Bible-toting mother of 12 walks through Target, protesting trangender bathroom access

May 17, 2016 • 2:30 pm

I’m not quite sure why all the fracas has arisen about transgender access to bathrooms, as most people, I suspect, don’t really care. It’s a tempest in a chamber pot. Perhaps if a bearded person dressed as a man walked into a woman’s bathroom, that might freak people out, but somehow I don’t think that’s gonna happen very often.  And you can always have, as we do in our department, mixed-sex bathrooms, usable by anyone.

I suspect the “bathroom issue” is just a symbol for a wider cultural war between progressives and conservatives. In the same way, the hijab, which is just a piece of cloth, has become a symbol of Muslim oppression and at at the same time of women’s demand to wear what they damn well please. The Target chain has become a literal target for religious folks like these, for it’s recently instituted a policy that anyone can use any bathroom they please based on their chosen gender identity.

Look how exercised it makes this woman, who decries the “homosexual perverted agenda.” This makes me suspect that yes, the bathroom policy has become a flashpoint for Christians who see their Bible-based values eroded by the tide of progressivism. First gay marriage, now transgender bathrooms. I try to put myself in these people’s shoes and feel their anger, but I can’t manage to do it.

It’s just one more way religion tries to beat back the better angels of our nature.

The issue seems to be far more contentious than it should be, but feel free to weigh in below.

185 thoughts on “Bible-toting mother of 12 walks through Target, protesting trangender bathroom access”

  1. There are NO reported incidents in the US of a transgendered person assaulting anyone in a bathroom.

    However, there are several reports of congressmen being sexual predators, including a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Therefor a bill should be passed to stop Republican congressmen from using bathrooms!

    2. The idea of such a person carrying a bible coming in and shouting at everyone like that is what concerns me about being in Target. I’d end up in a fight with cap-backwards son number one.

      1. I have thought about what I would do. I think my plan if it happens in my local Target (while I’m there) will be to buy several extra items, then email customer feedback to Target thanking them for their policies and letting them know what I did.

      2. I would ask them for their birth certificate. On the plus side, this wasn’t in an open carry state and they weren’t carrying assault rifles.

    3. “There are NO reported incidents in the US of a transgendered person assaulting anyone in a bathroom.”

      I’m skeptical of that claim. Can you provide primary sources?

      1. Yeah, it’s a big country. There have probably been toddler, dog, and duck assaults in at least a couple of bathrooms.

      2. Yes, just like I can supply sources that god does not exist or the lack Of Russell’s teapot.

        2. Yes I know u can’t prove a negative but law is not science and its possible to look through public records and find both transgender male rapists and ones who trans after the fact. Mostly to get into women’s prisons.

          1. “… its possible to look through public records and find both transgender male rapists and ones who trans after the fact.”

            How about not expecting other people to do your work by going out there and finding and posting the support for your claims yourself?

            “Mostly to get into women’s prisons.”

            Can you substantiate this claim?

          2. I’m not asking anyone to look into it, I’m well educated on this topic. I wish trans supporters would stop believing the falsity that literally no tranny has ever assaulted a female in a washroom. Its such bull.

          3. Probably bigger chance of them being the victims than the perps. Other folks in the bathroom are mean and have loaded guns. Whatcha’ gonna’do ’bout that?

          5. There is a study from Sweden showing transgender males have the same violent crime rate as the general male population. Study is linked in the blog post. https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/statistics-show-the-difference-in-rates-of-violent-crimes-against-women-committed-by-transwomen-versus-non-transgender-males/

            Also research showing higher autism rates among transgenders and a subset of het male fetishists (Ray Blanchard). I must find the study bbl.

      3. I think what’s more on point is that, law or no law, the probability of being assaulted by a transgender person in a bathroom doesn’t change.

        The only bathrooms that I’ve ever seen that could be considered monitored are the ones that had the odious bathroom attendants.

        1. Rape prevention is never a negative thing. Yes, rape by strangers is less common but if something as simple as separate washrooms can prevent a large minority group like women, it should be done. Women are worth it!

          2. Yeah, u said its not that common therefore we should not take this precaution against trannies raping women and girls.

          5. His point was that if a man is set on raping someone in a bathroom – a serious felony – he won’t be dissuaded by a law saying he’s not supposed to go in there. So the law offers no protection, unless you’re arguing that they commit a rape on a whim after going into the women’s bathroom, and wouldn’t have done it otherwise.

          7. That didn’t come out right (my PC sometimes drops keystrokes) It should have said, “Scott, B.M.v. must be just another damned troll.”

          8. but if something as simple as separate washrooms can prevent a large minority group like women

            What are you trying to prevent the women from doing?

          9. From being raped but that’s men’s doing so idk why u worded it like that.

          10. And why are we women called a large “minority” instead of the majority that we are? Perhaps, were we to recognize that we’re in the numerical majority, we’d feel more “major” and less “minor.” We might take ouraselves more seriously and, in the process, cause media and other powers-that-be to do the same.

          11. That’s the BMV’s term I’m quoting (with a thick larding of sarcasm about her/it’s/his grammar).

          14. But if you have separate washrooms how do you prevent homosexual rape? And how do you prevent someone from just walking in while nobody’s looking? And if someone wants to be a rapist, would they really put on high heels and lipstick just to be able to do it in a restroom? Wouldn’t it be easier to park next to her car in the parking lot in a van with a sliding door then force her inside while she’s messing with her groceries and then drive off? Or go to a bar and offer to take her out back for some weed and then put her into his car? Or follow her home from the bus station? Or break into her house? Or knock on the door pretending to need the phone or or or or….?

            The idea that rapists would take advantage of the law is ludicrous. Transgender people have been using the rest room they feel natural in for decades or maybe millenia and nobody even noticed.

          15. Women have very low rates of committing rape so its not an issue for women. The point is harm reduction compared to the odds with males. No one is making the strawman argument that all men are rapists. Its still a small amount of dudes that rape but still way more than women. As for your other proposed scenarios, I’m sure they would be easier to do however the trans who assault women in washrooms and other places meant to be sex segregated for that matter are mentally unstable perverts usually so don’t expect them to be rational.

          16. Can you identify one incident of a transgender person raping a woman in a public restroom?

          18. “Rape prevention is never a negative thing.” Yes, if it actually prevents rape.

            All this controversy has done is given us *heterosexual men* (and a few women)accosting women in women’s bathrooms. This women do not need.

        2. I should think that the presence of restroom attendants, odious or not, would nominally improve the cleanliness of restrooms messed up by odious human primates who can’t be bothered to raise the lid, even with their feet, urinating all over the lid and the floor, some of whom declining to wash their hands.

          1. I’ve never seen a bathroom attendant intent on anything other than trying to sell their perfumes, unguents and other ridiculously overpriced (and almost certainly counterfeit) cosmetics. Certainly they don’t waste their expensive selling time on things like hygiene.

          2. Fine, if THAT is the type of attendant you’re talking about.

            I appreciate the efforts of the state employee restroom attendants at U.S. interstate highway rest stops who clean up the messes travelers make, travelers who are too entitled, too “special,” to trouble themselves to clean up the gratuitous, egregious, nasty messes they make.

          3. the state employee restroom attendants at U.S. interstate highway rest stop

            That is a species that I have never heard of existing on this continent (geological sense, not political sense).

        3. The only bathrooms that I’ve ever seen that could be considered monitored are the ones that had the odious bathroom attendants.

          Traditionally they’re illegal west african immigrants – at last n Scotland (and for a tradition less than 10 years old).
          P>Also, traditionally, the bars that charge them for access to the toilets so they can sell their perfumed water then also lose my business, and in at east one case, go out of business.

          1. I’ve only seen them here in the US at bars or restaurants, and very rarely. They don’t do anything other than watch you pee and then hand you a towel. You’re morally obligated to tip them for this service. They seem to be not so much at nice establishments, but semi-nice ones that are trying to be more than they are.

          2. I do tell the bar tender that I was going to have another drink, but seeing the creep in the toilets, I think I’ll take my custom elsewhere. And on my next visit ask if the creeps are still about, and leave without ordering if they are. No point in not giving feedback, if you want to change behaviour.

          4. Treat them (the job – not the people) with the contempt they deserve.
            Actually, I’ve chatted with more than a few of them (while “syphoning the python”), and many have deeply horrible histories of abuse in their efforts to escape (typically) war-torn west Africa. *I* don’t begrudge the people getting into a (relatively) safe country by whatever means, and I do hope that they, personally, can regularise their situation and put their degrees (often) to good use.
            Often, to be able to afford to illegally immigrate to the west, the immigrant needs years of (relatively) high income in their home countries, and I wasn’t joking about them being graduates.
            MEMO TO SELF : spit in the eye of the next UKIP bigot I see. Nasty little fascists – thirty-nine steps down the path to wards Nazi-ism, and every step taken willingly.

      4. I still have problems understanding this whole discussion. There is absolutely nothing to prevent men from entering women’s bathrooms now. There is no need for them to dress up as a woman. All they have to do is grab the handle and open the door. If a woman is alone in there, he can then rape her. If she is not alone, then there won’t be a problem anyway, whether he is in a dress or not.

        Bathrooms aren’t guarded so anyone can enter any bathroom they want anyway. And the toilet stalls are separate so no one will be able to film women going to the toilet, if that’s what you people are worried about.
        I just don’t get this thing.

        And how do you propose to keep people out if the bathroom that isn’t for them? Mandatory check of genitalia? Ultrasound of ovaries? What about the women that look like men or suffer from hirsutism but have vaginas? Which bathroom should they go to. What about parents bringing their children to the toilet? Which bathroom should they enter?

        What about sexuality? Should gay guys be forced to use women bathrooms to make the homophobes feel safer? What about pedophiles in boys bathrooms? Shouldn’t we then introduce some law to protect children from being raped in bathrooms as well? Catholic churches should probably have separate bathrooms for priests to protect children. You’re only talking about women but how are you going to protect children from being raped in men’s bathrooms?

        This whole thing shows how stupid people can get. When I was doing my studies we had tiny unisex changing rooms. We were practically standing on top of each other. We thought it was fine. Gave me a chance to check out some hot dudes. 😛

        When it comes to showers, they should be separated by walls anyway, because of girls, not guys (girls are far too cruel about each other’s bodies).

        1. In the NY Times 5/15/16 “SundayStyles” section:

          “On a busy Saturday night at a restaurant, I was waiting to use the ladies’ room. (The place has two single-occupancy bathrooms: one for men and one for women.) A minute later, a young man in his 20s came out of the ladies’ room. Annoyed at his entitlement, I said, “Excuse me?” To which, he (in regular men’s clothing) responded, “I’m transitioning,” and kept walking. I found this rude. I don’t believe for a second that he was transgender. My husband suggested I let this go. I disagree. You?”

          The omniscient columnist advised her to let it go.

          I wonder what her husband’s opinion would be if she decided to evoke a similar privilege by traipsing into the men’s room. Would he cheerily “let it go”?

          1. I wonder what her husband’s opinion would be if she decided to evoke a similar privilege by traipsing into the men’s room. Would he cheerily “let it go”?

            Yorick, a trans man, discusses this very thing on his excellent new youtube channel. Yorick is a trans man who 1) believes in biological sex 2) transitioned due to intense body dysphoria 3) does not buy into the trans trender/bio sex is a social construct/ non-binary is a thing bullshit that the SJWs are inventing nowadays.

            In the video below, he talks about a very very obvious young woman who, self-identifying as non-binary, chose to waltz into the boy’s bathroom at school. People were of course horrified – boys made uncomfortable, and her reaction was that she was a victim of ‘harassment’, because if she wants to use the men’s room depending on her special gender feelz that day, well then by golly she is going to do it, the feelings of others be damned!

            Yorick!

            If you genuinely want to learn about trans issues, and about how ignorant entitled SJWs are making a mockery of trans issues, I suggest that anyone reading watch all of Yorick’s videos.

          3. I have no idea if you are being funny or if that is a serious question.

            Social Justice Warrior aka Regressive Leftist

            Entitled people who make it their business to get offended on the internet. They think that this is activism. They are narcissistic in the extreme and they make it a point to co-opt the struggles of others in order to position themselves as special snowflakes and/or to signal how morally superior they are to YOU.

          4. It was a serious question.

            An IIII is an Idiotic Idiosyncratic Internet Intialism. It is used by entitled people who make it a point to position themselves as special snobs and/or to signal how idiomatically superior they are to people who use the internet to merely communicate by deliberately obfuscating their own communications.

            And, yes, I use the initialism IIII as snark.

          5. Everybody on this list knows perfectly well what a SJW is by now. I suspect you do too.

            cr

          6. @infiniteimprobabilit:

            Everybody on this list knows perfectly well what a SJW is by now. I suspect you do too.

            As a matter of fact, I did not (how wonderfully presumptuous – I’d come to expect better of you). If somebody cannot take the time to be transparent in their communications, why should I waste my time looking things up? I have better things to do than look up obscure abbreviations just to let someone else be smug. The implication is that if I cannot understand a stream of capitol letters, I don’t deserve to be here as a reader or contributor. Somehow, I suspect that lack of clarity is not one of the objectives of this site, but that’s for Professor Ceiling Cat to determine. DYGWIM?

          8. @ E A Blair

            In that case I apologise. I thought you were feigning ignorance to make a snarky debating point. Obviously I was wrong.

            I would maintain that (almost) everyone on this list knows what a SJW is, since it has been extensively used in many discussions. No snark intended, I’m genuinely surprised you didn’t. But I do acknowledge that for each of us, there is some common term or other which, quite by chance, we’ve escaped seeing.

            I happen to share your irritation at ‘insider’ terms. It’s a matter of degree and I’d say SJW has been extensively enough used, like LGBT, to count as a generally used term by now.

            cr

          9. Another incident: a friend told me of some years ago attending a Rolling Stones concert. It was another incident of apparently not enough restrooms for women. Some women (perhaps likely in extremis) made their way into the men’s room (where the menfolk were in one long row urinating into a trough, as perhaps typical of a stadium setting) to use the toilets. The friend reported that there was an uproar, with the men directing toward the women quite direct, rude, disrespectful, sexually-oriented comments.

            I give the women the benefit of the doubt in weighing in the balance the comparative (dis-)advantages of entering the men’s room. Apparently better to bear the shorter-duration of vile man-mouthing by these noble sons of mothers than soiling oneself.

          10. I don’t blame the women for using the mens room in their predicament. But equally, I can’t blame the men for making adverse comments – it was their (notional) privacy that was being infringed, after all. So long as it was only comments, and no threats were made.

            cr

          11. Would you say that the delicate aesthetic sensibilities of the men were likely “offended”? Or that they simply couldn’t resist directing vile sexually-oriented comments to the women? (This might be one situation where a burqa for a woman might be advantageous.)

          12. I’m saying that if women walk into a mens toilet while it’s being used by guys, they can expect a few rude comments. Possibly even sexually oriented ones. As could men walking into a womens toilet.

            cr

    4. The problem, as Cindy notes below, is not transpeople but straight, cis-male assholes taking advantage of the way the way the law is written to creep out women and girls by hanging out in their bathrooms.

      1. Yes and in WA state a man walked into a woman’s change room at a pool and undressed…it was completely legal:

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wa-man-women-bathroom-test-transgender-ruling-article-1.2535150

        People are mainly talking about bathrooms but these nebulous, vague ‘gender identity’ laws apply to *everything* that is sex segregated. And they are written as such that the ‘gender identity’ of the supposed ‘trans’ person cannot even be questioned. This is a giant loophole.

        Personally, I do not believe that these laws help trans people – and neither do some trans persons out there: See the youtube channels of Yorick and Blaire White, one FTM the other MTF: https://www.youtube.com/c/blairewhitex, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbbysp6QBvobGGjwlQsWMMQ/videos

        Transexuals suffer from gender dysphoria – they seek to transition, to end their suffering – they do not refer to their penises as ‘female’ or any of the other reality-denying rhetoric that is coming out of the the SJW camp, where ‘biological sex is a social construct and your gender identity is what determines your objective physical sex’. No, these gender identity laws, imo, are there to help the people who are mere ‘trans trenders’ – or those who are transvestite fetishists. The folks who get sexually aroused by using female only facilities. The folks who do *not* want their presence to be questioned.

        Have a look at those youtube channels if you have the chance, and see what real transexuals, not trans trender wannabes, think of the current SJW obsession with all things trans.

        1. Despite the comment I made above, I agree with you that the first law you mentioned is also ridiculous and can be used by some guys (and girls) that actually aren’t transgender.
          I still don’t see how anyone is supposed to prevent transgender people using the “wrong” bathroom however, without introducing an even more ridiculous surveillance state where people have to show their genitalia everywhere they go if they just so happens to look a little manly.

          And, like Bob mentioned in the first post, how are we supposed to stop congressmen? Or for that matter, paedophile priests?

          1. “show their genitalia everywhere they go”

            That usually results in instant arrest 😉

            cr

          2. Hehe. That’s why I wonder what these bigots are going to do to prevent the real transsexuals or simply manly women from entering bathrooms. I had a teacher once that was extremely difficult to tell if she was a woman or a man. I’m almost 100 % sure she wasn’t transsexual. She was just very manly. She wouldn’t fit into either bathroom I suppose. I think it would be stupid if someone stopped her and demanded to see her vagina before she entered the woman’s bathroom.

            I just think we should have as few laws concerning such stuff as possible.
            I don’t think we need a separate law concerning polite use of bathrooms, just like we don’t need a separate law to prevent people from cursing in church or sneaking in line. Too many laws regarding such stuff leads to a surveillance state in my opinion.

            I suppose I’ve written enough about this subject now so I’ll pull out. Have a nice week. 🙂

    5. Therefor a bill should be passed to stop Republican congressmen from using bathrooms!

      Sounds good to me. [Gets tube of skin adhesive.]

      1. Now trying to open tube of skin adhesive solvent with fingers stuck to tube of skin adhesive.

  2. … a tempest in a chamber pot.

    Nice one.

    Has anybody ever explained to this bible-toting harridan what causes pregnancy?

  3. “I suspect the “bathroom issue” is just a symbol for a wider cultural war between progressives and conservatives.”

    There no doubt about that. If a man wants to go into a woman’s bathroom for nefarious purposes he’s going to do that anyway. Either boldly if his intention is rape, or by disguising himself as a woman if he’s a peeping Tom.
    Any rational person is going to realize the real danger would be forcing a a very female looking transgender women to use a male bathroom, particularly in the homophobic states that want to do that.

    1. sub. That woman is mentally unbalanced, to get so worked about this issue.

    2. It is one thing if the rogue male has to look round his shoulder, it is another thing now as he can go proudly to look at undressed females and if they object, they are accused in bigotry.

  4. Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. –Matthew 6:1

    Given the number of trans people in the US, there is little likelihood that this woman will run into one in the bathroom of her local Target. On the other hand, with twelve kids, chances are three of them will be Chinese.

    2. More importantly, there’s a pretty good chance one of them is gay or lesbian. Because of what this woman has been brainwashed to think is good mothering, that child is on the suicide fast-track unless he/she can find some strong support outside the family.

      1. +1

        My first thought was of someone asking her if this was her understanding of what Christian Love and Christian Morality was about and if she would behave the same way if she were to find out that one of her children was LGBTQ, because there is a good chance that one of them is.

        1. The height of irony. One of my fundamentalist faculty colleagues who railed against including sexual orientation in my college’s nondiscrimination statement ended up having a homosexual child.

          1. I only hope that your colleague was able to find a way past her issues at least enough to continue loving and supporting her child as all humans deserve.

        2. If her kids have any sense (i.e. more than her) she wouldn’t find out.

          🙂

          cr

          1. The absence of children would be a difficult to hide datum, and the grief he/ she (the child) would et about not having “been fruitful and multiplied” would be intense. It’s a violation of one’s duty to the biggest predator of the bible, don’t cha know?
            OTOH, watching the Mom’s head explosion when the truth strikes home would be far more interesting than the plethora of boil-lancing videos on YouTube.

  5. Perhaps if a bearded person dressed as a man walked into a woman’s bathroom, that might freak people out, but somehow I don’t think that’s gonna happen very often.

    Perversely enough, that’s exactly what the anti-transgender laws demand.

    There are people with beads who dress like manly men who have female genitalia. Those people typically would be most comfortable using mens’s restrooms, as would most other people nearby. Yet these laws would mandate that they must use the womens’s restrooms.

    Once again, I must ultimately blame Plato…Christians are confused that there exists some Platonic archetype of gender and that all deviations thereof are unnatural and perverted. Yet such idiotic nonsense has as much bearing on reality as the Platonic elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

    Cheers,

    b&

    1. The first time I heard about this new law, that’s what struck me too. Trans people who look and dress like the gender of their minds being forced to use the bathroom of their genitalia. That’s what’s going to cause the problems imo.

      Besides, as has been pointed out above, there have literally been no issues with this. As far as I’m concerned this is conservative religious forcing their disturbed morals on others. It’s just another example of push back against them losing power.

      I posted a video on Twi##er of a man doing the same thing in Target as this woman a few days ago. I think that one came from The Friendly Atheist. (It was that stable anyway.) These Christian groups are obviously on a mission, but what they’re doing seems to be ignored by everyone except to express disgust at the behaviour.

  6. I get the feeling that unenlightened and/or uneducated people require targets of hatred in order for feel complete as human beings. From their hatred they seem to extract some type of emotional security.

    If it’s not Catholics then it’s Protestants. Or both. If it’s not Jews then it’s Muslims. Or both. If it’s not gays then it’s transgenders. Or both. If it’s not blacks then it’s latinos. Or both… etc… etc…

    Generally this hatred comes not from their own thoughts or volition but is merely a regurgitation of what they have been taught by their parents or peer group.

    Educated and/or enlightened people are more inclined to consider these prejudices rationally and discard those which make little or no sense.

    1. Christians need a common enemy. By focusing all attention on “those evil people over there,” they build unity within the camp and divert attention from the ridiculousness of their beliefs. Win Win.

      Look at history over the last decades and the last centuries – abortion, the red scare, temperance, catholics/protestants, etc.

      Christians always have a villian to fight.

  7. What exactly is there about this issue that it requires any further “weighing in on?” The goose stepping, chicken little-style reactionary effluvia from these Enlightenment-compromised bible belchers is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Same bull___, different century. I’m long past the time of being incensed or embarrassed by these hypocritical dolts. If they are so “hellbound” on meeting determining my damnation on their way to meeting their maker, there should be a law that allows me to help them do so without imprisonment.

    The most appalling thing about this story was the very beginning: “Mother of 12…” Need I say more about that?

  8. I don’t have a problem with Trans people using the bathroom of their choice, I do have a problem with the way the new laws and policies are being written.

    Previously, if some large, balding, bearded, manly looking dude tried to enter the girls dressing room at the public pool, someone would tell the management and that guy would be removed and/or arrested. Perhaps some father, brother or husband would intervene and rough the guy up. That’s why perverts didn’t do this in the past, obviously too risky. Once all the girls start screaming, you’re going to get an ass whooping.

    Currently in CA, I can walk into the girls dressing room (and I think I’m fairly manly looking) and no one can stop me without risking getting arrested themselves. I don’t have to try to look like a woman. I don’t have to be on record as declaring myself a woman. I can’t even be asked if I identify as a woman (they don’t ask the other women, so that would be discrimination). Anyone, including sex offenders, can walk in and plop down and no one can interfere. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

    It’s not just the bible thumping nutjobs that have concerns about this issue.

    1. The only problem is you are making a mountain out of nothing. How many people do you see getting beat up around public restrooms. And why would you, a straight male, I assume, be walking into a ladies dressing room?

      It seems like you need something constructive to do.

      1. Actually, when I was twelve, there was a creep hanging out in the boys room at the county fair asking boys for sex. I and another kid went and got some adults who knocked him around a bit and then he was arrested. The thing is, now similar creeps can hang out in girls rooms, where before they couldn’t.

        I didn’t say that I would go in, but I could and if I was a perv, a pedophile or a rapist looking for opportunity, I might. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if this becomes a problem.

        1. Transexual people have been using bathrooms, change rooms etc for 40+ years and it has never been a problem. Most people exercise a certain amount of common sense – if you have a beard and a penis, you use the area reserved for men and vice versa.

          This entire NC debacle was started when regressives passed a ‘gender identity’ bill, similar to the one in WA, which states that gender identity – which is unfalsifiable – trumps physical reality. In other words, any man can, at will, use a female only bathroom/change room/shower in any facility based on nothing more than *claimed* gender identity. This basically opens the doors to perverts who get off on hanging out in women’s facilities, and in some cases, filming them as they pee (there are entire fetish websites dedicated to this).

          The right-wing SJWs saw an opportunity and reacted, by passing this bill in NC. The NC bill is a stealth attack on LGBT rights – while everyone is talking about trans bathrooms, the bill basically gives Christians the right, based on their ‘strongly held beliefs’ to discriminate against LGBT folks at will. Expect more discriminatory copycat anti-LGBT bills to follow in the months to come. This entire trans bathroom thing is a huge distraction enacted to harm the entire LGBT community.

          Now, back to perverts using women’s facilities and the general privacy issue. A lot more cases such as the one described below will, and have been, popping up:

          According to one mother of a swim team member, Ellen Vandevort, her daughter was just leaving the locker room in late April when a person who was bald, with heavy stubble and a towel at waist level, stepped out of the shower. Her daughter and the younger girls on the team, says Vandevort, grew alarmed and reported it to the swim coach who suggested that the girls change in the family shower room.

          An employee at the center who spoke on condition of anonymity says the individual using the locker room appears to present as a man—wearing swim shorts or trunks to swim, with sideburns going down into a beard—which is partly what alarms the girls and their parents. Staff members have also been warned that asking individuals to prove their gender identity would be discriminatory. “Our hands are tied,” the worker said.”We can’t say anything about it.”

          The sign posted outside the locker room in March that affirmed the right of anyone to use the facility that corresponds with their gender identity also noted that “individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender” and that anybody “who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with an individual’s rights” can be prosecuted.

          http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom-laws-worry-parents/

          The problem is not trans people who just want to get on with their lives – hopefully unnoticed. It’s a blank cheque for perverts to, without question, enter opposite sex facilities, across the board.

          This heightened awareness is also harming gender non-conforming women and butch lesbians – who will automatically be suspected of being men when entering women’s spaces, and will face violence as a result. The regressives should have left well enough alone instead of trying to push this gender identity bs. And it is only a matter of time before something horrible happens in a female only facility and the transexuals, the folks who have the most to lose from this, are blamed – because we’ve all been told to look the other way if an obvious man enters a female only facility.

          Sorry for length, tried to trim as much as I could!

        2. I shouldn’t make light of your concerns, but how about the transgender who must use facilities based on their birth certificates even though it no longer applies. Do we say sorry, you will just have to live with the humiliation because we, the perfectly straight folks are uncomfortable with it. Or it might let some perv get into the room.

          1. If the law was written properly, with some forethought, this wouldn’t be a problem. A law that states that anyone, without exception, can enter the girls’ changing room, is problematic.

            Sorry I didn’t reply to you sooner, I was off doing something constructive.

          3. I have no issues with people who have been transitioned (hormones only is very problematic here — again, no way for the general public to tell) using the bathroom, etc. of their new gender.

          4. The other thing I would point out is that it’s not only the comfort of the transgendered people that counts here.

            It seems to me that one (very hardline, vociferous) side in this debate is championing the rights of a tiny minority (hurray!) but at the same time completely discounting the rights of the vast (should I say: Evil, opppressing, cis?) majority.

            This does not seem to me to be the way to handle this.

            What is the harm, in either case? Discomfort of someone in the bathroom.

            I support doing whatever reasonably can be done to accommodate the comfort of transgendered people. And I’m in favor of some “affirmative action – like” steps to make it happen. However, I’m not in favor of trampling the rights of the majority to do so. And some entirely valid privacy rights are at stake here — for both groups.

          5. Agreed.

            I think the rule could be quite simple – if you’ve got dangly bits or a beard, use the mens room. You don’t *have* to use the urinals, you can always use the stalls.
            One purpose of the separate facilities is to spare women the sight of your dangly bits.

            If you’re transgender and look like a woman* (other than still having your dangly bits) then it’s probably okay to use the womens room, just don’t flash them.

            Use the room that suits your appearance and avoid giving offence.

            What’s so hard about that?

            Actually, the problem of an adult accompanying an opposite-gender child is far more common and more intractable.

            cr

      2. I think you are missing the point here.

        It can happen, and has happened, that straight, creep guys have gone into women’s changing rooms — and as the laws are currently written, there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it legally. (See above link about WA state.)

        I’m not saying this is easy to adjudicate; but there is a balancing of rights here — it’s not obvious what the right answer is.

        It may be: An array of 1-holer, uni-sex bathrooms, much like one sees on the streets of London, Paris, etc.

    2. No you’re not the only one and everyone in the progressive community is attacked and called a “TERF” even if they are not even a feminist but an anarchist or something else everyone they disagree with is a “TERF” and must be censored. They have tried to shut down feminists like Lierre Keith from giving speeches.

    3. Previously, if some large, balding, bearded, manly looking dude tried to enter the girls dressing room at the public pool,

      All the swimming pools that I’ve attended which have been built in the last decade or more have had unisex changing rooms. Just lots and lots of individual cubicles interspersed with ranks of lockers. It’s cheaper and more efficient use of space.
      No, tell a lie – there was one that had separate male and female rooms. But that was probably designed … 1982 to 1984 – was when that housing district was built.

      1. Maybe it’s changed since I moved, but the pool that my kids used growing up was just a large room with benches and lockers. It was a rural area and I doubt they have the money to modernize.

        That could be one way the law could be changed that would make it more acceptable, i.e. Apply only to those facilities where there are separate changing rooms and require schools/parks to modernize the buildings by a certain date.

        1. just a large room with benches and lockers

          Hang some shower-curtains, adorned with bulldog clips ; you have a unisex changing area. ‘s’not difficult.

  9. She needs to take her own advice and get out of the store.

    Talk about bat-shit crazy.

    1. She is diseased.

      The name of her ailment: nonsensica messiaca.

      Known causes: smoking jesajuana

  10. What I’m hearing now is that federal directives to obey the civil rights laws as written are being decried as “…federal overreach interfering with local governments’ ability to write their own laws…”

    Didn’t this all start because the state government of North Carolina wanted to nullify a Charlotte city ordinance granting fair access to bathrooms? Is that not interfering with local governments’ ability to write their own laws? Oh, right. It’s only overreach when Democrats do it.

    1. This represents a complete misunderstanding of the legal issues. The city is a creature of the state, its powers are exercised under the aegis of the state, so there is no separation of powers issue or “nullification.” States are not the creature of the federal government, they do not derive theior powers from the federal government, and so there is a separation of powers issue.

      1. There is no separation of powers issue if the state is not complying with federal law as specified in the civil rights laws.

        Think about this for a second. Donald Trump, when asked about this issue said he thought is was no big deal and people should be able to use the bathroom they choose. Later, someone reminded him that he was suppose to be a republican and he said – the states should decide. Remind you of anything? Like maybe slavery or Jim Crow.

        1. Yes, “states rights” is a euphemism for “racism” and “theocracy”.

          1. An assertion was made. It was that there was no real legal issue about separation of powers, and that a state overriding a municipality was equivalent to the federal government overriding a state. I explained why that is false. You do not rebut my claim you prattle about racism.
            I have not taken a stand on the bathroom issue, I have corrected a false claim. That is how serious and honest people debate. Impugning motives is not.

    2. What I’m hearing now is that federal directives to obey the civil rights laws as written are being decried as “…federal overreach interfering with local governments’ ability to write their own laws…

      Isn’t that one of the justifications they used to use to justify holding a war to try to preserve state’s rights to allow slave-holding?

  11. Here in Seattle, Starbucks recently opened a grandiose “tasting room” (i.e. tourist trap) with a single unisex restroom. Inside it there are individual stalls with doors, and some of those stalls have urinals in them, but everyone shares the sinks.

    I’m guessing that even in red states they have county fairs where everyone lines up for the same set of porta-potties. So what’s the big deal?

    1. If it’s all unisex toilets, especially the case with individual buildings (portapottys), then there is no issue.

      But the vast majority of public bathrooms do not fit that description.

      1. I think that this is a grand opportunity for so-called “social entrepreneurs” to provide a solution to a social problem and, like a good capitalist, make money from it to boot.

  12. I think Jerry nails it. Tempest in a teapot indeed. “It’s just one more way religion tries to beat back the better angels of our nature.” Nicely put.

  13. Boy, TARGET’s in trouble. All these people going into TARGET stores, acting like loonies, generating new stories and videos mentioning TARGET. I’ll bet TARGET hates it.

    1. Not knowing the USian retail market – is there some particular reason for them targeting “TARGET”, or do they just happen to be a large retail chain?

      1. Yes. Target is actively supporting the LGBT cause.

        For example, sometime in the last twelve months Target removed signs labeling part of the toys section “Boys” and part as “Girls”. They didn’t change the actual toys, there is still an isle of pink/purple stuff that is easily identified as the classic “girls” isle, but even dropping the signage ruffled some conservative feathers. More recently, Target came out publicly as saying that people should feel free to use the bathroom or fitting room “that corresponds with their gender identity.” So, of course, conservatives have to have a two minutes daily hate on Target now.

        Target may do this because it’s leaders feel it is the right thing to do, but I suspect they probably also do it to pander to their actual customers. Target is slightly more upscale than their major competitor, Wal-Mart. People who shop at Target are more likely to be college educated, professional, slightly higher income, and therefore a bit more likely to be liberal leaning. Target customers are often people who would consider it a mark of shame to be seen in a Wal-Mart.

        Wal-Mart is often lampooned as low brow, by comparison. “Wal-Mart shopper” is a put down in many circles, and the woman above would fit the caricature well. Wal-Mart sells guns and ammo and is associated with conservative, rural, America. It’s owned by the Walton family, the richest people on earth, yet Wal-Mart has been reported to offer it’s employees help on how to apply for food stamps because their pay is low enough that they often need them. As a result of these impressions (I have not researched their veracity) Wal-Mart is much despised in progressive circles.

        So, in some sense, the culture war referred to is mirrored in these two stores: Wal-mart and Target.

        (Of course, if you’re really doing well financially you wouldn’t be caught dead in either store…you’d shop in specialty outlets).

        1. Good for “Target”. If they have a UK division, I’ll consider going out of my way (say, 20 minutes each way) to support them. Similarly, if they have a UK division, I’ll pass that message along.

        2. “Wal-Mart is often lampooned as low brow . . . .”

          From the online videos of Wal-Mart customers I’ve seen, they do seem to be low-cut jeaned.

          During the last year or so, I’ve noticed that Target has stopped playing music throughout the store. I for one appreciate not being sonically assaulted. Anymore, even NPR beats one about the head and shoulders with a sonic two-by-four in between segments, especially Guy Rosz’s “TED” – related program. Is a radio program somehow lacking if there is not constantly-wailing “music”?

    1. “Some Christians are starting to scare me.”

      I don’t know where you live, but if you lived in Alabama as I do I’d be surprised if they just started to. I for example would never put a Darwin fish on my car (though I would love to), or advertize my atheism in any way. There are enough nuts around that I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to find my car vandalized, or to have rocks thrown through my windows. Christians around here really feel they’re at war.

      1. I live in a small liberal city (the capital of Alaska) with a Bernie Sanders sticker on my vehicle, currently. 🙂

        I’m sorry for your circumstances. I admire your continued stance in the middle of a storm few can imagine.

        Good luck and be careful.

        Mike

      2. I live in one of the redder IL counties, and I wouldn’t put a Darwin fish on my car, either.

      3. Get some magnetic Darwinfish and go around putting them on cars that display Jeebusfish. Taking due care not to be seen.

          1. Sorry, FB link. Having suspended my FB account, I can’t see that.

          3. Oh yes, I recognise the cartoon. Is that an Eucritta melanolimnetes (arguably the best taxonomic etymology that I’ve ever read, and a good Scottish vertebrate) doing the walking away?

          4. I had to Google that. “True Creature from the Black Lagoon” – I love it! Perhaps evolved into Nessie.

  16. Generally, that bearded guy who walks into the women’s restroom is going to say “Oops!” and walk out embarrassed, or “Emergency!” and rush into a stall. I’m worried that some vigilante in North Carolina will see a woman who doesn’t look feminine enough go into a women’s room and call the cops.. and she’ll get arrested because she doesn’t have her birth certificate with her and possibly subjected to a Taliban exam.

  17. I’m not quite sure why all the fracas has arisen about transgender access to bathrooms…

    My take on this is it’s just manufactured election-year bullshit, intended to inflame the conservative base and anyone leaning that way, to get them out to vote.

  18. Right wing Christians dominate the opposition to male access of women’s spaces including washrooms but also prisons, schools, locker rooms, hospital rooms etc. but radical feminists and other gender-critical feminists also oppose it. So should Marxists as their beliefs are post-modern not materialist. FYI, in feminism gender means socially encouraged/enforced ways of dressing, acting, speech, working etc. based on your sex. In modern speech it has come to be interchangeable with sex but feminists need to be creative with languages to express our overlooked concerns.

  19. I suspect the “bathroom issue” is just a symbol for a wider cultural war between progressives and conservatives.

    Target vs Wal-mart.

  20. I think unisex bathrooms are the answer, as long as urinals are not outside the cubicles.
    But, for extra security, at traditional his vs. hers bathrooms, TSA agents could stand outside the door and grope people to ensure they have the right equipment before they can enter.

    1. The only reason for urinals is the worry that men will pee on the seats. If men would just behave themselves…

      oh wait…

      2. No, I think there’s also a very valid reason, which is that urinals take up much less space per person than a full toilet stall. Therefore, cheaper to provide. I’m sure architects all know this. This is a significant factor in places where there is a lot of drinking (hence peeing) going on.

        I can therefore see the point of, maybe, providing a men-only urinals-only section, plus separate ‘unisex’ toilets.

        cr

        1. Only if a large enough number of toilets are actually provided. The pattern often is that there are ample urinals for men while long lines form outside women’s facilities (at sports events, concerts, etc.).

          1. That’s probably because the organisers made the mistake of providing equal areas for men and women, ignoring the fact that urinals are more compact and that men can crowd in more closely when needed.

            It may also be that they underestimate female attendance.

            cr

        2. The toilet/urinal ratio and the space they take up are not the only factors. It takes more time for a woman to pee at a toilet then a man at a urinal because he can just unzip, whip it out and go while a woman has to deal with partially undressing and putting her clothes back together.

          1. Sometimes that isn’t true. At least not for older fellows.

            The prostate. One of the great disproofs of Intelligent Design.

          2. I should have prefaced that with the phrase “If all other factors are equal (age, health, fitness, etc.)”

          3. Yes, I thought of that too. And also, unfortunately, G B James’ caveat.

            Also a big factor when travelling, guys’ requirements for a convenient bush are far less demanding than girls’.

            cr

  21. Not that I ever want to engage with such people, but my question would be why is the loony cow carrying a Bible and waving it around? I’m pretty sure that Scripture has nothing informative on the issue of transgender bathroom access in public places. Funny thing is, many of us atheists probably have a better knowledge of the Bible than do most right-wing fundy Christians, because the latter just don’t read, period. Reading for understanding and knowledge requires much more effort than making stuff up and ranting about it.

    1. Well, actually, she has a leg to stand on there:

      A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. – Deut 22.

      Of course, in classic God-form, nowhere does it define what men’s clothing is, or what women’s clothing is. This caused a lot of trouble in some circles when women started wearing pants. Of course, now jeans are as much women’s clothing as men, so was it wrong in 1905, but right now? Omniscient God doesn’t bother to tell us.

      Of course, this verse itself is just a few sentences before the classic moral rule, again from the Omniscient mind behind everything:

      Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

      Yep, that’s some of that Absolute Morality (TM) that theologians who are so worried about relativism go on about.

    2. She is using the Bible to magically transform her behavior from reprehensible to piously perfect.

      This is one of the main functions of religion. To make the adherents believe that the ethically reprehensible behavior the religion requires of them is actually a mark of the highest ethical standard.

  22. I would recommend that everyone go over to moveon.org and sign the petition in support of Target.

  23. If she and her brood can come into our public space, even a privately owned store, can we come march through her church, yelling how abominable her/their bigotry is, holding high any appropriate book we please? And, can we bring our transgender friends with us?

    1. If she were asked to stop it or move off, Target would be within its rights to do that.

      Private businesses are not public spaces and you can’t protest there.

      On the other hand, you can go there and expect to be served, as long as you behave civilly (Re: The lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960s).

        1. Interesting! That means the sorts of mega-churches also known as Six Flags Over Jesus would have to allow for protesters in the indoor spaces outside their bookstores, coffee shops, children’s play areas, and the actual prayer auditoriums — at least, in California and states with similar laws.

  24. I have to agree that the bathroom thing is overblown, but readily defused by just having unisex bathrooms. Women often walk into men’s rooms and hop in the stalls at crowded events (there will have to be some engineering improvements for truly all unisex bathrooms). It seems like locker rooms with gender segregated public showers are somewhat different. I suppose that a cis heterosexual male could, in theory, go shower with the women and claim to be a trans woman. If the guy was creepy about it, the creepiness would be grounds for expulsion, the same as if a gay woman were being creepy in the women’s locker room. Does that even happen? Some of the men who go to my gym are gay and no one seems to care. Of course, these are all professional folks who are pleasant and appropriate. The straight men make all the dick jokes.

    1. Shhh…. we’re not supposed to know they exist.

      P.S. Technically they don’t. It’s an abuse of the term, since in humans there is ambiguous genitalia but not actual self-fertilization ability. Intersex is, perhaps, a more accurate term.

      About one in 1000, or possibly more, people are XXY, and some people have mosaic genetics, so there can be ambiguity at that level too.

      1. Edit:

        strike: but not actual self-fertilization

        sub: but not functional versions of both sexual organs.

        I think hermaphrodite was the preferred term for a long time, but I think it’s being abandoned because of the non-functionality.

  26. It worries me that conservatives might attempt to put a lot of anti-trans propositions on the ballot in order to bring out their troglodyte base… as they did with anti-gay propositions in 2004.

  27. The bathroom war is, and was intended as, a smokescreen to distract from the other provisions of the bill — provisions that prevent local governments from enacting their own minimum wage laws, and provisions that make it much more difficult for anyone to bring an anti-discrimination (for ANY reason) action against their employers. Distract, divide, conquer.

  28. I confess to not caring much about this issue. It does seem a bit overwrought on all sides, and maybe a little contrived on all sides too.

    I’d like to hear conservatives say more about the plight of boys in the men’s room, though. Their silence on this makes me skeptical of their child safety pitch.

    1. Ah. But conservatives talk about the plight of boys when they feel like attacking homosexuals. They like to claim that the rampant child abuse in the catholic church is caused by homosexuality after all. They just like changing their argument to suit their needs.

      Want to attack homosexual men?: Claim to be protecting boys. Want to attack transsexuals? Claim to be protecting girls.
      As soon as they want to attack one group, they completely forget about the arguments they made concerning the other group.

      It reminds me of some of the misogynistic racists, that on one hand abuses and harasses women any chance they get, but on the other hand get all concerned about immigrants disrespecting women.

  29. Personally, what I’d like most is unisex with safe locks. The next best thing is biological sex-segregated toilets (but they do not protect boys and ordinary men from predators, and they inconvinience children and disabled people with an aide of the opposite sex). So, I’d suggest – invest some money and make all unisex, or at least add a unisex cabin while preserving the old biological sex division of other cabins.

    What troubles me is the idea that transgender women or, to be precise, biological males claiming to feel like women deep inside, should get every single thing they want, while biological females should just agree with everything and give up their traditional safe spaces, or else they are labelled as bigots and forced to shut up. Take the case of transgender high school student Lila Perry. She was provided a safe unisex room but required access to the girls’ room and cried discrimination. I am deeply troubled by such a penis-possessing individual aggressively demanding unlimited access to undressed girls. I am even more troubled by the chorus of liberal supporters saying that every biological male who may claim to feel like female should be allowed to wave his male genitalia in front of unquestioned females. The fact that Christian conservatives have a certain stance on some issue is hardly a reason to take immediately the opposite stance. They may be right sometimes.

    1. This is something that truly annoys me as well. I have absolutely no clue why some regressives seems to excuse everything done to homosexuals and transsexuals in Muslim countries. It drives me nuts trying to understand it.

  31. as has been noted, there have been trans folks in the bathroom they chose for a very very long time. The sky didn’t fall. It’s the same stupidity that we went through with the claims that gay marriage will cause the world to end.

    just more evidence that so many TrueChristians who preach hate are simply liars.

    1. I think that’s kind of to the point. It hasn’t been much of a problem previously, until CA decided to rewrite the law to make it official. Unfortunately, when they did that, they opened the bathroom door, if you will, to allowing anyone to enter the girls’ room. I think the Trans people were better off before the uproar caused by this law. If you looked like a woman, you could enter, use a stall, wash and leave. No one cared, so why change it? Sometimes it’s better to leave well-enough alone.

      1. Absolutely agree with that.

        Unfortunately you can’t legislate tolerance, moderation or common sense, and they’re usually the first victims of attempts to do so.

        cr

      2. I think this reasoning is fallacious. it could also be used to excuse not doing anything about making it illegal to fire an employee for being LGBT because most folks weren’t going to encounter this problem.

        1. Disagree. The fact that *some* circumstances may justify legal intervention doesn’t mean that other circumstances do.

          cr

  33. Agreed. I support trans civil rights but the amount of media coverage that this issue receives is ridiculously disproportionate.

    Income inequality? Corporate corruption of politics? Endless war? Species extinction? Climate change?

    No, according to the liberal media, the number one issue facing the country is transgender bathroom access… despite the fact that outside of hipster enclaves like Brooklyn and Berkeley, transgender people are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority — 0.3% of the US population at most — and that’s how much media coverage they deserve.

    (Yes, I know the real reason why this issue gets so much coverage: sex/titillation ==> page views ==> ad revenue)

  34. At this point it’s hardly a generalized “bathroom issue” and specifically a “womens’ room” issue. Lots of talk about male predators and voyeurs infiltrating the safe spaces of women and girl, but let’s not pretend for even a second that anyone cares who uses the gents’ toilet or changing rooms.

    And between the two warring pro-trans and anti-trans feminist factions, it all boils down to who can demonize men the hardest. TERFs claim that letting transwomen in will provide cover for pervy males or that the transwomen themselves are just faking it. The pro-trans claim that transwomen being forced to use mens’ facilities are in danger of being assaulted by cismales.

Comments are closed.