May 30, 2017

"A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex..."

"... who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions. Or for that matter, any other student who uses the bathroom at the same time. Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall. Nothing in the record suggests that the bathrooms at Tremper High School are particularly susceptible to an intrusion upon an individual’s privacy. Further, if the School District’s concern is that a child will be in the bathroom with another child who does not look anatomically the same, then it would seem that separate bathrooms also would be appropriate for pre-pubescent and post-pubescent children who do not look alike anatomically. But the School District has not drawn this line. Therefore, this court agrees with the district court that the School District’s privacy arguments are insufficient to establish an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification."

From the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, which affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction to a Wisconsin transgender student wanting seeking access to the bathroom of choice. (For a shorter read, here's a Slate article about the case.)

107 comments:

johns said...

Doesn't the 7th Circuit's opinion mean that the transgender student should not have a problem with being restricted to his/her biological bathroom? Why should over 99% be told to get over it, but not the plaintiff here?

Achilles said...

We most certainly need judges to decide this. The government needs to run around and peek in stalls constantly. Both sides are turning this into a fiasco.

Deal with creeps. Leave everyone else alone. FFS.

Jupiter said...

Public schools are a lot like public transportation. I try to avoid using either one.

Fen said...

So a 30 year old male can just hang out in the middle school girls bathroom? Gosh, Miranda sure does use the hall pass alot, in almost every class. She must have a small bladder.

Sebastian said...

"Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall. Nothing in the record suggests that the bathrooms at Tremper High School are particularly susceptible to an intrusion upon an individual’s privacy." Ergo, there's no problem telling people to use bathrooms that fit their actual sex. After all, common sense tells us everybody's discreet, and anyone with pure privacy concerns can just use a stall, and nothing in the record suggests any one is intrusive. Nothing to worry about trannies. Unless, of course, you are a progressive judge trying to aid in the transvaluation of values, citing "common sense" just to rub it in.

readering said...

"As noted above, before seeking injunctive relief, Ash used the bathroom for nearly six months
without incident. The School District has not produced any evidence that any students have ever complained about Ash’s presence in the boys’ restroom."

readering said...

Too bad Posner wasn't on the panel. He would lend his usual acerbity to such an issue.

Oso Negro said...

In my high school, the stalls had no doors. But whatever.

Gahrie said...

So why have separate men's/women's at all..get rid of staff bathrooms too....

Gahrie said...

So when it comes to killing your baby or committing sodomy, privacy is the most important concept in the Constitution. (Even though the word privacy is never used)

However when it comes to protecting the rights of young school girls to use the bathroom in peace, privacy is trivial.

Grant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Bergall said...

Who paid the lawyer's fee?

AJ Lynch said...

"So why have separate men's/women's at all..get rid of staff bathrooms too...."

That would be a good way to get some of the old SCOTUS fossils to retire. I doubt Kennedy'd want to share a bathroom with RBG and vice versa.

n.n said...

than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions

This is a flawed assertion. Normal boys and girls are not, as a matter of Nature, confused, so they would not be prone to same-sex, cross-over, or bisexual transitions. Not without transgender conversion therapy targeting prepubescent and adolescent children, anyway.

The School District has not produced any evidence that any students have ever complained

The Judge is not orthodox Pro-Choice. The Pro-Choice quasi-legal precedent in human and civil rights, moral and legal precepts, love and war, is that there is a presumption of guilt that justifies elective abortions (e.g. extrajudicial killings), [class] diversity (e.g. discriminating between individuals based on the "color of their skin"), and social justice adventurism (e.g. elective wars, forced refugee crises). Then again, it is a religious and legal doctrine that is by its nature selective.

Unknown said...

So if I'm reading this right, the 7th circuit just told women they don't have a right to privacy anymore. They cannot keep a guy out of their bathrooms or showers, correct?

And the left of course is celebrating the death of the right to privacy for women and girls. Get used to seeing men's junk, ladies! You don't have a choice anymore!

--Vance

Bay Area Guy said...

How stupid and detached can a group of article 3 judges be?

Ok, in the late 60s & 70s, after the huge crime boom (caused in my opinion by leftists), a few weirdos and perverts would linger around certain public bathrooms. I wouldn't say this was an epidemic, but it became known that certain bathrooms should NOT be visited, particularly alone or at night.

Most of these creeps were men, not women.

In my junior high, we had a problem of thugs entering the girls bathrooms to harass the girls.

Hence, the practice of going to the bathroom with a friend (many women still do this) was born.

It is and remains a good idea. In essence, the "buddy system"

Why muck around with this?

rcocean said...

The founding Fathers wrote the constitution and decreed we should have a federal judiciary whose power "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."

I wonder what they'd have thought of a Federal Judiciary deciding who can use the bathroom.

rcocean said...

I suppose one of these days the Judges will go to far and the boobs will do something about it. But I doubt it.

As long as the judges don't outlaw football, beer, or impose a 50% capital gains tax, they'll be safe to impose their will.

David Begley said...

Were communal showers addressed? Back in the day we just had a big tiled room with about six shower heads on two sides of the room.

Dave from Minnesota said...

In Virginia Minnesota, a boy pretending to be a girl used the girls locker room. He danced around in front of the girls grabbing his crotch. He then lifted his skirt up and whapped his dude back and forth in front of the girls.

Students and parents complained. School administrators said there is nothing they can do. Obama rules say they have to let the boy shower with the girls.

I think the Trump election may have settle this. Not sure. MSM didn't really report this story.

Dave from Minnesota said...

"Student X began dancing in the locker room while Girl Plaintiff A and others prepared for track practice. Student X would dance in a sexually explicit manner — “twerking,” “grinding” or dancing like he was on a “stripper pole” to songs with explicit lyrics, including “Milkshake” by Kelis. On at least one occasion, Girl Plaintiff A saw Student X lift his dress to reveal his underwear while “grinding” to the music."

Luke Lea said...

Exceedingly persuasive? So persuasive isn't good enough?

Farmer said...

"A transgender student's"

How is that defined? How can that possibly ever be defined? And if it can't be - from a legal point of view, I mean - why can't we call this what it is - co-ed bathrooms? (and, inevitably, locker rooms).

I know - BIGOT - but seriously. Some of us really are sympathetic to the plight of the transgendered but can't see how that can possibly ever, in the legal sense, be squared with safety and privacy concerns, particularly for women.

You know what happened prior to this, as transgender activists like to point out? Transgendered people used the bathroom of their choice anyway. All the litigation does is to give a green light to predators. Just call yourself transgendered and you can go watch ladies pee.

This is the gay marriage thing all over again. Picking a fight where it's not needed, seemingly just for the sake of pissing off religious people.

eric said...

Doesn't that argument abolish any reason for gender specific bathrooms?

It seems you could say the exact same thing about any boy in the girls bathroom and any girl in the boys bathroom.

Who knew the Constitution guaranteed the right of girls to be in the boys bathroom. Because reasons.

These judges, and hell, most of our legal profession, have no idea how they've completely destroyed the rule of law in this nation.

They aren't going to like where this leads.

Mattman26 said...

Too bad there was no dissent.

And for what it's worth, it was an all-female panel.

Matthew Sablan said...

Isn't the logical extension of this that if stalls provide enough privacy that it doesn't matter what the other people in there look like, that having gendered bathrooms, at all, is unnecessary?

Richard Dolan said...

This reads as if the separation of the sexes was a recent innovation imposed for evil reasons. In fact, it is an ancient practice rooted in concepts of modesty and respect. it's amazing how quickly those societal understandings have collapsed in the face of an abstract, rights-based conception.

MikeD said...

Courts continue to legislate! We're doomed as a society. Correction, you're doomed, I'm 75 with COPD so want be around for the death throes.

tim maguire said...

The decline in quality of judicial opinions on the age of the she is noxious. As noted aplenty above, this decision is nonsense. And blatantly so.

tim maguire said...

Damn autocorrect! The age of the SJW.

In the adult world, I'm inclined to live and let live, but to expose or children based on such week training... Draw and quarter them.

Matthew Blaine said...

Curiouser and curiouser

Real American said...

May it please the court, fuck the hell off. Common sense tells us that males are males and females are females and no amount of hormone therapy, makeup, fashion, surgery or delusional thinking will change that. XX or XY. It's biology and it doesn't change. Common sense isn't that common, especially among federal judges.

Fen said...

Mathew yes, that's how I read it. Stalls afford the necessary privacy, in effect they are "mini-bathrooms".

However, I think it's one of those points that makes sense in paper but not in practice. Many stalls don't have doors, many that do don't have locks. Stalls were not designed to provide privacy from opposite genders.

And from reading the decision, there does not seen to be any boundary for stalls either - a "very curious" male could poke his head over the stall to see what the female is up to.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

It's important to get the crowd of conservative commenters assembled here riled up over the big things like this.

AReasonableMan said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
It's important to get the crowd of conservative commenters assembled here riled up over the big things like this.


Better than finding ever more bizarre ways to blame the Portland stabbings on the victims, or libruls in general.

vanderleun said...

Unclear on when "The Toothless Revolutionary" had his teeth pulled for the pleasure of his matething.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

We all know that school bathrooms are where a lot of the bullying happpens. Yet, in this case, Ashton would rather bathroom with the boys than with the mean girls. It may not look that way today, but the fact of this case being brought is a small social victory for men.

Birches said...

I guess all bathrooms are unisex now in that school district. And by extension, all locker rooms too.

holdfast said...

Both of my kids are boys, and my wife is a tough woman with a concealed carry permit. So I suppose I really don't care about this fight.

But I still don't understand why the Left insists on more changes which will only hurt girls and women in the end.

I can't wait for the legalization of polygamous marriage!

holdfast said...

"Better than finding ever more bizarre ways to blame the Portland stabbings on the victims, or libruls in general."

Well, I guess it was a conservative supporter of Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders? Oh right, it's unpossible to be both a Democrat and a Racist? Unless your racism is hating white people - because that's perfectly cool.

Sorry Lefties, this homicidal whackjob is yours, again.

David Begley said...

The Bergal:

The taxpayers of that school district; either directly or via higher insurance premiums. A civil rights case, presumably. .

n.n said...

Ironically, it was the abortionists who put forth the privacy argument, albeit to rationalize reopening abortion chambers for lives deemed unworthy. And it was the feminists who put forth the personal space argument, which is routinely violated by aggressive journolists and liberal judges, selectively.

Fen said...

"Important to get conservative commentators riled up over important things like this"

Hillary lost the Rust Belt and the election because democrats who voted for Obama felt that the Democrat Party was more concerned about transgender bathrooms in North Carolina then jobs in Michigan.

But you keep looking for Russians under the bed.

Static Ping said...

As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, the Trump administration is showing how poor and shallow our government institutions are. Another one for the pile.

The elites are always shocked when the mob shows up.

n.n said...

The Portland cuckoo was a leftist of the Pro-Choice variety who languish in [class] diversity and indulge in Pro-Choice/abortion. He is a product of leftist indoctrination of captive prepubescent and adolescent children in public schools, and, ironically, his targets were the the social justice adventurist and their collateral damage from Obama's elective wars and immigration reform coverup from Africa to the Middle East to not Eastern Europe, where refugees of violent coups are classified as "separatists".

Fen said...

Onesie: "Blame the Portland stabbings on the victims"

If the victims of the stabbings initiated the violence, if they attacked crazy guy using physical force, then he had a right to defend himself.

If you want to punch a Nazi in the face for hateful speech, don't whine when he punches back. I know you antifa faggots hate that, when your victims fight back.

David said...

"Common sense tells us that the communal restroom is a place where individuals act in a discreet manner to protect their privacy and those who have true privacy concerns are able to utilize a stall."

Probably true in the crapper where the Seventh Circuit judges sit. A truly wrongheaded assumption when it comes to high school kids. The bathroom is where they are most free from direct supervision by adults. Often the result will range from gross to anarchic.

David said...

"If the victims of the stabbings initiated the violence, if they attacked crazy guy using physical force, then he had a right to defend himself."

By slashing their throats? I think not.

Achilles said...

Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"It's important to get the crowd of conservative commenters assembled here riled up over the big things like this."

Mostly agree but where I disagree is:

1. This is is not a federal government issue.

2. It is especially not a federal judge issue.

People from my persuasion don't go meddling. I get upset because people from your side seem to do nothing other than meddle and cause these problems. It doesn't help that the people who oppose you seem to want bathroom police just as much as you do.

traditionalguy said...

The opinion writer has been reading my mind. But that is going to be a difficult opinion to sell.

Anonymous said...

These three judges are perhaps the most liberal on the 7th Circuit. Just saying. Might go en banc?

Tommy Duncan said...

There was once a time when our species sought to rise above our most basic animal acts and our most primitive hormone driven behavior.

chickelit said...

SCOTUS will be busy overturning junk decisions like this one. It's yet another reminder of why it was so important to elect Trump vs. Hillary.

Barry Dauphin said...

Some people get choices, and others don't. Only those with choices can choose who they share the bathroom with and who they don't want to share the bathroom with.

Fen said...

Ritmo: "By slashing their throsts, I think not"

Of course you don't. You don't really care about principles like the Rule of Law - you're already judged him guilty. Just like you did to all the police officers in the BLM hoaxes.

But the fact is - under the Rule of Law, the crazy guy is allowed to use lethal force if he has a reasonable fear of loss of life or grievous bodily harm.

Even Nazi scum have this right.

n.n said...

Achilles:

No "bathroom police", just the libertarian option of individual rights, which is pushed to the back of the bus when a Democratic preferred minority enters.

Still, it is notable that the right of privacy put forth by abortionists, and the right of personal space put forth by feminists, will be endangered by the precedent. Or not. They are, after all, adherents to Pro-choice moral and legal precepts.

n.n said...

Nazis, and Dezis, too.

Fen said...

Oh sorry David, screen is so small I thought you were Ritmo - my remarks about BLM don't apply to you, as I don't know if you supported that fake narrative.

But it raises a point: since we know the media deliberately lied and grossly distorted those cases, what are the odds they are playing the same game here?

It's foolish to trust their narrative. So don't. Be skeptical. Be a cynic. Try to poke holes in it and see if it can withstand.

These reporters have no special skills. They are not as intelligent as we assume, they are not as perceptive as we assume. These are the Information Brokers that got EVERYTHING wrong about the last election. Worse, they lied about racial shootings to agitate racial violence - they are capable of anything.

Don't trust the narrative.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"This is the gay marriage thing all over again. Picking a fight where it's not needed, seemingly just for the sake of pissing off religious people."

Except gay marriage doesn't make women feel physically threatened. I too have great sympathy for those struggling with mental health issues, and feel nothing but contempt for the PC clowns who insist on turning the gender dysphoric into a freak show, just so the clowns can air their virtue. There's not an adult in the room, on the Left or the Right.

But there is a silver lining. Despite the insistence of the Left, this issue is a political loser. But they can't possibly admit that. Especially to each other.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Sorry Lefties, this homicidal whackjob is yours, again.

We don't "claim" people, though. For us, association is a voluntary thing. You should look into it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

If you want to punch a Nazi in the face for hateful speech, don't whine when he punches back.

Which Nazis have I hit in the face?

And I can't speak for the clout of Nazis, but I really don't see a lot of them punching people lately. Perhaps you were confusing Trump's campaign rhetoric with a 1930s German beer hall. I know... so easy to mistake!

I know you antifa faggots hate that, when your victims fight back.

Seriously. When's the last time (or the first time?) you ever talked to a girl? One who was actually interested in you?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Mostly agree but where I disagree is:

I'm pretty sure sex discrimination is a federal issue, though.

Comanche Voter said...

What is it about putting a black dress on, and then sitting up on a bench where everybody calls you "Your Honor" that makes one silly as a Christmas Goose? I don't know, but it seems to be happening more frequently.

Fen said...

5 minutes ago. I married her

But go on, be obnoxious, enable antifa goons, smirk along with all the Kathy Griffens, smear us a deplorables.

You guys always assert you are super smart, but you are blinded by arrogance - you've never thought to extend the logic of your appeasement to Islamic Terrorism to your domestic political opponents. You walk on egg shells to avoid radicalizing them, but you blindly radicalize us to hate you.

And we have all the guns.

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention" - Ramsey Bolton, Game of Thrones

Unknown said...

"...if the School District’s concern is that a child will be in the bathroom with another child who does not look anatomically the same..."

Is this how the sexes are defined, as merely differing in appearance? Separation of the sexes for any reason is only based on a trivial concern about differences in appearance?

Swede said...

In other news, Democrats baffled about string of lost elections.

Mystery may never be solved.

Achilles said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Mostly agree but where I disagree is:

I'm pretty sure sex discrimination is a federal issue, though.

Can you decide what sex you are and then when someone disagrees with you what sex you are claim you are discriminated against? When a person with a penis and a Y chromosome declares they are female and claims sex discrimination could you anticipate some problems the court may have? I can.

steve uhr said...

Good to know that everything is so hunky-dory in Kenosha that they can waste their money on lawyers arguing that it is better that a kid commit suicide than use a bathroom that conforms to his gender identity.

Fen said...

Ritmo: "for us association is a voluntary thing"

See, this is why I'm sympathetic to your position and, out of empathy because I was once like you, encourage you to fall on your sword.

FOR RITMO FANS this is something you'll want to bookmark...

You've dirtied this blog for years with your ad hom and obnoxious trolling. I don't know why, but obviously it fills some void in your real life.

And you have really good insults. The best I've seen on this site. You routinely hector people into losing their cool or falling for a threadjack, so I respect your ability to troll - you've got game.

Do you think you are winning?

Because every time you land that sick burn or derail a thread with your agitation bullshit, you just make people hate you a little more. And since you carry the standard of the Democrats and the Left, they will extend that hatred to the Democrats and the Left. Oh I agree your barbs on a blog are just a drop in the bucket, but... drip drip

You have been teaching us to hate the Democrats and the Left. You are radicalizing not just the right, but independents and moderates too. Drop by drop.

And for what? To be King of the Althouse?

You're by far the smartest leftist here, and you obviously study history, so I know you know what path this usually takes.

20 years from now, when your granchildren are thrown against the wall and executed for being Marxists or wharever, you are going to realize that you helped teach these people how to hate, Dr Frankenstein.

It's a heartbreak I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, and for all your trolling, all you've accomplished here is to harden the hearts of those that own all the guns.

If I was half the monster you think, you would be my most valuable player. Thank you for all your hard work.

So... there's that movie scene where our guy realizes he has been unknowingly working for the enemy. He usually goes with the shotgun too.

Or you can stay here and keep "winning", Ritmo.


Paul said...

"... who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions. "


What the hell... that is what perverts do! So heck yes I don't want them 'sneaking glances'.

Weirdos.. Makes you think the judges are, uh, bent.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Because every time you land that sick burn or derail a thread with your agitation bullshit, you just make people hate you a little more.

"People" being Fen-speak for extremists on an obscure blog somewhere in cyberspace. On an old platform.

Those "people" don't bother me. What I find fascinating though is the way you feel you have some right to act on your hatred of the majority of your country. They're not with you, and you know it. You've got the reliance on violence, they've got the people. You actually think this blog comment thread is reflective of what the country wants? (Or you probably just don't care, it seems).

Go show your retarded threats to local (or federal) law enforcement. Tell them you have anger management issues and are incapable of living peaceably in a democratic republic.

Jon Ericson said...

"us"

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You have been teaching us to hate the Democrats and the Left. You are radicalizing not just the right, but independents and moderates too. Drop by drop.

Get out and talk to the people of your country. You obviously spend way too much time indoors. Do something outdoors that doesn't require dressing in fatigues, target practice, and fantasies of maiming.

And for what? To be King of the Althouse?

Hey. I just go where the arguments and ideas lead. Not all of us have anger issues and rely on violence, physical threats, force or artificial hierarchies to give us a sense of meaning. Some of us are just in it for the enlightenment. I'd say you should try it sometime, but I'm not so sure you could handle it.

If fear and anger and division is what you need, go with that instead. It must really be taking you places. People who use their minds and imagination are just taunting you. You can't learn anything from them, because you don't want you. It takes you out of your "safe" zone of violence as the answer to everything.

You really do mimic Trump to a t. On the trail he talked about getting away with shooting someone, wanting to punch people. And now, in office, (the real world), he finds that that shit only takes him so far. It's agitating him, and that gives you anxiety. His sense of failure and anger is one you project to be your own. And just like him, instead of asking what you might have done wrong and correcting, you dig in.

It might be time to admit that he's a bad role model for you.

And doing so won't be the end of the world. His ex-wives and even one of his daughters can relate.

Jon Ericson said...

I hate Illinois Marxists.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You guys always assert you are super smart,

Nope. They just deal in facts and you deal in emotion - principally anger, fear and hatred. Just because people are interested in discussing facts rationally and respect knowledge doesn't mean they're declaring "smarts." You are projecting your own authoritarianism onto basic, productive discourse. There's no hierarchy. No one who talks the way you accuse them of is proclaiming and competing on smarts. They just follow the facts. They like facts. They're interested in reason.

You personalize this stuff way more than anyone needs to. Hey, I'm sorry about the burns - but I just use them because I don't like wasting time. If you have a better argument, let it rip.

But don't expect me to be told I'm being arrogant when it's coming from people with a huge chip on their shoulders. I'm sorry if you feel that others don't respect your intelligence. But how am I responsible for that? And why should I just shut up when discussing facts rationally just because you presume I'm doing it to hurt your feelings? Does it ever occur to you that some of us just prefer facts? Emotions get people into trouble. Facts help guide them. Facts show them the way. And they can show you the way, also - if you're so inclined or at least open to them.

And we have all the guns.

And the highest suicide rate with those guns.

Living by the same sword you're dead set on dying by must be one hell of a way to go through life.

The guy who thinks violence solves everything proclaims his superior firepower, and then claims that other people are being violent to him. That's incoherent, so I can see why you might be feeling distressed.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Goodnight Fen.

People aren't out to get you. And they're not out to get your guy, Trump, either.

He's just messing up a lot and getting belligerent against people and institutions he has no reason to act this childishly belligerent against. They're there for a reason and he needs to accept them and stop tilting at those windmills. The windmills are important and necessary.

If you're smart, you'll learn from his mistake - rather than seek to replicate it.

Annie said...

Sneaking glances at your classmates in the restroom or locker room is a good way to get your ass beat.

Annie said...

Real females and real males just are. There is no drama, attention seeking, approval needing by force, nada. They. Just. Are.

Lewis Wetzel said...

R&B wrote:

Nope. They just deal in facts and you deal in emotion - principally anger, fear and hatred.

This is world class projection, here.

Here are R&B's "facts":

He's just messing up a lot and getting belligerent against people and institutions he has no reason to act this childishly belligerent against. They're there for a reason and he needs to accept them and stop tilting at those windmills. The windmills are important and necessary.

Have you ever seen so many facts and so much reasoning? It's almost like reading the graffiti at a rest stop men's room!
But less interesting.

Jason said...

Toothless Revolutionary: "For us, association is a voluntary thing. You should look into it."

LOL

Do wedding caterers have freedom of association, dummy?!

Unknown said...

I particularly like Ritmo's "Hey, you Republicans and Trump supporters are the violent ones! Now excuse me while I pull up my montage of leftists attacking unsuspecting people and trying to maim or kill them--I can watch this all day! And I personally want to punch out half the people here at Althouse!"

Who's the violent one, Ritmo? Hint: check the mirror.

--Vance

Fen said...

Ritmo: "People aren't out to get you, Fen"

Who said they were? I know I didn't, because I don't believe anyone is out to get me. So why would you say such a silly thing?

See this is exactly what I mean - I walk back into Chez Althouse 2 years later and there you are. Still squating on the same barstool, still spinning the same tall tales. It's quite pathetic, really.

You haven't grown at all. You haven't evolved. Are you sure you want this to be your Final Form?

Quite frankly, I'm surprised Althouse hasn't thrown you out on the sidewalk. She's given us a unique gift, a place where liberals and conservatives can discuss current events in a way that is unique, coupled with the benefit of a hostess who is VERY liberal re free speech And moderation. And you just take a shit over all that every single day.

You and Inga both should be over on Lefty blogs telling them to dial it the fuck down. Several people have made it very clear that conservatives are coming round to the concept of playing by the rules the Left has taught us. How many more Berkley Beatdowns before you finally get it? Why are you wasting everyone's time launching cheap shots at the Right when you need to be getting your own side under control?

But if you choose to be flippant and dismissive, that's fine by me. I think the only way to convince the Left to renounce violence is to start fighting back with equal measure. And people like you are helping to make that happen.

Fen said...

Yup. Cascades of text from Ritmo. Flailimg. Looks like I struck a nerve.

iowan2 said...

Rush has posited, the Media is dog that wags the Washington DC tail. The Democrat Party, and establishment Republicans, and the DC apparatus serve the Media. The Media is the one setting the agenda and wielding power. Politicians seek the approval of their Media overlords. Seen in that light, DC actions start to make sense, and explains the insanity we now witness as we consume "news". President Trump has pulled back the curtain on OZ. OZ is threatened, and fighting for its retention of power.

We all know that the entire media is nothing but "the end justifies the means" There are no rules. Only the blind pursuit of power.

After that accurate explanation. We can just admit that Kathy Griffin is just a Retarded Cunt, and move on with life. She has no more mental capacity than a flat worm that can only reason as far as pulling away from pain.

iowan2 said...

Sorry wrong thread.

Kevin said...

The court’s reasoning built on a long line of authority holding that sex-stereotyping—that is, treating someone differently because of their perceived failure to conform to dominate notions of what it means to be sufficiently male or female—is a form of impermissible sex discrimination.

This is from the Slate piece and it's why I hate reading about decisions written by people with skin in the game (the writer filed an amicus brief). Really? There is a "long line" of judicial authority hold that treating someone differently because they were a masculine female or effeminate male?

Just where did this happen, let alone happen in a "long line"?

I find this kind of writing to be self-serving, as it creates in the reader some expectation that today's ruling (whatever you think of it) was somehow preordained based on a "long line" of precedents we should have all learned about long ago. Is there a long line of sexual discrimination lawsuits? Yes. Is there a long line of lawsuits about "treating someone differently because of their perceived failure to conform to dominate notions of what it means to be sufficiently male or female"? No.

The point of this writing is not to inform, but to advocate. The point of this writing is to build in the minds of the populace that there is only one possible outcome, and if that outcome is not reached, it is in violation of a long line of precedent and therefore illegitimate.

Jason said...

Now hear this! Now hear this! Fen is on record telling others to go tone it down.

That is all.

sparrow said...

special rights for the poltically correct mentally ill

Eleanor said...

The decision says we don't separate bathrooms in schools by "pre-pubescent and pubescent" kids but in fact most middle schools do. Because classrooms of the same grade are usually clustered together and have conveniently located rest rooms, kids do use bathrooms with their biological peers. If one of the girls begins menstruating before her peers, no one makes a big deal of her moving up a grade to use the bathroom when she either needs to dispose of a pad or use a vending machine. Thirteen year old girls seldom share a school bathroom with nine year olds. Mostly based on privacy issues.

Christy said...

Who could possibly object to the school diversity officer and her assistants being officed in the school bathrooms?

Scott M said...

It's probably already been mentioned, but doesn't this ruling take the first steps toward allowing unisex bathrooms? After all, unisex bathrooms, widely adopted (especially in new construction) would be a huge savings in material, labor, and space, not to mention water and power utilities after the tenant occupies the building.

Richard said...

How do we know who's trans? Can you get a trans certification card to carry? What if you just like women's bathrooms because they have women in them and you're a normal guy. Sort of normal, I mean. And you insist you can't be challenged because you're trans.

AlbertAnonymous said...

I think that if school kids feel uncomfortable using the bathroom to which society has artificially assigned them, then we should all allow them to use the bathroom of their individual choice because its all about them not feeling uncomfortable or bullied or shamed (even if no one is making them uncomfortable or bullying them or shaming them).

And the rest of us using the bathroom to which we've been assigned, when one of these school kids walks in to use the bathroom of their choice, even if we feel uncomfortable, too bad. We have to check our privilege, because reasons and stuff....

Their feelings matter more than our feelings. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.... dontchaknow.

TestTube said...

Toothless, I agree: This is, actually, an important thing, and it is worth getting riled up about it -- or at least figuring out why it tends to rile us up.

It seems that most of the burden of accommodating transgender "rights" has fallen, so far, upon women. Not all, but most.

Women athletes must stand by as transgenders take the podium -- even if it is a f-to-m transgender, as Texas high school woman wrestlers found out.

Women must tolerate m-to-f transgenders in their locker rooms and bathrooms.

Yet women seem willing to accept these infringements on their modesty and privacy, as well as upon their daughters. Why is that? Is the media putting forth a narrative that downplays objections by women? Are women meek? Or do they just not care?

Men are hardwired to protect women from such infringements, but if women do not speak up, then men are less likely to defend. And women are quite capable of making their own voices heard in other facets of the K-12 educational system -- that is obvious at any PTA meeting in an upscale neigborhood!

Michael said...

Why are people so determined to miss the point here? The issue is not actual transgender persons (M-to-F, mostly), but straight and either pervy or potentially predatory guys hanging out in Girls' Rooms under the guise of being transgender. How as a practical matter can you have one without the other?

ManleyPointer said...

Baby boomers still look at me like I'm crazy when I say it, but we never used the school showers. Most of the facilities didn't work. To avoid getting sweaty & gross, kids wouldn't do anything at PE. We never had to.

PE was just a matter of taking roll in uniform. Then the teacher would hand out basketballs & let us organize our own pickup games. Most kids stood on the sidelines until the bell rang.

Extramural athletes had practices that began in the final period. This counted as their PE class. So those kids could shower at home after practices.

The bookish kids got PE waivers. They brought a note from their parents saying they were participating in church league basketball or whatever. Bonus is that they got another period for useful electives.

Kids are pretty good at finding loopholes in shitty school policy.

TestTube said...

I think the main point is how much we are obligated to accommodate the desires of transgenders.

Transgenderism seems to require a lot of accommodation from the rest of society, including, in this case, significantly altering traditional concepts of modesty and privacy.

Gay rights, at least originally, was all about leaving gays alone. But Transgenderism, right now, is primarily about changing social institutions to meet trans "needs".

Unknown said...

the logic here is impeccably backwards. So, curiosity by a different sex kid is no different than a same sex kid? And of course they ignore locker rooms and showers. But by this logic why are kids required to wear clothes at all, or adults for that matter? If there is no right to privacy against the opposite sex, then why is sexting illegal? why public nudity illegal? why peeping illegal or upskirt photos? The judges make no sense at all.

Martin said...

The issue is NOT transgender kids, it is predators pretending to be transgender and taking advantage of the opportunity created by these silly rules...

Does anybody in the government or judicial system have a brain anymore?

Unknown said...

"... who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions. "
Uh, no, it is not just that. People change clothes and shower, including the nonconforming gender person. So a girl joins the boys in the showers and all hell breaks loose. A boy gets undressed in the girl's locker room. All ok with the judges? And yet a minute before their ruling the very same behavior would get the boy or girl (but especially boys) on the sex offender registry and expelled. And those laws against indecent exposure are still on the books. Boys get put on sex offender registry because a girl sent them a dirty selfie. But she could join them in the showers?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Ritmo: "People aren't out to get you, Fen"

Who said they were? I know I didn't,


Oh, I SEE, now! So you're out to threaten and promise violence absent any sense of provocation. That's basically as naked an assertion that you're the violent one as they come.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Yup. Cascades of text from Ritmo. Flailimg. Looks like I struck a nerve.

Maybe if you had a neural cortex of your own worth activating you'd think and speak in paragraphs as well - instead of in the grunts and moans that you're used to.

But it is characteristic of you to take pride in assuming you got some negative attention. Lord knows no one gives you any positive attention.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Do wedding caterers have freedom of association, dummy?!

Oh my.

First they came for the wedding caterers. But I didn't speak up, because I wasn't one.

Then they came for the cake decorators.

Then the florists.

And just like that. Before you knew it, every last intolerant straight wedding business was thrown into the crematoria.

You keep up that good fight, now!

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Cascades of text -

Let's do a word count on Violent Feninine's 11:48 PM and 5:11 AM diatribes.

They read like the fucking bin Laden manifesto, BTW.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Parallels between Violent Feninine and bin Laden:

bin Laden:

Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine

(...)

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(...)

These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(...)

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.




Violent Feninine:

You and Inga both should be over on Lefty blogs telling them to dial it the fuck down. Several people have made it very clear that conservatives are coming round to the concept of playing by the rules the Left has taught us. How many more Berkley Beatdowns before you finally get it? Why are you wasting everyone's time launching cheap shots at the Right when you need to be getting your own side under control?

But if you choose to be flippant and dismissive, that's fine by me. I think the only way to convince the Left to renounce violence is to start fighting back with equal measure. And people like you are helping to make that happen.


Blaming groups of people for the actions of individuals is the essence of terrorism, Violent Feninine.

damikesc said...

I thought you abhorred labeling people as being on a "side" because "Association is voluntary".

Shall I compare your rhetoric to the loveliness that eminates from the cult BAMN?