. “I’m for good!” 5 minutes of hate later: “Fuck’em.” Maybe you should challenge the premise that people are good intrinsically.

        Whoa. Sorry, there’s just too much to unpack here with this one, but as the dad of an intellectually disabled son, would you mind not using the offensive and dated word, “re*****d?” Thanks in advance, @Nobartium.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

          Doing anything you ask or demand is retarded.

        2. R Mac   1 year ago (edited)

          “Sorry, there’s just too much to unpack here”

          Are you returning from a long vacation, or admitting you’re a simpleton, retard?

        3. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

          So you want Nobartium to say it's an intellectually disabled talking point?

    7. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

      Woof, lot of the usual Current Year passive-aggressive buzzwords there.

    8. John Rohan   1 year ago

      Google “gender vs. sex.” One’s gender is in their brain; one’s sex is in their pants.

      In that case you will agree that sex, not gender should determine the use of restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and which sports team to play on. But that puts you on the side of "trans hate" according to activists.

      After all, they continuously argue in court that "on the basis of sex" means "gender identity".

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        @John, LOL. OK, yeah, you raise good points, but fail in your "conclusions." You really should try hard to get over this rest room panic you're experiencing.

        The dictionary may not have totally caught up with this, but that’s not a denial of the reality. Sex is biological and immutable: male or female (or intersex). Gender is the term trans people use to communicate how they feel, which often corresponds to how they wish to appear in public by way of dress, jewelry, makeup, or whatever. Many, but certainly not all trans people will seek some degree of surgical treatment to assist in matching their appearance with their perceived gender (which they presumably hope will help to alleviate their mental distress: dysphoria). If their appearance matched their perceived gender and you couldn't tell they were trans, they wouldn't have to put up with your freak-out.

        I've never been inside a public women's rest room, but I assume there are no urinals. If a trans woman uses a women's rest room, she's gonna use a stall like all the other women. Now, as long as you don't follow her in there and peek through the crack, then both of you can just continue on with your day.

      2. BJPG   1 year ago

        In that case you will agree that sex, not gender, should determine the use of restrooms.

        If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, you'd run into a big problem with trans men or trans women who have fully transitioned and cannot be "detected" as trans, causing quite a stir in the rest room you want them to use.

        John, here's an example of a trans man who would cause some serious concern if he tried to use a public ladies room:
        https://www.boredpanda.com/transgender-man-before-and-after-jamie-wilson/

        And here are a bunch of examples of trans women who would be ill advised to use a public men's room:
        https://www.pinterest.com/pin/transgender-girls-inspiring-transformations--43769427619991211/

        What are your thoughts?

        1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          trans men or trans women who have fully transitioned and cannot be “detected” as trans
          Such people are rare. In most cases the cosmetic results of "transitioning" are not good enough to fool anyone. "Trans women" look like a guy in a dress. "Trans men" look like a woman dressed as a teenage boy.

          1. BJPG   1 year ago

            Haha, You must realize there's no way you could know how many fully passing trans people you see in a typical year.

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              You're fantasizing. "Fully passing", for most people, is a cruel lie.

        2. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

          You just talked about the difference between sex and gender, and how no one is disputing that sex cannot change. Isn't it odd how the article you posted uses "Female to Male Transition."

          But that's the term for it you might say. And that is my point. The transgender movement activists are intentionally interchanging the terms between sex and gender, if one subscribes to gender being a distinct thing.

    9. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      I don't hate trans people. I feel sorry for them. What's the word for having pity for a person who has been victimized by activists and therapists? Transpitiful? Transpity?

  19. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

    "students must use the bathroom that aligns with their birth gender sex"

    Fixed it.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      I bet we can freak out enough younger kids so they never actually use the bathroom at school.

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        Lots of them are in diapers anyway.

  20. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    'Don’t let culture war politics overwhelm a commitment to the facts.'

    Don't you mean, don't let facts overwhelm political religion and a commitment to delusional beliefs?

  21. Mike Parsons   1 year ago

    If the autopsy ruled out trauma as a cause they likely ruled out an epidural hematoma (which is the common cause when someone has head trauma, then a lucid window without symptoms, then sudden death). It would be fairly obvious and the first thing they would look for.

    My money is on OD. Very sad. But we have a very clear connection between the gender cult and mental illness / suicide. It should be a cautionary tale for parents to steer far far away from the stuff

    1. BJPG   1 year ago

      "My money is on OD. Very sad. But we have a very clear connection between the gender cult and mental illness/suicide. It should be a cautionary tale for parents to steer far far away from the stuff."

      The connection you speak of has to do with non-acceptance at a vulnerable time in a kid's life, first by immediate family, and then by communities and society. That's what drives adolescents into mental illness and suicidal ideation. If parents, school systems, and communities want to keep their kids emotionally healthy and alive, they need to "steer" right toward "the stuff," and show love and support. Steering away = rejection of your child.

      1. damikesc   1 year ago

        "The connection you speak of has to do with non-acceptance at a vulnerable time in a kid’s life, first by immediate family, and then by communities and society."

        If your survival is predicated on people buying into your delusions, that is a classic "you" problem.

        Nobody owes you anything. And given how often trannies are quite rude to others, my empathy for them as a group is low.

        1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

          "If your survival is predicated on people buying into your delusions, that is a classic “you” problem."

          There are way too many facts and there is way too much scientific knowledge out there now to still be using the word “delusion.” We’re talking about a parent’s emotional acceptance and support of their child and how critical that is to them becoming well-adjusted adults (whether trans, nonbinary, or cis). Why does non-conformance with gender norms seem to make you so angry?

          "Nobody owes you anything. And given how often t******s are quite rude to others, my empathy for them as a group is low."

          In 2024, I should think that assigning some negative trait to a class of people would be universally condemned, but I’m well aware that you have lots of company in your contempt. I would never hold the prejudice that others in your class are as rude as you’ve shown yourself to be right here.

          1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago

            We’re talking about a parent’s emotional acceptance and support of their child and how critical that is to them becoming well-adjusted adults (whether trans, nonbinary, or cis). Why does non-conformance with gender norms seem to make you so angry?

            A parent's responsibility to guide their children, not enable them.

            Why does resistance to your body dysmorphia cult make you so angry?

          2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            Acceptance of non-conformance with sex norms is the opposite of transgenderism. Transgenderism holds that one's thoughts and feelings and their expression must comport with one's sex and society's expectations of that sex, and if they do not, that is cause for dysphoria that must be corrected by acting to bring them into alignment. "Transgender care" is conversion therapy.

          3. R Mac   1 year ago

            LMAO, my bad. I’m usually pretty quick picking up parody, but you got me. Well done.

            1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

              Even if he's a parody, he's voicing opinions that many actually hold and need to be rebuked.

          4. damikesc   1 year ago

            "There are way too many facts and there is way too much scientific knowledge out there now to still be using the word “delusion.”"

            "None" is not my definition of "Too much", but you do you.

            "We’re talking about a parent’s emotional acceptance and support of their child and how critical that is to them becoming well-adjusted adults (whether trans, nonbinary, or cis). Why does non-conformance with gender norms seem to make you so angry?"

            Because it is a lie.

            You also blamed SOCIETY for not playing with their delusion. Society owes you nothing. And given the sheer obnoxious amount of self-importance they present, trannies have less room than most to demand manners for their condition.

            If a child decides that they need to remove an arm because they feel like somebody missing an arm, you'd be a monster to play along. If a child is anorexic, you'd be evil to say "Yeah, fatty, you got a point there".

            You don't fix a mental issue by playing along with the delusion.

            "In 2024, I should think that assigning some negative trait to a class of people would be universally condemned, but I’m well aware that you have lots of company in your contempt. I would never hold the prejudice that others in your class are as rude as you’ve shown yourself to be right here."

            I'm not the one demanding you let a man be naked around your daughter. I'm the one saying playing along with the mentally ill is a bad idea.

            Just because YOU think it is nifty to see the mentally ill kill themselves does not make it a necessity for me to join.

            1. BJPG   1 year ago

              "If a child decides that they need to remove an arm because they feel like somebody missing an arm, you’d be a monster to play along. If a child is anorexic, you’d be evil to say 'Yeah, fatty, you got a point there.'"

              I don't know you, damikesc, but I have a sense that you're pretty new to debating.

              1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                So, refute his point.

                1. BJPG   1 year ago

                  No valid point was made. Make a valid point.

                  1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago (edited)

                    So, you’re OK with cutting off a child’s arm if he identifies as one-armed?

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        It is amazing how an entire continent and multiple journals can expose your lie that acceptance reduced suicides, yet you persist with the lie.

        1. BJPG   1 year ago

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36895315/

          Results: Each category of adult and peer gender identity acceptance was associated with lower odds of a past-year suicide attempt, with the strongest associations within each individual category being acceptance from parents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.57) and other family members (aOR=0.51). The TGNB youth who reported gender identity acceptance from at least one adult had one-third lower odds of reporting a past-year suicide attempt (aOR=0.67), and acceptance from at least one peer was also associated with lower odds of a past-year suicide attempt (aOR=0.66). Peer acceptance was particularly impactful for transgender youth (aOR=0.47). The relationship between adult and peer acceptance remained significant after controlling for the association of each form, suggesting unique relationships for each on TGNB youth suicide attempts. Acceptance was more impactful for TGNB youth assigned male at birth compared with TGNB youth assigned female at birth.

          Conclusion: Interventions aimed at suicide prevention for TGNB youth should include efforts aimed at leveraging gender identity acceptance from supportive adults and peers in their lives.

        2. BJPG   1 year ago

          It is amazing how an entire continent and multiple journals can expose your lie that acceptance reduced suicides, yet you persist with the lie.

          Let me Google that for you: https://gprivate.com/69mm8

          1. R Mac   1 year ago

            Google? I thought we were using duckduckgo? Come on man, stay on script!

            1. BJPG   1 year ago (edited)

              🙂 😀 Seems like the lie was yours.

      3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago (edited)

        When I was a teenager I thought I was an android. Kids think fucked up shit when the hormones are raging and their feelings are out of their control. I guess if I were a kid today they’d be pushing me to get cybernetics installed.

  22. geo1113   1 year ago

    I believe the whole idea of the law was to protect from girls being assaulted by boys. And this Nex person would never pass as a boy.

    1. BJPG   1 year ago

      What statistics can you cite to document the prevalence of sexual assault in bathrooms by someone who is trans or pretending to be trans? You could ask the sponsors of the original bill, but don't hold your breath waiting for their answer.

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        The number of girls who have inserted their penises into other girls in a restroom or locker room is holding steady at zero.

        1. BJPG   1 year ago

          So, no statistics. Seems like we're in violent agreement.

          1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            Girls don't have penises. I should have realized I would need to explain that to you.

      2. damikesc   1 year ago

        VA showed that schools will simply opt to not prosecute a tranny who rapes in the bathrooms. But they will work with the DOJ to go after a father who was pissed that a tranny raped his daughter.

        So, there's that.

      3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        Drug use in school bathrooms is prevalent. That's why school resource officers are standing outside bathrooms and searching kids before they go in.

  23. anthony r   1 year ago (edited)

    ** I have not read comments ** We should also not discount whether these “thorough” investigations are now going to be biased by the off-base media and public responses (including this article). If that child did in fact die bc of a beating she received at school, I strongly hope that the peers responsible are held as accountable as someone would be if they caused a same-gender peer’s death the same way. It seems unlikely that a healthy child would randomly die from something unrelated to head trauma from an assault hours prior, but if that is the case, I also strongly hope that if the bullying was due to being transgender or some misplaced fear that they were a threat to their peers, that the sociopaths (fact (and let’s face reality — who probably are being groomed for a future of pathologic senses entitlement)) involved are treated as such.

    1. damikesc   1 year ago

      "I also strongly hope that if the bullying was due to being transgender or some misplaced fear that they were a threat to their peers, that the sociopaths (fact (and let’s face reality — who probably are being groomed for a future of pathologic senses entitlement)) involved are treated as such."

      I love that trannies are always the victim.

    2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      Your use of parenthesis is confusing. Not to mention their content. "Groomed for a future of pathologic senses entitlement." Tell me spell check fucked that up 12 ways from Sunday because it makes no fucking sense otherwise.

  24. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

    Bottom line: She was a girl in the girls' restroom. "Transgender bathroom" laws have no relevance to this case.

    1. anthony r   1 year ago (edited)
    2. markm23   1 year ago

      She was a weird girl in the girl's bathroom, which exposed her to bullying girls. But at least she wasn't raped. What would have happened if she'd used the boy's room instead?

      1. mad.casual   1 year ago

        Are we ignoring the existing evidence about antagonizing people who could/would/did kick her ass and assuming she has the good sense not to antagonize 16 yr. old boys or no?

  25. IceTrey   1 year ago

    God the press lies and lies. LoTT doesn't post anti gay and trans content she only post pro gay and trans content and that's why they hate her. She exposes what they're saying in their little corner of the interwebs and it's bad.

    1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      Cultural appropriation!

  26. AT   1 year ago (edited)

    I know this girl. You know this girl. Some of you may have even been this girl in some fashion. And we all know what happened.

    It’s suicide.

    It’s always suicide with the “nonbinary and transgender” crowd. Especially the GenZ’s. Which makes it all the more tragic.

    We all know this girl. An awkward, insecure teenager looking for meaning and identity (and probably more than a little attention, if only to have her existence acknowledged), and falling prey to a highly seductive – to the point of predatory – social contagion that has somehow declared and empowered itself to be above criticism, rebuke, or even mere factual contradiction.

    This is a girl who lost her way. And in trying to find it, fell prey to a cult. A cult where she had her head filled with nonsense, was welcomed and praised and mindlessly affirmed at every turn, and then had her identity rewritten for her – complete with they/them pronouns – and the command to reject anything, even reality itself, if it’s challenged even slightly.

    This is a well-known, well-documented path to depression, self-loathing, and ultimately suicide. It doesn’t even matter what happened in the bathroom, we – as a society, and a culture – failed this girl long before she even got to school that day.

    It’s sickening. The needless tragedy of it all should sicken you to your core. How the media (and politicians) uses it to push its enabler agenda should sicken you as well. And if it does – there’s good news, because there will be a reckoning for it. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see that it’ll be all these kids suffering these intentional abuses that lead the charge in a very near future.

    And if it doesn’t sicken you… well, then God help you when they come to burn down your rainbow temples and take vengeance on those who socially, emotionally, and/or even physically mutilated them during their childhood. They’ll be adults soon enough, and they’ll soon realize what you did to them. And they will come for blood. And those who they come for will absolutely deserve it.

    Miss Benedict, you deserved better. We failed you, and I’m sorry. I hope you have the peace now that you were deprived of in a life so needlessly cut short.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   1 year ago (edited)

      It’s pretty telling that the parents set up her obituary page with her actual name instead of her assumed one, and posted pictures from before she got sucked into the body dysmorphia cult.

      1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

        Odds are her whole trans bullshit was totally inspired and supported by idiot adults at the school telling her that her parents don't care, don't understand and don't love her. That's EXACTLY what a teacher at my son's high school told a girl who was having identity issues.

        Fucker should die for that. But he's a teacher so it's real hard to get him fired.

    2. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      With it's unquestioning genuflection to the transgender cult, the US has become an outlier in the western world. In recognition of the real damage being done to these children the UK and Europe are shutting down this shitshow. Meanwhile outside of a few red states, government and media fully embrace an anti science, anti human agenda. Any parent who attempts to mitigate the damage to their child is at risk of having her/him kidnapped by the state. The cult will begin to crumble the way things usually get done in the US. Through expensive civil litigation. The cult creates new plaintiffs every day and those who were minors that can't legally sign a waiver will line up to be made financially if not physically whole. The Munchhausen moms won't be able to control them anymore. Even if they can't get their breasts and penises back the cynical perpetrators will be made to pay and the whole racket will become financially unsustainable.

      1. BJPG   1 year ago

        Noted.

      2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        There is already a trickle of lawsuits against the mutilators in the pipeline. Over the next few years it will become a tsunami.

        1. BJPG   1 year ago

          Nope.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          Definitely. Most of these idiotic social movements that parents use to evade blame for fucking up their kids end up in court and then die out. Sue a few schools. teachers, councilors, therapists, doctors, nurses and hospitals and change happens.

          Too bad a lot of low life lawyers will get rich off this.

    3. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

      I don't see suicide as such a bad thing. If you've sat through the first half of the movie and it's sucked you don't need to hang on to the end to be sure it sucked. Punch out.

      People say that suicide is a selfish act. So fucking what? If you are suicidal because life blows chuncks odds are all those people who will claim to love you after your dead probably weren't really there for you when you were alive. If they aren't there for you when you're young odds are they won't give a shit when you are an adult. So if you've got a shit situation with the people who should care then fuck it. Punch out.

      Life isn't special or precious. Two teenagers fucked up on meth can make a life. Frequently they do and those kids are pretty much doomed to a life of petty crime and shitty living. Again, if you're that kid, Punch out. It's not getting any better.

      These kids who are so fucked up that they think joining the Alphabet Mafia is the way to get attention aren't going to have happy lives. If they get the meds and surgery they will spend the rest of their lives on medications and visiting doctors because their parents didn't care enough to make a fucking stand. Fucking Punch out. No reason to wait until Thirty to decide life sucks.

      1. AT   1 year ago

        Justin Trudeau, is that you?

        Make sure you explain that to her parents. I'm sure they'll find it a great comfort. Be sure to tell me if they were inattentive meth addicts.

        1. MrMxyzptlk   1 year ago

          What kind of life was this kid headed for as an Alphabet Mafia recruit? Is it a life that would be worth living?

          1. AT   1 year ago

            We'll never know.

            And that's kind of the thing you're missing - growth, maturity, hope.

            Maybe, like most teenagers, she would have grown out of this fad and this phase. I'm 100% convinced that the extreme majority of these kids who think they're part of the hip socially contagious rainbow cult are, in fact, simply going through a phase. And just like the goth kids (or hippies, or skaters, or whatever) you grew up with in high school didn't stay that way as they entered into maturity and adulthood - this did not set their life path in stone as one consisting mainly of black eyeliner, spiked dog collars, and fishnets.

            The problem, as you point out is that there's a big difference between goths and trans: which is that goths didn't have a coordinated effort of adults, institutions, culture, media, and politics affirming/ encouraging/ normalizing/ legitimizing it. With goth's we all just kinda rolled our eyes and waited a year or two until they grew out of it. With the rainbow garbage "progressive" society really DOES seem to want to lock that in and set it in stone. But that still doesn't mean we should treat a girl like this, who's had a sip of their kool-aid, as a lost cause beyond redemption and growth; as hopeless.

            Maybe if these kids had more people stepping up to OFFER them hope, instead of writing them off and actively encouraging/affirming their suicide (which, honestly, how is that any better than what the alphabet mafia is doing - end of the day, it's still just a kid that's been destroyed) - well, like I said, that's where we as a society failed this kid.

      2. Edmund Burke's Hastings spy   1 year ago

        Aren't you the Apostle of Foolishness... Immediately an attitude like yoursl means 'LIFE WILL SUCK" -- I come to you with a problem and tell me to hang myself. People like you do make the world hell.
        Don't have children, you'll be poison to them

  27. John Gall   1 year ago

    Nex should've used the boys room, instead?

    1. Edmund Burke's Hastings spy   1 year ago

      We know a stupid unthinking Ayn Rand clone when we read this.

      He should be one or the other. As it is he automatically doubles the nunber of potential haters. Now: Grow a mind, would you !!

  28. Edmund Burke's Hastings spy   1 year ago

    Most parents can see there is something wrong with this child

    The bathroom issue is what changed a famous ACLU mother, don't forget

    ACLU Leader Quits After Daughters Encounter Men in the Women’s Restroom

    IF you defend either the child or the attackers you can be sure you are a hateful bigot., There is the 3rd side that 90% of my neighbors and co-workers endorse: Allow parents to choose their school. You want your kid to be someone people will hate, there is a school that will accomadate you. But if you refuse that privilege to other parents, your 'not right' child will be attacked.BET ON IT.

  29. I woke up when Hillary talked about Reconstruction   1 year ago

    Okay, to get and keep your great REASON job you had to forego parenthood but , still, consider : No parent seeing this child doubts that he is disturbed, not well, and on the path over the cliff

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Original Alcatraz Closed for Costing Too Much. Alligator Alcatraz Should Too.

Autumn Billings | 7.14.2025 5:05 PM

The Department of Justice Just Sided with RFK Jr. Group's Claim That News Orgs Can't Boycott Misinformation

Jack Nicastro | 7.14.2025 4:58 PM

Hundreds of 'Alligator Alcatraz' Detainees Don't Have Criminal Records

C.J. Ciaramella | 7.14.2025 4:00 PM

There's Probably No 'Smoking Gun' in the JFK or Epstein Cases. We Should Be Allowed To Look Anyway.

Matthew Petti | 7.14.2025 3:45 PM

2 New Jersey Journalists Face Criminal Charges for Publishing Information From a Police Blotter

Jacob Sullum | 7.14.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!