May 9, 2016

"North Carolina has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Justice Department to defend House Bill 2, a law that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex..."

"The move is in response to a letter the Justice Department sent last week warning Gov. Pat McCrory that the law is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and giving him until Monday to 'remedy the situation.'"
The state's lawsuit calls the Justice Department's position a "radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act" and "a baseless and blatant overreach."... North Carolina could lose a lot of federal money for failing to comply with the Justice Department -- potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for its universities alone.

110 comments:

Farmer said...

I assume I am a bigot for thinking de-gendering public bathrooms is a stupid, silly battle.

David Begley said...

I want to read the DOJ brief. I'm sure it will be post-modern legal crit masterpiece.

Transgenderism is probably now a race. Or something.

mccullough said...

Nothing more trivial than what a presidential administration does in its final year. Symbolic progressive flummery

YoungHegelian said...

I can't imagine that the DoJ under either a President Trump or Clinton will continue to try and enforce this judicial fatwah against NC.

Can you imagine how Trump would destroy Clinton in a debate over this? Clinton will argue, reasonably enough, that the transgendered need understanding & some legal protection, but not "chicks with dicks" access to the ladies' room.

Under Obama, there is a a cabal of lefty nutjobs basically running the show at DoJ. I expect that to end no matter who wins the next election. Obama long ago lost control of his minions, & I can't imagine either Trump or Hillary intends to let that happen to them when they're running the show.

TreeJoe said...

Ah yes, good ol federalism in action.

jaydub said...

Obama is just trolling a republican state, which diverts attention away from the sustantive damage his administration has done/will do to the country.

Big Mike said...

Well, it's not as though Malia or Sasha are going to be subjected to a pervert hanging around inside the ladies' room and staring at them, is it? So why does Barack Obama care?

The BubFather said...

In 2012, there were 84,376 reported forcible rapes according to the FBI. That's in just one year.

Now imagine, you are one of the hundreds of thousands of women who have been forcibly raped, you're standing in a ladies room and some 'guy' comes in, claiming he actually considers himself a woman. Imagine the sheer panic/fear racing through the minds of those women. Sorry, but this topic is one that hits home for my sister......so excuse me if I believe a transgender (all upset) male converting to a woman, but hasn't had the plumbing changed gets little sympathy from me. Where does my sister go for her legitimate fears?

Just curious to see if anyone on the LGBT community can comprehend that fear.

eric said...

This is the insidious nature of the federal government and the money sent to the States.

It started under Bush with alcohol. Make the age 21 or you get no federal highway funds. Ugh.

traditionalguy said...

Borderless bathrooms have suddenly been Decreed by the Federal Government. Will they decree no clothing can be worn in public next.

Christopher said...

Pat McCrory wants to peg the DOJ as a "bully" for imposing their own ideas about what discrimination is on the state of North Carolina, but HB2 itself prevents local jurisdictions from passing their own anti-discrimination regulations. Bullying, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder.

Big Mike said...

Just curious to see if anyone on the LGBT community can comprehend that fear.

@BubFather, no. Members of the LGBT community and those who support them care only about themselves and have no empathy for your sister or any other rape survivor at all. She needs to be a good little victim and shut up.

(Or she can vote Republican on November 8th.)

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick said...

Shared dorm rooms in colleges will be the next, likely more problematic issue.

EDH said...

The act bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex, as dictated by their birth certificates.

In its letter last week to Gov. Pat McCrory, the Justice Department asserted, "Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII."


Can anyone explain the Obama DOJ position here as to disparate treatment?

David Begley said...

McCrory needs to change his message. This move by DOJ is not bullying. It is lawless. Absolutely no legal authority for this. Just like his border actions and "deferred action" for illegals.

n.n said...

Humans are characterized by a binary sex determined exclusively by genetics, and a behavioral bias (i.e. gender) with a narrow normal distribution.

The Supreme Court will need to consult their gods in the twilight zone in order to reconcile incompatible moral, natural, and political (i.e. social) imperatives.

So, with the dysfunctional revolution, they normalized selective-child (via a Stated-established faith in spontaneous conception), corrupted wombs, and planned parenthood (i.e. clinical cannibalism). With its follow-on "=", they progressed the pro-choice religion to exploit women as rented wombs, and men as sperm depositors, in a social justice-inspired movement to manufacture normalcy. Today, they hope to perpetrate another scientific fraud, and sponsor progressive confusion, perpetual confusion through conflation of the sexes including minors.

LCB said...

The end game to all of this, intended or not, will be to get rid of men's and women's restrooms. The Feds will pass a law similar to the Disabilities Act forcing every public building to make their restrooms co-ed. Stalls will be built floor to ceiling, urinals will be eliminated and men will be sent to jail for forgetting to put the toilet seat down.

Or we'll take on the Asian model. Public toilets will become holes in the floor and we'll all learn to squat for #2.

The only thing shared will be the sinks, but then men will have to forego washing their hands because women will take all of the space to do their makeup touchups.

And where oh where will women on double dates go to powder their nose so they can talk about the men without being overheard. "Come Lois, let's powder our noses." "Great idea," says John. "I need to go water the lily too." Awkward!!!!

I know there are serious sides to this issue. But for Gosh sakes people, lighten up. It is NOT the end of the world.

Achilles said...

This is not a federal issue.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Stalls will be built floor to ceiling, urinals will be eliminated and men will be sent to jail for forgetting to put the toilet seat down."

And now the lines in men's restrooms will be as long as the lines in women's restrooms. Because it's more important to bring someone else down to my level, than to raise both levels and still have a difference between the two.

Sebastian said...

@YH: "I can't imagine that the DoJ under either a President Trump or Clinton will continue to try and enforce this judicial fatwah against NC." I can. Clinton will be very vulnerable to the left. She will want to throw them some bones. NC bathrooms are the perfect bone. Low cost, high symbolism: good value. Trump can go either way. "Gotta be fair to the Caits of the world." Or: "Live and let live. We're not gonna bully states." Who knows? Who knows if the Donald knows? Whatever he decides if he becomes the decider, I am sure his defenders will explain to us after the fact that this is what voters were "thinking" and yet another blow to the GOPe.

jr565 said...

As achilles said, not a federal issue. judicial overreach. But not surprising considering this administration.

coupe said...

First they legalized numbers games for the poor and I said nothing.
Then they legalized mind altering drugs and I said nothing.
Then they legalized homosexual sodomy and I said nothing.
Then they legalized indoor unisex defecation and urination, and I said nothing.

I don't know what comes next, but I'm stocking-up on ammunition and large caliber long guns. I'm not going to wait for 911 to save my ass.

Birches said...

Let's not forget, this goes for locker rooms too.

Steve Uhr said...

Putting aside the legalities, it is common sense that someone born female, who identifies as a man, who has been taking male hormones, who has a beard, should stay out of the female bathroom where she will certainly freighten others.

Achilles said...

jr565 said...
"As achilles said, not a federal issue. judicial overreach. But not surprising considering this administration."

So far there is one candidate out of all the republicans and democrats running who has taken the correct point of view.

One.

tim maguire said...

Transgender bathrooms are a harmless idea, in theory. The problem comes in because there is no enforcement mechanism--no way to confirm that someone really does identify as this or that sex--so what it amounts to is no restrictions on who can go in to who's bathroom. A rule that will, by its nature, be abused more than used.

What was the problem with doing nothing? People go into the bathroom that makes the most sense and nobody says boo about it because they didn't notice and wouldn't care if they did? Seriously, was there a problem that either side hoped to remedy through all this hoopla?

Achilles said...

coupe said...
"First they legalized numbers games for the poor and I said nothing.
Then they legalized mind altering drugs and I said nothing.
Then they legalized homosexual sodomy and I said nothing.
Then they legalized indoor unisex defecation and urination, and I said nothing.

I don't know what comes next, but I'm stocking-up on ammunition and large caliber long guns. I'm not going to wait for 911 to save my ass."

Blood. Fire. Lamp posts.

And don't forget your sidearm and knives. Useful.

Mr Wibble said...

Seriously, was there a problem that either side hoped to remedy through all this hoopla?

Yes, the problem of right-wingers and normals not sufficiently groveling.

This is about power, pure and simple. They want to humiliate the vast majority of people who don't buy into their delusions by forcing them to play along.

YoungHegelian said...

@Sebastian,

Clinton will be very vulnerable to the left. She will want to throw them some bones. NC bathrooms are the perfect bone. Low cost, high symbolism: good value (Emphasis mine, not Sebastian's)

It won't be low cost at all when Clinton has to defend this in a debate with Trump live before the entire country. Remember, a large fraction of Clinton's support are minority voters. Do you think taking good care of the "chicks with dicks" is high on the concern list of blacks & Latinos? I don't, & I think she is vulnerable on this point to a well placed attack by The Donald. Whether The Donald can accomplish the attack is another matter.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

Steve Uhr- Law is the important part here though. My understanding is that such a person would be breaking the law in North Carolina by using the men's bathroom.

Hagar said...

Bumped from yesterday's cafe:

On the restroom issue, I do not think the cross-dressers are the problem. They presumably have always gone to the restrooms they were dressed for, and who would know?

The obvious problem is that the DoJ position in fact goes much farther and will allow any man caught in the girl's room to just state that, oh, no, he is not a voyeur; he just happens to be "identifying" as a female at the moment.

The less obvious problem goes back to my top paragraph; there never has been a problem. The DoJ's mandate is a solution in search of a problem.

This has gotten to be a pure SJW power issue. The DoJ is way out on a limb and have pulled out all the stops to make it clear they are not intending to lose face. In North Carolina the FHWA is threatening to pull NC's highway funds, so the DoJ is coordinating across agency lines like the IRS in the non-profit cases, and PayPal and other firms are threatening boycotting the state, which indicate they have received hints that their cooperation will be appreciated. They certainly did not think up these actions by themselves.

eric said...

Blogger LCB said...
The end game to all of this, intended or not, will be to get rid of men's and women's restrooms. The Feds will pass a law similar to the Disabilities Act forcing every public building to make their restrooms co-ed.


The law is already passed. We don't need any new laws. Instead, we just need the Supreme Court to tell us where it's already been written.

coupe said...

Not everything has to be codified into law.

I was at the Fair last year and this woman came into the men's bathroom. She was distressed as she had to go really bad, and the woman's bathroom was full.

I mean, only a real bastard would not have accommodated her. I think the same for a woman's bathroom.

I admit to using a woman's bathroom once. When all the men's stalls are full, you don't want to just stand there and crap in your pants.

But there is something else going on here. It is the destruction of humanity. Hitler did it first, and his clerks all escaped to America, and this is the Fourth Reich.

God save the Jews and Gypsies...

rhhardin said...

Losing money for its universities is a plus.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Legal question: Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex. The cases at issue here have to do not with sex but with gender. The Federal government (as far as I can tell) is simply equating sex with gender and acting as if Title IX prohibits gender discrimination. Has that been litigated? I mean, has anyone challenged the idea that Title IX applies to GENDER as opposed to (biological) sex? The Left makes a big deal about gender <> sex, but that would (to me, at least) seem to harm the case that Title IX automatically applies to questions of gender.

rhhardin said...

Identify bathrooms by genitals rather than by sex and the problem is solved.

james conrad said...

I find it humorous that the SCOUS and people like Althouse could not see what was coming with their bullshit redefinition of marriage, endless wrangling over sexual "rights". Basically simpletons living in their fantasy worlds. And people wonder why Trump is going to be the next prez, it's not a surprise here!

Levi Starks said...

"Gender assigned at birth"
That's a revelation to me,
In H.S. biology I was taught that gender was assigned at conception. If that's changed please refer me to the appropriate textbook for verification.
An individual can't be denied the dream of wishing they were born a different gender, but the logic of how I can be forced to affirm a reality that is at odds with the facts on the ground completely escapes me.
The federal government is in effect saying you must be willing to share in another person's delusion, or else you will be monetarily punished.

Sebastian said...

@YH: "I think she is vulnerable on this point to a well placed attack by The Donald." Yes, she is. But my comment was meant to be about what she would do as Prez. The NC bathrooms will get the "as a Christian, I am opposed to SSM" kind of treatment (wink-wink), and the next year she will "evolve."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Title VII stuff is where it gets really fun for the rest of the country, by the way. It's ok to point and laugh when it's just backwards NC and their ridiculous overblown fears of hen mingling with young women in public bathrooms, school bathrooms, lockerooms, etc. Ha-ha, look at all the trouble those regressive idiots caused themselves, etc.
But now watch the Federal Gov. extend the new rules to every business with more than 20 (or is it 50?) employees...in the entire nation. Got a small business w/some bathrooms? Guess what happens when one of your employees decides they're unhappy and want to make some trouble for you, maybe get some money out of you and get all kinds of fawning Media coverage. Unlikely? The Obama Admin. is shouting that they've got your back, guuuurl, sue away! As a business owner you can't win, of course--you can either pay for lots of individual bathrooms/refit your existing setup, you can comply with the Obama rules and deal with unhappy workers who don't want people of the opposite sex using the same facilities, or you can fail to comply with the Obama rules and get your ass sued off (and get boycotted, etc).

Just to ask again: how many transgendered people are there, and of those how many actually had problems with the status quo ante?

I'm sure things'll get a whole lot better under President H. Clinton, though!

Michael K said...

"HB2 itself prevents local jurisdictions from passing their own anti-discrimination regulations"

If you accept that those who identify with a sew other than their genitals are a protected class.

I am actually OK with those who are crazy enough to have surgery to pretend they are the other sex.

The ones who keep the hardware, so to speak, without making any attempt to change sexual organs are another case altogether.

This is a solution in search of a problem, like so many leftist causes.

n.n said...

There are two issues: social etiquette and conflation of sexes. So far, progressive liberals have failed miserably to reconcile moral, natural, and social (e.g. political) imperatives, instead relying on the State-establish pro-choice religion (i.e. "Church") to selectively comply with political/social preferences of special and peculiar interests.

Hagar said...

"Gender assigned at birth" should probably be expanded to include "or by legally altered birth certificate" (or better phrasing), which I understand is now common practice for those who have undergone the medical procedures for sex change.

damikesc said...

I guess only college women who pretend they were raped need safe spaces. Women who were raped can fend for themselves in the bathroom.

Also, aren't the same one decrying how pointless voter ID laws are the same ones championing THIS special bowl of shit?

Pat McCrory wants to peg the DOJ as a "bully" for imposing their own ideas about what discrimination is on the state of North Carolina, but HB2 itself prevents local jurisdictions from passing their own anti-discrimination regulations. Bullying, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder.

Cities and localities are subservient to the state.

The state isn't subservient to the federal government.

Should he lose, will the governor call his state a "sanctuary state" in regards to bathroom gender?

Putting aside the legalities, it is common sense that someone born female, who identifies as a man, who has been taking male hormones, who has a beard, should stay out of the female bathroom where she will certainly freighten others.

NC allows you change your birth certificate sex (another Orwellian nightmare) in such situations.


What was the problem with doing nothing? People go into the bathroom that makes the most sense and nobody says boo about it because they didn't notice and wouldn't care if they did? Seriously, was there a problem that either side hoped to remedy through all this hoopla?


It's disingenuous to say "either side" here. One side just attacked out of nowhere. The other side defended itself.

Why is THIS MacGuffin so damned vital?

Steve Uhr- Law is the important part here though. My understanding is that such a person would be breaking the law in North Carolina by using the men's bathroom.

See above. You can change your birth certificate sex in NC (which, again, is an Orwellian nightmare)

Browndog said...

The media wants to push the narrative that it's right wing nutjob Bible thumping knuckle draggers that won't allow a protective class to use the restroom.

The fact is, normal, everyday women are the ones pushing against this insanity. The liberals are telling them that their natural, instinctive desire to feel safe in a private place is not only preposterous, but illegal.

damikesc said...

I am actually OK with those who are crazy enough to have surgery to pretend they are the other sex.

But if you look at their suicide rates, it appears these "doctors" are just maiming delusional psychotics to PROTECT THEIR DELUSIONS. No different than withholding food from a dying anorexic.

Again, "gender reassignment" seldom resolves the issues that their clear insanity displays.

Fernandinande said...

Levi Starks said...
"Gender assigned at birth"
That's a revelation to me,
In H.S. biology I was taught that gender was assigned at conception.


"Gender" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. It only means "sex" if you want it to.

For example, when I see "what is your gender?" in some website sign-up, etc, "gender" means the opposite of my sex.

Roughcoat said...

This has got to stop. You know what I mean by "this," right? This is more than just this. We've got to put a stop to all this.

Dan Hossley said...

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

The next Congress should repeal Title IX and take the toys away from the progressives.

n.n said...

Sex is established at conception. Gender was classified at birth, and with advances in technology much earlier, to correspond with the sex. However, with social progress, gender classification can be delayed, negotiated, and renegotiated.

Gabriel said...

Lots of lies about this law are reported as fact. Like "gender assigned at birth". The law requires no such thing. It requires the gender on the birth certificate, which is changed after a sex change, match the bathroom. Not the gender on the birth certificate when you were born.

Birth certificates are revised all the time, and not just for sex changes. For example, they are in cases of adoption.

Hagar said...

Precedent was set a long time ago in the racial discrimination cases for colleges that did not accept federal grants. The DoJ claimed that they were subject to the civil rights acts anyway, because their students might have applied for federal funds assistance on their own.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The fact is, normal, everyday women are the ones pushing against this insanity.


I don't think so. Women overwhelmingly vote for the politicians who push this stuff. They could put an end to it quickly by withholding their support. I see no evidence this is happening.

Meeeea said...


I met her in a club down in old Soho
Where you drink champagne and use the bathroom of your gender identity, oh oh

She walked up to me and she asked me to dance
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said Lola
El-oh-el-aye Lola la-la-la-la Lola

Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine

Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Until I saw her in the can.


Sorry, until the all the junk is cut off, one's plumbing should determine the facilities used. Maybe we just need genital symbols :
==)) )0(
on locker rooms, so there is not any labeling of gender to hurt one's feelings.

There are also valid sanitary and global warming issues involved. Persons with penises tend to miss the target, and TP paper tends to be close to the overspray area, which may result in vast amounts of TP being flushed as women tear off a few rounds prior to using it, resulting in a need to cut down and process more trees, and it adds to the load for sewage treatment plants to process out.

Gahrie said...

It started under Bush with alcohol. Make the age 21 or you get no federal highway funds. Ugh.

It started looong before that young one.

Owen said...

Hoodlum Doodlum: your comments at 11:14 and 11:25 are in the ten-ring. I don't think Title VII talks about transgender as a protected class. And I think that every business in the country should be thinking hard about how it will pay for all this social justice that DOJ has decided to inflict.

Best thing about DOJ here is that with a few press releases it can paralyze entire sectors of the economy and start bitter and pointless division. You go, Loretta Lynch!

PS: one practical solution to the "wrong bathroom" problem might be for "men identifying as women," if found guilty of rape, assault or voyeurism while in the women's room, to be given immediate surgical intervention to help them complete the transition.

Roughcoat said...

The fact is, normal, everyday women are the ones pushing against this insanity.

Nah. I get the impression that the majority of American women either support the gay agenda or are inclined in that direction. I have an idea why, but I'll spare my thoughts on the subject.

DR Judge said...

It'll end up like the abuse of 'companion animal' privileges. No objection to service dogs for those who need them. But pushed beyond the limit by those who want to abuse the system. You can get a companion animal certificate on line. Soon you'll be able to get a 'transgender' certification too. No need to prove any thing, just flash your piece of paper. A transgender walks into the women's locker room at the gym with his/her companion boa constrictor. Has paperwork for it all.

Hagar said...

W. was very young when the feds first threatened to withold highway construction funds for any state that did not conform their school lunch programs to the federal edict of the time.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Interesting that this story made the local headlines but there was no mention of Ben Rhodes. I guess the journalists were worried that readers may develop disturbingly extreme opinions of Obama if they knew the truth.

Real American said...

Single sex bathrooms are expressly permitted by federal anti-discrimination law, not that the written law means anything when it (or basic biology) conflicts with leftist ideology

Jason said...

I think we should pass a law allowing skinheads access to transgender bathrooms.

Anthony said...

I for one welcome our female friends into the men's locker room. Please, feel free to use the locker next to mine; I promise I will not ogle you but only engage in pleasant above-board conversation.

Honest.

Mike said...

Eric, the change in legal drinking age occurred in 1984 on the Federal level. My recollection was that Carter tried to withhold highway funds from states that didn't raise the drinking age from 18 to 21. But it might have been his 55 MPH limit he was trying to impose. Either way, the Federal law was passed in 1984, too early to be blamed on Bush.

prairie wind said...

Just curious to see if anyone on the LGBT community can comprehend that fear.

Of course. All kinds of people can comprehend that fear.

Do you think a law will prevent what she fears? Did the law against rape prevent her rape?

Hagar said...

The school lunch thing was so long ago, I think it had more to do with the farm lobby than any ideas about nutritional values.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why is this an issue? Because one of the reasons that we have single sex bathrooms is that they provide safe space for women, and esp girls. This is when they have their pants down, and are often at their most vulnerable. The Feds are demanding that the 51% give up their safe space for the weird .1% who are not happy with their genetically assigned sex or gender (and do something about it).

Why is this a problem? Because there are a lot of opportunistic males out there who would likely take advantage of being allowed into public women's rooms. Many here probably remember my recounting a story about some guys putting on dresses and spending the evening in the women's room at a club in Scottsdale several years ago. Guys had 5:00 shadows, and made the(often drunk) women uncomfortable. They were banned from the club, when it became obvious that the choice was between a couple of opportunistic guys and losing much of their critical female clientele. For every true transvstite I convinced by this, there would be numerous women endangered by the many guys taking advantage of rules effectively banning single sex bathrooms. Now, when obvious guys are caught in the wrong bathrooms, they can be questioned, and maybe arrested, for being there. Not under the federal rules.

Gabriel said...

@prarie wind:Do you think a law will prevent what she fears? Did the law against rape prevent her rape?

No law can prevent all murders, so let's make it legal to shoot at people. No law can prevent all women from being raped in a bathroom, or have video of them recorded in bathroom, so let's let men use the womens' bathroom.

Or maybe we can explore common sense for a bit? Maybe allow people who have legally had their sex changed, use the bathroom of their legal sex, and not give a blanket license to anyone to use bathroom?

Because the North Carolina law allows for sex changes, despite the lies told about it. And it allows private organizations to accommodate anyone they choose in any way they wish.

Roughcoat said...

I for one welcome our female friends into the men's locker room. Please, feel free to use the locker next to mine; I promise I will not ogle you but only engage in pleasant above-board conversation.

Well, that would be just swell if the female in question was Kate Upton or someone who looked like her. But ... oh, you know.


Gabriel said...

@Roughcoat:Well, that would be just swell if the female in question was Kate Upton or someone who looked like her.

De gustibus non disputandum. For any type you can think of there is some man attracted to it. I

David Begley said...

Real American

How about a bathroom "established by the State?"

What would John Roberts do?

johns said...

what was the legal basis for restricting the use of bathroom by the wrong sex in the past? was it local ordinances? federal? I don't know how the federal threat works in the context of how it was controlled before? can anyone help with that? thanks

Gabriel said...

@johns:what was the legal basis for restricting the use of bathroom by the wrong sex in the past? was it local ordinances?

There wasn't always a law. It was the policy of whatever facility it was. Title VII is being used to attack anyone who implements such a policy.

It may not have been illegal for a man to use the womens', but if you caught him there you could throw him out and call the cops to remove him if he didn't leave. Now the DOJ is claiming that this violates Title VII and that you are violating his rights by so doing.

virgil xenophon said...

An earlier version off this idiocy was the Feds requiring unisex rates for life and disability ins. Women tend to live longer, so always got lower rates for L.I., but they tend to acquire more aches & pains, so their rates for disability ins were always higher than those of men for the same age. The upshot? Everyone got the worst of both worlds. The ins companies maxed out their profits by raising life ins rates for women to match those of men, while rates for mens disability were raised to match those of women. EVERYONE lost. So much for "disparate impact."

prairie wind said...

No law can prevent all murders, so let's make it legal to shoot at people. No law can prevent all women from being raped in a bathroom, or have video of them recorded in bathroom, so let's let men use the womens' bathroom.

A law against murder is what let's us punish murderers. That's good.

Do we really want to put the force of the government into punishing people for using the restroom? If someone is assaulted in a restroom (by either sex, by any gender, in any restroom), we already have laws against that.

Hagar said...

The oportunities for graft with an omnipotent federal bureaucracy are endless.

Gabriel said...

@prarie wind:Do we really want to put the force of the government into punishing people for using the restroom?

The NC law does no such thing. So your question is not even relevant.

The NC law does two things:

1) state agencies and school districts have to restrict access to multiuser facilities by sex, but can offer single -user facilities to anyone,

2) declares private entities to accommodate anyone they wish in any way they wish, or refuse to, at their option, without liability for discrimination.

Allison said...

Mothers are pushing back on the transgender bathrooms. Single women aren't. That's because the issue isn't about adults on adult public bathrooms. The issue is kids, specifically kids in public school.

These laws apply to preK-12 bathrooms, locker rooms, and gym facilities. And before you say 'come on, there aren't any issues with that', read about the schools where transgender kindergarten or elemnyry school children who are visi ly boys wearing dresses want to use the girls' bathroom.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/29/kindergarten-students-forced-to-confront-gender-identity/

And the high school:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/04/50-families-sue-over-illinois-high-schools-transgender-bathroom-policy/


5 year olds get confused about these things, and purposely teaching them more confusion is obvious harmful (unless you are mentally ill.) Yet all sorts of people want to pretend that pretending to be something else as a child has no downside, and then demand schools make these illusions not so illusory.

We are changing law to accommodate madness.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/16/i-used-to-be-transgender-heres-my-take-on-kids-who-think-they-are-transgender/

David Begley said...

What if men in NC occupied women's bathrooms?

Would CNN cover it?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Levi Starks said...

...but the logic of how I can be forced to affirm a reality that is at odds with the facts on the ground completely escapes me.

Try reading 1984.

n.n said...

The bathroom issue can be more easily remedied and social etiquette enforced, than in shared spaces including changing rooms, showers, etc. It is the latter where the social theory will be tested.

Still, the issue is two-fold: conflation/corruption and etiquette/security/privacy.

prairie wind said...

Gabriel, you obviously know more about the issue than I do. My objection is to the government getting involved at all. You said no one will be punished for using the restroom and yet you say...

1) state agencies and school districts have to restrict access to multiuser facilities by sex, but can offer single -user facilities to anyone,

What does the state government do if a public school district (for example) refuses to follow the law? Will they not punish the school district in some way?

I will take your word as the answer.

Fabi said...

I look forward to Attorney General Cruz returning the pain on every stupid progtard law in every progtard state until they bleed out of their asses. Then he needs to repeat it again and again until they're to demoralized to ever try this type of bullshit again. When he's elected in 2020 -- after Trump retires after one term and after beating Kanye West in a 50-state landslide -- he can drop some Executive Orders to the charred remains of those bankrupt blue states as an amuse bouche.

Schhhhhtp! That's the sound of ol' Teddy opening up a fresh can.

Gabriel said...

@paririe wind:What does the state government do if a public school district (for example) refuses to follow the law?

A "public school district" can't break a law. A principal or a teacher or other administrator can. If the principal says "all right, boys can use the girls locker room", that principal will be disciplined in some way just like if he broke any other law.

Not very likely to come up. What is likely is that a transgendered but biologically male student will ask to use the girls' locker room (almost never goes the other way) and will be refused by the school officials, who will provide a single-occupancy facility for that student to use if there is one.

And schools already have birth certificate info on file, so no student is going to be asked for one.

Xmas said...

I don't think this is the hill to die on. Anyone wants to use the ladies room can use the ladies room. Problem solved. If the ladies feel uncomfortable, they will just need to to check their cisheteronormative privilege. If you feel that your daughters won't be safe, you really need to stop your support of the patriarchy. Elections have consequences folks, just learn to suck it up.

Smash the cisheteronormative patriarchy! Power to the People! It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains and unisex toilets.

(Does anyone else find it ironic that when Communists actually do take over, the first thing they do is murder all the "sexual deviants"?)

coupe said...

At least the Iranians know how to deal with perverts...

JaimeRoberto said...

If I identify as a dog, can I just go pee in the corner?

Freder Frederson said...

Now, when obvious guys are caught in the wrong bathrooms, they can be questioned, and maybe arrested, for being there. Not under the federal rules.

You obviously don't understand the concept of transgender. You are also conflating transvestite with transgender.

You really should do some homework before you comment on things you obviously know absolutely nothing about.

Michael K said...

"The Feds are demanding that the 51% give up their safe space for the weird .1% who are not happy with their genetically assigned sex or gender (and do something about it). "

Some of these weirdoes are going to get the shit beat out of them.

It would be a perfect case for jury nullification if the beater is charged and tried.

RAH said...

The DOJ is doing its best at getting Trump elected. Pushing this dangerous crap at this time just ensures more voters go for Trump.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CL said...

There is a continued insistence on the part of critics of NC and by the Feds that this is ONLY about the transgendered, but the "solution" proposed is that anyone can use any bathroom/shower they like. These are not the same thing. There is no way to pass a law to help trans people with their bathroom discomfort that will not allow any man to go into any female safe space. And if we allow this, then how can we have any laws against public indecency? A man can go into a public shower (e.g., the beach, YMCA, gyms, high school locker rooms) and watch the girls and shower but can't do the same out on the street? Why not?

Gabriel said...

@Freder Frederson:You obviously don't understand the concept of transgender.

He understands it perfectly well, and he is not concerned about the tiny fraction of the population genuinely transgendered.

He is concerned about the much larger population of non-transgendered perverts who can take advantage of the ambiguity over whether you can, or cannot, confront a man in the womens' without being liable for a civil rights lawsuit.


Gabriel said...

@CL:A man can go into a public shower (e.g., the beach, YMCA, gyms, high school locker rooms) and watch the girls and shower but can't do the same out on the street? Why not?

Already has happened, in Seattle and Toronto. In Seattle no one could decide what to do; the man simply didn't say anything when questioned, and no one was willing to escort him out or call the police. In Toronto a man was taking video of women showering and so they just suspended the policy until they figure it out.

Howard said...

This is the kind of distraction that the oligarchy wants you to pay attention to so you won't notice they have stolen your pension and wages have declined since 1974

CL said...

prairie wind said: "Do we really want to put the force of the government into punishing people for using the restroom? If someone is assaulted in a restroom (by either sex, by any gender, in any restroom), we already have laws against that."
but it is not about assault, it is about allowing men in at all. In a restroom, ladies adjust their clothing or change clothes. A man can watch? In locker rooms, women get naked and men could too if they were allowed in (as in the YMCA case in Seattle). Currently the force of custom and law is to be able to evict men who enter the ladies room but under the new law not.

Freder Frederson said...

He understands it perfectly well, and he is not concerned about the tiny fraction of the population genuinely transgendered.

No he doesn't. He seems to think that transvestite is the same as transgender. It most certainly not.

Gabriel said...

@Freder Frederson: Try engaging with what he actually did say, and not what you assume he must have said.

Now, when obvious guys are caught in the wrong bathrooms, they can be questioned, and maybe arrested, for being there. Not under the federal rules.

He's not talking about the transgendered at all, genius. He's talking about cis-men.

The Godfather said...

3 points:

The Supreme Court has found that there's a Constitutional right to privacy. Doesn't a woman's right to privacy in the rest room, shower room, or locker room trump any contrary statute?

Decades ago there was a proposed amendment to the Constitution (called the "Equal Rights Amendment) or "ERA") to guarantee equal rights to women. Opponents argued that if enacted, the ERA would prohibit single-sex bathrooms. Supporters said that was ridiculous. The ERA was not enacted, but now the federal government wants to prohibit single-sex bathrooms anyway.

This is an entirely concocted dispute for purposes of the November elections. Before the local government in Charlotte enacted its bathroom bill, there were no mobs of transgendered people demonstrating for their bathroom rights. And today, after the State government overrode the Charlotte ordinance, the bathroom rules state-wide are no different than they were a couple of months ago. But the Left in NC is hoping to ride this issue to victory in November.

cubanbob said...

Christopher said...
Pat McCrory wants to peg the DOJ as a "bully" for imposing their own ideas about what discrimination is on the state of North Carolina, but HB2 itself prevents local jurisdictions from passing their own anti-discrimination regulations. Bullying, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder.

5/9/16, 10:38 AM"

It helps to make an apt analogy and yours isn't. Were American Civics taught at your grammer school? In case they were not, cities and counties are political subdivisions of the various States but the various States are not political subdivisions of the Federal Government. They are States, not provinces.

Tommy Duncan said...

Xmas said:

(Does anyone else find it ironic that when Communists actually do take over, the first thing they do is murder all the "sexual deviants"?)

The deviants are the ones with the pictures of the communist leaders. The deaths are a warning to the survivors.

Jon Burack said...

My memo to the Department of Justice.

My eyes collide head-on with stuffed
Graveyards, false gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough, what else can you show me?

cyrus83 said...

Dear federal government - please explain the logic of how sexual identity is unchangeable but gender identity is changeable, because last I knew science had figured out how to determine gender even though it has never been able to determine sexuality.

Birches said...

Just to add my experience. Women with children,even the lefty ones, are very uncomfortable with these changes. The Orwellian ones have proposed a law that would make it illegal for sex offenders to use public restrooms. Ha!

Gahrie said...

Not very likely to come up. What is likely is that a transgendered but biologically male student will ask to use the girls' locker room (almost never goes the other way) and will be refused by the school officials, who will provide a single-occupancy facility for that student to use if there is one.

It has already come up, and been rejected because the boy who pretends to be a girl felt stigmatized. A court case was filed and the DoJ supports the confused child.

Paul Snively said...

I kind of expected South Carolina to fire the first salvo in the beginning of the War to Reclaim States' Rights Because No It's Really Not About Slavery You Idiots, but good for the North for getting there first—and making North Carolina an even more attractive relocation destination than it already was.

Rusty said...

Why is my federal government wasting my tax dollars on this shit?

gerry said...

North Carolina could lose a lot of federal money for failing to comply with the Justice Department -- potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for its universities alone. [Emphasis added]

That's quite an attractive upside.

RonF said...

Ann - what right does the Administration have to do this? To hold up all Federal funding over this law?