MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

A Transgender Woman Assaulted a Child in a Restroom; New Laws Wouldn't Have Stopped It, and None Were Needed to Lock Her Up

Will the panic fizzle out when people realize the criminal justice system is adequately prepared to deal with actual sex crimes?

MartinezCasper Police booking photoAn apparently transgender woman in Wyoming has been convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom. Casper resident Michelle Martinez—whose legal name is still Miguel Alberto Martinez, so she went on trial under that name—was convicted of two charges of sexual abuse of a child and faces up to 70 years in prison.

According to the Casper Star Tribune, Martinez knew the victim and lured her into a bathroom to assault her. Nurses examined the girl after the assault and found medical evidence of the attack. Martinez and her family maintain her innocence and plan to appeal.

So now we have an actual case of a transgender woman assaulting a little girl in a bathroom. So does that mean the right-wing culture warriors were right to worry about the trans infiltration of American ladies' rooms? Not if you look at the particulars of the case.

First of all, this wasn't a stranger lurking in a public bathroom looking to prey on a random child. As is often the case when children are molested, the victim knew her attacker, and the restroom in question was in somebody's home. This crime, as serious and awful it is, sharply diverges from the bathroom-panic narrative of the stalker in a restroom laying in wait for prey. No law gender-policing bathroom use would have meant anything in this case.

Second, existing law on the abuse of children is clearly adequate to tackle this sort of situation. If Martinez gets the maximum penalty, she's clearly not going to be in a position ever to attack another child. What would an additional law restricting restroom access have accomplished here?

Think of the demands for more gun control that frequently come in the wake of a high-profile shooting. When gun foes propose new restrictions that would not have done anything to prevent the crime in question, people who actually understand firearms and the laws that regulate them are quick to point out (accurately!) that such laws would not have stopped the shooting, and to list the consequences a poorly-thought-out gun law would have for law-abiding citizens.

The same logical consideration applies here. There's no evidence that yet another law would have prevented this assault from happening. There's no evidence that existing law is unable to deal with the extremely rare cases when a transgender sexual assault of children does happen. No changes in the law are necessary.

Photo Credit: Casper Police booking photo

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

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So now we have an actual case of a transgender woman assaulting a little girl in a bathroom.

    This is it. Nothing more to say. A law prohibiting the entering of the ladies room would have prevented this person from breaking the law against molestation.

  • Hugh Akston||

    A law prohibiting breaking the law would prevent people from breaking laws in the first place.

  • Davulek||

    A law letting me shoot people like this in the head would have stopped everything a long time ago.

  • Johnimo||

    Davulek, I am certain you will know, well in advance, which people need to be "shot in the head," as you put it. Please, tell us how the text of the law you want might read. Here, let me propose the law for you:

    Davulek's Law: Davulek will shoot all bad people in the head. If Davulek makes a mistake by shooting a good person in the head, Johnimo will execute Davulek, by hanging Davulek by the neck until dead in the public square. We can call it the "Davulek By The Neck, By Heck" law. Naturallly, Davlulek deserves a jury trial before being executed.

    Davulek, get out there and start doing your business.

  • Longtobefree||

    According to Davulek's law, everyone shot in the head is a bad person. So we don't need Johnimo.

  • Presskh||

    Amen, Duvalek.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The real solution is to tell the progtards to go fuck themselves. Once done we can all stop dignifying this 'transgender' delusional fantasy shit, and get these wackos the help they need. then they can figure out the bathroom thing correctly on their own.

  • Tionico||

    those laws only apply to publically accessible restroooms, not the bathroom in a private home.

    Let's try to keep the story straight.

    Such laws ARE needed to keep transgenders and other perverts from harming others in public places. Private homes are a different deal entirelyh, and the laws that have been on the books for years are more than adequate in those places.

    But allowing those with the gender specific equipment of one sex to freely roam in places restricted to those with the OTHER type of gender specific equipment merely plays into their hands. Problams HAVE come up, and will continue to do so as long as such access is freely granted.

  • Sevo||

    "Such laws ARE needed to keep transgenders and other perverts from harming others in public places."

    Sort of like outlawing guns keeps people safe?
    What a fucking idiot.

  • King Lamoni||

    In this case, the call for the laws are to prevent people from needing to worry about someone of the opposite gender from peering at them in the restroom... not necessarily to prevent people from breaking a second law.

    I understand the preference to feel a little more safe and secure in the restroom, but I think that laws are unnecessary. I like the idea of individual and family restrooms which you can use without anyone walking in on you. These already exist and have existed for a long time before any laws were in place. In fact, I remember when restroom laws made single unisex bathrooms illegal in my state. Many people want the government out of our bedrooms. It is time to get the government out of our bathrooms as well.

  • Mitsima||

    If we are actually in The Matrix, are the trannies* actually going into a bathroom at all?

    *any offense to actual transvestites, or transmissions, is wholly unintended.

  • KennethJohnKelly||

    The crime wasn't committed in a "ladies room". It was committed in a bathroom in a private residence - as stated in the article you didn't bother to read.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Once more, brave culture warriors dash into the breech to defend good & country from homosexuals, abortionists and communists. How dare you suggest the heroes of the Republican revolution stop the good fight to read your liberal propaganda, sir? No one called timeout to take tea and read a few pages of Dad Kapital at the Battle of the Bulge ... And that is why America and Jesus Christ defeated Adolph Hitler!

  • Sevo||

    Commie kid, your slime is visible under any handle.
    Fuck off.

  • Sevo||

    "This is it. Nothing more to say. A law prohibiting the entering of the ladies room would have prevented this person from breaking the law against molestation."

    Either this is sarc, or FoE has suffered brain damage.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'd expect a crazy tranny to look like this.

  • Rhywun||

    That picture is so delightful that it's a shame I have to hear him droning on and on in the news all the time and be reminded what a jerk he is.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The picture is a proven winner. Also, you can consume all media via streaming, and then you do not have to worry about listening to unwanted news.

    Think about it, grandpa.

  • Rhywun||

    Listen, whippersnapper, I may not be on the "streaming" bandwagon - but I know enough to lunge for the clicker every time that man shows up in front of a camera during my morning shows.

  • NoVaNick||

    Mid-1980s Boy George looked more like a woman than Xe does-he never tried to pass himself off as trans either.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would pay good money to any of his old school mates tell stories about beating the crap out of him. i'll bet he cried like a little bitch.

  • Darth Faja||

    LMAO! Exactly!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Looked like Chris Chan for a moment.

  • ||

    New Laws Wouldn't Have Stopped It, and None Were Needed to Lock Her Up

    Great! So Reason is finally on board with not officially enshrining her right to be in any particular restroom into law?

    *reads article*

    Ah, nope, going to continue identifying as Reason rather than doing any actual reasoning. *drink*

  • WakaWaka||

    Less laws, unless they're 'woke'

  • Crusty Juggler||

    *Fewer* laws, you dolt.

  • WakaWaka||

    I don't use your alt-right grammar

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Or punctuation.

  • WakaWaka||

    Someone's on their period

  • Crusty Juggler||

    We know it's not your mom, 'cause that bitch is old as a mug.

    BOOOOOOOM!

  • WakaWaka||

    That was uncalled for

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    WakaWaka's mom never complains. That's why he thinks he was adopted.

  • WakaWaka||

    That's not even witty. Do better

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I tried. She still didn't complain.

  • WakaWaka||

    That's an improvement, I guess

  • Trollificus||

    WakaWaka|10.20.17 @ 1:53PM|#

    Someone's on their period

    ********************

    Or their semi-colon. ba-dum! *ching*

  • Crusty Juggler||

    If the child was molested in a closet the culture warriors wouldn't bat a morally superior eye.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Are you implying that this tranny should have stayed in the closet, shitlord?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am implying that this person has a DISEASE, which you would agree with if you weren't busy virtue-signaling to your pals.

  • Ken Hagler||

    If it is a disease, we'll know when the 10 year old girl, having caught the disease, starts molesting people in bathrooms.

  • ||

    Dr. Hagler, does trans chlamydia cause a cloudy discharge from a socially-constructed penis that you don't have? Asking for a friend.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Unfortunately, Socially Constructed Penis used up all their good material on their debut album, Honorably Discharged Clouds.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'Ahem'.........I believe that title belongs to ME.

  • Bubba Jones||

    A bathroom law would have provided additional evidence of sexual predation vs having a legitimate reason to be in the restroom.

  • albo||

    Exactly. Laws don't necessarily stop people from doing bad things; it's there for when they are caught and need to be punished.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    and the restroom in question was in somebody's home.

    Obviously, there should be a law that anyone intending to use a restroom in a home will need to provide a birth certificate.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Fuck me. Didn't read that far. Delete everything I wrote.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Fuck me

    My bathroom is unoccupied, sailor...

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, since there's almost no comparison between the crime in question and the concerns that have been raised over public bathrooms, it's a wonder that Shackleton even bothered writing this article about it.

  • Longtobefree||

    Paid by the comment - - - -

  • ||

    In all fairness, they wouldn't be asking for the law or the birth certificate if they thought "Get the fuck out of *my* bathroom!" would still stand up in court.

    Also, it's bizarre how Reason mostly gets it with free speech, safe spaces, public/private conduct and rights, and college campuses but completely stumbles over itself when it comes to shutting people up when they get uppity about owning a bathroom. "Let them speak lest you justify them doing something crazy!" applies to Nazis but not to business-owners and their bathrooms. The overwhelming majority of people don't talk about the holocaust in their bathrooms so public policies silencing Nazis should be socially acceptable.

    A child molester in a private residency in Wyoming, transgender or not, should have precisely fuck all to do with a business owner's right to deny access to the facilities in N. Carolina (or Texas or wherever).

  • Scott S.||

    I have in multiple blog posts on this issue have expressedly said private businesses should be able to decide for themselves and lamented legislation that forces both gov't and private accommodation.

  • ||

    Show me, in the post above, where I said such a thing.

    Reason didn't espouse banning silencers in the wake of the Las Vegas shootings either. They sure as hell seem to be using a little girl's molestation to advance their particular cause.

  • WakaWaka||

    Maybe he views the fifteen articles to one ratio versus the one article or two paragraphs to ten laws to be disingenuous. It is not an unreasonable complaint and I'm sure it would be made if the reverse were true

  • ||

    Maybe you were just ranting about speech in bathrooms which seems dumb and irrelevant.

    Maybe Shackford was just ranting about a random child molestation case in Wyoming which seems dumb and exceedingly local.

  • WakaWaka||

    You got "boom-shaka-laka-ford". To be fair, though, I think that there is a discrepancy between the number of articles written against laws like North Carolina's versus the far more prevalent laws mandating private business bathroom policies. The North Carolina laws are rare, while the others are ubiquitous throughout major cities.

  • SIV||

    THIS IS THE FUTURE COSMOTARIANS WANT

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Virtue-signaling snowflake.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    SIV doesn't think private homes should have bathrooms in them. SIV shits in a creek, the way God intended, and if it rains that's when he gets a shower.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I have to side with SIV on this one. We all need laws for gendered bathrooms in the home. Everyone home must have at least 3 to account for all genders.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Plus it pays for itself with better home sale value. Legislating a solution.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Still less terrifying than the future SIV wants, with a race of horny hentaurs roaming the Earth.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think it is relevant whether the parents consented to the girl and man being in the same restroom. Did they trust him? In that scenario, he can plead that he had a legitimate reason to be there, regardless of the law.

    Or was he just a creepy neighbor and they didn't expect him to be lurking in the bathroom? In which case a bathroom law prohibiting his presence would imply nefarious intent.

  • Hugh Akston||

    She molested a 10-year-old girl.

  • Careless||

    raped, not molested.

  • Vernon Depner||

    He, not she.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "Think of the demands for more gun control that frequently come in the wake of a high-profile shooting. When gun foes propose new restrictions that would not have done anything to prevent the crime in question, people who actually understand firearms and the laws that regulate them are quick to point out (accurately!) that such laws would not have stopped the shooting, and to list the consequences a poorly-thought-out gun law would have for law-abiding citizens."

    That assumes that the gun control folks are arguing in good faith and only want to prevent crazies from going on shooting sprees. They actually want NO ONE other than government agents (who they implicitly trust, of course) from having access to guns. If you are not a solider or cop, in their minds, guns are not for you.

    And that's also what applies to the bathroom law folks. They don't really live in fear of being fondled by guys in drag, they just want to put those nasty weirdos in their place. NO ONE should wear a dress or makeup unless they were born with a set of XX chromosomes. Just like the gun-grabbers will use Vegas and Newtown et al to further their cause, the so cons will conveniently ignore this having been a bathroom in someone's home to use this story to prove their point.

  • ||

    They don't really live in fear of being fondled by guys in drag, they just want to put those nasty weirdos in their place.

    It's the very premise of the article that none of the bathroom laws proposed would prevent what happened. It's an idiotic point because the laws weren't and aren't crafted with that purpose in mind specifically because they respect private property rights. You're damn right they want to put those nasty weirdos in their place, their private residence, the 7-11 on the corner, the gay bar across the street, anywhere but the Chik-Fil-A that they don't own and have no legal holding with regard to the restrooms.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "First of all, this wasn't a stranger lurking in a public bathroom looking to prey on a random child. As is often the case when children are molested, the victim knew her attacker, and the restroom in question was in somebody's home.

    The observation that the attack happened in somebody's home is more impressive than the observation that the victim knew her attacker.

    A law that bars transgender M-F from using public restrooms with little girls wouldn't do anything to protect kids in private homes, but the fact that the victims often know their attackers makes little girls using public restrooms on their own more dangerous.

    Fathers can't accompany their daughters into the women's restroom, but some predators who often know their victims can go into the women's restroom with their victims? I don't see how anybody can claim that doesn't increase the danger of sexual assault with a straight face.

    I think private companies that want to take on the liability for these kinds of policies should be free to do so, and I think the government has a legitimate responsibility to take reasonable precautions in government buildings to protect people's rights from sexual predators.

  • Ken Hagler||

    "Fathers can't accompany their daughters into the women's restroom..."

    Sure they can. All they have to do is insist that they're women for the duration of the restroom visit. Since men pretending to be women are currently the most important people in the world, nobody will dare to object.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe the next darling class will be schizos. I can see a bunch of progtards finding a bizarre rationale to require accommodating their mania as well.

  • Dan S.||

    No, it doesn't make girls using public rest rooms on their own more dangerous. It might make girls using public restrooms accompanied by an adult who the father kind of knows, but not that well, more dangerous. Which would be a reason not to insist on such accompaniment.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's gotta be more to what you think than just being willfully obtuse.

    A predator can wait for a kid to come into the restroom or simply get up and follow an unaccompanied kid into the restroom.

    Did that really need to be pointed out?

  • Dan S.||

    The reference was to "predators who often know their victims". I guess I ignored the "often". The examples you give now are not about situations where the attacker and victim know each other, which they do in most actual attacks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, yes, I see what you're saying now!

    Predators who know their victims can't wait for them in the bathroom and can't follow an unaccompanied kid into a bathroom. That can't happen because it's . . .

    Well, I don't know why predators who know their victims can't wait for or follow their victims in. It's just unpossible!

    LOL

  • Mickey Rat||

    There still is not much of an argument for granting a person of one sex an unquestionable legal right to use facilities designated for the opposite sex.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Nor is there much of an argument for legally segregating bathrooms by sex.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Bathrooms are not the only facilities covered by such laws. I am sure all women appreciate the idea that separate faciltirs are verboteb with the appearance of the New Soviet Man.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I'd prefer that my wife be able to shower at the gym without you following her in there and standing there with an erection while claiming to be a transgender lesbian.

    Ditto goes for my daughter. I'd appreciate it if she could shower after gym class or practice without the wrestling team choosing to identify as female when they see the cheerleaders headed for the locker room.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    All this bullshit just to accommodate the few trannys out there. The focus should really be on getting them the help they need to deal with their delusion.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Feel free to write them a check to get them "the help they need." I'm not paying for it.

  • Juice||

    and the restroom in question was in somebody's home

    Uh, so what the hell is this article about? The whole hubbub was about public restrooms.

  • ||

    This is 'civil libertarianism'. Christians wanting you to behave a certain way, even without enshrining it into law, is icky but when we can use private matters to sway public opinion and/or policy well, since it's secular, it's not voiding anybody's liberty.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's funny.

  • Gryph||

    Lets make this clear, Shackford, the proper word is "he", not she.
    This waste of skin does not deserve ANY special treatment and genetics says this scumbag is male.
    And if anyone wants to level charges of "transphobia" at me , lets be clear: phobia means "fear", I don't fear this oxygen thief in any way.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Alright, everyone line up so Gryph can tell you what your gender is.

  • ||

    Alright, everyone line up so Gryph can tell you what your gender is.

    I don't see the word "gender" in Gryph's comment. Assuming Martinez still has a dick he's a he.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    So eunuchs are women?

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    So you don't know how H&R comments work?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Eunuchs usually still have their penises.

    It's the testicles that are gone.

  • ThomasD||

    Don't confuse him with facts.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Alright, everyone pull down your pants so Gryph can tell you which bathroom to use.

  • ||

    Alright, everyone line up so Gryph can tell you what your gender is.

    It was only a matter of time before the cosmotarians started lining everyone up, trannies and deplorables alike.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Thanks for being so clear.

  • H. Farnham||

    "Michelle Martinez—whose legal name is still Miguel Alberto Martinez"

    Sounds like a MAGA double-whammy. BUILD THE WALL & PASS THE BATHROOM LAW (the republican law)

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Also a bigot double-whammy. Thanks for playing.

  • H. Farnham||

    I assumed my statement above could only be taken as sarcasm. Maybe that's too much to assume these days.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    It's hard to tell these days. My apologies that I missed your sarcasm.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "They're molesting the children that Americans won't!"

  • albo||

    Current restroom signs: "Men" and "Women." (Bucks, Does if you're a cutesy county-themed restaurant.)

    Future ones: "I Have a Y Gene" and "I Don't Have a Y Gene"

    You can't argue against that, can you? A person either does or doesn't. Problem solved.

  • albo||

    D'oh, I mean "chromosome," not gene.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    You might want to get less tight jeans.

  • jelabarre||

    Future ones: "I Have a Y Gene" and "I Don't Have a Y Gene"

    So a woman (in appearance, and with the appropriate equipment for the description) that has Non-Kleinfelters XXY would go in the UsedToBeMen's bathroom? OK, I knew you were being sarcastic, but it would certainly fry a libtards brain if you started throwing these weird exceptions around.

    (I only even know about the condition for a story I was writing).

  • Longtobefree||

    Are you writing the story for a friend?

  • Wizard4169||

    What are you going to do, demand a DNA sample at the restroom door?

    Besides, XX and XY are not the only possible combinations. Others are rare, but they do exist. Or what about someone with androgen insensitivity? Basically, they don't respond to "male" hormones, so you can have a person who is technically XY, but looks female, including her external genitals. She'll be classified as "female" at birth, and grow up looking and acting like a girl. But according to your theory, as soon as she learns she has a Y, she's a boy. She may squat to pee, but she should be squatting in the boys' room, right?

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, albo had it right. The presence or absence of the Y chromosome is virtually always dispositive of maleness of femaleness, regardless of presence of extra Y or X chromosomes. XXY men tend to have certain physical traits such as late puberty and low sperm production, but they are unambiguously of the male sex. Any number of X chromosomes without a Y present results in an unambiguously female body. Persons with one X and no Y are sometimes argued to be "intersex" or "sexless", but the extent of deformity in such people varies—some are even able to conceive. Those with complete androgen sensitivity are arguably an exception to the dispositivity of chromosomes in determining sex, but this condition is extremely rare. These genetic and endocrine disorders are really a red herring in the debate about "gender identity" anyway, as nearly all people who claim to be "transgender" are genetically and physically normal with regard to sex.

    Palomar.edu

  • Longtobefree||

    Dibs on the 'DNA lab outside the bathroom' franchise!

    Or we could finally give both parties the national ID card they want (for different reasons), with a chip or magstripe that opens the biologically correct public restroom door.
    A reasonable fee would just a few hundred dollars (based on ccp laws), with a massive new federal agency to administer the issuing of the ID cards. And a second massive federal agency to administer the grants to the poor for their ID cards.

  • Vernon Depner||

    How 'bout this: men use the men's room, women use the women's room, and if you make that difficult for yourself by dressing as the opposite sex, that's your problem—go pee in the bushes. Cost: $0.

  • Memory Hole||

    Motherfuckers, this the first I've heard that the assault took place in a private residence. Right wing crybaby radio was all over this shit yesterday and those lying motherfuckers never mentioned that little detail.

  • Rhywun||

    This is the first I've heard this story. I think it's amusing that you listen to "right wing crybaby radio" more than anyone here. Do you call in all the time hissing and spitting there too?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I've suspected for a while that MH is actually a right-winger who keeps trolling here because he/she is annoyed as hell that libertarians simply won't fit into the neat little box of "a particular segment of republicans" like MH and God intended.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Hole. We are neither left-wing or right-wing. We are KNOWing.

  • John||

    The only people who ever seem to listen to right wing radio seem to be Progs hoping to be offended

  • Eidde||

    OK, so he didn't do this in a public restroom...but you'd send him to a woman's prison because he identifies as a woman?

    What if he's convicted but identifies as acquitted, maybe he shouldn't go to prison at all!

  • Eidde||

    I mean this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    You have men who are in men's prison even though they say they're women.

    So why do we have people in prison who say they're innocent? Some of them put as much effort into faking innocence as these "trans" dudes put into faking being a woman.

  • Eidde||

    Or are we assuming that this guy is honest when he says he's a woman, but dishonest when he says he's innocent?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Personally, I'd send him to prison only if he actually did what he's accused of doing. If he's innocent, then there's no need to punish someone just for being an oddball.

    And I'd also bet that fact that the alleged act happened in a private home has the local police salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on the house as part of civil asset forfeiture. They can quickly flip it and use the proceeds to fund their donuts or military gear or whatever.

  • Eidde||

    "Personally, I'd send him to prison only if he actually did what he's accused of doing."

    I was using a rhetorical device that you earthlings call sarcasm. Have I failed to master this earthling art?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Who are you calling an earthling?

  • Longtobefree||

    The correct phrase is 'terran'.
    'earthling' is a deadly insult, and why none of your scouts have returned.

  • Cloudbuster||

    An apparently mentally ill man in Wyoming has been convicted of molesting a 10-year-old girl in a bathroom.

    FTFY.

  • Eidde||

    Are you a doctor? What leads you to believe he isn't fully adjusted and healthy?

    /sarc

  • ||

    It was a private restroom ergo crazy homeless people in California should be allowed to shit in the streets. Libertarianism. QED.

  • Longtobefree||

    Fortunately, we have the tree-hugger eco-freaks to protect the environment from random feces distribution. Lock up the homeless to save the planet!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ok, I can't tell from the article (I may have missed it); is this a crossdresser, an idiot taking Hormone Derangement Therapy, or a victem of the 'Gender Reassignment Mutilation' scam?

  • cc2||

    The point of the current system of laws is that a man is not allowed in the ladies room at all. People can eject a man who enters the ladies room and call for help. Under trans-friendly laws, no one can object to a man in a dress until it is too late. This article is happy that they guy was caught AFTER the assault, which is too late.

  • BBerry12||

    This is not a transsexual. This is a male pedophile in drag.

  • AndyWingall||

    This article reads like something either out of Slate or the New York Post..

  • flyfishnevada||

    I've always enjoyed the debate. Apparently, allowing transgender women into the ladies bathroom is just asking for somebody's wife or daughter to get raped or molested but forcing transgender men, who often prefer the company of women, to use the ladies bathroom is fine. Stupid is as stupid does...

  • John Rohan||

    The problem with all these laws is that there is NO legal definition of who is transgender (and not really a consensus on a medical definition either).

    So if anyone is transgender because they say they are, then definitions are out the window, and anyone can use any locker room/showers/bathroom they want to. Segregation of the sexes is meaningless.

  • Kevin47||

    I don't see why participating in the transgender delusion should be a requirement for being a Libertarian. Further, the trend is toward laws requiring schools, businesses et al... to allow self-identified trans peeps to shower wherever they want. Bake the cake Cosmotarians seem to have no problem with this.

    Stores that allow men to enter women's bathrooms should make that fact known, loudly and clearly, and let patrons decide with their dollars.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have two transgendered persons in my family. I'm fond of both. Nevertheless, the whole social phenomenon is based on a delusion; that it is possible to transition from one sex to the other. It isn't. one day it may be, but that day is not now. Medical professionals who prescribe hormone treatment for people who wish to change sex are no better than the quacks who used to prescribe injections of pureed monkey balls for a variety of supposed ills. The doctors who actually perform 'Gender Reassignment Surgery' are despicable ghouls, preying on the mentally ill. That these practices are accepted by mainstream psychological practice is an indictment of psychology. And branch of medicine can be carried along by a social fad, but this is a particularly egregious example.

    I have no issue with cross-dressers, and the hormone takers are post-op persons are victims. It's the doctors I'd like to see jailed.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "read "hormone takers AND post op persons"

    sorry.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It's also "the doctors" whom coathanger-abortion zealots want to get out of the picture. I'd like to see all medical licenses pulled and free competition restored. There's no stopping a fool and his money from parting. And thanks to populatio growth, there is now a sucker born every ten seconds. But jailing the non-violent only enslaves taxpayers to support unproductive hands.

  • Sevo||

    "And thanks to populatio growth, there is now a sucker born every ten seconds."

    Uh, Hank, YOU might have been born after ten seconds, but the population growth is rapidly slowing.
    You need to keep up.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Scott deftly exploits to hammer a wedge between the mystical bigots controlling God's Own Prohibitionists since 1928 and today's Minutemen who understand the "free" and "right" part of the Second Amendment. Unwrapping the package-dealing that looters resort to to coalesce conspiracies against the public can't help but increase the law-repealing power of libertarian spoiler votes. Good work.

  • Josh Melton||

    The article misses the point. You're talking about existing laws allowing prosecution after a child has already been harmed. A law prohibiting entry into a restroom by the opposite sex would permit local law enforcement to potentially prevent a crime before it happened. Scenario: A simple discussion between a police officer and the person in question while a bathroom is checked for children, would prevent harm to a child. That's why people want a law. It also sets a moral boundary in society that this isn't acceptable. Sure, you can take this example an use it for your article because it proves your point (happened in a private residence), but can you take any unreported examples of children being harmed and use them for your article? No. I wouldn't call a parent's concern over the potential molestation over their children "panic," no matter how it manifests. This example is useless in the context of the argument and contributed nothing to the discussion.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Can't he just say that he identifies as a 10-year-old, and this was just harmless experimentation between two kids?

  • ThomasD||

    Next year.

    Let's not get ahead of schedule...

  • josh||

    "So does that mean the right-wing culture warriors were right to worry about the trans infiltration of American ladies' rooms?"

    Politics suffers from proximity syndrome, by which I mean if it's close enough, then it's the same thing. We just got done with the right using a phone call to a completely different widow to prove that Trump was never insensitive to that other widow. And of course the left has it's examples too....like I said, close enough.

  • Fat Hubie||

    "Her"???

  • ||

    Think

    That's, like, a call for genocide: that notorious white male cishetero robber baron, Thomas J. Watson used to exhort his white male (presumably mostly) cishetero minions to do so.

  • Bob Mitchell||

    You are intellectually dishonest. This had nothing to do with public restrooms laws. You have a blatant disregard for parents feelings and fears for their children, which I find reprehensible. Judging from liberal stance I can only surmise that you wouldn't consider anything wrong with a trans teenage boy showering with your daughter.

  • Mark22||

    No changes in the law are necessary.

    Well, except for getting rid of a whole bunch of public accommodations mandates and non-discrimination laws.

  • Frank Thorn||

    A domestic Battery charge in 2015 and at least one conviction before.

    "...Miguel Alberto Martinez is charged with felony domestic battery. Domestic battery is typically a misdemeanor, but authorities enhanced the charge because Martinez has previous domestic assault convictions..."

    http://trib.com/news/local/cri.....b9102.html

  • Robert Masters||

    It may come as a surprise but the movement to allow people into bathrooms and locker rooms and showers was focused on schools and was instigated by the LGTB community - not Republicans. The areguments against may have included the reason you seem to be focused on (transgenders raping children), but was certainly not limited to that one.

    People deserve some privacy when forced by state run schools to disrobe as they are for gym classes among other places and allowing those who claim to be of a gender that they are not biologically, ignores the rights of everyone else. Your tactic with this article is clever yet cynical and a misleading straw man.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online