“It’s not discrimination that’s the problem: it’s unjust discrimination that’s the problem.”

BruceII

Much has been written of late on North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” and too much of it I deem to be complete bilge.  Seriously. But this comprehensive piece from Trent Horn is well worth your time and counters the bilge quite nicely:

Some people shut down discussion of HB2 by saying it is “discriminatory.” They hope the dreaded “d-word” will strong-arm levelheaded people to move against the bill.

But what’s wrong with being discriminatory? Discrimination simply means you notice a difference between two things and treat one differently than the other because of that difference.

For example, laws that prohibit men from using women’s locker rooms (and vice versa) discriminate. They notice that men are different than women and use that difference as the basis to treat men differently or, in this case, deny them access to certain facilities. If all discrimination were wrong, then you couldn’t have any segregated bathrooms or locker rooms.

It’s not discrimination that’s the problem: it’s unjust discrimination that’s the problem.

Jim Crow laws that prohibited minorities in this country from using white locker rooms and forced them to use their own facilities didn’t just discriminate, they unjustly discriminated. They used a morally irrelevant trait like race to justify unequal treatment and segregation. The same would be true for restaurants that deny women service so that male customers could have “man-time.” In this case, the difference between men and women is not morally relevant to the restaurant’s unequal treatment of women or the potential harm of such discrimination.

However, as with segregated locker rooms, discrimination can be morally justified if it has a rational basis. What about the North Carolina bathroom bill? Common sense should (but, unfortunately, often does not) tell people that men and women have morally relevant differences that races or nationalities do not. They are often sexually attracted to one another or, at least, experience feelings of deep discomfort when they are forced to disrobe or engage in excretory functions near one another. Therefore, the common good is best served by segregating men and women in places where intimate bodily functions or disrobing occurs.

Indecent exposure

Now, someone might argue that he has a good reason to use the changing facility of another sex and so such discrimination is unjustified. Consider a meek, 13-year-old boy who is routinely bullied in the male locker room. He may wish to use the girl’s locker room because he does not want to be physically intimated. Let’s say further that he has deep-seated same-sex attraction. He could argue that the girls should not feel uncomfortable around him, since he isn’t sexually attracted to them.

But it should be clear that girls are justified in being uncomfortable in the presence of a nude or seminude post-pubescent boy, and their right to privacy outweighs the boy’s desire to be comfortable. In fact, all states have laws that ban this kind of “indecent exposure” between men and women. This fact also highlights a glaring problem with solutions from critics of HB2 that allow people to use facilities that match their “gender identity” and not their biological anatomy.

Let’s suppose the law is amended so critics get their wish: a person is allowed to use any public facility, including restrooms and locker rooms, on the basis of gender identity and not biological sex. Now, what do we do about section 14-190.9 of the North Carolina penal code? It says, “Any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity . . . shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”

If a man exposes himself to two boys walking home from school, he would be guilty of indecent exposure (and possibly other crimes, since his victims were minors). If he exposes himself in the process of changing in a male locker room, he would not be guilty, since that occurred in a “place designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental.” But if he waltzed into a female locker room and changed in front of a group of girls or women, he would be guilty of indecent exposure. How does his guilt change if the man says he identifies as a woman?

Keep in mind that this is not a mere hypothetical example. A few years ago a group of teenage girls came across 45-year-old Colleen Francis exposing “her” male genitals in the sauna  of a public locker room. Whether the possessor of male genitals identifies as a man or as a woman, the women in the locker room are still exposed to the sight of male genitals, and that is what justifies indecent exposure laws. How does the fact that the possessor of male genitals may think he’s a woman, or the king of France, or any other distortion of reality, change that reality?

There’s more. Read the whole thing.

{Image lifted from The Libertarian Catholic}

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
It's Kim Davis in a Landslide
  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    North Carolina and Mississippi can do whatever they please, but performers, and more importantly, corporations, can also make decisions that may have a substantial financial impact.

  • Brucehenry

    This person identifies as a man, but has genitalia of a woman and it says “female” on this person’s birth certificate. Do you think this person may make girls uncomfortable when this person pops into a ladies’ restroom?

    http://www.aidsmap.com/v634811626480000000/file/1052994/resize/w206~c0,0,0,0/TransMen.png

    • Vagabond661

      Replace the signs of restrooms with dicks and vaginas and you have your answer.

    • Commander_Chico

      My rule is simple: if you can pass for the other side, nobody will care. If you can’t, expect problems. The law sets up a subjective impunity for perverts – I’m a woman, because I say I am. You can’t say I can’t go into the women’s room!

      The accommodation to what was seen as a treatable mental illness (gender dysphoria) and now cannot be so called is a sign of decadence. What you glamorize (Jenner), you get more of. Some social disapproval of trannies would be more beneficial for confused adolescents than premature “acceptance,” life-long labeling, and irrevocable surgery. Talk to any big-city police officer about the wrecks these people become.

      They are actively moving to allow these mentally ill people to join the U.S. military and then bill the taxpayer for their sex-change operations. When I see that, yes, I do think they are actively trying to destroy America.

      • Jenner so far has resisted taking the big snip and getting rid of HIS wedding tackle.

        I’m thinking his family was going “You know, we need something that’ll increase our media presence, because for damn sure we don’t have anything ELSE we can bank on. Bruce, go get a dress and come out as ‘Always wanting to be a woman.’ That should be good for a few million right there!”

        As far as having them in the military goes – the military is there to defend the country, not be a social proving ground, or a haven for the mentally confused. If they can’t look at their crotch and figure out which gender they are by the evidence they carry around with them, then I don’t want them anywhere near anything technically complex at all.

    • Maybe I’m the one that’s confused but… he would be entering into a man’s bathroom would he not if he identifies as a man but has the genitalia of a woman? So why would girls be made uncomfortable?

  • Brucehenry

    Here in NC, proponents of HB2 insist it is a “common sense” measure to prevent assault by “men dressing up as women” and lurking in ladies’ rooms to leer at your daughters. But there are hundreds of local ordinances throughout the country allowing trans people to use the restrooms corresponding to their gender identity, and law enforcement there have NOT reported any increase in bathroom sexual assaults or peeping toms.

    Also, if men wanted to “dress up as women” in order to assault women why aren’t they already doing it?

    • Scalia
      • Brucehenry

        OK, so there ARE men dressing as women assaulting others. This is already illegal. If skirts are outlawed, only outlaws will have skirts.

        AGAIN, in the hundreds of localities that have passed ordinances similar to Charlotte’s there has been NO increase in assaults of this type. These assaults occur, like gun crime I guess, regardless of laws put in place by Big Government busybodies like McCrory.

        • You’re being quite obtuse here aren’t you… Scalia’s video is damning… and for reasons you’ve yet to articulate or explain clearly enough (for me), you’re suggesting that the laws attempting to diminish the chances of the crimes sampled by the video occurring are somehow misguided or simply unnecessary when it seems clear that in fact what is happening is that the culture is giving avenue for these sick people to engage in their sickness and victimize others under the protection of the law.

          Bruce, do you have a wife or daughters or daughters-in-law or granddaughters?

          • Brucehenry

            I have a wife, three sisters, and two daughters, all the most important people in my life. My daughters have several trans friends, I bet your kids do, too, although they may not have mentioned it to you. LOL.

            Compare your stance on gun control to potty control.

        • Scalia

          You asked why they aren’t “already doing it,” and the evidence is that they are.

          Now, as with other issues, your concern about rights appears one-dimensional. What about the privacy rights of women (or men)? If a man overhears your wife say that she’s going to the restroom to adjust her bra, can he simply walk into the restroom and watch her? He merely has to claim that he’s a woman and needs to wash his face. He doesn’t have to dress like a “woman” (that would be oh-so-20th-century and stereotypical). So, are you okay with that?

          What about your daughters’ swim team? They show up to a meet (or whatever they’re called) and go to the restroom to change into their swimsuits. Any male can say he’s a female and walk in under the pretense of washing his face. Or, if a fella knows about the meet in advance, he can put a wig on and waltz into the restroom.

          The upshot of these examples is to illustrate the fact that there appears to be no consistent way to prevent such things from happening. Why should the privacy rights of women take a backseat to such potential for abuse? In one of my rare agreements with Chico, a transgendered woman who looks like a woman would pose no direct problem for normal women, but when we allow the mere claim to control the situation, we trample the privacy rights of others, and that’s not a sound solution.

          • Brucehenry

            For one thing, surely they taught you in the Flawless Logic 101 class you took in college that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” I watched about 9 minutes of this video. Some of the examples were garden variety peepers and sex predators and had nothing to do with transgenderism at all. The others demonstrated that there are mentally ill people, psychopaths and perverts among the transgender population, as there are in the homosexual and heterosexual populations. Duh.

            Wanna know who gets arrested most often for peeping and sexual assault in bathrooms? Men who are NOT dressed as women. Wanna know where? MEN’S restrooms. They are peeping at and sexually assaulting boys and other men. What law should we enact to prevent that?

            Again, and for the umpteenth time, there are hundreds of localities across North America that have passed laws in the past few years similar to Charlotte’s, the one HB2 was enacted to invalidate. In those localities, there has been NO increase in peeping or assault arrests in restrooms. NONE.

            And no, men will not be able to just “claim that he’s a woman.” Laws against peeping will remain in place, and if this hypothetical peeper of yours wants to stay out of prison, he better be able to prove in court that he is a trans woman and not an opportunistic sex offender. and if a “fella knows about the swim meet in advance, he can put on a wig and waltz into the restroom” NOW, as the anecdotes in your video link prove. Enough with the over-the-top, never-gonna-happen hypotheticals, Geez.

            So we’re not gonna “allow the mere claim to control the situation.” Actual transgendered folks aren’t interested in peeping. Peeping and sexual assault and indecent exposure will remain illegal. You can show all the scary videos you want but those laws aren’t being repealed and police officers will still arrest peepers and creepers, whether they’re wearing a skirt or a three-piece suit.

            Tens of thousands of people are killed by gun violence in America every year, but you don’t want any more laws enacted that might prevent some of those deaths. The producers of this video were able to find 23 minutes worth of scary stories over the last decade and you DO want a law enacted. “Small government conservative” my foot.

          • Scalia

            Keeping restrooms as they’ve always been is not making a new law. You didn’t ask for scientific data; you said, “Also, if men wanted to ‘dress up as women’ in order to assault women why aren’t they already doing it?” I merely provided accurate information in answer to your question. Instead of saying, “Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that,” you reply, “This is already illegal,” as if we didn’t know that.

            Yes, my Logic 101 class certainly taught us that when one asks a question, a relevant answer is most appropriate.

            I’ve several times complained that current gun laws are not being enforced and that the proposed laws endorsed by gun-grabbers do nothing to prevent the crimes that prompted them. Remembering what your interlocutor has argued is an essential component of rational dialog. You learn that in logic class too.

            Your “peeping Tom” laws are irrelevant. All a guy has to do is claim that he’s washing “her” face. The fact that he happens to notice girls changing into their swimsuits is to be expected for anybody in the restroom. You show me the standards in place for anybody claiming to be transgendered for any municipality. Do they need a doctor’s certificate? Do they need to be wearing dresses and high-heeled shoes? How about nylons? What color of lipstick? Is that how it is in NC? Please show me how a person in NC qualifies as transgendered, and how would one “prove in court” that he’s transgendered. If you’re unaware of any standards, then the logical fallacy you’ve committed is called proof by assertion. If you know there aren’t any standards to differentiate a mere claim from a clinical diagnosis, that’s called lying.

            As I said, I don’t know what standards are in place in NC. Your serve, Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            I assume that those charged with peeping in ladies’ restrooms will be charged at the discretion of the officer. Like what happens NOW if a man is charged with sneaking looks at little boy’s pee-pees in a men’s room. A man has every right to be in a restroom, but if he’s peeping at boys (or other men) he can be charged with a crime.

            Before you go off on me about “assuming” remember you are assuming that there will be swarms of new peepers in localities where these liberalized restroom ordinances are put in place, but the experience of the past few years where they WERE put in place demonstrates otherwise.

            This “all a guy has to do” trope is fearmongering. It’s not so. It hasn’t happened in localities that have adopted these new ordinances. Police officers will use their judgement as they do now in cases where a man is accused of peeping at boys. There will still be laws against peeping, sexual assault, and indecent exposure, and they will still be enforced.

          • Scalia

            Ok, so you’re unable to show me how somebody proves “in court” that they’re transgendered, and you’re unable to show me what, if any, standards are in place for restroom access in any jurisdiction.

            If no standards are in place, then any man can walk in and claim he’s a woman. If you don’t think that men will take advantage of that, you live in another galaxy. Women shouldn’t be subject to that, and if you showed the slightest modicum of concern for their privacy rights, you would at least call for some kind of standard to prevent the kind of abuse we’ve been discussing.

            As it stands, per the video I posted, men are already doing that. A law that gives them the green light (only be more discreet about your peeps), will encourage more of the same.

          • Brucehenry

            Men are already doing that, so do we need some kind of potty police NOW? We have standards NOW — only biological females in ladies rooms — and yet these incidents occur. Rarely, despite what your scary video implies.

            I don’t know what makes you think that these laws protecting trans people from being kept out of the restrooms of the gender with which they identify will promote a slew of cases like the ones in your video — again, IT HASN’T HAPPENED YET in places where these ordinances are in effect.

          • Scalia

            Who said anything about “potty police”? I’m advocating status quo, and you advocate an invitation for perverts to go into restrooms. What was it you said about Newspeak the other day?

            Once it’s announced that anybody who identifies as a female (and you don’t have to prove that you’re “female” other than your personal affirmation) may enter into the women’s restroom, a visual blank check is given to any unbalanced person to enter at will. Since it’s happening now, your excuse that it either “hasn’t happened yet” (false) or it isn’t increasing is mere deflection. Society shouldn’t countenance such an irresponsible policy.

            Your assertion that “it hasn’t happened yet” is demonstrably false.

          • Brucehenry

            This guy is just as likely an opponent of the new policy trying to discredit it, as he is a peeper taking advantage. In either case he’s a kook and was caught and if he tries it again he’ll probably be arrested. Also, he wasn’t “dressed up as a woman.”

            Again, hundreds of local ordinances, one anecdote.

            EDIT: What “hasn’t happened yet” is an increase in peeping or sexual assault cases in restrooms where these ordinances have been put in place. Has there been an instance or two of crap like this? Sure, probably.

          • Scalia

            And it’s irrelevant whether he was dressed up as a woman. I’ve already addressed that. Are you insisting that a transgendered person dress “like a woman”? There are lots of women who “dress like men” and they use the women’s restroom. Without standards in place, stuff like this will continue, and you will not have any legal recourse! The man in my link was not charged. What was there to charge him with?? Your insistence that “he’ll probably be arrested” if he tries it again has no traction. All he needs to do is affirm that he’s transgendered. Nothing in the Seattle ordinance prohibits him from doing that, nor are there any standards he needs to conform to in order to be considered transgendered. Thus, your “peeping Tom” laws just got gutted.

          • Brucehenry

            In NC the common argument that is made in favor of HB2 is that it will prevent men from “dressing up like women” in order to assault them or spy on them. It’s a phrase that’s been used several times in this thread. You yourself said that “all a fella would have to do” is don a wig to enter the girl’s locker room.

            This guy wasn’t charged because police weren’t even called! Couldn’t have been TOO scary, now could it? Looks like a nut.

            And again with the “all he has to do” trope. Not so. Fearmongering.

          • Scalia

            Putting on a wig was just an example. The point is there are zip standards in the Seattle ordinance. A person’s claim is all it takes to enter a restroom.

            The police don’t have to be called! Once they find out about a “crime,” they have the authority to make an arrest. They can’t arrest him because the ordinance leaves them powerless to do anything. If perchance he tries it again and videos all the women entering the restroom, he could get nabbed for that, but all he’ll need to to is be more discrete about it.

            Bruce Henry, advocate of a standardless right of entry for men into a women’s restroom. Incredible.

          • Brucehenry

            Not advocating for “men” to enter women’s restrooms. Advocating that trans women be allowed to use the women’s restroom, and not the men’s room, where they will quite likely be assaulted, maybe murdered. That HAS happened, btw.

            I guess this is where we cue up the “I don’t care what they say they ‘identify’ as, if they were born men they’re not women!” talk. All I can say is, just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. Millions DO understand, hence the backlash against HB2.

          • Scalia

            Not advocating for “men” to enter women’s restrooms.

            Not overtly, but that’s the unintended consequence of your position, and when that truism is pointed out to you and all you can do is deflect or assert that there hasn’t been an “increase” of criminal activity, you can no longer deny that. No standards equals an open invitation—which some have already accepted.

            So, Bruce, how many women are you willing to sacrifice before you believe this is a problem? How many women’s privacy rights are you willing to sacrifice before you think that something needs to be done? For Seattle, I can practically guarantee that if three or four more instances like that occur, you’re going to hear an outcry for the ordinance to be modified. I’m asking in all seriousness, Bruce. How many?

            For me, if a law is bad on its face, rational people change it before its implemented. We don’t wait until millions of women’s privacy rights are violated before we grudgingly move to correct the situation. We don’t wait for millions of women to be robbed, raped or beaten before changing the law. When you’re told ahead of time that a law is defective and you do nothing to change it, you bear moral responsibility for everyone harmed by it.

          • Brucehenry

            Please. “How many millions of women, Bruce?”

            Drama queen language. You have one anecdote and a superduperscary video but no actual data showing any increase in peeping or sexual assault occurrences in localities where bathroom ordinances like Charlotte’s are in place. You have a “potential” problem but not an “actual” problem. Kind of like the “voter fraud” that made GOP legislatures enact legislation that was a solution in search of a problem.

            “Which some have already accepted.” Umm, no, ONE guy in Seattle behaved erratically and may be an opponent of the ordinance.

          • Scalia

            I ask again, how many? Quit dodging the question. Please answer it.

            The “superduperscary” video is a summary of documented cases throughout the country. You even doubted any of that before it had to be shown to you. Do you think I tried to comb every newspaper in the country to document all the men who tried to peep at women in restrooms? I provide proof and it’s not enough for you, so the question is fair—HOW MANY WOMEN, BRUCE??

            Knock off this ridiculous deflection of yours. It has happened, it is happening now, and it will continue to happen, especially since there’s no legal standard to restrain it!

            Now, please answer the question.

          • Brucehenry

            I am not a witness on the stand and you are not a prosecutor, so you can “knock off” telling me to “knock off” not answering your ridiculous drama queen questions. Just like the other night when you insisted on asking a lot of irrelevant questions about my stance on female genital mutilation and legalized child sexual exploitation, I guess so you could demonstrate how much more logical you are than I, those are silly questions and I choose not to dignify them. Ditto your “how many millions of women” nonsense.

            I get that you think these ordinances fail to establish a standard. My reply is that common sense is and will continue to be the standard in these cases, just as it is in cases of men peeping at men or boys in men’s rooms.

            But just to make you happy, here’s a snarky reply for you — a lot fewer women will have their privacy invaded because of my stance on restroom access than will be killed because of your stance on access to guns by with a history of misdemeanor domestic violence.

          • Scalia

            I am not a witness on the stand and you are not a prosecutor, so you can “knock off” telling me to “knock off” not answering your ridiculous drama queen questions.

            To start things off, you wrote: “Also, if men wanted to ‘dress up as women’ in order to assault women why aren’t they already doing it?” You were thus ignorant of the many times that has actually occurred, either physically or via voyeurism (as proved by the video). Implicit in such an observation is that if such things were occurring, it would be cause for concern.

            You also wrote, “…there have NOT reported any increase in bathroom sexual assaults or peeping toms.” Again, implicit in such a statement is an acknowledgement that an increase in bathroom sexual assaults would be cause for concern, but your statement is ridiculous on its face. Peeping Toms now have open access to restrooms. Why would crime statistics rise when they no longer have to sneak cameras into restrooms or even dress like a woman? They can just claim to be female and waltz into a restroom without fear of arrest. He can get a lot of free looks that way, so it’s no surprise that you won’t see an upsurge of arrests. You’re giving them a free peep show. Making a formerly illegal act legal doesn’t normally result in more arrests where I live. Maybe it’s different in NC.

            You also wrote, “This ‘all a guy has to do’ trope is fearmongering. It’s not so. It hasn’t happened in localities that have adopted these new ordinances.” And again, implicit in that false statement is an acknowledgement that if it did occur, it wouldn’t be fearmongering, and it would be cause for concern.

            You also wrote, “Again, hundreds of local ordinances, one anecdote.” Oh, I have many more, but (and again) implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that if I could produce some as yet unstated number of instances, it might be cause for concern.

            Now, back to your faux outrage over my “drama queen questions.” One of the problems you have with “internet argument” (in reference to your criticism of Rick) is you often do not recall your own argument. Several times in the past you seem to have lost your way in an extended debate and have failed to realize that you were contradicting yourself. Pursuant to the above quotations, you introduced “data” and numbers, Bruce. You were the one using them as props for your “argument” that concern over transgender access to restrooms is hyperbolic at best. You are thus using the alleged lack of data to deflate concern over this issue while criticizing me for asking you what data would be sufficient to modify your stance. You need to figure out what you think about data because you’re sitting on both sides of the fence.

            Now, your appeal to male peepers in male restrooms is irrelevant. There’s no doubt gays may sneak a peek in the John, but males are supposed to be in the restroom, so there’s no overt encroachment on one’s privacy. A discreet glance will normally not be noticed. Even then, a glance doesn’t mean one is peeking. I’ve walked into a restroom and looked around to see which stall was available, and there’s not a gay bone in my body. However, if a woman were in there, I’d be most uncomfortable unzipping while she was anywhere in the room (no jokes, guys, please). There’s no doubt a woman would feel the same way about a man in her restroom. Remember, after all this debate, you’ve still not come out for any regulation to prevent that sort of abuse, so it’s not hyperbole to say that any man may walk into a restroom without legal ramification so long as he claims to be a woman. Such a proposal is ludicrous on its face.

            The Seattle man walked in on several women. They tried to get him to leave (meaning, of course, that they felt their privacy rights were being infringed). He wouldn’t leave. He came back later that evening where young girls were changing for swim practice. So, twice in one day and no arrest. Several women and girls had their privacy rights violated, but that doesn’t matter to Bruce. The only outrage from Bruce is that Scalia provided only one anecdote. If you want more, I can write a really long post because there are a lot more, but to the point: We’ve got several women and girls who’ve been violated. No arrest.

            A Colorado Springs woman is suing Reebok for a peeping Tom incident. The Reebok employee confessed, but it was discovered that he had video of other women too. The crime did not occur in a restroom (it was a changing room), but the point is that several women were violated without their knowledge, and this time he happened to have gotten caught. How many women have had their privacy violated? Men have hidden cameras and microphones in female spaces, crawled into ventilation ducts, installed double mirrors, drilled holes in walls, etc., all to get a free look. Even with laws in place, many, many women are victims before the perpetrator, if ever, is caught.

            Back to the restroom. Now with the no-standard come one, come all approach the restrooms, Toms no longer have to drill holes or crawl into ventilation spaces. They can wear an on-body camera, claim they’re women, and discreetly glance. How many, many women will have their privacy violated before the Tom slips up? And how will there be a conviction when he claims he’s a woman and was merely acting as other women do (asking if somebody needs help, etc.).

            You write, “I am not a witness on the stand and you are not a prosecutor, so you can “knock off” telling me to “knock off” not answering your ridiculous drama queen questions.” I’m not going to knock off anything. I know good and well when somebody is dodging, and that somebody is Bruce Henry. You can’t back off the numbers when you’ve been using them over and over. Apparently, the women and girls in Seattle are no big deal to you. That makes my question ANYTHING BUT a drama queen. How many other woman and girls must suffer before Bruce Henry realizes how ridiculous his position is? KNOCK OFF the deflection Bruce. Man up and answer the question.

            Just like the other night when you insisted on asking a lot of irrelevant questions about my stance on female genital mutilation and legalized child sexual exploitation, I guess so you could demonstrate how much more logical you are than I.

            Oh, they were quite relevant, and you didn’t answer them because you realized how contradictory your argument was. You’re obsessed with castigating Kim Davis as some nefarious kook, but when you realized that on your own standard you’re just as much a kook as you claim Davis to be, you turn tail and run.

            KNOCK OFF the deflection, Bruce, and answer the question. How many women and girls must suffer before you realize that they’re entitled to privacy too?

          • Brucehenry

            Fewer than will die because of your stance on access to guns by men with a history of domestic violence, that’s how many. If I must bear “moral responsibility” for peeping incidents, you must bear some for shootings by wife-abusers.

            When schools were desegregated in the 1960s “conservatives” were sure there was a danger to Southern White Womanhood. They were fearmongering, even if their own fear was sincere.

            Does your link to the Reebok store incident have ANYTHING to do with access to restrooms by trans people?

            No, your gratuitous references to FGM and child molestation and Jim Crow and death camps were not relevant but were appeals to emotion using hot-button words, attempts to trap me into the defensive yada yada. As was your sly insertion of the “it makes me wonder what is unspoken” remark, which is “conservative” for “you must be some kind of fag yourself.” I don’t necessarily play by those rules and will call them out when they are attempted.

            Why do you think there is such a backlash to HB2 if your fears are so well-founded? Are PayPal, Deutschebank, the NBA, and the dozens of businesses and organizations that have cancelled their convention plans for NC as “uncaring” about women’s privacy as I am, or do they have valid reasons to shy away from a state that discriminates?

            And no, the point about men peeping on men is NOT irrelevant, as it illustrates how peepers can and will and do get caught and receive justice even though they are authorized to enter the restroom. Common sense rules and will continue to rule. Presence in a restroom doesn’t constitute peeping but when it occurs it can still be dealt with.

          • Commander_Chico

            BTW, Bruce, Trump is against this law, which is a pretty courageous stance in a GOP primary race full of bullshit memes:

            “North Carolina did something that was very strong and they’re paying a big price. And there’s a lot of problems.” Trump said. “Leave it the way it is. North Carolina, what they’re going through, with all of the business and all of the strife — and that’s on both sides — you leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment they’re taking.”

            http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/trump-opposes-north-carolina-bathroom-bill.html

            In the end, if Hillary survives as nominee, with her Wall Street and warmongering baggage (I give that only 30% chance, though), you will vote Trump, Bruce.

          • Scalia

            More deflection, and your insistence that my counterexamples are irrelevant is empty because you haven’t shown why they’re irrelevant. I never equated SSM with FGM or segregation. The point then and now is Bruce Henry finds some things morally objectionable, and the issues I raised were either legal in this country or are/were legal in other countries. It is perfectly legitimate to ask you what you would do in an analogous situation, and your refusal to answer is what I meant by turning tail and running. It’s dishonest, Bruce. You know you can’t answer the question because you’d have to admit an inherent contradiction in your argument. I’ve been doing this enough years to know the difference between an honest disagreement and a tap dance.

            And your point about peepers in male restroom is irrelevant because a man would not normally feel uncomfortable with another man in the restroom, but he would instantly feel uncomfortable if a woman were there, whether or not she was ogling him. The same goes for women, but the policy you endorse subjects them to that.

            Quit dodging, Bruce. How many women and girls must suffer before you realize this is a problem? You used numbers, so you are rationally obligated to own them. Tell us, Mr. Astaire; how many?

          • Scalia

            Are PayPal, Deutschebank, the NBA, and the dozens of businesses and organizations that have cancelled their convention plans for NC as “uncaring” about women’s privacy as I am, or do they have valid reasons to shy away from a state that discriminates?

            No, they don’t have valid reasons. It’s the same reason many corporations won’t say, “Merry Christmas.” They’re terrified of protests and being called bigots. Their interest is in their bottom line, not the wisdom of a restroom policy.

          • Scalia

            As was your sly insertion of the “it makes me wonder what is unspoken” remark, which is “conservative” for “you must be some kind of fag yourself.”

            I forgot to reply to that tidbit. How in the world did you get that from what I wrote? That wasn’t even in my mind. I was thinking you might have had a really bad personal experience with fundamentalists (not just the general stuff you advertise) or perhaps you may have visited one of their churches and was mistreated somehow. Maybe a relative was kicked out of one of their churches, and you’re bitter about it. Your vitriol, to me, is so irrational and intense, I wondered if there’s something more than intellectual disagreement. I still wonder, but it has nothing to do with your sexuality.

          • The projection is strong with the brucehemorrhoid.

          • Commander_Chico

            Throw another $1000 to Cruz, Rodney. I hope you’re knocking doors for Cruz this weekend, too!

            We need your winning personality to get Trump over 50% in California!

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgrtqQwU4AE5AcO.jpg

          • And with the asshole from which the hemorrhoid depends…

          • Scalia

            Are PayPal, Deutschebank, the NBA, and the dozens of businesses and organizations that have cancelled their convention plans for NC as “uncaring” about women’s privacy as I am, or do they have valid reasons to shy away from a state that discriminates?

            I’m revisiting this with a new reply instead of editing my existing post. As I said, they only care about the bottom line.

            Why don’t you call up PayPal & Deutsche Bank (it’s not one word) and ask them why they do business in Saudi Arabia. Remember that country way over yonder in the Middle East? You know, where they behead homosexuals? Yeah, ask them how much concern they have for human rights. Don’t worry, Bruce, CNS News already asked:

            Despite the anti-gay laws in those two countries [Kuwait & Saudi Arabia], neither PayPal, Apple, Microsoft, nor Coca-Cola would tell CNSNews.com if they opposed those laws; whether they would publicly ask that those laws be repealed; whether it is hypocritical for them to oppose the North Carolina law while doing business in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; and why, since they are committed to LGBT rights, they conduct business in countries where homosexual acts and cross-dressing are illegal.

            If the dollar is more important to them than gays and transgendered people being executed or locked up, don’t think for two seconds that they care about anything in North Carolina. They care as much about women’s privacy as they do about gays getting thrown off buildings. It’s old-fashioned hypocrisy.

          • Brucehenry

            I hear this one all the time. Yes, a dollar is important to a corporation. And yes, Deutsche Bank will continue to do business in Saudi Arabia. They will also CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS IN NC. They just won’t locate a processing facility here, and so we lose out on 250 jobs with an average pay of $85,000 a year. Ditto Pay Pal and their 400 well paying jobs. Because they don’t want to bring their employees to a state that has these discriminatory laws on the books, just as they don’t want to locate a facility in a benighted Muslim backwater. But they WILL continue to do business in both places.

          • Scalia

            You think that “continuing to do business” has some sort of rational distinction. It isn’t. It’s called grandstanding.

          • Commander_Chico

            To be fair to Bruce, his point about self-appointed or official bathroom monitors being “empowered” by this law and violating women’s privacy is a fair one. I’ve met a fair number of masculine-looking women. Their lot being ugly is tough enough without being questioned in bathrooms.

            Bruce has persisted on the bathroom issue, which I think is minor and probably a deliberate distraction from the rest of the bill, which removes the right to sue for ANY kind of discrimination in the NC courts.

            If I open a restaurant and say “no niggers allowed, not hiring them either” I can’t be sued under NC law in the NC courts anymore.

            Now isn’t that “unjust discrimination?”

          • Scalia

            Yes, that would be unjust discrimination, and Bruce was given more than enough opportunity to advocate standards to help prevent the kind of abuses I’ve been highlighting. He doesn’t appear to want any regulation of restroom access which to me is jaw-droppingly nuts.

          • Commander_Chico

            We did fine without “regulation of restroom access” up to now.

            This whole thing is a kerfluffle. It started with the idiot Charlotte City Council putting in an clause about trans being able to pick their bathrooms as if that was a real issue. The NC legislature, instead of allowing local control, took the opportunity to overturn ALL antidiscrimination laws and local power to set minimum wages, too. “Conservative” bonanza in other words.

          • Scalia

            Well, this is one of the rare occasions where we more or less agree. They should have left things as they were, but somebody’s always looking for something to gripe about without realizing that they’re making matters worse.

          • You will regret having started down that slippery slope.

          • Scalia

            🙂 Well, it might be another five years before I find another occasion to agree with him.

          • Consider, brother, in the bowels of Christ, that agreeing with the despicable duo is a reliable indicator of error.

          • Wild_Willie

            Brucy, you have not changed one iota over the years. You have always been full of bullshit and continue to. I always have in my mind not to believe your posts because there is hardly truth to it. It has served me well. ww

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you Wet Willie and I see you are still piling on, just as you did in the schoolyard back in the day. Have a nice day, genius.

  • Brucehenry

    Also this is the second time in as many days I’ve seen this meme. Ridiculous. Many performers refused to perform in apartheid-era South Africa. In fact many companies and institutions divested themselves of any financial interest in SA entirely. It didn’t make them morally equivalent to the enforcers (or the enablers) of apartheid. In fact it hastened its end.

    • Commander_Chico

      Comparing self-styled transgenders in bathroom to SA apartheid is a stretch.

      It has been pointed out that the indignation does not extend to places where they put homosexuals and trannies in prison, like the UAE. Poseurs.

      • Brucehenry

        Of course it’s a stretch but the principle is the same as regards the meme.

        And it “has been pointed out” that I as a blog commenter have no power, influence, or voice in the UAE. But my voice and my opinion count in North Carolina and to a lesser extent in Mississippi.

        • Commander_Chico

          “Self-styled” is what I mean. Like in so many other realms, subjectivity is made to rule over objective facts. It does not make any difference what the structure of your body and what your chromosomes say – because your feelings say otherwise. I say I’m Jesus Christ, what about that?

          Call me a bigot if you will, but Jenner is a crazy old man, not a hero to be celebrated. He is a “self styled” woman, not a real woman.

          • Brucehenry

            And many performers and corporations did business with China and the Soviet Union during the 1980s. It doesn’t mean they were wrong, or hypocritical, if they boycotted apartheid South Africa. Choose your battles.

            Is Springsteen canceling a concert more likely to be effective in NC or UAE?

            As for your other point, I’m sure there is a spectrum of folks in the trans community. Some, like Jenner, I suspect are most likely publicity hounds, attention whores, or drama queens. Others, though, and my daughters are friends with several of them, are very nice people who are in an unfortunate situation. It has always happened, but people were never free to explore it until nowadays.

            I am for MORE freedom, not LESS freedom.

          • Commander_Chico

            The law is pretty innocuous. There are no criminal penalties, and its reach is limited to public schools. It does not say much that would prevent a sincere trans to use any bathroom they want.

            Why then the severe reaction? Because it’s part of a push to make gender endlessly fluid and subjective.

          • Brucehenry

            Can’t say I really have much to disagree with re this article.

          • Brucehenry

            I suggest you are mistaken as to the reach of HB2.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ok. Are you telling me Rick didn’t post the whole law?

            And that restaurants who “don’t serve niggers” like Lester Maddox can’t be sued in state court in NC anymore?

            Wow, shame on anyone who tried to make this about trannies in bathrooms. It is a lot more than that.

          • Way I look at it, if you’re trans-enough to pass legitimately as the opposite gender, you use whatever you want and don’t make a big stink about it. (Well, any more than you’d make a stink in the bathroom.) I’ve got no problem with that, personally.

            If you’re self-identifying as whatever to get in and watch the opposite gender, that’s fucking creepy and wrong.

            And like you, I seriously wonder about the numbers of people involved in this.

          • I don’t define freedom in a way that contributes to the self-destruction of another.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Why would anyone choose to be transgender, or even gay for that matter?

            Discriminated against as an adult an ostracized as a child. Who voluntarily “decides” to join such a group.

            Ask any gay or transgender person when they knew; it is at an early age. No easy life.

            Heck, I am a white guy in America born in the fifties; none of any of us have any ground for complaints.

          • Brucehenry
          • You are our resident expert on the “Self-styled”.

  • Commander_Chico

    TRUMP WINS! TRUMP WINS!! TRUMP WINS!!

    • Jwb10001

      For those of us that can see past the end of our nose, Hillary wins. Thanks for nothing dip shit.

      • Commander_Chico

        Ya because Cruz is bringing lots of voters into the GOP beyond his bible-beating base, right?

        Trump would be competitive w Hillary in NY, CA. It’s not gonna be Hillary anyways. Biden.

        • If CA and NY had a lock on the presidency, you’d have a point. That pesky electoral college instead means that your point is best covered by a (very large) hat.

          • Commander_Chico

            Obviously Trump will win in Wyoming, Texas, Alabama, etc., traditional red states as well.

            Cruz ain’t gonna win anywhere – not eligible to begin with. He’s done anyways.

            Choice is between Trump and an Establishment flunky like Ryan or Romney.

          • Jwb10001

            There is no way in the world that Trump beats Hillary in NY or Ca. That’s not ever going to happen. He’s completely nuts, but then you know that already.

        • Ken in Camarillo

          I think you are correct about Hillary; unless we’ve become a third world banana republic (which is possible, unfortunately).

          • Commander_Chico

            Three possibilities, from most to least likely:

            1. One of Hillary’s circle is charged, cuts a deal w DOJ to cooperate. Hillary drops out, is pardoned.

            2. Nobody is charged, massive leaks and some protest resignations from FBI / DOJ. Crisis forces Hillary to drop out.

            3. Hillary is charged straight out.

            I know some of these career FBI DOJ national security guys, they will not roll over.

          • Jwb10001

            Then Trump can lose to Bernie.

          • Commander_Chico

            Won’t be Bernie. He won’t have the delegates. Establishment will switch to Biden. Biden would be tougher to beat.

          • Jwb10001

            OK fine either way Trump is not going to be president.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            Interesting. I was thinking #3 was actually most likely, but #1 (which I hadn’t thought of) is a clever way to finesse the situation so Hillary isn’t turned into a “common criminal”. I have thought that #2 wouldn’t be attempted because of the reaction you described. That would eclipse watergate and any other corruption we’ve had, and I don’t think the players want to be remembered that way.

          • Commander_Chico

            DOJ likes to squeeze from the margins, put people in false statements traps. According to Judge Napolitano, they are interviewing her circle now.

            They would want a cooperating witness on the intent and knowledge of Hillary before charging her.

        • Jwb10001

          Trump would be lucky to win 10 states and none of those would be either NY or Ca that’s just plain stupid. Trump is getting more Hillary voters in the primary than he is conservatives, who do you think they will vote for in the general?

          • Commander_Chico

            We get that you don’t like Trump. Do you really think some establishment tool like Ryan will be able to win this year?

            Trump is already changing tone, moderating. By November he will be poised for a landslide.

            Your globalist neocon GOP is being swept away.

          • Jwb10001

            It has nothing to do with me not liking Trump it has to do with the 70% of voters that don’t like Trump. At this point I have no dog in this fight as far as I can see the GOP is DOA. But let me suggest that a drafted Paul Ryan is better than Trump, or Clinton or Sanders. But for this cycle I doubt it makes any difference at all they can run Trump and lose or they can draft someone and lose either way it looks to me like they are going to lose. To bank on Clinton having the Obama DOJ bring up charges on her is like hoping santa will come and save us.

          • Commander_Chico

            Paul Ryan is an establishment fag who wants to block 9/11 victims from suing Saudi Arabia.

            The Establishment cover-up of Saudi support for 9/11 and their diversion to Iraq is one of the biggest deceptions in history. They should all be hung from the lamp posts.

        • I’ll be surprised if she makes it to the election. When the media is saying it looks like she might have health issues, they’re not particularly trying to do the FDR route and hide her issues.

    • Cruz in Texas: 1.2M votes Kasich in Ohio: 1M votes Trump in NY: 259K votes (with 54% in)

      • Commander_Chico

        Total votes:

        Trump 8,783,076
        Cruz 6,448,264

      • Commander_Chico
        • Seriously Chico?

          • Commander_Chico

            Cruz’s father Rafael was in New Orleans at the time of the photograph showing Oswald and a guy that looked like Rafael passing out “Fair Play for Cuba” leaflets.

          • Jwb10001

            This is the most ridiculous thing you tried on so far, slightly more goofy than Cheney and anthrax. You wonder why the Cruz affair story has no legs, it’s because this is the sort of non sense the NE deals in.

          • Commander_Chico

            Was Rafael Cruz in New Orleans at the same time as LHO or not?

            Not saying conclusive proof but photos show resemblance.

  • Constitution First

    Ask your thirteen-year-old daughter if she wants to see the opposite sex in her locker room?
    At roughly 1-2% of the population, opposite sex bathroom raiding is the tail wagging the dog when most of the rest of us object to it.

    • Commander_Chico

      Not even 1-2% Even in Thailand!! More like 0.3% according to studies. Which is 0.003 of the population.

      Ridiculous to cater to a disorder of such a small part, unless you want more of the disorder.

  • Wild_Willie

    These performers and business boycott Mississippi and N. Carolina but play or dead with countries that stone or lock up gays. Anything for press. Liberals fall for this move constantly. ww

    • Scalia

      Good read. A little weak on the science, but that wasn’t within the full scope of his piece. Thanks.

    • Brucehenry

      Just because Fradd and you and Scalia don’t understand trangenderism doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. Read more widely, is my suggestion.

      • What specifically and particularly are we not understanding?

        • Brucehenry

          For one thing the article takes a mocking and simple-minded tone: characterizing a trans girl as “a male who thinks he’s a female” and the like. “When I was 15 years old I would have loved that idea. Who’s silly idea was this?” Never mind that trans girls often get the shit beat out of them in boy’s restrooms. Being transgender is just a tad more complicated than being “a male who thinks he’s a female.” It mocks ABC News for using feminine pronouns to describe the girl in the case he cites, as if that was unheard of or something. News flash — this has been happening for some time.

          Scalia notes Fradd is a little weak on the science, and that’s putting it mildly. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I’m pretty sure the differences between male brains and female brains are on a spectrum. Some girls are going to show a strong interest in the mobile and some boys are going to display a strong affinity for the face regardless of whether those particular kids are going to grow up to be trans. If that’s all the evidence Fradd has to support his case (I’m sure it isn’t but let’s not pretend there aren’t all kinds of studies) he hasn’t got much. I’m sure there are lots of differences between the brains of girls and boys but on what continuum do they occur?

          Then Fradd brazenly constructs a straw man to pretend he knows just what the (overheard!) dad meant when he said he was going to raise a “yellow baby” and not a pink or blue one, and what that Dad would say if Fradd asked him about his weak-ass scientific evidence (which wasn’t conducted to “disprove” transgenderism, by the way.)

          The video is just stupid. Reminds me of that idiot Watters, toady to Bill O’Reilly. The kids are trying to be polite and humor him and he thinks he’s showing us how stupid THEY are.

          He seems to think that because he doesn’t like sports (guy stuff) and does like poetry (gal stuff), and assumes trans people feel the same, that transgenderism is just an absurd proposition. This is typical conservative lack-of-empathy. He can’t imagine that another’s struggle is real because he hasn’t experienced it to the same degree. Sorry, but he’s an asshole.

          Apparently this guy is not interested in hearing what actual trans people say, just looking for “holes in their arguments” and mocking what he finds ridiculous. He, and you, should read more widely.

          • On your edit… on what basis is it weird and wrong?

          • Brucehenry

            Well on the basis of info in the linked article the parents have been giving him hormones “for years” and I think he should be allowed to make that decision for himself when he’s older. We really don’t know what they mean when they say he “started to identify” at 3, maybe they’re doing the right thing and I was wrong to call it weird. But on the limited info we have from your link, I don’t think so.

          • We really don’t know what they mean when they say he “started to identify”…

            You can stop right there in my view…

          • Scalia

            Yep. Just think, the man arrested in the following story no longer has to dress like a woman. He’s a repeat offender. All he has to do is claim that he’s a woman and waltz right back into the women’s locker room and watch the girls undress. In fact, he can undress in front of them and get into his bathing suit thanks to folks like Bruce Henry!

            https://youtu.be/bqIKWtIPvxM

          • Scalia

            The video is just stupid. Reminds me of that idiot Watters, toady to Bill O’Reilly. The kids are trying to be polite and humor him and he thinks he’s showing us how stupid THEY are.

            Yes, it does show us how stupid some University of Washington students are, and you are again missing the point. The mentality that seeks to accept everything a person claims about himself is naïve at best, and it allows any man to waltz into a restroom while girls are changing into their swimsuits. Yes, we would have loved that as teenagers.

            Before you start wagging your finger, I remind you that you have thus far refused to advocate any standards to prevent that sort of abuse. It shows your blind willingness to trash privacy rights in order to accommodate people who need counseling. If you respect the right of some mentally disordered people to “identify” with a particular sex with restroom access, what about people who have no such disorder seeking to identify with members of the same sex with restroom access? They have privacy rights too, but you apparently don’t care about that. Yes, that is really stupid.

      • Scalia

        Add your name to the mix, Bruce. I just simply said it was a good read, and he makes several good points. There’s body integrity identity disorder along with the species dysphoria that the author mentioned. Responsible people do not encourage disorders. They should treat individuals with love and understanding, but the objective is to help steer them in the right direction.

        As with homosexuality, whether or not there is a physiological cause for transgenderism, such a condition is not normal, and it is irresponsible science to act as if it is. We can recognize that a person who thinks he’s a giraffe has a mental problem and needs help. We can recognize that a person who believes that he needs to amputate his perfectly functioning arm needs help, but we insist that it is perfectly normal for a man to identify as a woman and live that way. Of course, you can’t force an adult to seek help unless he poses a physical threat to another, but it should be encouraged.

        Women and men should not have to give up their restroom privacy rights either. A mentality that advocates access to women’s restrooms upon the mere assertion that a man is a woman almost itself qualifies as a mental disorder. It helps to prevent getting people the treatment they need, and it obligates the vast majority of its citizens to cede their privacy rights, not so much to truly transgendered persons, but to those who can exploit such irresponsible policies for perverted reasons.

        • Brucehenry

          Again I believe all your fears about perverts waltzing into restrooms “claiming to be a woman” are overblown. These bathroom ordinances are the law in 200 localities and 18 states in the US and many places in Canada as well, yet there have been no increase in peeping, indecent exposure or sexual assaults in those places. You can bet your ass FOX and Breitbart would have been all over it if it had been different.

          As I briefly mentioned upthread, when schools were being desegregated “conservatives” were using the fear card to claim that White Southern Womanhood was in danger of violation by these big black bucks — do you want your daughter sitting in class next to this field hand?

          As to the normality and whether transgender folks should be shunned, pitied, or embraced, you and I will just have to disagree. But I’m confident that you’ll eventually see that your fears of a wave of peeping by opportunistic hirsute cross-dressing creepers are ummm unfounded.

          • Scalia

            Claiming they are “overblown” isn’t the same as showing they are overblown. You cannot say that my statements are untrue, so you opt for this ridiculous “overblown” stuff. Nothing you support prevents a man from doing so. Just TONIGHT I was at the mall and a woman walked into the men’s restroom practically daring anybody to say anything to her about it—and she didn’t head for the urinal either (just in case you insist that she was a he).

            You’re still clinging to your “no increase” argument which is INVALIDATED by your refusal to tell us what increase would be unacceptable to you. KNOCK IT OFF, BRUCE. You cannot validly argue about criminal activity because it doesn’t matter to you whether or not those stats skyrocket. You don’t care how many women are raped or killed in restrooms, and you don’t care how many women and girls’ privacy rights are violated. Until you can tell us what it would take for you to rethink your position, you have no basis to appeal to criminal statistics.

            Moreover, I’ve already addressed the fact that peeping Tom instances wouldn’t increase because it’s no longer illegal in those jurisdictions for a man to walk into a women’s restroom. The Seattle man wasn’t arrested even though he violated women’s and girls’ rights twice in the same day. The many instances of men dressing like women to gain access to restrooms illustrate the point. They no longer have to dress like women. They may simply waltz into them in tuxedos and look around like other women do. As I said, one doesn’t expect an increase in crime when a formerly illegal act is made legal. At least that’s the way it is where I come from. It must be different in NC.

            Talk about irrelevant!! I know lots of liberal women who are upset about men being able to legally walk into restrooms. You really believe that women who object to a strange man being legally able to see them undressing in a restroom has anything to do desegregating schools? Ask a black woman whether she minds men having access to restrooms. You really don’t believe in privacy, do you? So, your wife tells you that she needs to go to the restroom to adjust her bra. A man standing nearby hears her and follows her into the restroom. What does Bruce Henry do? I’ll tell you what you’d do. If your wife casts a worried look at you, you’ll say, “Honey, quit acting like a conservative racist who supported Jim Crow laws. We believe in free and open restrooms just like we believe in free and open schools.” And when your daughters go into the restroom to change into their swimsuits, and they’re followed by five teenage boys who claim to be girls, you’ll just belch, take another swig of soda pop and thank Obama for ending those Jim Crow restroom regulations.

            KNOCK OFF your dodging, Bruce. Answer the question: How many women must suffer before you start caring?

          • Brucehenry

            Your fears are overblown because your fears are overblown. Again EIGHTEEN STATES and over 200 localities have these laws on the books.

            You keep insisting that any male will be able to just “waltz in” to a restroom to spy on my wife or daughters but that is not so, just as any male is not allowed to spy on me or my non-existent son NOW. Laws against peeping and indecent exposure are not repealed by the enactment of these ordinances. You can repeat that the comparison is irrelevant till the cows come home but it is not. Common sense will still prevail, non-trans men will be arrested for just “waltzing in” to ladies rooms to get a peek or to expose themselves, and White Southern Womanhood will remain unsullied. There may be an instance or two of this happening and it will result in criminal consequences for the idiot who tries it.

            The peeping incident in Canada where the cell phone was held over the top of the stall wall is the type of thing that has been happening occasionally since cell phones got cameras in them and has nothing to do, as far as either of us know, with any transgender issues.

            I don’t know why you don’t relax. Is it because that big scary lady at the mall made you nervous? You don’t define of course what “practically daring anyone to say anything” means — but it may have meant something like an overactive bladder and the lady faced a choice of peeing in the mens room or peeing on herself at the mall. Have a heart, dude. I have seen instances like that myself, one 30 years ago, when a woman just insisted that “the line was too long” in the ladies room at a concert and barged into the men’s room. And yes, 30 years ago it made everybody nervous.

            Fifty years ago it made every white Dad in the South nervous when they were finally forced to send their baby girls to school with big black boys. And you know what? On a few occasions a white girl WAS assaulted by big black boys. Does that mean schools should not have been desegregated? I’m afraid every one afraid of this is just gonna have to be nervous for a while.

            And no, I’m not going to quantify “how many women” yada yada. That’s an appeal to emotion you should have discarded in Logic 101. Again, not on the witness stand and you are not the DA.

          • Scalia

            The woman at the mall bypassed the women’s restroom in order to access the men’s.

            You being deliberately obtuse. Sure, if a man walked into a women’s restroom, pulled out a cell phone, and began videoing women undressing, of course he’d be arrested. The point is he can wear an on-body camera and walk around nonchalantly. Previously, he wouldn’t even be allowed in the restroom, but thanks to people who think like you, he has direct access.

            The Toronto situation caused enough concern to deny access to males in several restrooms. So, if a guy can’t use a cell phone, all he has to do is walk in the shower fully naked. That way, he can have a better look. There’s nothing, NOTHING that can stop him.

            And no, I’m not going to quantify “how many women” yada yada. That’s an appeal to emotion you should have discarded in Logic 101. Again, not on the witness stand and you are not the DA..

            You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t have a sweet clue what logic is. You have no business using crime statistics to argue that your opponents are “overblown” when you refuse to acknowledge what it would take for you to withdraw that specious assertion. It’s patently dishonest. You would at least be consistent if you had said, “I couldn’t care less what the crime rate is. This is the right thing to do regardless the collateral damage.” Instead, you dishonestly attempt to have your cake and eat it too. Disgusting.

          • Brucehenry

            “There’s nothing, NOTHING, that can stop him.” Except a police officer using common sense and enforcing the statute against indecent exposure.

            Speaking of specious assertions, would you like to address the link I posted where officials all over the country report NO PROBLEMS of the kind you’re so afeared of in the states and localities where these kinds of ordinances are in place? I think YOU haven’t a “sweet clue” what a “specious assertion” is — like the one you keep making about men “waltzing in” to expose themselves to or peep at my wife and daughters.

          • Scalia

            I’ve already supplied plenty of evidence. Not only are you incapable of constructing a logical argument here, you don’t even know what the word specious means:

            specious: falsely appearing to be fair, just, or right : appearing to be true but actually false

            First, you’ve asserted over and over that municipalities have reported no problems of the kind their opponents raise, no spike in criminal activity, etc. The implication is that if there were problem of that kind and a spike in the crime rate, that would be cause for concern. Now, that appears “to be fair, just or right,” but it is actually false. It is false because you don’t care what the crime rate is, and you don’t care how many instances of those things occur. So, your appeal to numbers is deliberately deceptive. It is deliberate because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you continue to use it. You are thus lying. Using numbers in a significant way only to deny the significance of those numbers is the definition of sophistry.

            Second, it is true that in most municipalities, any man may legally waltz into a restroom, locker room, shower by claiming he is a female. That’s not specious; it is true. You’ve done nothing to refute that (obviously because you can’t), so you resort to saying that its overblown. That’s also a dishonest tack.

            Third, whereas a man previously had to at least dress like a woman in order to peep in a restroom (if he had looked like a man and entered therein, he could legally be required to leave), he can now access the facility without fear. Thus, his opportunity has exponentially increased by people like you. That means he can easily glance around for free what he previously could no legally do. If he’s in a locker room, he can change his clothes in front of them. If it’s an open shower, he can get naked and walk where women are showering, and all he has to say is that he’s a woman. These are facts, and you can’t point to any legal recourse any woman has to prevent that. All a man has to do is insist that he’s a woman. Nothing specious there.

            Fourth, let’s say the crime rate remains static. If, in the City of Los Angeles, the restroom/locker room peeping Tom rate is X before gender-neutral restrooms. One would not expect that rate to rise post enactment of the same. What it does is it makes it easier for peepers to do what they formerly had to try pretty hard to do. Again, that’s a fact.

            The only arguments you’ve made are that our fears are overblown, the crime rate has not increased, and that opposition to gender-neutral facilities is akin to racial segregation. Now, those ARE specious arguments. “Overblown” and crime statistics are just empty words because you won’t accept any number to rebut them. “Well, crime hasn’t gone up!” Okay, what if it does? What are you going to do? Crickets from Bruce because he couldn’t care less what the crime rate is; he is dishonestly using it in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to his argument because he cannot refute the facts. That’s what a specious argument is, Bruce. An honest liberal wouldn’t argue that way.

            The honest liberals I’ve debated along these lines acknowledge that a spike in the crime rate would pose a problem, and they don’t use that ridiculously stupid argument that separate bathrooms are akin to racial segregation. They recognize that separate bathrooms were meant to preserve privacy—something that liberals used to defend. They rather argue that so long as the crime rate remains static, and so long as instances like was seen in Seattle remain extremely rare anomalies, we can tolerate the rare excesses for the greater good of inclusion, etc. You don’t argue that way. You’d rather lie and bluff your way through a discussion because you’re too dishonest to acknowledge what anybody in first-year logic could see.

            You used to argue better than this, Bruce. The difference in past arguments is that you were at least (with me) attempting to be honest. You you have to lie to make a point, you’ve lost.

            Tell us, Bruce, and quit dodging: HOW MANY WOMEN AND GIRLS MUST SUFFER BEFORE YOU START CARING? Honest liberals have answered that question. You won’t because your stupid pride can’t admit that you flubbed the numbers argument.

            TELL US, BRUCE. HOW MANY?

          • jim_m

            Bruce is a lefty. Of course he is incapable of constructing a logical argument. Since he has a 6th grade education his vocabulary is rather limited and he apparently lacks the ability to look words up in a dictionary or online.

            And as you note, he uses data in a deliberately deceptive manner. It isn’t meant to illustrate a truth but to obfuscate the truth.

          • Scalia

            Yes. I guess I had to find out the hard way. I had defended him privately and actually respected him because he mostly debated me in what appeared to be good faith. The dishonesty he’s exhibited both here and on the previous thread relating to Kim Davis has been most disappointing for me. Regardless a person’s politics, I try to always treat a person with respect and will give h/er the benefit of doubt. Not any more with Bruce. Once a guy deliberately lies about what he’s saying, I’m done. As far as I’m concerned, he’s personal non grata.

          • jim_m

            I wasn’t always as negative with him either. But after several years of his BS I gave up any attempt to tolerate him further.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s funny, the way I remember it you have always been your usual hostile self.

            On this thread Scalia has repeatedly asserted that, in places where this is the law, any man can just “waltz in” to a ladies room and spy on girls or expose himself. And I have repeatedly reminded him, with a link to demonstrate, that this has not occurred in these localities since these laws were put in place. Some of these localities have had these in place since 2005, 1997, or even 1993.

            Scalia insists that I have “no business using numbers” until I quantify “how many women must have their privacy violated” before I give a damn. He insists that, until I admit I don’t care about women’s privacy, the testimony of officials and experts in these jurisdictions are meaningless.

            Scalia has a habit, in extended “debate,” of insisting that his interlocutor is dishonest or stupid if that interlocutor doesn’t concede his points. It seems if you are arguing with him, and are not persuaded that Scalia is right, it’s not that Scalia hasn’t persuaded, it’s that you are too stupid or dishonest to admit defeat.

            Well, I am sorry that I have offended Scalia, and wish I hadn’t angered him. However, my position is unchanged — I do not believe that these laws significantly increase the chance that women will be abused in restrooms, and the evidence from localities where these laws are in place bears that out.

          • jim_m

            I have always been insulting but I used to offer you far more substance in my responses. Now, with the understanding that doing so is merely throwing pearls before swine, I do not.

          • Scalia

            I saw this post in my email and initially thought it was Jim. You laughably write:

            Scalia has a habit, in extended “debate,” of insisting that his interlocutor is dishonest or stupid if that interlocutor doesn’t concede his points.

            Yes, liars can’t stop lying. You and I have had numerous extended debates, and I’ve never called you stupid or a liar. Like I said, I used to respect you because our debates were normally devoid of rancor, and we often “shook hands” after spirited debate. Moreover, I’ve had extended debates with intelligent liberals, including here at Wizbang, that ended in a real impasse and we parted amicably. You’re so stupid, you still don’t understand what’s being argued. Hint, you can never adequately argue with somebody unless you understand their position. Your summary shows just how thick you are (no need asking me to clarify because that’s over). I call people liars when they show me that they are liars, like you. I couldn’t care less if you’re liberal or if you call me a kook. You’ve implied that I’m a racist and a homophobe, but that’s fair game in a debate. I really don’t mind being insulted because that’s the way people are. I draw the line at dishonesty, and that’s why I’ve drawn the line with you.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever rancor exists here is felt solely by you, and not me.

            You are right that one must understand what the other is saying in order to argue adequately. In this case, your argument is that restroom ordinances such as Charlotte’s open the door for any man to “waltz in” to a ladies room and proceed to peep or expose himself. I get that.

            My position has been, and continues to be, that in the hundreds of localities and several states where these laws exist, and have existed for years and years, THAT HASN’T HAPPENED. Might it happen? Sure, I guess so, but the reports from these localities suggest that, well, your fears are overblown. That’s not a lie, nor is it dishonest, nor is it stupid. I have presented evidence to support it.

            If I have implied that you are a racist or a homophobe I retract it. I DO think Kim Davis is a bigot and a homophobe, whether or not her bigotry and homophobia derive from a sincerely held religious belief, and you have defended her. Is that where you got that idea? In any case, again, I mean no personal offense and I regret making the implication that you yourself are some kind of bigot.

            If I am “persona non grata” to you that is unfortunate and I’m sorry it is the case. If this is goodbye, well, goodbye.

          • Scalia

            One final comment. Seattle is one such locality and it happened twice in one day. A man showed up to do precisely what you said “HASN’T HAPPENED.”

            Anyway, I won’t respond to another one of your posts in this thread.

          • Brucehenry

            Fine, don’t respond. But the man in your Seattle story was just as likely a proponent of your side of the argument trying to prove your point. It says so right there in your link: “It’s unclear whether the man who broke into the women’s restroom of the Seattle pool was protesting the rule or just testing its limits.”

            Meanwhile in 199 other jurisdictions officials report no problems at all.

          • jim_m

            OK. So by your definition, if murder as never occurred in a municipality, there is no reason to outlaw murder.

            If Rape has never occurred then we should not have laws against Rape. and so on, and so on.

            You logic is that of an imbecile, irrational and without any sort of thought behind it. You parrot someone else’s ideas without thinking about what it really means. And if you think that passing a law that legalizes behavior that has been suppressed previously through the law, will not result in people taking advantage of that new freedom, you are every bit the dishonest fool you are accused of being.

          • jim_m

            I would also reflect on the fact that Scalia now has effectively the same impression of you that I do. What are you doing to leave that impression on multiple people? What is wrong with you, your arguments, your beliefs that people think you are dishonest and/or ignorant?

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha many many people who encounter you at Wizbang have the same impression of you as I do, too.

          • jim_m

            Brilliant, handsome, sophisticated… I know.

          • Something about wearing his ass as a hat?

          • That has been the trend…

          • Brucehenry
          • Scalia

            More deflection from Bruce. You didn’t engage anything I said. Quit dodging, Bruce. How many women and girls must suffer before you start caring?

          • Brucehenry

            You make the specious points you want to make, I’ll make the valid points I want to make. I’ll ignore your dramatics just like you ignore my links and examples.

          • Scalia

            Said the liar. I’ve addressed every one of your arguments. Your links only repeat what you’ve said here. You don’t care what the number are as evidenced by your steadfast refusal to tell us when they might be significant. Their significance to you is merely a front in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to your specious argument. You’ve proven that you don’t care what the numbers are because of your vapid insistence that this is somehow akin to Jim Crow. What a liar you’ve become.

          • Brucehenry

            You can call me names all you like. Stupid, liar, dishonest, disgusting, etc etc etc. But here’s the nub:

            You keep saying that if these laws are enacted, like in Charlotte, and not stopped by draconian measures like HB2, that there will be problems. Yet my link has demonstrated that in the localities where these measures have been adopted, THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS.

            At the very least, it demonstrates that there are no more problems in these localities where these laws are in place than there were BEFORE the laws were adopted. Your whole argument has been that there WILL be problems if these laws are put into place, but in the jurisdictions where they ARE in place there ARE NO PROBLEMS.

            In Connecticutt, the State Commission on Human rights report “no problems as a result of the CT gender identity or expression law.” Law in place since 2011.

            Hawaii: “The HCRC is not aware of any incidents of sexual assaults or rape causally related or attributed to the prohibition against discrimination…in contrast to anecdotal reports of transgender students being harassed or bullied….” Law since 2006.

            Iowa: The Des Moines police chief says: “We have not seen that I doubt that’s gonna encourage the behavior. If the behaviors there [sexual predators are] gonna behave as they’re gonna behave no matter what the laws are.” Law since 2007.

            Maine: Director of the Maine Human Rights Commission says; “I know that this concern exists but I personally have not seen any evidence for it.” 2005.

            Massachussetts: Police Superintendent Christopher Burke: “Specifically, as was raised as a concern if the bill were to be passed, there have been no incidents of men dressing up as women to commit crimes in female bathrooms and using the city ordinance as a defense.” In place since 1997!!!!

            And on and on and on.

            To answer your drama queen question, I don’t want ANY woman to suffer, and I don’t believe, based on the evidence we have from the localities where these laws are in place, that they will.

          • jim_m

            Let’s get to the nub, as you say. What do you say when some pervert walks in on your daughter and molests her? I suppose you will tell her to stop being a bigot, or that she asked for it.

            But the pervert was just exercizing his rights to identify as whatever it took to get access to your daughter.

            But the reality is that you really do care about your kids. You just don’t give a damn about anyone else’s. Everyone else’s daughters can get raped and you don’t give a rip. You will say that it hasn’t happened so we are just spouting some BS. But the reality is that it is going to happen and you don’t care.

          • Scalia

            Once upon a time, I would have thought that your comment was an overreach, but not anymore. Bruce doesn’t care so long as his face is in an argument.

            He doesn’t have a sweet clue that prosecuting a man who enters a locker room/restroom will be next to impossible unless that guy is openly taking videos. If the girls are showering, he can strip and shower with them. All he has to do is claim that he’s a woman. So long as he’s discrete, he can undress in front of women and shower with them.

            They can’t deny that as a matter of fact, so they’ve got to say that we’re overreacting. It’s one thing to be stupid, but a deliberately stupid person is a liar, and that’s what Bruce is.

          • Scalia

            You’re called those names for good reason. I normally wait until a person starts lying during a debate. In your case, I held my fire because I used to have respect for you. Thanks for dispelling me of that foolish notion.

            Like the dumb robot you are, you continue to repeat your already-addressed “no increase” canard as if (like an insane person) you think that repeating yourself has any rational heft. When you repeat something that has been substantively addressed and you ignore the rebuttal and instead repeat yourself again, you fool nobody but yourself.

            I’ve shown you why your appeal to numbers is specious, but you dishonestly keep harping on it as if it would save you from further dishonor. It’s not working. I’m finished discussing this with you.

            I maintain extremely close friendships with liberals—one of them being an open communist. I enjoy good, honest debate and can live with disagreement. Chico called me a Stalinist, which for a political conservative is about the worst thing one can call me, but I left his comment on board because I believe in free speech. However, when someone shows me that he’s dishonest, I have no further use for him. You’re no longer worth my time. Bye.

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry you feel that way.

          • Commander_Chico

            Next time you see that, just say “Hey baby, looking hot today!” to her.

          • Scalia

            Understood, but I’d probably get arrested for sexual harassment!.

          • Commander_Chico

            Hmm good counterclaim possible though -“she said she came in to look for dick!”

  • Relevant I think…

  • Porkopolis

    Related:

    A Partial List of Legal Discriminations Found in the United States:

    http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-partial-list-of-legal-discriminations.html

  • More relevant news

    • Brucehenry

      Except it ain’t, since Fredricksburg is not one of the localities in question.

    • Brucehenry
    • Scalia

      Good link and quite relevant to the question. Private establishments in Virginia are free to defend women’s privacy in restrooms, so the pervert in question had to dress like a woman to gain access. If said establishments are compelled to extirpate privacy rights, guys won’t have to bother with wigs and high heels.

      Propagandists continue to appeal to crime reports as if they allay legitimate concerns over misguided policies like this. The Seattle man violated several women’s & children’s rights, but he was never arrested. Consequently, you’ll not see that in any crime report. The fatuous excuse that he might have been a right-winger pulling a stunt has no evidential support. The only thing we know is a man went into a restroom/locker room and violated privacy rights—and there is nothing Seattle can do about it the way the ordinance is written. If Rick or Scalia decide to walk into a women’s locker room to the chagrin of perhaps every woman in there, all we have to say is that we identify as women. We may then proceed to change into our swimsuits in full view of everybody and go for a couple of laps around the pool. We can then jump into the locker room showers where several women are taking showers and soap down.

      The link above from a left-wing website illustrates the point. A lot of the “evidence” comes from leftist advocacy groups and the remainder focuses exclusively on rape and assault. While those things will continue regardless the gender laws, the point is that privacy rights will be encroached with no recourse. There is nothing a woman can do if a man walks into a locker room or restroom to change clothes, wash “her” face, take a shower, etc. A crime cannot be reported because there is technically no crime being committed. The real woman is either forced to leave, or go into a stall (which if men are using it will be very dirty—urine on the floor and all over the commode–yeah, really easy to change in there). If she’s in the shower, she’ll have to grab a towel while the man gets a free glance. If you try to report “him” for assault, you then violate his rights to be there. But that’s the way the Left has been arguing for years.

      It would be funny if it weren’t so said, Rick. To think that they used to argue in defense of women’s privacy.

      • As usual, what you consider relevant is, brucehemorrhoid, rather less so.

        • Scalia

          Nah, he knows it’s relevant. He’s just trying to twist it as much as he can because he knows he’s been caught lying.

          • Brucehenry

            You don’t find it a little…..ummm, unseemly to keep insulting a commenter you have declared “persona non grata” and to whom you have insisted you will “not respond”??

          • Commander_Chico

            You ALL take an internet comment board too seriously.

            It is at best and most light entertainment. Don’t mean nothin’

          • Ha, ha!

          • Brucehenry

            Yes good point.

          • The fanny sisters, back together again…

          • Brucehenry

            Damn you’re clever

          • You’re a boor in a bubble.

          • Brucehenry

            And you’re on a roll keep em comin

          • FOAD

    • Scalia

      The video below is also relevant. A man, dressed as a man, asked a Target employee if he could use the women’s restroom. He was given permission and was told that if women have a problem with it, they could take it up with management.

      In response to the video, Target issued the following statement:

      Thanks for reaching out.

      We certainly respect that there are a wide variety of perspectives and opinions. As a company that firmly stands behind what it means to offer our team an inclusive place to work — and our guests an inclusive place to shop – we continue to believe that this is the right thing for Target.

      Thanks!

      Here’s the video:
      https://youtu.be/cgL0c4B3gr8

      • Disturbing in every sense…

        • Scalia

          Well, well, what have we here? Remember the press reporting that there were 180,000 signatures on a petition opposed to HB2? As we’ve already seen, liberals won’t let the truth get in the way of their agenda. It’s no wonder they hate the Bible (you know, the “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire a brimstone” part). That would spoil their lying consciences.

          Well, the governor’s office got to looking at the signatures, and it turns out that we’ve been lied to again:

          The anonymously-funded, national smear campaign led by the Human Rights Campaign is grossly misrepresenting information about the petitions delivered to State Capitol today. Contrary to the media reports, the activists only delivered enough petitions to fill two boxes and the overwhelming majority of signatures were from out-of-state. The stacks on the right in each photo consists of out-of-state signatures.

          Kudos to Governor McCrory for ripping the mask off those fork-tongued snakes.