May 23, 2016

"Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow students to request on religious grounds that their public schools provide a bathroom or other facility that bars transgender people."

"The bill appears to be one of the first state-level legislative actions to challenge the Obama administration’s directives, issued last week, that said students must be allowed to use the facilities that match the gender they identify as, even if that is different from their anatomical sex."

137 comments:

damikesc said...

Why don't states just declare themselves sanctuary states on the issue?

Since the government allows cities to just ignore law, why don't states try that with things they don't like?

Rae said...

I predicted a few years back that states would simply start ignoring diktats from the Federal government. At the time I thought it was a bad thing.

rhhardin said...

The religious grounds gimmick is the result of an idiotic supreme court denying freedom of association. Religion is the surviving exception to their rules.

It's an idiotic reason. Religion isn't privileged over freedom of association which everybody should have.

Fabi said...

Good -- push back against this idiocy.

n.n said...

The transgender spectrum disorder spans the rainbow. This issue is specifically about expansion of the State-established pro-choice [religious] doctrine and transgender/crossovers. It seems that for purposes other than reactive and planned parenthood, Obama is intent to restrict women and girls' right to safety and privacy.

Hagar said...

Not a new idea, damikesc. It is called "interposition" or "nullification," and was promoted by the founders of the Democratic Party, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Eventually we had a Civil War to settle the argument about whether we were a country or a loose confederation of independent states.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that this push by the Administration to give sexual predatorsen access to little girls and older wonen in rest rooms may finally be a bridge too far. For every trannie who is embarrassed by having to use the bathrooms that reflect their physical equipment, there would maybe be thousands of women endangered by sexual predators by this push by the Obama people. Will sexual predators utilize this to their advantage? Duh! I have told everyone here about the guys hanging out in their dresses and 5:00 shadows in the women's room at a club in Scottsdale. There, the crush of women would likely protect the woman using it, and these women are mostly at the top of their physical strength (mostly 20 somethings). Sexual opportunism is basic to male sexual strategy. This permeates our culture to such an extent that we mostly don't think about it, but rather just accept it as part of our world view. This is just another example of the left in general, and the Obama Administration, ignoring fundamental human nature, which is, BTW, why socialism is always destined for failure (often tragically, as we are currently seeing in Argentina).

So, Oklahoma, one of the most fundamentally Christian states in the country, has figured out that they can use their religion to stop this Obama Administration overreach. Good for them. I have no doubt that this will tie the Feds up long enough that the obvious dangers of this ill conceived push will become apparent to even the most dedicated, brain dead, leftists. And at least Obama will be out of office by then, hopefully not followed by Hillary, who probably would continue the push.

Sebastian said...

The CRA tells employers not to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Questions for the lawyers around here: Why can applying the same rule, with regard to the same facilities, to all biological males and females, be a form of "discrimination" against "any individual" "because of such individual's sex"? Why would denying some men access to women's bath or locker rooms not be "discriminatory" if other men are granted such access, on the basis of some official judgment of the merit of their self-identificiation, a distinction not mentioned or authorized by the law?

Ann Althouse said...

The battleground in the bathroom...

Exactly who wants that?

Not the vast majority of Americans, I bet.

But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose.

I'd close the door on the bathroom. Look away. Don't be lured to fight in there. It's not going to work.

Humperdink said...

"But if people at the extremes ,,,"

There is only one extreme in this battle, not two.

Ann Althouse said...

@Sebastian

Consider sexual harassment cases where an employer tells a woman that she needs to look and act more feminine to be successful. The employer loses that one. That interpretation of the statute happened long ago.

Ann Althouse said...

"There is only one extreme in this battle, not two."

It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

Sebastian said...

"Exactly who wants that?" Progs using transgenderism to break down what is left of bourgeois morality and increase the power of the state.

"Not the vast majority of Americans, I bet." But as Tony K has shown us, what the majority wants, as expressed in actual laws actually adopted via representation or referendum, is irrelevant. And administrative agencies couldn't care less.

"But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose." A useful illustration of Prog framing: requiring men to use facilities designed for men is now "extreme." Got it.

"I'd close the door on the bathroom. Look away. Don't be lured to fight in there. It's not going to work." We know it won't. But we have enough self-respect left to at least go down fighting. We'd like nothing more than to "close the door," on the bathroom and other Prog perversions. They won't let us. It's never enough.

Sebastian said...

"Consider sexual harassment cases where an employer tells a woman that she needs to look and act more feminine to be successful. The employer loses that one. That interpretation of the statute happened long ago." OK -- therefore some biological men but not others must be allowed to use women's facilities?

MadisonMan said...

What religion talks about bathrooms and who's in them?

The Starbucks I was in (don't judge) on Saturday had two bathrooms -- and anyone could use them. (I was taken aback momentarily to see both the iconic man and woman signs on both).

IMO, Women are slobs in public bathrooms. I've never seen a Starbucks bathroom so messy.

rhhardin said...

How about labelling bathrooms by genitals not by sex?

Then going in the men's room would be going in the penis room and not imply you're a man if you identify as a woman.

Use the doctrine against the doctrine.

Michael K said...

"It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom"

You choose for whatever reason to ignore the issue but the war is over shower rooms and locker rooms and the framing has ignored this.

There will be incidents and lawsuits that will hurt Democrats badly. Tolerance stops at sexual harassment that is real.

In the end, all will depend on the Court.

rhhardin said...

Only for women is going to the women's room a social occasion. They'll have to suppress that and just go quietly, in the room matching their genitals.

rhhardin said...

the anti-transgender side will lose.

Then the rule of law will lose because nobody will tolerate it. It's over the design limit for the system.

Humperdink said...

"It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

We need a (federal) regulation for that? Talk about overreach.

rhhardin said...

You'd think with two-holers the problem would have come up when the country was founded.

Laslo Spatula said...

Mr. Spooky Scary Bathroom Man

I HATE it when Males use the Women's Restroom to take car of their bodily functions.

The Music is ruined: gone are the sweet trills, the crescendos light as air, all overwhelmed now by brutish blasts of rude dissonance.

Times change. It is bittersweet to think that I may be the last one to have heard The Music in its uncorrupted state, the last to hear the purity of women alone, singing their Body Song.

Now I might as well just stare at their heels below the stall walls, silently admire their toes and the panties around their ankles, and masturbate.

Oh, for more innocent times...

I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

I think this may all be a "bimbo eruption" to take attention off this administration's doings before it leaves office.

damikesc said...

Not a new idea, damikesc. It is called "interposition" or "nullification," and was promoted by the founders of the Democratic Party, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Eventually we had a Civil War to settle the argument about whether we were a country or a loose confederation of independent states.

The big plus is that Progressives have been championing it for years. They can't claim it's this unique aberration as they did with the South pre-Civil War. This has been their modus operandi for years.

The Progs seem oblivious to the reality that what they're doing to others can be done to them. MAD is an excellent deterrant, but for it to work, you must show that it CAN go both ways.

But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose.

Sorry, professor, but this utter bullshit. The, let's just say it, normal side didn't want a battle. The pro-tranny side demanded this fight. They sought this fight. This isn't a "a pox on both their houses" scenario. And, no, the trannies will not win. It's time to demonize the fuck out of trannies. Point out the cruel abuse parents who give their kids drugs to block puberty. Make them own their own insanity.

It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

Except they've been offered accomodations and turned them down (the single occupancy toilets aren't "good enough" for the fucking snowflakes). Why the hell should 99.9% of the population be inconvenienced because a tiny number of mentally ill people make insane demands?

Is there a line in the sand that is too stupid for you to say "You know, this idea is fucking retarded"?

I guarantee you will have men like me repeatedly showing how terrible the law is. I will abuse it in every way humanly possible. And you cannot complain because you are the one demanding we accommodate people who are insane. I'll be obnoxious and crude --- which, of course, is my right. I'll make the women's room miserable any time I can.

But you shouldn't fight back. You should just give it up.

Hagar said...

Note that cross-dressers is not affected now more than ever. This "regulation" only affects people who stand up and loudly proclaim that they "identify" as the sex opposite that which they are presently dressed as belonging to.

This is a totally made-up issue.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Guy Who Drives the White Van With No Windows In The Back Says:

You're kidding me, right?

You can't be serious.

You are?

This is, like, Law now?

Nooo. That can't be right.

I can just follow a young girl into the gas station women's bathroom and close the door behind us?

I can do that, and it's actually legal?

Just me and her, in the same bathroom, alone?

C'mon, you gotta be joking me.

You're not? You're really not?

Does this work at, say, McDonald's too, now?

Well Holy Shit.

Hell, at this point we're already half-way into the White Van...


I am Laslo.

Static Ping said...

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up shook up world except for Lola
(Lola is the guy in a dress taking a picture of you while you take a dump)

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

I wonder what Meade thinks of the idea that Althouse is championing letting strange men shower with her. That's the position of the tranny movement. And that's the position we "doomed, bigoted" so-called anti-trannies are fighting against.

What about it, Ann? You are fully prepared to share your shower with any guy who claims to be a woman today? Even if they have a choice of their own private restroom? The tranny forces have already shown they will settle for nothing less than forcing women to share a shower, restroom, and dressing room with men.

What about the "right to privacy?" You are giving that up without a fight.

Humperdink said...

So a dude today declares himself a chick tomorrow. Is she then permitted to declare herself a dude Wednesday? Is there a limit to these round trips? Is there a statute of limitations for switching back? Is this transgendered thingy "settled science"? (cough)

Jason said...

Men in women's shower facilities is the Dutch Tulip Bulb Craze of civil rights movements.

Jason said...

Of course the Prof's fine with it. The University's a cloistered community, she's never had a daughter, and it won't be the 60-something elderly women whom the rapists posing as TGs will be targeting.

They'll wait til Ann leaves the restroom and attack the young ones when they're vulnerable. Ain't that right, Laslo?

See, it's OTHER women she's throwing to the wolves.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Ann misses the point when she talks about everyone being able to do their business quietly. Laslo pointed out the reality, that this would be a green light for sexual perverts and predators to follow young girls and older women into women's rooms to sexually assault them, or for teen aged boys to voyeristically watch the girls shower (I can pretty well guarantee that most of the boys I knew back then would have done donned a dress, if it meant seeing the girls naked in the showers). If everyone were an angel, this wouldn't be an issue, but they aren't. Pretending that life is unicorns and pixie dust doesn't make it so.

EDH said...

Althouse: It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

Okay, so only transexuals can't gather in the ladies room, do their make-up and gab with all the other "gals"?

Isn't that behavioral distinction per se discrimination right there?

Jason said...

The people who think sex offenders won't take advantage of this are the same people who think terrorists released from Gitmo won't go back to terrorism and criminals won't take advantage of disarmed people.

Jason said...

Hey, Ann! What is the ratio of known sex offenders to actual committed transgenders? What does the math say?

jr565 said...

If bathrooms are ok why not locker rooms? Why not sports teams? Why not women's prisons? Or grants for women? If we establish thst you can assert your gender and the law must accomodate you when it comes to a bathroom, why wouldn't it accomodate you when it came to anything else? Because we've already established that how you identify gives you the accommodation when it comes to a bathroom. But would those saying that transgendered should have this right here SHOULDNT have this right somewhere else? It's either or.

The next point is, these laws are not even demanding you provide evidence that you are transgendered. So, anyone can take advantage of this law.if someone questioned whether you were indeed trans it would be a violation.
So, doesn't this throw the whole concept of separate sports teams or laws that benefit women specifically out the window? I'd argue that the very idea of a woman's sports team actually discriminates on the basis of gender. But even if we kept those in place, there would be nothing to stop men from joining women's teams and dominating them at sports. Or taking a spot at a rape crisis center for women by sayin they too are women.

On what basis would althouse say we should still have separate teams for men and women? Since the very concept is now irrelevent. Or separate prisons. We should now just have prisons. And unisex orisons, no less. How would thst work out? Women get sent to the prison that has all the hardened male rapists?

Jason said...

Two years ago, we were reading about an epidemic of rape in India precisely because there was no protected place where women could relieve themselves.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/01/girls-toilet-rape-murder-anger-embarrassment

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-02/toilet-shortage-fueling-india-rape-scourge-as-women-easy-prey

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28039513

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/india-toilets-rape_n_5760180.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/06/09/319529037/indias-rape-uproar-ignites-demand-to-end-open-defecation

We know we have convicted sex offenders in every community. We also know that there is an unknown number of unidentified sex offenders on top of that. We know that these people seek out opportunities to prey on the vulnerable. We also know that they take advantage of opportunities that present themselves.

You have to be fecking stupid... STUPID... to assume that they will not take advantage of the transgender loophole to gain access to victims, or to titillate themselves.

But then, these are liberals we're talking about, here.




Paul Zrimsek said...

Ann Althouse, extremist.

Jason said...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-female-boxer-gives-female-opponent-concussion-breaks-her-eye-so

Transgender MMA fighter gives female opponent concussion, broken eye socket.

Birches said...

Bathrooms are not a religious issue. OK is wrong to use this reasoning. They should just say, "fine. Gender neutral bathrooms, but women are now eligible for the selective service."

Mark Nielsen said...

jr565 may be onto something. What about a convicted rapist who decides (s)he's now transgender. Must (s)he be placed in the women's penitentiary?

Mark Nielsen said...

Good catch, Paul Z!

EDH said...

Using a completely silly "anti-discrimination" rationale, Obama has purposely chosen to turn an issue about protecting the vulnerabilities of a small minority into a federal civil rights cudgel that will interfere with and compromises the ability of premises owners to protect the safety of their visitors, and trap them in a litigious Catch-22 between premises liability and anti-discrimination law.

How does a premises owner go about removing a "man" from the women's bathroom, locker room or shower?

As if the vulnerabilities of that population to bullying and other forms of harassment were somehow confined to bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. And for that matter won't be exacerbated by Obama's edicts.

As usual, Obama sought the most divisive route because he wanted the conflict, because he believes it serves his interests.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The solution to this is that ALL bathrooms will be single use. One toilet with a door that can lock. No more multi stall or multi urinal facilities One person at a time.

Of course this will mean longer lines, especially at sporting events, and in bars..... but ...hey....as long as the suffering is equally disbursed it should be good. Right? At least the guys have the option of going outside and peeing against a wall.

I was at a Trader Joe's and this is their set up. A couple of bathrooms with the man/woman sign on the doors. I waited until one was empty. The emerging user was a guy. Big deal. Who cares if it was a guy or a girl or an undecided who used the bathroom last. Just leave the place clean when you are done. Although....the guy DID leave the toilet seat up. The inhumanity!!!

jr565 said...

"The solution to this is that ALL bathrooms will be single use. One toilet with a door that can lock. No more multi stall or multi urinal facilities One person at a time."

SO its JUST bathrooms? Nothing else? Once you've established that they are the sex/gender they identify as why would they ONLY get access to bathrooms but not say a grant for women.

Bruce Hayden said...

I mentioned above that sexual opportunism is built into the male sexual strategy. Why is that true? My theory is that the goal of all animals genetically is to maximize the number of descendants in a couple generations. It has been called the greedy gene. If left to our own, us males would probably want to just impregnate as many females as we could, and let nature take its course. The problem with humans though is that we have such a long period of dependency. As a result, our females developed the strategy of pair bonding (which lead ultimately to marriage) in order for a single male to devote his resources to the raising of their (hopefully) jointly conceived children. This is probably the reason behind hidden ovulation and year round sexual receptivity in human females. The chances of grandchildren and great grandchildren goes up for women, at least, if they have the father involved in raising them, contributing their resources. (Could this be part of why the murder/death rate in poorer Black communities is so high?). Still, in this scheme, even if kids born out of wedlock are less likely to survive and reproduce, their chances of doing so are greater than zero, so these kids are essentially evolutionary freebies for the males involved. This is because not all raped women are going to kill themselves, or even their prospective babies.

For me, it has been interesting watching the problems that our western countries have faced when trying to integrate Muslim males fro third world countries into our societies. They appear to have a more tribal, probably more ancient, solution to this problem of aggressive male opportunism. They appear to accept it as reality, then use their family and tribes to control it. Which essentially means that any females not so protected are fair game for any male who can get their hands on them. And hence the rapes and molestations we have seen across Europe whenever enough Muslim males congregate. The women raped and mollested lacked the family and tribal males to protect them, and, thus, were considered fair game.

The point of my long diatribe is to just point out that it is not rational or reasonable to assume that a number of opportunistic males would not utilize this to prey on vulnerable females. This male sexual opportunism is just one of those things that we cannot reasonably assume out of existence. We have too many million years of evolution driving it. We cannot pretend that it doesn't exist, or can be easily controlled by reprogramming, and is why just wishing and hoping that everyone does their own business quietly is just that - wishful thinking.

BrianE said...

"But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose.

I'd close the door on the bathroom. Look away. Don't be lured to fight in there. It's not going to work."- Ms. Althouse

Hmmm. Vaguely familiar rhetoric to her same sex marriage position. Only this time instead of-- 'You lost. Get over it!', it's 'You're going to lose, get over it!'.

Since the vast majority of transgenderists also identifies as homosexual, this is just the next skirmish in the same war.

Ms Althouse is just coming out of the closet on this issue.

Clayton Hennesey said...

I think everyone is being a bit overwrought. A few women and girls will be assaulted in restrooms or locker rooms, a few transsexuals will be murdered, and then the whole bathroom transsexual thing will implode completely like the campus safe spaces and its nurturing higher education bubble in general.

People forget that the law is only heard above the level of the reptilian brain. The transgender bathroom equality silliness with respect to people's beloved real children hits home at a level far more primal than mere law.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

damikesc said...
Why don't states just declare themselves sanctuary states on the issue?


Besides being ludicrous, how it is Constitutional for the Prez to be giving directives about schools bathrooms?

"Yes, the Department of Education Is Unconstitutional"

Dust Bunny Queen said...

SO its JUST bathrooms? Nothing else?

OK...single use showers in locker rooms. Maybe just dispense with the locker rooms entirely and have the kids go back to class sweaty in their gym clothes. Swim team might be a bit drippy back in math class. Hell, just get rid of school physical education program. Most of the kids would rather sit on their butts and text anyway :-)

When I was going to a gym before going to my office or after work, they didn't have decent shower facilities so I just went to and fro in my workout clothing. As a gym owner, I would close down the locker room and shower facilities for liability purposes. NO ONE gets to shower or poo in a group setting. See....equality for everyone.

The whole thing is a disaster caused by over reaching political correctness, insanity about gender and Obama inserting the Federal Government into areas where it has no business being.

Many years ago we owned and operated a smoked foods deli/restaurant. It already had two single use restrooms. If I were in a business now, I would remodel and have single use bathrooms and remove myself from the liability situation. Leaving the users in control of who can come in with them. Single use. Sorry you have to wait.

jr565 said...

"The solution to this is that ALL bathrooms will be single use. One toilet with a door that can lock. No more multi stall or multi urinal facilities One person at a time."

And if that is what the stalls are designed as would anyone opposed to said laws have a problem with it? We are talking about shared bathrooms.
As men, we are used to having urinals where we are all sharing a space peeing next to each other. Its actually convenient and saves a lot of time, which is why the line is always shorter at the movie theater for the guys. Forcing me to give up a urinal then would be really inconvenient.
THe single use unisex bathroom is actually a bit of a dodge, since we have multi use bathrooms/locker rooms and that's where the issue actually is.
No one would complain about a single use bathroom that was unisex, considering its single use and therefore no one of any sex/gender shoudl be in the bathroom with you.

jr565 said...

"Many years ago we owned and operated a smoked foods deli/restaurant. It already had two single use restrooms. If I were in a business now, I would remodel and have single use bathrooms and remove myself from the liability situation. Leaving the users in control of who can come in with them. Single use. Sorry you have to wait."
What about bathrooms in a sports stadium? That needs to accomodate dozens of people at a time?

Meeeea said...

@9:51a.m. It's already begun for more than bathrooms. They are using the "top down, bottom up" strategy by the new Federal "guidelines" from the top, while at the bottom, small entities such as the example below are receiving the full force of the DOJ and essentially strong-armed into compliance. What defense would the school district have? (I'm curious if one exists. If not, it's just a matter of time before it's mandated across the board if Clinton is God forbid elected.)

This is a a Resolution agreement btw a school district and the Justice Dept after a complaint was filed. I could be wrong, but I read it as a biologically equipped (with parts still intact) female ID'g as male must be allowed into overnight male cabins: (I couldn't find where it said the female anatomy was gone.)

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/07/26/arcadiaagree.pdf

"The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) (jointly referred to as the “United States”) investigated a complaint (“Complaint”) filed against the Arcadia Unified School District (“District”), pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c et seq. (“Title IV”). The Complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of sex against a student in the District (“Student”). The Student is a transgender boy who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years, as supported by documentation provided to the District by his family. The Student has been known, treated, and accepted as a male by his family, teachers, and classmates. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the District denied the Student educational opportunities on the basis of sex when, because the Student is transgender, it prohibited him from accessing (1) sex-specific facilities designated for male students at school for use during school and extracurricular activities, and (2) sex-specific student cabins for male students during a school-sponsored overnight academic camp. Without admitting any unlawful conduct, in order to resolve the Complaint, the District agrees to implement this Resolution Agreement (“Agreement”), which includes individual and District-wide measures."

jr565 said...

if we have multi use bathrooms that are supposed to be unisex does that mean men can't have urinals anymore? So, then by accomodating .0000004% of the populating Althouse wants to make life difficult FOR ME.
I have a weak bladder. If I drink excessive beer or coffee I end up having to go to the bathroom a lot. And so, I'm now going to have to have my bladder explode waiting on longer lines.

jr565 said...

"Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the District denied the Student educational opportunities on the basis of sex when, because the Student is transgender, it prohibited him from accessing (1) sex-specific facilities designated for male students at school for use during school and extracurricular activities, and (2) sex-specific student cabins for male students during a school-sponsored overnight academic camp."

its more than just bathrooms as you say. And why would it be limited to bathrooms? It would be a pretty strange view of gender where you couldn't discriminate on the basis of bathroom access, but could on the basis of locker room access. Because that would suggest that the person wasn't really the gender they claimed they were under law.
You'd have to give them access to bathrooms, sex specific student cabins, locker rooms etc. Anything and EVERYTHING.
Further, the student doesn't have to provide any evidence that he/she is in fact even transgender. The only thing required is the assertion that they are by either themselves or their parent.

Jason said...

I think I'm going to go ahead and get certified as a woman-owned small business and compete for federal woman-owned business set-asides. Every small business owner or independent contractor should do this.

Libs want it destroyed. Ok, let's destroy it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What about bathrooms in a sports stadium? That needs to accomodate dozens of people at a time?

@ jr

According to Obama's new rules, those will have to go the way of the dinosaur. You will have to wait. Or piss outside. Everyone gets inconvenienced because of a few people. Too bad.

I'm not FOR this you know. I'm being very sarcastic here. However, I'm merely pointing out the rational actions of the business owners that they will use to minimize their liability to prevent sexual assaults in the restrooms and in locker rooms. The new rules to solve a problem that didn't even exist have created new problems. Unexpectedly!!!!

jr565 said...

"The solution to this is that ALL bathrooms will be single use. One toilet with a door that can lock. No more multi stall or multi urinal facilities One person at a time."

if you construct bathrooms for a living there are actual codes in place as to how big each stall must be and how much space each urinal must have between each urinal. Sp contractors must build bathrooms to code.
But the fact is, you can fit a lot more urinals into a bathroom than stalls. If they removed all urinals and replaced them with stalls they'd be turning their bathroom into one that is less accomodating to groups of people, thus creating longer lines.

I was just at a play recently and during intermission had to run to the restroom. The mens room line was really long. But it went quickly, because guys can get in and out really fast.
However, imagine if that same bathroom had no urinals and only a few extra stalls. That would create a bottleneck. To fix this issue the theater would have to create extra bathrooms, as otherwise their customers would be irate and peeing themselves. Does an establishment even have the space to create additional bathrooms?

The alternative would be having unisex multiuse bathrooms that also had urinals.

n.n said...

The bathroom issue is mostly a straw clown presented in the best traditions of transgender, transhuman, and transsocial jesters in the Democrat party, and civil and human rights businesses. The issue is two-fold. First, expansion of the State-established pro-choice church to cover transgender/crossovers. Second, violation of privacy and safety rights of women in shared spaces (i.e. outside of abortion clinics and planned parenthood offices). Actually, there is a third: progressive confusion, perpetual confusion.

That said, the response of Democrats, female chauvinists, and transgender/homosexuals was predictable. The orthodoxy of the State-established pro-choice church and the special privileges granted to these special and peculiar diversity classes cannot be sustained without progress of transgender, transhuman, and transsocial intrusion into scientific, religious/moral, women's, children's, etc. domains.

n.n said...

This bill does not affect transgender/homosexuals, but a limited subset of individuals who exhibit the transgender spectrum disorder of the progressive (i.e. transitioning) or liberal (i.e. unprincipled) crossover variety. And, of course, women and girls outside of abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood offices.

So, what more are women willing to sacrifice in order to protect the State-established orthodoxy that selectively grants them special and superior rights?

jr565 said...

Jason wrote:
I think I'm going to go ahead and get certified as a woman-owned small business and compete for federal woman-owned business set-asides. Every small business owner or independent contractor should do this.

Libs want it destroyed. Ok, let's destroy it.

Yes, rather than fight the laws, abuse them until they collapse.

JAORE said...

"You choose for whatever reason to ignore the issue but the war is over shower rooms and locker rooms and the framing has ignored this."

Bingo. Although inconvenient to me (victory for womanhood! We all suffer) unisex restrooms can handle the issue of where we relieve ourselves.

But I'm a father of a young woman and grandfather to two girls. Do I object to rules that say a dude in blue jeans and a five day old beard can follow my grand daughters into a locker room, a (formerly) woman's shower facility of a changing room in a store? You bet I do. And that has NOTHING to do with being anti-transgender.

People joke about boys will wear dresses to see the girls shower. No they won't. A male can walk in unquestioned in any situation. Challenges to his behavior, short of criminal acts, are forbidden.

Like the question above, how many predatory men, horny young boys and curious very young boys are there? Now compare that with the transgendered.

And Ann says we will lose because we are on the side of evil. Perhaps, though we differ on which side is evil. But there is an opportunity here. A politician can express great empathy with the transgendered but raise the specter (using actual examples) of males entering locker rooms for voyeuristic, or worse, intent. How would that play in Black churches. How would that play in Hispanic communities that remain religious?

We will lose? We will see?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The alternative would be having unisex multiuse bathrooms that also had urinals.

@ jr

What? You can't pee into a toilet? How do you go to the bathroom at home?

Speaking as a former business owner that catered to the public, in order to avoid the liability issue of having my patrons assaulted in the restrooms, I would have single use bathrooms. Just like you have at home. One toilet, one sink and a door that can lock.

In addition to the lowered cost of having to have multiple fixtures and extensive plumbing the square footage of my business' usable space would be increased.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Left says unisex bathrooms aren't ok (as an additional option). The Left says single-occupancy bathrooms and changing rooms aren't ok.
The Left keeps saying "bathrooms" when that's only a small part of the problem (the larger problem being locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, etc).

But yeah, it's not the Left who's extreme--it's not the Left that's out of touch with the mainstream.

Prof. Althouse is probably correct on the law--that the non-Left will lose. Prof. Althouse is entirely incorrect to buy in to the Left/Media characterization of this issue (as extreme, hateful, bigoted non-Left people attacking poor innocent transexuals who weren't making any demands and just wanted to be left alone).

The Media's characterization of this issue, of course, makes moderate people FEEL bad for the people the Left identifies as victims, and, well, that's all she wrote.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...Speaking as a former business owner that catered to the public, in order to avoid the liability issue of having my patrons assaulted in the restrooms, I would have single use bathrooms. Just like you have at home. One toilet, one sink and a door that can lock.

Right, and how will that work for a large school? How will that work for a pool's changing facility, or a gym lockeroom? How will that work as a solution when many of the lawsuits in question were specifically to gain access to existing single-sex facilities (and specifically say that the schools' attempt at accommodation were unacceptable)?

Hagar said...

How about dorm rooms?

Static Ping said...

I look forward to the day when Ann, secretly recorded relieving herself by a dude pretended to be woman (for the five minutes necessary), becomes the next fetish porn sensation on the Internet. See "farts once, flushes twice" woman in hot, hot, hot lavatory action. Never has there been someone who wipes so seductively! Men, and women pretending to be men, and women, and men pretending to be women, will pleasure themselves to the glorious plopper!

Of course, Ann will sue their asses but at that point the video will be entrenched in servers worldwide outside of any possible remedy, a permanent testament to the lusty commode.

damikesc said...

If bathrooms are ok why not locker rooms?

The Charlotte statue NC overrode allowed that as well.

The next point is, these laws are not even demanding you provide evidence that you are transgendered.

Nor do they pretend to define "Transgendered". They'll just leave it to faceless bureaucrats who need to justify their employment.

Transgender MMA fighter gives female opponent concussion, broken eye socket.

There is an MMA fighter, Fallon Fox, trying to get into MMA. And when male fighters point out that it is bullshit, they get fined and punished. But when he cripples somebody (guess what...the muscle mass and bone structure is still there and any competent man could annihilate an elite woman in that sport), it'll be one of those "shocks" that nobody could've seen coming.

Of course this will mean longer lines, especially at sporting events, and in bars..... but ...hey....as long as the suffering is equally disbursed it should be good. Right? At least the guys have the option of going outside and peeing against a wall.

Men are generally physically larger than women and, drunk, not polite. Women will suffer dramatically more than men. It's going to lead to violence, inevitably...and the advocates will be shocked --- SHOCKED --- by this.

What about bathrooms in a sports stadium? That needs to accomodate dozens of people at a time?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't she is saying this is a good idea. Just where it'll lead to.

And do you think the advocates go to sporting events? Do that for really nice theatres and the like and they MIGHT notice.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Hoodlum

I'm NOT for this rule. I'm just pointing out the problems and the consequences of this ridiculous interference in the bathroom practices in the US that have been effect for at least a century.

Schools will probably have to have security at the facilities to protect against sexual assaults and other violence. More personnel costs.

People will just have to get over thinking that they deserve privacy. All your bathroom and private moments belong to the government. Like the soup nazi....we have the bathroom and locker room nazis. No Privacy FOR YOU!!!!

(Again...please read this with the sarcastic tone that I intend)

damikesc said...


The Media's characterization of this issue, of course, makes moderate people FEEL bad for the people the Left identifies as victims, and, well, that's all she wrote.


One of the assorted female-centered networks has a show on championing a high school "Transsexual". Its' parents give it drugs so it won't "Develop into a man".

What the fuck happened to the "Party of Science" bullshit? If you must take drugs with not a great deal of good research behind their efficacy and side effects to avoid NATURE WORKING, then all of the harm that kid suffers is on their parents head. If they get, say, cancer from this --- I hope, sincerely, people remind the parents every day that YOU made this happen.

Kids are getting so utterly fucked over right now. I've taught my boys to my nice and friendly --- but I'm teaching them to be WAY less accommodating to utter bullshit.

Night Owl said...

Some questions popped into my head as I read Althouse's comments: Who made this an issue? Who started this fight? I don't remember it being the right wing... And why is it being pushed now during an election cycle? And just how is Althouse so sure that the "anti-transgenders" -- her framing of the opposition not mine-- are going to lose this "battle" ? All it takes is some news stories of woman and girls-- or even actual transgendered women-- being molested or raped in restrooms and even the most PC leftists will come to realize there was a reason why these areas were separated to begin with. (And as for allowing boys and girls, men and women to shower and change together ... is that also a moderate, "winning" position to take?)

Some of us see this "battle" not as an opportunity for "haters" to oppress a tiny portion of the population-- who as far as we know have never really had a problem deciding which bathroom to use until left-wingers decide to make it a problem for them-- but as an opportunity for the left to, as always, distract and divide people.

This is a battle over an abuse of power; Obama again deciding to rule by decree rather than through legislation. That fires up a lot of people. But the left gets silly people to buy into their line of crap that it is all about fighting for another "victim of the patriarchy". They appeal to the emotions of otherwise sensible people like Althouse, who is quick to label opponents of the power grab as "extremist" "anti-transgenders". Can she really not imagine why moderate people might oppose this diktat from Obama?

Some of us see this move as an attempt to distract/divide and conquer during an election cycle -- an election which the left is in danger of losing due to running a well-loathed candidate like Hillary-- and we are growing very weary of this tactic. We oppose the Obama decree for that reason, even if we truly have no problem with an actual transgendered person discreetly using the restroom of their choice, as they have been doing since... oh... forever. I applaud the red states for pushing back. If Obama and the Democratic administrations in sanctuary cities can flout the law, then the left has officially decided anything goes. Let the good times roll. And if innocent transgendered people end up worse-off, it will be just be typical of most leftist policies that end up hurting those they claim to want to help.

Hagar said...

Adding or remodeling restrooms will not be a minor problem for a lot of small businesses; especially if the local administration decides to get difficult about it.
Just imagine yourself renting a "hole in the wall" location in a 100+ years old building downtown.

Oso Negro said...

Do you wonder where it is going with homosexuality? Just think of the most extreme outcome, and work back from there. Post-gay marriage, we do not get young gay men saving their anuses for holy matrimony, we get transsexual potty rights. I look forward to mandatory homosexual experience camp for elementary school kids and a homosexual relationship or two as a pre-requisite for public office.

G-Man said...

"But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose.

I'd close the door on the bathroom. Look away. Don't be lured to fight in there. It's not going to work."



So, the law will be that predators get to pee next to little girls and horny teen-age boys get to shower with teen-age girls? What a country.

cubanbob said...

Thought experiment: can President Trumpy decide on a whim that Title 9 simply means no discrimination with respects to sports and nothing else and thus order the revocation of all federal rules that are not specific to discrimination in sports? If so, then presumably he can fire the federal employees that were tasked with promulgating and enforcing the regulations as they would no longer be needed.

Jason said...

See that bathroom stall? See that sign on the door, libtards? That there is Chesterton's fence.

n.n said...

The Pro-choice doctrine is the secular equivalent of Islam's Taqiya.

As for Althouse, extremist. The rationale must be understood. Transhuman rights (e.g. premeditated abortion, planned parenthood) were not carved out until liberal judges received religious instruction from gods in the twilight zone. Transgender/homosexual rights were not carved out until a transgender/homosexual judge overrode a democratic consensus and Democrat majority, followed by a social justice offensive to cast Mormons (an organized but demographically vulnerable minority) as scapegoats, and finally Obama raising the rainbow flag of institutional selective exclusion.

In any case, the secular orthodoxy, while splintered, has a compelling interest to ignore or avoid the fallout from diametrically opposed interests in order to preserve the privileges of its special and peculiar interests, including transgender, transhuman, and transsocial rights.

Ann Althouse said...

@Paul Zrimsek

That old post objects to abolishing separate bathroom. I still object to that, unless they are single-user bathrooms.

The current controversy is over a tiny number of persons who want to use the room that aligns with the way they publicly present themselves. These people have every motivation to be discreet and private as they take care of their needs, as indeed we all do.

There is also a tiny set of persons who misbehave toward others when they are in the bathroom. These people should be your focus. Badgering transgender folk as a precaution against sexual offenders is radically imprecise -- over- and underinclusive.

Dr Weevil said...

Two points no one seems to have mentioned yet:
1. Lots more small businesses will go to a 'Bathrooms for employees only' policy, which will make us all worse off.
2. Separate unisex one-holer bathrooms with lockable doors will increase the number of gay and straight couples using them for quick 'dates', which will then encourage more small businesses to get rid of their public bathrooms (see #1).

Unknown said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
The battleground in the bathroom...

Exactly who wants that?

Not the vast majority of Americans, I bet.

But if people at the extremes choose to have a battle over the bathroom, the anti-transgender side will lose.

I'd close the door on the bathroom. Look away. Don't be lured to fight in there. It's not going to work.

5/23/16, 8:15 AM"


"Look away." <-- this is where you're evil, Professor. To "look away" is to betray mankind. How much quieter the 1940s would have been if we had only looked away!

Put it another way, how many people would have to die before "it would work?"

ken in tx said...

There were uni-sex showers in Starship Troopers. You haters are not just anti-science, you are anti-science fiction. sarc/

jr565 said...

althouse wrote:

The current controversy is over a tiny number of persons who want to use the room that aligns with the way they publicly present themselves. These people have every motivation to be discreet and private as they take care of their needs, as indeed we all do.

Well, not really.Because its not how you present but how you identify. You could present as a man. But simply use a womans room. Who are you to say that the MAN who outwardly identifies as a man is not in fact a woman?

jr565 said...

"There is also a tiny set of persons who misbehave toward others when they are in the bathroom. These people should be your focus. Badgering transgender folk as a precaution against sexual offenders is radically imprecise -- over- and underinclusive."

Your saying we are badgering trans people is a straw man. You literally are incapable of understanding that there is no distinction between transgendered, cross dressers who are not transgendered, or even men who don't even bother identifying as women but want to use a womans room. Because you cannot determine the truthfulness of how someone identifies when they are going into a restroom.
And rather than not adressing this obvious flaw in your argument you instead, like all lefties, restort to calling people haters.

I dont know the stats on transgendered people who are molesters. I assume most of the men dressed like women who are going into a womans room to ogle women are not in fact transgendered, but simply dudes who want to ogle women. But so what? How are YOU distintguishing the legitimate trans person versus the guy who just says he identifies as a woman but isnt really trans?

jr565 said...

"Speaking as a former business owner that catered to the public, in order to avoid the liability issue of having my patrons assaulted in the restrooms, I would have single use bathrooms. Just like you have at home. One toilet, one sink and a door that can lock"

Again, this only addresses bathrooms that are single use. There is no reason why those couldn't be unisex. Since only one person uses them at a time. But when it comes to multiuse bathrooms that require multiple people to use at one time its not necesarily as feasible.
I've never been in a bathroom where I was peeing at a urinal and in the same bathroom a woman was in a stall next to me. In other words, unisex, multi use bathrooms, largely don't exist.

Hagar said...

Shorter Althouse:
"If you continue to oppose me I shall throw myself on the floor and kick my heels and hold my breath until I turn blue in the face! So there!!!"

Unknown said...

The co-ed showers in "Starship Troopers" were a nice touch in a pretty bad movie. It was welcome eye-candy, of course, but it also made the point that the society depicted in the movie was not "Late 20th century US mainstream". If men and women could shower together and talk only about mundane topics, then the culture was probably different in other ways as well.

jr565 said...

(cont) and by the way, I know you're not advocating for this Dust bunny. I'm just pointing out that the unisex bathroom argument almost always involves discussions of single use bathroooms. And a place like Walmart, or Target will have accomodations that are for multi use.

Richard said...

“It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

All women are equal, but some women are more equal than others. It always comes down to this, right comrade … er Ann.

jr565 said...

"The co-ed showers in "Starship Troopers" were a nice touch in a pretty bad movie. It was welcome eye-candy, of course, but it also made the point that the society depicted in the movie was not "Late 20th century US mainstream". If men and women could shower together and talk only about mundane topics, then the culture was probably different in other ways as well."

I think guys woudn't mind this at all. But I know a lot of women who would. The problem really is women. They are such prudes. They need to get over their fear of rape and accept that men are going to be in their safe space.

jr565 said...

What is the issue with demanding that those who are transgendered and demand that they have this right actually provide proof that they are what they claim to be if there is a complaint about them being in the wrong restroom?
Asking for that proof is deemed "hateful", right? Yet, if you can't ask them for proof can you ask the non trans for proof that he isn't trans? That's the problem right there.
Even the law in NC says if you actually change your birth certificate to be the sex you identify as you'd have a right to use the bathroom of the sex you identify as. But that requires that you have proof. If you don't ever require that, it's simply a glarying security hole that anyone can exploit to access womens safe spaces.

Jason said...

Badgering transgender folk as a precaution against sexual offenders is radically imprecise -- over- and under inclusive.

Multiple levels of bullshit here. Her position is a smorgasbord of straw men, base stealing, question begging and bad assumptions.

I have observed this before. Althouse sheds 30 IQ points or more as soon as the subject turns to LGBT issues. The more I observe, the more severe the drop.

It's ridiculous and sad.

Jason said...

The touching libtard faith that they have forever banished the Law of Unintended Consequences from existence -- to the point where anyone even pointing out the threat of unintended consequences must be motivated by bigotry and hate - is breathtaking to behold.

And very, very dangerous.

You'd think these arrogant, drooling idiots would have learned their lesson from the Luxury Tax, but no such luck.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...These people have every motivation to be discreet and private as they take care of their needs, as indeed we all do.

And yet quite a few of them have filed lawsuits to force schools to accommodate them. Why the hell is that ignored here, Professor? Why do you continue to pretend like that's not what started this whole fucking thing?! Trans-type people were mostly discreet and everyone went about their business (so to speak) without much problem. An individual student or two might have a discussion with a principal or administrator and they worked things out. No problem.

BUT, no, suddenly a few trans-type people decided that wouldn't work for them--they didn't get their way in some fashion so they took the school district to court. Now the law's involved. Now people are upset, now people take sides. Now we have to have a blanket, uniform rule. Now schools have to pay TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to people who sued. Now the reasonable accommodations the schools tried to make are officially judged wanting, and the schools are forced to follow some regulation/law a court or higher district sets (in response to the activist's lawsuit or threat of lawsuit). Some people don't like those new rules, and they agitate for a law to prevent them. Some states and localities pass laws saying they won't change, and the Federal fucking Government starts leaning on those states and issuing threats. As do, of course, tons of businesses and the Media generally.

That's pretty much how it went. But somehow, to you, the problem is that non-Left people went out of their way to antagonize transsexuals?! That's the Media's line, of course, but it's flatly wrong. It's not "cruel neutrality" to intentionally distort the facts/history around how we got here. It's not "cruel neutrality" to pretend that one side in a war (and that's exactly how the Left/Media & the people opposing the changes the transexuals demand characterize this) is blameless when they're not.

You're not calling for a ceasefire. You're not calling for everyone to calm down, take a deep breath, and let civility and common sense prevail. You're calling for one side to unilaterally surrender, while simultaneously denying that the other side is the aggressor (and is making unreasonable demands). You're better than this, Professor.

Meeeea said...


It will all be moot if they succeed in passing H.R. 5272 To amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to protect civil rights and otherwise prevent meaningful harm to third parties, and for other purposes. AKA the Do No Harm Act which essentially guts RFRA and makes any 'religious' belief something that applies solely to your mind and body ("such as when a Sikh soldier seeks to serve his country while wearing his articles of faith")

The ultimate intent behind this bill is to eliminate any avenue for Catholic Hospitals to have a legal basis for not providing abortions, abortifacients, sterilizations, and transgender surgeries, thus forcing them to close. At the same time, they win all the way down--The Little Sisters of the Poor and all the other Catholic social justice programs will not be exempt from any "women's health" or transgender mandates. See:
http://www.protectthyneighbor.org/do-no-harm-act

https://kennedy.house.gov/media/press-releases/kennedy-scott-introduce-amendment-to-religious-freedom-restoration-act

Richard said...

“Asking for that proof is deemed "hateful", right?”

As I am sure you are aware, the purpose is not to allow society to be tolerant of, but to force society to actively support their sexual choice. If they have to prove they are transgendered then it indicates that they are not the same as a biological female and we can’t allow any deviancy (pun intended) from their agenda to destroy all societal sexual norms.

Meeeea said...

"

The legislation has received support from the following advocacy and expert organizations: AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Bend the Arc, Catholics for Choice, Center for American Progress, Center for Reproductive Rights, Congressional Equality Caucus, Disciples Justice Action Network, Equal Partners in Faith, Equality Federation, Family Equality Council, Friends Committee on National Legislation, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Guttmacher Institute, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, Interfaith Alliance, Lambda Legal, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, NARAL, National Abortion Federation, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National LGBTQ Task Force, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Law Center, Parents and Families of Lesbians and Gays, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US, Trevor Project, and Unitarian Universalist Association. "
(Source, see Kennedy link above)

Night Owl said...

"The current controversy is over a tiny number of persons who want to use the room that aligns with the way they publicly present themselves. These people have every motivation to be discreet and private as they take care of their needs, as indeed we all do."

You are describing things as they used to be before the left took this up as the latest cause celebre. Thanks to those activist folks who are only trying to help, the reality now is that even if you are clearly a man, dressed as man, and sporting a ZZ Top-style beard, if you say you identify as a woman you can use whatever restroom or changing room you want. And showers may be next. This is progress? This is not something that might make moderate parents want to push back? Or make small and/or frail women feel unsafe? Perhaps you don't mean to, but you come across as ignoring the very real concerns of ordinary people in your desire to counter the opinions of an unknown number of actual bigots that hate transgenders.

The left turns a non-issue into a potentially dangerous situation and yet it is fair to label those who oppose it as the extremists? When does the left ever get the blame for the problems they create? And finally, why did the left see the need to make a big deal out of a non-issue? What's the big picture here? I think it is fair and reasonable to ponder these questions.

damikesc said...

There is also a tiny set of persons who misbehave toward others when they are in the bathroom. These people should be your focus. Badgering transgender folk as a precaution against sexual offenders is radically imprecise -- over- and underinclusive.

We're not the ones championing legislation that doesn't differentiate between the two. Badgering trannies, who are a ludicrously small percentage of the population, is impossible as few people KNOW any trannies.

True, it's impossible to write legislation to differentiate between pervs and the mentally ill, but hell, this is YOUR desire, not mine. I have zero desire to HELP you achieve this asinine goal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Your saying we are badgering trans people is a straw man. You literally are incapable of understanding that there is no distinction between transgendered, cross dressers who are not transgendered, or even men who don't even bother identifying as women but want to use a womans room. Because you cannot determine the truthfulness of how someone identifies when they are going into a restroom.

jr565 Nails this argument. There is no way to determine who is truly transgendered (has made the transition from male to female and been deconstructed physically) compared to a guy who just gets his jollies dressing up as a woman so he can enter the area or a guy who wants to for the moment decide that he can invade the area.

It isn't JUST about the bathroom either. Showering or changing clothes in public facilities like locker rooms at gymnasiums, schools are now open to anyone, male or female who wants to self identify as whatever gender they feel like. Changing rooms in department stores can now be invaded by anyone male or female. So you or your child will be suddenly forced to shower, change clothes, use the bathroom with men or women despite your desires.......and be denied privacy.

Bad things are going to be the result of this forcing of allowing men to use what were previously women's only facilities. AND I might add the reverse as well, when a woman who decides she is a guy invades the men's facilities.

People are going to be hurt. Seriously hurt and it will be the fault of those who want to bend over backwards, twist themselves into pretzels to destroy the standards of civilization that we have abided by for hundreds and hundreds of years. Remember THIS when the first death occurs those of you who support this insanity and accept the blame.

Jason said...

HoodlumDoodlum: You're better than this, Professor.

No. Obviously, she's not.

damikesc said...


Bad things are going to be the result of this forcing of allowing men to use what were previously women's only facilities. AND I might add the reverse as well, when a woman who decides she is a guy invades the men's facilities.

People are going to be hurt. Seriously hurt and it will be the fault of those who want to bend over backwards, twist themselves into pretzels to destroy the standards of civilization that we have abided by for hundreds and hundreds of years. Remember THIS when the first death occurs those of you who support this insanity and accept the blame.


It's doubly baffling when one considers that a lot of the supporters of this also support the concept of "safe spaces".

The professor is going to pretend that the obvious consequences being discussed here in detail were unforeseen if this comes to fruition.

Jason said...



The first rapes and sexual assaults have already occurred.

That darned Law of Unintended Consequences just won't go away, no matter how noble our intentions, eh, libtards?

But whatever. Bumps in the road.

Put some ice on it, sweetie. It's for the Cause.

Jason said...

Half an hour ago, colleges and universities were cesspools of Rape Culture.

One in five female college students were getting raped.

Now we need to allow any man into any woman's changing area on the basis of his say so, based on how he's feeling that day, because obviously no one would ever exploit that loophole and by the way you're a bigot and a hater.

How stupid -- how dense -- how utterly deranged --does a libtard have to be to simultaneously hew to both positions? And attack anyone who expresses doubt as a hater?

The mind boggles.

jr565 said...

So here's a link for scholarships "FOR WOMEN"
http://www.fastweb.com/college-scholarships/articles/scholarships-for-women
Am I entitled to one of these scholarships? I'm not a woman in truth, but if it comes to money for education I can certainly say I am one. How thorougly are they going to check this?

Do I have to have "female" on my birth certificate, or can I just say I feel like a woman and thats enough? Is there any mechanism in place that would separate me from actual woman in their eyes? Why?

If i could be let into a womans room, why should I not have access to a womans scholarship?

jr565 said...

(cont) even if we establish that transgendered men who identify as women would have access to a womans scholarhsip, how thorougly would they check whether this is in fact true? if it was pointed out that there was no mechanism in place to differentiate transgendered women who did have a right to said scholarship from men who are not even identifying as women but who want a scholarship, would that be picking on transgendered people? To accommodate the trans community we'd need to also accommodate frauds and charlatans by default. Otherwise, we hate the trans community?

Jason said...

It's like libtards passing a law making it illegal for merchants to refuse obvious counterfeit money - and then convincing themselves that no one would ever fire up the Xerox machine.

n.n said...

how utterly deranged --does a libtard have to be to simultaneously hew to both positions

Class diversity and individual dignity.

Human rights and abortion rites.

Then there is planned parenthood...

etc.

Apparently, faith in gods from the twilight zone, backed by the religious revelations of human representatives (e.g. judges), enforced by the dictatorial power of the State, empowers people with superhuman abilities to deny and avoid reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives, as well as seeking internally, externally, and mutually consistent positions. It's a Pro-choice thing that confounds people who do not share their faith, religion, and traditions.

Danny K said...

The Dear Comrade, er, Dear Colleague letter also states that a school must permit a man that chooses to identify as female to live in all-female dorm. So, this is already way past "where do I pee" and is about requiring the school to enable a certain lifestyle fantasy.

Iapetus said...

As I understand it, the Title IX rules apply only to those colleges/local schools/local school districts that accept Federal funding. If a school does not receive Federal funding, it can ignore those rules. I would think the same distinction applies to sports stadiums: a public facility that was built with or receives Federal funding would be obliged to follow the Federal regulations prohibiting discrimination that are equivalent to the Title IX rules for educational facilities, but private facilities that do not get Federal funding would not be obliged, even under Federal rules for public accommodations that apply to certain listed protected classes.

Clyde said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...

"There is only one extreme in this battle, not two."

It's extreme to say that my comfort in the bathroom requires someone else to give up their comfort in the bathroom, where that other person is behaving in a peaceable, private manner and only trying to take care of the standard physical need that we call "going to the bathroom."

Althouse, it should be noted that the bathroom is only part of the issue, and the lesser part at that. Women's restrooms don't have urinals, only single stalls. Nobody is going to potty-peek on you there or expose "her" penis to you, although you do have an elevated risk of sexual assault by having someone in a penis in a place where "she" doesn't belong. However, in an open locker room/changing room/shower situation, it's a very different situation. Real women should not be made uncomfortable by having people with penises changing out in the open in the same place as they are.

Jason said...

http://www.news-press.com/story/news/education/2016/05/20/south-fort-myers-high-teens-sex-school-bathroom/84650742/

In this story, a Fort Myers girl had sex with 25 high school boys who pulled a train on her in the bathroom.

The girls' bathroom.

Think of it... this happened during school hours (study hall), on campus. She was in there long enough to have sex with 25 boys (or some substantial fraction thereof) without any staff members showing up to intervene.

No security noticed the parade of boys entering the girls' bathroom. Even assuming it was consensual (it seems so from the article, unless she was trafficked) she was all alone in there for a long time. If it turned into a violent wilding and gang rape, there was no help, and wasn't going to be.

This is how long a tiny high school freshman would be stuck in a girls' bathroom, alone, with a 200 pound senior who wanted to identify as a girl that day. If Althouse gets her way, the senior could loiter for hours in the girls' restroom or locker room, waiting for a victim to be there alone, and no one would have any basis to remove him. Any staffer who tried would risk losing her job. Any student who complained would be told to shut up. Indeed, that's precisely what's already happening.

These girls are being thrown under the libtard SJW bus, and they are throwing the gears into reverse to run over them again and again. It's insane.

And Althouse is cheering them on.

Shameful.



Darleen said...

Ann at 5/23/16, 8:15 AM

Stop framing this as an "anti-trans" movement. As if trans haven't been using the bathroom of the sex they could pass for in the past??

Trans are, at best, 0.07% of the population and really have nothing to do with LGB of team Other at the Victim Olympics.

When you tell minor girls that they need to "get over" being uncomfortable with male genitalia in their locker rooms (as did the Charlotte Observer editorial), this isn't insanity, but a peculiar evil.

One of the few spaces women and girls should actually find safe are the areas where they disrobe and shower. Now they are to be bullied as haters and bigots if they dare question even the most manly looking man who wants to hang out in the locker room and watch women change and shower.

This isn't about restrooms at all. It's about privileging men over women.

Ironic how Left feminists, when push comes to shove, choose their ideology over science, reason and the rights of women to privacy in public venues.

Let's just force women and girls to stay home!

icepilot said...

Even assuming this I-pick-my-gender policy could be implemented without blood in the streets (much more intrusive than forced busing), it would mean the death of public schools.

Mark said...

Jason, how does that have to do anything with Trans people?

I think it emphasizes the point that the current signs on the door do nothing to stop rape, despite the anti-trans folks claims about how changing signs invites this sort of thing.

The current system allows 25 boys to rape a girl. Doesn't that suggest the current system is already broken?

This reminds me of the ACA, when right wingers were so upset that a broken system was being changed.

Rusty said...

Mark said...

This reminds me of the ACA, when right wingers were so upset that a broken system was being changed.

Still broken , Mark. Hell. Even worse now.
Are you ashamed to wear your dress in the mens bathroom?

damikesc said...

The current system allows 25 boys to rape a girl. Doesn't that suggest the current system is already broken?

People still kill others in spite of laws against murder.

Let's do away with laws against murder.

This reminds me of the ACA, when right wingers were so upset that a broken system was being changed.

Are you holding this up as a success?

Mark said...

Explain how that story relates to the topic at hand.

If you don't want to root out the bigots among you who deliberately misrepresent their examples, prepare to be all called bigots.

You can call Ann all the names you want, but if you don't push back against folks like Jason and his bullshit example you expose your true intents, which has nothing to do with protecting women.

Instead, you tee up on me.

Enjoy being labeled correctly as doing this out of fear and hate.

Jason said...

Mark.

I explained it, specifically, in paragraph six.

You earned your beatdown.

:-)

Jason said...

Reading through your post again, it's clear:

You're an idiot.

damikesc said...

You can call Ann all the names you want, but if you don't push back against folks like Jason and his bullshit example you expose your true intents, which has nothing to do with protecting women.

We're not the ones demanding men be given access to women's showers and locker rooms...

Mark said...

Jason, your example does feature anyone who is trans.

Nothing that has changed re: bathrooms would either facilitate or stop the story you link.

You need to provide some linkage.

Calling me names does not prove your point. It just demonstrates your inability to link trans folks to your example.

Jason said...

LOL @ this chucklehead who thinks I'm talking about trannies.

This is garage level density, and that's saying something.

I'm talking about high schoolers. I'm talking about security. The problem is, you idiots AREN'T talking about those things. It's as if they don't exist.

And if you don't want to be called names, then don't throw words around like "bigot" when you don't even grasp the parameters of the argument.

We're playing chess and you aren't even playing checkers. You're fingerpainting with boogers.

It's not the trans people who are the primary concern.

Do try to keep up.

Mark said...

Namecalling, your primary strength.

You still haven't shown how your example is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you aren't talking about Transgender people, then why are you in this thread?

Jason said...

Slow learner, eh?

My post explained its relevance, specifically. Up your game, slowpoke.

Mark said...

No it didn't.

You consider this something other than deliberate misunderstanding?

"This is how long a tiny high school freshman would be stuck in a girls' bathroom, alone, with a 200 pound senior who wanted to identify as a girl that day. "

Please provide one example of a kid claiming to be transgender for a single day. In my local district, you need to have met with administration formally about it prior to anything being formalized. There is zero possibility of a one day switch, and if you think the high school social world is kind to kids who formally declare themselves as the opposite gender I wonder if you ever hAve been inside a high school.

Your example is a total farce, a deliberate mis understanding of how thsee things work.

And then you such a fool as to call me names?

Please, tell me again how your statement is true, accurate, and makes a clear point. I will continue to laugh.

Jason said...

Moron. It doesn't matter if the kid is transgender for a day or a year.

It doesn't matter if he's transgender at all.

This isn't about gender. It's about risk.

All that matters is that school officials now have no way of removing a sex offender from the girls' bathroom before he victimizes someone, and that they do not have the resources to protect girls once they become targets of opportunity.

The number of sex offenders is greater than the number of transgenders by several orders of magnitude - even if you don't allow for any overlap (which itself is breathtakingly stupid, but par for the course for you assholes).





Mark said...

These sex offenders are not registering with the school as trans and thus will not be in a problematic bathroom.

Nothing about the prior system stopped this type of crime, nothing about allowing these kids in will increase it

You cannot demonstrate that it will, thus you post exaggerations and stories which have nothing to do with the topic we are discussing here.

I am asking for proof, all you have is name calling.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem is that it is the camel's nose under the tent. Sure, right now, a school may require a formal notification that a student is claiming to be transgendered. But what about next year? Or, the next? One of the big problems with transgendered is that it is purely based on personal preference, and does not necessarily tie to any physical reality. So, the 200 lb senior can declare himself a girl to the school, to see if he likes the girls' room better than the boys', and the school doesn't have much choice in the matter. Maybe some of his friends have the same revelation, and join him. Great fun, esp in their new PE class, where they not only get to shower with the girls, but also are bigger, stronger, and faster. What can the school administration say? They now claim formally to be girls, but haven't undergone hormonal treatment yet. The administration cannot prove that they are lying, and if the guys are caught doing something untoward with the girls, they can just claim to be trans-lesbians.

You say no guy would do that, but I have repeated pointed out that case of that one club in Scottsdale, where I have hung out in the past, where a couple of guys put on dresses, claimed to be transvestites, and hung out in the women's room all night. This happened on multiple occasions, and was only stopped after a lot of women complained, and the putative trans-women were banned from the club (since scaring away women from a club like that kills its business).

Mark said...

You would not accept the 'nose under the tent' article about gun rights or a host of issues. Don't expect try to pull that here.

You also act like this declaration has zero social repercussions in a high school.

It becomes increasingly clear that there is not a lot of good faith arguments being put forward and that most people seem unaware of what the social world of a high school is like.

Jason said...

LOL. I taught high school, clown.

And worked in level 2 juvie detention facilities and a wilderness program. Later supervised lots of 18 year old privates. Spent lots of quality time with all of these demographics. Go ply your wishful thinking and willful ignorance somewhere else.

Mark said...

Yes, you are an expert on everything.

That is why you are unable to answer questions or bring a relevant example.

Sounds like you couldn't keep a job.

Jason said...

Yeah. 21 years in the Army. I couldn't keep a job.

Keep it up, clown.

Mark said...

'Spent lots of quality time with all these demographics' .... yes, all the open trans people in the army, in juvenile detention wards, and wilderness programs.

Lol, all those trannies in the army.

Jason said...

LOL @ people who still think it's transgenders, rather than sex offenders, who pose the risks.

Seriously, dude. You're denser than Garage. And that's saying something.

P hunt said...

What about muslim men uncomfortable around nudity in the men's locker rooms? It seems social conservatives like to give rights to christians but not other religions.