May 13, 2016

"The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity."

The NYT reports.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid....

“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times....

As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced.
IN THE COMMENTS: tim maguire asks:
And how long do we think that "parent or legal guardian" part will stay in there?
Yes, you are right. That's key. That's why I extracted that part for this post. I'm not going to answer your question. I'm going to ask you whether this is not an important safeguard that may answer the most serious concern posed by strict segregationists.

Oh, but I do feel the pull now to answer your question. I think that limitation will give way, because there will be young people whose parents object to their child's assertion of transgenderism. I see a parallel to abortion laws that required minors to obtain parental consent. These were held to be unconstitutional without a "judicial bypass."

153 comments:

tim maguire said...

And how long do we think that "parent or legal guardian" part will stay in there?

Expat(ish) said...

One of my kids pointed out that the same people who want all guns banned to prevent "one tragedy" want all the bathrooms open to everyone despite the totally predictable tragedies.

"And,dad, my generation is super accepting compared to yours."

Or, as I like to say: What could go wrong?

-XC

Daniel Richwine said...

Soon the Trump administration will withhold funding from any school not teaching that illegal aliens should be deported. Don't you love the power of the presidency?

EDH said...

One more indication Obama doesn't want a Democrat to succeed him?

Michael K said...

Considering that the LGTB segment that is "T" is about 0.001% of the population, why this is a big issue is an interesting logic problem.

Now that Jenner is thinking about going back to "cis-" it should get interesting.

Mike Sylwester said...

It does not have the force of law ...

We are living in the Age of Obama, which is a post-law culture.

damikesc said...

Just checking, this is a fight that "both sides" are responsible for...right?

"Rape is a humungous problem. No, we don't see anything problematic with having dudes in the girls' bathroom".

We need a President to simply refuse to enforce any laws until Congress re-writes them and tightens this kind of shit up.

damikesc said...

It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat

So do the rules on rape kangaroo courts. Yet they are in force everywhere. Odd.

MayBee said...

We need to recognize the fact that this is very confusing for the other high school students as well. We are putting a great burden on them by not understanding how hard this may be for them to handle.

When I was a teenage girl, I would have been very uncomfortable with a penis in my locker room. And isn't it kind of better to assume teenage girls *are* uncomfortable with that? Rather than assuming it's something they are just used to seeing?

MayBee said...

These edicts are are coming from people high up in government, who probably will never be in a public locker room again.

David Begley said...

Go right ahead. More part of Obama's legacy of destroying the Rule of Law.

There is absolutely NO statutory or constitutional authority for this edict. It is all based on regs and other admininistrative decisions. I know there have been a few court cases but they are wrong.

This move is simple lawless. Lawless.

This is Barack's big "civil rights" legacy moment. Dr. King would be proud. Proud, I say.

David Begley said...

If this threat doesn't have "the force of law" and clearly is not based in any statute, then why even issue an edict? This is the Chicago Way.

Hagar said...

Imagine going back in time and explaining this to a certain assembly in Philadelphia in the hot summer of 1787.

damikesc said...

When I was a teenage girl, I would have been very uncomfortable with a penis in my locker room. And isn't it kind of better to assume teenage girls *are* uncomfortable with that? Rather than assuming it's something they are just used to seeing?

It's worse. They are being taught they are BIGOTS for not being comfortable. Somehow, THEIR feelings mean way less than the feelings of somebody mentally ill. All to keep a tiny fraction of people with serious mental issues comfortable and never having to face up to their issues.

There is absolutely NO statutory or constitutional authority for this edict. It is all based on regs and other admininistrative decisions. I know there have been a few court cases but they are wrong.

Which is why, if I were President, I'd refuse to enforce 95% of our laws due to being too vague and forcing Congress to do their job in writing laws. It should not be the Executive branch deciding law. They should be enforcing what was passed, not adding to what was passed.

He is fundamentally changing our country into a banana republic. Of course, leaders in banana republics aren't replaced peacefully, so it's powerful fire he's playing with.

robother said...

"Facilities" clearly includes locker rooms and showers in high schools and public universities. The letter talks about all educational programs, so are high schools and colleges now required to allow "girls with penises" to compete for positions on girls' teams, as well as shower with them?

I remember when these fears expressed about the ERA were dismissed as completely unfounded. Now the Obama Justice Dept. claims the 1964 Civil Rights Act has required uni-gender facilities all along.

Lyssa said...

I guess this whole thing will have reach some sort of a stasis by the time that my daughter (under 1 year) gets old enough for it to be an issue, but man, I am not comfortable with the idea of her having to deal with this. I remember how self-conscious I was around puberty. I really have no idea how to handle this with her, should it be an issue in her school when she's that age. I certainly wouldn't want single her out from her peers, but I don't know of any other way a parent can handle this. Very frustrating.

damikesc said...

Perhaps women should start to wonder why they no longer matter to Progressives...

David Begley said...

News flash to Obama. You cannot fundamentally transform every public high school locker room and bathroom unless you have LEGAL authority.

This is lawless.

This country fought a war over royal edicts. It is right in the Declaration of Independence.

Rusty said...

MayBee said...
These edicts are are coming from people high up in government, who probably will never be in a public locker room again.

From people who don't actually give a shit other than fuck up the country. Again pointing out that the left are fascists.

MaxedOutMama said...

This was the problem with Trump's earlier comment over the NC legislation - it was sparked by the feds "changing the law" through edicts.

The admin picked this fight rather than NC.

Hagar said...

Or imagine that the original "Star Trek" landed on a planet where the "President" had just issued such an edict.
How would the rest of the script have read?

Tommy Duncan said...

"Facilities" clearly includes locker rooms and showers in high schools and public universities. The letter talks about all educational programs, so are high schools and colleges now required to allow "girls with penises" to compete for positions on girls' teams, as well as shower with them?

Please excuse me if these are silly questions:

So how does this affect Title 9? Do they scrap the current regulations, since actual physical characteristics no longer matter? Do we now move to uni-sex sports?

Rae said...

Obama is perfectly fine with his daughters seeing strange men's dicks in the restroom at their public high school. Oh wait...

Or is their position that NO crimes will be committed as a result of this?

In the real world, a man exposing his penis to underage girls will be placed on a sex crimes list. The same thing is going to happen to transgendered men in the ladies room, right?

Sebastian said...

"I remember when these fears expressed about the ERA were dismissed as completely unfounded. Now the Obama Justice Dept. claims the 1964 Civil Rights Act has required uni-gender facilities all along" Yeah, yeah, just like Althouse said only a few days ago that "we accept" there are basic differences between the sexes. Until she and her colleagues invent reasons why the CRA or the 14th require what was considered a perverse slippery-slope argument until the day before yesterday.

Farmer said...

Yes, you are right. That's key.

No, it's not key. Parental involvement or not, this is completely fucking insane. That's key.

Anglelyne said...

Michael K: Considering that the LGTB segment that is "T" is about 0.001% of the population, why this is a big issue is an interesting logic problem.

Logic? Clown World logic.

I look forward every morning to checking my newsfeed "top stories" for the Clown World Headline of the Day. I am rarely disappointed. This morning was no exception, smack at the top-of-the-pops: "White House To Give Schools Guidance On Transgender Access To Bathrooms."

We aren't ruled by serious people.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

From the NYT comments--couldn't have said it better myself:

Sorry, but this "edict" will get Donald Trump elected to the presidency. Are men with penises using women's restrooms really a Rosa Park's moment? If even one woman or girl is raped by a man claiming to be transgender in a women's bathroom, the Left will pay dearly politically. I'm not a Trumpkin, but this country is on the verge of another civil war because of Left's incessant, inane demands. I'm pro gay rights, but I should have known the Left would take things too far.

Sebastian said...

"the most serious concern posed by strict segregationists." See how that works? Defending the traditional application of traditional gender norms makes you a "strict segregationist."

"I think that limitation will give way, because there will be young people whose parents object to their child's assertion of transgenderism. I see a parallel to abortion laws that required minors to obtain parental consent. These were held to be unconstitutional without a "judicial bypass."" See how that works? First we fabricate abortion as a constitutional right, then we fabricate elimination of parental consent, then we fabricate analogies to gender identification, and voila, down you go, segregationists. Oh, and by the way, if you keep fighting this particular battle in the culture war you force the anointed to band together and defend their victory. So spare yourself the trouble and shut up.

tim maguire said...

Thank you for highlighting my question, professor. That phrase will make sure this rule is rarely used, that it will settle into the books without much real world effect and be accepted as harmless.

But I also think, and the abortion rule was on my mind as well, that that phrase will deny the "right" to the kids most at risk--the ones not supported by their parents. For the sake of those kids, the requirement will be removed. And then, in a two-step process, we will get what they wanted all along.

TCom said...

Why does Althouse not seem to care that there is no authority for this? Just Obama using money to control the states again. Unconstitutionally.

Just remember, Althouse. If the pendulum swings back and the other side does the same, there are no legs remaining to stand on. But you think liberalism is inevitable, so that probably doesn't concern you.

Boy, are you about to be surprised.

David Begley said...

From the DOJ Complaint:

"30. Individuals are typically assigned a sex on their birth certificate solely on the basis of the appearance of the external genitalia at birth. Additional aspects of sex (for example, chromosomal makeup) typically are not assessed and considered at the time of birth, except in cases of infants born with ambiguous genitalia.

31. An individual’s “sex” consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment. Among those factors are hormones, external genitalia, internal reproductive organs, chromosomes, and gender identity, which is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female.

32. For individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment, the person’s gender identity is the primary factor in terms of establishing that person’s sex. External genitalia are, therefore, but one component of sex and not always determinative of a person’s sex."

Please explain the above to me. I did not go to an Ivy League school.

damikesc said...

So how does this affect Title 9? Do they scrap the current regulations, since actual physical characteristics no longer matter? Do we now move to uni-sex sports?

Don't be silly. Physical characteristics don't matter --- but men are still unbelievably and totally evil.

Oh, but I do feel the pull now to answer your question. I think that limitation will give way, because there will be young people whose parents object to their child's assertion of transgenderism.

Please tell me you're not ACTUALLY advocating letting teenage boys deciding that they want to use the high school girls' bathrooms without ANY parental involvement.

Just remember, Althouse. If the pendulum swings back and the other side does the same, there are no legs remaining to stand on. But you think liberalism is inevitable, so that probably doesn't concern you.

That's the whole thing. What if a President decided to withhold all funding from any school with any semblance of Social Justice on their campus? Or withholding all funding from anybody teaching environmental science? Why should SOME opinions of the President be allowed to become law?

damikesc said...

And didn't the Left USE to lecture that sex and gender weren't the same thing?

What the fuck changed? They're now interchangeable?

MayBee said...

strict segregationists.

Oh, Althouse. Is this really the term you want to use?

Anglelyne said...

"As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student..."

I've seen anecdotal incidents already, but I wonder how popular this latest fad is going to become among the "virtue-signaling/attention-whoring-with-my-kid parents with mental health issues" demographic.

AA: ...strict segregationists...

Lol. Boomer libs still think the Current Year is 1968.

rhhardin said...

Do away with boy and girl and put penis and vagina on the doors. Go with the one you've got.

Same for sports and locker rooms.

AJ Lynch said...

This is good for Trump - it makes the contrast between him and Hillary/ Bernie even brighter. People are getting more and more fed up with federal decrees, bureaucratic bullying and govt lawyers.

And it also shows how angry Obama is too - he must seethe quietly because his AG's actions and words show he is just itching to stir some things and start fights right up to the day he leaves office. Obama is a real POS.

Rick said...

the most serious concern posed by strict segregationists.

That should have been beneath you.

Virgil Hilts said...

Math is hard, but that is what it comes down to. If there were say 2,000 male perverts in this country and 100,000 males who legitimately identified as female other than on the basis of mental illness, then there might be a legitimate argument for some of this. But its the other way around. I know someone with a trans kid and I don't think the kid is mentally ill. But she/he is the only one I have encountered in my entire life. I know lots of guys that I consider perverts.
Also, since the Obama administration is so protective of Muslims, why don't we try this on a trial basis in our Muslim dominant communities and see how it works before extending it to the rest of the country? If Muslims show that they can tolerate strange men going into their daughters'locker rooms then I am willing for the rest of society to give it a try.

CStanley said...

Another day, another affirmation of our recent decision to transfer youngest to a Catholic school.

MayBee said...

This is, by the way, from the same administration who decided with Obamacare there had to be separate nursing rooms for nursing mothers.
Is that consistent? The one group in all the nation that needs privacy- even more than children need privacy- is nursing mothers?

Martha said...

So bathrooms in public schools cannot be SAFE places .....Obama declared it so.

A biological girl feels uncomfortable seeing a penis in the school bathroom. That cannot now be considered a microaggression.
How about a MACROaggression?

Tank said...

Is there going to be a press conference? Tank would like to see the press conference where the President of the United States of America is asked many questions, all containing the word penis. Penis is fun to say. Say it out loud. Wasn't that fun? Be honest. That word if fun. How many times can the reporters get the Zero or the Vagina to say the word penis? Fun.

=====================

In other news, many are worried that Donald Trump may not understand the separation of powers and the rule of law. He might be a fascist!

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

The natural outcome of this is that Title IX no longer matters and that the department of corrections must now place inmates however they self-identify. By every single argument made by this administration, and many in the public press and state level positions, a convicted rapist who self-identifies as a female must be placed in a women's correctional facility or else it is discriminatory.

I truly want to hear the argument that public bathrooms and school facilities must accommodate anyone, of any natural gender, based upon their own personal preference or else it is a terrible burden and discrimination, and yet our penal system MUST maintain a gender based model of incarceration.


CStanley said...

Professor Althouse's use of "strict segregationists" angered me and I agree with the commenter who said it should have been beneath her.

Notwithstanding that she may have been just trolling, after reflection I really don't care because it's become increasingly clear that this is the tactic that the left generally will use to "otherize" those of us with traditional perspectives. I'd just as soon have them be so blatant about it that we know we have to fight this trend.

What has become apparent to me is that the real but unlikely threat of men using facilities with myself and my daughters is actually minor compared to the threat of my kids being taught by people who embrace insane ideas, and try to insist that our kids must accept those ideas as reality.

M Jordan said...

Each day a new outrage. When will it end ... or more importantly, how?

Freeman Hunt said...

Didn't the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issue a statement against transitioning for minors?

Anti-science.

chickelit said...

I think that limitation will give way, because there will be young people whose parents object to their child's assertion of transgenderism. I see a parallel to abortion laws that required minors to obtain parental consent. These were held to be unconstitutional without a 'judicial bypass.'

I read this as Althouse agreeing that some children are better arbiters of parenting than parents themselves.

Freeman Hunt said...

With all these new restroom rules, they say they're making things safer for transpeople. But they're allowing ten times as many creeps as transpeople into women's restrooms. What happens when a transperson who has been using the women's room for years, under the superior social etiquette rules, gets attacked by one of these creeps? Thanks for nothing, Government!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I guess only an old fogey like me even cares to ask what law says what the Obama admin's doing is valid. I mean, what law are they using to give force to this demand/decree? Title IX and the '64 CRA have both never been held to require this kind of transgender "rights" recognition...but I guess now they do. I wonder what they'll require tomorrow?

Hey, remember when the Left cared deeply about individual privacy rights? Just kidding.

chickelit said...

CStanley said...Professor Althouse's use of "strict segregationists" angered me and I agree with the commenter who said it should have been beneath her.

Althouse is a longstanding advocate of queering-up the norm. It may be her ardent wish; it may be trolling; it may be vengeful. No one really knows.

Lyssa said...

"Additional aspects of sex (for example, chromosomal makeup) typically are not assessed and considered at the time of birth,"

Interesting aside, you can now have your kid's chromosomal makeup determined first, before you can even see the genitalia on an ultrasound. It's a simple blood test on the mom at 10 weeks. It's only routinely done for older moms or where there's a risk (to screen for other disorders; the sex is just available, too), but anyone can have it done for a few hundred dollars. We had it done for my second, since I was over 35 when she was born. Knew her sex before we were even letting everyone know we were expecting.

Jason Lee said...

Grown ups and teenagers with penises don't belong in the little girls' room.

chickelit said...

AJ Lynch said...This is good for Trump - it makes the contrast between him and Hillary/ Bernie even brighter. People are getting more and more fed up with federal decrees, bureaucratic bullying and govt lawyers.

Has Trump come out against this?

On the other hand, Hillary has sworn she will continue an "Obama third term." That, at least, is clear.

SeanF said...

Freeman Hunt: With all these new restroom rules, they say they're making things safer for transpeople. But they're allowing ten times as many creeps as transpeople into women's restrooms. What happens when a transperson who has been using the women's room for years, under the superior social etiquette rules, gets attacked by one of these creeps? Thanks for nothing, Government!

Yes, exactly.

Here's the bottom line on this whole thing - if the policy is that people get to choose which facilities they use, without regard to any external, objectively verifiable criteria, then that policy will result in sexual predators having access to the girls' locker room.

Now, maybe some people actually think it's important enough that it's worth it. But then they need to admit that, and own it, and stop pretending that people opposed to this policy are claiming that transgenders are sexual predators.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

So what happened to the reasonable social accommodation we heard about, Professor? Was the Obama Admin's hand just forced by those unreasonable law-using knuckledraggers around the nation? I mean I thought it was pretty clear that some jurisdictions started passing laws & rules in response to (transgender rights) activist's lawsuits, but for some reason the chain of causality (w/r/t "culture wars") seems to always start with the Right in most people's minds.

Anyway this decree specifically says that it's not enough of an accommodation for schools to provide unisex facilities (as an option)--if a transgender person decides they don't want to use the unisex facility they have a right, under this decree, to use the facility of their choice. Now, to me, making a unisex option available seemed like a simple, commonsense, reasonable accommodation (especially since the actual population of transgender students is so small)...exactly the kind of thing you said we SHOULD have instead of one side or the other using the law to force a blanket rule (enforced by fines, charges, etc)...and yet here the Obama Admin. explicitly says that kind of accommodation isn't enough. Are you critical of that, Professor?

hawkeyedjb said...

"The solution is to transform society into unisex bathrooms. There should be no reason that people should expect privacy in a public latrine."

This seems like the end-game of the whole exercise, but I can't figure out the purpose. Why do we want to do this? What's the point?

robother said...

Since the decree applies to public universities, I can't imagine that parents' consent or lack thereof would play any role whatsoever there. Presumably, any "girl with penis" who wants to compete for a scholarship position on the girl's basketball team must be accommodated.

Caitlyn Jenner, who has always been a girl, played college football and managed to have 6 children with 3 women, and amazingly, is still attached to "her" penis. But at any point in the last 45 years, according to the Obama Justice Dept., she had an absolute legal right to shower with and compete against girls. And anyone who has a problem with that is nothing but a strict segregationist.

Freeman Hunt said...

"We have a problem. Some of us have been attacked by creeps in men's rooms."

"The obvious solution is for us to make a law allowing creeps to follow you into the women's room as well."

!!!

chickelit said...

Freeman Hunt notes: But they're allowing ten times as many creeps as transpeople into women's restrooms.

Bathroom monitors in every school could create a lot of "good-paying jobs." Like the TSA, there's virtually no chance of abuse as we understand human nature.

CStanley said...

This seems like the end-game of the whole exercise, but I can't figure out the purpose. Why do we want to do this? What's the point?

A very good question. To me, it seems the point is to completely erase the legitimacy of biological sex having any meaning whatsoever. That certainly appears to be the end goal when people start talking about male/female facilities as though they are the equivalent of "separate but equal" facilities for blacks and whites in the Jim Crow era South.

Francisco D said...

I strongly suspect that this bathroom brouhaha is all about "virtue signaling" because that is what leftists do instead of thinking. As a practical issue, it's pretty minor. How many transgendered people are there who are upset with their bathroom accommodations?

As a constitutional issue, where does Obama get the power to force his virtue signaling on the entire country?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CStanley said...
Professor Althouse's use of "strict segregationists" angered me and I agree with the commenter who said it should have been beneath her.

Notwithstanding that she may have been just trolling, after reflection I really don't care because it's become increasingly clear that this is the tactic that the left generally will use to "otherize" those of us with traditional perspectives. I'd just as soon have them be so blatant about it that we know we have to fight this trend.


Well but it's an accurate description, though; you're also correct that it is 100% a Leftist tactic to conflate opposition to any of their initiatives with historical opposition to any civil rights changes, so we should just go ahead and deal with that now. Remember, the Left says people who don't buy their full line on Global Warming are morally equivalent to Holocaust deniers, people who don't support the Left's proposals to do away with basic "rule of law" procedural protections in campus sexual assault proceedings must "support rape culture" and be morally equivalent to rapists, and people who don't fully support Black Lives Matter are morally equivalent to KKK members and people who supported slavery.

That's their position and the Media doesn't have a problem with it. If you think for a moment that they won't conflate people who think schools shouldn't be forced to allow students of one sex to use locker rooms and shower facilities with students of another sex (against most of their wishes) with people who opposed racial integration of schools...you should think again. It's a Leftist ratchet, and a Media racket, and no one calls them out on it. Anyone who opposes any part of the Leftist agenda is morally equivalent to the worst people in world history (be they Nazis, slaveowners, wife-beaters, whomever), and nice centrist moderate people like Professor Althouse rarely object to that characterization.

The best part is when people in the Media turn around and ask "whey are we so polarized?" Hey, I dunno, maybe if you didn't call anyone who disagreed with you (even only a little) a Nazi rape-loving racist we might be able to find some common ground/a compromise, guys.
But no, that never occurs to anyone.

Jason said...

Bathroom policy in your local middle school MUST be set by White House staff hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Because federalism.

Amirite, Professor?

Todd said...

Well Obama just handed parents yet one more reason (maybe the last reason needed) to home school their kids.

At least until they outlaw that too.

Rick said...

If the left believes it's no big deal who people are in the bathroom with why are they so overwrought about trans using a particular bathroom?

Anglelyne said...

Virgil Hilts: Math is hard, but that is what it comes down to. If there were say 2,000 male perverts in this country and 100,000 males who legitimately identified as female other than on the basis of mental illness, then there might be a legitimate argument for some of this. But its the other way around. I know someone with a trans kid and I don't think the kid is mentally ill. But she/he is the only one I have encountered in my entire life. I know lots of guys that I consider perverts.

This.

"Don't mention the perverts". And it really is the perverts and the mentally ill driving all this nonsense, not the small subset of people who are genuine biological outliers re sexual identity. And it's abetted and raised to an "issue", of course, by the usual gang of vindictive malcontents looking for a new cause and a new excuse to put in the boot. These are enabled in their turn by the usual (vastly larger) gang of "nice" people, who accept, with astonishing credulity and indifference to any kind of critical examination, the "I'm a woman trapped in a man's body" stuff, from anybody.

MayBee said...

If the left believes it's no big deal who people are in the bathroom with why are they so overwrought about trans using a particular bathroom?

You are right. It's self-defeating circular logic. It only works if *only* trans people have a concern about who *they* share a bathroom with.

Todd said...

MayBee said...
If the left believes it's no big deal who people are in the bathroom with why are they so overwrought about trans using a particular bathroom?

You are right. It's self-defeating circular logic. It only works if *only* trans people have a concern about who *they* share a bathroom with.

5/13/16, 8:56 AM


Well for the next 15 minutes or so, the "tran" card is the top card in the victim deck...

Anglelyne said...

hawkeyedjb: This seems like the end-game of the whole exercise, but I can't figure out the purpose. Why do we want to do this? What's the point?

Because the last round of anti-discrimination agitation (like the one before that) didn't bring about Utopia, and I'm still a miserable, discontented, empty sack-of-shit without real meaning and purpose in my life. Wrecking things and making other people as miserable as I am may not make me happy, but it's an available analgesic substitute and will have to do.

MayBee said...

Tood- you are right. The Obama administration is playing this hand right now so the election is about this, and not about his awful foreign policy, not about the fact that black people - his voting bloc, and Hillary's voting bloc- have actually lost economic momentum under his presidency, not about the preposterousness of a national $15/hour minimum wage or free college.

Our president Our President!!!! wants to get the country wound up about minutia. He is a troll.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

Expect a lawsuit. The Feds got slapped down by the Supreme Court for trying to use the withholding of Medicare funds as a threat if the States did not set up their exchanges. The Court decided that they could not make setting up the exchanges contingent on keeping Medicare funds.

This set up a cascade of events. As a result many of the States, most of them actually, did not set up the State Exchanges. Didn't expand Medicare at the State level, got to retain their existing Medicare match funds and didn't throw their States into a fiscal tail spin.

So...the Feds then decided to set up their own exchanges to subsidize Obamacare. Provide premium assistance for people...free money. However, since there was no provision in the actual bazillion page law for this, they decided they could just appropriate the funds themselves from the treasury to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars a year for the Federal, not State established, exchanges.

Sooooo.....Congress decided, finally, to do something about it and instituted a lawsuit against the Administration for unconstitutionally taking funds from the Treasury,without Congress passing an appropriation. As a result of this lawsuit, headed by Johnathan Turley, a recent court finding was for Congress and against the Administration.

Yay...we won...sort of. The wheels of our court system grind veeeeerrry slowly. This will continue on and be in the Supreme Court at some point. At which time, the composition of the Court will be crucial to the outcome.

Expect a lawsuit from the States about this same issue of withholding funds as a hammer to force an unconstitutional rule, not even a law since it is just a wave of the hand by the Imperial President, allow men and boys to be able to invade the women's and girl's lockers and bathroom (and vice versa I might add). This will take for-effing ever. Probably years and years of going through the legal system. (unless of course the people themselves take some sort of prohibitive actions)

If we have a Court where extreme liberals like Hillary have appointed replacement justices..probably 3 by then, we will be lost as a free nation. Cooked. Put a fork in us.

No more First Amendment. Forget the 2nd. That right of privacy...pfffft. States rights I believe the 10th... Oh Hell. Just chuck the whole Constitution why don't we.

This is why all those #neverTrump morons are going to throw the rest of us in a pit of despair (Princess Bride reference) because they are all butthurt about not getting their way. Trump not meeting the true conservative litmus test. In a pique of wounded pride, or something, they are going to allow 4 years, at least, of Hillary.

This election, and the resulting Supreme Court composition is one of the very most important elections of our lives. We are at a turning point, a fork in the road and once taken we can never go back.

damikesc said...


I truly want to hear the argument that public bathrooms and school facilities must accommodate anyone, of any natural gender, based upon their own personal preference or else it is a terrible burden and discrimination, and yet our penal system MUST maintain a gender based model of incarceration.


Ditto the costs to maintain separate sports teams. I hope Serena Williams enjoyed dominating. Once men play women's tennis, she's in a world of trouble. Old Bobby Riggs wiped the floor with the top ranked women's player in the world shortly before throwing the match with Billie Jean.

With all these new restroom rules, they say they're making things safer for transpeople. But they're allowing ten times as many creeps as transpeople into women's restrooms. What happens when a transperson who has been using the women's room for years, under the superior social etiquette rules, gets attacked by one of these creeps? Thanks for nothing, Government!

I fully intend to show the folly of this law by simply camping in women's restrooms all day long if this passes. A bill that is so obviously going to be abused horrificly NEEDS to be abused horrificly. And then they will say "Nobody saw this happening", in spite of tons of people saying that this will happen and people, like me, saying we will MAKE SURE it happens.

And I don't see Progressives offering an reasonable accommodation here, Professor. So when they lose, we should be permitted to be harsh and mean as we want, right?

CStanley said...


I fully intend to show the folly of this law by simply camping in women's restrooms all day long if this passes. A bill that is so obviously going to be abused horrificly NEEDS to be abused horrificly. And then they will say "Nobody saw this happening", in spite of tons of people saying that this will happen and people, like me, saying we will MAKE SURE it happens.


Surprised I haven't seen anyone coin the phrase "shit in" yet.

Chris N said...

Great time to get into Organizing For Action.

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

I would love to use the phrase a shit in.

chickelit said...

CStanley wondered: Surprised I haven't seen anyone coin the phrase "shit in" yet.

The phrase goes back to Alinsky, and only one side wants to honor Alinsky.

William said...

Almost by definition, the problems of transgendered students are idiosyncratic. With a modicum of good will and common sense, I would trust the student and school administrator to reach some kind of condominium that would allow for the safety and dignity of all concerned. I'm saddened that Obama and his team have such little trust in school authorities.

MayBee said...

Doesn't the fact that Obama started with the kids prove he's trolling? He didn't start with Federal buildings, right?

CStanley said...

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, chickelit.

chickelit said...

MayBee said...Doesn't the fact that Obama started with the kids prove he's trolling?

It could also prove that he's thinking ahead to the next stage after subverting gender: going after kids and mainstreaming pedophilia.

chickelit said...

I would love to use the phrase a shit in.

Saul Alinsky stood for tearing down every barrier, and building up nothing in its place. Never forget who wrote her college thesis about understanding the man.

walter said...

No force of law..but the power of his purse. Still a good many husbands who know that process.
There may be a strand of parallel but negating parental consent for an elective surgical procedure is crazy.
To get back to an old Altpost, will purse governed male bathrooms be required to dispense menstrual products?

Birkel said...

The POINT is to degrade the middle class.

Althouse voted for a president whose every action has been to degrade the middle class.

She was warned.

Dude1394 said...

Obama has really perfected the mafia threat. It is really disgusting and the states and congress are going to have to get off their arse's and challenge this vast over-reach from the presidency.

walter said...

Hey Dude, don't forget Reagan admin highway funds purse and the legal drinking age.

Birkel said...

walter:

Don't forget that was Congress that passed a law directly on point.

Don't be a fucking dumb ass, equating the two.

Owen said...

(1) the notion of permission slips from parent or guardian looks pretty impractical. Teacher: "Hey! Boy! Why are you going into the girls' locker room?" Boy: "I'm a girl, I have a note from my Mom." Teacher: "Where is it?" Boy: "On file with the principal." Teacher: "Go get it." Boy: "I can't! I'll be late for gym! And it's locked up, anyway! Because privacy or something! Pleeeease! I gotta go bad!" Teacher: .... [boy enter locker room, screaming ensues.]

Pass the popcorn.

I do like the suggestion that we run a pilot program in our Muslim communities.

walter said...

Try decaf, Birkel.
Did he sign it or veto it?

President Reagan, saying he has 'no misgiving' about using...

'The bill we're gathered to sign today reflects the will of the American people,' Reagan said during a Rose Garden ceremony. 'It takes the battle to stop drunken driving one crucial step further.'

Flanked by members of Congress and leaders of a recent national push to curb drinking among teenage drivers, Reagan said using a threat of withheld highway funds to put pressure on states to adopt the 21-year-old drinking age is 'one simple measure that will save thousands of young lives.'

Birches said...

MayBee said...
These edicts are are coming from people high up in government, who probably will never be in a public locker room again.

Yep.

Please, someone start organizing shit ins. There are a lot of people who don't see that gender neutral bathrooms are now federally decreed. A man in every women's bathroom across the country will get the message across.

Birches said...

If I had a son old enough to be politically active and he asked for parental permission to be a girl at school for shit ins, I would let him.

Darrell said...

All kids need to start pissing and shitting in the hallways, like they do at the IRS and other Federal offices.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Did he sign it or veto it?

President Reagan, saying he has 'no misgiving' about using...


Walter? You see no difference between Congress passing a bill, the President signing the bill and making it a law.....and the President just deciding to wave his hands and WITHOUT Congress make a declaration and threat of withholding funds in order to force a bunch of rules that will have the effect of law? Really? No difference?

I suggest you look at a School House Rock episode about how laws are made. One is Constitutional process, the other is a dictator bypassing Congress and the Constitution.

FullMoon said...

Ya know, overlooked is the opportunity for girls to enter the boys locker room and check packages during showers. Ima go out on a limb here and suppose most teen-age boys would not appreciate being compared to your average porn star.

YoungHegelian said...

While the concern among the commenters here for the concerns of women/girls not to have a sentient life form with a penis in their midst in bathrooms & locker rooms is most laudable, it's not only "cis-females" we should be concerned about.

Americans by & large don't take kindly to "top down" decisions that run counter to what they think is just "common sense". There are also many women who are as comfortable as their male counterparts with resolving issues with a good beat-down (unlike the female commenters on this forum who are by & large reasonable, courteous, & not given to walloping the shit out of people). And there are far more ass-whuppin' women than there are transgendered women.

I think that this rule will shine a most unwelcomed light on the transgendered, & make it even more dangerous for them in these public facilities. If you want to see what I'm talking about, take a look at this. The video of the attack is at the bottom of the article. Be warned, it's quite appalling to watch.

Darrell said...

If anyone here is a Hillary PAC paid troll, please let us know.
We like to make people earn their money.

Mark said...

YoungHegelian, concern troll.

CStanley said...

@walter, DBQ, and Birkel- I think the disconnect is that this action by Obama was wrong on two levels- misuse of Executive power and overreach of federal government. The current situation is wrong in two ways, while the Highway funding was (arguably at least) wrong in one of these ways.

YoungHegelian said...

@Mark,

YoungHegelian, concern troll.

Because top-down, highly unpopular Federal programs always help their intended targets. Right, Mark?

BrianE said...

"Do away with boy and girl and put penis and vagina on the doors. Go with the one you've got."- rhhardin

I suggested that on another blog and was corrected that urethra is the correct term.



Roughcoat said...

When I was a teenage girl, I would have been very uncomfortable with a penis in my locker room.

Imagine how more uncomfortable you would have been if a boy had been attached to it.

Birkel said...

walter:

One was a duly-enacted law.

One is a letter from a president pretending at law.

Fuck you, comparing those two.

Gabriel said...

@Freeman:Didn't the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issue a statement against transitioning for minors?

Anti-science.


No, they didn't. The group you are thinking of is the American College of Pediatrics, which is a small group of conservative pediatricians whose opinions were not endorsed by AAP.

Birkel said...

CStanley:

I might roll back all the New Deal cases and go back to Lochner.

But that doesn't mean we can compare two dissimilar things as equal and pretend that gives Obama cover. Fuck that dumb shit.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is starting with kids since I suspect the Dem strategy is to force middle class parents to abandon public schools and opt to pay for private school tuition. If it is not part of their plan, it is certainly an unintended consequence.

Michael said...

It has been reported that there are 700,000 transgender people in the US. out of a total population of 315,000,000. .002 of the country.
The principal quoted says he has about 6 transgender students in his school of 1300. .0046!!!!

Progress. Hurray!

Hopefully these numbers will keep edging up.

Wonder how these fads begin and how they end? Have there always been .002 of the world that "identify" as differently gendered? Or has the number always been .004 with ,002 hiding their feelings about their true sex? Or is the .004 only a fraction of the school? Perhaps it is closer to half of the student body. And if they are transgendering in the same direction then there will be nobody to take to the prom.

Birkel said...

Your math is wrong, Michael.

Michael said...

If you are transgendering from right to left and use that bathroom will you be required to stand and pee? If not why not/

Michael said...

Birkel

Correct me please. I am doing it in my head.

St. George said...

Meanwhile, we learn that Hispanics are afraid to visit National Parks because park ranger uniforms are green..the same color as those worn by immigration agents.

Plus, Asians and African-Americans said they don't go to the parks as often as white because they “just don’t know that much about the national park system units.”

Look forward to lots of government ad money being spent to solve this 'problem.' Plus, new uniforms.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/09/coalition-pushes-more-diversity-national-parks/84151166/

chickelit said...

@St. George: Your post will greatly cheer jimbino who has been hammering on that point for years here.

Static Ping said...

The Democratic Party apparently is the party that wants all college sex illegal and wants perverts in the women's locker room. It's an interesting platform.

MadisonMan said...

The government taking care of you. If you have a problem, appeal to the Government and they will fix it. There's is no need to learn how to adapt to life's circumstances by yourself when The Man will alter life's circumstances so you are comfortable.

Rick67 said...

What I find particularly offensive is how ordinary teachers are being coopted as agents of this ideological agenda. They are the ones who will have to deal with the day to day consequences. They have enough crap to deal with already with "segregated" boys and girls restrooms. These arrogant tyrants issue their edicts while the rest of us have to obey them and deal with the wreckage that results. And more people of "traditional" viewpoints will leave public schools. I dare suggest this is part of what the Obama administration hopes to achieve. Provoke their ideological opponents into leaving the public square. And exhaust them financially.

Gabriel said...

@Michael:It has been reported that there are 700,000 transgender people in the US. out of a total population of 315,000,000. .002 of the country.
The principal quoted says he has about 6 transgender students in his school of 1300. .0046!!!!


6 / 1300 = 4.6%.

700,000 / 315,000,000 = 2.2%.

Applying binomial statistics we see that this high school is at the 97th percentile of transgenderedness: only 3% chance they would have more than they do. The expected number would be 2 or 3 (at 46% probability).

Now since he was sought out for a quote, it may be that there is nothing unusual about this school and it's just averages at work, but it is also a possibility that being trasngendered, like being gluten-free, is something that is trending.

Gabriel said...

Now since he was sought out for a quote, it may be that there is nothing unusual about this school

Unpacking this. Journalists interview lottery winners, not lottery losers, so if the media is quoting a lottery winner you can't assume that person is unusually good at winning lotteries. Same goes for a school many more transgendered than average; you can't assume something unusual about the school, just because that school's principal was quoted.

Levi Starks said...

It's really funny, in an ironic sort of way that everytime, and I mean every time a state or local governmental body tries to draw a cultural line in the sand, it winds up being Obama that draws the line. The Obama administration succeeds not by action, but rather by reaction.

Jason said...

Michael was correct on both numbers.

6/1300 is .0046. That is, 0.46 percent. Not 4.6 percent..

700000 / 315 million is 0.0022222222222 etc.

Carry on.

Real American said...

This country has gone insane. More insane than the tranny lunatics or their leftist enablers. Obama is not a dictator, but he sure acts like one. When Trump wins the election, don't be surprised if Obama cancels the results and installs himself as king. Who's gonna do anything about it? a castrated GOP?

Meeeea said...

"An educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization is exempt from Title IX to the extent that compliance would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 106.12(a)."

A school’s Title IX obligation to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns. As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students....

Title IX’s implementing regulations permit a school to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, and athletic teams, as well as single-sex classes under certain circumstances. When a school provides sex-segregated activities and facilities, transgender students must be allowed to participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.

What's next, all-female Catholic Colleges will be forced to accept enrollment of Male to almost female but still has the junk persons?

tim in vermont said...

CHICAGO -- A man choked an 8-year-old girl until she passed out inside the bathroom of a South Loop store last weekend, according to Chicago police. She was with her mother at the business in the 1200 block of South Canal when the girl went to the bathroom alone about 1:15 p.m. on May 7, police said. The woman then heard a scream from her daughter and went inside to find 33-year-old Reese M. Hartstirn carrying the unconscious girl into a stall, police said. He had choked her with his hands, police allege.

Oddly, even though the man was not transgender, he still went in the ladies' room, lay in wait, and attacked somebody's young daughter.

gregwithtwogs said...

And I thought that Obama said he was going to "fundamentally transform America". I didn't realize he actually said that he was going to fundamentally transgender America.

tim in vermont said...

Are theses the same people who defined "telling promises that weren't true" sexual assault?

Unknown said...

It seems to escape the proponents of this rule that children are not legally capable of getting sex reassignment surgery or hormone treatment to transition, nor should their temporary wishes in this regard be taken seriously. Children want many things which are absurd and we understand that. They go through a goth phase or get depressed. They act out and do drugs a lot. And we are going to take the word of an 11 year old that he is really a girl?
The reason trans individuals fear for their safety is when they have begun transitioning and have had breast implants for example. That will certainly make you stand out in a men's room. But children have not done this.
To require that a 12 year old boy who insists he is a girl has the right to shower with the girls is to subject the girls to abuse (and the boy for that matter). If the kiddies snapchat penis pics it is a sex crime but if the boy showers with the girls it is not? Really?

Unknown said...

In the case of an individual in a single school, the school could in theory determine that the boy is sincere and accommodate them (at whatever cost to the girls) but in the general case of public facilities no one knows the person claiming to be trans and there is no way to keep any guy out of the ladies showers. And note that schools have public events like concerts where adults use the locker rooms as rest rooms. Claiming it is about known individuals when making a general law is bait and switch.

Tommy Duncan said...

So, are any of the following consequences of this self-identification of sex?

XY chromosome people who self-identify as female can play on girls sports teams? (Signaling the merciful end of the WNBA?)

Male/Female statistics will become meaningless, since sexuality is "fluid"? (The claim that "women make 73% as much as men is over?)

Men's and women's wings/rooms in dormitories are a thing of the past?

Driver's licenses will no longer list "sex"?

As previously noted, jails and penitentiaries will become unisex facilities with XY rapists in the same cells as XX embezzlers?

What am I missing?

David Begley said...

Wouldn't it be funny if school choice laws were passed around the country as a result? Goodbye NEA.

Thanks Barack. You are so, so smart.

This was your line in the sand. Horatio at the gate. Well done!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/video-seattle-university-students-struggle-to-explain-male-vs-female/

Achilles said...

Future President Trump thanks Current President Obama.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

In any event, if gender identity is strictly a matter of societal convention, then I fail to see why people who identify as "women" (apparently an imaginary concept) should receive should receive any preferential treatment over "men" (also imaginary.)

There is only the strong vs the weak. As others have noted this will have a benficial effect on so-called "womens' sports" as the strong invade it, improving the play and driving out the weak.

And physical accommodations for "women" in the military and police forces will need to be eliminated. All will need to meet the same physical standards.

Oh brave new world!

Birkel said...

Sorry, Michael. I was reading "percent" but you did not type percent.

Apologies.

David Begley said...

Has Hillary addressed this?

I'm now convinced that this will cost the Dems the presidency in November and their hope to retake the Senate.

And, of course, Iran, Iraq and ISIS will get worse as the year goes on.

mockturtle said...

Does a dog who identifies as a cat get to use the litter box?

Michael said...

Birkenhead

No problem. I was actually using an HP12-c. Another way to test, of course, is to take 2% of 315,000,000 in which case you would immediately see your error.

mockturtle said...

What's the next perversion to be jammed down our throats? Pedophilia? Maybe these pedophiles were 'born the way they are' and can't help being attracted to children. This whole thing seems Sodom and Gomorrah-ish to me.

Birkel said...

A further note:

That 700k number is bull shit. That's the number provided by advocates.

Owen said...

Best part of this clown show is that both the latest "guidance" to every school in the country, and the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter to every university, are signed by the same lackey in the Obama Department of Education. Both use Title IX as a club to force compliance. And each is predicated on opposite claims about the problem that needs fixing. The 2011 letter said that campus rape was a huge problem and every school must be ready to expel boys who didn't get a notarized OK from a girl before a slow dance at the mixer. The latest guidance says that there is absolutely nothing to worry about when 12-year-old Suzy has to share the john with a hulking great penis-packing "girl."

Your government, smarter than you.

n.n said...

It's pro-choice all the way down.

jr565 said...

Is this legitimate?

"Additionally, the letter not only grants opposite-sex access to locker rooms (including showers), it requires schools with single-sex dorms to allow men access to women’s dorms and to make other “overnight accommodations.” So when schools are arranging accommodations for overnight school trips, boys will be entitled to sleep in the same hotel room as girls. "


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435385/transgender-title-ix-obama-administration-justice-department-education-department


Do you realize how much I would have loved this as a high schooler? Sleepover at my girlfriends. Thanks, school.

Then there's:

Regarding athletic competitions, the letter prohibits schools from relying on “overly broad generalizations or stereotypes about the differences between transgender students and other students of the same sex” when determining eligibility for athletic competitions.

so its not just about bathrooms and locker room access is it? This is rewriting Title IX to essentially say men can compete as women ,and those overly broad generalizations like men having inherent advantages in sports can be overlooked.

If i were still in high school and I had a problem with this (and were a good athlete) I'd get all my male friends to compete as women against other women and then trounce the shit out of them. Take all their spots, and then rub their faces in it. Don't complain ladies, you are simply intolerant. And the school can't actually ask if you are serious, nor make you provide proof. If you say you are, you are. So, if they ask for proof SUE THE SCHOOLS.
use the law to undermine the law. overload the system until it breaks.

jr565 said...

this also can't be serious:

When students or their parents assert a changed gender identity, the school is required to take them at their word. It can’t require a medical diagnosis, evidence of treatment, or even any identification document. A boy is a girl if he says he is a girl. The school must then grant him full access to girls’ programs and facilities on exactly the same basis as any other female at the school.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435385/transgender-title-ix-obama-administration-justice-department-education-department

It can't possibly be that broad. Surely National Review is exaggerating for effect. If true, Who is going to defend this? bueller? Bueller?

jr565 said...

If Obama REALLY wants to make the sexes equal just have one baseball team and one football team, and one basketball team. No womens sports, no mens sports. May the best MAN get the spots. Don't complain when no women are playing sports. Well, some women might play, but they probably had a penis at some point in their life.

jr565 said...

Achilles wrote:
Future President Trump thanks Current President Obama.

What makes you think Trump will have the right view point on this? He seemed to agree with the left when it came to just bathrooms for the transgendered. Has he spoken out about this? I'd imagine Ted or Marco would have a field day. But Donald doesn't seem like he cares one way or another.

Freeman Hunt said...

"No, they didn't. The group you are thinking of is the American College of Pediatrics, which is a small group of conservative pediatricians whose opinions were not endorsed by AAP."

Thank you for the correction.

Gabriel said...

@Freeman Hunt: You made an honest mistake. Not everyone who has cited that group has been honest about who they are, I'm afraid.

I don't disagree necessarily with their views on this, but they're not AAP.

cyrus83 said...

The more interesting question really isn't how long the "parent or legal guardian" part stays in there, but where the line gets drawn on what self-assertions of identity get legal protection and which ones don't (and, on a related matter, what would constitute the definition of mental insanity). Transgender is a particularly thorny case because this involves a self-assertion that directly contradicts biological reality.

Rachael Dolezal is a prime example of an assertion of racial identity contrary to biology, most people have probably seen someone somewhere asserting they're Jesus, others the reincarnation of some dead person, occasionally you see some really unusual assertions of people claiming they're angels, animals, aliens, vampires, werewolves, and the list goes on. What's the standard for denying a self-assertion of identity, or of considering it to be a sign of mental illness?

damikesc said...

One good thing: The Left is showing that the Executive does not HAVE to spend funds appropriated by the Congress.

Time for a Republican President to use this power. Allocate $100M for, say, the EPA --- just choose to spend 1/10 of that amount.

CHICAGO -- A man choked an 8-year-old girl until she passed out inside the bathroom of a South Loop store last weekend, according to Chicago police. She was with her mother at the business in the 1200 block of South Canal when the girl went to the bathroom alone about 1:15 p.m. on May 7, police said. The woman then heard a scream from her daughter and went inside to find 33-year-old Reese M. Hartstirn carrying the unconscious girl into a stall, police said. He had choked her with his hands, police allege.

Oddly, even though the man was not transgender, he still went in the ladies' room, lay in wait, and attacked somebody's young daughter.


What, this horrible policy led to this?

But NOBODY could've possibly seen this coming.

Oh well, gotta break some eggs for the omelette...

That 700k number is bull shit. That's the number provided by advocates.

This needs repeating. The 700,00 number is as real as the 1/4 college women getting raped and 10% of all people are gay. All are absurd numbers that have little bearing in reality.

"Additionally, the letter not only grants opposite-sex access to locker rooms (including showers), it requires schools with single-sex dorms to allow men access to women’s dorms and to make other “overnight accommodations.” So when schools are arranging accommodations for overnight school trips, boys will be entitled to sleep in the same hotel room as girls. "

Hello "Rape crisis" epidemic in public school.

Gotta fuck the boys over more SOMEHOW.

JamesB.BKK said...

What about the airports, train and bus stations, and city halls? Maybe I'm not following this issue so critical to the future of the former republic closely enough, but I'm pleased to see so many newly discovered powers of the Executive Branch. It should turn out well.

JamesB.BKK said...

This article seemingly reflects the science. Trust you've seen it, but here goes anyway. Excerpt:

"We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription."

Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

Gabriel said...

@JamesB.BKKMost shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population.

The correct group to compare with is the transgendered who did not have reassignment surgery but were otherwise identical with those who did. I mean, what if you looked at them and found that the suicide rate was 50 times the non-transgendered, then you would conclude that reassignment is better.

JamesB.BKK said...

Hmm. The doctor reports elsewhere in that piece that upwards of 80% of kids with confusion lose their confusion in time, so that sample set might be a bit more complex to define.