Sanity Restored to Restroom/Locker-Room Policies and OPEN THREAD

From the Washington Post:

The Trump administration on Wednesday revoked federal guidelines specifying that transgender students have the right to use public school restrooms that match their gender identity, taking a stand on a contentious issue that has become the central battle over LGBT rights.

Officials with the federal Education and Justice departments notified the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday that the administration is ordering the nation’s schools to disregard memos the Obama administration issued during the past two years regarding transgender student rights. Those memos said that prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that align with their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws.

The two-page “Dear colleague” letter from the Trump administration, which is set to go to the nation’s public schools, does not offer any new guidance, instead saying that the earlier directive needed to be withdrawn because it lacked extensive legal analysis, did not go through a public vetting process, sowed confusion and drew legal challenges.

For misguided liberals, trashing privacy rights has become very fashionable in their quest to ignore biology and to ignore helping people with psychological disorders. The right to privacy used to be their rallying cry in their quest to rewrite the Constitution with respect to abortion and contraceptives, but women and girls must apparently “get over” their unease at undressing in the presence of any male who makes a claim that he’s a female. In an unsurprising display of false equivalence, liberals argue that women who are uncomfortable with a man walking into their shower room are somehow akin to racists who are uncomfortable sharing a shower or a locker room with blacks. Does this even need an explanation? Girls aren’t uncomfortable undressing in front of men because they’re bigoted; they’re uncomfortable because it’s natural to want a degree of privacy when one is undressed. Separate facilities were created to preserve privacy, not to perpetuate bigotry against women.

Many men have been arrested due to their entering women’s private spaces in order to get a peek. They’ve dressed like women, drilled holes in walls, crawled into ventilation ducts, installed secret cameras, two-way mirrors, etc., just to satisfy their voyeurism. They did so because it was illegal for a man to enter women’s private spaces. In many jurisdictions, there is now no legal barrier to such behavior. A man doesn’t even need to dress like a woman. He simply needs to claim that he’s a woman—no more ventilation ducts, wigs or pantyhose!

This ridiculous policy opens the door for all of those deviants to do what was formerly illegal. Liberals claim that their jurisdictions haven’t seen an uptick in crime resulting from their unisex utopia. What they apparently fail to realize is that there wouldn’t be an uptick in crime when a formerly illegal act is made legal. In fact, one would think that arrests would go down rather than up. Where I come from, crime doesn’t tend to go up when you legalize criminal activity. With no standard to prevent that kind of abuse, deviants of every stripe can exploit restrooms, locker rooms and public showers.

Kudos to President Trump for restoring some sense to our federal policies.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners February 24, 2017
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Scalia

    DNC chooses Perez. From FoxNews:

    Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez on Saturday was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, defeating top-rival Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, in their respective bids to chart the direction of the national party.

    Perez was elected after two rounds of balloting in Atlanta at the party’s annual winter meeting. He received 235 votes, crossing the threshold of 218 ballots.

    […]

    After his win Saturday, Perez picked Ellison as his deputy chairman.

    “We don’t have the luxury to walk out of this room divided,” Ellison said. “It is my honor to serve this party with Tom Perez.”

    • pennywit

      From everything I’ve read, Ellison would have been a smarter choice. The Democrats desperately need to rebuild their local and state level organizations.

      • jim_m

        Ellison was a cursed choice. While he has a better rep for organizing, he is a noted anti-Semite and supporter of islamist terrorism (by supporting radical islamist groups). Progressive agenda items are anathema to the majority of the country. Hyper-regulation of society, control of bathrooms, the fake rape culture narrative, unrestricted illegal immigration, a million genders, anti-white bigotry and hate… No one but the radical left wants these. He would have turned off millions of voters.

        He could organize the uttermost core of their base but he would have alienated millions across the country. As Deputy Chair he will still have the chance to do so and probably will. The dems are going to lose big in 2018.

        • Retired military

          Their core is organized. That is why millions across the country reject them daily.

      • Retired military

        I wish that Ellison had been the choice. He could be like Moses and lead the libs through 40 years in exile. I will be dead before that exile is over.

      • Brett Buck

        How so? The man is a unrepentant Farrakhan supporter, proudly anti-semitic, and has repeatedly taken every extreme left position possible. they lost for a multitude of reasons, but they lost in the key states because they became too crazy and anti-American even for the party hacks.

        They aren’t going to rebuild jack-doo-doo local and state organizations unless they can enlist people who AREN’T complete lunatics.

        • jim_m

          They will compel union workers to do their dirty work for them as they have always done.

          • Brett Buck

            I am sure that this is true, but one of the takeaways from this election is that the rank-and-file are finally cluing in to the fact that they are being exploited. All the bullshit lip service the Democrats pay to the “working class” (while taking and giving payoffs to the super-rich) is getting harder and harder to swallow, and people, finally, may have had enough.

        • pennywit

          If the party chairman does his job right, he’s more concerned with party organization than with being in the news; by all accounts, Ellison is a solid organizer.

    • Jwb10001

      Seems both of these people are just a continuation of the democrats giving white working class people the middle finger. Perez is Clinton has all the same issues and baggage, and Ellison he runs the risk of the dems losing the Jewish vote as well as the white working class. Well done Democrats.

    • jim_m

      Perez is every bit the radical leftist that Ellison is but without the anti Semitic baggage.

      Perez was noted as head of the DOJCivil Rights division for his cover up and obstruction with the New Black Panthers scandal. He also made it policy to hire lawyers based on their political viewpoints despite filling professional civil service positions.

      He also believes in unrestricted immigration and opposes any restrictions on voting making citizenship meaningless.

      Just another dangerous left wing ideologue.

  • Scalia

    Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency:

    More than 300 scientists have urged President Trump to withdraw from the U.N.’s climate change agency, warning that its push to curtail carbon dioxide threatens to exacerbate poverty without improving the environment.

    In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.

    “Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.

    Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.

    The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

  • Scalia

    From USA Today:

    President Trump says he will skip the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

    The annual event, set for April 29 at the Washington Hilton, is a black-tie scholarship dinner hosted by the White House Correspondents’ Association and is attended by journalists, politicians and other Washington movers and shakers.

    The event has drawn fire in recent years from critics who say it has become too much of a celebrity fest and that journalists should not be cozying up to the people they cover.

    The sitting president and first lady traditionally have attended the dinner, along with a high-profile celebrity who acts as host.

    Trump’s decision to skip the dinner comes amid his ongoing feud with the media, which he has described as “the enemy of the American people.”

    • pennywit

      This event should have been canned a long time ago.

  • Scalia

    NYC Mexican Restaurant Business Down 50% Amid Reports Of ICE Checkpoints:

    NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — President Donald Trump’s tough talk on immigration is reverberating in New York’s melting pot.

    As CBS2’s Brian Conybeare reports, false stories about widespread immigration sweeps are going viral across social media and creating a climate of fear.

    It looked like a ghost town inside the Mexican restaurant run by Cesar Rodriguez along Port Richmond Avenue on Staten Island.

    “It has been very slow,” he said.

    Rodriguez said his business is down more than 50 percent since bogus reports of widespread Immigration and Customs Enforcement checkpoints at places like subway stations started popping up on social media. One warned people they could even be stopped on the 6 train.

    “Because everybody’s afraid to come, everybody’s afraid to walk on Port Richmond, where there’s been fake news about raids,” he said.

  • Scalia
    • Paul Hooson

      Abraham Lincoln is far and away our greatest president. He is the closest to a Biblical figure in a president as we will ever come, his life a combination of Job and Moses. However. the political parties of 1860 are substantially re-aligned since 1860 where Lincoln’s political views and winning 39% winning coalition were heavily based on those that were morally opposed to the great sin of slavery. While in the White House, Lincoln made the governor of CT. wait, while he continued a long discussion with his friend, abolitionist Frederick Douglas. I have great problems viewing Mr. Trump in the same light as the greatness of Lincoln, the wisdom of Lincoln, the sense of fairness as Lincoln. Sadly, the Southern Democrats for so many years did not support fairness to Blacks, where some Andrew Jackson were a setback to those like John Quincy Adams who presented some early opposition to slavery.

      • Scalia

        I have great problems viewing Mr. Trump in the same light as the greatness of Lincoln, the wisdom of Lincoln, the sense of fairness as Lincoln.

        And who has made that claim?

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Remember, many will disingenuously claim that the GOP is still “The Party of Lincoln” and the the Democrats are currently affiliated with the KKK.

        They know better, but it does not stop them. Anything that has happened in the last 150 years is irrelevant.

        5,4,3,2,1…Senator Byrd.

        • What of Senator Sheets?

        • Scalia

          You mean that the GOP is no longer opposed to slavery? Links?

        • Scalia

          Party of Lincoln? You mean this Abraham Lincoln?

          He used the N-word and told racist jokes. He once said African-Americans were inferior to whites. He proposed ending slavery by shipping willing slaves back to Africa.

          Meet Abraham Lincoln, “The Great Emancipator” who “freed” the slaves

          Or, how about this?

          He told endless “darkie” jokes at the expense of black servants. He vehemently opposed the abolition of slavery, endorsed state laws barring black people from voting, holding office or intermarrying with white people.

          Bennett argues Lincoln was forced into issuing the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation to satisfy the disgruntled abolitionist wing of his own party, and he carefully manipulated its language to ensure that it applied only to enemy states outside the Union’s control. As a result, the decree itself did not free a single slave.

          Bennett quotes Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Henry Seward, as describing the proclamation as an illusion in which “we show our sympathy with the slaves by emancipating the slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free”.

          Before you throw out words like “disingenuously,” you need to pull your foot out of your mouth.

          EDIT: Moreover, Lincoln supported a constitutional amendment that would have both preserved slavery in the South and make said amendment immune to revision. He stated that he would keep slavery if it preserved the Union.

          Yes, today’s GOP is nothing like the GOP of old. Good job, ignoramus.

  • jim_m

    I’ve seen this meme online: “It’s about bathrooms just like it was about water fountains.”

    To which should be added, “Just like it was just about marriage.”

    In the first and the last case it is about cramming an ideological agenda down everyone’s throat and forcing complied acceptance. It’s about silencing dissent and especially about crushing religious freedom and the right to have religious beliefs that are contrary to the left’s religion of progressivism.

  • Retired military

    But Chris Cuomo, CNN, stated that it was your daughters intolerance if she didnt want to see a penis in the locker room.

  • Wild_Willie

    This law the libtards want to put in is based solely on ‘what I feel like’. That is about as far from science as you can get. I say if you have a penis you go to the men’s room. You have a vagina, you go to the woman’s room. There. Problem solved. ww

    • Jwb10001

      I read a story about a high school girl wrestler “transitioning” to male using banned steroids wrestling other girls, The parents of several of the normal girls wouldn’t allow their daughters to wrestle this jacked girl. This is where we’re going to see additional problems, in my view the girl on steroids should not be allowed to compete in either boys or girls sports, but if we’re to let her she should compete with the boys and let’s see how her parents feel about boys grabbing their daughter by the crotch.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        “…she should compete with the boys…”

        Which is exactly what she asked to do, but the request was denied.

        • Jwb10001

          She’s NOT A FREAKING BOY she’s a girl on steroids. How can she compete at all while using performance enhancing drugs?

          Edit: You’re ok with high school boys man handling a genetic female? That’s nuts.

          • pennywit

            Didn’t girls use to have to wrestle with the boys, as few schools had dedicated girls wrestling programs?

          • jim_m

            That has always been the case but it wasn’t always a school sanctioned extra curricular activity. 😉

          • Jwb10001

            I would never let my daughter wrestle a boy in high school. First of all they are far more likely to get hurt even in their own weight division, 2ond to me that amounts to school sanctioned groping. But hey if we’re going to let her wrestle the boys she has to do it without PEDs. As Jim points out any wrestling the girls and boys did in school wasn’t sanctioned.

          • pennywit

            I just poked through the Wikipedia article on scholastic wrestling. Turns out that girls did wrestle in boys’ events for the simple reason that there weren’t enough interested girls to form a separate girls division.

          • Jwb10001

            Well that wouldn’t be the first stupid thing a school ever did.

          • pennywit

            In seriousness … what was a high school supposed to do? I think that if a girl wants to participate in a sport, it’s completely wrong for a school to deny her that opportunity simply because there aren’t enough other girls interested.

  • Wild_Willie

    And on Perez, is believes white people should not have standing on the Voting Rights Act. ww

  • Vagabond661

    If your mind says you are fat when your body says you are thin, you’re anorexic.

    If your mind says you are young when your body says you are old, you have alzheimers.

    But if your mind says you are man when your body says you are woman, there’s nothing wrong?

    Where are the Psychiatrics now on this?

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/12126/president-american-college-pediatricians-promoting-amanda-prestigiacomo

    • Retired military

      They are too busy trying to talk the lefties down from ledges and out of their mother’s basements because Trump got elected.

    • Jwb10001

      If I decide I’m a 15 year old high school boy is it ok for me to go back to high school and date the cheerleaders?

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Did they date you when you actually were 15? LOL

  • Par4Course

    “Transgender” is neither a gender nor a sex; it is a dysfunctional attitude and behavior toward one’s biological sex. Most people with this disorder will bother no one regardless of which bathroom they use. As the article suggests, the problem is males without a transsexual mental problem who want to enter women’s bathrooms – and more importantly women’s locker rooms – for purposes of voyeurism. The states should be free to deal with such perverted folks as they want without federal intrusion. This is not a sex discrimination issue.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      Now if a man walks into a women’s bathroom he will soon find himself in an empty bathroom after everyone runs out screaming.

      So you are contending that men will go out and purchase a dress and wig, maybe learn to walk in heels and meticulously apply make up so they can listen to women pee (women’s bathrooms generally have stalls with doors)?

      • Scalia

        Now if a man walks into a women’s bathroom he will soon find himself in an empty bathroom after everyone runs out screaming.

        Really? You’ve seen this happen? A man in Seattle showed up twice in one day to a women’s/girls’ locker room. The women asked him to leave, but he refused—saying it was his right to be there (given Seattle’s transgender ordinance). Administrators asked him to use a separate facility; again, he refused. He was not arrested.

        Do you simply put your brain on hold and reflexively support anything that vomits out of a Democrat’s mouth? Do you even think about what you’re saying?

  • Brucehenry

    In the 200 towns, cities, and counties and 18 states where “bathroom ordinances” similar to the Charlotte NC law have been in effect for years or even decades, not only is there no “uptick in crimes” which you say we should fear, there is no “uptick” in incidents like the ones you say will happen. Or do you really think that if there was all this perfectly legal peeping going on no one in these communities would be writing angry editorials and letters-to-the-editors and Facebook posts about them?

    Sorry but there is no reason to panic or fear:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/debunking-bathroom-myths_b_8670438.html

    https://bitchmedia.org/article/five-arguments-right-wingers-use-defend-bathroom-bills%E2%80%94and-why-theyre-wrong

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-debunk-bathroom-predator/story?id=38604019

    And finally where are “conservative” priorities?

    https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16640910_1394988200563679_1302198891724275400_n.jpg?oh=b1d28a0a9ba7a6bb82b71fb10cc46e7b&oe=593B38AD

    • Olsoljer

      ROFLMAO! I am continually amused by your ignorance, and your references are self exposure (Huffpo?) The view started me laughing when I realized that everything the elephant was IN FACT resultant of the actions of the democrats (or lack thereof). Keep up the good work, you will make a good 3rd rate comedian.

      • Surely no better than fourth rate…

        • Sky__Captain

          I’ll see your fourth rate and raise you to fifth rate…

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        But Brietbart, on the other hand, is a credible news source. Got it.

        • Scalia

          This has been previously addressed by yours truly. I see you’ve forgotten what I said.

    • jim_m

      Funny Bruce. I suppose you believe that the dems in Chicago have protected children from shootings, poverty, etc. You are just another hypocritical jackass. You don’t give a shit about the children, you stand on the dead bodies of children in Chicago to advance your left wing agenda.

      Oh, and name one person who has died as a result of “climate Change” or who has even been materially harmed. You can’t. You can’t even define what that harm would be because it simply does not exist. The fact that you list it as a harm that is real and is occurring shows how ideologically bound you are. What a load of crap.

      • Brucehenry

        If it warn’t for strawman and tu quoque arguments you wouldn’t have no arguments at all. Oh yeah, there’s whataboutism, too.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

        BTW I don’t have to agree with everything in a cartoon to think it makes a good point. Leave off the “Climate change” bubble and it’s pretty spot on. The point, if you’re too dim to see it, is that Republicans seem pretty durn selective as to what they feel “the children” must be protected from. I suggest school shootings do a little more harm to The Children than imaginary trans peepers do.

        • jim_m

          Claiming that anyone wants people to starve or that they want people to not have acces to healthcare is a strawman and you r claim that you are “Spot on” is a fucking lie. You sit here and pompously claim that others are engaged in strawman arguments when your whole ideology is based on a strawman.

          • Brucehenry

            The cartoon doesn’t make the claim that anyone “wants people to starve” or that anyone “wants people not to have access to healthcare.” It does imply that Republicans seem to care less about whether children are exposed to hunger or chronic illness than a trans person in the restroom.

            Do you understand how cartoons work? LOL.

          • jim_m

            It is still a lie.

            The fact that someone wants to solve a problem differently than you do, or that they may decide that poverty is less important than the next issue, doesn’t mean that they care less than you do.

            The fact that you ascribe a failure of character to someone disagreeing with your ideologically driven position speaks volumes about the hate in your heart.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I now see your rant downthread. You are free to believe that nonsense, and to interpret my rather innocuous comment and linking to a cartoon as fascism or whatever, Jim. Hilarious and typically Jim-like. You are a buffoon, over the top and loony as hell as always.

          • jim_m

            The point is that you are claiming that conservatives don’t care. It is a strawman. Your entire ideology is premised on that fact.

            Your entire ideology is premised on a lie.

          • Sky__Captain

            In other words, you have no substantive answer.
            Noted.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim’s rant is based on strawman words he puts in my mouth on the basis of the fact that I linked to a cartoon. He has no “substantive answer” to my actual comment but has plenty to say about a cartoon.

            Note that, dipshit.

          • jim_m

            See above. You claimed the cartoon was spot on and now you claim it is a joke. Go fuck yourself.

          • Sky__Captain

            I note that you’ve gone to name-calling, thus you just lost the debate.

          • jim_m

            You stated that the cartoon was “Spot on” in its assessment of conservatives and that it correctly depicts conservatives as unconcerned about child poverty, hunger, education and safety.

            “Spot on” was your term. YOU claimed that the cartoon was not a joke, but accurate commentary. Now you are once again saying “Some of these are jokes”. It doesn’t play here anymore, your lying and then claiming it was humor.

          • Brucehenry

            The cartoon IS spot on, but is only a cartoon. It makes a point in a joke.

            That’s what cartoons do.

            It doesn’t necessarily mean all the things you claim it means. Only a crazy person thinks that cartoon embodies some kind of paragraphs-long statement.

            I notice that you don’t say a word about the actual substance of what I said. You only want to argue with a cartoon I thought was funny and spot on and claim it means that I want to shut down debate and yada yada.

            And here’s the funny thing. You are a well-traveled guy and know something about the world. I think you know damn well that the “argument” that trans women are men who might claim at the drop of a hat to be a woman one day and then claim to be a man the next is bullshit. It’s ignorant foolishness and I think you know it, but are perfectly content to repeat it here in the hopes of receiving affirmation from your pathetic fans like the reptile Rodney and the genius Sky Captain.

          • jim_m

            I did say something. I said that all sides care but we have different ideas on what the best solution is. Your claim is that conservatives don’t care and don’t have solutions. Once again we see that you have lied about your claims and now that you are being called out on them you are back tracking and lying about what you claimed in the first place.

          • Brucehenry

            The claim that “conservatives don’t care,” since you insist that’s what it was, was made in the cartoon, not in my textual comment.

            My comment had to do with the fact that, in the 200 cities, towns, and counties and the 18 states where these NDOs have been in effect for years, not only is there no increase in bathroom-related crime, but apparently there have been no instances of outrages that anyone living there found objectionable enough to write a letter-to-the-editor about. Or a Facebook post. Or a complaint to FOX News which would be sure, I assume, to give it lots of coverage.

          • jim_m

            Child abduction and rape occurs at a low rate regardless. So your conclusion is that we should do nothing to protect children. Fuck you pervert. You might like to molest kids but we don’t have to allow it.

          • jim_m

            No one is claiming that trans people claim to be one thing one day and another the next. And YOU know that this is not what is being argued but you nevertheless choose to dishonestly characterize our concerns that way because you are a dishonest asshole.

            The complaint being made is that people who are not trans will claim to be in order to get access and the law is written in such a way as to require zero proof from the person making that claim so there is no recourse or reasonable way to identify the liars. Your response is to claim that such people do not exist, but it still seems that children get raped every year.

            I can only assume that you defend this law because you are a pedophile.

          • Brucehenry

            Violation of the terms of service of this site. Scalia should take action. But I bet he won’t. I’m done with you you asshole.

          • jim_m

            Wow. I point out that you are lying about the concerns of conservatives and you run away.

            I point out that you have completely mischaracterized the motives of conservatives and created a complete sham argument and you run away.

            You run away and complain of unfair treatment because someone does to you exactly what you did to them? Sorry, I’m not sorry. If I have somehow mischaracterized your motives so what? It is exactly what you are doing to us. You should want everyone to play by the same rules you do.

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. You claim that conservatives don’t care if children are shot. I say that you don’t care if children are raped. Please explain the difference. It seems that the difference is that my comment hits so close to home you run away.

          • Brucehenry

            But maybe Kevin will.

          • Scalia

            Jim, I’ve been up to my eyebrows with church matters today with little time for blogging. I had intended to post some comments later, but I need to take a brief break to make a comment here.

            Bruce is being typically dishonest with his argumentation, and I know how frustrating that can be, but your accusation is over the top. Yes, he’s deliberately obtuse and yes, I believe that he is lying again, but associating him with pedophilia goes too far. Everything else you’ve argued is fine. Please refrain from the other in future posts.

          • jim_m

            can do

          • jim_m

            reference removed. I will however continue to comment that his willingness to put innocents in harms way in order to further his ideology is distasteful.

          • Brucehenry

            “Reference removed,” says Jim, below, but yet his comment above “You might like to molest kids but we don’t have to allow it” is still here. This is a violation of Wizbang’s terms of service, as you know.

            I know that everyone here knows that loonyass Jim gets carried away but you shouldn’t let him get away with this crap. I can only imagine how fast I’d be gone had I called him such a thing.

            Not that I’m suggesting he be banned or suspended or anything draconian. Just that it be pointed out how outrageous that is and that that particular slur be deleted. I think it is your duty. Do what you think is right.

          • jim_m

            You call me crazy and I find it offensive. Deal with it.

            Or better yet deal with the fact that I have multiple times called out your lie that this is not about transgender people but about the fact that the law allows a non transgender person to claim that they are in order to gain access to the girls washroom and sets the standard of proof that the person only has to make a verbal claim.

            You have lied over and over about this and you have yet to address this part of the issue even once.

            Perhaps if you would engage honestly you would find the discourse more civil. Until then shut your pie hole and your whining.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and Bruce: some of these are jokes. That’s your standard answer when you don’t like how people interpret your comments. I mean that as honestly as you do.

          • Scalia

            Everybody gets a warning. One does not have to “imagine” what would happen if an offender persists. Jim has agreed to comply.

          • Sky__Captain

            More name-calling, I see.
            Too bad you’re not intelligent enough to know you lost the debate again.

          • Brucehenry

            “The debate” was Sunday, dipshit.

          • Let me explain it for you in progtard style: FOADSFB

          • jim_m

            My point was that if people disagreed with your position or your priorities that you claimed they were somehow deficient in their character. You just admitted to that very fact.

    • Retired military

      Bruce
      Simple question

      Lets say you had a 12 year old girl. Would you be comfortable with her sharing a locker room with a man?

      • jim_m

        Or more precisely, would he like it if a man could gain access to her locker room simply on his say so that he identified as a woman? That is the material question. This is not about sharing with a transgender person. This is about providing access to perverts in a way that makes it impossible to differentiate them from everyone else.

        Of course, ever mind that the obama admin put out this rule without allowing for any public comment period as provided by law. The whole thing was instituted illegally and now the left is up in arms that it is being withdrawn based on that fact. Prove positive that the progressive left are not about the law, they are about forcing their ideology on the rest of us at any cost.

      • Brucehenry

        I have two daughters, and yes, I am comfortable with transgender women being allowed to use “their” restroom — and so are they. As a matter of fact they have transgender friends and understand, apparently better than do the denizens of the Wizbang comment section, that a trans woman is not “a man pretending (or mistakenly thinking) he is a woman.”

        This myth that these rules will lead to a stampede of perverts into ladies’ restrooms and locker rooms is just that. It willfully misstates who these people are — they’re not just deciding, on a whim or a day to day basis, to be female today and male the next. Those who say they are are fear-mongering, in my opinion, whether they know it or not.

        • jim_m

          THe point is that the law treats real transgender people as the same as someone masquerading as such. The only requirement is to make the verbal claim that you identify as a female and you must be allowed to use the women’s restroom no matter what.

          Without a meaningful way to keep people with ill intent out of the wrong bathroom the law makes a mockery of transgenderism. You apparently choose not to see this and are being deliberately obtuse because otherwise you would have to admit that there is a point to the complaint.

          Your next point is that you claim that these incidents are very small in number. But the point is that up to now they are completely preventable and they should be small in number. But with nothing preventing access to vulnerable girls, what is preventing that number from climbing? Children getting severe head injuries from bicycle riding are also low in number when you compare them to the whole population, but we make children wear helmets anyway.

          Again, your willingness to sacrifice the lives of others in the name of your agenda is disgusting.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            None of this discussion really matters in the long run.

            North Carolina has lost a great deal of money due to the loss of numerous sporting events, conventions and concerts along with the accompanying decrease in hotel room and restaurant receipts. Corporations have even let it be known that they would reconsider locating corporate offices or headquarters to North Carolina states and many companies have stated that it affects their ability to attract some employees in that state.

            As Texas and other states consider similar actions the aforementioned industries and entities have already made it clear that similar responses are likely to follow.

            As we all know, money, or lack thereof, tends to emerge victorious in most matters.

          • Scalia

            North Carolina has lost a great deal of money due to the loss of numerous sporting events, conventions and concerts along with the accompanying decrease in hotel room and restaurant receipts.

            This has also been addressed in another thread. Try to remember what’s being discussed. We’re not into spoon-feeding around here.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Where would that be? I don’t see it on this thread and you may be overestimating by allegiance to this site if you assume I read every post and comment.

            “We’re not into spoon-feeding around here.” I am sorry, but my lack of reading comprehension sometimes requires that you simplify things for me.

            By the way, is this stuff personal to you? I notice only liberals are consistently off topic or are admonished for their perceived dishonesty or lack of intelligence. This thread is a great example, as you tolerate Jim’s insults to Bruce, but Bruce is the one that you find personally distasteful (yes, I notice that you did respond to Bruce’s complaint and did ask Jim to remove the comment).

            Did you ever consider that even a passing attempt at objectivity, if for no other reason than for appearances, might serve you well? Just a thought. I know you think I have trouble with reading comprehension (you will be even more disappointed to know that I have been writing for the medical industry for decades and I have a substantial influence regarding what drugs are on most formularies in Michigan), but I do see a blatant selectivity in who elicits comments about perceived faux-pas.

          • Scalia

            By the way, is this stuff personal to you? I notice only liberals are consistently off topic or are admonished for their perceived dishonesty or lack of intelligence.

            This is an open thread, so you may discuss whatever topic enters your mind, except pornography.

            (yes, I notice that you did respond to Bruce’s complaint and did ask Jim to remove the comment).

            I didn’t respond to Bruce’s complaint. It’s our policy to keep our boards free from that type of dialog. I’ve been consistent in that regard while serving as a moderator here.

            With respect to Bruce, I don’t believe I have ever admonished him for insulting others—and he’s done plenty himself.

            With respect to your reading comprehension, your history here shows that you’re either severely challenged in that regard or you’re an arrant liar.

          • Scalia,

            Embrace the healing power of “and.”

          • Scalia

            Did you ever consider that even a passing attempt at objectivity, if for no other reason than for appearances, might serve you well?

            You mean like your objectivity? You’re the example we should follow?

            If you bother to go back some two years forward (until some nine months ago), you’ll see that I had many congenial debates with Bruce. Though several of them were spirited, they were free of rancor. As I’ve told you before (you really don’t deserve this, but I’ll give it one more try), I treat everybody with respect until they prove they’re not worthy of it (like you and Bruce).

            If you argue in good faith and demonstrate the respect you ask of others, you’ll be treated in equal measure from me.

          • jim_m

            You can claim that all states will lose business but if a sizable number of states enact such laws business and people will have to end their tantrums and suck it up.

        • Jwb10001

          I don’t remember anyone but you using the term stampede. But there have already been examples of this being abused. Perhaps the rate of abuse is below your threshold of concern, clearly others feel differently.

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          Thank you for your answer. I disagree with it but what else is new.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Unbeknownst to them, people have been peeing alongside transgender people for decades.

          • Scalia

            That’s not the point of the topic. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Yeah, and everything else on this thread is right on point.

            I do, however, find you constant swipes at my lack of intelligence and reading comprehension, among other sophomoric put downs, to be entertaining.

          • Scalia

            I find your inability to remember what was recently discussed to be entertaining.

          • Scalia

            Re-read my lead post. If you can’t figure out what we’re discussing, then I can’t help you.

    • Jwb10001

      Hell I just saw a commercial a few years ago and the damn republicans were pushing some grannie off a cliff, I mean they killed an old lady on TV, DAMN.

    • jim_m

      Ironic that Bruce claims that conservatives have skewed priorities in making this bathroom issue a big deal, but it was his lord and savior, obama, who broke the law, forcing a new agency mandate upon the nation illegally, without comment period or review. Somehow asking that the nation be allowed to have its say is extreme to Bruce. Somehow that is wrong and we should simply bow to what his side says is right and if we do not then we obviously don’t care about hunger, poverty etc.

      Well answer this Bruce: Where was obama on those issues when he rushed this abortion of a law on an unwilling nation? Why did he find it so necessary to do this so fast that he couldn’t take the time to do it right? Why is this such a huge priority to you that you are willing to let children starve in poverty because making sure an adult male can pee in the little girls room is so freaking important?

  • Retired military

    I predict Perez becoming head of the DNC is the first big step for Hillary 2020.

    • Paul Hooson

      Democrats won’t waste another opportunity on someone who has lost before since giving Adlai Stevenson two opportunities to lose in 52 and 56, otherwise John Kerry might have been asked for a second run by Democrats. Bernie Sanders will really really be too old in 2020, and the DNC establishment will have to find a new choice out there.

      • jim_m

        I was going to say that I doubt most dems remember Stevenson, but since the average age of a dem is now in the mid 70s I guess you have a point.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Is that really true? Could you give me a link because I didn’t know that. I guess I always assumed it was the Republicans that skewed older because the average Fox viewer is, well, old.

          • jim_m

            The average age of dem candidates this year was in their mid 70s. By 2020 unless something changes it will be nearly 80. There is no reason to expect any change in the democrat party. The election of Perez ratifies that opinion. Double down on failed progressivism and on Hillary.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            My mistake, I thought you were referring to voters or people that identified as Democrats, not past candidates.

            I would highly doubt that the Democrats will be running older candidates in the next election.

            People seem to forget that under the make-up, and hair that can only be described as science fiction, Donald Trump is over 70.

          • jim_m

            I was referring to voters. Pardon my earlier snark.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Tulsi Gabbard will be the candidate.

  • yetanotherjohn

    The liberals who want to force your daughter to share the shower with a male are the same liberals who freak out at the idea of being around people who voted for Trump.

    • jim_m

      They are the same ones that voted for sexual predators like Bill Clinton. Aiding and abetting rapists is what the left does. They don’t want to face the fact that their muslim allies are raping women across Europe. It seems that they must approve of it.

  • jim_m

    Bruce makes an assertion that conservatives are:
    – Not against crime (ie don’t care about school shootings)
    – Not concerned about poverty
    – Not concerned about hunger
    – Not concerned about education (because they are not for unrestrained education spending)
    – Not concerned about access to healthcare

    Let’s be clear: No one is opposed to finding solutions for crime, poverty, hunger, healthcare, education. The issue is that conservatives have different solutions.

    But Bruce says this because he believes that the left’s solutions are the ONLY solutions. He, like all leftists, makes a declaration that it is their way or the highway. If anyone dare disagree with their solutions then they are FOR keeping people in poverty, FOR people being murdered, FOR failing schools, FOR starving children, and FOR denying people healthcare.

    One need only look at every major city in the US, nearly all of which have been governed by the left for the last half century, if not longer, to see that these cities are cesspits of poverty crime, hunger and ignorance. Government run healthcare institutions are uniformly the worst in our nation.

    We have seen your solutions in action. We have rejected your solutions because they do not solve crime, they make more crime. They do not lift people out of poverty, they create more poverty. They do not solve hunger, in fact the Dems declared the great success of their programs because more people than ever required Food Stamps! That’s right. More people than ever were going hungry.

    The reality is that Bruce, like all other leftists, wants to end discussion on the solutions so his side can continue to impose failed solutions on a captive population. He doesn’t come here to discuss. He comes here to condemn. His positions are all lies and his ideology is bankrupt.

    • Sky__Captain

      Thread winner!

      • jim_m

        Thanks

  • pennywit

    From Denmark.

    I oppose blasphemy laws of all stripes.

  • pennywit

    Scalia, I ask this fully aware there might be no good answer. But I still want to hear your thoughts.

    Statistically, there’s a higher suicide rate among transgender individuals than the general population. People turn to suicide in part because certain things (for example, excluding from bathroom, refusing social or legal recognition of their gender identity) contribute to a sense of isolation.

    Is there a good way to preserve your stance on gender, but to reduce the risk of suicide in the transgender population?

    • Scalia

      Good question. Recall that the meat of my post relates to perverts who would exploit unisex restrooms to feed their voyeurism. Nothing in any law anywhere, to my knowledge, provides safeguards against that.

      As to your question, what do we do with people suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder? Do we facilitate their desire by amputating whatever parts they wish to be rid of? These individuals need psychiatric assistance, not facilitation. If there is a physiological cause, I would be in favor of any treatments developed along that line, but help in that sector will not be forthcoming so long as we keep trying to convince ourselves that transgenderism or BIID is normal.

    • Scalia

      Hello? Have you got anything to add?

      • pennywit

        Yes. One should not comment on the Internet while driving. Also, routine auto maintenance costs too much.

        • pennywit

          I took my car into the shop because I’m very environmentally conscious. I need to make sure I maximize my carbon footprint.

      • pennywit

        I’m of a somewhat libertarian bent there; if such a person is otherwise relatively sane and the decision undertaken will not harm others, then I think what a person does with his own body is his business. (I also happen to think a person should be able to sell his kidney for money, if he so chooses).

        I’ve been down the depression road a couple times in my lifetime. It’s not a pleasant experience. If a person is dealing with depression brought on from an overwhelming conviction of an incorrect gender, then I’m not going to stand in the way of that person finding surcease.

        It’s not my place to “accept” such a person’s gender change or not. Hell, I KNOW I have trouble accepting it. If such a person wants me to change pronouns when addressing them, there’s nothing wrong with doing that as a matter of courtesy, and it is of little cost for me to do so.

        As far as the bathroom issue … it’s a difficult one for me. I think it comes down to creating a safe environment overall. On the one hand, I can see the discomfort some people might feel. On the other hand, the scholastic setting gives me pause. I know that teenage boys can bully a person who doesn’t conform to their idea of a man. If a teenage boy, say, has a slight frame, eschews football for ballet and likes to play the violin, his male peers will pick on him. I think it would be another level of hell to tell somebody who’s actually transitioning to female that they have to use the boys locker room.

        Hell if I know where the balance is, though.

        • Scalia

          Thanks, pennywit.

          Recall your question:

          Is there a good way to preserve your stance on gender, but to reduce the risk of suicide in the transgender population?

          When I asked for your thoughts, it was with your question in mind. In other words, what would you do to discourage suicides if we bar men from entering women’s restrooms? We’re talking about an extremely small number of people as compared with the men who would exploit the situation, but even so, a life is still a life.

          Your suggestions signal acceptance and approval even though you add the caveat that it’s not your place to do so. I am not in favor of signaling acceptance or approval. If there truly is a physiological cause, then it is clearly a defect that needs to be addressed. Forcing the vast majority of society to rework their pronouns and to violate everybody else’s privacy sounds like a shotgun-to-a-fly approach. We damage more than we cure.

          • pennywit

            Several thoughts:

            1) I can’t “force” anything, and neither can anybody else. But as a social matter, I think it’s entirely reasonable to treat a transgender individual with kindness and respect, and not insult or assault such a person. I don’t think that’s much of an ask; in fact, it’s common courtesy. It doesn’t require that you concede any particular belief, but I think that a social connection, even a tenuous one, can mitigate some feelings that can lead to suicide.

            2) The research (from what I can tell) does seem to indicate a physiological (as opposed to psychological) cause for transgenderism. If there is a physiological cause to transgenderism, I really see only three options: hormone and surgical treatments to move a person to a “new” gender; hormone and surgical treatments to keep a person in the “old” gender; or some form of psychiatric/psychological treatment to help the person reconcile their dysmorphia.

            3) As far as the bathrooms go, in communities that have enacted transgender bathroom rules, there has (as I understand it) been no increase in men trespassing on the ladies’ bathrooms or vice versa.

            4) In the scholastic setting, isn’t it worth taking steps to educate children away from bullying transgender students?

          • Scalia

            1) Agreed.

            2) Not true. At best, the data is inconclusive, but I can concede the point arguendo. In that case, then, as I stated, I’m all in favor of therapy to help them accept their biology.

            3) There’s been no scientific analysis of this, and so far, that’s merely the unsupported or anecdotal claim of partisans. As I stated in my lead post, there’s no such thing as a “trespass” if you’re allowed to be there, and we have a plethora of documentation of men, previous to the unisex trend, trespassing into women’s spaces. It doesn’t take an Einstein to conclude that if they deliberately violated the law to get there, nothing will stop them once it’s legalized. There is no legal barrier to any man making the claim that he’s a female in order to access those places. In fact, it’s already been done.

            4) Agreed, but it doesn’t stop there. Our children are being told that it’s perfectly normal to be trans-sex, and it’s a thing to be celebrated. Tolerance is one thing, endorsement is another. Like I said, you don’t want to force acceptance, but acceptance is written all over your proposal. It’s endorsement in every way except the label.

          • pennywit

            On point 4 … the ideal lesson I’d impart to kids is “You don’t have to like somebody, but don’t be a dick to them.”

          • Scalia

            Didn’t I already agree with that?