Asked whether he would let Caitlyn Jenner, a trans woman, use the bathroom of her choice at Trump Tower, he said he would. He added, "There's a big move to create new bathrooms. Problem with that is … first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. It would be unbelievably expensive for businesses and for the country. Leave it the way it is."He was clear, practical, and sensible. He didn't go into impugning anyone on either side but saw it in terms of economics and law — and by law, I mean the limits of law, where it should end and where social etiquette works.
Scroll to 8:24 for the relevant part.
ADDED: Trump seems to be letting his roots grow out. Can we expect to see him with a fully white head of hair by the time the election rolls around? The location of the white part now gives some clues as to the directionality of the combover. I hope he gets a haircut soon, leaving the whole crazy swirl shorter and removing all that's left of the orangosity.
Posts
155 comments:
"clear, practical, and sensible" You mean, the way these things were done for, oh, several countries was unclear, impractical, and not sensible? When exactly did the transvaluation of values and identities become the measure or clarity, practicality, and sensibility? The day before yesterday? January 2009? On the publication of Nietzsche's Anti-Christ in 1895?
Obviously not a real Republican, not conservative enough. Waaay too sensible.
For all the things that Trump is about, where Caitlyn Jenner goes to the bathroom is not one of them. I don't think he gives a shit.
In addition to this, he said he would add the three exceptions on abortion (rape, incest, and life of the mother) to the GOP platform, and that he was in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy.
Cue the true conservative freak-out.
Hillary will continue to be dragged to the left to appease Bernie supporters, and Trump will be able to occupy a pragmatic middle ground some issues.
He seems to be moving into what Scott Adams has predicted will be his 3rd act.
It was incomprehensible. I have no idea what Trump's legal or moral principles are, if he ever had any.
What I PRESUME is what I have all along presumed; that Trump is a thoroughly unreliable place-holder for social conservatives. How Trump has gotten ANY support in social conservative circles is beyond me.
"In addition to this, he said he would add the three exceptions on abortion (rape, incest, and life of the mother) to the GOP platform, and that he was in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy. Cue the true conservative freak-out." Not freaking out: expecting it all along. But why should the Dems be running two tax-raising, entitlement-protecting, pro-abortion, amnesty-promoting, anti-free-trade candidates in one election?
The NC state law was in response to the city of Charlotte passing a law mandating that private businesses allow people to use whatever bathroom they felt was appropriate.
So, if the city of Charlotte had left the situation alone to be worked out as a social issue without involving itself then North Carolina would not have to have involved itself.
Would you rather a man dressed as a women use the men's room or the women's room?
Trump is a thoroughly unreliable place-holder for social conservatives.
Well duh! Chuck cannot wrap his head around the fact that very few social conservatives support Trump.
Chuck, Trump's shtick is Economic Populism. With a smattering of what people who disapprove of it call Natavism and Nationalism. The people who do approve of it don't understand why Natavism or Nationalism would be considered bad, so they just call it good common sense.
Mix that up with a dollop of what some call isolationism, but the people who produce the kids that get killed or maimed in endless wars of choice call staying home and minding our own business and you have Trump support.
Everybody knows that polling shows that Trump supporters are, for the most part, uninterested in the cultural wars.
Another area where I disagree with Trump and would prefer Cruz.
Keep dudes out of my daughter's bathroom.
He also favored higher taxes on the wealthy, and seemed to side with bounce-back amnesty for parents if anchor babies.
A "trifecta" is what Limbaugh called it just a half hour ago. A comprehensive policy crack-up.
And the business about Trump cleverly moving to the middle is nonsense. Who wouldn't choose a principled, proven conservative with carefully moderated social views like Kasich, over a maniac monster like Trump?
Practical answer. We can't afford cops at every public bathroom to enforce bathroom laws. People will piss or not piss where they want anyway.
Yes, I know, Billy Graham's son and some other evangelical whose name escapes me has endorsed Trump, why I cannot fathom other than they think he is going to win and want on the band wagon early. Or perhaps they feel he can restore prosperity to the shrinking middle-class and that it is the Pastor's job to provide moral guidance.
In any event, the evangelical community is pretty diverse and includes plenty of divorced people. There is a reason they stress Christ's forgiveness.
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
~ Donald Tr-- er, Groucho Marx
North Carolina enacted a law, and now "they're paying a big price, and there's a lot of problems." Law wasn't needed...
The NC law negated a Charlotte law, resulting in less net law. How can that be a bad thing?
I don't know why this is so difficult for so many folks. Using laws to create bathroom rules based upon self-identification was so illogical that it was always going to explode.
Either create bathrooms for anyone who needs to use a bathroom - gender neutral - or segregate based upon existing genitalia. But don't create segregate while offering anyone the opportunity to use either.
This focus on bathroom gender is stupid, if I can make the obvious observation.
When I use a public facility, I don't listen to what other people are doing, I don't examine genitalia, make sure women don't have five-o'clock shadows, see if men have breasts. I go in, do my business, and get out.
Who here does something different?
I do have several female friends who will use mens' rooms -- because there are no lines. Should they be arrested? No. They should be applauded for their practicality.
You know what the Press should focus on? Suitability of a person to be President. What they think about how a person uses Public Facilities is so far down on the list of topics that define a good candidate.
Will Ted Cruz finally get credit for (rightly, accurately and perceptively) defining Trump in terms of "New York values"?
Wow, I actually agree with Trump here.
I know someone who recently transitioned from F to M. It's funny how your views change when you actually know someone who is impacted by a discriminatory ruling.
@MadisonMan
You sir are too reasonable and logical to comment on this issue. What about protecting our children!? Our children!!!
What a pretender, the man is a liberal. No family values, no Christian values, next he'll say bakers must bake cakes for gay couples. Oh damn, he lost the Duggars vote. How about those evangelicals like Falwell, maybe he'll take back his endorsement.
"This focus on bathroom gender is stupid." Correct. So Progs in Charlotte, at ESPN, and across the land are calling off the latest culture-war offensive?
I just want a law that tells the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority to clean their bathrooms.
Sex segregated restroom are embedded in that cornerstone of our democracy known as the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sex is almost always determined by your X or Y chromosomes. That is settled science. Pee where your genes say to.
Asked whether he would let Caitlyn Jenner, a trans woman...
A trans woman. Come off it. Wise up. Don't be put in the position of having to apologize to the grandkids for being an idiot. (But it was such a popular idiocy!) If you have an X and a Y you're a guy. If you have two X's, you're a chick. Get used to it. Genetics is like gravity — self-identifying as a bird will not let you fly. No amount of estrogen or silicone or surgery is going to make you the girl of your dreams. Slice off this, graft on that, it's still a sham and a fraud. It's more than that it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. In the end you're just a messed up freak wearing a hard to remove disguise. You can buy a full-head Captain Kirk mask. And you can superglue that thing to your noggin. But you ain't flying the Enterprise to Epsilon Eridani.
Certain people of a certain socio-poltival bent like to say at parties Well, that just goes to show you can't legislate morality. They ought to add and you can't legislate reality, either.
Everyone using public bathrooms should be discreet. People basically know how to act. Don't complicate it. We have a culture and this aspect of life, transgenderness, can be incorporated and processed through social adaptation. Stop trying to announce q big legal rule. That's too political. That's what I heard Trump say.
So, tolerance, not normalization, and the exceptions will be dealt with as needed. This does not give carte blanche to transgender/homosexuals, transgender/crossovers, transsocial/pedophiles, transhuman/abortionists or reactionaries, transhuman/cannibals or planners, etc.
"Who here does something different?"
Us perverts don't go around telling you what we do before or after? We do appreciate you telling everyone not to worry about us. Spread the word.
No surprise here. The Donald is not a cheap politician hoping to get some money donated from scaring voters over non problems.
And to all the Progressives out there ginning up a horrible bathroom crisis to irritate the Religious people, remember that Communist Heavens like USSR, Venezuela and Cuba never have any toilette paper. Now that's discrimination when only a few Party Apparatchiks can get any toilette paper.
This transgender crap is to liberals as young earth creationism is to Christians. It's cognitive dissonance on crack with a methamphetamine chaser.
Human sex is binary and exclusively determined by chromosomes. Gender or behavioral bias, however, has a narrow normal distribution determined by genetics, adjusted by physical factors, and influenced by social environment.
Because polite etiquette was leading the charge when parents demanded their child, a boy of 5, be given special treatment to use the girl's restroom, be called by a special pronoun, and be allowed to invade the privacy of other children? How about when schools they demanded trans books be forced on young children, read by their teachers? Was that polite? How about a teen girl having the right to use a public school locker room without a biological male changing with them?
Funny what you think doesn't need solving with law. But children do need protecting. Both the child with the mental disorder and the children trying to build community with that child. Nothing short of the law can protect them now that the lgbt bullying crowd has such momentum. And probably the bullying will kill the law.
I live in NYC. Nonetheless, I don't know any transgendered people. Maybe some of them are really good at it, and I just don't pick up on it, but it doesn't seem to be an appreciable portion of the population here. I haven't given much thought to transgendered bathrooms. I don't think it's the transcendent moral issue of our era, and the effort to make it so is very annoying...........I think every human being has a right to be treated with courtesy and respect, but I question whether bathroom use is the most significant challenge a guy in full drag faces in his complicated life.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Everyone using public bathrooms should be discreet. People basically know how to act. Don't complicate it. We have a culture and this aspect of life, transgenderness, can be incorporated and processed through social adaptation. Stop trying to announce q big legal rule. That's too political. That's what I heard Trump say.
Don't complicate it. Don't make it political.
As in, men should use the men's room, women should use the women's room.
"There was already a social adjustment that accommodated people who needed to be accommodated. "
Yes, exactly. A law either way would screw everything up. If you ban trans people who appear to be the sex to which they've transitioned from using the bathroom they look like they should be in, you needlessly frighten people in the women's bathroom and endanger the transwomen in the men's bathroom. And if you pass a law that says people have a right to use whatever bathrooms they choose, you'll have prostitutes hanging around in men's bathrooms and creeps hanging around in women's. No, thanks. Social etiquette is better.
It clearly is now a problem because SJW have a big mouth and institutions and people feel they have to accommodate their endless voluntary victims.
If the law does not change, there will be fights over men perverting in ladies' rooms. If the law does change their will be fights over men perverting in whatever they call the new rooms. Previously we could just arrest men who were found in the ladies' room, so it didn't happen much, and we let the very small number of them who were gay transvestites deal with it when those extremely rare things happened, but now those rare events will be rare no more. We got a problem now.
The problem is SJW overreach and their huge non-stop kale holes. Pandora's box is open and it's gonna be a mess now no matter what we do. They have destroyed education, and now they are out to mess up the toilets. Next on the agenda: your family life.
It's too late to expect it to not be political and legal now. SJW are really into making everything political. That's like their whole thing. Ever try to talk one of them out of it?
MadisonMan nailed it.
If they want to criminalize something in bathrooms, how about peeing all over the seat? That's an actual problem.
Smiling Jack wrote: The NC law negated a Charlotte law, resulting in less net law. How can that be a bad thing?
The state law mandated a requirement for bathroom use in public facilities across the entire state. That's more net law, in your phrasing.
In response to Chuck's bewailment above, one conservative ideal is to leave people alone to work out their own interactions with each other. This does not seem to be the social conservative ideal, which is one reason the Republican party is calving icebergs.
The cartoon character of the dude in a dress says nothing to the actual experience of transgender individuals who are genuinely, deeply aligned to their expressed gender. Such individuals are often victims and subject to psychological impressment by numerous public entities, starting with schools. I am betting that most of us are unfamiliar with that experience. I strongly recommend the chapter on Transgender in Andrew Solomon's Far From the Tree.
Isn't this a case of, when you see something falling, giving it a push?
As of Virginia, the federally sanctioned standard for gender identity is now purely subjective. One need not lop off the Mighty Sword to declare oneself a woman, and there is no legal time limit fixed to such identification. Nor is there any legal dress code. One may dress like a lumberjack and still be okay with one's transient identity.
Well now. Time for the emergence of "Identify as a Woman for a Day" flash mobs randomly targeting women's restroom facilities. Lines of hairy beasts hundreds long, lining up to whizz in the stalls and shrieking in falsetto if accosted.
Enough of this accompanied by media and legal defense and perhaps a genuine social compromise might actually be arrived at: once you've demonstrated you're serious by having had the surgery, then you can use the facilities of your post-op identity.
Until then, women's restrooms should simply be recognized as places where women unwittingly remove their pants for potential sexual shoppers.
bagoh20 -- It seems to me on the "net law" principle that the biggest SJWs in North Carolina are the governing Republicans. If you want, you can replace the J with a C.
I'm just relived that for once the SJW are doing something that will piss off women a lot more than men. It's about time.
But Professor; legislation is precisely the way to do it. Have a legislature vote, or have a popular vote, and then let voters respond at the polls subsequently.
The Left wants to achieve its goals by litigation, where the rules and the rulings become part of the common law. And where the decisions are made by people steeped in the culture of law schools, corporate legal offices, and the "civil rights" industry.
Indeed, as more than one of your readers has correctly observed, the North Carolina legislation was a direct and proximate result of the issue having been pressed by the Obama Administration and urban liberals.
This is a grade A example of Hollywood hypocrisy. In movies like Psycho, Dressed to Kill, and Silence of the Lambs they preach the doctrine that transgendered people are extremely weird and probably serial killers. Hollywood now takes the position that transgendered people are sensitive souls who only want to work out their true identity and be treated with dignity and respect.......As noted, I don't know any transgendered people. My guess is that they are not serial kllers, but that a fair amount of psychological baggage comes with the wish to dress up in women's clothes......In any event, I resent Hollywod telling me that my response to a stereotype that they themselves created is bigoted.
The pro-choice church created this crisis and so many others through avoidance, coercion, and incentive. Now a practical and rational population will need to reconcile moral and natural imperatives and trim the loose ends -- pun intended -- to mitigate establishment of a rainbow paradigm (e.g. class diversity).
Under normal social circumstances I would agree with Trump. But the problem is that trans-gender activists are suing businesses and schools to allow access to the bathroom of their choice. If there are going to be lawsuits, there needs to be some legal basis so that people know what to expect. In former times, there was social consensus, but that requires a level of trust and mutual respect that we have long since forfeited. In the absence of a social contract, law necessarily fills the vacuum.
To be fair, there are also lawsuits in the other direction, mostly by women who don't want trans-men in their bathrooms. I am not sure who started this, but the point is that we can no longer rely on common sense to prevail
"We have a culture and this aspect of life, transgenderness, can be incorporated and processed through social adaptation. Stop trying to announce q big legal rule" Therefore, Progs will not pass new ordinances, not pursue legal rulings compelling conducts, not run un-PC employees out of town, all in the name of the "culture" we have and "social adaptation" without "big legal rules." Right?
Out here, in the real brave new world, Progs couldn't care less about the actual culture or social adaptation, as long as they can impose their will, with or without big legal rules. Social adaptation only runs one way. Big legal rules are useful if they help the cause. And of course, they have plenty of enablers on the sidelines who will call any resistance to the identity fad du jour unclear, impractical, and not sensible.
Chuck, you are incoherent. The City of Charlotte passed an ordinance via a 7-4 vote by the democratically elected city council. It passed after supporters of the law ran for and won election to the council:
A year ago, the ordinance failed in a 6-5 vote.
But two new at-large members – Julie Eiselt and James Mitchell – were elected to the council in November, and both supported the ordinance.
In this case the left achieved its goal by legislation. Your complaint that the issue was pressed by "the Obama Administration and urban liberals" is factually true, I suppose, but so what? You're basically complaining that people who supported the law ran for office and helped pass the law. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.
Quaestor said...
A trans woman.
That's Newspeak for "crazy but probably harmless man".
Jim said...
Sex segregated restroom are embedded in that cornerstone of our democracy known as the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Fun fact! The Magna Carta was based on the Uniform Plumbing Code of 1209.
I am always amazed at how the only side held to be the aggressors in the culture wars are the ones playing defense. It's always, always their fault. The blame for the culture war can never be attributed to those looking to upturn 6000 year old conventions and traditions, no. Only those who resist the complete radical transformation of our culture can be held responsible as the aggressors in the Culture Wars.
One of the few times I agree with Trump. He's starting to move to the center as the general election looms.
MadMan says...
You know what the Press should focus on? Suitability of a person to be President. What they think about how a person uses Public Facilities is so far down on the list of topics that define a good candidate.
Yes!
I really think this country is going crazy.
Who would you rather share a public bathroom with: George Michaels or Caitlyn Jenner?
I am so tired of lies about this law being reported in the media as fact.
It does not ban one business from accommodating the transgendered in any way they wish. The restriction of people to the facility corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate applies only to schools and state agencies, only to multiple-occupancy facilities: and to top it off, those who have had sex changes have had their birth certificates updated to match their current gender.
@Gabriel: "I am so tired of lies about this law being reported in the media as fact." Careful now. You're treading close to Ann "I can't believe" Althouse territory. You're not assuming that accurate reporting is the media's purpose, are you? You're not assuming the left wants to discuss the actual content of the law in good faith, are you? You're not assuming that, if the law were reported accurately, "social adaptation" would occur, are you? You're not assuming that if the left did recognize the exceptions for actual trans-people, they'd be satisfied, are you?
I identify as a cat. I demand litter boxes in every bathroom.
Like an amateur home remodel, I suspect the end result of all this meddling will be a house structually compromised and full of unexpected inconveniences.
Henry I can't argue with your correct reporting on the Charlotte city council vote; but of course the point of the ordinance was to enable LGBTQ lawfare against non-progressive entities.
And of course I stand by (and I gather that you wisely won't contest) my assertion about how much of this emanates in spirit from the Obama Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.
Trump would be great, as a Democratic senator from someplace like West Virginia, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Feeding the local workers with trade protectionist visions and toeing the Democratic Party line on the social demands of the bicoastal liberals. The worst of both worlds, for principled conservatives. Trump is like John Dingell, with technicolor hair.
"Everyone using public bathrooms should be discreet. People basically know how to act. Don't complicate it."
I have a hard time coming to grips with the naivety of this kind of statement coming from a law professor. This isn't about transgender people, this is about child molesters, and there are estimated to be 100 times more child molesters than there are transgender people. Suppose a 10 time convicted child molester decides to fake being a transgender woman. Suppose he decides to follow your ten year old daughter into the women's locker room at the local public pool and then proceeds to remove his clothes and expose himself to said ten year old daughter. What is to stop him? What he's doing isn't against the law - the child has no rights to use a public facility without being subjected to a pervert's intrusion. Sound farfetched? It's already happened in Washington state. Now, you could confront him and be sued but you can't stop him legally. This will lead to violence, and if it were my 11 year old grand daughter, I would be in jail before it was all over. This is the issue, and the fact that there are no controls, no definitions regarding "self identified transgender" is going to be the catalyst for the violence. It's absolute idiocy and I can't believe intelligent people support this madness.
@Gabriel, Good to know. Some of the details you've mentioned are key.
@jaydub: "It's absolute idiocy and I can't believe intelligent people support this madness." There's that "I can't believe" thing again. Sorry, jaydub. It's who they are. It's what they do. Get used to it. Idiocy is no bar to Prog power. If it serves to break some bourgeois eggs to make the right kind of omelettes, so much the better. It's all the "social adaptation" they need.
@jaydub:It's absolute idiocy and I can't believe intelligent people support this madness.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
@Nyamujal:Some of the details you've mentioned are key.
Note that I did not say that I approved or disapproved of the law; I said merely that it is being lied about and the lies reported as fact by the layers and layers of professional media fact-checkers.
Anyone who support gender police for bathrooms should be mocked just as that inane UW student from yesterday's thread who complained that people don't use the same stall, shower or sink as he (or she, I don't know) is mocked.
Consistency!
I don't know if Althouse is still listening to Rush as she occasionally did in the past; I hope she is able to listen to the last bit of the show today. In the last ten minutes of the program, a listener notes that the status quo was changed by the Charlotte ordinance change that Henry pointed out to me above.
And Rush's comment was that if Trump is indeed saying what it sounds like -- "They should have just left it alone; nobody was complaining" -- then Trump should be understood to be complaining about the Charlotte city council, not the North Carolina legislature. And in his own, bumbling, inarticulate, ill-informed way, perhaps that is what Trump was trying to do.
My own guess, based on Trump's history of half-cocked commentary, is that he didn't actually understand the history of the North Carolina legislation. And Trump may have thought it was otherwise unprovoked. It is no better, and likely much worse, to know that Trump also thinks that the "economic punishment" that North Carolina is enduring from a small number of hyper-PC large corporations should make North Carolina change course.
Trump, the Great Opponent of political correctness? Hardly.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Two plus two making four is not freedom, it's convention. What you're proposing is throwing out all established conventions regarding restroom privacy and child protection. Idiocy indeed.
@jaydub:What you're proposing
Huh? I have proposed nothing. I pointed out that the law is being lied about and the lies are reported as fact. I think you have confused me with someone else.
The etiquette on homosexuals used to be live and let live, back in the 50s and 60s.
That was before etiquette was done away with.
Unfortunately etiquette is what held the system together.
Gabriel, if I confused what you said, I apologize.
The obvious solution is put depictions of genitals on restroom doors. That way you're not identified as man or woman.
"Pointers" and "Setters" would be okay too, in hunting lodges.
Psycho, Dressed to Kill, and Silence of the Lambs
1. Norman Bates dressed as his mother, he was not trans.
2. Yes, this character was trans but if you get any message from a Brian DePalma movie other than he really, really, really likes Hitchcock. you're goofy.
3. Buffalo Bill was explicitly introduced as not trans but rather mentally ill - because he wasn't an actual trans he was denied sex reassignment surgery.
1 for 3, but not bad if you play for the Brewers.
What is the Over/Under on the amount of time until Trump issues a corrective clarification to Sean Hannity? And then a re-clarification to Bill O'Reilly?
"Can we expect to see him with a fully white head of hair by the time the election rolls around? "
Sure. Or tomorrow if he wants. Skunk hair might be a good look for The Donald but only after the election.
The problem isn't with accommodations to transgender people. I'd wager most of us have already shared a bathroom with one. Nor would it be a problem to simply have a single stall unisex situation. But that isn't enough. The radical left is about pressuring/persuading municipalities and Big Corporations to eradicate sex difference via diktat. Leftists want a world in which men and women are completely indistinguishable and interchangeable. inevitably, the Unicorn will collide with reality. Erin Andrews just won a $55 million lawsuit against Marriott because they intentionally disregarded her presumption of privacy in the intimacy of her hotel room. That's close enough to the presumption of Target's female shoppers who avail themselves of the bathroom. What legal basis would you have to prevent a Michael David Barrett from entering the Unicorn dressing room and videotaping women/children in a stall? Target won't go down because of a boycott from traddies like me, but they just might get slapped with an Erin Andrews situation.
"not trans but rather mentally ill"
I think I'm sensing a category error here.
I prefer that social etiquette enable sensible accommodations. However, there will be laws. Will we have laws that mean some people have rights to use either restroom (and not be arrested) while others do not have that right? What rights do all restroom users have?
You know I thought it was sane and sensible when the school district said they'd ask the student to continue to change in the biologically-correct lockerroom but would provide a privacy curtain, but that got smacked down as an illegal violation (Title IX I guess) so I guess it wasn't sensible enough.
I thought it was sensible of business people with deep and sincere religious beliefs to politely decline to participate in wedding ceremonies (by baking cakes, taking pictures, or arranging flowers) when they felt doing so would violate their beliefs--most of them declined politely and in fact suggested other vendors. Those people got the shit sued of of 'em (and faced other penalties), though, so I guess it wasn't sensible enough.
Look, Trump saying something straightforward and commonsensical is great, really. His position is the kind I hope we could all take--I didn't support the expanded "Pastor Protection Act" here in GA because so far we haven't really had the problem that law was supposed to address. BUT. But is disingenuous (bordering on Obama-style false-choice love) to ignore the fact that there are committed activists who insist on enforcing their (radical) views on transgender accommodation and who likewise insist on using the actual law to codify those views.
Simply saying "we ought to treat everyone respectfully and leave the law out of it as much as possible" is the correct position for almost every issue, but it is an impossible position to maintain when you're being attacked (including with the law & with the power of the State) by people who want to impose their view onto everyone else. That's equally true of activists on the Right and Left, but on the issue of transgender rules the aggressors are almost entirely on the Left and pretending otherwise is, at a minimum, intellectually dishonest.
Donald Trump Says Harriet Tubman on $20 Is 'Pure Political Correctness'
"Instead, the Treasury building on the back of the ($10) bill will be changed to commemorate a 1913 march that ended on the steps of the building. It will also feature suffragette [usually prohibitionist] leaders Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul.
...
The $5 bill will also undergo change: The illustration of the Lincoln Memorial on the back will be redesigned to honor "events at the Lincoln Memorial that helped to shape our history and our democracy." The back of the bill will include civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., along with Marian Anderson and Eleanor Roosevelt."
Eleanor Roosevelt carried a gun, so she's bad.
Ann Althouse said... Ann Althouse said...
Everyone using public bathrooms should be discreet. People basically know how to act. Don't complicate it. We have a culture and this aspect of life, transgenderness, can be incorporated and processed through social adaptation. Stop trying to announce q big legal rule. That's too political. That's what I heard Trump say.
I'll stop when you stop! This is one reason the Right loses so many cultural battles--unilateral disarmament. The Left gets to push and push, and the Right wants to be polite, wants to take a libertarian live-and-let-live attitude, doesn't want to be rude or be called bigotted, etc...
IF the Left only wanted "social adaptation" that'd be fine. People get used to new things, people eventually adapt. But that's not what they want. The DEMAND immediate obedience to their values, immediate capitulation, immediate changes...and they enforce those demands both with social pressure (shaming, protests, getting people fired, etc) and through the force of law/coercive power of the State. Tolerance isn't enough! Americans on the whole (and compared to other societies) are quite tolerant, but although the Left claims they want tolerance it's never enough--the Left's views and values must be seen as correct and must be enforced.
The bakers (to continue overusing an overused example) weren't going out of their way to attack homosexuals--they weren't advertising "straight wedding cakes only" or protesting against gay marriage laws! They were minding their own business and living their lives. It was a CHOICE to sue them/attack them, and the purpose of doing so was to FORCE compliance (for those bakers and by example/threat by everyone else). A similar dynamic is at work on any number of issues.
I agree completely with Ann, so why are so many transgender people suing to use the bathroom of their choice?
And Madison Man, I wouldn't care about bathroom laws if they didn't apply to locker rooms as well. I take my children swimming at our community rec center about once a week. I'd prefer to know me and my girls won't be encountering penises when it's time to get changed.
I could not less where a man goes to tinkle. What I care about what causes a man to desire to tinkle with the girls. The girls being two of my grandchildren. This goes way beyond taking a leak.
This is deviant behavior. As in, outside the norm.
Althouse description of this event is TOTAL BULLSHIT. The notion that out of the blue the legislature enacted an anti transgender law is nonsense. The Charlotte City Council ENACTED A LAW that, among other things, MANDATED that "The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify."
Which in turn caused the legislature to do their thing and invalidate Charlotte's city law. The supreme court has lit the house on fire with their gay marriage ruling, get used to a constant public fuss over sexual rights, frankly i am sick to death of hearing about it.
"I have a hard time coming to grips with the naivety of this kind of statement coming from a law professor. This isn't about transgender people, this is about child molesters, and there are estimated to be 100 times more child molesters than there are transgender people. Suppose a 10 time convicted child molester decides to fake being a transgender woman. Suppose he decides to follow your ten year old daughter into the women's locker room at the local public pool and then proceeds to remove his clothes and expose himself to said ten year old daughter. What is to stop him? What he's doing isn't against the law - the child has no rights to use a public facility without being subjected to a pervert's intrusion. Sound farfetched? It's already happened in Washington state. Now, you could confront him and be sued but you can't stop him legally. This will lead to violence, and if it were my 11 year old grand daughter, I would be in jail before it was all over. This is the issue, and the fact that there are no controls, no definitions regarding "self identified transgender" is going to be the catalyst for the violence. It's absolute idiocy and I can't believe intelligent people support this madness." - Jaydub
This. It needs to be repeated until liberal law professors quit resorting to obfuscation.
I get it! If a guy drops trou in front of my granddaughters on the schoolground or in a park, he gets arrested. If he drops trou in front of them in a public restroom it's absolutely okay.
It makes perfect LGBT/moonbat sense.
I wonder if the "Media" will report on the many sexual assaults inflicted in locker-rooms and like, until now, honestly, sexually, segregated.
This is one of the things I like best about Trump. He does not feel he has to kowtow to ANYONE on social issues or very few of the "accepted truths" of the conservative movement. He is what he is and that is a moderate. You don't like it "pure conservatives", then tough, because he is not going to try and finesse an answer to stuff like this. Unlike almost every other politician.
It is must as Rush was talking today about the new $20 bill. Obama proposed it, it's a black woman replacing a founding father, MUST BE OPPOSED. Until he goes on to say Jackson was a democrat, did some not so nice things and Tubman was a republican who did very impactful things.
Hombre...it is like it always is. You grab the guy and either beat hell out of him or grab him and call the cops. The guy can then go through the court system explaining why he isn't a pervert to the public, his employer, wives, children, etc.
No different.
So...new category, alternating gender. LGBTQAG. And if it's periodic, you could be a Frequency Alternating Genderous person.
Qwinn @ 1:25 nailed it.
It's quaint that Althouse (and Trump) show deference to social convention only after social convention has been attacked and upended. I loved the Caitlin Jenner question and Trump's answer. Of course, one celebrity is not concerned about the behavior of another, it's not celebrities about which society and the actual public are concerned.
Althouse: "People basically know how to act."
Yes, that's why we have men acting like they are women and vice versa. Right?
We are so fortunate nowadays. I can remember when I was a sex crimes prosecutor and men snuck into womens' restrooms and molested little girls. Now they won't have to sneak. How nice to have the reassurance of the Professor and her ilk that this is not a significant consideration. (Sarcasm alert)
Silly, dangerous, genital-obsessed moonbats!
Dude1394: "Hombre...it is like it always is. You grab the guy and either beat hell out of him or grab him and call the cops."
You mean after he molests her? And then only if she has the courage to disregard the threat to kill her or her family if she tells anyone.
"How Trump has gotten ANY support in social conservative circles is beyond me."
There is a slight possibility that they got tired of being fed bullshit and kept in the dark by pandering GOP politicians.
Who knows ? Maybe even blacks will figure it out this year?
"MadisonMan said...
Anyone who support gender police for bathrooms should be mocked just as that inane UW student from yesterday's thread who complained that people don't use the same stall, shower or sink as he (or she, I don't know) is mocked."
What a moronic position. You don't need "gender police" to have a law saying you have to be an actual sex to use that sexes bathroom. We have all kinds of laws that we do not have active policing to make sure they are met. I'm not allowed to discard gasoline down my drain at home. There is no "Toxic waste police" watching my sinks, toilets, and shower.
If I identify as a dog I assume it's okay for me to shit in your yard.
This may be that pivot to the center we've heard about.
"If I identify as a dog I assume it's okay for me to shit in your yard."
As your lawyer, I advise against taking on the rights and responsibilities of the American dog.
CWJ and Quinn probably don't not want to base their pov on the theory that people should follow the norms of 6000 years ago. That's more of an ISIS philosophy than an American philosophy. Presumably the pro-toilet-police in this country can make references that only go back a hundred years.
But, they probably don't like institutional racism. So, maybe they'd like to argue that the perfect time for civilization was some period that was post-Jim-Crow, but not yet hippie-lib.
Isn't it easier to let Caitlyn go where she fits best?
Part of the problem is, after stunts like this- backed up with the full authority of the federal government!- one has to assume that the demands will never end, that each victory will encourage ever more extreme, over-reaching demands.
But a major part of the problem is the demand that all acknowledge what we know is not so, that a man does not become a woman just because he says he is, that the boundaries of sex and age sometimes exist for good reasons. Do you really want a middle-aged man sitting at a child-size desk in an elementary school because he's discovered he's really a seven year old girl? Or to lose your job if you point out that, really, he's not a seven year old girl?
It's about, "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
Orwell's Winston Smith was a slow learner, but, even he could learn that even when one sees only four fingers, "sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once." Of course, it's hard work to deny the reality directly front of one's eyes; as O'Brien notes, "It is not easy to become sane."
Just a few final comments.
First, most transgender people have an overriding affinity for the gender they choose. Read about them. Not the celebrity or movie version, but the actual stories of kids and young adults and their parents and how the experience actually works and how it actually feels.
Second, an analogy. One boilerplate argument that seems to appeal to those opposed to transgender accommodation goes like this: This isn't about transgender people, this is about child molesters.
Try replacing the phrase "transgender people" with "hunters" and the word "child molesters" with "mass shooters". You get: This isn't about hunters, this is about mass shooters. Your argument is exactly the same as used by gun-control advocates. You would throw the weight of the law against peaceful people in response to criminal behavior that your law will do nothing to prevent.
hombre wrote: I can remember when I was a sex crimes prosecutor and men snuck into womens' restrooms and molested little girls. Now they won't have to sneak.
Man! Did you read what you actually wrote? First sentence. Rapists and molesters have never needed your permission. Just like mass shooters.
Am I misunderstanding the Cruz pov when I hear him saying that straight men are lining up to dress up like ladies so they can go into a woman's bathroom to sexually assault little girls?
So, we are told that w/o new laws there are a bunch of men who will soon be hurting little girls in women's restrooms.
Also, if you buy into this thinking, why wouldn't these pervert men also be dressing as gals so they could assault and rape adult women in women's rooms?
W/o such laws on the current books, what has been stopping these super-predators from dressing like gals to assault and rape little girls and adult women in restrooms until now?
Isn't it a lot more reasonable to assume that these laws are being pursued because conservatives want to push against the weakening of the stigma associated with being trans?
Am I misunderstanding the Cruz pov when I hear him saying that straight men are lining up to dress up like ladies so they can go into a woman's bathroom to sexually assault little girls?
If you pass a law that says people can use whatever restroom they please, why would men wanting to go into the women's restroom have to dress like women? There is no standard for trans status.
Nichevo,
So, you do acknowledge the reality of my last sentence above. I.e., this is about labeling trans folks as deviants, and using the law to oppress them.
There can't be any other conclusion, as my 6:02 comment notes.
"If you pass a law that says people can use whatever restroom they please, why would men wanting to go into the women's restroom have to dress like women? There is no standard for trans status."
You've got the law making backwards. Nobody is talking about the laws you're describing. It's conservatives who feel the need to make new toilet laws in 2016.
Not the celebrity or movie version, but the actual stories of kids and young adults and their parents and how the experience actually works and how it actually feels.
Careful there. That's what made me more skeptical about these modern notions of gender identity.
You've got the law making backwards. Nobody is talking about the laws you're describing. It's conservatives who feel the need to make new toilet laws in 2016.
No, they're trying to make them in response to lawsuits.
hombre wrote: I can remember when I was a sex crimes prosecutor and men snuck into womens' restrooms and molested little girls. Now they won't have to sneak.
Man! Did you read what you actually wrote? First sentence. Rapists and molesters have never needed your permission.
Not having to sneak is a pretty big difference.
"Althouse description of this event is TOTAL BULLSHIT. The notion that out of the blue the legislature enacted an anti transgender law is nonsense. The Charlotte City Council ENACTED A LAW that, among other things, MANDATED that "The most controversial part of the ordinance would allow transgender residents to use either a men’s or women’s bathroom, depending on the gender with which they identify."
yes, exactly right. This law is actually a RESPONSE to an ordinance that was WAY too broad.
In so far as we have men's and women's rooms and not unisex rooms it's not unreasonable to assume that said designation actually said what bathroom you could use. In a practical sense I don't see how that broad ordinance wouldn't allow anyone, not just the transgendered from getting access to a woman's room.
Does this then extend to women's locker rooms? And how does the law differentiate a man who identifies as a woman versus a man who presents as a woman.
I,lol use myself as an example. I'm not a transgender. And I have no interest in going to a woman's room. But suppose did. I throw a wig on. Can I now walk into a woman's room? The law says the transgendered have the right. I'm not, but if they ask me, can't I say I am? The very asking me will provoke potential lawsuits?
And now any woman who might object to me being in the ladies locker room is now a bigot. But it's not unreasonable to not have me in the woman's room. Because I'm not a woman, and because women should expect some modicum of privacy if they are taking showers and/or getting nude.
But maybe I'm wrong.
If it's the bathroom then is it also the locker room? If it's the locker room is it also the sports team?
"No, they're trying to make them in response to lawsuits."
You can't seriously be suggesting that child molesters are using law suits to make it legal for them to go into women's restrooms to molest children.
Why is it hard to understand that we have child molesters and we have trans folks. These are two separate things. You can let Caitlyn use the toilet that fits her and you can also keep it illegal to molest little girls.
At least it's nice to hear Freeman make this argument. I can't be the only one who has a raised eyebrow when we hear men jumping up and down as they illogically tell us that there's a massive wave of would be little girl molesters who must have new toilet laws or else they'll be unleashed. Projection?
This just posted from Gov Pat McCrory
"The Facts on NC’s Commonsense Privacy Law
1.The City of Charlotte passed an ordinance that would require businesses to allow anyone of any gender to enter any bathroom or changing room at any time.
2.This same ordinance was voted down by the city council last year because of concerns it went too far, allowing men to use women’s restrooms and opening the door for sex offenders and pedophiles to exploit this opportunity as they have done in other states. Despite concerns from lawmakers and Charlotte residents, The Charlotte City Council passed it anyway.
3.FACT: One of the primary advocates behind the passage of the Charlotte ordinance is a convicted sex offender.
4.Governor McCrory signed a law that repealed the Charlotte Ordinance, and for the first time in state history, established a statewide anti-discrimination policy across North Carolina which is tougher than the federal government’s nondiscrimination protections.
Most of us know Caitlyn Jenner and so would know that Caitlyn Jenner Identified as a woman.
But what about this guy?
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/04/01/california-man-dressed-woman-busted-videoing-womens-bathroom/
Would Trump let this guy into his bathrooms? Is he a transgender? A cross dresser? The hell if I know. He is using the law to get into a room and then videotape women. If a woman complained about him and he was able to hide his camera better, SHE would be the bad guy. Because she dared to complain about the man in the locker room.
If she was at planet fitness she might even lose her membership for complaining about this guy.
"3.FACT: One of the primary advocates behind the passage of the Charlotte ordinance is a convicted sex offender."
Presumably this guy should be forced to use a woman's bathroom. He's more of a potential threat in the men's room.
"How does that even pretend to make sense?"
He abused boys. Even w/ trans gals in the gals room, there's still more boys in the boys room. So, keeping this guy out of the boy's room would be keeping a convicted creep away from the demo of victims he's abused in the past.
"Am I misunderstanding the Cruz pov when I hear him saying that straight men are lining up to dress up like ladies so they can go into a woman's bathroom to sexually assault little girls?"
Yes. This actually happens a lot. And with lax laws like this it will happen even more.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dressed-as-Woman-Arrested-for-Spying-Into-Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html
http://www.snopes.com/transgender-filming-women-restroom/
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/man-dressed-in-skirt-arrested-in-women’s-bathroom/
The British lesbian who doesn't think women with penises are in fact lesbians:
http://youtu.be/qkcCzIc0j2s
It actually throws the whole idea of being gay out of whack too. Because, what are you actually attracted to if not biological sex? If the dude who says he was a lesbian trapped in a mans body on this video tried to hit on her in a lesbian bar I'd imagine shed kick HIM in the balls and then call the cops. She wouldn't consider him a woman who was entitled to use the rest room. Or maybe she would.
But if she can say that he's a dude, and therefore can't be a lesbian, it's also reasonable to assume that he shouldn't use a woman's room. Because HES A DUDE.
I guess this lesbian is homophobic? Or transphobic?
jr565,
Your links are not clickable. I'm too lazy to cut and paste. But, the link names are informative, so I know what they're about.
BTW, can someone post the HTML that is used to make links. I don't remember but it has something like < a > and href and......
I'd like a refresher, and it'd help jr, too.
To jr's point: yes folks are molesters and perverts. I want to keep that illegal and I want to throw the book at these folks because they deserve it. I also don't get trans folks. And, I'm so retro that I can't grasp why a dude wouldn't be happy with vagina. Even so, I'm okay Catlyn et. al. using the toilet that they want to use. Trans is not the same as molester. Molester = illegal, trans = legal.
"Try replacing the phrase "transgender people" with "hunters" and the word "child molesters" with "mass shooters". You get: This isn't about hunters, this is about mass shooters. Your argument is exactly the same as used by gun-control advocates. You would throw the weight of the law against peaceful people in response to criminal behavior that your law will do nothing to prevent."- Henry
I don't think the situations are equivalent, so the analogy, while appealing, is flawed.
Historically, if a man walked into a woman's restroom he would immediately be told to leave, possibly pepper sprayed, or at the margins made to feel like he had invaded a space he had no right to.
Historically, if a man walked into a school with a gun the police would be called. No questions asked.
Fast forward to our current fluid gender identity crisis. A man walks into a woman's bathroom. Should he be accosted and driven out? Or is he really a self-identified she? What will be the consequences of accosting this person? We have created a confused state. Will people, not of good will, try and use this confusion for their own purposes?
When Ms. Althouse suggested that we rely on "social etiquette", does that work anymore?
A man, dressing like a woman, showing no male traits, would probably still be abke to use the restroom, since there would be nothing to cause suspician. At least I assume that's how it works now.
But I'm afraid we can no longer rely on a shared sense of "social etiquette". You may think it's over-reaction. Given the last few years it's justified, IMO.
Chuck said...
"But Professor; legislation is precisely the way to do it. Have a legislature vote, or have a popular vote, and then let voters respond at the polls subsequently."
1,000,000% wrong. I am tired of the majority lording their values over everyone. It is time that socons and progs both learned to leave us all alone.
If socons had learned that while they were the majority and left marriage to the church we wouldn't have lawyers suing people that don't bake cakes today. But you decided the majority has the right to force the minority how to live.
Trump doesn't give a shit and doesn't think this is a government issue. Give me more of that please. Of course it came from someone who hasn't spent his whole life trying to solve every problem with government.
PBand J wrote:
"To jr's point: yes folks are molesters and perverts. I want to keep that illegal and I want to throw the book at these folks because they deserve it. I also don't get trans folks. And, I'm so retro that I can't grasp why a dude wouldn't be happy with vagina. Even so, I'm okay Catlyn et. al. using the toilet that they want to use. Trans is not the same as molester. Molester = illegal, trans = legal."
I never said trans is the same as molester. You are actually conflating opposition to the ordinance that would allow trans to access bathrooms of their choice as transphobia when people who have an opposition to men getting into a woman's room say they have a problem with it.
Beciase, for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter. The only one who would know you were a transgender would be YOU.
The law says that transgendered can choose the bathroom They identify with, which means that they have more rights than I do as a cis gendered male. Can I also choose any bathroom that I want? No. That's unfair. What if there's a line at the men's room?
The problem is it says transgendered have this right. How,is the law determining that those using the restrooms are in fact transgendered, and therefore have the right?
For example, if I bring a wig along with me, can I now use either restroom or either locker room? I'm not a transgender. But how would you know? You can't ask me.
If my goal was to take photos of women in a woman's room and you now say it's my right as a transgender to use any room I want, and there is no actual way to disprove I am a transgender, you've just allowed easy access to a restroom or a locker room. And the people who would complain about ti are suddenly transphobic for questioning why the perv might be in the bathroom. That seems wrong.
And this will impact women more than men. If a woman walked into the men's room most guys wouldn't care. But if a guy walked into a woman's locker room while they were undressing, many women would have a visceral reaction to it. And it wouldn't be u warranted. So, if you want to tell women to get over themselves and simply accept that men might see them naked and to deal with it, that's fine. But I assume that women don't want men in their locker rooms.
If it says women on the door, that means it's a safe space for women. Having some guy, with a penis who thinks he's a male lesbian getting into a locker room simp,y because he asserts he is a woman (even though he still has a penis) defeats the whole purpose of having a woman's locker room.
PBand J,
As to what tags to use, I have to admit. I'm not sure. I think I tried using the href tag previousl and it didn't work. So I'm not sure if blogger uses HTML or some other for mp of tags. It does appear to use a few of the html tags, like the ones for "bold" and "italic"
jr,
Toward the end of your comment you morphed into locker rooms.
My reaction to trans gals with (pre-op) cocks freely flapping around in a shared woman's and girls shower room is disapproval.
If someone is passing a law that mandates free flopping cocks in gal shower rooms, I'm against that. But, I don't want to ban trans folks from gal bathrooms. OTOH, if trans dudes w/ big tits and hot bodies want to shower in dude shower rooms, I'm okay w/ that. IOW, I'm not denying there's a difference between men and women, but I'm still opposed to banning Caitlyn et. al. from using the restroom that fits them.
BTW, I (based on listening to local con radio) am under the impression that the Seattle YMCAs are allowing the flopping of (pre-op) trans cocks in gal shower rooms. It's possible that there's more to this story than conservative radio is presenting.
A hairdresser explains why Donald Trump’s hair looks like that:
"Hair follicles are embedded in the scalp at all different angles, and those angles determine the direction that each strand of hair grows. A cowlick is a cluster of hair with follicles laying at the same steep angle, causing that hair to grow in a direction different from the surrounding hair. In the event of an aggressive cowlick, the longer the hair, the more the growth pattern can be controlled by the weight of the hair itself.
"Preposterous as his hair may seem, unbelievably, I find myself siding with his stylist’s choice. If Trump caved and finally cut his hair shorter, the growth pattern in front would force the hair straight out and down, possibly resulting in a George Clooney 1990s Caesar effect, except with Trump’s face.
....
"In conclusion, Trump’s hair is growing out of his head, long, combed back, and dyed the nascent yellow of a baby chick. Really, the color is what I find most offensive, but that’s a hairdresser thing that I don’t expect a layperson to identify with. I’m sorry to sneeze on everyone’s cake, but my professional assessment is that Donald Trump just has a dated hairstyle nobody likes."
And there's this:
"I will also admit that I color my hair. Somehow the color never looks great, but what the hell, I just don't like gray hair."
On the list of things I despise about Donald J. Trump, his hair doesn't make the top 1000.
Here's another case. A man, who didn't even identify as a woman went into the woman's room and started undressing.
http://mynorthwest.com/188993/man-caught-undressing-in-front-of-girls-at-green-lake-locker-room/
But look at how confusing this is. The editorial note says: "Editorial note: I am choosing to refer to the individual as a male, as the Parks Department has related the story to me indicating as such."
Because the author can't even say for sure. If he identified as a woman but presented as a male should they assume he should or should not have access. What if he doesn't say either way? What is the assumption? Must women wear women's clothing? I've seen plenty of Women dress like men. So how do we know that he couldn't identify as a woman but dress like a man? And what if you guessed wrong? You ASSUME he is a man, but then he says he identifies as a woman. OOOPS!
So here's how it played out "“This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff as someone who was ‘identifying’ as a woman,” Seattle Parks and Recreation Communications Manager David Takami told me via email. “We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.”
oh. It didnt SEEM like that? Well, what if it did SEEM like that? How are we determining what that is supposed to Seem like? Would it be ok if he had a wig on, for example?
PB and J wrote:
Toward the end of your comment you morphed into locker rooms.
My reaction to trans gals with (pre-op) cocks freely flapping around in a shared woman's and girls shower room is disapproval.
so, if you assume that a transgendered male is actually a woman because that's how they identify why would you not assume that she shouldn't be allowed to use a shower designed for women? Are you in fact asserting she is not a woman after all?
She would be a woman ONLY for the purposes of using a restroom, but not for the purposes of taking a shower and/or undressing?
(Cont.)
At around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, an adult went into the locker room to change. Takami says that at “no time did he verbally ‘identify’ as female,” nor did he request to be treated as transgender.
So right there is the problem. He didn't identify as a transgender. But what if he did? That's the extent of the proof required to get access to this locker room? That he SAYS he wants to be treated like a transgender? Well, if you say so.
"At the time, a local youth swim team was using the facilities. Young girls and some of their parents “became alarmed” that the male was changing in the female locker room and alerted the front desk staff.
So first off, why are we assuming they should be alarmed? Is it because a man isn't supposed to be in a woman's locker room? How transphobic of them. The natural reaction when seeing this guy walk into the locker room is to be alarmed. YES! EXACTLY! That's why people have a problem with the ordinance that would say the transgendered can use any bathroom. Because a man walking into a woman's locker room and undressing is alarming.
" Staff members then “asked the man to leave and offered the availability of a family changing room.”
So they actually asked him to leave. What if he then said he identified as a transgender? Would they suddenly run afoul of the law? How dare they assume he didn't belong in the room.
No one actually knows how to deal with this man/woman because the standard makes no sense.
You can't seriously be suggesting that child molesters are using law suits to make it legal for them to go into women's restrooms to molest children.
I never suggested that, so you are correct here. I said that the laws are coming in response to lawsuits from transpeople. (Also, ordinances in towns that want to seem especially trans-friendly.)
Why is it hard to understand that we have child molesters and we have trans folks. These are two separate things. You can let Caitlyn use the toilet that fits her and you can also keep it illegal to molest little girls.
You're not getting it. The idea isn't that they're the same people. The idea is that if you put it down in law that people can use whatever restrooms they want, creeps who are not trans will be able to go into any restroom just as easily as transpeople. There's no "trans test." If you make a law like that, a predator who is clearly not trans will be able to hang out in the restroom and no one will be able to tell him to leave.
(Cont)
"Takami maintains that the parks department wants everyone to feel comfortable. But if this individual was, in fact, transgender, was this situation handled correctly? And is it appropriate to call the individual a male?
Yes, exactly. The presumption is he is a male because he's not dressed like a woman. But can you assume he is a male based on his appearance? And if you do are you then shaming him by telling him to leave. What would Donald Trump answer? Is it ok to assume he is a man? He is undressing in the woman's locker room.
"If this isn’t a “transgender issue” why didn’t staffers call the police? Critics of the failed transgender bathroom bill indicate there are already rules to punish people who break the law."
why didn't They call the police? Because they have no clue how to deal with a guy walking into the woman's locker room. Since they can't say what being a man actually even means. And they don't want to offend him if he MIGHT actually not be a man. Because they don't want to offend or get labeled bigots. Yet, the parents were legitimately shocked. Do we now want to say that the parents had the wrong reaction when the MAN walked into the locker room and undressed? What if he instead walked in with a wig on and undressed to reveal he had a penis. Same exact scenario except he has a wig on? Suddenly the parents are wrong to express shock?
According to the law: “If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person’s gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.”
So, in fact THE PARENTS AND THE KIDS should have been directed to leave the locker room and go to another locker room. Not the person who may or may not be a male. It's the parents who expressed shock who are the actual bad guys here. Not the man who undressed in front of the kids. Really?!?
The idea is that if you put it down in law that people can use whatever restrooms they want, creeps who are not trans will be able to go into any restroom just as easily as transpeople. There's no "trans test."
It's as if people forget human behavior.
They live in a land where only truly disabled people are on Social Security disability, and having a service dog isn't just a way to get your pet onto the plane or into the store.
Thanks for the link Jr. According to the law a bathroom and a locker room are the same thing, pb.
People act poorly. They go into restrooms they shouldn't be in and make a lot of people uncomfortable. Some dbags start using hidden cameras. Other pervs wag cocks around in front of little girls.
I agree this is a problem. I am going to deal with it myself when there. I expect some pervs to get maced hopefully in the junk as well as the face. By multiple people. I am just going to hurt them.
I trust people to deal with this. Will it be perfect every time? No. But while the Trans people I know are messed up they are people. They are also the last people on earth any woman needs to worry about.
And the last thing I want is a transwoman license issued by the state allowing pretrans men into a bathroom and a special commission on bathroom attendance with government counselors and a special police force to go check out which prevents Trans stage every person is is.
When will you socons get it through your thick skulls the government is really a shitty way to deal with problems?
"The idea is that if you put it down in law that people can use whatever restrooms they want, creeps who are not trans will be able to go into any restroom just as easily as transpeople."
As jr's links shows the creeps are already going into gal bathrooms. Trans folks can't be punished because of the actions of other people.
Think about it, if a creep is going to break the existing laws against raping and molesting kids, do you really think a low level gendered toilet law is a deterrent to them? That is absurd. The real point of these laws is to push back the mainstream acceptance of trans folks.
But, I do think that pre-op trans cocks flapping around in a shower room with gals openly showering together is a bridge too far.
They just effectively doubled the number of available bathrooms in federal buildings.
It's not the bathrooms, it's the showers and changing rooms.
Based on the experience with normalization of transgender/homosexuals, the lesson is that rules of social etiquette and individual rights need to be strongly established, and that the traditional civil rights industry (e.g. ACLU, SPLC, NAACP) need to be held on a short leash.
@Freeman Hunt - read Far From The Tree. . There's a chapter on transgender, but the whole book is worth reading. People don't fit into neat little legal and social boxes. Yet they live their lives just as deeply.
I wonder if I inhabit the same world as those who think there is no particular danger of creepy men using their new-found ability to occupy bathrooms and changing rooms for their creepy purposes. As a middle-aged, middle-class woman who has lived in a small city, a large city. and one rural college town, I have experienced peeping Toms, mild stalking, flashers, obscene phone calls, and a foot-fetish guy who followed me around the law library (apparently I was asking for it because I was wearing flip-flops). I was followed back to my dorm late one night by someone who tried to grab me as I ran inside; narrowly avoided date rape when the guys's roommate came home unexpectedly; and endured molestation by a family member and by a family acquaintance. Several girls in my family were molested and even raped as children by neighbors, uncles, and step-fathers. Can't begin to count how many times guys followed me and said creepy weird sexual shit--now not so much, but my daughter experiences it regularly. How can anyone seriously doubt that all these dudes with their obsessions and with their cameras that are pointed up women's skirts and into neighbor's bedrooms and secreted in bathroom stalls and with their special motel-room peep holes and their subway groping and weinie-wagging and kiddie porn etc etc etc will NOT take some advantage of the ability to now enter women's bathrooms and locker rooms with no legal way to stop them?
Unknown:
That's a problem, but also places reserved to underage and vulnerable individuals, where social etiquette cannot mask the physiological and psychological differences between the binary human sexes.
My favorite part of the article Jr posted was how the staff believed the man was not transgender because he was wearing men's clothes. Have we really gone back to 1950's gender stereotypes in our Brave New World?
I personally have no problem with transgendered folks using whatever restroom they want (excluding locker rooms if they haven't had reassignment surgery).
The problem with lawyers getting involved is that we will end up with gender neutral restrooms and I don't see how anyone benefits under that scenario. For example, a male transsexual wanting to use a ladies room will instead find themselves back to sharing the space with men.
I'm guessing another side effect of gender neutral bathrooms will be the elimination of urinals. Just imagine the lines when everyone has to wait for a stall. Good times for all.
Bushman wrote:
I'm guessing another side effect of gender neutral bathrooms will be the elimination of urinals. Just imagine the lines when everyone has to wait for a stall. Good times for all.
of course. Could you imagine if women were in the bathroom and a bunch of men cam in and started peeing in the urinal next to them? Not only that it would allow men two ways to use the John, while women only have one. And that won't be fair. Not to mention that we'd be in and out in seconds while they'd have to wait while the women ahead of them take their time. They'd be seething with jealousy at the unfairness of it all.
Also, there are some men out there who don't actually have pensises (yet). Is it fair that they can't use the urinal easily while men with penises can?
IF YOU HAVE A DICK, YOU USE THE MEN'S ROOM. IF A PUSSY, THE WOMAN'S.
Otherwise you go to jail.
Simple, no?
"When will you socons get it through your thick skulls the government is really a shitty way to deal with problems?"
Heh. Yes, of course. Once again, this is all our fault. We've created this problem. 6000 years of this not being a problem, and then we socons decided to get uppity. I guess we just can't help ourselves.
Trump is a man of many stripes. Orange, grey..
From poste
"...so little trouble." There was already a social adjustment that accommodated people who needed to be accommodated.
Altparse adds her imagined summation...
C'mon Trumpites..he's just being "flexible"..far more than he would have in Rothschild, WI.
(tradguy's sphincter tightens a bit)
Because I hate Trump supporters in addition to Mr. Trump himself, I'll take on "Achilles" here and now.
The North Carolina legislation wasn't aimed at trying to interfere with how private individuals organize themselves or how private enterprises operate. NO! If any private businesses in Charlotte wanted to have one, or two, or four or six different sets of bathrooms with their own rules, they were free to do that. That wasn't what the Charlotte ordinance was all about. The new (Democratic) Charlotte ordinance required all places of public accommodation to change their own existing rules to force everyone to accept transgendered persons into unnatural-gendered restrooms and locker rooms.
So it is not a matter of private choice, and as usual we are all dumber as a consequence of the time that has been wasted on Trumpkin bloviating.
I'll say further that there is only modest agreement between the sort if libertarian ideology espoused by Achillies and real conservatism. I am mildly amused by a smart libertarian like Rand Paul; I am glad that there is a place for Senator Paul in our Party. He is a thoughtful man with interesting ideas, and a very respectful debater.
Donald Trump is none if those things. Trump is some kind of nationalist protectionist authoritarian from the 1930's; he's never shown a single concern for modern reform conservatism in all of his 69 dubious years. He's a dumb man, and so are his supporters.
All you care about is social issues, Chuck. If immigration and trade is not sorted out, you're not going to have to worry about social issues.
I think you are dumb for focusing on shit like this instead. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I agree with you socons for the most part on this. But on the country's list of problems, pervs in bathrooms is down the list compared to the looming economic collapse that your lovely Club for Growth and others have made our destiny.
We are sick of you naive socons being used to constantly fragment our vote, resulting in LOSING ON EVERYTHING.
TCom :
Trust me when I agree with you that "transgender bathrooms" are way, way down on my list of priorities for a party platform.
But I also think that it is a wedge issue for the Trump card and if it can be used to separate Trump supporters from the Trump herd then I am all for it. I'm looking forward to Trump explaining transgender bathrooms to the counties in southern Indiana. Even Trump's oblique tolerance of David Duke might not help him in that case.
As for the really, really big issue, it is simple: growing the economy. Period, full stop. And the most critical thing in accomplishing that goal is making sure that people like you are blocked from taking over the pro-growth Republican Party.
Lol. "Trump crowd," not "Trump card."
Auto-correct is such a hazard. Too clever for itS own good. And I hate posting from my iPhone for that reason.
btw, TCom...
If all that I cared about were social issues, I should have been a devout Santorum / Huckabee / Cruz supporter for the last decade. And I am not!
If social issues ruled my life, it should be hard for me to choose Kasich over Cruz.
Don't get me wrong; I like the social conservative Republicans. In every constituency where it helps them beat Democrats. I just want 66 Republicans in the Senate, about 300 of them in the House, one in the White House, and at least five (or six, as long as Justice Kennedy is still breathing) on the Supreme Court.
mccullough said...
Practical answer. We can't afford cops at every public bathroom to enforce bathroom laws. People will piss or not piss where they want anyway.
Wow, mccullough, you have a hard time thinking, don't you?
All it takes is someone in the bathroom calling a cop, or someone outside teh bathroom seeing him walk in and call the cops.
Thanking! Apparently it's only for conservatives.
MadisonMan said...
This focus on bathroom gender is stupid, if I can make the obvious observation.
When I use a public facility, I don't listen to what other people are doing, I don't examine genitalia, make sure women don't have five-o'clock shadows, see if men have breasts. I go in, do my business, and get out.
Who here does something different?
Well, MM, parents worry that some rapist might go into a girl's bathroom, see that their daughter is the only one in there, and rape her.
Parents know that if a man goes into girls restrooms, leaving every time there's more than one person there, someone will call the cops, and the guy will hopefully get grabbed before he rapes anyone.
Except in Charlotte, people weren't allowed to make that call, and the cops weren't allowed to make that arrest.
So is the real problem here just that leftists aren't capable of thinking, so you can't figure out the problem?
Ann Althouse said...
Everyone using public bathrooms should be discreet. People basically know how to act. Don't complicate it. We have a culture and this aspect of life, transgenderness, can be incorporated and processed through social adaptation. Stop trying to announce q big legal rule. That's too political. That's what I heard Trump say.
Then you heard Trump being an idiot.
1: The problem was caused by the left wing thugs of Charlotte "making a big legal rule": private businesses aren't allowed to keep men out of their women's bathrooms.
2: The "Trans" are a <1% minority. Forcing everyone else to change their way of doing things in order to make the "trans" happy is insane. There is no reason why the rest of us should be forced to "adapt" to them.
Since no one else has posted this link:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/man-strips-in-womens-restroom-says-new-transgender-rules-make-it-totally-legal/
There is a serious issue: how will non-trans monsters take advantage of these laws? Unless and until you've thought that through, and offered some good answers on how to protect people from those monsters, you have nothing of value or worth to say on the topic.
My last word on this old post is that indeed, as I expected all along, Trump never stuck to what Althouse seemed to think was a clearly-expressed view.
Trump, hours after this post, backtracked to a position that states and localities should decide on the treatment of transgender rights in public accommodations. Of course, Trump's "corrected" position doesn't help clarify anything. In North Carolina, a city passed an ordinance, and the state passed a statute that essentially overrode the ordinance. How does Trump decide that one?
MSNBC reports:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trumps-latest-position-transgender-bathroom-rights-doesnt-make-sense
And so does the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/22/donald-trump-backtracks-transgender-bathrooms/
I remain mystified by Althouse's analysis of this story. Trump has never been clear, or even understandable about his views on social policy toward transgender rights. Trump seems to talk just enough to satisfy his liking of the sound of his own voice. He's demonstrated no policy, and not even any clear understanding of what happened in North Carolina.
I suspect that the real Donald Trump is someone who would please Professor Althouse. And nothing could describe those views better than "New York Values." New York City; where Althouse and Trump and much of the urban culture all together favor normalized treatment of, and full civil rights (guaranteed legally, with civil enforcement rights) for all of the LGBT community, much as is seen in Manhattan. Where Professor Althouse learned the law, and where Trump has resided for almost all of his adult life.
It may be that Donald Trump is the same sort of "stealth" candidate as was Barack Obama, and is Hillary Clinton. Politicians who gave lip service to traditional social values, all the while never believing in them, and never thinking that they would advance them. They would be delighted to move every bit as fast toward the normalization of homosexuality as polling allowed. The sooner the better; just be careful not to lose too many votes in the meantime.
But no matter how you feel about the issues, Professor Althouse was profoundly mistaken with this post. Trump wasn't being clear the first time he spoke about the North Carolina issue. He wasn't even clear the second time he spoke about it. What is clear, is that Trump has almost no basic understanding of the issue.
Post a Comment