Trump is going to "Make Public Restrooms Great Again"
23
Hasn't been a problem in California for the last few years. Doesn't everybody go about their business without approval from the person next door?
18
The worst part about male to female transgenders like Bruce Jenner is that they always leave the toilet seat up when in the ladies' bathroom
14
The thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned, is that those on the conservative side of the culture wars DO NOT BELIEVE that gay and/or transgender people are anything but an aberration. Society, especially the younger generation, has as a whole accepted progressive ideas on gender, but that does not include (many of) the good folks of North Carolina, Texas, and many others.
11
Why haven't you published my comment from twelve hours ago?
17
Who would have guessed that expecting folk to use the appropriate bathroom to relieve themselves of bodily wastes would be such a hardship? Just how much time to gender confused folk spend in the bathroom?
15
In each of the cases counsel cites, the word "sex" meant precisely what Congress wrote: the difference between men and women. Not once has a the SCOTUS ever ruled that the word "sex" in the statute is ambiguous.
Counsel is fundamentally wrong when she avers that sex "includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity." Nope. The word means precisely what Congress intended: you shall not treat men differently that you treat women. One need not plumb the depths of legislative history -- Saint Antonin could tell you that -- to ascertain Congress's intent, because intent is determined by the language Congress employed, which is crystal clear.
Absent extremely rare birth defects, sex is binary. And immutable. While it seems clear that factors other than chromosomes can affect how one perceives oneself -- "gender" -- sex NEVER changes, and is easy to define. In short, it's a matter of simple biological fact, not subject personal opinion.
If the AG believes that putting the words "men" and "women" on the WC doors equates to putting the words "black" and "white", she's clearly unqualified for the job; that's simply nuts. Indeed, if she's right, the very concept of sex distinct facilities violates the law, and she's got a big job ahead of her.
Counsel is right: Title VII means what it unambiguously says. Drawing distinctions between men and women -- outside of the bathroom -- is usually illegal. Treating all men alike is not.
Counsel is fundamentally wrong when she avers that sex "includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity." Nope. The word means precisely what Congress intended: you shall not treat men differently that you treat women. One need not plumb the depths of legislative history -- Saint Antonin could tell you that -- to ascertain Congress's intent, because intent is determined by the language Congress employed, which is crystal clear.
Absent extremely rare birth defects, sex is binary. And immutable. While it seems clear that factors other than chromosomes can affect how one perceives oneself -- "gender" -- sex NEVER changes, and is easy to define. In short, it's a matter of simple biological fact, not subject personal opinion.
If the AG believes that putting the words "men" and "women" on the WC doors equates to putting the words "black" and "white", she's clearly unqualified for the job; that's simply nuts. Indeed, if she's right, the very concept of sex distinct facilities violates the law, and she's got a big job ahead of her.
Counsel is right: Title VII means what it unambiguously says. Drawing distinctions between men and women -- outside of the bathroom -- is usually illegal. Treating all men alike is not.
34
See today's essay on why highly educated people are liberal, and those with K-12 or less are not (read the South and the old Rust Belt).
4
What's next for the politically correct liberals who create these special interest groups at the drop of a hat? Self identified transgenders represent 0.02 % of the population, but they and their Democrat and liberal supporters are more than willing to disrupt societal norms for the balance of us and to force us to accept anyone who self proclaims as a transgender in whatever bathroom they choose to use. What's next? Who knows, but it will be even stranger and more objectionable for sure.
32
Transgender people are a tiny fraction of the population but they are garnering a lot of news and opinion coverage these days. Which is fine-- whatever! But I'm starting to get a little peeved that persons with probably identifiable mental health issues are now dictating to the rest of us-- we poor uninteresting normals. To be politically correct, we now refer to our significant other as our "partner," ourselves as "cisgender" (an uglier term I've never heard), and answer questions like "What gender do you identify as?"
To a perfectly normal "cisgender" who lives with a "boyfriend" and can be readily identified by anyone with working senses as a "woman," I've really had enough!
To a perfectly normal "cisgender" who lives with a "boyfriend" and can be readily identified by anyone with working senses as a "woman," I've really had enough!
42
Let's not kid ourselves here. The original intent was clearly to reduce the discrimination applied to women in the same manner that it was applied to African Americans.
It's all fine that the courts have used that language to broaden their interpretation, but that doesn't change the original creation.
It's all fine that the courts have used that language to broaden their interpretation, but that doesn't change the original creation.
9
Once gender is universally recognized as a concept that only builds upon (but is not necessarily inextricably linked to) genotypic and phenotypic sex, then the varied expressions of trans and gender non conforming identities will be accepted as legitimate and healthy. Being able to see the identity another human being is expressing is the first step to recognizing their legitimacy to belong in the family of man. That recognition, is the door that opens into the ever expanding space that is acceptance.
If the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our legal system are going to maintain their integrity and legitimacy, I believe they must align with the best practices of medical, ethical, scientific, and legal understanding. As those expand, so too must our interpretation and application of the law. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the American Psychological Association (APA), have both documented what they believe these best practices and policies should encompass. The legal question will ultimately turn on whether our courts accept their expertise.
Whatever the reality of trans identities is, those who experience conflict with their birth assigned gender are left to deal with it. It is sad that as a culture we seem unable to recognize the integrity in the decisions they make and the actions they take to make the most of their lives. Clearly that requires the same access and opportunities the cis gendered population takes for granted.
If the rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our legal system are going to maintain their integrity and legitimacy, I believe they must align with the best practices of medical, ethical, scientific, and legal understanding. As those expand, so too must our interpretation and application of the law. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the American Psychological Association (APA), have both documented what they believe these best practices and policies should encompass. The legal question will ultimately turn on whether our courts accept their expertise.
Whatever the reality of trans identities is, those who experience conflict with their birth assigned gender are left to deal with it. It is sad that as a culture we seem unable to recognize the integrity in the decisions they make and the actions they take to make the most of their lives. Clearly that requires the same access and opportunities the cis gendered population takes for granted.
9
One's sex is not the same thing as their sexuality. Also, there is a lot more gray area than one would think. Doctors and medical researchers have definite criteria for determining sex. A baby has a penis if his genetalia are longer than 2.5 centimeters. A baby has a clitoris if her genetalia are shorter than 1 centimeter. Both organs develop from the same, undifferentiated organ in embryos called a genital tubercle. What about the infants whose genetalia are longer than 1 centimeter but shorter than 2.5? Then doctors look for the presence of internal sex organs. Problem: intersexed infants can have a testes on one side and an ovary on the other. In other cases, the ovary and testes can grow together into one organ that is indistinguishable as either an ovary or testis and is called an ovotestis. Even at the chromosomal level, things can be unclear. Females are XX and males are XY, but some can be XO, meaning they lack a second chromosome. In Klinefelter syndrome, individuals can have an extra X chromosome, resulting in XXY. These persons are infertile and develop breasts at puberty despite having male genetalia. Even at the level of our DNA, there is no simple answer to the question of how to tell if at baby is male or female.
This was paraphrased from a chapter my professor had us read for our class on gender at the graduate level.
This was paraphrased from a chapter my professor had us read for our class on gender at the graduate level.
6
The more basic problem is using the correct definition of sex and gender.
Sex: Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
Gender: The state of being male or female, typically used with social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.
I'm an old baby boomer now and myself and most of my peers of the late sixties recognized the difference between the two.
Also during that time period during a conversation with my cousin, 20 years older, he asked me my definition of mankind, and I stated the state of both men and women in the world. He was amazed because I included women. He stated that during the ages it meant men only. I was just as amazed that it had not included women.
Men and women as word definition is a gender Identity.
Biological differences can be listed in many authentic categories.
The gender differences are from biological means of genetic structure and different hormone levels.
This translates into separate gender identities but equal equality in our cultural setting. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation and as such, LGBT are gender related personal identities based on a cultural interpretation of the definition of gender that widens the behavior of secondary identification of their choice of sexual behavior.
This is the confusion of our culture's interpretation by appealing to sexual activity as a primary identity. It is not primary but is subordinate to gender identity.
Younger persons seem to know this.
Sex: Sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
Gender: The state of being male or female, typically used with social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.
I'm an old baby boomer now and myself and most of my peers of the late sixties recognized the difference between the two.
Also during that time period during a conversation with my cousin, 20 years older, he asked me my definition of mankind, and I stated the state of both men and women in the world. He was amazed because I included women. He stated that during the ages it meant men only. I was just as amazed that it had not included women.
Men and women as word definition is a gender Identity.
Biological differences can be listed in many authentic categories.
The gender differences are from biological means of genetic structure and different hormone levels.
This translates into separate gender identities but equal equality in our cultural setting. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation and as such, LGBT are gender related personal identities based on a cultural interpretation of the definition of gender that widens the behavior of secondary identification of their choice of sexual behavior.
This is the confusion of our culture's interpretation by appealing to sexual activity as a primary identity. It is not primary but is subordinate to gender identity.
Younger persons seem to know this.
3
Forty years ago, I went to college and lived two years on a co-ed dorm floor with a co-ed bathroom, toilet stalls and shower stalls all opening into a common area. No one thought much of it. It was just like home for those who had grown up with brothers and sisters. Up to that point, my only extensive experience of gender-segregated facilities had been in high school gym, which I recall as one long nightmarish immersion in everything brutal, bullying, and ugly about stereotypical male sexuality, supervised with a sadistic smile by male gym teachers and the head coach. It may no longer be intellectually fashionable to maintain that gender is a social construct, but as a society we manufacture our rapists, we manufacture our misogynists, we manufacture our gay-baiters and gay-bashers, and gender-segregated toilet and showering facilities are among the prime places we do it. Do away with them all.
12
Gender is indeed about more than just anatomy, however sex, which is all the author discusses, is not. It is not until the end of the piece that the author makes a linguistic switch from the title, (i.e. Gender is about...etc.) to 'sex is about more than just anatomy." Nothing preceding this sentence justifies substituting the work gender for sex and the two, common usage aside, are not synonyms. One can choose a gender but one cannot, no how much surgery or hormones one takes, change ones sex.
15
What is telling about the right wing is how they automatically conclude that people that are different are evil. Their childish fears need to be outgrown so they can improve their lives.
11
From the article: "...supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy."
Dictionary says!
"sex (seks) noun. 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
Obviously, sex is not about more than just the anatomy. That is all it is about.
I believe "Sex" and "Gender" are two different items, commonly misused with the assumption that they carry the same definition. I also believe that neither should really play a role in deciding where an individuals releases waste from their bodies. Why make something so simple, into something so taboo and complex?
Dictionary says!
"sex (seks) noun. 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
Obviously, sex is not about more than just the anatomy. That is all it is about.
I believe "Sex" and "Gender" are two different items, commonly misused with the assumption that they carry the same definition. I also believe that neither should really play a role in deciding where an individuals releases waste from their bodies. Why make something so simple, into something so taboo and complex?
13
Documented number of people sexually assaulted or abused by someone transgender in public bathroom or locker room/shower: 0
Documented number of people sexually assaulted or abused by someone posing as transgender in public bathroom or locker room/shower: 0
Number of people who could avoid prosecution for sexual assault/sexual abuse by being transgender or claiming to be transgender: 0
So, the law passed in North Carolina addresses a non-existent problem.
One must enjoy the irony of North Carolina saying the feds are engaged in government overreach.
Documented number of people sexually assaulted or abused by someone posing as transgender in public bathroom or locker room/shower: 0
Number of people who could avoid prosecution for sexual assault/sexual abuse by being transgender or claiming to be transgender: 0
So, the law passed in North Carolina addresses a non-existent problem.
One must enjoy the irony of North Carolina saying the feds are engaged in government overreach.
23
Men, let's be honest. The Obama administration has not gone far enough. In most public places, most of us would prefer to use the better, cleaner facilities; that is, the womens. And I, for one, see no reason I should have to repress and deny my male gender identity to be allowed to do it. That's a horrible, scarring psychological burden to bear just to escape the certain and sizable percentage of the biological male population that feels absolutely compelled to urinate deliberately on the floor...because there's no other way to explain how mens rooms get that way. Most public mens rooms should have a mega-flush handle outside the door, to pull and wait a few seconds before going in.
12
When the Civil Rights Act was drafted, Southern Democrats inserted, along with Lyndon Johnson's protections for race, national origin and religion, "sex." This was a poison pill designed to kill the bill. But the gallery was filled with the wives and daughters of those voting, and, to everyone's surprise, it passed.
Title IX never had the judicial backlash that school integration had because the legal standard was written into the law and not only directed by a court.
This 50-year-old legislative foundation is why we can have no discrimination "because of sex."
Title IX never had the judicial backlash that school integration had because the legal standard was written into the law and not only directed by a court.
This 50-year-old legislative foundation is why we can have no discrimination "because of sex."
3
I finally heard an honest argument from one of the people pushing this idea of restriction to birth sex. What did he say ???
I can't quote him directly but in essence he said that you can't reinterpret the law to include another sex, "It clearly states male or female" it does not include transgender.
Essentially though very passively he is saying that he does not regard the transgendered as being the sex they are, he is restricting his concept of gender to biology and sidestepping the psychological aspects that are involved in being trans.
IMO This has never been about perversion and molestation it is about people who reject the very idea of a person not being the biological sex they were born as.
I can't quote him directly but in essence he said that you can't reinterpret the law to include another sex, "It clearly states male or female" it does not include transgender.
Essentially though very passively he is saying that he does not regard the transgendered as being the sex they are, he is restricting his concept of gender to biology and sidestepping the psychological aspects that are involved in being trans.
IMO This has never been about perversion and molestation it is about people who reject the very idea of a person not being the biological sex they were born as.
6
If I were black, I would be deeply offended by this insistence in equaling the seriousness of the problems faced by the blacks at the time when they were highly discriminated (that is, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to the "transgender" issue today.
29
All the narrow emphasis on bathroom access is a red herring - I don't care if a transsexual with a vagina pees alongside me at a male urinal, along as she has good aim - but I do care if a male with a penis who 'identifies' as a female is allowed by law to shower next to my granddaughter in her high school gym, or change alongside her in the locker room.
The 'bathroom' law extends transgender access across the board. Anyone who claims to 'identify' as male or female will have the right to enter any facility they want.
This is cultural madness, the forced blurring of eons of sexual propriety and privacy recognized by societies across the world.
The 'bathroom' law extends transgender access across the board. Anyone who claims to 'identify' as male or female will have the right to enter any facility they want.
This is cultural madness, the forced blurring of eons of sexual propriety and privacy recognized by societies across the world.
34
The actions and words from North Carolina and Texas display how a right wing political party uses a non-important issue but one that gets an emotional response in order to distract from more important issues, like underfunding of education. The pols don't care about any federal threats because what money might get withheld actually goes to the poor, the disabled and to women's athletics, all constituencies that are already at the bottom of their importance lists. The real question is when will the voters in these states wake up to how they are used and laughed at behind those closed doors. Reduced to arguing toileting?
12
Is it even theoretically possible that the Times' editors would buy a dictionary and learn the difference in meaning between the words "gender" and "sex"?
"Gender" refers to superficial, secondary sexual characteristics, i.e. appearance and whatever the ambiguous notion of "identity" means.
"Sex" refers to biology and primary sexual characteristics like reproductive organs.
"Transgendered" individuals have not changed their sex (nor, by the way, have so-called "transexual" people). They have merely taken on the superficial characteristics of people of the opposite sex.
"Race" (itself a flawed construct, based on melanin levels present in the skin, causing a darkening or lightening of the skins apparent color) is obvious to anyone looking from birth to death and cannot be changed (sorry, Rachel Dolezal).
"Gender identity" is a complete and utter fiction, especially when we consider the attempts to assign "transgender" status to children who have not yet entered puberty and therefore whose brains have not completely differentiated biologically as regards to sex.
Parents of so-called "transgendered kids" are, in fact, either allowing their children to pursue a false reality and reinforcing this behavior, or actively seeking to create children whose "identity" is inconsistent with their natural biology.
In short, "transgenderism" isn't science. It is a means by which to put one more arrow in the heart of common sense and force one person's belief on another who disagrees.
"Gender" refers to superficial, secondary sexual characteristics, i.e. appearance and whatever the ambiguous notion of "identity" means.
"Sex" refers to biology and primary sexual characteristics like reproductive organs.
"Transgendered" individuals have not changed their sex (nor, by the way, have so-called "transexual" people). They have merely taken on the superficial characteristics of people of the opposite sex.
"Race" (itself a flawed construct, based on melanin levels present in the skin, causing a darkening or lightening of the skins apparent color) is obvious to anyone looking from birth to death and cannot be changed (sorry, Rachel Dolezal).
"Gender identity" is a complete and utter fiction, especially when we consider the attempts to assign "transgender" status to children who have not yet entered puberty and therefore whose brains have not completely differentiated biologically as regards to sex.
Parents of so-called "transgendered kids" are, in fact, either allowing their children to pursue a false reality and reinforcing this behavior, or actively seeking to create children whose "identity" is inconsistent with their natural biology.
In short, "transgenderism" isn't science. It is a means by which to put one more arrow in the heart of common sense and force one person's belief on another who disagrees.
27
This issue is going to have a strong adverse impact on public schools because it demonstrates that their primary purpose has become not to educate children but rather to indoctrinate them in liberal-progressive political beliefs. As more conservative and moderate citizens realize this fact, support for taxes and bonds used for public schools will diminish.
26
God forbid that America should adopt what is rapidly becoming the European norm. My sister, a resident of Germany, tells me the public restrooms are equipped with toilets, floor to ceiling walls and doors, and open to anyone and everyone. Sort of like your home away from home, if perhaps a bit noisier. I've never been in any person's home that, having more than one bathroom, had signs designating the sex/gender(identity) for which that accommodation was specifically intended.
13
This opinion piece is absurd. The authors of Title VII probably never heard of the word “transgender”. Moreover, if this movement to allow use of public bathrooms based on the sex a person claims to relate to at the moment becomes the new normal, it will erode the fabric of our society. Most people will be at greater risk of being assaulted, especially the relatively small minority of people that claim to be a transgender. I have already advised my wife and daughter to leave a public restroom if a person looking like a man walks in. Failing that, they should start screaming and call 911. Waiting to see if they will be molested, raped, harassed, is not an option. Perverts and sex offenders WILL take advantage of this opportunity! How do we differentiate between a transgender and a dangerous sex offender? Already, cameras in bathrooms detract from our comfort. While transgenders may be uncomfortable with using a restroom that matches their physical appearance, but not their state of mind, we don’t seem to hear about their violent encounters in bathrooms. This will surely change as transgenders are attacked for walking into what would appear to others as the “wrong” bathroom. Putting the feelings of transgenders above the safety of children, women and transgenders just because it is popular to take up ridiculous P.C. causes transcends lunacy. Oh, I almost forgot, concern for their safety over transgender feelings makes me a discriminatory bigot!!!
10
One out of 1,000 individuals exhibit some kind of intersex condition. In the 1996 Atlanta games, 8 female athletes failed chromosomal sex tests, but 7 were cleared on appeal because they were found to have an intersex condition.
It is easy to see how for 1 out of 1000, sex is unclear. For the majority of us, sex and gender seemed to naturally go together, and we have trouble understanding ambiguity or incongruence in these areas. But for a sizable minority, it IS ambiguous. Even if the sex is clear externally, internally and at the chromosomal level, a male can have higher than average levels of estrogen, and a female can have higher than average levels of testoterone. For many transgendered individuals, this is the case and explains why they "feel" like and identify more with the opposite gender. To complicate matters further, gender is a social construct. Gender socialization is the process through individuals learn the gender norms of their society and come to develop an internal gender identity. Gender norms are a cultural construct; they are sets of rules for what is appropriate masculine and feminine behavior in a given culture. So, gender is NOT directly associated with sex. These are social ideas, not biological facts.
It is easy to see how for 1 out of 1000, sex is unclear. For the majority of us, sex and gender seemed to naturally go together, and we have trouble understanding ambiguity or incongruence in these areas. But for a sizable minority, it IS ambiguous. Even if the sex is clear externally, internally and at the chromosomal level, a male can have higher than average levels of estrogen, and a female can have higher than average levels of testoterone. For many transgendered individuals, this is the case and explains why they "feel" like and identify more with the opposite gender. To complicate matters further, gender is a social construct. Gender socialization is the process through individuals learn the gender norms of their society and come to develop an internal gender identity. Gender norms are a cultural construct; they are sets of rules for what is appropriate masculine and feminine behavior in a given culture. So, gender is NOT directly associated with sex. These are social ideas, not biological facts.
4
Blue Heart Red State, are you suggesting 0.1% (1 out of 1000) is sizable minoriy? This means for every 999 school children who are self conscious and insecure about their developing bodies need share their school bathrooms, locker and shower rooms with a child of a different birth gender who believes he or she was born with the wrong genitalia. I do not deny the reality of being transgender. I do deny their right to imake 99.9% of our public school population uncomfortable about their lack of privacy so they may feel comfortable. There are other solutions and compromises to be made.
9
The intent of the law was to prevent discrimination, period. In hoping to define what that meant, they listed five elemental characteristics. Four of them are immutable--color, race, national origin and religion. Sex was believed to immutable at that time, or at least the variations then were minute relative to the general population. But no matter. The law bars discrimination and if that is believed to be the case in this transgender case, so be it. It is that simple, isn't it?
1
Obama has gone too far this time with this crazy law. There will be serious repercussions and lawsuits when something goes awry if this passes. Let's keep using the public restroom in which our sex dominates and stop this madness.
16
Gender may be more than anatomy, but it has no relevance to Title IX, which never uses the word “gender.” Title IX constantly refers to “sex,” and the word is not ambiguous. Sex is “two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” Title IX does not refer to students who “identify as male” or to students who "identity as female.” It refers to males and females.
10
We all agree that disparate treatment in wages and promotion, in almost all cases, between biological men and women in the workplace, is covered by the Title in question. But you are arguing something different. Ann Hopkins was a woman, full stop. She was discriminated against as a woman who allegedly failed to conform to certain qualities of personality or appearance. She was not a man claiming that he subjectively felt that he was of the other gender. Could an employee who has two Caucasian parents (like a certain outed North West U.S. "black" activist) now bring a discrimination claim based upon feeling black? If you say no, why not?
13
The 'transgender'-thing is really only another of those 'solutions-in-search-of-problem' that politicians dream-up when they've run out of anything-else to do, mostly because it sounds so good to their constituents (and it IS an Election-Year). Making a 'Federal-Case' of it merely trivializes both sides of the argument - at the expense of far more important matters needing government-attention. IMHO, McCrory made a colossal mess, and stepped back in it. He should be left alone to deal with its repercussions, all the while licking the egg off his face until he eventually must stand for reelection.
9
What has our country come to - school bathrooms! Even the President has joined in. There are so many other problems of dire concern - crumbling schools, bad teachers and self-serving bureaucracy, greed and the most important of all - students graduating without being able to read and write resulting in generations of uneducated, lost citizens driving up all ills in our society today. This bathroom issue is really inconsequential. It can easily be solved serving both sides of coin by having separate bathrooms for transgenders. Just like a mandated access to every facility to have wheelchair access, why not transgender bathrooms? The wheelchair access is strictly to prevent discrimination against the disabled, so will transgender bathrooms avoid discrimination against transgenders. This way the XXs an XYs can go to the birth gender specific bathroom and birth gender but identification of the opposite sex go to their's. This is a storm in a teacup but seems like the whole cup is being stormed. When will we see the fatal tsunami that is Education today?
19
Really? Just like separate bathrooms for blacks during segregation?
6
"This bathroom issue is really inconsequential. It can easily be solved serving both sides of coin by having separate bathrooms for transgenders."
Think this through a little more. Coming out of a transgender bathroom announces "I am transgender". In our society such an announcement is DANGEROUS. Males with too much testosterone and too little sense are the danger.
Think this through a little more. Coming out of a transgender bathroom announces "I am transgender". In our society such an announcement is DANGEROUS. Males with too much testosterone and too little sense are the danger.
10
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity. The courts get that. In its fight with North Carolina, the Justice Department asks for something quite simple: that Title VII be allowed to mean what it says."
Wow. First of all, although you seem initially to advance the thesis that the Title VII meaning of "sex" is about more than sex, the entire analysis confirms that it is about "sex" and the prohibition not to discriminate on the basis of it. Nowhere in the past decisions you cite is the case about anything other than discrimination on the basis of sex.
So it is perhaps unintentional on your part that you advocate that "Title VII be allowed to mean what it says". Yes, and it says "sex". And the word "sex' divides humanity into two kinds: man, woman. Never mind sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender, cultural identity (!!), whatever. Everyone fits, no matter what other characteristics they possess, so everyone is protected.
"Family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity." ???
Way to legislate from the bench, so to speak. You mean Title VII should be re-interpreted to mean that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of "cultural expectations"? What on earth does that mean?
Your article is breathtakingly lame. With all due respect.
Wow. First of all, although you seem initially to advance the thesis that the Title VII meaning of "sex" is about more than sex, the entire analysis confirms that it is about "sex" and the prohibition not to discriminate on the basis of it. Nowhere in the past decisions you cite is the case about anything other than discrimination on the basis of sex.
So it is perhaps unintentional on your part that you advocate that "Title VII be allowed to mean what it says". Yes, and it says "sex". And the word "sex' divides humanity into two kinds: man, woman. Never mind sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender, cultural identity (!!), whatever. Everyone fits, no matter what other characteristics they possess, so everyone is protected.
"Family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity." ???
Way to legislate from the bench, so to speak. You mean Title VII should be re-interpreted to mean that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of "cultural expectations"? What on earth does that mean?
Your article is breathtakingly lame. With all due respect.
13
>>>
Some Liberal please explain to the Titan. I hear a lot talk about public restrooms, which seems reasonable, since there is privacy in a stall.
But aren't we just a bouncing-baby step from public showers or have we already arrived there?
And if so how will we keep dishonest perverted people from claiming they're transgender and entering opposite sex public locker rooms i.e., YMCA, LA Fitness, schools, colleges?
Some Liberal please explain to the Titan. I hear a lot talk about public restrooms, which seems reasonable, since there is privacy in a stall.
But aren't we just a bouncing-baby step from public showers or have we already arrived there?
And if so how will we keep dishonest perverted people from claiming they're transgender and entering opposite sex public locker rooms i.e., YMCA, LA Fitness, schools, colleges?
9
Here's the rub: statutes are only words.
"Gender" was no doubt in the dictionary when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was drafted. If Congress had meant to protect individuals on the basis of their gender identity, it could have added "gender" to the list of protected qualities. Congress did not.
Unlike the Constitution, statutes are not meant to be living documents having essential values that can be interpreted and reinterpreted over the generations in response to changing circumstances.
The moment the Republicans control the White House as well as Congress, they will be free to amend the Civil Rights Act and exclude gender identity. That could well happen. The Obama administration has jumped the shark on gender identity. We should not be surprised if red states respond by amending their constitutions to exclude gender identity as a protected class.
"Gender" was no doubt in the dictionary when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was drafted. If Congress had meant to protect individuals on the basis of their gender identity, it could have added "gender" to the list of protected qualities. Congress did not.
Unlike the Constitution, statutes are not meant to be living documents having essential values that can be interpreted and reinterpreted over the generations in response to changing circumstances.
The moment the Republicans control the White House as well as Congress, they will be free to amend the Civil Rights Act and exclude gender identity. That could well happen. The Obama administration has jumped the shark on gender identity. We should not be surprised if red states respond by amending their constitutions to exclude gender identity as a protected class.
5
Gender is only biology and science. Politics, law and theology are not science nor morality nor justice. Only the XX plus the XY can make more human beings. That is the law of DNA genetic evolutionary biology of the one and only human race.
Why all of this inane political focus posturing on which public space we choose to relieve our bladder and bowels? The only law that should matter is the Golden Rule of treating our brother's and sister's the same way that we want to be treated. North Carolina is trying to deny and deter it's citizens from voting. That is the North Carolina outrage.
Why all of this inane political focus posturing on which public space we choose to relieve our bladder and bowels? The only law that should matter is the Golden Rule of treating our brother's and sister's the same way that we want to be treated. North Carolina is trying to deny and deter it's citizens from voting. That is the North Carolina outrage.
8
The real solution to the problem is just to let people use the bathroom that is most convenient for that situation. In other words, the one with the shortest line or the cleanest stalls.
5
I have absolutely no problem with a unisex restroom. There is one in my workplace. It has a toilet, a sink and a changing table, and a door that locks. I don't care who uses it before or after me because I am in there by myself.
However, I most certainly do not want someone with a male sexual organ in the bathroom with me, no matter what gender they identify with. I am not afraid of being attacked. I'm sorry if you are unhappy with the gender you were born with. Why does that mean you can come into my restroom?
I don't mean this as whining, I am really asking - what about my rights? I don't want to be in a restroom with strangers, or co-workers, with male sex organs, no matter who they believe themselves to be.
However, I most certainly do not want someone with a male sexual organ in the bathroom with me, no matter what gender they identify with. I am not afraid of being attacked. I'm sorry if you are unhappy with the gender you were born with. Why does that mean you can come into my restroom?
I don't mean this as whining, I am really asking - what about my rights? I don't want to be in a restroom with strangers, or co-workers, with male sex organs, no matter who they believe themselves to be.
19
Sex does not equate to mental malfunction, which is what transgenders etc. are suffering from. They are no different from the other mentally ill who think they're Napoleon, Cleopatra, Jesus etc. Title VII does not apply to them.
6
I'm not going to lie, the title of this Op-Ed is misleading. I thought it was an argument that gender identity is more than simply your sex, not an argument that the word "sex" in Title VII should include trans people as well. Still interesting, but please fix it. It left me disappointed.
4
Gender is either physically and anatomically : male or female
And let's end this : a lavatory for either is OK..
And let the States decide how to do this..
We Do NOT need to be dictated to by this President or any President..
Stop this tabloid news...editors...please...we have to hold your editorial
feet to the fire.....your predecessors would be ashamed ...
And let's end this : a lavatory for either is OK..
And let the States decide how to do this..
We Do NOT need to be dictated to by this President or any President..
Stop this tabloid news...editors...please...we have to hold your editorial
feet to the fire.....your predecessors would be ashamed ...
8
While I'm no expert on the subject of transgenders, what bothers me the most is the notion that these people just "decide" one day to be a person of the opposite sex. So then a man will "decide" to be a woman one day and go into a bathroom to assault little girls or women. How foolish. Has this ever happened? Ever? It's that old, tired argument of "choice" once again. Gays do not just CHOOSE to be gay one day. People who feel they have the wrong genitals do not CHOOSE to feel that way. They know from childhood that they have the wrong body.
But it's a way for politicians to rouse the masses to anger. And another way to hate the president.
But it's a way for politicians to rouse the masses to anger. And another way to hate the president.
17
Having worked for a pediatric adolescent gyn, we saw a number of young children with true anatomic and physiologic anomalies that warranted a gender crisis and challenge of gender identity. A true meaning of the word "transgender". Female estrogen brewing and male genital parts developing presented great angst and challenge to these kids. Both physical and psychologic testing were of paramount importance. To decide any Tom, Dick or Sally can declare themselves transgender under any circumstance and wreak such havoc on the entire way of life of the majority of the country by forcing group bathroom facilities is ludicrous. If you stand up to pee, go to the men's room. If you sit down to pee, go to the women rest room. Gender is more than just anatomy because WHO says so? Sex discrimination in the case of Title VII has absolutely nothing to do with this new rising trend of self-proclaimed transgender individuals and if we are not careful, we are going to impose gender confusion on our boys who go into adolescence quite sure they are boys and girls who really just want to be girls. Who says you just change your mind? The NYT? You should hear yourselves. We have far greater issues in this world-go find them and stop reporting on this self-absorbed special interest group.
14
Of course, gender is more than anatomy, Humanity is more than anatomy. But there are some particular fights that are worth pursing--Black Lives Matter, Transgender Lives Matter... I suspect that the Obama decision to weigh in is a matter of politics, the kind I applaud. The more issues on which we show the McCrorys of America to be wrong, the more the public can see that they belong to a different era, somewhere near the Jurassic. They should go back there, or to their misty HIghlands. (McCrory--> Mac Ruarai--> Son of the Red Head.)
6
When Barbara, born Bob, who now has breasts and no penis, undresses in the boys locker room and showers with the boys, will North Carolina be happy?
When Mike, born Michelle, who now has a beard and a penis, undresses in the girls locker room and showers with the girls, will North Carolina be happy?
Something is rotten in the state of North Carolina.
When Mike, born Michelle, who now has a beard and a penis, undresses in the girls locker room and showers with the girls, will North Carolina be happy?
Something is rotten in the state of North Carolina.
13
Sex is about anatomy. You physically are whatever you happen to be. Just because I happen to think I'm a race car driver does not make me a race car driver. There is a difference between thinking and being. Chopping and/or adding body parts? I'm not sure what to make of that.
I don't know if these bathroom stances are necessarily right or wrong. Do you belong in the opposite sex's bathroom? Probably not very important... unless it's important to an individual already in that bathroom. Do they have any rights as to who to expect in that bathroom? Personally, I think they do. So now we have opposing groups thinking they have certain rights to use a given bathroom. You can not please everyone.
You know what? How about we just respect the occupants inside a bathroom and not turn this into some big deal. If you're a guy what's wrong with using the men's room? Despite your concept of what you may or may not be. After all, NASCAR isn't letting me into the driver's area simply because I think I'm a race car driver. Same with a woman. Feel free to use the woman's bathroom and simply avoid all the controversy.
Is this worthy of government attention? I think not.
I don't know if these bathroom stances are necessarily right or wrong. Do you belong in the opposite sex's bathroom? Probably not very important... unless it's important to an individual already in that bathroom. Do they have any rights as to who to expect in that bathroom? Personally, I think they do. So now we have opposing groups thinking they have certain rights to use a given bathroom. You can not please everyone.
You know what? How about we just respect the occupants inside a bathroom and not turn this into some big deal. If you're a guy what's wrong with using the men's room? Despite your concept of what you may or may not be. After all, NASCAR isn't letting me into the driver's area simply because I think I'm a race car driver. Same with a woman. Feel free to use the woman's bathroom and simply avoid all the controversy.
Is this worthy of government attention? I think not.
8
The problem with this argument is that it conflates two different thing. It says that transgendered people are punished for not adhering to sexual stereotypes, and if we are talking issues of job protection, violence etc. then this clearly applies. However, in the case of bathrooms, it doesn't. One is asked to use bathrooms based on what one's physical genitalia one has not one's gender expression. Thus, the state is NOT asking those using the men's room to conform to gender norms in fact (or vice versa). It is transgendered people who are demanding a different standard be applied to them than others , and I don't see how that works under title 9 at all.
18
I do not understand your argument since one's physicality is so to speak hidden behind their gender identification. How is anyone to know, short of monitoring bathrooms or requiring a birth certificate to be examined on the way in?
2
At this point in time the gender role of transgenders' is not widely accepted. Their use of a men's gender bathroom lays open the possibility of violence perpetrated against them because dressed their externally exposed gender identity is female. This would go unrecognized in their use of using their gender identity as the main interpretation of who and how they function as a person. Therefore they can be exposed to gender discrimination.
1
@Robert D:
Is this true? Are all transgenders necessarily cross-dressers?
Is this true? Are all transgenders necessarily cross-dressers?
It is 40+ years past time to send religious zealots back to their homes and places of worship where they can privately embrace their medieval male concepts. It is 40+ years to kick them OUT of every elected office in America. It is time to enforce Separation of Church and State and let Americans live in peace FROM religious interference.
23
This new law has nothing to do with religion. There are some liberal atheists who think this policy is just plain wrong. I agree totally.
13
The lawsuits states are bringing against OUR federal government - and for which WE actual taxpayers are footing the bill - are radical religion at work KMW.
3
so we are now a society where sex means whatever we chose it to mean to each of us at any time. and others must honor that position. and if we change our minds, then honor that equally. Is that not the position presented here?
10
Charles Darwin will have the last word on transgendered people.
And if we start pouring money into transition surgery, I hope people start demanding reimbursement for breast augmentation and botox until we bankrupt our health care system with this idiocy.
We are fast becoming humanity's big and cruel joke.
And if we start pouring money into transition surgery, I hope people start demanding reimbursement for breast augmentation and botox until we bankrupt our health care system with this idiocy.
We are fast becoming humanity's big and cruel joke.
16
Sexual repression and sexual and sexual shame are religious in origin and are the only basis for this issue. Urinating and defecating are not sexual acts. They are acts of elimination. Sexual activity in a public bathroom is already illegal. Which bathroom one uses does not change the law. Sex with minors is also illegal.
Only Sharia law only a state sanctioned religion will satisfy the bigots who are fixated on their perverse imaginations of what bathroom use takes away from them. The bigots, sharia law advocates fail to recognize that transgender people are already using the bathroom. These are cruel people who want to inflict harm on children. Transgender children are struggling with a sufficient burden already. They do not need some religious hypocrite to hurt them as they struggle with their identity as all children do.
The politicians who want to impose their religion on America should go to Saudi Arabia for a year or two because that tyrannical state sanctioned religious repression is precisely what the First Amendment protects us from. And these politicians are desperate to get government "off our backs"except when they want to oppress women, Blacks, immigrants, and the LGBT community.
Only Sharia law only a state sanctioned religion will satisfy the bigots who are fixated on their perverse imaginations of what bathroom use takes away from them. The bigots, sharia law advocates fail to recognize that transgender people are already using the bathroom. These are cruel people who want to inflict harm on children. Transgender children are struggling with a sufficient burden already. They do not need some religious hypocrite to hurt them as they struggle with their identity as all children do.
The politicians who want to impose their religion on America should go to Saudi Arabia for a year or two because that tyrannical state sanctioned religious repression is precisely what the First Amendment protects us from. And these politicians are desperate to get government "off our backs"except when they want to oppress women, Blacks, immigrants, and the LGBT community.
6
It is very dangerous to rely on the courts to write new law. Courts should apply the law that legislators write, not write the law for the legislature. In 1964, transsexual, the concept of gender identity, self determination of gender, and similar concepts were not part of the public discussion and could not have been considered by Congress when it enacted the Civil Rights Act.
It is equally as dangerous for a president to issue edicts under the guise of interpreting existing law to try to create legal obligations that Congress did not enact. The president might wish the law was written that way, but the need for the issuance of an edict is reasonably good proof that it was not.
We need to have a rational evaluation of the need for new laws or a constitutional amendment. This is a problem that is not going to go away, and the best way to reach a solution is through the political process and not through an imposed solution by a court or a president. Imposed solutions just add to the controversy.
It is equally as dangerous for a president to issue edicts under the guise of interpreting existing law to try to create legal obligations that Congress did not enact. The president might wish the law was written that way, but the need for the issuance of an edict is reasonably good proof that it was not.
We need to have a rational evaluation of the need for new laws or a constitutional amendment. This is a problem that is not going to go away, and the best way to reach a solution is through the political process and not through an imposed solution by a court or a president. Imposed solutions just add to the controversy.
6
I agree with your sentiments and wish that legislatures could be so responsive but the truth is that the legal conflicts of today have to be decided on the laws and subsequent legal opinions of yesterday. What this means is that the law will evolve over time.
I am fully supportive of the rights of transgender people and I condemn the North Carolina law as another example of politicians attempting to exploit ignorance and fear. However, I believe that the Justice Department has gone "a bridge too far" if it has, in fact, mandated changes to the traditional use of bathrooms in elementary schools. First, the concept of gender to a child has little to do with adult understanding of gender. How many little girls wish to be boys so that they can play the same sports. Second, when an Army officer, I learned never to give an order I knew would not or could not be obeyed. It merely undermines authority.
9
It was not an order, it was a guidance letter.
3
We learned this week that the long-time
butler to the probable next President of the United States is a certifiable right-wing lunatic.
Meanwhile, the current President of the United States has been mailing letters to school districts all over the country regarding the use of their bathrooms.
You could not make this stuff up. People would accuse you of being nuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-longtime-but...
butler to the probable next President of the United States is a certifiable right-wing lunatic.
Meanwhile, the current President of the United States has been mailing letters to school districts all over the country regarding the use of their bathrooms.
You could not make this stuff up. People would accuse you of being nuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-longtime-but...
5
I have an idea. How about if we agree that going forward we will speak of transgender persons or transgender youth or, in the case of high school children, transgender children. It might be a good start on the conversation to remember that we are discussing people, and in the case of the justice department letter, high schoolers.
As a psychotherapist working with young people and families, I can assure you that being "at risk" for suicide (which transgender young people certainly are) begins with judgement, lack of acceptance, and the downright hatred they receive. Surely the adults writing here at the Times can remember, as they debate this, that teenage eyes are watching.
I hate to be a scold, but the vitriol in the comments regarding this issue is appalling when we consider that we are talking first and foremost about the bathroom use of children.
As a psychotherapist working with young people and families, I can assure you that being "at risk" for suicide (which transgender young people certainly are) begins with judgement, lack of acceptance, and the downright hatred they receive. Surely the adults writing here at the Times can remember, as they debate this, that teenage eyes are watching.
I hate to be a scold, but the vitriol in the comments regarding this issue is appalling when we consider that we are talking first and foremost about the bathroom use of children.
17
Let's be clear about what this is about: Politicians who believe that passing laws like those in North Carolina and Mississippi will raise the passions of a certain segment of the voting base and will distract us from focusing on real issues that affect our lives. The more that these politicians can get people worrying about bathrooms, the less attention will be paid to things like the systematic theft of our economy, the disintegration of our infrastructure and our society, the incessant pursuit of wars in the interests of profit, the tightening control by bankers, etc. What safer topic could exist for the profiteers than to have manufactured indignation and outrage about rarely existent cross-dressing predators in public bathrooms?
11
There is a very major difference between determining how broadly to construe a law, and redefining a word within a law to mean something that those who enacted it never contemplated.
And the difference is clear. That the law says that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of gender is beyond question. The issues that followed in the courts dealt with only construing the law, what type of discrimination falls within the prohibition.
However to those who enacted Title IX the term gender meant actual biological gender. We cannot construe their words to include a definsion of the term gender that did not at all exist at the time they enacted the law. The term gender in 1964 did not include gender identity.
And while their is a school thought that holds the US constitution is a living breathing document, that grows and evolves with the times, there is no such school in regard to interpreting statutes.
Statutes are construed based on their meaning and official definition at the time. And the term "gender" meant what it still does in the dictionary, and that is the same thing it means on a birth certificate.
So regardless of what "gender" may mean today, the administration cannot argue that this new modern meaning is what Title IX, written in 1964 also means.
And the administration is well aware that this is the law and that any court will rule against it. It is acting this way simply because it can get away with it, not because it thinks it will hold up in court.
And the difference is clear. That the law says that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of gender is beyond question. The issues that followed in the courts dealt with only construing the law, what type of discrimination falls within the prohibition.
However to those who enacted Title IX the term gender meant actual biological gender. We cannot construe their words to include a definsion of the term gender that did not at all exist at the time they enacted the law. The term gender in 1964 did not include gender identity.
And while their is a school thought that holds the US constitution is a living breathing document, that grows and evolves with the times, there is no such school in regard to interpreting statutes.
Statutes are construed based on their meaning and official definition at the time. And the term "gender" meant what it still does in the dictionary, and that is the same thing it means on a birth certificate.
So regardless of what "gender" may mean today, the administration cannot argue that this new modern meaning is what Title IX, written in 1964 also means.
And the administration is well aware that this is the law and that any court will rule against it. It is acting this way simply because it can get away with it, not because it thinks it will hold up in court.
6
My understanding is that some courts have upheld this understanding of the law and some haven't. But I agree that promulgating this nation wide policy right after they had been sued on exactly this issue (the North Carolina case) was a bit "in your face" in a way which I think might backfire.
3
Justice Scalia did not seem to agree with you. Does this also mean that corporations are not really "people" when it comes to political contributions? This is what the law is, cases and issues don't get decided until they actually come before the courts. Can a gene be patented? I doubt the founding fathers had an answer for this.
1
I did not realize that all of the important problems of the country have been solved, so that we have the time to engage in extensive debate over where one can pee.
13
My major issue is privacy. Many places now have unisex restrooms which can be used by one person at a time. Most women's rooms have stalls that ensure privacy and would not create a major problem.
However, an obvious male should not be showering in a common open women/girls shower area no matter what he thinks he is. His presence violates the privacy of the girls or women who are also using this common area. The situation is equally true for boys/men.
A private area should be set up for him/her. If he/she believes that it is discriminatory, then that is unfortunate; but the privacy rights of a number of people should override his/her unhappiness at being treated as 'special' as long as other accommodations are set up.
Roe vs Wade, which I support, was decided as a privacy issue. Privacy matters.
What troubles me with the bathroom situation is that I fear it may simply be the beginning and that we will shortly see what I have described above as 'the law of the land'; that is, 14 year old girls will be told that they have no choice but to allow an obvious male who thinks he is a girl to shower with them in an open shower area.
It is unfortunate that we can no longer trust the government to know when to stop but that's where we are these days.
However, an obvious male should not be showering in a common open women/girls shower area no matter what he thinks he is. His presence violates the privacy of the girls or women who are also using this common area. The situation is equally true for boys/men.
A private area should be set up for him/her. If he/she believes that it is discriminatory, then that is unfortunate; but the privacy rights of a number of people should override his/her unhappiness at being treated as 'special' as long as other accommodations are set up.
Roe vs Wade, which I support, was decided as a privacy issue. Privacy matters.
What troubles me with the bathroom situation is that I fear it may simply be the beginning and that we will shortly see what I have described above as 'the law of the land'; that is, 14 year old girls will be told that they have no choice but to allow an obvious male who thinks he is a girl to shower with them in an open shower area.
It is unfortunate that we can no longer trust the government to know when to stop but that's where we are these days.
24
In general, I agree with you, but your area of concern seems limited enough that it could be addressed in a similar fashion. I think everyone has the right to privacy and it seems that some targeted dollars and engineering can solve this problem. I was never really thrilled about open showers period.
3
The furor over equality for transgender people will soon abate. The question is, "Who's next?" No sooner does our society overcome discrimination against one group than the zealots target another. Can they not practice their religion or whatever they call it without vilifying and demonizing others. When will they get around to looking in the mirror and recognizing the real source of their problems.
13
Conservatives are either mean spirited and bloody minded, or incredibly stupid and ignorant. Do they really think someone chooses to discover their gender and biological identities are out of synch?
Maybe schools should have unisex bathrooms, without urinals, just a lot of single stall toilets to ensure privacy, irrespective of who is using them. The basins can be mixed. Males and females, irrespective of whether they were born that way or subsequently became that way can wash hands together, without compromising their privacy.
Maybe schools should have unisex bathrooms, without urinals, just a lot of single stall toilets to ensure privacy, irrespective of who is using them. The basins can be mixed. Males and females, irrespective of whether they were born that way or subsequently became that way can wash hands together, without compromising their privacy.
10
Don't you think calling people who disagree with you either "mean spirited and bloody minded" or "incredibly stupid and ignorant" is itself a bit, well, mean spirited? Sauce for the goose, and all that.
11
I'm a conservative. Happy to compare academic credentials any time. I also know how to use punctuation. You do not.
4
Extreme religionists are only as sophisticated as the scriptures they live by, that is 4th century thinking, so this article will be much too complicated and alarming for their tiny little brains. They can't even identify the lies and contradictions found throughout their "holy" scriptures, so how can they possibly grasp correct, modern concepts? Answer: they can't, and won't. They will have to be forced, as usual.
4
Wow. so anyone who doesn't agree with you has a 'tiny mind' and has to be forced to see the light? I suppose re-education camps are next on the agenda?
14
The only thing talked about here is who gets to pee where.
The issue for many is the locker rooms and showers. Even when provided with a private area in an open locker/shower area the confused refuse to use them. The others are told to shut up and use another area.
What makes anyone think that a woman or man wants to shower with someone who presents as the opposite sex regardless of what they think they are?
The issue for many is the locker rooms and showers. Even when provided with a private area in an open locker/shower area the confused refuse to use them. The others are told to shut up and use another area.
What makes anyone think that a woman or man wants to shower with someone who presents as the opposite sex regardless of what they think they are?
26
I think men are more prone than women to acting on impulse and acting out sexually. There are certainly far fewer cases of women being sexual predators or commiting rape. I have also never heard of women being "peeping Toms" or engaging in sex in public restrooms or on public transportation. These behavioral differences must be taken into account as well as the cultural biases that allow "boys to be boys.". Many transgendered are simply men/boys who are suffering from mental issues and impulse disorders. Why should the norms of society be changed to accommodate maladjusted men who somehow now feel they have a "right" to act out their fantasies in women's restrooms?
10
I think, ed, that you greatly under-estimate the role 'the Big-S' plays in the lives of women. I've always heard that 'it takes two to tango'.
1
The definitions of “male” and “female” haven’t changed since Congress added Title IX to the Civil Rights Act in 1972. “Male” is defined as “an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female.” “Female” denotes “the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.” The Fourth Circuit Court recently found that Title IX permits the provision of separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex. However, it noted, “Although the regulation may refer unambiguously to males and females, it is silent as to how a school should determine whether a transgender individual is a male or a female for the purpose of access to sex-segregated restrooms.” It sent the case back to the lower court to consider how a school should determine whether a transgender student is a male or a female. The only issue is who is male and who is female. This shouldn’t be a problem. Schools have been distinguishing boys from girls for centuries, usually based on birth certificates and appearance. However, if there are disputes, simple DNA tests that don’t require sequencing can determine sex.
4
There's more to it than "male" and "female." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
2
Doctors determine the genetic sex of babies with abnormal genitalia by checking the chromosomes (karyotyping) and treat the disorder with hormones and steroids. Girls with male-looking genitals may have surgery of their genitalia during infancy. The cases are exceedingly rare and usually mild. Most afflicted children grow up with normal sexual development and no gender identity problem. They are not transgender.
3
Sorry but genotype can sex (XX vs XY) and phenotypic sex (male vs female) are in fact not perfectly coordinated. I don't think we can even begin to understand how gender identification works but to take your example suppose it is also genetic or biological in origin? You can't just pick one biological fact that you happen to find convincing and ignore all the others. If a man or a women does not produce gametes either because of natural causes or surgery what sex are they and what bathroom do they use? Wouldn't it be better to just treat everyone the same and engineer a solution that provides the same dignity and privacy to everyone?
4
This issue is not just about bathrooms but also locker rooms and showers.
While I agree that reasonable accommodation must be made for transgender persons who feel uncomfortable entering a bathroom corresponding to their biological gender and using a private stall, they must feel even more uncomfortable undressing and showering in a group setting like a locker room or community shower.
The last time I looked, the Constitution states that Congress makes law, the Supreme Court interprets the law and rules on its constitutionality, and the Executive Branch enforces the law.
It would appear in this situation that the Executive Branch seeks to both interpret and enforce the law. And how do they choose to do so?
By threatening to cut off federal funding to states, not for roads and bridges, which is boring, but to cut funding for us and our children--public safety (police and fire protection) and education--if we do not comply with its dictates and interpretation of law.
And where does this funding come from? The people--in the form of taxes--which the federal government then redistributes as it sees fit.
By its overreach and coercive threats to public safety and the education of our children on this issue in all 50 states and U.S. territories, civilian and military, the Executive Branch has failed to "...ensure domestic tranquility...or promote the general welfare."
While I agree that reasonable accommodation must be made for transgender persons who feel uncomfortable entering a bathroom corresponding to their biological gender and using a private stall, they must feel even more uncomfortable undressing and showering in a group setting like a locker room or community shower.
The last time I looked, the Constitution states that Congress makes law, the Supreme Court interprets the law and rules on its constitutionality, and the Executive Branch enforces the law.
It would appear in this situation that the Executive Branch seeks to both interpret and enforce the law. And how do they choose to do so?
By threatening to cut off federal funding to states, not for roads and bridges, which is boring, but to cut funding for us and our children--public safety (police and fire protection) and education--if we do not comply with its dictates and interpretation of law.
And where does this funding come from? The people--in the form of taxes--which the federal government then redistributes as it sees fit.
By its overreach and coercive threats to public safety and the education of our children on this issue in all 50 states and U.S. territories, civilian and military, the Executive Branch has failed to "...ensure domestic tranquility...or promote the general welfare."
36
And so we end with a ban on separate bathrooms for men and women?
15
There's a difference between sex and gender, which seems to be overlooked or deliberately ignored.
Sex is what you're born with, and it ought not be changed on your birth certificate!
Gender is what you adapt as the years go by, and it should not be acknowledged and promulgated in children! (How many of us were tomboys or sissies as kids? And outgrew it.)
Maybe we'll have unisex toilets for adults one day, but please, let's not confuse our children with such an inanity!
Sex is what you're born with, and it ought not be changed on your birth certificate!
Gender is what you adapt as the years go by, and it should not be acknowledged and promulgated in children! (How many of us were tomboys or sissies as kids? And outgrew it.)
Maybe we'll have unisex toilets for adults one day, but please, let's not confuse our children with such an inanity!
8
>>>
I don't care oneway or another outside of the fact that the GOP cannot believe its good fortune with this timely wedge issue.
I don't see how it begets the Dems additional votes, and I think the majority of middle will side with the rightwing on this issue. And the rightwing will maximize its good fortune.
I don't believe Hillary thinks now is the best time to raise this issue, but she'll deal with it, she has no choice but to.
Whatever the outcome, I'm sure folly will be the end result.
Politics is chess not checkers.
I don't care oneway or another outside of the fact that the GOP cannot believe its good fortune with this timely wedge issue.
I don't see how it begets the Dems additional votes, and I think the majority of middle will side with the rightwing on this issue. And the rightwing will maximize its good fortune.
I don't believe Hillary thinks now is the best time to raise this issue, but she'll deal with it, she has no choice but to.
Whatever the outcome, I'm sure folly will be the end result.
Politics is chess not checkers.
14
The irony here is that the government trying to impose this new bathroom laws puts in danger women of all ages. Isn't title VII suppose to protect them? Transgender people have a mental illness. I've always heard that when faced with mentally ill people, it's best to play along.... Yet, tris is getting ridiculous! The world has gone mad!
13
To be clear, even the anatomy is NOT that all that binary. Do a bit of research on ambiguous genitalia and you will discover that the truth of why this issue exists. If babies are born with ambiguous genitalia, can you imagine the hormonal and emotional issues that come along with it. And that is only the stuff that is visible.
This is nothing new..it it just something that has been hidden deep in the closet by lots of families and lots of doctors for a very very long time. The time has come to allow these people some freedom to live.
This is nothing new..it it just something that has been hidden deep in the closet by lots of families and lots of doctors for a very very long time. The time has come to allow these people some freedom to live.
26
Transgender people also include some infants born with congenital defects & some from medical errors. Would that people would be more informed & less bigoted.
12
That would be incorrect. Those with real biological differences are known as 'intersex', aka hermaphrodite, and they are not the issue here.
10
Isn't it weird that it is paramount for gay people to insist that their sexuality is a natural thing but for transgenders it's just the opposite - to insist that their sex is anything but natural?
8
The point is that sexual orientation and gender identity are alike in that both are innate - hard wired.
2
areader--Do you understand the concept of some people preferring chocolate, and some vanilla? Every person is unique, and not necessarily answerable to you. So, again too complicated?
1
One's sex is not the same thing as their sexuality. Also, there is a lot more gray area than one would think. Doctors and medical researchers have definite criteria for determining sex. A baby has a penis if his genetalia are longer than 2.5 centimeters. A baby has a clitoris if her genetalia are shorter than 1 centimeter. Both organs develop from the same, undifferentiated organ in embryos called a genital tubercle. What about the infants whose genetalia are longer than 1 centimeter but shorter than 2.5? Then doctors look for the presence of internal sex organs. Problem: intersexed infants can have a testes on one side and an ovary on the other. In other cases, the ovary and testes can grow together into one organ that is indistinguishable as either an ovary or testis and is called an ovotestis. Even at the chromosomal level, things can be unclear. Females are XX and males are XY, but some can be XO, meaning they lack a second chromosome. In Klinefelter syndrome, individuals can have an extra X chromosome, resulting in XXY. These persons are infertile and develop breasts at puberty despite having male genetalia. Even at the level of our DNA, there is no simple answer to the question of how to tell if at baby is male or female.
4
I'm a male and a frequent gym goer.... I'm used to people seeing me naked and, if things change and there were women in the locker room, I'm sure I could adjust easily....
BUT traditional definitions of gender are critically important to many people around the world, so the question must be, do we respect the neo-traditionalists at the cost of the traditional traditionalists?
Where's Solomon when we need him ?
If someone 'feels' like a gender that does not match their anatomy, perhaps the burden of adjustment must be on that person. However, once they get to a certain point in their anatomical reconstruction, that level of commitment can be used to rationalize a shift in the burden....
Beyond that, I wish everyone the best.... we can solve this with love, not hate.... empathy, not judgement...
BUT traditional definitions of gender are critically important to many people around the world, so the question must be, do we respect the neo-traditionalists at the cost of the traditional traditionalists?
Where's Solomon when we need him ?
If someone 'feels' like a gender that does not match their anatomy, perhaps the burden of adjustment must be on that person. However, once they get to a certain point in their anatomical reconstruction, that level of commitment can be used to rationalize a shift in the burden....
Beyond that, I wish everyone the best.... we can solve this with love, not hate.... empathy, not judgement...
15
I am over 60. Transgender was not even a page 20 issue in the news. When did this crime wave start that we need all these laws to pee ? I'm still waiting for my local newspaper to list the recent arrests so I can watch the trials. . They'll be on the docket in North Carolina, but I hear the courts are pretty jammed up with the voter fraud cases from the primary .
29
There are very few arrest. When people complain a man is in the women's room or a woman is in the men's room, management simply ask the man or woman to leave. Happens many times every day.
1
Now that the Baptist Taliban is following us into the bathroom in order to feed its neverending obsession with matters genitalian, what's next?
20
What seems to be overlooked by this article, is that Transgender starts with the mental & emotional makeup of the Individual, & and the anatomical change is the last step. If a a Male thinks & feels as a female, he should be allowed in a females bathroom & visa versa.In either case he or she does not pose a threat to the sex he or she identifies with. Like homosexuality this is not a deviant choice but a biological fact the person is born with.Human beings are very complex, the word normal does not, & should never be used
to describe the majority. It is the those of the majority that commit most of the sex crimes.
to describe the majority. It is the those of the majority that commit most of the sex crimes.
19
Transgender people can be heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian. However, recent research conducted at the University of Minnesota ““suggests that the breakdown of sexualities among transsexual women—men who think of themselves as female--is 38% bisexual, 35% attracted to women, and 27% attracted to men.” This means that 73 percent of transgender women are sexually attracted to women and 35 percent are exclusively attracted exclusively to women. Their sexual attraction to the opposite sex is a major reason so few transgender women opt for sex-reassignment surgery. They use their penises the same way non-transgender men uses theirs.
9
Good comment, but much too complicated for religionists to understand.
1
Philosophizing aside, just exactly how would these laws be enforced? Would there be bathroom monitors checking "credentials" to use the restroom? What would be probable cause for detaining a person whose "credentials" we're suspect? I gather from some comments that the writers do not understand that ladies rooms have doors and any personal business takes place behind closed doors. Therefore, whatever equipment a person has is kept private. seems obvious to me...if you look like a lady, use the ladies room. If you look like a man, but aren't, use a stall in the men's room. Who's to know? Who cares?
124
Right now, in the inner-city train-station ladies room I use, it's not uncommon for a homeless man or male prostitutes to camp out for a spell. In the case of the prostitutes, they sometimes cause a bit of a ruckus. (They are in a state of partial undress and obviously young men.) I'm not comfortable using a stall until the police escort them out.
In the future, they will have the right to remain. Also, any argument that this invitation for homeless men and prostitutes to camp out in the ladies room will not result in them doing so fails on it's merits because they already do it.
In the past when a professional discreetly used the ladies room, obviously that was not a problem. But this is an example of how things are enforced now, which the commentor asked for.
Probably the young men are addicts and need help. The police are always nice.
In the future, they will have the right to remain. Also, any argument that this invitation for homeless men and prostitutes to camp out in the ladies room will not result in them doing so fails on it's merits because they already do it.
In the past when a professional discreetly used the ladies room, obviously that was not a problem. But this is an example of how things are enforced now, which the commentor asked for.
Probably the young men are addicts and need help. The police are always nice.
3
Vigilante policing bathrooms is already happening - and the effects are chilling. Women who are deemed "not feminine enough" are being accused of using the wrong restroom, and their documentation is demanded.
1
(Not Mark) I'm not worried about the bathroom angle, but the locker room is another matter entirely. I don't trust that true transgender will be the only ones using the law. Soon we will have naked men in the locker room and soon pictures from the locker rooms will start showing up on porn sites.
3
Not at all likely "men" will start using "women's" restrooms. The lines are too long.
157
So the question that needs to be answered is "How does Title VII self identify?" There is no more reality. Everything is a mirage. Everything is fluid. Maybe the lead in our water is causing all of this insanity.
14
So now the potentially limitless legal evolution of Title VII has taken us to another uncharted frontier. Adding to race, color, national origin, religion, and sex we have added something that can only be defined by personal self-assertion -- the endlessly malleable, often mercurial individual internal construction that is the psychological dimension of gender.
If so we must accept that there are certainly those who experience persistent ambiguity and possibly endless transformations into extraordinarily complex combinations that on a continuum of imagined possibilities must include those who see themselves as equally male and female, or as neither, or who are veritable sexual chameleons, psychological sex shifters so to speak. The possibilities are endless.
Accepting such vast diversity as a fact without necessarily labelling what we do not directly experience or credibly understand as perversion is one thing. On the other hand reconfiguring the structural aspects of our culture to fully accommodate every individual variation would be utter insanity.
If so we must accept that there are certainly those who experience persistent ambiguity and possibly endless transformations into extraordinarily complex combinations that on a continuum of imagined possibilities must include those who see themselves as equally male and female, or as neither, or who are veritable sexual chameleons, psychological sex shifters so to speak. The possibilities are endless.
Accepting such vast diversity as a fact without necessarily labelling what we do not directly experience or credibly understand as perversion is one thing. On the other hand reconfiguring the structural aspects of our culture to fully accommodate every individual variation would be utter insanity.
17
@G. Sears
This effectively ends Title IX.
And the definition of a women's college, as well as its noble purpose.
I hope that men around the country begin using women's rest rooms at will, and I am looking forward to watching women's athletic teams totally overrun by trans athletes.
When you go ridiculous, you get ridiculous.
This effectively ends Title IX.
And the definition of a women's college, as well as its noble purpose.
I hope that men around the country begin using women's rest rooms at will, and I am looking forward to watching women's athletic teams totally overrun by trans athletes.
When you go ridiculous, you get ridiculous.
8
Kids should just wear signs saying "today, my chosen gender identity is male" - or female - and then go to the john or locker room they want. Silly? Then so is this edict.
15
This is issue is rather serious to those who need the protection. So silly is not appropriate nor descriptive. Just your simplistic response to a complex issue our grate nation si working to decide.
5
A square does not have three sides.
A man does not have a uterus.
A woman does not have a penis.
Trying to bully people into accepting otherwise is folly.
A man does not have a uterus.
A woman does not have a penis.
Trying to bully people into accepting otherwise is folly.
26
Why how simple of you.
4
Apparently you haven't kept up with the new flexibility of definitions that liberal-progressives demand:
- Up can be down
- Black can be white
- Men can be women (or vice-versa)
- Up can be down
- Black can be white
- Men can be women (or vice-versa)
9
"A square does not have three sides.
A man does not have a uterus.
A woman does not have a penis.
Trying to bully people into accepting otherwise is folly."
Then what does one call a person with a uterus AND a penis. If you don't know that such people DO exist, then you need a good class in human biology.
If a square doesn't have three sides, to what does the fourth side attach?
Trying to bully people into accepting your ignorance is folly.
A man does not have a uterus.
A woman does not have a penis.
Trying to bully people into accepting otherwise is folly."
Then what does one call a person with a uterus AND a penis. If you don't know that such people DO exist, then you need a good class in human biology.
If a square doesn't have three sides, to what does the fourth side attach?
Trying to bully people into accepting your ignorance is folly.
5
This misinterpretation of our civil rights laws is putting a liberal agenda on steroids. My granddaughter is an outstanding athlete who just received a college basketball scholarship. Using the distorted logic of this NY Times editorial, what's to prevent a much taller, stronger young man from claiming that he identifies as a woman, so he can compete for scholarships intended for those college women? Where do we put a stop to this foolishness, when men try to compete in Miss America pageants?
24
@Lewis
There is nothing to stop a man or boy from trying out for the women's team.
The Harvard women's swim coach said that would constitute "co-ed teams", and Harvard does not do co-ed sports.
Well, now they will.
There is nothing to stop a man or boy from trying out for the women's team.
The Harvard women's swim coach said that would constitute "co-ed teams", and Harvard does not do co-ed sports.
Well, now they will.
6
Well, yes, of course, duh. "Gender" and "sex" are, in this usage, not synonymous.
Although I'm 110% in favor of people using the facilities in line with their gender - particularly, in the case of M-to-F trans, the one in which they will be safe from being beaten up, i.e., the women's room - my issues with the entire phenomenon are manifold.
In particular, the business of extensive surgical mutilation of an otherwise healthy body, not so much to conform to the mental state as to present an outward show, does not support the distinction between mental 'gender' and physical 'sex,' it reinforces the perception that they are, or must at least appear to be, congruent. What makes a 'woman' apparently is 'vagina, no penis, breasts', even if the breasts are silicone, the vagina leads to nowhere, and you have to take hormones to maintain the façade. This screams 'body dysmorphic disorder'.
Moreover, M-to-F trans 'gender' identification seems invariably to embody all the stereotypes women have fought for 50 years to escape; What makes a woman? High heels and a bustier.
And I think sometimes it is a fad, or a phase..
Any attempt to have an intelligent, nuanced discussion of the trans phenomenon, though, is shouted down. If you say even the mildest 'yes, but,' the screams of 'hater! bigot' etc are raised to end the discussion.
I don't hate you and I'm fine with you in the locker room. But as Joan Rivers used to say, can we talk? Not scream, not accuse. Talk.
Didn't think so.
Although I'm 110% in favor of people using the facilities in line with their gender - particularly, in the case of M-to-F trans, the one in which they will be safe from being beaten up, i.e., the women's room - my issues with the entire phenomenon are manifold.
In particular, the business of extensive surgical mutilation of an otherwise healthy body, not so much to conform to the mental state as to present an outward show, does not support the distinction between mental 'gender' and physical 'sex,' it reinforces the perception that they are, or must at least appear to be, congruent. What makes a 'woman' apparently is 'vagina, no penis, breasts', even if the breasts are silicone, the vagina leads to nowhere, and you have to take hormones to maintain the façade. This screams 'body dysmorphic disorder'.
Moreover, M-to-F trans 'gender' identification seems invariably to embody all the stereotypes women have fought for 50 years to escape; What makes a woman? High heels and a bustier.
And I think sometimes it is a fad, or a phase..
Any attempt to have an intelligent, nuanced discussion of the trans phenomenon, though, is shouted down. If you say even the mildest 'yes, but,' the screams of 'hater! bigot' etc are raised to end the discussion.
I don't hate you and I'm fine with you in the locker room. But as Joan Rivers used to say, can we talk? Not scream, not accuse. Talk.
Didn't think so.
16
Does a biological man (think Caitlyn Jenner) who disrobes in a women's locker room commit indecent exposure? If he looks at a disrobed women does he commit voyeurism? If he is charged with either of these crimes, is it a defense that he "feels female"? What about transvestites? What about a "normal" woman who uses the men's room because "the line is too long" in the women's room and she can't wait? How should we weigh the expectation of privacy between 997 "normal" individuals, and 3 trans-individuals? It seems to me that we have embarked on a course without thinking through the consequences.
16
Conservatives just can't tolerate their God's creation as it is. Trans people have no right to become what they really are.
4
@Roland Berger
I am a major league pitcher. I have the inconvenient burden of lacking a pitching arm and strong legs off of which to throw a 100 mph fastball.
I intend to get all of this corrected through surgery that you, my good friend, will pay for through your medical premium.
If that fails, maybe I will become a woman and try softball.
More surgery coming your way.
I am a major league pitcher. I have the inconvenient burden of lacking a pitching arm and strong legs off of which to throw a 100 mph fastball.
I intend to get all of this corrected through surgery that you, my good friend, will pay for through your medical premium.
If that fails, maybe I will become a woman and try softball.
More surgery coming your way.
7
I attended a college where men and women shared dorm bathrooms. If I remember right, the showers didn't have locks, just shower curtains. It was just the done thing and never a problem as far as I knew. Never once heard that sexual assaults or other horrible things happened. Seems to me that if people could just get past the assumption that men and women MUST be segregated, there is no issue here.
93
@Anita W.
I am sure YOU did not mind, but aren't we now ensuring the rights of a tiny minority?
I am quite comfortable asserting that at least one person in your dorm minded this arrangement and had their objection silenced by peer pressure.
That's bullying.
And if you are sticking up for trans people, you are compelled to stand up for everyone, even the person you find ridiculous (as the trans population clearly is).
I am sure YOU did not mind, but aren't we now ensuring the rights of a tiny minority?
I am quite comfortable asserting that at least one person in your dorm minded this arrangement and had their objection silenced by peer pressure.
That's bullying.
And if you are sticking up for trans people, you are compelled to stand up for everyone, even the person you find ridiculous (as the trans population clearly is).
9
I wonder why the Federal government is reporting record levels of sexual assault on campuses. Is there a correlation with co-ed dorms and restrooms at many colleges?
First we hear everything is horrible on campus, then everything is OK. Does this make sense?
First we hear everything is horrible on campus, then everything is OK. Does this make sense?
4
I'm not sure how North Carolina plans to enforce this law. To be uniform and not discriminatory or engage in profiling, everyone would need to have a legal birth certificate (and not the little piece of paper they gave your Mom at the hospital, but one you have to pay for at the local government of the town where you were born that has a raised seal, etc.) on them at all times, and there would need to be someone (police, school officials, etc.) checking the genitalia of whoever entered a public restroom, school or health club locker room, etc., to make sure both those things matched.
For those of you concerned about "protecting the children," or "public decency," all I can say is, be careful what you wish for.
For those of you concerned about "protecting the children," or "public decency," all I can say is, be careful what you wish for.
59
Read "Top Comment" "Loves Redemption in D.C. re: Gender which said to compare transgender to black civil rights is beyond insulting; that one is inborn and the other a mere preference; a choice. Transgender folks too have been shunned, murdered and raped, like blacks, for being who they are. Just not in as large numbers because there are fewer of us. Sense of gender identity is inborn, like color of skin: this is medical science. You could no more choose to legitimately identify as female one day if you're cisgender male than a dog could write a book. The only choice is whether or not to claim your civil right to act upon this inborn identity, if we are actually even given any rights to do so.
Regrettably, some of the most bigoted people are those who themselves have been discriminated against. And the very worst aspect is they cannot even recognize it, like the commenter above. Shame, sister.
Regrettably, some of the most bigoted people are those who themselves have been discriminated against. And the very worst aspect is they cannot even recognize it, like the commenter above. Shame, sister.
7
There's XX and XY.
Anomalies like XXY are extremely rare.
In other words, you are either male or female.
And most of us have the sensibility to accept who we are!
Some don't know who they are, and they flail around with this transgender nonsense.
There is no such thing as transgender in nature.
There are homosexuals and heterosexuals, but transgender is nothing more than confusion.
Anomalies like XXY are extremely rare.
In other words, you are either male or female.
And most of us have the sensibility to accept who we are!
Some don't know who they are, and they flail around with this transgender nonsense.
There is no such thing as transgender in nature.
There are homosexuals and heterosexuals, but transgender is nothing more than confusion.
15
@Michael
When the percentage of homosexuals increases (without the benefit of reproduction and natural selection), and it likely will just as new teas and coffees come into vogue, we will know that Darwin has been overthrown by the Liberals who have claimed science as the basis for all things.
When the percentage of homosexuals increases (without the benefit of reproduction and natural selection), and it likely will just as new teas and coffees come into vogue, we will know that Darwin has been overthrown by the Liberals who have claimed science as the basis for all things.
7
It amounts to simply looking down and seeing what your gender is, God didn't make this question very difficult, it's the people that insisted on twisting the subject to something a vile and ridiculous.
Judging by the comments here in the sheer number of people that believe this is a waste of time, it's time to show the subject and move on to something that really matters.
Judging by the comments here in the sheer number of people that believe this is a waste of time, it's time to show the subject and move on to something that really matters.
5
"It amounts to simply looking down and seeing what your gender is, God didn't make this question very difficult, it's the people that insisted on twisting the subject to something a vile and ridiculous."
Males who do not properly process testosterone do not develop a penis. There is also a genetic mutation whereby males do not develop a penis until puberty. Some babies are born with both a vagina and a penis.
Your God made things more difficult than you care to admit.
Males who do not properly process testosterone do not develop a penis. There is also a genetic mutation whereby males do not develop a penis until puberty. Some babies are born with both a vagina and a penis.
Your God made things more difficult than you care to admit.
6
It is a matter of fundamental biology, when you have to go, you have.to go.
It is so basis. And the government should not be involved. The ninth amendment speaks of unenumerated rights that are protected by the constitution against government intrusion - because who thought it necessary to enumerate a right to pee!
It is so basis. And the government should not be involved. The ninth amendment speaks of unenumerated rights that are protected by the constitution against government intrusion - because who thought it necessary to enumerate a right to pee!
1
"Funny looking" women that are dressed like a woman have always gone into a stall in the woman's restroom and have not been questioned. No one is checking on whether or not they are a woman. Even Donald Trump has admitted that. But this becomes a "problem" when a school age child that has always been seen as Sam, is now wanting to be Samatha and wants the right to go into the female restroom. Or, a small town person that has always been a male in society's eyes, now declares they are not a male, but a female. I think it takes guts to do this knowing all the problems associated with it.
4
@Joy B
When something is "normalized" it will no longer take guts.
The opportunity for a true female to use a women's rest room has just been chucked aside by the POTUS who claims to be "for women". We don't have the desire or resources to police gender, so the distinction will be abandoned by the lazy.
If I am a Wellesley alumna, and knowing all that Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman endured, it is going to take a long and hard swallow to see some confused boy stride up to their college and be granted a degree from such a prestigious institution with such a legacy for women. Whatever surgery is performed on this man-girl will never make him/her a woman.
When something is "normalized" it will no longer take guts.
The opportunity for a true female to use a women's rest room has just been chucked aside by the POTUS who claims to be "for women". We don't have the desire or resources to police gender, so the distinction will be abandoned by the lazy.
If I am a Wellesley alumna, and knowing all that Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman endured, it is going to take a long and hard swallow to see some confused boy stride up to their college and be granted a degree from such a prestigious institution with such a legacy for women. Whatever surgery is performed on this man-girl will never make him/her a woman.
4
Unfortunately men's public restrooms are often used for illegal sexual activity. There is also a problem with sexual grafitti in men's toilets. I do not believe this is a problem with women's toilets because men are not permitted to go there. Why on earth are we now going to make women's restrooms vulnerable to this type of activity which is indulged in only by certain men?
8
We The People need an amended constitution that clearly spells out the civil rights of people in an unambiguous way that protect people regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, faith or non-faith, sexual orientation or sexual identity. Add in the statement that corporations are not persons before the law.
President Obama is a Lawyer and a former Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago. A great legacy he could leave us would be to draft a Constitutional Amendment defining civil rights as listed above and use his remaining time as President campaigning for it. Each candidate for any elected Federal or Statewide Office should be asked their stand on it. Use the election year and the election season to advance the cause to protect all of our citizens, Mr President.
I have no doubt that Senator Sanders and Ms Clinton would support such an Amendment wholeheartedly. I have little doubt that almost - if not all- Democratic Senators and Representatives would. I imagine more than a few Republican elected officials would also support the Amendment.
Let's stop playing dog whistle politics with people's private lives and put this issue to rest in the legal realm. Mr President, we can do this and it would be a great legacy.
President Obama is a Lawyer and a former Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago. A great legacy he could leave us would be to draft a Constitutional Amendment defining civil rights as listed above and use his remaining time as President campaigning for it. Each candidate for any elected Federal or Statewide Office should be asked their stand on it. Use the election year and the election season to advance the cause to protect all of our citizens, Mr President.
I have no doubt that Senator Sanders and Ms Clinton would support such an Amendment wholeheartedly. I have little doubt that almost - if not all- Democratic Senators and Representatives would. I imagine more than a few Republican elected officials would also support the Amendment.
Let's stop playing dog whistle politics with people's private lives and put this issue to rest in the legal realm. Mr President, we can do this and it would be a great legacy.
5
I am convinced as we draw ever closer to 8 November 2016 that cultural issues will be the deciding factor. And that makes my head explode.
16
The cultural issues are emptying the public schools except for those who cannot afford to leave. The four private schools I pass have all added additional classrooms every year in the last 10 years or so. Three of my neighbors have never put their kids in public school in favor of home schooling.
Keep it up and soon the schools will be so dumbed down you'll they were academies before.
Keep it up and soon the schools will be so dumbed down you'll they were academies before.
6
I still cannot answer the very first and basic question of this whole discussion:
Why transgenders cannot use a bathroom together with somebody they don't feel comfortable with - but other people are forced to use a bathroom together with somebody they don't feel comfortable with?
Why transgenders cannot use a bathroom together with somebody they don't feel comfortable with - but other people are forced to use a bathroom together with somebody they don't feel comfortable with?
10
Sooooo your suggesting separate but equal is lawful?
1
I think the bigger question is whether being transgender is a disability rather than a matter of one's sexuality. I am bipolar. Pills make me healthy, but I am viewed as disabled and no civil rights protects me, only the ADA, which is not about equality at all. Frankly, I feel no more disabled than transgenders and do not understand why they should be entitled to rights denied me.
8
Another right wing, white puritan male ideal going down the tubes? The white patriarchal society of the 18th century rides again...white sheets flapping in the wind. When does one, while using a sanitary facility, examine the genitalia of another user? Are there now to be bathroom police asking users to drop their pants before they enter the privacy of the stall? Politics needs to be a bit more pragmatic, a great deal less idealistic. Come on, North Carolina. Give back the dirty money to the old white guys and become more statesmanlike in your designated job as leaders.
5
Most restaurants in France have a single rest room with cubicles and urinals, and joint handwashing facilities. You perform your business by either locking the door of a cubicle, or facing a urinal. I see no problem in this. As for changing facilities, why not do away with open showers and changing rooms, and providing doors? Much better than wasting time and money in court. Could it be that an American Christian obsession with sex is in play here?
13
Don’t you remember the horrors of growing up? The first time your parent said you were now old enough to go alone into the restroom in a public place? The humiliation of either not bathing or taking a gang shower with high school peers? The mortification of overhearing strangers discuss the fit of your clothes or your hairy legs? Modesty is desirable, both personal and societal, but privacy is the key. Our schools, businesses, and architecture can try harder to make personal lives more possible. That our courts are leading the way is admirable.
28
I am saddened by all the comments from people who know nothing about gender dysphoria. People do not choose their gender identity no more than they do their sexual orientation. Transgendered people do not wake up one day and say "Oh, I think I'll be (fe)male for a while". It is NOT a mental illness, and not comparable to body dystrophic disorder. The American Psychiatric Association has made that clear, and professional medical societies agree. Yet so many people out there just KNOW what is right and truth, without ever knowingly talked to or dealt with a trans person.
As a physician I have treated literally hundreds of trans people. They come in all shapes, sizes, religions, political persuasions, etc., just like everyone else. We don't yet understand the cause, but there is ample evidence of biological factors being important.
Please, everyone, don't be ruled by hate and fear of what you don't understand. If you don't have the inclination or desire to learn about it, then please just let it be
As a physician I have treated literally hundreds of trans people. They come in all shapes, sizes, religions, political persuasions, etc., just like everyone else. We don't yet understand the cause, but there is ample evidence of biological factors being important.
Please, everyone, don't be ruled by hate and fear of what you don't understand. If you don't have the inclination or desire to learn about it, then please just let it be
136
Ahh now were are speaking from a point of reference and medical knowledge. This will upset the common sense crowd. Common sense are the words use for those who choose not to have credentialed themselves. So they use these simplistic words to indicate everyone should believe this. Which is what the opposition crew to our beloved Constitution is doing. Excellent writing here.
3
I was taught long ago (in medical school, I believe) that "sex" is what is in your groin (what are your genitalia?) and "gender" is what is in your head, and they need not match. This would argue that federal government is wrong in this case, as gender and sex are not the same; however, much of the discrimination against women has been based on gender roles and behaviors, NOT sex. In the United States, I feel we should not discriminate based on the basis of sex, gender, OR mismatched sex and gender (along with the usual race, color, creed, age etc.). None of these are choices made by an individual, and thus are not changeable. Things we cannot change should not be reasons for discrimination.
46
2 points:
Did medical school (or basic biology class) not also teach that not all people are born XX or XY? That even putting gender dysphoria aside for a moment, it is often not nearly as clear which of 2-and-only-2 sexes people are. The reality is that human beings do NOT only occupy 2 sex categories and gender dysphoria and other components that move people to seemingly "choose" their gender as some here think, should expose quite clearly the larger issue we don't seem to be coming to grips with, legally or socially: as long as we, collectively, enforce a choice between 1 sex or another--a choice that is not supported in basic biological knowledge--we are unnecessarily complicating, not simplifying people's lives.
As for some who believe that one is "born" a certain race but gender components are a "choice," therefore thinking the government is "overreaching," it may be helpful to recall not only the above comment but that a) plenty of people also "chose" to pass as white in this country, especially during decades when one's race could be a life or death proposition--as transgender can be too, and b) not everyone today even realizes what their racial heritage is, potentially classifying themselves as "born" a race that doesn't tell the whole story.
Did medical school (or basic biology class) not also teach that not all people are born XX or XY? That even putting gender dysphoria aside for a moment, it is often not nearly as clear which of 2-and-only-2 sexes people are. The reality is that human beings do NOT only occupy 2 sex categories and gender dysphoria and other components that move people to seemingly "choose" their gender as some here think, should expose quite clearly the larger issue we don't seem to be coming to grips with, legally or socially: as long as we, collectively, enforce a choice between 1 sex or another--a choice that is not supported in basic biological knowledge--we are unnecessarily complicating, not simplifying people's lives.
As for some who believe that one is "born" a certain race but gender components are a "choice," therefore thinking the government is "overreaching," it may be helpful to recall not only the above comment but that a) plenty of people also "chose" to pass as white in this country, especially during decades when one's race could be a life or death proposition--as transgender can be too, and b) not everyone today even realizes what their racial heritage is, potentially classifying themselves as "born" a race that doesn't tell the whole story.
3
This is so absurd.
The difference between a man and a woman is their anatomy. To argue that it is somehow based on their mental state is absurd. I can't think of anything more disgusting than a woman standing in front of a urinal with her skirt pulled up and her panties pulled down.
To those who argue otherwise, I offer this solution. Let's make a portion of public bathrooms unisex with individual doors opening to a common hallway. That is already done is some commercial facilities.
The difference between a man and a woman is their anatomy. To argue that it is somehow based on their mental state is absurd. I can't think of anything more disgusting than a woman standing in front of a urinal with her skirt pulled up and her panties pulled down.
To those who argue otherwise, I offer this solution. Let's make a portion of public bathrooms unisex with individual doors opening to a common hallway. That is already done is some commercial facilities.
8
Frankly this sudden focus on transgenders who are less than 1% of the population is downright weird. No we don't need any new laws protecting transgenders and I could care less what restroom they use. If nobody was obsessing on this they would use what restroom they wanted to without anyone knowing. At the high school level and lower I really don't think we need to accommodate this.
20
Republicans are obsessing about Obama's "overreaching" because they do not understand or accept the meaning of Title IX and certainly do not acknowledge the historical record of the Courts in supporting it - including Scalia's interpretation. The Lt. Governor of North Carolina is front and center in turning it into a political tool intended to incite outrage from the party's base. Typical.
Blame Obama for over-reaching when in fact the government's letter was the clarification requested by more than a dozen states.
Blame Obama for over-reaching when in fact the government's letter was the clarification requested by more than a dozen states.
2
Did I say anything about Republicans?
The federal government telling local schools what to do with restrooms and locker rooms is definitely over-reaching.
The federal government telling local schools what to do with restrooms and locker rooms is definitely over-reaching.
6
Making "sex" and "gender identity" interchangeable terms opens up some interesting scenarios. Can men who "self identify" as women apply for scholarships reserved for females?
17
A gender observation: My guess is that those of us born women will finally get the Equal Rights Amendment, after waiting 100 years, when enough men have transitioned into women for us, as a gender, to matter in Congress as much as men do. Maybe some day women will even get paid *more* than men, but likely only if those women were once men.
How ironic.
How ironic.
5
In the bathroom, though, gender is "just" about anatomy - and only about the anatomical parts which interface with the bathroom receptacles provided for certain types of bodily waste. This whole discussion would be so much simpler, wouldn't it, if the country were one big nudist colony?
1
We have a modern world that indulges children to the point of sycophancy. We have a booming population where the vagaries of sexuality and gender have become another choice. We have a mode of living that says 'follow your heart', 'only you can know yourself', and 'I'm special'.
When Elvis Presley first started shaking his hips, the very people who were most offended are pretty much the same as those opposed to a radical reinterpretation of gender. Elvis sang Love Me Tender, modern music most popular in the world is rank misogyny and fetishism of money, the popular dance to said music is outright sexual parody. Were they wrong?
In 50 years, should we survive, will humanity be as sex-obsessed as any other primate - why not?
What seems like a modern freedom is an undoing of ideas that are a part of our society. Modernism is not just reinterpretation of common ideas,the bar needs to be higher.
And for my part, as a human, the things I've come to know about myself have been a lot of the time to be of the day. We are malleable in thought and deed. Now gender?
When Elvis Presley first started shaking his hips, the very people who were most offended are pretty much the same as those opposed to a radical reinterpretation of gender. Elvis sang Love Me Tender, modern music most popular in the world is rank misogyny and fetishism of money, the popular dance to said music is outright sexual parody. Were they wrong?
In 50 years, should we survive, will humanity be as sex-obsessed as any other primate - why not?
What seems like a modern freedom is an undoing of ideas that are a part of our society. Modernism is not just reinterpretation of common ideas,the bar needs to be higher.
And for my part, as a human, the things I've come to know about myself have been a lot of the time to be of the day. We are malleable in thought and deed. Now gender?
1
If one person is treated unfairly then no one is treated fairly. And so is the same for equality. All people are created equal for we are all human being deserving of respect. While ignorance, misinformation and lack of education about transgender issues seem to be the ground of discontent and wanton injustice the deeper concern, challenge is the inability to love, respect and embrace ones own hujanity.
3
Equality does not exist for all. The mentally ill, in particular, are denied many rights. Liberals want to deny them more, like gun rights. What are transgenders. Are they disabled and thus lumped with the mentally ill or are they like gays whose differences are inconsequential on the whole? Myself, I think they are disabled.
3
It is absurd for the executive branch to try and publish an order to determine how transgender people are to be treated without either defining what a man or a woman is, and without thinking through the ramifications. That determination is precisely why our constitution established a legislative, deliberative branch of government, and a decision of this complexity and political impact needs thorough deliberation. The idea that transgender people, or any person, may declare and choose another sex flies in the face of the common experience of the vast majority of people, and potentially disrupts the lives of every American - and that is the subject of an executive order reacting to a bathroom issue in NC? Where are the rights of the American people in all of this to determine a course for society and themselves?
9
Those with the loudest and shrillest voices raised in anger, disgust, bigotry, hatred and fear over the expression of gender non-conformity, and of sexual minorities in general, were perfectly described centuries ago: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" (Hamlet: Act III, Scene II). It is they who are the perverts.
4
After reading responses to articles like this in a variety of newspapers I've come to the conclusions that many Americans are seriously messed up when it comes to going to the bathroom. It is little wonder that laxatives are such a big business.
4
North Carolina wouldn't run afoul of the law if it simply provided equal facilities for all students.
Instead, it wants to provide unequal facilities (which is illegal) by telling individuals which bathrooms they must use (which is also illegal).
Instead, it wants to provide unequal facilities (which is illegal) by telling individuals which bathrooms they must use (which is also illegal).
2
More needs to be in the press about the science here. What connects genetic or cross expressed gender with exposure to chemicals in utro? Animals are certainly showing up with male and female non standard gender expressions and the infertility that often accompanies genetic or hormonal errors. Perhaps NC and the rest of the country should be more worried about that. Roundup may be more worrisome than a few Democrats. And let's have a discussion of that in your local church, synagogue or mosque.
7
It is clear commenters disagree with Obama's position. You are all worried about girls/women being sexually assaulted by men pretending to be trans females! As a woman, I find that insulting! None of you care enough about about sexual assault (SA) to bother learning the underlying causes of SA, let alone doing anything about it!
Victims of SA who report are still "on trial" despite rape shield laws or any other protection. You all still believe that a large enough numbers of women lie about SA & that warrants initially treating all victims as liars. You reject rape myths as the creation of far left wing feminists. Yet there you are to defend womanhood against one of the most unlikely threats!
Trans women (men who identify as women) aren't a threat to women. Sort of like our gay (male) friends. Men who would dress as women to gain access to women's restrooms aren't doing that now on a grand scale. What makes you think that would change? No, there are easier ways to SA women you don't know that don't involve compromising your manhood by dressing as a woman. Stranger SA represents 23%o of all SAs. 77% of perpetrators know their victims!
Schools are probably the safest environment to allow restroom use based on gender identity. It is a controlled environment and staff know the kids. Unless you already have a problem with SA in your school restrooms, this is a non-issue. Trans students are more likely to be assaulted in those school restrooms than cis students!!!!!!!!
Victims of SA who report are still "on trial" despite rape shield laws or any other protection. You all still believe that a large enough numbers of women lie about SA & that warrants initially treating all victims as liars. You reject rape myths as the creation of far left wing feminists. Yet there you are to defend womanhood against one of the most unlikely threats!
Trans women (men who identify as women) aren't a threat to women. Sort of like our gay (male) friends. Men who would dress as women to gain access to women's restrooms aren't doing that now on a grand scale. What makes you think that would change? No, there are easier ways to SA women you don't know that don't involve compromising your manhood by dressing as a woman. Stranger SA represents 23%o of all SAs. 77% of perpetrators know their victims!
Schools are probably the safest environment to allow restroom use based on gender identity. It is a controlled environment and staff know the kids. Unless you already have a problem with SA in your school restrooms, this is a non-issue. Trans students are more likely to be assaulted in those school restrooms than cis students!!!!!!!!
13
(Not Mark) You miss the point. We're not worried about the transgender attacking us, we're worried about the predators and perverts using the law to get to us more easily. I don't care about bathrooms, use whatever you want, but in the locker room it's another story.
2
Things have changed a lot. 'Sex' used to be what kind a being was--feminine or masculine. The word was related to 'section', 'segment'--all related to a word for cut [as in apart]. Things were 'neuter'--Latin for 'neither'. Then 'sex' became a an activity and some bright eyes [likely a media type] thought of the word 'gender', which meant classification as 'feminine', 'masculine', or 'neuter'.
Lucky English grammar's gender is natural. Not so lucky are other languages.
Since the beginning of time, anatomy has settled which humans were female and which were male. Now in the interest of mindlessly pushing the envelope, some other bright eyes or several of them, decide that one's sex is what the person identifies with. Then they want society to set up accommodations.
Hey! I identify with the Rockefellers, but society does not try to humor my lunacy.
Lucky English grammar's gender is natural. Not so lucky are other languages.
Since the beginning of time, anatomy has settled which humans were female and which were male. Now in the interest of mindlessly pushing the envelope, some other bright eyes or several of them, decide that one's sex is what the person identifies with. Then they want society to set up accommodations.
Hey! I identify with the Rockefellers, but society does not try to humor my lunacy.
6
Too often these discussions degenerate into denunciations of men dressed as women using the Ladies' room. Of course this confuses Transvestites with Transgenders. What is lost is the fact that most transgender people morphologically appear consistent with the gender they identify with. So much so, in fact, all these laws have accomplished is to mandate that people with full beards will have to use the Ladies' room.
11
Let me see if I understand. The objects of the North Carolina (as well as Mississippi and others) is people. These people are human beings. These human beings are Citizens of the United States. All Citizens of the United States are entitles to equal treatment and protection under the Constitution of the United States.
Legislative bodies of the various States, and Congress, mobilize at the speed of light to discriminate against it's own Citizens yet operate at a glacial pace when it come to protecting them against Zika
Legislative bodies of the various States, and Congress, mobilize at the speed of light to discriminate against it's own Citizens yet operate at a glacial pace when it come to protecting them against Zika
7
Use of the term 'biological sex' by many to mean the genitalia or the external appearance of two chromosomes is so outdated as to be nearly medieval. It ignores epigenetics and all other already known factors that can influence fetal development in utero. Some day science will explain human sexual nature, and humanity will look back on today's argument as similar to those claims that non-white cultures were subhuman.
8
Once the stall door is closed it becomes no ones business. I am more afraid of encountering an open-carry individual with a grudge than who needs to pee and where.
31
(Not Mark) I'm a woman who would rather encounter another woman in the locker room at the gym than a male. Regardless of who has the open carry license.
3
I think the only progressive move regarding toilets is passing a law requiring men to sit down to pee and abolishing urinals. Peeing while standing is simply a filthy thing to do, splish-splash, puddle before the toilet and urinal, droplets on the seat. 'nough said.
6
OK. Biology does not determine our gender, but that does not mean that it can not determine which restrooms and locker rooms we should be allowed to use. I suggest we solve this problem by simply changing the "m" to "p on all the signs on rest room and locker room doors, so they read "Pen" (short for penis) and "Wopen" (for without penis). Then the signs will convey the necessary message without forcing anyone to make a statement about who or what he or she thinks he or she is. And a transgender that has fully transitioned can use the rest room that is consistent with what he or she has become, regardless of what it says on his or her birth certificate. . And a transgender that has not fully transitioned? Well, he or she can do what he or she has been doing but he won't have the right to expose himself with impunity in the wrong rest room or locker room. Of course, true transgenders have no interest in exposing themselves. Its the phony transgenders, the "perverts" that might exploit the law to have some fun at the expense of some women and girls that are the concern.
So lets change the signs. Or maybe we could all agree that the signs now don't refer to one's gender, but our simply polite euphemisms for whether one has a penis or not, and just keep on keeping on.
Or maybe we should repeal Title VII, before we are forced to become sex blind and abolish the WBA et al..
So lets change the signs. Or maybe we could all agree that the signs now don't refer to one's gender, but our simply polite euphemisms for whether one has a penis or not, and just keep on keeping on.
Or maybe we should repeal Title VII, before we are forced to become sex blind and abolish the WBA et al..
3
I had thought for a long time that most readers had lost their common sense.
Now i feel more hopeful. Many comments do show understanding.
This is a complex issue requiring thought and skill. To turn it into a civil rights issue is folly.
But the left specializes in folly.
Now i feel more hopeful. Many comments do show understanding.
This is a complex issue requiring thought and skill. To turn it into a civil rights issue is folly.
But the left specializes in folly.
13
An argument only a lawyer could love.
The whole reason that gender was even invented as a concept was to capture the attendant cultural attributes NOT included in biological descriptions of "sex."
Now you argue that "sex" actually includes all of these, and therefore you render the term gender redundant, and re-create exactly the confusion that led to its invention.
If sex includes both biological and cultural concepts, then there is no difference between transgendered and transsexual. And there is also no basis for saying that anyone has a different gender from their sex, since the two are the sane thing. So then there can be no such thing as a "trans" gender.
So basically your argument invalidates its own premise.
The whole reason that gender was even invented as a concept was to capture the attendant cultural attributes NOT included in biological descriptions of "sex."
Now you argue that "sex" actually includes all of these, and therefore you render the term gender redundant, and re-create exactly the confusion that led to its invention.
If sex includes both biological and cultural concepts, then there is no difference between transgendered and transsexual. And there is also no basis for saying that anyone has a different gender from their sex, since the two are the sane thing. So then there can be no such thing as a "trans" gender.
So basically your argument invalidates its own premise.
13
"In its fight with North Carolina, the Justice Department asks for something quite simple: that Title VII be allowed to mean what it says."
I think it's simpler than that - I think it is asking for simple human respect for those that are different from most of us. Because in the grand scheme of things, those differences are superficial, and to discriminate because of them is shallow and distracts us from concentrating on the larger problems that confront us.
It is sad that some of us cannot feel good about ourselves without belittling others; without dumping on others. The "Re-dump-again" party seems to be a magnet for such people. And just because their numbers are substantial, they feel justified in their illegitimate beliefs.
With regard to gays, most in our society have thankfully progressed beyond the backward notions we had of them, and have accepted them for who they are. Transgenders deserve this too. They have as much to contribute to society as any of us do. All they ask is some human respect.
I think it's simpler than that - I think it is asking for simple human respect for those that are different from most of us. Because in the grand scheme of things, those differences are superficial, and to discriminate because of them is shallow and distracts us from concentrating on the larger problems that confront us.
It is sad that some of us cannot feel good about ourselves without belittling others; without dumping on others. The "Re-dump-again" party seems to be a magnet for such people. And just because their numbers are substantial, they feel justified in their illegitimate beliefs.
With regard to gays, most in our society have thankfully progressed beyond the backward notions we had of them, and have accepted them for who they are. Transgenders deserve this too. They have as much to contribute to society as any of us do. All they ask is some human respect.
17
When they claim now that Title VII was not written with transgender individuals in mind, conservatives abandon their "originalist" stance to interpretation of law. Welcome to the modern world, but it's not pick and choose allowing one to have one's cake and eat it too. As far as I'm concerned, this is just one big fat example of how conservatives play fast and quick with whatever to do what they want.
Well this time, Gottcha! Conservatives have excluded, jailed, impoverished, insulted, humiliated and with health and safety even maimed and killed too many people. The worm has turned.
I hope the media continues to expose similar instances and it sinks in that Scalia's brand of Justice is bogus.
Well this time, Gottcha! Conservatives have excluded, jailed, impoverished, insulted, humiliated and with health and safety even maimed and killed too many people. The worm has turned.
I hope the media continues to expose similar instances and it sinks in that Scalia's brand of Justice is bogus.
33
The mention of protecting the rights of white women is appreciated, as that group is disproportionately discriminated against because minority women count twice in measures of diversity, as both women and minorities; in other words, all things being equal, minority women are preferable. White men have basically retained the same percentage of desirable jobs as before diversity became an issue, but white women's participation has declined as apparently only they are expected to compete with other protected classes of prospective employee.
One thing that I find irritating is that millions of us, of all races and ethnicities, who were born and have remained female have been subject to discrimination and marginalization from time immemorial, but the violation of the rights of a recently emergent group that is, by comparison, miniscule, albeit mostly made of of former men, is an urgent issue requiring immediate remedy.
One thing that I find irritating is that millions of us, of all races and ethnicities, who were born and have remained female have been subject to discrimination and marginalization from time immemorial, but the violation of the rights of a recently emergent group that is, by comparison, miniscule, albeit mostly made of of former men, is an urgent issue requiring immediate remedy.
13
A ruling for the US government in these cases indeed "might be a bit too far left even for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan." But "too far left" is misleading. It suggests their decision would be entirely political. I'm not naive; I understand that politics matters. Even so, a ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on gender identity would be so far afield, legally, that I'd be surprised -- not amazed, but very surprised -- to learn that any of those 4 Justices is prepared to rule for the US government.
One or more of them probably would WANT to rule for the US government, but it would require an intellectual feat well beyond their capabilities (and mine) to rule that way without ignoring the statute and the substantial jurisprudence that has developed under it. Such a ruling would be a dangerous precedent that I doubt any of them would want to establish, since that precedent might later be cited to justify some other departure from established jurisprudence that they might not like. And even if one of those 4 Justices were willing to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that broadly, it's unlikely that he or she could get more than one or two other Justices (if that) to agree.
I understand the passion here, and don't doubt Loretta Lynch's sincerity. But this almost certainly is ill-advised. Some battles are more wisely fought outside the courtroom. This is one of them.
One or more of them probably would WANT to rule for the US government, but it would require an intellectual feat well beyond their capabilities (and mine) to rule that way without ignoring the statute and the substantial jurisprudence that has developed under it. Such a ruling would be a dangerous precedent that I doubt any of them would want to establish, since that precedent might later be cited to justify some other departure from established jurisprudence that they might not like. And even if one of those 4 Justices were willing to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that broadly, it's unlikely that he or she could get more than one or two other Justices (if that) to agree.
I understand the passion here, and don't doubt Loretta Lynch's sincerity. But this almost certainly is ill-advised. Some battles are more wisely fought outside the courtroom. This is one of them.
4
I am totally in favor of equal rights for all people no matter what their race, gender, religion or sexual preference. I want transgender people treated equitably.
I have believed in equality since the 1960s.
However, I do have a concern when it comes to males who consider themselves females but are still physically male using bathrooms reserved for women and girls.
What is to stop boys and men who just want to gawk or those who would actually do women harm from entering the facilities under the guise of claiming they are transgender individuals?
That is my question. What is the answer to what seems a genuine concern?
I have believed in equality since the 1960s.
However, I do have a concern when it comes to males who consider themselves females but are still physically male using bathrooms reserved for women and girls.
What is to stop boys and men who just want to gawk or those who would actually do women harm from entering the facilities under the guise of claiming they are transgender individuals?
That is my question. What is the answer to what seems a genuine concern?
6
I believe the answer boils down to, "Everyone is individual and different and must be regarded independently, but all males who today sincerely believe themselves to be women are safe and peaceful and must be allowed whatever they want."
3
Very nice but it doesn’t answer one dominating question: Why, legally, both statutorily and constitutionally, should a person with male organs be entitled to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
According to this columnist, “It is family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity.” So when my 14-year-old daughter comes home from school shaken up by what she saw in the women’s locker room thanks to the federal government mandate and the next day doesn’t want to go to school, I will comfort her. “Forgot it dear. If you can. What you really saw was family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity.”
The mandate from this administration-every school will do what the administration says or no federal money-is nuts. Behind the mandate, as I see it, is the adage, everything is relative. One legacy of the Obama presidency is to have made it so the heretofore not very well thought of Jimmy Carter presidency is viewed much more favorably. Donald Trump, should he be the next president, will undoubtedly accomplish the same thing for the Obama years. The biggest beneficiary of this LGBT* mandate will be Donald Trump in terms of the votes he will get in November. Hillary Clinton will not be happy. For the president, however, in Donald Trump a successor who will make him look much better than objectively he ought to look.
According to this columnist, “It is family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity.” So when my 14-year-old daughter comes home from school shaken up by what she saw in the women’s locker room thanks to the federal government mandate and the next day doesn’t want to go to school, I will comfort her. “Forgot it dear. If you can. What you really saw was family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity.”
The mandate from this administration-every school will do what the administration says or no federal money-is nuts. Behind the mandate, as I see it, is the adage, everything is relative. One legacy of the Obama presidency is to have made it so the heretofore not very well thought of Jimmy Carter presidency is viewed much more favorably. Donald Trump, should he be the next president, will undoubtedly accomplish the same thing for the Obama years. The biggest beneficiary of this LGBT* mandate will be Donald Trump in terms of the votes he will get in November. Hillary Clinton will not be happy. For the president, however, in Donald Trump a successor who will make him look much better than objectively he ought to look.
8
Ms. Thomas does not mention the irony of how she and the Obama administration interpret the Title VII provision on "sex," which, according to them, covers "gender identity." To this day, attempts to reject a gender binary remain largely indebted to 1960s French philosophy and, even more specifically, the post-structuralist school of thought that emerged at that time.
A standard move among post-structuralists is to differentiate between "sex," on the one hand, and "gender," on the other. Allegedly, the former is a matter of biology whereas the latter is a matter of social construction. As social construction, "gender" is said to be the product of social practices, expectations, and norms.
Despite reflecting trends from this rather small group of French figures during the 1960s, Ms. Thomas and others ironically rely on conflating a reference to "sex" with "gender" in Title VII. The legislative examples that Ms. Thomas provides clearly speak of "sex" as fundamentally a difference between men and women and, based on that distinction, as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of biological sex—be it against a man or a woman (thus, Scalia's ruling). Even the 1989 ruling would have operated within this framework, referencing an "employer's notion of 'womanhood'" over against manhood.
In other words, through contradicting the very theorists whose ideas undergird transgender discourse, Ms. Thomas et al. come close to affirming that the ends justify the means in their politics.
A standard move among post-structuralists is to differentiate between "sex," on the one hand, and "gender," on the other. Allegedly, the former is a matter of biology whereas the latter is a matter of social construction. As social construction, "gender" is said to be the product of social practices, expectations, and norms.
Despite reflecting trends from this rather small group of French figures during the 1960s, Ms. Thomas and others ironically rely on conflating a reference to "sex" with "gender" in Title VII. The legislative examples that Ms. Thomas provides clearly speak of "sex" as fundamentally a difference between men and women and, based on that distinction, as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of biological sex—be it against a man or a woman (thus, Scalia's ruling). Even the 1989 ruling would have operated within this framework, referencing an "employer's notion of 'womanhood'" over against manhood.
In other words, through contradicting the very theorists whose ideas undergird transgender discourse, Ms. Thomas et al. come close to affirming that the ends justify the means in their politics.
4
Like you all, I have been using the restrooms my entire life. I can say that I am absolutely more comfortable using a room with other women than I am with men. I know, I have had to do both. Even with mixed sexual preferences I have no problem, but with men it's tough, as I have heard some really hard comments from time-to-time. Overall, I can use any bathroom in emergencies. Most restrooms have stalls and that is sufficient privacy. Since we cannot integrate across gender lines and segregation is only solved by evolution to asexual species, then the solution is to genetically alter humans so that they can learn to read, write and speak while in the womb. Then, when they are born, simply hand them a blank birth certificate and let them fill it out for themselves. After all who better to ask who we our then ourselves.
If the birth certificate is the base, then the law must change and allow the person to declare there gender and not those standing around at the time of birth. Then again, the birth certificate can have two blocks, one for anatomy and the other for gender to be filled out later in life.
If the birth certificate is the base, then the law must change and allow the person to declare there gender and not those standing around at the time of birth. Then again, the birth certificate can have two blocks, one for anatomy and the other for gender to be filled out later in life.
Here's a solution - turn all of our "men" bathrooms and locker rooms in to "adult" and have all of our "women" ones designated "children".
We would not have to undertake costly conversions and retrofits.
We can ensures the safety of our children by only allowing adults accompanied by a child to use the "children" rooms.
Certain modest women, especially of more conservative faiths like Muslims, may be put off from having to use a bathrooms and locker rooms with urinals and risk seeing some male anatomy - but such is the price of equality. Or, they can use the bathroom for the disabled as an accommodation to their debilitating need for modesty.
We would not have to undertake costly conversions and retrofits.
We can ensures the safety of our children by only allowing adults accompanied by a child to use the "children" rooms.
Certain modest women, especially of more conservative faiths like Muslims, may be put off from having to use a bathrooms and locker rooms with urinals and risk seeing some male anatomy - but such is the price of equality. Or, they can use the bathroom for the disabled as an accommodation to their debilitating need for modesty.
Is there any rule or situation where there is not involved some kind of choice that can be interpreted as "sexual" discrimination? The moment a job opens, for example, depending on multiple factors - location, timing, age of possible applicants, etc - choices may be limited to the people who might be interested. Women in our society cannot usually move as quickly or as easily as men. Men with, say, clerical skills may be the last to learn about the openings or the last to be thought of. This article seems to suggest that "sexual" discrimination issues will becoming increasingly complex, and therefore more confusing. I'm below average height for a male. I'd like a bathroom for men of my height. My point: there is absurdity in all this
3
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy."
No, it's about physiology, too. There is a scientific consensus, 100% of all geneticists, that says that a person in possession of XY chromosome pairs is male, and one in possession of XX chromosomes is female. It does not matter how that individual "identifies" that day or if his otherwise healthy reproductive organs have been mutilated in the name of gender identity.
No, it's about physiology, too. There is a scientific consensus, 100% of all geneticists, that says that a person in possession of XY chromosome pairs is male, and one in possession of XX chromosomes is female. It does not matter how that individual "identifies" that day or if his otherwise healthy reproductive organs have been mutilated in the name of gender identity.
4
"There is a scientific consensus, 100% of all geneticists, that says that a person in possession of XY chromosome pairs is male, and one in possession of XX chromosomes is female."
What about people who have the XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY, or XYY combinations? Yes, they DO exist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm
What about chimeras - a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells? Yes, they, too, DO exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
Genetics is a very complex subject!!
FYI - getting 100% of a group of scientists to agree on something as complex as male vs female is very unlikely.
What about people who have the XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY, or XYY combinations? Yes, they DO exist.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm
What about chimeras - a person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells? Yes, they, too, DO exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
Genetics is a very complex subject!!
FYI - getting 100% of a group of scientists to agree on something as complex as male vs female is very unlikely.
3
Instead of making this entirely about transgenders, might it not have been more practical just to eliminate the entire practice of separate bathrooms? Anyone who has been at a club or restaurant where men whiz in and out to do their business while woman are forced to wait in long lines should have some sense of the inherent unfairness of this discriminatory arrangement.
Toilets are already walled off for privacy, the urinals would just need to be well screened from the rest of the facility. Sell the idea to fiscal conservatives via the saving in plumbing costs in only having to run pipes to a single larger room amongst other efficiencies, and the public will adapt almost immediately.
Toilets are already walled off for privacy, the urinals would just need to be well screened from the rest of the facility. Sell the idea to fiscal conservatives via the saving in plumbing costs in only having to run pipes to a single larger room amongst other efficiencies, and the public will adapt almost immediately.
2
I don't want to wade into a discussion of gender versus biological sex, which I clearly do not comprehend. I have spent the last half century being female, and have no idea what it means to say I feel like a woman. I feel like me.
But I sure am not going to dispute what I don't comprehend.
To me, it is simple. The state should never directly put a group of people in harm's way as part of an ideology, or based on discrimination or prejudice. Facts bear out that the people most likely to be hurt or assaulted as a result of bathroom bills are the transgender people. The state promotes injury.
By all means, find ways to protect privacy in communal settings. But it is wrong to actively promote bills that would injure people because, like me, people don't quite comprehend what another person is living.
But I sure am not going to dispute what I don't comprehend.
To me, it is simple. The state should never directly put a group of people in harm's way as part of an ideology, or based on discrimination or prejudice. Facts bear out that the people most likely to be hurt or assaulted as a result of bathroom bills are the transgender people. The state promotes injury.
By all means, find ways to protect privacy in communal settings. But it is wrong to actively promote bills that would injure people because, like me, people don't quite comprehend what another person is living.
4
I understand the concept of gender as a continuum, that gender is not a binary classification. And yet when each of us decides how we "self identify" the protections established to secure opportunities in school athletics for "women" will melt away in many sports. How many scholarships, formally reserved for women, will now go to men self identifying as female lesbians?
And why stop self identification at gender. Some of us self identify according to race. Imagine there's no gender it's easy if you try, no black or white or Hispanic, imagine all the people living under the law without the ability to sue based on these same classicifications because subjective emotions have replaced objective criteria.
Imagine a system where civil rights advocates could never establish disparate treatment without confirming with each individual whether they self identify as the gender or race the state has assigned to them.
I see a whole new world opening up.
And why stop self identification at gender. Some of us self identify according to race. Imagine there's no gender it's easy if you try, no black or white or Hispanic, imagine all the people living under the law without the ability to sue based on these same classicifications because subjective emotions have replaced objective criteria.
Imagine a system where civil rights advocates could never establish disparate treatment without confirming with each individual whether they self identify as the gender or race the state has assigned to them.
I see a whole new world opening up.
3
I suspect some people believe that transgender people are just pretending. Starting from that assumption, it's no big deal to tell them they need to use the bathroom for those of the gender to which they were born.
I'm picturing what would happen if a person who had been born a man, but has taken on the identity of a female, went into a men's room. That person could be in danger.
A lot has been written about the psychology of public bathroom use. Most of the reactions have little to do with sex; it's more about gender roles and feelings of vulnerability. It's also another case of a solution in search of a problem.
There was time when most women did not wear trousers. I'm wondering if laws were passed to prevent that perversion.
I don't have any idea of how this will play out in the courts. It's a big waste to time and other resources.
I'm picturing what would happen if a person who had been born a man, but has taken on the identity of a female, went into a men's room. That person could be in danger.
A lot has been written about the psychology of public bathroom use. Most of the reactions have little to do with sex; it's more about gender roles and feelings of vulnerability. It's also another case of a solution in search of a problem.
There was time when most women did not wear trousers. I'm wondering if laws were passed to prevent that perversion.
I don't have any idea of how this will play out in the courts. It's a big waste to time and other resources.
3
Hard to believe the level of ignorance about basic biology expressed in so many comments. It must somehow reflect the abysmal state of public science education in the USA, because I cannot imagine this being an issue in almost any other developed country. Regardless of whether you label it "gender dysphoria" or "gender misalignment" it is a real biological phenomenon and these people already face enough challenges for social acceptance without singling them out by forcing them into bathrooms where their unfortunate situation will become conspicuous to all the narrow-minded homophobes who otherwise wouldn't even notice them.
7
In almost all domains, "sex" is used to indicate biological differences, "gender" to mean social/psychological differences. I am for ending discrimination based on sex, gender, gender-identity, and sexual (different use of the root word) preferences. Still, having two bathrooms based on sex (but easily adjusted on the fly to accommodate a variety of biological and identity preferences - and even emergencies when the line is just too long next door) seems like a bizarre norm to attack now. I'm sorry - I know we're all progressives here and spending thousands to change signs for the sake of a very (very, very) few's feelings is the accepted political position here at the Times and on campuses everywhere - but it just seems silly and is only allowed by law if we deliberately change the meaning of the word "sex" in Title VII. It is just not that loose a word accept as a loose interpretation allows us to pursue a social agenda that seems to have lost its way.
6
A lot of the readers commenting in support of North Carolina's "bathroom law" just do not get it. No man or woman would ever claim to "feel" to be of the opposite sex unless they genuinely did so, and would only attempt to use the bathroom of their sexual identity when they already have taken steps to outwardly reflect what they feel inside. Why do I say this? Because unless they have a death wish they would not expose themselves to ridicule, ostracism and even violence by attempting to do so while still appearing as in their birth gender. So please people stop with the handwringing and imagining all these convoluted scenarios of fully muscled and bearded men suddenly announcing to the world they feel female in order to use a public bathroom. Instead, focus on the terrified teenager or adult male or female who already is acting and dressing as the sex of their identity and maybe even taking sex-changing hormones being forced to use the bathroom of their birth gender. By law we would force them to being exposed to ridicule, ostracism and violence just for being who they deeply and genuinely feel they are.
5
I'm imagining the convoluted scenario in which rabid, bathroom-minded, right-wingers - who would have otherwise sat out this presidential election - vote in droves and hand congress to the Republicans for another decade.
5
This pattern is becoming distressingly familiar -- women who claim to be defending women's rights acceding over and over again to male desires, demands, and delusions. From "hijab solidarity" (cinching a smothering bag on one's head to show support for a religion that declares not only that women are inferior beings in the public sphere, but can also be freely beaten and raped in the private one) to the spirited insistence that men who simply state they are women must be treated in every way as such, this self-defeating "intersectional" inclusivity has reached the realm of the absurd.
Adopting a sign of religious subjugation is not freedom, and a woman is not whatever a man says it is.
Adopting a sign of religious subjugation is not freedom, and a woman is not whatever a man says it is.
14
Despite my progressive liberal leanings, I have to admit I feel uncomfortable about sharing a restroom with an anatomically female transgenter. I can definitely sympathize with women being fearful of sharing rest facilities with anatomically male transgenders. So I'm pleased this article ended with the explanation that sex is complex and not just a physical matter. That helps my understanding of the issue.
Gay marriage was unacceptable until more people came out as being gay and we found out they were just ordinary people. There's still resistance but most people support gay marriage because gays are ordinary. I hope this controversy takes the same route when we see the "ordinaryness" of transgenders.
Gay marriage was unacceptable until more people came out as being gay and we found out they were just ordinary people. There's still resistance but most people support gay marriage because gays are ordinary. I hope this controversy takes the same route when we see the "ordinaryness" of transgenders.
I don't understand what makes you uncomfortable. Can you say more about that so I can understand you fears. What are the things that could happen?
2
The tragedy of transgender identity is that gender is anatomy. That Liberals think something as superficial as which bathroom a transgender person uses really makes a significant difference is typically silly. Transgender identity is not a mental illness and it is not deviant, but it is a difficult affliction nonetheless. The only remedy is to allow the transgendered to pretend to be the biological sex they feel they are, even to the point of surgically altering their bodies and taking hormones, but deep down they must know it is a pretense and that, as much as the prejudice they face, must cause psychological distress. The transgender need more understanding, compassion, counseling and assistance throughout their lives than society is willing to give, hence Liberals throw them the sop of using whatever bathroom they like. Identity obsessed Liberals are happy and it doesn’t cost a dime. But people are more complex than the identities Liberals use to categorize them and for every Caitlin Jenner there are kids who commit suicide.
Unisex bathrooms are fine for adults. The controversy comes up when children and adolescents are involved. Reasonable people should be able to create reasonable compromises for school kids. However the Obama administration’s actions have unleashed all the unreasonable people on both sides and now, we are stuck with another culture war in an election year already noteworthy for its unprecedented level of rancor and anger.
Unisex bathrooms are fine for adults. The controversy comes up when children and adolescents are involved. Reasonable people should be able to create reasonable compromises for school kids. However the Obama administration’s actions have unleashed all the unreasonable people on both sides and now, we are stuck with another culture war in an election year already noteworthy for its unprecedented level of rancor and anger.
2
People do not choose, as written below, their orientation or for that matter gender. We have to ask when have we reached the limits of balance, moderation and common sense. Transgender bathroom use does not compromise the values of family or marriage. Those values long ago became compromised by a society with disposable values, imo. At the same time, I question our sense of priorities. Environmental catastrophe; sectarian wars which kill thousands; poverty; gross inequality; all these are issues with far more harm and death than bathroom use in North Carolina.
Wonderful educational exposition of the expanding legal definition of "sex" in Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully, the court will affirm the reasoning here that North Carolina is clearly discriminating against a tiny minority and causing them real "pain and suffering" as well. This is just the latest in the rejected eugenics movement of the late 19th century that promoted racial and sexual (against women) discrimination that this law along with legal restrictions on women's access to reproductive health seeks to continue. It's time to put an end to the blatant bigotry that has descended into bizarre bans on bathroom access. By continuing to demean others we only demean ourselves.
3
The U.S. Department of Education took less than a month to come to the defense of transgendered folks, but has ignored for decades the widening gap in graduation rates that now clearly favor girls over boys, both at the high school and the college level -- because it is not politically convenient.
Studies show that teachers, disproportionately women (another example of sex discrimination left unaddressed) routinely give boys lower grades than girls, while the same students, when tested anonymously, have test scores nearly identical between boys and girls. The U.S. Department of Education refuses to require grading methods that do not discriminate against boys.
Studies show that teachers, disproportionately women (another example of sex discrimination left unaddressed) routinely give boys lower grades than girls, while the same students, when tested anonymously, have test scores nearly identical between boys and girls. The U.S. Department of Education refuses to require grading methods that do not discriminate against boys.
5
No, Gillian, sex is biologically defined and no amount of argument can change the fact of biology. What happens after you enter this world is up to your family and society and both are failing miserably in providing security and safety for children in developing a healthy relationship with their sexual selves. This is the underlying problem that begets all other problems around the issue of sex. What if the world simply accepted one for whatever they were sexually? Would a transgender person feel a need to be sexually transformed? Would a straight person be sexually attracted only to another straight person? If acceptance was the norm, all varieties of relationships might flourish. But that's not our world and raising children in safety and security also demands all kids, all people, not just transgenders, have a right to feel safe, so how do you accomplish safety for all? Not by Executive proclamations, nor discriminatory laws, but by thoughtful and careful problem solving. Our governments seem incapable of this at present.
5
It's all well and good that philosophy, science, and now the law, inform us that sexual identity comes from culture as much as biology, or at the very least, is a lot more than genitalia. The problem is, people form opinions not from obeying top-down edicts issued by elites, but because of their customs and habits. Right now, most people think sexual identity is a clear and simple thing--and by and large, for most of us, this is healthy. Happy kindergartners do not benefit from discussions about how they can choose their sexual identity.
I understand that transgendered people aren't interested in waiting for people to become enlightened about their situation, but resistance isn't going to go away anytime soon because a law is passed. We simply don't know how this will play out over the long haul. If this law is too far ahead of what people are willing to accept, in the name of obedience to the law, resistance will surely follow. I'm a fierce pro-choice woman, but I think this is exactly what happened with Roe v Wade.
The good news for transgendered people is that the divisiveness that followed the abortion rights law probably won't apply to them. Younger people accept fluid sexual identity much more than their elders. The thrust of history is toward fluid sexual identity, and with time, no one will care who uses what restroom.
I understand that transgendered people aren't interested in waiting for people to become enlightened about their situation, but resistance isn't going to go away anytime soon because a law is passed. We simply don't know how this will play out over the long haul. If this law is too far ahead of what people are willing to accept, in the name of obedience to the law, resistance will surely follow. I'm a fierce pro-choice woman, but I think this is exactly what happened with Roe v Wade.
The good news for transgendered people is that the divisiveness that followed the abortion rights law probably won't apply to them. Younger people accept fluid sexual identity much more than their elders. The thrust of history is toward fluid sexual identity, and with time, no one will care who uses what restroom.
29
Calm down people. Connecticut took up this topic as early as 2000 and in 2011, Connecticut explicitly banned discrimination on the basis of gender identification and expression. The policies governing our schools provide: "under no circumstances may a student be required to use a restroom facility that is inconsistent with that student’s asserted gender identity." This has resulted in none of the parade of horrors the proponents of gender identity expression have trotted out. The references to transgender people as deviants in the comments today is inexcusable. We once behaved this way toward that larger class of people who deviated from the norm - people who are left handed. Having emerged from the Medieval era, I think we can do better.
142
Yeah. "Asserted gender identity". Crazy state, with people with too much time (and money) on their hands.
A friend of mine's son goes to a Connecticut school. He came home one day and said I am not a man. Changed his name to a faintly female name. School called to inform parents that their son is no longer a son. He had "asserted his gender identity". Not clear whether the new person thinks that she is a woman, or simply neither. True story.
My guess is this boy will go back to being a boy, or man, in a couple of years max, now being 16 ... in the meantime he is the dubious beneficiary of CT's inane social engineering experiment - he can use the girls' bathroom. I think he would say, in explanation, that sexually he is a man (XY), sexual orientation male (likes girls), but culturally he doesn't feel he can identify as a man (gender identity). Hence the use of the girls' bathroom, and deference to his new name.
Gender confusion abounds these days in our schools in the loonier states, where impressionable young minds are being molded and duped by seriously deluded people masquerading as educators and legislators.
A friend of mine's son goes to a Connecticut school. He came home one day and said I am not a man. Changed his name to a faintly female name. School called to inform parents that their son is no longer a son. He had "asserted his gender identity". Not clear whether the new person thinks that she is a woman, or simply neither. True story.
My guess is this boy will go back to being a boy, or man, in a couple of years max, now being 16 ... in the meantime he is the dubious beneficiary of CT's inane social engineering experiment - he can use the girls' bathroom. I think he would say, in explanation, that sexually he is a man (XY), sexual orientation male (likes girls), but culturally he doesn't feel he can identify as a man (gender identity). Hence the use of the girls' bathroom, and deference to his new name.
Gender confusion abounds these days in our schools in the loonier states, where impressionable young minds are being molded and duped by seriously deluded people masquerading as educators and legislators.
3
There are two legitimate uses of the word "gender". The first is in linguistics, where it indicates the type of a noun in languages which have gender (e.g. French, German, Spanish, Latin, etc. - not English). The fact that some genders are called "masculine" and "feminine" is largely arbitrary. German has three genders (the third called "neuter"), but some other languages have even more, where the types no longer get labelled by putative associations to the sexes.
The second is as a euphemism and/or disambiguation of the word "sex" (i.e. differentiate between sex and sexual intercourse). This is how the overwhelming majority of English speakers use the term. It's a direct substitution for "sex" without the possibility of being mistaken for "sexual intercourse".
Calling the mental traits that typically appear in one sex or the other (but not exclusively) "gender" that is in some way distinct from sex is nonsense. Someone can be born with a brain so typical of the opposite sex that they believe they should be of that sex. Such a person is called a transsexual after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments to make the best possible approximation of the opposite sex. Almost all are born male, for biological reasons that I can't get into here.
Other languages get by just fine without the artificial concept of "gender" advocated in this article. It's time English speakers ditched this unscientific concoction of bad sociology.
The second is as a euphemism and/or disambiguation of the word "sex" (i.e. differentiate between sex and sexual intercourse). This is how the overwhelming majority of English speakers use the term. It's a direct substitution for "sex" without the possibility of being mistaken for "sexual intercourse".
Calling the mental traits that typically appear in one sex or the other (but not exclusively) "gender" that is in some way distinct from sex is nonsense. Someone can be born with a brain so typical of the opposite sex that they believe they should be of that sex. Such a person is called a transsexual after undergoing surgery and hormone treatments to make the best possible approximation of the opposite sex. Almost all are born male, for biological reasons that I can't get into here.
Other languages get by just fine without the artificial concept of "gender" advocated in this article. It's time English speakers ditched this unscientific concoction of bad sociology.
37
"Someone can be born with a brain so typical of the opposite sex that they believe they should be of that sex."
So there is such a thing as a female brain? That's both bigoted and not supported by science (my field of profession, despite my "lady brain").
So there is such a thing as a female brain? That's both bigoted and not supported by science (my field of profession, despite my "lady brain").
8
The term “transgender” is not define as some who has transitioned from one sex to another, which is something that has never occurred in human history. Humans are not among the species that can change sex after birth. “Transgender” defines a person whose gender identity is a mismatch with his or her actual sex.
"Sex" refers without ambiguity to the "main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” A person's "gender identity" has zero impact on sex. So-called "sex-reassignment" surgery has no effect on sex. It doesn't change a person reproductive functions, but merely renders a person to perform reproductive functions, something that age, disease, gunshot wounds and accidents also accomplish. It a form of sexual mutilation that involves the amputation or removal of heathy organs.
"Sex" refers without ambiguity to the "main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” A person's "gender identity" has zero impact on sex. So-called "sex-reassignment" surgery has no effect on sex. It doesn't change a person reproductive functions, but merely renders a person to perform reproductive functions, something that age, disease, gunshot wounds and accidents also accomplish. It a form of sexual mutilation that involves the amputation or removal of heathy organs.
5
You are confusing and conflating biological science with politics, theology, linguistics and law. Too the detriment of all of them.
Science fiction has done a much better job than you on the subject of gender.
See "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula Le Guin, "Dune" by Frank Herbert and the works of Octavia E. Butler particularly "The Parable of the Sower", "The Parable of the Talents", "Kindred" and "Wild Seed" .
Science fiction has done a much better job than you on the subject of gender.
See "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula Le Guin, "Dune" by Frank Herbert and the works of Octavia E. Butler particularly "The Parable of the Sower", "The Parable of the Talents", "Kindred" and "Wild Seed" .
2
Sadly, many comments show that commenters don't get it. Trans folks do not simply "decide" that they would 'rather' be the opposite gender. They have an ongoing and deep sense that their physical self does not match who they feel that they are. Gender identity, genes, and biological genital formation are complex and influenced by hormones in the fetal environment. Those hormones act on the whole body including the brain. Sometimes nature produces a child with ambiguous genitals, which means that doctors are not sure by looking whether the baby is a boy or a girl (some babies even have both ovaries and testicles). Other times the individual will grow to be bi-sexual or homosexual in orientation. Some have a sense of a miss match between body and mind
Calling anyone who does not match up to your exclusively heterosexual ideas of who they should be a "pervert" simplifies what is complex. GLBT folks are not mentally ill nor are they sexual predators. In fact, they are just like the rest of us in every other way - simply not heterosexual in the usual sense.
Calling anyone who does not match up to your exclusively heterosexual ideas of who they should be a "pervert" simplifies what is complex. GLBT folks are not mentally ill nor are they sexual predators. In fact, they are just like the rest of us in every other way - simply not heterosexual in the usual sense.
77
Inter-gendered people are not transgendered people. This is completely and utterly different. Intergendered people have disorders of sexual development that may leave them with extra or vestigial parts ,it does not leave them thinking they are in the wrong body.
And in any other situation, this persistent feeling of being in the wrong body you describe would be considered a mental illness, and it has the name, body dysmorphia. It fuels anorexia for example and people who get too much plastic surgery. There is no proof whatsoever that transgendered people have a physical cause for their belief, however, having a physical cause as some part of the reason your perceptions are skewed does not make it less likely to be mental illness. A great many mental illnesses have physical aspects, and even run in families. Body dysmorophia looks to be one at least as it comes to the eating disorder kind.
So to take something which in any other analogous situation would be classified as a mental illness and insist it is not, is actually deep and nasty bigotry toward the mentally ill on the part of the left I do not understand why in the same week we celebrated Jenner and declared Rachel Dolzoi the worst person in the world.
And in any other situation, this persistent feeling of being in the wrong body you describe would be considered a mental illness, and it has the name, body dysmorphia. It fuels anorexia for example and people who get too much plastic surgery. There is no proof whatsoever that transgendered people have a physical cause for their belief, however, having a physical cause as some part of the reason your perceptions are skewed does not make it less likely to be mental illness. A great many mental illnesses have physical aspects, and even run in families. Body dysmorophia looks to be one at least as it comes to the eating disorder kind.
So to take something which in any other analogous situation would be classified as a mental illness and insist it is not, is actually deep and nasty bigotry toward the mentally ill on the part of the left I do not understand why in the same week we celebrated Jenner and declared Rachel Dolzoi the worst person in the world.
24
There is a perception that transgender women are “women trapped in male bodies,” but this isn’t accurate. Gender dysphoria is cause by abnormal prenatal or postnatal development of the area of the brain that manages physical perception. Brain scans show that portion of the brain that manages physical perception develops differently in transgender women than it does in either non-transgender males or non-transgender females. Transgender people can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian. However, recent research conducted at the University of Minnesota ““suggests that the breakdown of sexualities among transsexual women—men who think of themselves as female--is 38% bisexual, 35% attracted to women, and 27% attracted to men.” This means that 73 percent of transgender women are sexually attracted to women and 35 percent are exclusively attracted exclusively to women. The reason only a tiny percent of transgender women opt to have their male genitalia surgically removed is that they use them for the same sexual purposes as other men.
6
We do "get it" but you refuse to accept that gender is not about identity. Hermaphrodites aside, you can accept that you are not what you want to be. The bathrooms in schools are rarely private stalls; many lack locks or even doors.
I am as masculine as can be, but the potential for pregnancy is exclusive to my gender and a lot has to go on in the restroom besides elimination. I would appreciate if anatomical males, who have not shut down their sources of testosterone, stayed out.
I am as masculine as can be, but the potential for pregnancy is exclusive to my gender and a lot has to go on in the restroom besides elimination. I would appreciate if anatomical males, who have not shut down their sources of testosterone, stayed out.
7
I find this to be an issue that is becoming far too complicated for what it is. Much equivocation and conflation in discussions about sexual orientation, and there are many speaking out and about gender identity who simply have their own personal agenda (if not financial agenda) at heart, and we'd likely all be better off if they would be quiet.
In the late 80s, Ruta Maya coffeeshop in Austin, TX, had a unisex bathroom. One entered and either used a toilet (one of two, I believe) in doored stalls or a urinal in a doored stall. Communal sinks/etc. So yes, both genders could and often were in there at the same time.
I never had a problem with it. Never saw any problem while in there either, although often a dude would be hanging around while his friend/wife/whatever used the bathroom.
And that is what I believe folks worry about: a room where an individual might be taken advantage of by another person.
1) That problem has absolutely nothing to do with gender
2) The world is full of rooms/spaces/environments like that, and most are not bathrooms
Ergo, we should discuss the actual problem, not a make-believe one.
As for bathrooms, one's genitals should rarely, if ever, be an object of, shall I say, notice. Do your business and go.
As for locker rooms, breasts go with breasts, penises go with penises, and vaginas go with vaginas, generally said. If that is a problem, then we need to be discussing co-ed locker rooms, not one's "identity".
Not rocket science, folks.
In the late 80s, Ruta Maya coffeeshop in Austin, TX, had a unisex bathroom. One entered and either used a toilet (one of two, I believe) in doored stalls or a urinal in a doored stall. Communal sinks/etc. So yes, both genders could and often were in there at the same time.
I never had a problem with it. Never saw any problem while in there either, although often a dude would be hanging around while his friend/wife/whatever used the bathroom.
And that is what I believe folks worry about: a room where an individual might be taken advantage of by another person.
1) That problem has absolutely nothing to do with gender
2) The world is full of rooms/spaces/environments like that, and most are not bathrooms
Ergo, we should discuss the actual problem, not a make-believe one.
As for bathrooms, one's genitals should rarely, if ever, be an object of, shall I say, notice. Do your business and go.
As for locker rooms, breasts go with breasts, penises go with penises, and vaginas go with vaginas, generally said. If that is a problem, then we need to be discussing co-ed locker rooms, not one's "identity".
Not rocket science, folks.
58
Sorry, but one rundown coffee shop (probably with plumbing for only one bathroom) does not law for the entire nation.
90% of the women's bathrooms I've seen have cubicles that DO NOT reach the floor nor ceiling. They offer only minimal privacy. You could easily peep over or under the partitions.
Also women do OTHER THINGS in the bathroom -- change clothing -- adjust pantyhose -- buy tampons -- fix their hair and makeup -- that we would like privacy to do, without males around.
90% of the women's bathrooms I've seen have cubicles that DO NOT reach the floor nor ceiling. They offer only minimal privacy. You could easily peep over or under the partitions.
Also women do OTHER THINGS in the bathroom -- change clothing -- adjust pantyhose -- buy tampons -- fix their hair and makeup -- that we would like privacy to do, without males around.
4
If only the issue was simply bathrooms. It's so convenient for the media to make it sound as if bathrooms were the only area of contention. As the new regulations make clear, locker rooms, showers and dorms are also covered. Is this really what we want as a society, a trans girls with a penis showering and dressing with girls and a trans boy with a vagina showering and dressing with boys? I certainly hope not.
37
Solution: shower stalls for all, with curtained dressing stall as well.
There you go.
There you go.
1
Elite and unaccountable groups like the ACLU love the vaguely worded Title VII and Title IX because they are blank slates for their agenda. Why bother with messy and slow democracy when Ms. Thomas and her peers can go to court and shape our lives as they see fit? But the price e pay is rancor and division. If the ACLU and the Obama administration want sweeping transgender protections, great. Just enact them through the legislative process, which remains the best way we have to craft compromises that the largest possible percentage of us can live with.
15
And if the majority refuses to grant me civil rights, then what?
That process didn't work out so well for blacks and gays. It took them forever.
Will you we never learn: civil rights are not up for a vote, because people are mainly bigoted against the Other.
That process didn't work out so well for blacks and gays. It took them forever.
Will you we never learn: civil rights are not up for a vote, because people are mainly bigoted against the Other.
1
How is sex about "family roles" as the author claims? I am genuinely curious about what this could mean. There is a stereotype that women natually find fulfillment at home with the children. This "family role" has a long and deleterious history. Fortunately more men are now taking on what was traditionally a woman's role; my stay-at-home husband is one of them. What does this have to do with his sex? He is as much a man to me as a house husband as he would be as a lumberjack. Shouldn't we try to undo the stereotypical association with women and "family roles" instead of reinforce it?
26
I'm a moderate Republican--a species that will probably join the dodo in extinction soon--but I'm magnanimous enough to admit that the Right has officially "jumped the shark" with Trump and other Republican candidates.
That said, I'm very disappointed that no one on the Left is able to man up, woman up, "it up" (choose your pronoun) that the Left is jumping the shark on shrilling crying for transgender men to use women's bathrooms.
On one hand, the Left is up in arms about sexual violence against women, especially on college campuses, and on the other hand, they want men (people with penises) to use women's toilets. Hmm, how contradictory.
As many Left-wing readers will cry out that transgenders wouldn't hurt a fly, I'd argue that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. Though it's illegal, men on NY subways are routinely, openly masturbating. Women, girls, will sooner or later be harmed by this Leftist, Orwellian campaign to let men into women's toilets. Just one rape is one rape too many, but the Left doesn't apparently agree.
If it's no big deal where transgenders go to the bathroom as the Left argues, then fine, let them continue to use the bathrooms where their genitalia suggest they use the bathroom. The majority of Americans are against this, and though I'm all for gay rights, if the Left pushes this, they're in for a bad backlash.
That said, I'm very disappointed that no one on the Left is able to man up, woman up, "it up" (choose your pronoun) that the Left is jumping the shark on shrilling crying for transgender men to use women's bathrooms.
On one hand, the Left is up in arms about sexual violence against women, especially on college campuses, and on the other hand, they want men (people with penises) to use women's toilets. Hmm, how contradictory.
As many Left-wing readers will cry out that transgenders wouldn't hurt a fly, I'd argue that I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them. Though it's illegal, men on NY subways are routinely, openly masturbating. Women, girls, will sooner or later be harmed by this Leftist, Orwellian campaign to let men into women's toilets. Just one rape is one rape too many, but the Left doesn't apparently agree.
If it's no big deal where transgenders go to the bathroom as the Left argues, then fine, let them continue to use the bathrooms where their genitalia suggest they use the bathroom. The majority of Americans are against this, and though I'm all for gay rights, if the Left pushes this, they're in for a bad backlash.
32
It's interesting, bozicek, that literally everything you say in your post argues that transgenderism isn't the problem -- MEN are the problem. For example, you don't say a word about possible consequences of people born female, but identifying as male, using the men's room. Apparently you're not worried that they would embarrass, harass, or insult the men.
You go on to present the charming spectacle of men (never women?) masturbating in the subway.
Your real position -- although I suspect you'd go blue in the face denying it -- appears to be that people born with male genitalia are dangerous aggressors, whatever their perceived or preferred gender identity might be. If that's the case, perhaps we need separate bathrooms for adult males, and for the boys that they're likely to assault? Unlike transgender aggression, of which there is virtually no record, we have countless cases of man-on-boy sexual assault.
You go on to present the charming spectacle of men (never women?) masturbating in the subway.
Your real position -- although I suspect you'd go blue in the face denying it -- appears to be that people born with male genitalia are dangerous aggressors, whatever their perceived or preferred gender identity might be. If that's the case, perhaps we need separate bathrooms for adult males, and for the boys that they're likely to assault? Unlike transgender aggression, of which there is virtually no record, we have countless cases of man-on-boy sexual assault.
4
So you would prefer to have someone who has transitioned from female to male, meaning that they were born/assigned female at birth, and now present as male, use the female restroom? You don't think that makes far less sense than letting this person use the male restroom where they look and present like the others in there? You think it is smarter to have a male presenting person in the female restroom solely because they were born male? Your logic doesn't make sense; you haven't followed your train of thought to its full conclusion.
3
Having read all NYT comments over these weeks, and those from liberals like you too, I see the stunning, bracing hatred from the left and the right for transgender people like me. This is not about bathroom rights; it's about civil rights.
If the majority of Americans don't want me to have civil rights too, well, then, that's good enough for me. Don't want to offend my master.
By the way, how did blacks, a minority, get theirs? Oh that's right, the whites debated for, like 400 years, then petulantly handed some over, while still waving the Stars and Bars, but that's flag only for States Rights, don'tcha know?! LOL
If the majority of Americans don't want me to have civil rights too, well, then, that's good enough for me. Don't want to offend my master.
By the way, how did blacks, a minority, get theirs? Oh that's right, the whites debated for, like 400 years, then petulantly handed some over, while still waving the Stars and Bars, but that's flag only for States Rights, don'tcha know?! LOL
1
This is all well and good, as obviously the position of the NC and other bathroom police weirdos is a weak one, but the more insidious issue is one of state power. McCrory and other power consolidators are only interested in transgenders inasmuch as they can be used as a vehicle to push the main agenda: minimum wage law, etc.
This is a mean law, a conniving one, and an unenforceable one. It's not worthy of our serious consideration. Let's buck the trend of Republican cruelty and discuss infrastructure, or schools.
This is a mean law, a conniving one, and an unenforceable one. It's not worthy of our serious consideration. Let's buck the trend of Republican cruelty and discuss infrastructure, or schools.
82
AC: Let me get this right. It is state power when it is the governor or a state, but not state power when it is the federal government?
3
I agree, as long as you also still include my transgender civil rights. I don't mind being your/their talking point as long as I get something out of it too. Please.
The odds of the US government persuading a court -- any court -- that Title Vii of the Civli Rights Act of 1964 protects transgenders are slim to none, and Slim just left town. Sometimes a point can be made more effectively by NOT filing a lawsuit. Sometimes the law just isn't with you. This is one of those times.
If people cancel their reservations for NC Outer Banks vacation rentals, or refuse to shoot a movie scene in NC, or otherwise refuse to do business in or with the State of NC, that may have a devastating effect on NC. But if opponents of NC's "bathroom law" put all or most of their eggs in the "lawsuit basket," they risk losing public support if a court rules against the US government.
Correctly or not, many observers will conclude that an adverse court decision means the US government's position lacks merit – not just legal merit, but merit period. Such a ruling will in fact mean only that the US government's position lacks LEGAL merit, not that it lacks merit altogether. But that's a distinction few casual observers will draw.
If people cancel their reservations for NC Outer Banks vacation rentals, or refuse to shoot a movie scene in NC, or otherwise refuse to do business in or with the State of NC, that may have a devastating effect on NC. But if opponents of NC's "bathroom law" put all or most of their eggs in the "lawsuit basket," they risk losing public support if a court rules against the US government.
Correctly or not, many observers will conclude that an adverse court decision means the US government's position lacks merit – not just legal merit, but merit period. Such a ruling will in fact mean only that the US government's position lacks LEGAL merit, not that it lacks merit altogether. But that's a distinction few casual observers will draw.
8
As a 60 year old transgender transwoman, who has wasted her life in awe of bigots, and intellectuals like you who casually tell me to be patient, I'm willing to take that risk of a failed lawsuit. You aren't because you have most if not all of your civil rights.
Recall gay sex was effectively OUTLAWED by the US Supreme Court in the 1990's, only to be legalized about 8 years later. Yes, that is 1990, not 1890! That's because people were stunned by the discrimination and revolted: our feckless supreme Court then relented: true profiles in courage those Supreme good old boys were.
This case, and what Obama is strategically doing, is jamming the transgender civil rights battle forward hard and fast in what he calls the fierce urgency of now" as a way to center it in the national debate: first comes education, and then civil rights. Yes, it is being jammed down your throats, like it or not, like King did for his civl rights, until America finally gets it. (And people's anger at him was his refusal to wait, wait, wait.)
No discrimination is acceptable.
It's OK, you debate: I'll wait. And wait.
Recall gay sex was effectively OUTLAWED by the US Supreme Court in the 1990's, only to be legalized about 8 years later. Yes, that is 1990, not 1890! That's because people were stunned by the discrimination and revolted: our feckless supreme Court then relented: true profiles in courage those Supreme good old boys were.
This case, and what Obama is strategically doing, is jamming the transgender civil rights battle forward hard and fast in what he calls the fierce urgency of now" as a way to center it in the national debate: first comes education, and then civil rights. Yes, it is being jammed down your throats, like it or not, like King did for his civl rights, until America finally gets it. (And people's anger at him was his refusal to wait, wait, wait.)
No discrimination is acceptable.
It's OK, you debate: I'll wait. And wait.
1
So, blah blah aside, you're saying that Title IX protections should be available to anyone who self-identifies as a woman, regardless of their physical sex.
Just so we're clear on that.
Just so we're clear on that.
33
The article also provides a lot of interesting and informative background to the topic. You want straight to the point? Twitter is very succinct.
Blah blah, yes, it is.
I want my civil rights, too.
This isn't about a man wearing a dress, except to you.
Sorry, was that bitchy? Just a little exhausted from your dismissive tone about you having to (petulantly) bother giving me my civil rights. And let's face it Ted, this IS about you "giving" me MY civil rights. That's a big responsibility: you ready to handle it?
Blah blah. Ho hum. You already have yours, so no "fierce urgency of now" for you, right?
I want my civil rights, too.
This isn't about a man wearing a dress, except to you.
Sorry, was that bitchy? Just a little exhausted from your dismissive tone about you having to (petulantly) bother giving me my civil rights. And let's face it Ted, this IS about you "giving" me MY civil rights. That's a big responsibility: you ready to handle it?
Blah blah. Ho hum. You already have yours, so no "fierce urgency of now" for you, right?
2
Actually, no. The examples you cite are of serious issues in which people had been blatantly disciminated against because of gender or race. Bathrooms have been segregated by gender for a long time and no one complained until now. Why? Because sane people are aware that boys and girls are different. What we are seeing now is an attempt to erase female identity by saying that there is no difference between a woman and a man who wants to be a woman. This is actually a form of misogyny. It is not a civil rights movement. It is part of a backlash against the women's movement.
63
Lets just re-propose the bathrooms we used to use for the coloreds for the transgendered. Sane people are aware that whites are different than blacks. It is just common sense. Oh, and it makes me very uncomfortable to use the same restrooms as Muslims. I think it volatilizes my privacy. So make them pee at home, please.
2
"What we are seeing now is an attempt to erase female identity by saying that there is no difference between a woman and a man who wants to be a woman."
You do realize, yes, that nearly half of the trandgendered are women transitioning to male. What rights and protections would you extend to them? And keep in mind there is little outward signs that would allow you to pick them, or most transwomen, out in a crowd. How would you enforce any of this - security guards at restrooms asking for DNA test results? Genital inspection for all?
You do realize, yes, that nearly half of the trandgendered are women transitioning to male. What rights and protections would you extend to them? And keep in mind there is little outward signs that would allow you to pick them, or most transwomen, out in a crowd. How would you enforce any of this - security guards at restrooms asking for DNA test results? Genital inspection for all?
2
Anne, I'm transgender and a feminist, very pro-women's rights. Your view is an old trope and inaccurate. You are still competing in the Victim Oppression Olympics, aren't you?
But as a female runs for president, again, it's getting a threadbare now. Why not hand the weighty mantle of most-victimized-by-oppression over to some new folks, like us transgender folk, who really deserve it. Indeed, both liberals, like you no doubt, and conservatives, all dislike transgenders, but typically (not always of course) only conservatives hate women's rights.
We win the Gold medal! Hand it over.
But as a female runs for president, again, it's getting a threadbare now. Why not hand the weighty mantle of most-victimized-by-oppression over to some new folks, like us transgender folk, who really deserve it. Indeed, both liberals, like you no doubt, and conservatives, all dislike transgenders, but typically (not always of course) only conservatives hate women's rights.
We win the Gold medal! Hand it over.
1
There's a ready made solution for the issue of transgender bathroom facilities.
It's called a Family Bathroom. Use them all the time.
We need more of them.
Every body's equipment is OK when you can shut the door and lock it.
It's called a Family Bathroom. Use them all the time.
We need more of them.
Every body's equipment is OK when you can shut the door and lock it.
115
No, this is too intelligent and workable. We NEED this issue to rev up the bases: today's Dog Whistle politics.
I'm transgender: I really don't mind being everyone's intellectual debate topic/whipping boy so as to score both sides more congressional seats. In fact, if you give me my civil rights to exist, I'll not mind one whit. Only glad to assist in democracy, while my civil rights are negated. What's a tranny good for anyway?
I'm transgender: I really don't mind being everyone's intellectual debate topic/whipping boy so as to score both sides more congressional seats. In fact, if you give me my civil rights to exist, I'll not mind one whit. Only glad to assist in democracy, while my civil rights are negated. What's a tranny good for anyway?
1
Actually, sex is about anatomy, although "gender" may not be so limited.
The statute says "sex". Sex is male and female. Gender is masculine and feminine.
But then nobody seems to understand what "sex" means, anymore. Makes you want to go have some gender just to take your mind off of it....
The statute says "sex". Sex is male and female. Gender is masculine and feminine.
But then nobody seems to understand what "sex" means, anymore. Makes you want to go have some gender just to take your mind off of it....
23
Your sex is what's between the legs; and there's the brain sense of gender identity, created by hormones in utero: science has demonstrated this, now without question, and sense of gender identity is inborn and immutable. If one transitions to female for example, one is effectively female for almost all purposes.
Cisgender females have children; but not all do. Still female? Cisgender females have natural breasts; how about those w implants - still female? Etc.
Here's an idea Mr and Mrs America: I'm transgender: I'll agree to use the colored bathroom for y'all since y'all so squeamish and delicate, if you allow me to marry, live, work, and walk where I want without discrimination. You know: accept half my civil rights so as not to make you too upset. Please.
Cisgender females have children; but not all do. Still female? Cisgender females have natural breasts; how about those w implants - still female? Etc.
Here's an idea Mr and Mrs America: I'm transgender: I'll agree to use the colored bathroom for y'all since y'all so squeamish and delicate, if you allow me to marry, live, work, and walk where I want without discrimination. You know: accept half my civil rights so as not to make you too upset. Please.
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity."
But you go in a bathroom to just execute your BIOLOGICAL functions - not to fulfill your cultural expectations. So, please go in a bathroom corresponding to your biological organs and leave all these high-minded topics outside of the restroom door.
But you go in a bathroom to just execute your BIOLOGICAL functions - not to fulfill your cultural expectations. So, please go in a bathroom corresponding to your biological organs and leave all these high-minded topics outside of the restroom door.
48
I just don't understand the furor. If you're wearing a dress, can you go into the men's room without causing an uproar? If you're wearing short hair and men's pants, won't you stir up a commotion if you go into the ladies' room? How does a patron know what physical sex organs someone has who goes into a bathroom stall?
8
I could be much more accepting of the honesty of this type of argument (that folks are only insisting on a biological sex division for bathrooms) if those same people did not condone and perpetuate the regular appearance of little boys in women's restrooms. Where is the outrage for that? Hypocrisy does not make HB2 right. For the record, I don't have a problem with little boys in my restroom, either. Our stalls have doors. Nothing high-minded about that.
It's the showers, stupid. (To paraphrase clinton)
4
If we succeed in untethering "sex" from "science", we are going to blow this country to pieces. We are taught that a fetus is random lump of cells, but now chromosomes don't matter? What's to stop young men from suing organizations that provide set-aside grants and scholarships, based on gender, because they decided to "identify" as female, in order to collect the largess? Go ahead, let the fox in the henhouse...
52
Science is clear in this. Gender identity is inborn. Read; it won't hurt. But perhaps opening that mind might a tad.
Gender, Transgender, Intersex and genetics are more accurately connected to science now than ever, you simply have not read the latest research.
2
Start suing the doctor who assigned gender at birth...
6
How does one determine gender? If a guy looks like a male, but says he "feels" female, do we just accept it. Do we assume everyone is telling the truth until..........what? How does this impact Affirmative Action quotas? Can a White male feel female,and Black? Can a change in gender effect auto insurance rates? How about sports? How about the Olympics?
53
The Olympics has allowed transgender people to compete for 20 years. It simply has not been well publicized. Gender testing was discontinued by the IOC in 1996.
1
I don't think you need to worry about these issues too much, Cleo. For one thing, a person cannot change their race, so let's put that one off the table right away.
But in terms of changing one's gender identity, you have no idea how difficult it is to go "all in" on this. You really must believe you are the opposite gender to that which you were born in order to make the commitment. It is not something a person would do lightly, in order to gain some perceived advantage. And let's face it, there is very little advantage for a cis-gender male to transition to female in American society. (White men in America have the advantage in so many things, why would that person give up those things in order to become female if it weren't for a deep seated belief?)
On the other side, a cis-gender female transitioning to male takes equally as much commitment and belief. This is not something a person does lightly because there are irreversible physical changes.
No one would do this to get better insurance rates, a better job, or go to the Olympics. To even posit these things is to feed into this irrational hysteria surrounding transgender politics.
But in terms of changing one's gender identity, you have no idea how difficult it is to go "all in" on this. You really must believe you are the opposite gender to that which you were born in order to make the commitment. It is not something a person would do lightly, in order to gain some perceived advantage. And let's face it, there is very little advantage for a cis-gender male to transition to female in American society. (White men in America have the advantage in so many things, why would that person give up those things in order to become female if it weren't for a deep seated belief?)
On the other side, a cis-gender female transitioning to male takes equally as much commitment and belief. This is not something a person does lightly because there are irreversible physical changes.
No one would do this to get better insurance rates, a better job, or go to the Olympics. To even posit these things is to feed into this irrational hysteria surrounding transgender politics.
2
Yes, cleo, just take people at their word, like you like to be taken at your word. How about that? And let the sports folk handle the sports and the insurance folk handle the insurance, etc. Oh, and our courts will continue to do their jobs.
1
Sexual deviance should not be promoted simply because it has been decriminalized. Modesty and decency remain virtues that the majority in society should enforce for their comfort and culture. Those who are abnormal in their gender need to adapt to majority cultural views and not the other way around.
35
I have been unable to understand the right wing uproar on this issue. This comment explains, it would appear, the argument. It seems to be the authoritarian view that any one of us has a right to tell someone else how they must live their private life. Anyone who is other is automatically "deviant."
2
Sexual deviance? Sounds like a religious imposition, a religious norm if it applies to the norm as heterosexual behavior. What is abnormal? We should consider the abnormal to be imposing one's narrow norms on the whole population. What the Justice Department has done is informed the schools that they cannot enforce religious beliefs in schools. Some religions forbid women to expose their faces, others prevent women from exposing body parts, some even dictate clothing to be worn during sexual intercourse, some insist that intercourse only occur after a religious marriage. In America the First Amendment guarantees our right to practice our religion but prohibits the establishment of religion by the state. When a state or the country violates that prohibition it is the duty of the Justice Department to enforce the Amendment and to enforce Title IX.
No argument founded in religious beliefs can be allowed to impose those beliefs upon the people. Freedom from religion guarantees freedom of religion.
No argument founded in religious beliefs can be allowed to impose those beliefs upon the people. Freedom from religion guarantees freedom of religion.
2
Amen. After this the masochists will start wearing their dog collars to the office and sue if not allowed to bark.
2
What is gender?
Biologically, gender can be mixed where a person has characteristics of both and so neither all one gender nor the other. This can be the result of confused genetic conditioning or of environmental conditioning that conflicts with genetic conditioning. If a person with male chromosomes cannot produce the appropriate hormones to develop a male body, nature will provide a female body that is without female reproductive organs. Some people are born with reproductive organs tending to be of both genders and doctors have regularly used medical procedures to assign them one or the other genders.
Then there is the identification with gender that people consciously experience. People's sense of sexual preference as well as gender seems to be more than just what biology dictates in terms of reproductive organs. These things seem to be subject to both nature, the environment in which they exist, the nurturing experiences as they grow and their development psychologically as individuals.
Then there is the attitude of the social group towards gender in which people live. Are females and males treated the same or radically differently? Does the social group have cultural traditions which dictate how people must be treated with regards to gender and whether they conform to expectations determined by gender?
Liberal democracy as the U.S. is supposed to be should assure equal treatment and tolerance of differences amongst people be the norm.
Biologically, gender can be mixed where a person has characteristics of both and so neither all one gender nor the other. This can be the result of confused genetic conditioning or of environmental conditioning that conflicts with genetic conditioning. If a person with male chromosomes cannot produce the appropriate hormones to develop a male body, nature will provide a female body that is without female reproductive organs. Some people are born with reproductive organs tending to be of both genders and doctors have regularly used medical procedures to assign them one or the other genders.
Then there is the identification with gender that people consciously experience. People's sense of sexual preference as well as gender seems to be more than just what biology dictates in terms of reproductive organs. These things seem to be subject to both nature, the environment in which they exist, the nurturing experiences as they grow and their development psychologically as individuals.
Then there is the attitude of the social group towards gender in which people live. Are females and males treated the same or radically differently? Does the social group have cultural traditions which dictate how people must be treated with regards to gender and whether they conform to expectations determined by gender?
Liberal democracy as the U.S. is supposed to be should assure equal treatment and tolerance of differences amongst people be the norm.
4
You are talking about intersexed people, and that is a complex thing, but fortunately intersex is very rare.
The most common types of intersex are a baby born with ambiguous genitalia -- but today, this can be dealt with by plastic surgery at an early age. If the problem is a lack of hormones, that can be dealt with by giving the child hormones. None of this means the intersexed person "wants to be another gender/sex".
The most rare type of intersex is when someone literally has NO gender -- no clear DNA -- no defined genitalia (or the genitalia of both sexes) -- in those extremely rare situations, I think it is appropriate to let them choose a gender. However, I've read that most of these individuals identify as "androgynous".
The majority of intersex individuals DO have a clear gender, just a deformity. They are no more likely to be transgender than any other person. Most have clear DNA of one or another. (An extra chromosome does not make you transgender!)
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE NORMAL BIOLOGICALLY. They are NOT intersexed. They are NOT hermaphodites. They are ordinary men or women who simply reject their true biological gender/sex and want to be the opposite gender/sex.
BTW: all people today in the US enjoy an incredibly high standard of gender equality -- perhaps the greatest in human history. Women have jobs, they own property, they can divorce, they have their own money. They can wear short hair or pants. They do not live in burkhas.
The most common types of intersex are a baby born with ambiguous genitalia -- but today, this can be dealt with by plastic surgery at an early age. If the problem is a lack of hormones, that can be dealt with by giving the child hormones. None of this means the intersexed person "wants to be another gender/sex".
The most rare type of intersex is when someone literally has NO gender -- no clear DNA -- no defined genitalia (or the genitalia of both sexes) -- in those extremely rare situations, I think it is appropriate to let them choose a gender. However, I've read that most of these individuals identify as "androgynous".
The majority of intersex individuals DO have a clear gender, just a deformity. They are no more likely to be transgender than any other person. Most have clear DNA of one or another. (An extra chromosome does not make you transgender!)
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ARE NORMAL BIOLOGICALLY. They are NOT intersexed. They are NOT hermaphodites. They are ordinary men or women who simply reject their true biological gender/sex and want to be the opposite gender/sex.
BTW: all people today in the US enjoy an incredibly high standard of gender equality -- perhaps the greatest in human history. Women have jobs, they own property, they can divorce, they have their own money. They can wear short hair or pants. They do not live in burkhas.
2
There is no " historical spectrum ". One can easily determine whether an individual is " white" or " colored". How does one determine if an individual using a " women" restroom and has male anatomy is really transgender? Surgery should be mandatory before someone can legally be considered transgendered. Otherwise any man can enter a female restroom or shower room just for his own enjoyment and nothing can be done about it.
11
Re the assertion that "[o]ne can easily determine whether an individual is 'white' or 'colored'": Then why were the one-drop rule and the concept of "passing" invented?
1
There was a time when a transgender person was someone like Renee Richards or Christine Jorgensen -- they went to such extremes, including radical surgery, that people sort of gave them a "pass" to claim they were women -- despite their looking nothing like a real woman.
However, that day is long past. Sex reassignment surgery is relatively rare. The vast majority of those who identify as "transgender" are normal healthy people who have not had any kind of surgery on the bottom half. Nor do they intend to do so! The most they do is breast removal and hormones, but sometimes not even that.
The young swimmer at Yale -- a transgender FTM -- told the interviewer on TV that she wanted to HAVE A BABY. Yes, she was an intact female, living as a male on campus, who intended to GET PREGNANT and GIVE BIRTH, but still live as a man and consider herself a man.
However, that day is long past. Sex reassignment surgery is relatively rare. The vast majority of those who identify as "transgender" are normal healthy people who have not had any kind of surgery on the bottom half. Nor do they intend to do so! The most they do is breast removal and hormones, but sometimes not even that.
The young swimmer at Yale -- a transgender FTM -- told the interviewer on TV that she wanted to HAVE A BABY. Yes, she was an intact female, living as a male on campus, who intended to GET PREGNANT and GIVE BIRTH, but still live as a man and consider herself a man.
3
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity. "
As I lawyer, I wonder how courts are equipped to deal with ANY of that. The law says "sex" and sex is determined at birth, and is binary, with the exceptions of the small number of intersex individuals. "Romantic desires"??
Comparing this to racial discrimination is sophistry.
As I lawyer, I wonder how courts are equipped to deal with ANY of that. The law says "sex" and sex is determined at birth, and is binary, with the exceptions of the small number of intersex individuals. "Romantic desires"??
Comparing this to racial discrimination is sophistry.
48
Regarding restrooms: because you change your "physical body" does not mean you change your "psychological sexual identity." It just means you change your body.
You can look like a woman or a man on the outside, but you will still be psychologically what you were before you changed your body. It's like a driver gets a new car, for example, the driver stays the same, the car changes. The new "sexual body" is like the car. Men or women, regardless of the body they have, have not undergone a "psychological transgender change," just a physical change. Should they not use the restroom of their - psychological identity, for only their body has changed. Or is there something else we need that has nothing to do with restrooms or "sexual identity?"
You can look like a woman or a man on the outside, but you will still be psychologically what you were before you changed your body. It's like a driver gets a new car, for example, the driver stays the same, the car changes. The new "sexual body" is like the car. Men or women, regardless of the body they have, have not undergone a "psychological transgender change," just a physical change. Should they not use the restroom of their - psychological identity, for only their body has changed. Or is there something else we need that has nothing to do with restrooms or "sexual identity?"
1
Originally, I thought that most trans individuals just went in the restroom that they looked most appropriate for. But since meeting some trans kids, I see that it becomes a more complicated matter when dealing with young people and public schools. Children in transition will be talked about and judged. All parties will not be comfortable with gender transitioning, and many will balk at making accomodations. I fear this will take time, but I'm confident that, like homosexuality, as it becomes demystified it will be more understandable and hopefully, one day, welcomed. I know several awesome trans kids, and adolescence poses a great challenge, as you might guess. Let's help them be as successful as any other kid.
28
The kindest, best thing we can do for such confused children is to be truthful.
TELL THEM THE TRUTH.
They are not able to change genders, because that is impossible. You also cannot become a fish or a zebra or a bird. If you were born a man, you will die a man. If you were born a woman, you will die a woman.
You cannot change your race; we all acknowledge that Rachel Dolezal is nuts, wearing blackface and asking to be called "a black woman" when she is WHITE.
Why is this any different? Someone needs to tell Rachel Dolezal the TRUTH (she is white) and kind, decent adults need to gently but firmly tell these confused teenagers that their DNA determines their gender and sex, and you cannot change human biology with hormones or surgery or clothing.
TELL THEM THE TRUTH.
They are not able to change genders, because that is impossible. You also cannot become a fish or a zebra or a bird. If you were born a man, you will die a man. If you were born a woman, you will die a woman.
You cannot change your race; we all acknowledge that Rachel Dolezal is nuts, wearing blackface and asking to be called "a black woman" when she is WHITE.
Why is this any different? Someone needs to tell Rachel Dolezal the TRUTH (she is white) and kind, decent adults need to gently but firmly tell these confused teenagers that their DNA determines their gender and sex, and you cannot change human biology with hormones or surgery or clothing.
10
Ms. Thomas says: "North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity." But sexual anatomy (biology) is physical, definable, measurable, verifiable, objective, and, dare I say, universally recognized. "Sex" if defined as "family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity" (and add self-defined gender identity) is the exact opposite; purely subjective, inherently unverifiable, constantly changing, in short, not something that can be applied clearly, unambiguously or uniformity to the language of (or the groups protected by) the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I always thought that the law was grounded in facts and objectivity, not infinite personal subjectivity and self-identification.
17
Now all that has changed, according to PC lefty liberalism.
Women fought for 100 years to be considered the equals of men in every legal sense.
But now, we are DEFINED as liking the color pink....ruffles....fancy dresses....high heels....makeup, etc.
If a person likes those things, they are now a WOMAN despite having a penis and XY chromosomes.
Therefore, if you are "cisgender female", and you hate pink, hate ruffles, wear jeans and like mechanical stuff or cars or sports....sorry, lady. You are now a MAN.
Women fought for 100 years to be considered the equals of men in every legal sense.
But now, we are DEFINED as liking the color pink....ruffles....fancy dresses....high heels....makeup, etc.
If a person likes those things, they are now a WOMAN despite having a penis and XY chromosomes.
Therefore, if you are "cisgender female", and you hate pink, hate ruffles, wear jeans and like mechanical stuff or cars or sports....sorry, lady. You are now a MAN.
10
Thank you for this. It's a powerful argument against the hateful voices in my state (governor, lieutenant governor, senators, etc.) and sheds light on a complex legal issue.
Beyond that, this is of course an essential human rights/civil rights issue. Why are those who have been consistently wrong on previous human/civil rights issues dead-set on taking the wrong side again?? And, as before, cloaking their ignorant prejudice in lofty terms (religion, privacy [!!], states' rights, protection of women [!!], etc.)? And failing to see that their stand on this issue, as on so many others, will ultimately reveal their foolishness and shortsightedness in full bloom as the tide of popular opinion inevitably turns.
This is the hypocritical environment I grew up in and, to a certain extent, still live in. For the sake of future generations, I hope we deal with this issue today in a just and compassionate and sensible way. No forcing transgender people into the bathroom they were "born into" and have moved away from!!!! How outrageous, how callous, how arrogant social conservatives are!
Beyond that, this is of course an essential human rights/civil rights issue. Why are those who have been consistently wrong on previous human/civil rights issues dead-set on taking the wrong side again?? And, as before, cloaking their ignorant prejudice in lofty terms (religion, privacy [!!], states' rights, protection of women [!!], etc.)? And failing to see that their stand on this issue, as on so many others, will ultimately reveal their foolishness and shortsightedness in full bloom as the tide of popular opinion inevitably turns.
This is the hypocritical environment I grew up in and, to a certain extent, still live in. For the sake of future generations, I hope we deal with this issue today in a just and compassionate and sensible way. No forcing transgender people into the bathroom they were "born into" and have moved away from!!!! How outrageous, how callous, how arrogant social conservatives are!
3
Most dictionaries would disagree entirely with the title of this article. Sex (noun) is your anatomical state. Gender is the social and cultural differences that identify you as "male" or "female". If the NYT can't get this right, how can the average person tell the difference?
21
Sex is anatomy: male or female (or intersex); gender is "masculine" and "feminine" (on a sliding scale). I don't know why we started referring to sex as gender, but I suspect it might be a reaction to the widespread practice of naturalizing gender differences: if you're female, you are by nature nurturing, passive, etc, (all the old stereotypes), and those qualities are feminine; therefore, if you're a female and reject those stereotyped (naturalized) gender differences, then you're unnatural, unfeminine, and a very bad woman (strong-minded, uppity, etc).
1
Unfortunately....no it is not.
Animals have genders, but they don't live in society or have cultures. Gender is the same exact thing as sex; we are mammals who reproduce sexually, hence we are a binary species with males & females.
There is nothing else -- no other option. You can be a man in a dress, like Caitlyn Jenner, but you can't change genders. Or your sex. Or your DNA.
Animals have genders, but they don't live in society or have cultures. Gender is the same exact thing as sex; we are mammals who reproduce sexually, hence we are a binary species with males & females.
There is nothing else -- no other option. You can be a man in a dress, like Caitlyn Jenner, but you can't change genders. Or your sex. Or your DNA.
7
So far the courts seem to agree with Scalia that Title VII goes beyond the original intent to include similar discrimination based on "sex."
2
Gender is *only* anatomy; everything else is called 'peronality' or 'interests.'
14
M: you've missed the old, wise saying that the biggest sex-organ of the body is the brain.
2
"Gender is *only* anatomy; everything else is called 'peronality' (sic) or 'interests.'"
Since the brain is part of the anatomy, you are correct. However, I suspect that you meant that gender is only the genitalia and, in that case, you are incorrect.
The brain and the genitalia develop at different times during fetal development. Both are influenced by the hormones in the fetal system at the time of development.
Since the brain is part of the anatomy, you are correct. However, I suspect that you meant that gender is only the genitalia and, in that case, you are incorrect.
The brain and the genitalia develop at different times during fetal development. Both are influenced by the hormones in the fetal system at the time of development.
1
Thank you Justice Scalia, for reaching out of the past to explain the reach of Title VII to the likes of the NC legislators.
"Justice Antonin Scalia . . . responded to critics who argued that harassment of men by men was unquestionably not what Congress had in mind when it passed Title VII. He wrote that legal protections “often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,” and what matters is the law itself, “rather than the principal concerns of our legislators.”"
Even he could see that sexual harassment of men by men is wrong, and that Title VII could address that, even if his bias prevented him from seeing that legal discrimination against same sex couples was also wrong.
"Justice Antonin Scalia . . . responded to critics who argued that harassment of men by men was unquestionably not what Congress had in mind when it passed Title VII. He wrote that legal protections “often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,” and what matters is the law itself, “rather than the principal concerns of our legislators.”"
Even he could see that sexual harassment of men by men is wrong, and that Title VII could address that, even if his bias prevented him from seeing that legal discrimination against same sex couples was also wrong.
1
Harassing, harming, threatening same sex couples is entirely wrong and illegal.
DEFINING marriage as it has always been in western culture for the last 3000 years as "one man, one woman" is not discrimination, nor wrong -- and Windsor and Obergefell were wrongly decided, as was Citizen's United.
DEFINING marriage as it has always been in western culture for the last 3000 years as "one man, one woman" is not discrimination, nor wrong -- and Windsor and Obergefell were wrongly decided, as was Citizen's United.
4
What's depressing is that all I hear from the great unwashed, my family, is that Obama just signed a law that will let boys go into the girl's bathroom. No nuance , no understanding, no movement in the reasoning centers of the brain when the fear centers have been activated. What is everyone so afraid of, a warped soul who will put on a dress to look at girls pee? Guess what, that's still illegal. No, heterosexual, man is going to claim he is transgender in order to meet women. It doesn't happen that way. In Democratic circles, at least.
27
Not so that he can watch some girl pee, but so that he can show off his male sex organs which he still has. It used to be called exhibitionism.
5
Amen, brother.
Call this hyperbole what it is: Dog Whistle politics: America's best talent.
Call this hyperbole what it is: Dog Whistle politics: America's best talent.
3
esp. Exhibitionism is still against the law. You're confusing transgender people with sexual deviants. That used to be called bigotry.
4
"Earlier this week, when Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared today’s bathroom bans on trans employees to “white” and “colored” bathroom signs of the past, she placed trans rights on a historical spectrum."
I am a Black man and it is my opinion that the Attorney General is 100% wrong.
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity."
It is my opinion that you are 100% wrong.
I am a Black man and it is my opinion that the Attorney General is 100% wrong.
"North Carolina’s supporters don’t get that sex is about more than just anatomy. It also includes family roles, romantic desires, cultural expectations and ideas of masculinity and femininity."
It is my opinion that you are 100% wrong.
39
Reverend, in your opinion what would Jesus do? HB2, in my opinion, expresses hate, marginalization, and keeping a group of people under control of the rulers. It doesn't sound like something Jesus would have backed.
3
It is my opinion that you are 100% wrong, sir.
2
And in my opinion, PASTOR, you're 100% wrong.
You know you're right because you're a black man.
And I know you're wrong because I'm a transwoman.
You know you're right because you're a black man.
And I know you're wrong because I'm a transwoman.
2
Call me ignorant, a bigot, whatever, but I am not at all comfortable with an intact teenage boy who identifies as female in the same locker room as my 15 year old daughter. I have no problem with transgender people. What I have an issue with is an individual who claims one thing and yet retains the anatomy of the sex they say they are not. Should the physical changes have been made and the individual has completely transitioned, then no problem. There is also an issue for women who have suffered sexual assaults.if they see an intact male who claims to be transgender in the women's locker room, what about the fear and flashbacks she may suffer?
28
I am 69 years old and have significant experience in bathrooms, public and private. In not one instance have I seen an "intact" male's genitalia. Of course, I haven't been looking, which may account for this fact.
What is this fearful obsession with bodies and bodily functions? What a strange country we live in.
What is this fearful obsession with bodies and bodily functions? What a strange country we live in.
8
Ignorant no, but understand that the transition period for a trans person can be several years or so. They do not just walk into a booth...
1
Title IX and its legislative history clearly indicate clearly indicate Congress’ intent to allow schools to maintain separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls based on biological sex. Title IX is an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was in enacted in June 1972. The first transgender riot had took place in 1966 in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District, and transgender people were heavily involved in the Stonewall Riots of 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in New York. The senators who created Title IX knew about transgender people. Senator Birch Evans Bayh, who sponsored Title IX, said its purpose was to provide equal access for women to educational process and extracurricular activities. He added that Title IX does not require that “the men’s locker room be desegregated.” There is no need to “reinterpret” Title IX or wonder what Congress meant. Congress still exists and it can revise Title IX anytime it wants.
17
Back then, you called them drag queens, who appeared normal during the day. The question now is: do I have to share a locker room with males who still have testosterone? I hope not.
5
Anyone going to or through North Carolina - please remember to tape your birth certificate to your forehead in case you need to use a North Carolina bathroom!
9
Birth certificates will be changed pre surgery in our brave new world. Michigan has introduced a bill to do just that. Since the real issue is the ĺocker rooms, you only need wait for the squeals and screams to know there's a penis present. These poor girls are being offered up as sacrificial lambs on the altar of social justice. And a whole generation is being taught that A is not A.
4
Not worried in the least. I drive through that area twice a year- - beautiful state -- friendly, nice people.
Since 99.7% of us are normal and fine with our birth genders, there is no issue whatsoever about whether we use the ladies room or men's room.
And we want to keep it that way!!!
Since 99.7% of us are normal and fine with our birth genders, there is no issue whatsoever about whether we use the ladies room or men's room.
And we want to keep it that way!!!
7
North Carolina doesn't require people to show birth certificates. It requires them to use bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex as designated on their birth certificates. If a person were arrested under the law, it would be up to the prosecutors, not the person arrested, to produce a copy of the birth certificate.
2
I've been dreading this backlash ever since the Court ruled gay marriage constitutional. I just hope it's not too prolonged, and has no political tendrils which will bring phobia into the White House.
For some reason, in a country where "all... are created equal," we keep having to carve out space to include those not in power, one group at a time: black Americans, female Americans, gay Americans, transgendered Americans.
Equality should have been a given in America. Why isn't it?
For some reason, in a country where "all... are created equal," we keep having to carve out space to include those not in power, one group at a time: black Americans, female Americans, gay Americans, transgendered Americans.
Equality should have been a given in America. Why isn't it?
137
SCOTUS did not rule that gay marriage was constitutional. They ruled that traditional marriage law was UNconstitutional (and I disagree, as I disagree on Citizen's United).
They also ruled that the States now have no right to make marriage laws, even though the Constitution clearly gives them that right.
It is not "equality" to look to destroy the very thing you claim you want.
They also ruled that the States now have no right to make marriage laws, even though the Constitution clearly gives them that right.
It is not "equality" to look to destroy the very thing you claim you want.
8
I always wonder what politicians are expecting from their wicked and petty ploys to frighten women and children about facilities like public restrooms.
Perhaps curious psychiatrists already have an opinion about men's strange habits of asserting their authority over females' lives in those ways.
Do they do it to scare females into submission to 'keep an uneasy sort of peace?
Perhaps curious psychiatrists already have an opinion about men's strange habits of asserting their authority over females' lives in those ways.
Do they do it to scare females into submission to 'keep an uneasy sort of peace?
99
To Kate de Braose: I don't recall the specifics, but it's been asserted in different NYT comments sections that this incident is a ploy: Republican politicians are hoping that this controversy will draw public attention away from other aspects of the bill it was tacked onto. Perhaps some other reader could clarify this?
13
@Kate
I promise not be frightened by men in the women's room, if you promise not to be turned off when I get tired of waiting for a urinal and use your rest room without putting the seat down when I am finished.
And when my son gets cut from the swim team, I hope your daughter doesn't mind when he switches to the girls' team.
Freedoms have consequences for the free.
And when I hear a trans-person arguing that they resent being treated as a "unisex", as in a bathroom provided for them, I know that I am witnessing a devolution into narcissism for a handful of troubled people.
Forgive me for not keeping track of whether someone is trans-woman or trans-man. The who thing is ridiculous.
Thankfully, these people cannot reproduce, so Darwin's got our backs on this.
Slouching to Gomorrah.
I promise not be frightened by men in the women's room, if you promise not to be turned off when I get tired of waiting for a urinal and use your rest room without putting the seat down when I am finished.
And when my son gets cut from the swim team, I hope your daughter doesn't mind when he switches to the girls' team.
Freedoms have consequences for the free.
And when I hear a trans-person arguing that they resent being treated as a "unisex", as in a bathroom provided for them, I know that I am witnessing a devolution into narcissism for a handful of troubled people.
Forgive me for not keeping track of whether someone is trans-woman or trans-man. The who thing is ridiculous.
Thankfully, these people cannot reproduce, so Darwin's got our backs on this.
Slouching to Gomorrah.
7
It is true. Much more important than bathroom issues, the law prohibits cities and localities from enacting anti-discrimination protections and from raising the minimum wage higher than the state minimum. The media - including the NYT - is greatly remiss in not emphasising these provisions as the most objectionable and worthy of public discussion.
3
I have sympathy for a more progressive interpretation of Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex; but, frankly, I think it’s a stretch to argue it constitutionally. Which is why I don’t expect NC to lose this one. And even in the absence of a deciding ninth justice, asking even THIS Court to invent a new definition of “gender” might be a bit too far left even for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Believe it or not.
While in the end the rights of gays and lesbians appeared to be respected very rapidly, the truth is that it took decades to get where we are, where a U.S. Supreme Court believed it was no longer too far in front of the country to force the issue – and great strides also have been made by legislation in our states, again after decades of fractious debate.
Ms. Thomas’s citations of other cases don’t strike me as supportive at all of a new, broader definition of “gender” that goes beyond anatomy – all the women discriminated against were so disfavored BECAUSE of their female anatomy.
If we want a more expansive definition of “gender” in law that goes beyond anatomy to include transgenders, I just don’t see a way for it to happen except in a similar manner. That means decades of hard work. It’s not helped by the fact that Gallup tells us that only 3.8% of our population identifies as LGBT, and almost all of them as gays and lesbians. We have some way to go on this issue.
While in the end the rights of gays and lesbians appeared to be respected very rapidly, the truth is that it took decades to get where we are, where a U.S. Supreme Court believed it was no longer too far in front of the country to force the issue – and great strides also have been made by legislation in our states, again after decades of fractious debate.
Ms. Thomas’s citations of other cases don’t strike me as supportive at all of a new, broader definition of “gender” that goes beyond anatomy – all the women discriminated against were so disfavored BECAUSE of their female anatomy.
If we want a more expansive definition of “gender” in law that goes beyond anatomy to include transgenders, I just don’t see a way for it to happen except in a similar manner. That means decades of hard work. It’s not helped by the fact that Gallup tells us that only 3.8% of our population identifies as LGBT, and almost all of them as gays and lesbians. We have some way to go on this issue.
37
Intelligent, well written, and dead wrong Richard:
I am 60 and have wasted my life in fear of the endless discrimination of coming out as transgender. No, 60 is not the new 40; it is 60. I'm old.
While you may be right intellectually that we "need" decades of debate, there are actual humans, like me, who are needlessly suffering and dying because of rampant liberal and conservative prejudice. Yes, liberals, too. These intellectuals want to think all about it, about whether or not I should get the same civil rights they take for granted. And while you all do, I drink at the "colored fountain".
I don't have decades: I have months. And the 20 year old young trans people whom I counsel, you are saying, will also waste THEIR lives too, until they're 60, while hetero-normative America debates our legitimacy as humans instead of "giving" us actual not theoretical civil rights. Haven't you seen enough of this with Blacks, now gays? At what point do you get it?
Act now America! Read before you write ignorant opinions about "men in dresses" in bathrooms. This is NOT that. Medical science shows gender identity is as inborn as eye color. These laws apply, as does Title IX. Act now. Do the right thing.
I am 60 and have wasted my life in fear of the endless discrimination of coming out as transgender. No, 60 is not the new 40; it is 60. I'm old.
While you may be right intellectually that we "need" decades of debate, there are actual humans, like me, who are needlessly suffering and dying because of rampant liberal and conservative prejudice. Yes, liberals, too. These intellectuals want to think all about it, about whether or not I should get the same civil rights they take for granted. And while you all do, I drink at the "colored fountain".
I don't have decades: I have months. And the 20 year old young trans people whom I counsel, you are saying, will also waste THEIR lives too, until they're 60, while hetero-normative America debates our legitimacy as humans instead of "giving" us actual not theoretical civil rights. Haven't you seen enough of this with Blacks, now gays? At what point do you get it?
Act now America! Read before you write ignorant opinions about "men in dresses" in bathrooms. This is NOT that. Medical science shows gender identity is as inborn as eye color. These laws apply, as does Title IX. Act now. Do the right thing.
42
Darcy:
I'm 61, and I've spent a fair part of that life so far sympathizing with all minorities who are denied a full place in our society; but I have to say I honestly have more sympathy for a black single working mother, because she has no options at hiding the basis for irrational prejudice that so profoundly affects her life and those of her children.
When I react to pieces like this with comments, I try to stand back from the emotion and assess the reality. The reality is that traditional worldviews based on religion and even on secular but narrow definitions of "community" aren't just going to cave because someone has a pocked face, or because another is very short, or because you're a transgender person. We protect these people with a lot of very hard work over many years with law; and that's not done easily or quickly in the teeth of the resistance of millions.
Oh, and I'm also sorry that 60 is old to you, but 61 is still young to me; but whether you and I are old or young, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you're trying to turn a massive cultural ship in the middle of an ocean: it still takes time, patience and work.
I'm 61, and I've spent a fair part of that life so far sympathizing with all minorities who are denied a full place in our society; but I have to say I honestly have more sympathy for a black single working mother, because she has no options at hiding the basis for irrational prejudice that so profoundly affects her life and those of her children.
When I react to pieces like this with comments, I try to stand back from the emotion and assess the reality. The reality is that traditional worldviews based on religion and even on secular but narrow definitions of "community" aren't just going to cave because someone has a pocked face, or because another is very short, or because you're a transgender person. We protect these people with a lot of very hard work over many years with law; and that's not done easily or quickly in the teeth of the resistance of millions.
Oh, and I'm also sorry that 60 is old to you, but 61 is still young to me; but whether you and I are old or young, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you're trying to turn a massive cultural ship in the middle of an ocean: it still takes time, patience and work.
3
Nice try, Richard, but no one has to "redefine" gender for the new law(s) to be discriminatory. If Price Waterhouse was discriminating against Hopkins because she didn't fit their image of a woman then deciding which bathroom you can use based on checking inside your pants is also discriminatory. We all know this is just a way to ramp up conservative Republicans and make another non-issue into a vote-getter. And the existing laws already can be used to prosecute someone who goes into a restroom to molest or otherwise harass someone else, so this is truly "overreach."
And, by the way, in a scientific sense, gender is indeed more than your particular combination of chromosomes - we know that you can be an XY but if you aren't exposed to the proper levels of testosterone in-utero you will not be male. Not to mention XO, XXY, XYY, etc., etc. Sadly for those who want the whole world to be simple and divisible into black and white (so to speak), nothing is that simple - not even your gender.
And, by the way, in a scientific sense, gender is indeed more than your particular combination of chromosomes - we know that you can be an XY but if you aren't exposed to the proper levels of testosterone in-utero you will not be male. Not to mention XO, XXY, XYY, etc., etc. Sadly for those who want the whole world to be simple and divisible into black and white (so to speak), nothing is that simple - not even your gender.
5
At first I thought this was a conclusion too far from the few words so little explained in the law. However, the prior case does seem to make this both right and inevitable. So does good sense.
The Hopkins case explained, "punishing a woman for failing to conform to her employer’s notion of “womanhood” was just as discriminatory as treating her poorly because she was a woman. The punishment a transgender person faces for violating sex stereotypes is just as much discrimination because of sex"
Court's don't just parse language or legislative intent. They also look to what is practical and makes sense. This even became a form of briefing known as a Brandeis Brief, which features an appendix addressing the real world and practicality.
In that sense, I am also persuaded that a person who looks and dresses and acts like a woman ought to be able to use the woman's room, and a person who looks and acts and dresses like a man ought to be able to use the men's room. It could make the person uncomfortable to do what looks wrong, just because a microscopic study of DNA would show the opposite. In the name of keeping men out of the woman's room, we'd have apparent men forced to go into the woman's room.
The test I like is "whatever they are most comfortable doing." Oddly, those words are from Trump. Since then of course politics intervened, but his first reaction is actually pretty fair.
The Hopkins case explained, "punishing a woman for failing to conform to her employer’s notion of “womanhood” was just as discriminatory as treating her poorly because she was a woman. The punishment a transgender person faces for violating sex stereotypes is just as much discrimination because of sex"
Court's don't just parse language or legislative intent. They also look to what is practical and makes sense. This even became a form of briefing known as a Brandeis Brief, which features an appendix addressing the real world and practicality.
In that sense, I am also persuaded that a person who looks and dresses and acts like a woman ought to be able to use the woman's room, and a person who looks and acts and dresses like a man ought to be able to use the men's room. It could make the person uncomfortable to do what looks wrong, just because a microscopic study of DNA would show the opposite. In the name of keeping men out of the woman's room, we'd have apparent men forced to go into the woman's room.
The test I like is "whatever they are most comfortable doing." Oddly, those words are from Trump. Since then of course politics intervened, but his first reaction is actually pretty fair.
134
Whatever they feel most like doing. This is not a standard that would stop at the bathroom door. There are many people who see themselves as "butch" but not transgendered. Would you exclude them from the ladies room even though they are women? And if gender identity determines you can chose the bathroom of the opposite sex, shouldn't that extend into the rest of society? Should a transgender be allowed to participate in women's sports, women's beauty pageants, women's scholarships, women's groups etc if they identify as a woman? This is not about meanies enforcing stereotypes, this is about transgenders wanting to be legally defined as the gender they prefer in ever aspect of society. It does not reinforce gender roles, it seeks to eliminate the "binary" of men and women, gay and straight etc.
4
And, far scarier would be for a transwoman to be forced to use a men's room because her birth certificate says male. There's almost nothing more stultifying and dangerous among males – to the point of violent physical abuse – than signs of non-prototypical 'masculinity'. Legions of boys grow into men shamed and/or terrified of being called a "sissy" etc., at the slightest sign of some nonconforming trait or gesture or talent or predilection.
Transwomen in a men's room would be taking their lives in their hands with every entry into a men's room - and it's not farfetched to think that's exactly what the purveyors of these birth-certificate-restroom laws want to see happen. They want a world without transgender. Their binary, black-and-white world is unsettled by transgender existence, and it seems likely their law- and fear-mongering attitude would respond to any incidents of violence upon transgenders with the same hubris of all abusers –"You asked for it" – conveying complete disregard, ignorance, not to mention lack of empathy, for the people who actually need protection here - the transgenders themselves.
From North Carolina to Texas, the current ginned-up fear of transgenders as alleged potential perpetrators of violence falls flat on its complete lack of evidence. Instead it's the transgenders among us who are, increasingly, at risk for their safety and who need the protections of a bathroom that fits their sex/gender identity. Not their birth certificate.
Transwomen in a men's room would be taking their lives in their hands with every entry into a men's room - and it's not farfetched to think that's exactly what the purveyors of these birth-certificate-restroom laws want to see happen. They want a world without transgender. Their binary, black-and-white world is unsettled by transgender existence, and it seems likely their law- and fear-mongering attitude would respond to any incidents of violence upon transgenders with the same hubris of all abusers –"You asked for it" – conveying complete disregard, ignorance, not to mention lack of empathy, for the people who actually need protection here - the transgenders themselves.
From North Carolina to Texas, the current ginned-up fear of transgenders as alleged potential perpetrators of violence falls flat on its complete lack of evidence. Instead it's the transgenders among us who are, increasingly, at risk for their safety and who need the protections of a bathroom that fits their sex/gender identity. Not their birth certificate.
16
@Tracey: this is already happening. Last week, the CBS Sunday Morning show featured a young woman who is living as if she were a man. She is a freshman at Yale, and was admitted as a FEMALE with a swimming team scholarship. Among females, she was a top competitor. Now she dresses as a male, and they have let her on the MEN'S team....where she is dead last. She cannot compete against male swimmers, because she is biologically a woman (smaller, less muscular, etc.). But to be politically correct, they cannot take away her scholarship. So she is going to college FOR FREE and taking a place at an Ivy League school and on the team away from another student.
There have been MTF transgender fashion models for years now. They are prized by designers, for having extremely narrow hips, which look great in clothing but are rarely found even on very skinny female models.
So in short: yes, transgenders want to compete in women's sports (where a genetic male would have vast advantage) and takeaway women's scholarships, and get jobs as if they were women (probably with AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, lol).
Absolutely, the long term goal of lefty liberalism to eliminate the binary of men and women, of human reproduction, etc.
There have been MTF transgender fashion models for years now. They are prized by designers, for having extremely narrow hips, which look great in clothing but are rarely found even on very skinny female models.
So in short: yes, transgenders want to compete in women's sports (where a genetic male would have vast advantage) and takeaway women's scholarships, and get jobs as if they were women (probably with AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, lol).
Absolutely, the long term goal of lefty liberalism to eliminate the binary of men and women, of human reproduction, etc.
7
"Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination because of sex, also prohibit discrimination because of gender identity?"
That indeed is the question. But whatever one's feelings may be on the issue, the odds that a court will answer "yes" to that question are roughly 1 in a million.
Sometimes legal action is the best way to establish a point. This isn't one of those times. If the federal government loses these lawsuits, which strikes me as all but certain, many casual observers will conclude that its position lacked merit, period, not merely that it lacked legal merit.
That indeed is the question. But whatever one's feelings may be on the issue, the odds that a court will answer "yes" to that question are roughly 1 in a million.
Sometimes legal action is the best way to establish a point. This isn't one of those times. If the federal government loses these lawsuits, which strikes me as all but certain, many casual observers will conclude that its position lacked merit, period, not merely that it lacked legal merit.
25
I am so puzzled that the LGBT community is taking these positions now, just before an election that could undo the major progress that has been made in the courts over the past several years. I agree that the chances of SCOTUS adopting or approving these rules are slim to nil, even if President Obama's nominee were in place. This Justice Department and OCR has outdone itself in moving from rational rulemaking to positions that are very far from statutory authority and difficult if not impossible to administer. Their first foray was into major overstepping of jurisdiction was the demand that colleges adjudicate allegations of sexual assault using a lesser evidentiary standard than criminal law requires and with little or no due process for the accused. These cases belong with the police and courts, not education bureaucrats. Makes me almost think that a Trump DoJ might be worthwhile just to restore some balance. But not really.
13
Actually, gender identity lacks merit. It is by definition fraud.
13
One problem, that the supporters of this are not grasping, is that if you compel every single business, school, office, theater, shopping mall, store, government building, recreation facility, gym, etc. to COMPLETELY REDESIGN and rebuild every bathroom in the entire United States of America -- this would cost trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS. Do you people have any idea how many bathrooms, locker rooms, gyms, etc. there are??? Who is going to pay for this nonsense?
And mind you, 99.7% of the population is and was perfectly happy with things the way they have always been -- certainly within the lifespan of any person alive today. Your great-grandmother did not go to "unisex bathrooms" or have to shower with a biological man!
And all of this to appease a loud, angry minority group -- which consists of 0.3% of the entire population, and most of whom have a serious mental disorder. And who, BTW, have managed alright up until now using the bathrooms of their true biological birth gender.
And mind you, 99.7% of the population is and was perfectly happy with things the way they have always been -- certainly within the lifespan of any person alive today. Your great-grandmother did not go to "unisex bathrooms" or have to shower with a biological man!
And all of this to appease a loud, angry minority group -- which consists of 0.3% of the entire population, and most of whom have a serious mental disorder. And who, BTW, have managed alright up until now using the bathrooms of their true biological birth gender.
4
I really can't see how he law will be enforced in N.C. Will we have to bring our birth certificates with us, and will we be checked at every restroom?
Why is this a top priority? Have people died in restrooms around the state?
Is there an epidemic of violence that I missed in the bathrooms in NC?
Why is this a top priority? Have people died in restrooms around the state?
Is there an epidemic of violence that I missed in the bathrooms in NC?
206
how many transgender people are there in NC? I bet there aren't enough to fill a small bath room. Ridiculous.
8
The real reason for this law was to prevent localities from enacting higher minimum wage laws. An economic sleight of hand by people who couldn't care less about bathrooms.
19
Also, I have heard concern from public officials where I live in Texas about the safety of children. Specifically, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said he would do anything to protect his grandchildren. Who lets children of a tender age go wandering into public bathrooms alone? If it is a safety concern (it is not), you should be with your child. This is all a ploy to harass transgender people. Patrick said the other day that President Obama would not destroy our cultural values. What does that have to do with the alleged reason (safety) of these bills? Bigots have a hard time keeping their stories straight.
12
The distinction between sex and gender is a difficult one to untangle. A person may inherit two X chromosomes which the majority of women have and identifies them biologically at birth as women. But because of subtle hormonal actions, which may be affected by environmental pollutants, she may identify as a man, even though she has female sexual organs. Whether the causes of her identity are genetic, constitutional or environmental, they are deeply felt and not subject to conscious choice. Gillian Thomas presents a powerfully reasoned case.
81
No one (well, no one rational) contests that gender identity is complicated. The fact is that it is so complicated that creating special protections for the transgendered makes no sense. Assault a person of any gender? Charged with assault. But there are practical issues of longstanding social conventions like not changing in mixed locker rooms that I really think are going to be hard to change, and I feel that providing unisex individual bathrooms and locker rooms is sufficient. People uncomfortable changing in front of the opposite sex aren't bigots; they are people.
11
They still aren't men.
End of story.
End of story.
6
You forgot psychology as a cause. Gender is biology; everything else is psychology. I see no reason to rewrite social standards to accommodate a tiny trace population whose psychology prevents them from embracing their biologic gender. There are simply bigger fish to fry.
18
Forget about LGBT issues here ... I'm a straight woman and have NEVER felt comfortable showering in front of other people, regardless of gender. Especially back in school ... when nasty teenagers made fun of each others' bodies enough even just seeing them clothed. How humiliating! I'm all for privacy ... for everyone. Shower stalls should be the norm.
(As for locker rooms ... as long as you're just stripping to your underwear, no genitals should be visible. Done.)