April 22, 2016

Cruz reacts to Trump's acceptance of transgender persons making their own choice of bathrooms: "Let me ask you. Have we gone stark raving nuts?"

"This is not political correctness. This is basic common sense... I'm the father of two little girls, this is basic common sense. Grown adult men, strangers, should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls...."



"A few months ago Donald told us he could be the most politically correct person on Earth. And I guess he's showing us what that looks like. I am waiting with anticipation for the new baseball caps -- 'Make PC Great Again.'"

Cruz seems to be trying to appropriate Trump's anti-PC brand.

ADDED: In the NYT: "Donald Trump’s More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in G.O.P."

147 comments:

MayBee said...

I do think we've gone nuts.

Our ability to get focused on, and outraged about, minutia is astounding. We have soldiers deploying. Our foreign policy is a shambles. Democrats are looking to do serious damage by supporting a federal $15 minimum wage and NO deportations of illegal immigrants-- and this is what takes up the national discussion.

How does this happen?

coupe said...

Unisex is very Roman. Well, until Roman Empire fell...

Bob Boyd said...

So many people tell me they love it when I use the Men's Room. I'm really a great fan of the Men's Room, I must tell you.
I've built Men's Rooms, fabulous, terrific Men's Rooms. so I know what I'm talking about. Some people prefer the Women's, what can I tell you? This a great country with great rest rooms and they're only going to get better when I'm President. - Donald Trump

Giovanna said...

That flame on Cruz's campaign signs reminds me of the flame that Penetcostals use as their church logo, which obviously represents the Holy Spirit alighting on their heads at Pentecost. That's creepy. He's reacting to this issue like a typical Penetcostal/Evangelical, not something that is conducive to a secular form of government. I'm sure the Theocracies around the world have good strong laws regarding public restrooms and gender.

Laslo Spatula said...

I don't think I could perform bathroom functions with a little girl in the same room.

Unless she was tied up and blindfolded.

Oh why did you have to wear that little blue-and-orange dress?

I am Laslo.

JHapp said...

High school is going to be a lot more fun with guys and girls sharing showers.

bagoh20 said...

"How does this happen?"

Our parents and ancestors were mostly serious, worked hard, showed courage, made good decisions, and provided for their progeny, so their descendants wouldn't need to do the same. They overachieved. The one mistake they made was they trusted us.

traditionalguy said...

Lyin' Ted cranks out more whoppers the farther behind he gets. Now Cruz has morphed into an Onion character in hopes that something, anything, will scare the religious folks back to him from Trump's realism stance.

What will he try next? His basic flaw is that the Holy Spirit, who is called The Spirit of Truth, deals 100% in Reality based life.

n.n said...

Transgender/homosexual, transgender/crossover, transsocial/pedophile, transhuman/abortionist or reactive, transhuman/cannibal or planner...

It's like concealed carry. It may or may not already happen.

The bigger problem is the pro-choice doctrine or opportunistic avoidance of reconciliation and its establishment of institutional discrimination (e.g. selective exclusion, class diversity), liberal (i.e. unprincipled or variable) science, democratic (i.e. majority or dictatorial) rights, etc.

MayBee:

Yeah... Devaluation of capital and labor through fiscal misalignment, progressive wars, created and saved terrorist organizations, millions of dead in social justice-inspired humanitarian disasters, millions displaced through anti-native policies, mass exodus from second and third-world nations, abortion/reactive rites, cannibalistic/planning trials, etc.

It does matter, but less if we lose our nation to alien invasion, progressive corruption, liberal exploitation, and a dodo dynasty.

n.n said...

bagoh20:

Progeny and Posterity...

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Progeny and Posterity have since been excised, or perhaps exorcised is the better description.

Michael K said...

Trump will walk this back soon. It's more stream of consciousness stuff.

I doubt Disneyland is going for unisex bathrooms any time soon.

MayBee said...

The NBA is threatening to move the all star game if NC doesn't bring the laws into line with the way they want them to be.

How many big sporting events have been threatened now by the NFL or the NBA or MLB? I remember Arizona was protested by the NBA when they tried to make illegal aliens prove citizenship. Players wore BLM-inspired shirts for that movement. Were there threats over confederate flags?

Everything has to be political. If the NBA wants to make a point, they should hire transgendered coaches or players. Do a Jackie Robinson. Not get involved in laws not directly affecting them.

traditionalguy said...

Cruz will likely start pushing hajibs for women allowed out in public or head scarves at a minimum. That sounds so righteous and protective and godly.

MayBee said...

I liked what Trump said about Jenner being able to use whatever bathroom she wanted in one of his buildings. That's how things should be- he owns the buildings, he decides.

But does this have to be another issue where we can't even discuss people's completely rational fears and discomforts? This was not even on the radar 1 year ago, and now everyone is supposed to have the exact same "correct" opinion.

Luke Lea said...

Don't trans men dress like women and look like women? We're not talking about men dressed in men's clothing boldly going into women's restrooms, are we? In any case, women's restrooms consist of individual stalls with doors that close and lock. Cameras mounted in the open areas outside the stalls would not invade privacy but could monitor (and identify) miscreants. There could also be audio linked to security guards' stations in case there are screams.

David Begley said...

Two slam dunks by May Bee.

I'm just wondering what the NBA players think about this possible boycott. How about a secret vote?

There is a huge disconnect between the elites and everyone else on this issue.

Question: Before this became the issue of the moment, what restroom did the trans use?

Fernandinande said...

MayBee said...
I do think we've gone nuts.


Reacting to trivia is a major part of virtue signaling.

But some people really are nuts -

Metamorphosis
Posted on April 21, 2016 by gcochran9
“transgender” people aren’t: they’re just crazy. Whittling doesn’t change the wiring of the brain, or the chromosomes. But in principle, such a transformation is possible. It would be an example of real, deep biological change – not the the tinkering at the margins we’re actually on the verge of.
... (caterpillar/butterfly and a barnacle which controls a crab) ...
Such natural examples show that really advanced biological engineering is possible, even though we don’t know enough to pull it off yet.

But someday we will. Or any rate we will unless we destroy civilization first, which seems more likely."

BrianE said...

I would have said "Have we dong stark raving mad?"
Oh, I have said that-- nearly every day when I look at what's happening around the country.

Ms. Althouse thinks we should have compassion on these troubled souls. So I guess she's fine with mingling biological sexes of any age. But even she must have a line, at which a psychological disorder must be treated as such.

I wonder if that line might be pedophilia. Some of those folks are sincere thinking that they're not harming young souls-- even helping them.

Surely she has a line.

Nyamujal said...

Am I the only one who thinks it's creepy that everyone on the stage has a "Ted Cruz" sign? We already know who you support guys, what's the point of all that extra signage?

The Germans have a compound word for a "face that should be slapped". It's called Backpfeifengesicht. Looking up Backpfeifengesicht on Google results in "Backpfeifengesicht Ted Cruz" as one of the most popular search items.

MadisonMan said...

Democrats are looking to do serious damage by supporting a federal $15 minimum wage and NO deportations of illegal immigrants-- and this is what takes up the national discussion

Well, who is driving the conversation? Democrats dressed up in Journalist costumes.

Qwinn said...

It really seems like Trump's getting his money's worth with internet trolls (or maybe it's Hillary). They apparently get paid extra for using the word "creepy" regarding Cruz, even over utterly ridiculous crap like complaining there's too many signs at a campaign rally. There's no more signs on that stage than *anyone else* has, but if Cruz has signs, it's "creepy".

"Cruz will likely start pushing hajibs for women allowed out in public or head scarves at a minimum."

Oh, for God's sake.

"That flame on Cruz's campaign signs reminds me of the flame that Penetcostals use as their church logo, which obviously represents the Holy Spirit alighting on their heads at Pentecost. That's creepy."

Cha-ching!

"He's reacting to this issue like a typical Penetcostal/Evangelical, not something that is conducive to a secular form of government."

Ya know, I'm agnostic, but if it *requires* an overtly Christian government in order to keep perverts out of the women's room, bring on the Hallelujahs!

"I'm sure the Theocracies around the world have good strong laws regarding public restrooms and gender."

Yes, you're absolutely right, only theocracies separate people by genders. Well, theocracies and everyone else on the freaking planet until 2 minutes ago.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Yeah, Luke! So we will now have security guards at all stores/restaurants monitoring the TVs in the restrooms.

n.n said...

Everyone has their religion. Some are pro-choice. Some are Christian. I wonder which moral philosophy does a better job of reconciling moral and natural imperatives.

Qwinn said...

I really am glad to be seeing the Left overplaying their hand on this. This entire thing is going to remind folks that conservatives were saying the Left's initiatives from 10 years ago would lead directly to things like gender-neutral bathrooms, and how Lefties laughed and mocked and laughed them at the time. They're also starting to realize what exactly the "secular form of government" the Left wants entails. And that they will never, ever, ever be satisfied.

amielalune said...

As is anything that the enemedia makes a huge fuss about, this is a nothingburger. The NC law was in response to the City of Charlotte telling private businesses what they had to do with their bathrooms. The best way for the state to negate that was to pass a law that superseded it.

Right now, there is nothing to stop a man from going into a public restroom. Does your favorite restaurant have a bathroom monitor? If a man enters a woman's bathroom and then attempts anything, the "I'm a transgender" won't help him. There are still laws against peeping toms, lewd behavior, molestation, etc., etc.

It's all ridiculous and just another way for the SJW's to signal their virtue and their subservience to the radical gays/radical left.

Mary Beth said...

Are business owners supposed to hire someone to inspect the genitals of customers using the restrooms to make sure they are using the sex-appropriate one? Is Cruz only concerned about creepers bothering little girls? What about our young sons? Maybe we should just ban men from using public restrooms. Do it for the children!

I think Trump's answer was the correct one for a business owner and for a politician with a primary in California next week.

Paddy O said...

What I don't get in this whole discussion is the conflating of "gay issues" with "transgender" issues. I thought these were separate when speaking about which bathroom to use. Are people saying gay people shouldn't use public restrooms? Or is the commentary assuming that gay people are really the opposite gender? Are gay men clamoring to use women's restrooms? Are they saying all transgender people are gay?

This struck me as a very disingenuous part of the argument from the beginning, that this all somehow relates to gay rights. But they're tying these together in a way that really makes it clear it's not about restroom access at all, but part of a bigger goal.

Thorley Winston said...

So the endpoint for this that is we’re going have illegal aliens being paid $15.00 per hour to work as bathroom monitors for federally mandated unisex bathrooms.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

We're not talking about men dressed in men's clothing boldly going into women's restrooms, are we?

Actually yes, that is what we are talking about. It would take any lawyer about 3 seconds to find a liberal judge that would find any appearance or clothing requirements discriminatory.

Qwinn said...

"If a man enters a woman's bathroom and then attempts anything, the "I'm a transgender" won't help him. There are still laws against peeping toms, lewd behavior,"

Um, I'm fairly sure that laws against whipping out your penis are not operative in bathrooms. If they were, every guy who ever goes to the bathroom is breaking the law. I have no doubt the Left would approve of that, but I don't think they've gotten there yet.

n.n said...

The NC law was in response to the City of Charlotte telling private businesses what they had to do with their bathrooms.

Rational and reasonable.

There are still laws against peeping toms, lewd behavior, molestation, etc., etc.

Practical and necessary, whether male, female, transgendered, transsocial, or transhuman.

Qwinn said...

I suspect what this will really lead to - or at least what the Left wants this to lead to - is cameras in every bathroom. That way, if a guy does something bad in the women's room, we have it on film and can do something about it! Great solution, no?

Ready to have your every excretion recorded? Cause that's what's next.

And once you're being recorded in the bathroom, what objection can you possibly raise to cameras on every street, every block, hell, every living room?

Thorley Winston said...

"If a man enters a woman's bathroom and then attempts anything, the "I'm a transgender" won't help him. There are still laws against peeping toms, lewd behavior,"


Anyone who has been paying attention should know by now that whenever someone on the cultural left says “why are you so worried about changing X because Y is still in place?” that Y is the next thing on the chopping block.

n.n said...

Social etiquette can be reasonably maintained in isolated spaces, and violators can be addressed individually, and deterred with proactive measures through progressive penalties. The problem is integration of trans individuals in open social spaces, including locker rooms, communal showers, etc. As well as the increased risk of introducing unstable individuals to a fertile environment.

bagoh20 said...

As usual, Trump had no idea what he was saying about the issue. The problem is that activists are trying to force laws into existence that would make it illegal to be suspicious of men in the ladies' rooms or locker rooms. An incredibly foolish thing, and not for economic reasons. He did the PC thing of pretending it was not a social issue but a financial one. PC is not just of the extreme leftism variety. Often it's just avoiding the mere appearance of religiosity or conservative principles. PC is anytime you avoid the truth to be more politically acceptable, even if you make a mistake in the calculation.

bagoh20 said...

The real issue is having a law that says if I don't want a grown man in the ladies' room with my wife or daughter, that I'm the one who is suspect.

eric said...

The Donald is losing me over this issue.

I don't mind disagreeing with people on a few things, but if you want to put perverts in the bathroom with my daughter, you're crazy.

Chuck said...

Trump was right about exactly one thing in this campaign. That he could shoot somebody in the middle if Fifth Avenue, and none of his fanatical supporters would care.

n.n said...

whenever someone on the cultural left says... Y is the next thing on the chopping block

Liberalism is a negative/positive progressive slope. Its pro-choice variant is simply chaotic.

bagoh20 said...

And I think it's important to remember that this issue is not just about toilets, which at least provide some personal privacy, but also things like locker rooms where a man could just sit there and watch. And we all know how this goes by now. Once the camel's nose is under the tent, it will be impossible to separate women from men anywhere. You ladies better start standing up for yourselves, or internet porn will be ruined.

Chuck said...

Giovanna:

About the cross-and-flame motif in Protestant denominational logos...

The trademarked logo of the United Methodist Church (the church of Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton) is a cross and a flame.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

MayBee said...This was not even on the radar 1 year ago, and now everyone is supposed to have the exact same "correct" opinion.

It's called Progress, MayBee, and if you don't get on board immediately that just proves your an enemy of Progress.
You want a moment to think about it, to talk it over, to address all points of view? Oh, ok, you're obviously motivated by hate and bigotry--you should be scolded, shamed, and scorned.


Now, obviously, the Right once again lets the Media define their position--if these Republicans were in any way bright they'd never say "bathroom" and would always say "locker room!"

Michael K said...

Virtue signaling is cheap until it isn't. What happens with the first bathroom rape?

We have SJWs screaming about campus rape when there aren't any. Now, they want people with penises in women's bathrooms.

The Europeans are in worse shape. They wanted Muslims so they could show how unbiased they were and now they have rape gangs.

The summer will be very interesting. I have plenty of ammunition.

Chuck said...

eric!!!

If you prove me wrong, about there being nothing that could shake the support of Trump's core 29%, then I would regard it as a good and successful day.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael K said... I have plenty of ammunition.

Plenty <> "enough."

Birches said...

Don't trans men dress like women and look like women? We're not talking about men dressed in men's clothing boldly going into women's restrooms, are we?


And what exactly is a woman supposed to look like?

Terry said...

Blogger Michael K said...
Virtue signaling is cheap until it isn't. What happens with the first bathroom rape?

The trial is for a mother’s lawsuit against Hawaii’s public school system alleging her daughter was raped by a classmate in a coed bathroom at Waianae High School in 2013. Other bathrooms on the Oahu campus were under construction, so the girl used one that had a sign bearing both male and female icons.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/20/trial_starts_in_suit_alleging_rape_at_hawaii_high_school/

Terry said...

Blogger Chuck said...
Trump was right about exactly one thing in this campaign. That he could shoot somebody in the middle if Fifth Avenue, and none of his fanatical supporters would care.

This is just as true of Obama or Cruz, for that matter. That's what "fanatical" means.

n.n said...

Virtue signaling is cheap until it isn't.

The psychos say it's a "stable" orientation. Perhaps it is, but it does not address the physiological and psychological differences between the binary human sexes.

Oh, well. Throw another baby on the barbie. It looks like a progressive year of catastrophic anthropogenic government whoring.

Hagar said...

That is not what Trump said. What he said was to let it be the way it is, which does not include Men in Women or vice versa.

Birches said...

This has been going around fb for the past few days. My very unscientific perusal of this topic shows that anyone with little girls who are old enough to not go to the men's room with their father is very worried about the laws changing. I have not had one woman defend the changes; their opinions ranged from mild discomfort to anger.

eric said...

Blogger Chuck said...
eric!!!

If you prove me wrong, about there being nothing that could shake the support of Trump's core 29%, then I would regard it as a good and successful day.


I am and have been a Cruz supporter. I like both Cruz and Trump, but I prefer cruz.

It wouldn't really be fair to lump me into Trumps core supporters group as I will probably caucus for Cruz when the election comes to Washington state. Assuming it's not all over by then.

Laslo Spatula said...

I am Mr. Spooky Scary Bathroom Man.

I close myself in a stall in the women's restroom for hours at a time.

Am I pooping? Am I masturbating? Maybe. That's just it: you don't know.

Mostly though, I am simply listening. The ambient noises in the women's restroom are like a symphony only I can hear.

The gentle tinkle upon water: young girls are like chimes, grown women like the high notes of a piano.

The plop-plop-plop of the Tympani.

The long moans of the oboe, and the squeaky expressions of rude trombone: they are all there, and I hear them.

The brash dissonance of the upset stomach, cymbal crashes and flutes.

The sound of the toilet paper roll.

The sound of heels on tile.

The washing of hands, and the tearing of paper towels: a series of crescendos, one after another.

Sometimes I can barely stand the Beauty of it all.

I record the audio of all of it, with precise notations of place, date, and time.

For example: the Target Store on March 4th had an especially winsome section starting at 2:35. There are so many others.

Of course, there is the occasional overheard cell-phone call. Personally, I think making a phone call in the bathroom is poor etiquette. Some people have no shame.


I am Laslo.

Sebastian said...

"But does this have to be another issue where we can't even discuss people's completely rational fears and discomforts? This was not even on the radar 1 year ago, and now everyone is supposed to have the exact same "correct" opinion." Careful. Inching closer to Ann "I can't believe" Althouse territory. Yes, it has to be another such issue. Yes, completely rational fears are in fact irrational and impractical. Yes, everyone is now supposed to have the same correct opinion. That's how Progs fight the culture wars. Get used to it. With quite a few remnants of the old heteronormative white-privileged bourgeois culture still in place, there's a lot for Progs to tear down. From the sidelines, law profs like AA will patiently explain to us why every new subversive demand is in fact required by the Constitution, because equal protection, or if that fails, substantive due process, or if that fails, a liberty interest in making up any old BS that forces other people to accommodate the latest fad.

eric said...

We should make a compromise with these people.

You can go into the girls bathroom. However, sexual assault can be defended with lethal force, even if you aren't the victim.

n.n said...

let it be the way it is, which does not include Men in Women

A State or individual rights issue. There is no reason to conduct the social experiment with the whole nation. That sounds vaguely familiar. #LoveWins or something.

Michael said...

There are 700,000 transgendered people in the US, including, I believe, those in transition both mentally and physically. .002% of the U.S. population and a cohort that has not, to date, been shitting in the street.

There are many many solutions to problems that do not exist.

Laslo Spatula said...

I am Mr. Spooky Scary Bathroom Man.

The acoustics can and do vary from restroom to restroom.

Some are marred by the relentless buzz of fluorescent lights.

Others bleed in ambient noise from outside the door.

Still others have excessive reverb and echo from poorly-planned tiling.

Yet each place makes the day's particular Symphony unique, and shapes the aural experience.

A flushing toilet with excessive reverb can become quite Wagnerian in scope.

A woman's zipper against the fluorescent light buzz can create a tonality worthy of Stravinsky.

Come, my ladies! Proudly play your Trumpets!

I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

One place worked, sometimes the men would use the Women when the Men was occupied. (Small business, identical single seat bathrooms.) Especially the boss did, and the others saw him doing it, so.
So the boss' wife had a talk with him and next thing you know it was announced that the next male seen using the Women would be fired.
And that was that.

jr565 said...

Hagar wrote:
That is not what Trump said. What he said was to let it be the way it is, which does not include Men in Women or vice versa.
Ok, so this is my problem with both Trump and his lack of clarity. But also the lefts farming of this issue.
Trump is simply not clear on his position, or we are not fully understanding it . Or, I personally am not getting his statement. Because there was a proposed ordinance that said that the transgender should be able to use any bathroom if they identified a certain way (I already explained how this essentially allows any man to enter a woman's room even if he's not really a transgender).
So, when trump says lets go back, is he saying back to the ordinance that gave transgendered this right? Or is he saying we should go back to how it was prior to the proposed ordinance.
Prior to the ordinance transgendered did not have a right to use any bathroom. They may have done so, but they didn't have a right to do so, does trump want to go back to the ordinance? Or prior to the ordinance.
And incidentally, the law prior to the ordinance was functionally exactly the same as the laws in response to the ordinance which everyone is having a shit fit over. Namely, men's rooms and women's rooms were reserved for men and women, based on biology, not on gender as social construct models.
I mean, the men's rooms have urinals, for crying out loud. They are designed specifically for men with penises because men have penises in almost every case. They are designed FOR MEN. If you are a woman who has not undergone any surgery but who identifies as a man you couldn't even use a urinal. So, clearly they are designed with the assumption that men are a certain way.

If trump is saying we should go back to the time prior to the ordinance, then I'd agree with him. It is the transgendered and their advocates that are pushing this weird definition of what it means to be a man and/or women. But I don't know that he isn't saying we shouldn't go back to the ordinance or the time before the ordinance. A little clarity would be great, Donald.

Chuck said...

Terry;

I am quite certain that you are right, about the fanatacism of some if not most of Obama's supporters. (Some, however, are merely partisan, and as a partisan myself I am sympathetic to the distinction.)

And of course we agree on the unhinged fanatacism of the Trump crowd, in which a great many of them and their idol all perversely profess to reject the establishment of the party they seek to represent.

But Ted Cruz doesn't belong in the same category. Cruz's support at present doubtlessly consists of large numbers of voters for whom Cruz was the second or third or last choice. Cruz is probably the "stop Trump" candidate for many. I'd be one of many who hope that Kasich is the nominee, on a third ballot. But who, in the meantime, might cast a primary vote for Cruz here or there.

Anglelyne said...

MayBee: Our ability to get focused on, and outraged about, minutia is astounding. We have soldiers deploying. Our foreign policy is a shambles. Democrats are looking to do serious damage by supporting a federal $15 minimum wage and NO deportations of illegal immigrants-- and this is what takes up the national discussion.

How does this happen?


The good news is, spiraling lunacy like this is probably a sign that a silly, degenerate society is cruising for a curb-stomping by reality, at which point the silly-fest ends and we all have to sober up.

The bad news is, spiraling lunacy like this is probably a sign that our silly, degenerate society is cruising for a curb-stomping by reality. (And I'm enough of a comfortable degenerate myself that I had hoped to get in my three-score-and-ten before the curb-stomping.)

Laslo Spatula said...

I am Mr. Spooky Scary Bathroom Man.

One amazing day I was in the women's restroom at the downtown Nordstroms -- great acoustics, by the way -- and three women pooping in their stalls coincided in a manner most reminiscent of the introduction of Also sprach Zarathustra.

And I was there!

No one else but me, to appreciate this alignment of bowel melody.

No one else but me, to feel the chills run down my spine.

The closing toilet flushes sent me into Ecstasy.

And throughout this exquisite moment a new mother sat on a couch inside the restroom, nursing her child.

Just thinking of it brings tears to my eyes.


I am Laslo.

William said...

If I were a paraplegic, I would like to see all public restrooms be wheelchair accessible. But I would allow that this isn't always possible and not consider those who don't offer such accommodations as immoral In any event, wheelchair accommodations in public restrooms would only be a small part of the challenges I faced in life........I think if you feel that you're a woman trapped in a man's body, you're going to face lots of problems more challenging than negotiating a leak. Acceptance in public restrooms does not mean acceptance in society at large. People are always going to look cross eyed at men who dress up as women. I suppose there are sane, well adjusted cross dressers, but, as a general rule, it's not a marker of trustworthiness and character.

mccullough said...

Gonna need a lot more police if the bathroom battle laws continue. Trump's approach leaves it to the people to work out social norms. I'm going to continue to piss in the bushes.

jr565 said...

University of Toronto had to temporarily alter its unisex shower policies because in a few instances wowed who were taking showers saw people stick cameras into the stalls to try to film them.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/10/05/university-of-toronto-alters-bathroom-policy-after-two-reports-of-voyeurism.html

"Melinda Scott, the dean of students at University College, said some bathrooms in Whitney Hall have now been designated specifically for residents who identify as men or women. However, several gender-neutral bathrooms remain.
“The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by the incidents of voyeurism and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom,” said Scott."
It's notable how a bathroom is supposed to be a safe space, and that unisex bathroom pose many risks, particularly for women, since there are many men out there who will act like voyeurs.
So they are closing many of these bathrooms and/or showers and saying women can go to rooms based on sexual identification. But, let's assume THIS law was the same law as used NC. Couldn't a man who says he identifies as a woman simply go to the woman's room and do the exact same thing? The law would still essentially allow him access.
It's going for a unisex room to a unisex room.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I would have said "Have we dong stark raving mad?""

Now that's an interesting typo.

eric said...


The bad news is, spiraling lunacy like this is probably a sign that our silly, degenerate society is cruising for a curb-stomping by reality. (And I'm enough of a comfortable degenerate myself that I had hoped to get in my three-score-and-ten before the curb-stomping.)


Yeah, I think the curb stomping is coming much faster than any of us would of thought. It's going to be tough. We've had it so good for so long, we have forgotten what hard times look like.

Levi Starks said...

The thing that mystifys me is how people think that agreeing to agree with every perverted social agenda that is openly on the table today will somehow mean that were finished and can move on to other objectives, not related to social values and societal norms. After we've all been shamed into a celebration of people who suffer from a brain disorder thats destroyed they're sense of reality with something so seemingly concrete as "what do I see when I look between my legs"?, I can hardly imagine what comes next.
I could guess it might be something as absurd as the requirement that we wear clothes at all when in public.
It works like this, Are there people who would prefer to be naked 100% of the time? I think I can safely answer yes. On what do we base our clothing requirement? Social norms , which dare I say it have their roots (at least in western culture) in the bible. God clothed Adam and Eve, and we know the bible is a very bad book, chock full of bigotry.
If I were to choose to walk around naked you would not be in anyway harmed, you simply need to look away.

Bay Area Guy said...

In junior high, about 40 years ago, there was a rumor that two young thugs in my class (GH & KK), were raping/groping girls in the girls bathroom. They would cut class, and just hang in the girls bathroom -- like predators waiting for prey.


At the time, we didn't know what GH was doing and wouldn't ask GH what he was doing, kids just didn't do that. Also, back then, "snitching" wasn't yet a word, but "don't be a tattle-tale" was a common, similar theme. Probably, 3 - 5 young girls (11 or 12 years old) had silently endured the humiliation (and crime), but life went on.

As GH got older, he became a violent criminal, locked up in San Quentin.

Years later, I reconnected with a childhood friend, who shed some light on the story. He said he was going to take a leak, but heard some thrashing going on in the girls bathroom across from the boys. He saw a girl struggling to get out. He saw the two thugs, made eye contact which startled them, giving the girl a chance to run out, which was good.

Weeks later, he got a subpoena to share what he saw with the authorities. His parents got scared, and simply took him out of school. No discipline for GH, no justice for the girls. Life went on.

This will happen more often after the Left screws around with bathrooms. Not me, not you, not any commentators here, we won't be the victims, but some of the weaker and more vulnerable. But the Left will simply disown the natural consequences of their ludicrous policies. Just as they throw up their hands about the murder rate in Chicago. That's someone else's problem.

Another reason why I can't stand the Left.

Chuck said...

jr565;

I agree with your formulation of the issue, and I am massively confounded by the customarily clear-thinking Althouse, professing that she thinks that Trump was being sensible on this matter.

Like you, I am struck by Trump's incomprehensible lack of clarity even more than any substantive disagreement on issues.

Clayton Hennesey said...

The 800-pound gorilla humping this whole issue is corporations and corporate celebrities publicly attempting to turn state laws into Twitter fads in greater and greater numbers, and the only real solution is to aggressively pursue ideologically alternative corporate citizens. For every PayPal (who could just as easily outsource itself overseas anyway if not given a sweet enough deal) that attempts that sort of influence, court and land a Magpul instead.

It would be a shame if the country became so starkly blue and red by state, but the alternative - naked corporatism - is far worse.

D.D. Driver said...

@Laslo

**slow clap**

exhelodrvr1 said...

Open air bathrooms, like San Francisco is doing in the parks.

gerry said...

A disorder is now a "right"?

Nyamujal said...

All this talk reminds me of a scene in Transparent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecRXpMDPipA
A great show BTW...

LarsPorsena said...

If the left was really serious about this issue we would have single sex prisons.
Why do we incarcerate men who identify as women in a men's prison?
Since women are now allowed enlist is the combat arms lets have single sex latrines.

MikeR said...

Why are we making a fuss over this instead of important issues like the economy and foreign policy? Because this stuff is actually more important. And the left knows it, that's why they push it and push it no matter what else is happening. This is how the essential nature of this country gets changed from one of the basically healthy places in the world to completely decadent and sick.
And of course they have their "useful idiots" on the right who support them, such as the author of this blog.

jr565 said...

The problem with trnsgenderism, aside from the fact that it's a disorder and a pop science, not a real identity, is that it's yet another attempt of the left to hijack the language.
So, we have laws that say you can't discriminate on the basis of Gender. But everyone knows that when the laws were passed the word "gender" meant sex. Not gender as a social construct. Gender a s asocial construct is pop science made up by cultural Marxists. It's not a real thing.
Gender dysphoria IS a legitimate identity disorder, but the whole gender as a social construct was added to it to make it into an identity. And it makes no sense. And yet, those pushing it want us to adopt it as if it was absolutely true.
What is a social construct when it comes to gender? The definition is "society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behaviour for a person of that specific gender." Ok, this is true. But it's based on stereotypes. Every time someone describes it they say things like "society says girls like pink, and boys like blue" or it's appropriate to have boys wear blue and girls wear pink"

jr565 said...

(Cont)or boys like to play with toy guns and like sports while girls like easy bake ovens and tea parties". This is actually generally true actually be asked men and women (biologically) do in fact seem to have different interests and play differently. ON average. And it may be true that society has conditioned everyone that pink is feminine. The whole,point is, is that actually definitional of gender or not? If you said you were a boy, but liked pink how would that define you as a different gender? Unless you are saying that if you like pink it makes you female.
Gender as a social construct would say women wear dresses. But cross dressers wear dresses. It doesn't define them as women. So, you could be a man who likes dresses, and thus don't conform to gender roles. Because they are not definitional.
A cross dresser would be a man who dresses like women. If Yiu think you are the wrong gender what is that based on then? That you think you like to wear dresses? You could be a man who likes to wear dresses. It doesn't make you not be a man. Because, again, gender is based on stereotypes.
There is another movement based on people who think they are animals in human form. This is just as ridiculous. However, how much do you want to bet that those trying to push the normalization of said absurdity will try to use the word "race" to try to justify the normalization. As in, you can't discriminate on the basis of race to refer to races like Elves, or Klingons or human/cats.
If you fpgenuinely thought you were an elf (even though elves don't exist) and got a doctor to give you elf ear surgery, society is now discriminating against you because they can't discriminate against race, and you are an elf which is a race.

Jason said...

Michael K: Virtue signaling is cheap until it isn't. What happens with the first bathroom rape?

We've already had the first bathroom rape. In fact, we've had quite a number of incidents.

The libtards trying to convince you it's never happened are lying.

https://outofmypantiesnow.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/when-is-90-not-substantially-all/comment-page-1/#comment-1353

Laslo Spatula said...

I am Mr. Spooky Scary Bathroom Man.

Sometimes while I am in the stall in the women's bathroom I am wearing basic male underpants.

Sometimes I am wearing a woman's delicate thong.

Still other times I won't be wearing any undergarments at all: instead, I will have stuffed in my pocket a pair of little girl's panties that I have borrowed from a laundromat. When the music is beautiful sometimes I will cry into those little girl's panties.

I don't like to be pinned down.

Stop trying to pin me down.

I have friends in my head that will stop you.

I am Laslo.

Achilles said...

Qwinn said...
"I really am glad to be seeing the Left overplaying their hand on this."

And the right is overplaying it's hand too.

Neither side should be making laws. The right and left are both finding problems for the solutions they both want to foist on everyone.

Trump is right. The country wants both of you to leave us all alone and stop finding ways to have the government employ more people.

Achilles said...

"Michael K: Virtue signaling is cheap until it isn't. What happens with the first bathroom rape?"

How many laws do you think we need to prevent all rape?

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"jr565;

I agree with your formulation of the issue, and I am massively confounded by the customarily clear-thinking Althouse, professing that she thinks that Trump was being sensible on this matter.

Like you, I am struck by Trump's incomprehensible lack of clarity even more than any substantive disagreement on issues."

Trump doesn't want a bunch of new laws and government bathroom monitors.

That is only incomprehensible to big government leftists and socons.

Jason said...

It is not necessary to prevent all rape. Such a goal is absurd. However, laws against rape do help deter some crimes, and they allow authorities to prevent sex criminals from committing future crimes as long as they are incarcerated. That's a positive, as well. Furthermore, laws against stalking and peeping allow authorities and property owners to intervene before the opportunity arises for a voyeur to escalate to assault. They can chase the criminal out of the women's locker room, for example, before he can catch someone alone to attack.

This is why we have such laws.

Thorley Winston said...

I agree with Bay Area Guy. All you have to do is look at the “Black Lives (sometimes) Matter” movement which is founded on enabling thug culture and in lionizing predators like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as “victims” (and before that “honor students” and “gentle giants”). The Left will never admit that their policies are what caused the problem; it was always be racism/income inequality/Citizens United/whatever.


Achilles said...

Jason said...
"They can chase the criminal out of the women's locker room, for example, before he can catch someone alone to attack.

This is why we have such laws."

They can do this now. And no there weren't any such laws. Our society has done just fine without a bunch of laws about bathroom attendance.

I am pissed at the left for their meddling. Their laws cause massive harm. And what do the socons do? They endorse meddling with top down big government laws.

YOU PEOPLE CANNOT MAKE US 100% SAFE WITH LAWS!

For fucks sake you people are fucking stupid.

Chuck said...

So Achilles;

You sound like the man with the Trump Answers.

Does Trump oppose the Charlottesville ordinance that requires all businesses to accommodate transgender choices on the use if bathrooms?

Or does Trump oppose the corrective North Carolina statute that attempts to protect private business choice in the matter?

Or are you not certain?

If Trump opposes the North Carolina law, how do you square that view with Professor Althouse's view? (If in fact you understand that view.)

Does Trump think that it is fine for Trump Tower to have a "choice" policy on bathroom use, but that it is okay for other businesses to make different choices? Would Trump like to be told by the City or the State of New York how he had to regulate the use of bathrooms in Trump Tower?

If I may, I'd like for both you and Althouse to answer, and to then compare the answers.

Michael K said...

"the weaker and more vulnerable. But the Left will simply disown the natural consequences of their ludicrous policies. Just as they throw up their hands about the murder rate in Chicago. That's someone else's problem.

Another reason why I can't stand the Left."

The weaker are already begging the police to protect them in Chicago. Politics does not do public confidence well.

"An armed society is a polite society." We will be back to that. Read this essay at Heterodox Academy.

We have gone from an "Honor Society" to a "Dignity Society" and now to a "Victimhood Society." Soon we will be back to Honor with self defense.

It's a bit like the Chinese proverb: "First generation coolie, second generation merchant, third generation rich man, fourth generation coolie."

Alex said...

The the GOP purges the religious fundamentalists root & branch, they will not taste a POTUS victory.

Ted Cruz can go fuck himself.

Tits.

walter said...

Birches said...
Don't trans men dress like women and look like women?
--
The "success" rate varies...

Michael K said...

"Don't trans men dress like women and look like women?"

A friend of mine was a co-pilot for a big airline. He used to fly sometimes with a trainee captain who was 6 feet tall, had size 12 shoes and was a very ugly "woman." He never found out if the captain had had surgery.

Michael K said...

Trannee captain...

Autocorrect has to watched constantly.

Bay Area Guy said...

"It's a bit like the Chinese proverb: "First generation coolie, second generation merchant, third generation rich man, fourth generation coolie."

Darn, this is profound, and the Chinese had a boatload of generations. We have some serious 4th Generation coolies on our college campuses these days.

Christopher said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is only a matter of time before a straight man or woman refusing to date somebody who is transsexual will be considered bigotry.

I figure it'll occur sometime within the next five years.

Brando said...

I have to agree with Achilles and Trump on this one. It's already illegal to harass, molest or attack anyone in a bathroom, so these laws aren't really fixing a problem, and frankly they're unenforceable--it's not like they'll check IDs in bathrooms, anyone they do check will have already been guilty of another offense anyway. This is leftist and rightist virtue signaling over nothing.

BrianE said...

When one looks at the changes Charlotte made to it's ordinance that started all this, one is drawn to the theory that it was either a. it was drafted on the spur of the moment without any thought to the potential ramifications or b. it was designed to elicit the response from the state legislature.

Charlotte’s proposed ordinance said the "full and equal enjoyment" of such places must not "be refused, withheld from, or denied any person because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin."

Here's a screen shot of the changes Charlotte made to it's orginance, a defense of the NC bill, and, of course, the requisite Politifact rational while his claim was false-- which is made up of some rather thin gruel.

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/08/dan-forest/nc-lt-gov-dan-forest-says-new-state-law-hb2-preven/

When you see the changes Charlotte made, the state's response seems rather rational.

EMD said...

"I have to agree with Achilles and Trump on this one. It's already illegal to harass, molest or attack anyone in a bathroom, so these laws aren't really fixing a problem, and frankly they're unenforceable--it's not like they'll check IDs in bathrooms, anyone they do check will have already been guilty of another offense anyway. This is leftist and rightist virtue signaling over nothing."

Yes. The best part about Trump's response was the dismissal of the issue. It's a triviality, really, in an overly-comfortable nation.

BrianE said...

"To be clear on the Charlotte law... It was in no way limited to transgenders.

No business could discriminate against "any person" regardless of "sex or gender identity" in restrooms, showers, changing areas or baths.

This means that any man, not just transgenders must be allowed to use the restroom, showers, changing area or bath that they choose and no one can stop them." - Alan Peppers

It makes you wonder what was motivating the Charlotte city council.

Qwinn said...

The motivation is easy to discern. Force the state to pass a law negating what Charlotte did, enabling useful idiot tools like Achilles to hold "socons" equally responsible for this mess.

BN said...

Three of my favorite quotes:

1) History repeats itself. The first time as farce, the second time as Kafka.

2) Politics is down sewer from culture.

3) Reality is a social construct.

And a bonus one for Laslo:

There is nothing so sublime as a really good shit.

Clyde said...

Ted Cruz is absolutely correct on this one, as was Curt Schilling. Being correct isn't enough to keep you from getting fired, in the latter case, but as other people noted, Schilling knew who he was working for. That's not your father's Disney/ABC running things at ESPN, unless your father is now your mother.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
"So Achilles;

You sound like the man with the Trump Answers.

Does Trump oppose the Charlottesville ordinance that requires all businesses to accommodate transgender choices on the use if bathrooms?

Or does Trump oppose the corrective North Carolina statute that attempts to protect private business choice in the matter?

Or are you not certain?"

The answer to all of those questions: We don't give a shit. The government does not need to stick it's nosey nose in our bathrooms. Both the right and the Left need to get a fucking life and deal with things that matter.

At some point you socons will learn how to mind your own business.

Qwinn said...

In their show Once Upon A Time, Disney just had Little Red Riding Hood waking Oz's Dorothy from a sleep curse with True Love's Kiss. They'd known each other for a whole couple of days.

Seriously. The clear message is that anything gay is inherently noble and profound.

That company is utterly controlled by the far left, and they have singular access to the moral programming of virtually all of our children. It's them that deserves the boycott.

Qwinn said...

Again, Achilles claims any attempt by the Right to counteract leftist lawfare is itself aggressive lawfare. This is because Achilles is worse than a leftist in every conceivable manner. His role is to make any defense against the Left's legal warfare illegitimate.

Achilles said...

Clyde said...
"Ted Cruz is absolutely correct on this one, as was Curt Schilling. Being correct isn't enough to keep you from getting fired, in the latter case, but as other people noted, Schilling knew who he was working for. That's not your father's Disney/ABC running things at ESPN, unless your father is now your mother."

They are right there needs to be some social order.

They are wrong that the government is the right way to achieve that order. Until you people accept the principal of limited government we are lost.

Achilles said...

Qwinn said...
"Again, Achilles claims any attempt by the Right to counteract leftist lawfare is itself aggressive lawfare. This is because Achilles is worse than a leftist in every conceivable manner. His role is to make any defense against the Left's legal warfare illegitimate."

You are a retard.

You think it is the government's job to regulate bathroom attendance. Once it is the government's job then we all have to argue about which signs are acceptable and who is a woman or man.

I counteract leftist lawfare by removing government from the equation. Once it is understood it is not a legislative or legal issue we let the people who provide the bathrooms do their thing. If someone is being a creep they will get maced. Problem solved.

You counteract leftist lawfare by fighting back with common sense and telling nosey fucks to butt out. Not by butting your own nosey fucks in. You are all creeps.

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:

They can do this now. And no there weren't any such laws. Our society has done just fine without a bunch of laws about bathroom attendance.

you say you don't want govt to make laws. You ignore thet this laws was passed in response to an ordinance. Which is a law. Prior to this ordinance was it the assumption that men could use the wome s room? Or thet the transgendered could, by law, use the woman's room? Then, why pass the ordinance?

jr565 said...

And Achilles, if the ordinance was left to stand and some business denied a transgender access to the bathroom who would hold the business accountable? That's right. The govt. so, the fact that an ordinance was passed would require cops/govt to now enforce the ordinance. The only difference would be instead of policing who went into bathrooms it would be who violated the ordinance.
So, govt is still involved.

jr565 said...

And by the way, the law doesn't preclude a business from setting up unisex bathrooms if they want to as far as I can tell. It wouldn't allow people to sue though if such a bathroom WASNT set up.
This only affects govt.

jr565 said...

A private corp could set up a bathroom that is unisex for example. That is their prerogative.

http://myfox8.com/2016/03/29/myths-vs-facts-about-house-bill-2-released-by-nc-gov-pat-mccrorys-office/

So. target could decide to mark its mulit use bathrooms unisex if they want to. The difference is, a business is not REQUIRED to do this. That is actually govt trying to insert itself into what businesses must accommodate. And you can be sure, if any business refused they'd be sued out of business. The ordinance was not neutral govt action, Achilles. Don't try to pretend like it is.

Clayton Hennesey said...

The blogger Rod Dreher is claiming psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer is in way over his head on this for claiming that the issue is a solution in search of a problem and that, to the contrary, it is a prime example of Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility and just one more reason to take his Benedict Option. He doesn't really say what his Benedict Option would do about the situation, however.

No doubt Rahm Emmanuel's observations about crises and opportunities are applicable here.

BN said...

"You counteract leftist lawfare by fighting back with common sense."

Great idea! Let's discuss it in blog comments and common sensibly call each other retards until all the laws recently passed and implemented by judicial and executive fiat disappear.

First topic: The Transgender Emperor's New Clothes

Go!

BN said...

Another mangled quote: "You may not be interested in lawfare, but lawfare is interested in you."

jr565 said...

by the way, if the ordinance stood, you can be sure that the transgendered woudl be suing if any business dared have bathrooms for men and women (like the sign said) and did anything to restrict any transgendered from access to the bathroom of their choice.
And they would have sued businesses out of business. It would be todays version of the bakers not wanitng to make cakes for gay weddings, part deux.

Birches said...

Yeah. Achilles's get the government out of the bathroom business is a perfectly rational argument, if Charlotte hadn't passed laws that involved the government and would result in the judicial branch enforcing those laws.

As jr pointed out, a man can walk into a girl's locker room, change, swim, change again, and no one will tell him to leave. Here's the story. This really happened.

n.n said...

Social etiquette must be enforceable, and individuals must be responsible for their behavior, which implies a greater burden on trans individuals by their choice.

D.D. Driver said...

Look let's say I agree that there needs to be a bathroom law, are we really going to have cops checking for dicks on the way in the door? Maybe do some old fashioned TSA-style gropin'?

What's a bigger risk, all these transgendered (and fakers) assaulting potty-goers, or cops "just doing their job" by feeling up citizens to make sure they are using the right bathroom?

What is the point of a law that cannot be enforced?

Michael K said...

Personally, I think the problem will be solved the first time a "white privilege" father beats the shot out of the pervert who exposed himself to his daughter. The lefties don't have enough people on their side to man all the juries. Sorry "person" the juries.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

father beats the shot out of the pervert who exposed himself to his daughter

I see your perversion and raise you the right to defend my daughter or son by beating the shit out of you if you progress to violate their space. The #SafeSpace, feminists, etc. advocates should fully back this concession, or not, as precedent has revealed their profits... I mean, motives.

A law that serves to dissuade perverts, and gawkers, too. Of course, the traditional civil rights industry and other suspects will need to be kept on a short leash in order for nature and justice to take its course.

Harold said...

"traditionalguy said...
Cruz will likely start pushing hajibs for women allowed out in public or head scarves at a minimum. That sounds so righteous and protective and godly."

Think you've got liberals and conservatives all mixed up. Liberals don the head scarves voluntarily. Here's an article of Nancy Pelosi doing it: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nancy_pelosis_syria_head_scarf_controversy/ Monica Lewisky's ex-boyfriend's wife in one (one of many shots available) http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/clinton-presidential-campaign-video-shows-hillary-in-hijab/ And it's in the socialist liberal Nordic countries where we have liberal politicians telling women to cover up so as not to inflame the muslim invaders.

And I'm pretty sure liberal blogs are the ones bereft of Rule 5 posts. Quite common in conservative venues where people appreciate the differences between the sexes.

n.n said...

father beats the shot out of the pervert who exposed himself to his daughter

We will wait and observe if your orientation remains stable and benign, but if your behavior progresses or metastasizes it will require immediate and aggressive treatment.

Real American said...

why are leftists biology deniers?

Qwinn said...

Don't bother responding to Achilles. He has dubbed me a "retard", and believes he has put me in my place, and I am certain he no longer feels a need to return to see if anyone else has answered, feeling fully secure that he has "buried" me. It ain't the first time.

The idiocy that you fight leftist lawfare with "common sense" and "mind your own business" as if those have the legal force to undo the Left's legal malevolence is one of the most patently moronic things I've ever read, until you realize that he doesn't believe what he's saying either. He's a concern troll. He is here to make any opposition to leftist lawfare by the right illegitimate. Think of how the Left made opposing communism illegitimate through invoking the evil of "McCarthyism", and then proceeded to enact anti-conservative McCarthyism through every single institution in our society. It really is the same tactic, force us to unilaterally disarm via shaming while doubling their own rate of fire, and it has worked fabulously for them, why would you expect the Left to stop using it?

Qwinn said...

And how am I sure he's a concern troll? He keeps claiming that both the left and the right's legal shenanigans bother him... and yet, keep your eye on where he's spewing the vast majority of his venom. It ain't at the Left. He keeps railing against "socons" again and again, he only throws out "a pox on both their houses" for a microsecond in order to establish cred to attack the Right. I'm sure he adores Nick Gillespie.

Birches said...

Nice ding at The Jacket Qwinn

Lem said...

I like Kurt Chilling a lot, but, I think he's full of it on this.

If we apply the Trump test to this (when Trump heard about the journalist claim that Landowski had strong-armed her, he said why didn't she cry out?) we might get somewhere.

So far, I've only heard from other men saying they don't want men going in there.

Where do women stand on this? and how come these polls are not being widely disseminated?

It's as if both parties benefit by a lack of basic information.

Lem said...

If the women don't mind, who Am I to say? I would prefer the tranys didn't. But, again, if the women, who are the ones who going to be in there with them, don't mind...

Lem said...

If women can choose to abort a baby... what?... bad analogy?

Darleen said...

In CA the Dem voters & legislators, overcome with compassion for criminals (added to Gov Browns "Prison Realignment" has released 10K state prisons over the last three year) passed Prop 47 in Nov 2014. A proposition of compassion - why go to jail over property crimes? Why should repeat offenders of low-level crime EVER face felony charges? yadda yadda yadda

Well, crime is up 21% in CA. UNEXPECTEDLY!!

Now the Left-facists have upped the ante in the victimhood olympics and want to force all public institutions (including schools) & private businesses to stop having sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms and dressing areas. FOR THE COMPASSION FOR THE POOR GENDER CONFUSED!!

Now, sex offenders far far outnumber the truly transsexual demographic and the Leftist compassion cohort has just handed the sex offenders a ready excuse to re-offend. Because just who is going to stop them and risk losing one's livelihood for being publicly shamed and harassed as a bigot?

#waronwomen indeed

Jason said...



Qwinn: Achilles is all wet on this one. Utterly sophomoric.

But a concern troll he isn't. He's been pretty much reliably conservative on this board for years that I can recall. Trump has been skewing people in weird directions, though.

grackle said...

That is not what Trump said.

Yes, but do not expect any common sense or accuracy from the #neverTrumpers.

University of Toronto had to temporarily alter its unisex shower policies because in a few instances wowed who were taking showers saw people stick cameras into the stalls to try to film them.

The article link was interesting. Question:

In light of the fact that there are no witnesses who can identify the alleged culprits and no suspects charged, why is it assumed that a trans-gendered person was the culprit?

We've already had the first bathroom rape. In fact, we've had quite a number of incidents.

I read the linked article and read the many examples cited in the article. From the examples I get the impression that the trans-gendered population has about the same percentage of rapists as the non-trans-gendered population. Interesting, but what does any of it have to do with the issue of transgender use of bathrooms?

damikesc said...

Our ability to get focused on, and outraged about, minutia is astounding. We have soldiers deploying. Our foreign policy is a shambles. Democrats are looking to do serious damage by supporting a federal $15 minimum wage and NO deportations of illegal immigrants-- and this is what takes up the national discussion.

The Regressive Left LOVES culture wars now since most companies just want to avoid controversy and the Right won't bitch forever. The Left does. Always.

Everything has to be political. If the NBA wants to make a point, they should hire transgendered coaches or players. Do a Jackie Robinson. Not get involved in laws not directly affecting them.

Or shut down the money pit that is the WNBA and force NBA teams to have women players. Make the NBA "gender-neutral"

It's time to look at sports and recognize them for the useless bullshit they are.

I think Trump's answer was the correct one for a business owner and for a politician with a primary in California next week.

Except he was, as usual, wrong. The NC law was saying Charlotte couldn't require FORCE businesses to allow it nor would the government do it, either. If a private enterprise wanted to do so, that was their choice.

That is not what Trump said. What he said was to let it be the way it is, which does not include Men in Women or vice versa.

He bitched about a law THAT DID THAT SPECIFICALLY.

The answer to all of those questions: We don't give a shit. The government does not need to stick it's nosey nose in our bathrooms. Both the right and the Left need to get a fucking life and deal with things that matter.

At some point you socons will learn how to mind your own business.


Non-answer duly noted.

Let me guess, if a criminal breaks into a house and is shot, both the criminal and shooter should be thrown in jail, right?

They both did bad things, right?

Socons aren't pushing this. The Regressive Left is.

They are wrong that the government is the right way to achieve that order. Until you people accept the principal of limited government we are lost.

They are ALREADY using the government to achieve their goals.

But it's bad to pass laws saying "you don't have to. Private entities can make their own choices". Interesting.

damikesc said...

Intriguing question Michael K.

Perhaps you should read the rules and determine where they require any proof that one is "transgender" (a whopping sub.01 percent of the population) outside of your word. Because it does not exist.

You keep saying "How do we know it's transgender doing this" as if it matters. The law passed in Charlotte that Trump apparently supports (based on him hitching about a law u doing it) certainly requires no proof outside of their word.

Darleen said...

Interesting, but what does any of it have to do with the issue of transgender use of bathrooms?

Grackle, look at my post almost directly above yours.

I don't flippin' care if the guy who insists on sitting in the locker room naked is "really" trans or not, but if his junk is hanging out while the girls' high school swim team is trying to change, he should not be there. Period.

The privileging of the gender confused to go where they "feel" regardless of their genitalia over the rights of privacy and safety for women and girls is wrong. Especially when any woman who might complain will be at risk of losing their job and subject to harassment.

damikesc said...

The privileging of the gender confused to go where they "feel" regardless of their genitalia over the rights of privacy and safety for women and girls is wrong. Especially when any woman who might complain will be at risk of losing their job and subject to harassment.

This is why feminism is a joke. You don't see feminists making a hue and cry about this. They are terrified of college rape when it basically doesn't exist --- but they are OK with dudes being in locker rooms and showers with girls. And, rest assured, any charges if pedophilia will be ignored.

This idiocy is for a group that is less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the population. The odds of anybody knowing an ACTUAL transgender person is low. And nobody would question anybody who "looks" like a woman in the restroom. But this is for men who want to scope out young kids because Progressives have started trying to normalize pedophilia. Been trying to for a few years now.

Why they wish to end Western Civ is lost on me.

grackle said...

Grackle, look at my post almost directly above yours.

I looked. The post gives me the distinct impression that the commentor definitely does not favor anyone’s “junk” to be exposed. She believes it is “wrong.” So do I. So does the law, which is why people are busted for it and why they will continue to be busted for it even if trans-gendered individuals are able to use restrooms.

jr565 said...

grackle wrote:
grackle wrote:
I looked. The post gives me the distinct impression that the commentor definitely does not favor anyone’s “junk” to be exposed

If a womans junk is exposed in a womans room, is she going to be kicked out of the bathroom/locker room? Isn't that where a woman would have her "junk exposed"? Since she would be changing.
Isnt' that different than having a man with his junk exposed in the same room?

Darleen said...

So does the law, which is why people are busted for it and why they will continue to be busted for it even if trans-gendered individuals are able to use restrooms

So a woman -- who is told she isn't to question the legitimacy of the man walking naked through the locker room least she be branded a bigot, lose her gym membership and possibly even lose her job if her employer is flooded with tweets/emails about her transphobia -- will report such naked man with the same frequency as before the gym was forced to have 'sex-neutral' polices?

Sure, and CA's crime rate has NOT risen 21%, ObamaCare is a roaring success and we've always been at war with EastAsia.

grackle said...

So a woman -- who is told she isn't to question the legitimacy of the man walking naked through the locker room least she be branded a bigot, lose her gym membership and possibly even lose her job if her employer is flooded with tweets/emails about her transphobia -- will report such naked man with the same frequency as before the gym was forced to have 'sex-neutral' polices?

It is so obvious that I hesitate to point it out:

Being able to use restrooms does not mean “walking naked through the locker room.” Indecent exposure is still against the law in most locations. Or does the commentor believe a transgender person cannot use a restroom without exposing their “junk?” I believe they can.

Another question:

Has the commentor ever used a public restroom? If so, did the commentor expose their “junk” when they did?

If a womans junk is exposed in a womans room, is she going to be kicked out of the bathroom/locker room? Isn't that where a woman would have her "junk exposed"? Since she would be changing. Isnt' that different than having a man with his junk exposed in the same room?

I truly am not sure of what point the commentor is struggling to make. I suppose a few women out of millions do change clothes in a public restroom but the incidence is so rare that I do not believe it is worth bothering with. Out of all my years I have never witnessed a woman going into a public restroom to change clothes.

But if a woman did surely there are ways for her to change clothes without her exposing her “junk.” I believe I could do it easily and I have more to expose than any female.

Gahrie said...

Being able to use restrooms does not mean “walking naked through the locker room.” Indecent exposure is still against the law in most locations.

But the law is not restricted to the use of restrooms, and indeed does include the "right" to walk naked through a locker room.

Indecent exposure is still against the law in most locations.

You consider being naked in a locker room indecent exposure? have you ever been in one? Every locker room I have ever used has had plenty of naked men in it.

Gahrie said...

In light of the fact that there are no witnesses who can identify the alleged culprits and no suspects charged, why is it assumed that a trans-gendered person was the culprit?

The person might not have been transgendered. Most of the perverts will not actually be transgendered...they will pretend to be transgendered in order to use the female locker room and rest rooms and we aren't allowed to question them.

Gahrie said...

I read the linked article and read the many examples cited in the article. From the examples I get the impression that the trans-gendered population has about the same percentage of rapists as the non-trans-gendered population. Interesting, but what does any of it have to do with the issue of transgender use of bathrooms?

Because now the perverts and racists can get easy access to women and girls by pretending to be transgendered.

P hunt said...

Well, in many european countries mixed-gender nudity is acceptable. Of course nobodys suggesting that men be in the same stall as little girls, and its casting transwoman as predators.

But Althouse fails to mention as a lawyer, what the statue does, the NC "forces TRANSMEN TO USE THE LADIES' ROOM!: (though there are no criminal penalties in the bill).

Under the NC BILL (A WOMEN WHO TAKES TESTOSTERONE AND LOOKS LIKE A MAN WITH A BEARD,SOUNDS LIKE A MAN,ETC AND IDENTIFIES AS A MAN WOULD BE FORCED! TO USE THE LADIE'S ROOM BECAUSE SHE DID NOT GET SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY AS PER NC LAW).


Why, its because SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES DON'T BELIEVE ITS MORAL TO CHANGE YOUR GENDER AND YOUR ARE STILL YOUR BIRTH GENDER NO MATTER WHAT.

I don't like using CAPS, too often, but while a few media posts have talked about transmen, many transmen haven't been put in a position to directly talk and go after ted cruz,pat mcroy,etc, even folks who interview them don't ask that tough question normally.

Glory said...

Hello, I'm here to introduce someone to you all, his name is Dr.Ekpen Temple a spell caster that help me restored my broken relationship, I saw an article on the Internet someone talking about him how he help her in her relationship, today I'm a beneficial of that article, so that is why I'm also talking about how he has helped me so that someone out there that is facing the same challenge can also contact him for help. Here is DR EKPEN TEMPLE contact info: (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or on Whatsapp number 2347050270218.