Trump is Right to Kill Obama’s Transgender Bathroom Policy

On Feb. 22, the Trump administration reversed the Obama-era policy which requires public schools to allow transgender students to use whatever bathrooms and locker rooms they say corresponds with their professed gender identity, or risk the loss of federal funding.

The response from Trump’s detractors is predictable:

I’m broadly supportive of transgender people living however they like, the only exceptions which immediately come to mind are children and athletics.

I nonetheless think President Trump’s decision was correct.

Ben Shapiro over at The Daily Wire had a few thoughts to share I felt worth considering.

1. This Is Not The Federal Government’s Job. The federal government has no role in redefining sex for an entire country, particularly not under laws like the Civil Rights Act specifically designed to protect biological women from biological men in many cases. This is an issue for states and localities, if it is an issue for government at all – which it isn’t, since assaults are already prosecuted, and transgender people have equal access to protection from the police.

This is the easiest point of agreement for me and the main reason I support this reversal.

When the Obama policy first came down, I couldn’t shake the thought of “what if this were a policy I wouldn’t have liked that was rammed through this way?”

Well, the progressive-left now finds themselves on the wrong end of a presidential administration that wields enormous power.

Whether you agree with the policy or not, it’s worth considering that when both the left and the right freak out about what each other’s respective opposition will do once in power, it’s probably time to peel back at executive authority, even if that means giving up terrifying powers of the state which you might exploit to get what you want — as well as the other way around.

The past two years have been an interesting political journey for me after quitting left-wing politics and reconsidering everything I’ve ever believed in.

Some trips have been shorter than others, but the idea of limited government has appealed to me more than I ever considered before.

Though I haven’t been a fan of Obama for a long time, I do remember sections of the right behaving in ludicrous ways, such as claiming that Obama is a “mole for the Muslim Brotherhood“.

Now the left is so hysterically scared of Trump, they’ve become like the very people they laugh at in what one person cautions against as the “Alex Jonesification of the Left“.

Shapiro makes another point which needs to be discussed:

3. Sex Is Not Malleable. Nobody is arguing that transgender people shouldn’t be allowed to think whatever they want about themselves. They have the right to dress how they want, act how they want, and identify however they want. But their right to wave their fist – just like everybody else’s right – ends when they hit a nose. And mandating that everybody arbitrarily shift the definition of biological sex to self-identification – and threatening to punish those who don’t – is an imposition on the entire society. Society cannot simply begin undermining crucial truths like sex because some people are susceptible to more mental health problems due to that truth. That would be an argument for doing away with truth generally.

Yet the left refuses to acknowledge any of these ideas. They want a new civil rights movement, and that means government action, even without Constitutional or legal mandate or even biological support.

This is the point I struggle the most with.

Again, I’m broadly supportive of transgender people living how they please, but the notion that someone can issue an executive order that enacts radical, sweeping, unilateral changes regarding fundamental truths such as redefining sex for an entire country is more than slightly unnerving.

This is especially so considering that there are people who make demonstratively untrue claims such as “biological sex is a social construct” as though chromosomes don’t exist.

It’s not just dramatically untrue, but an assault on objective truth itself.

There are underlying fundamental questions about this issue that can’t be asked or discussed because the progressive-left took an issue that is as poorly understood as transgenderism and decided to be extraordinarily aggressive about it, proclaiming as if from on high that it’s “the next civil rights frontier” and smearing dissenters or anyone who questions it as bigots.

A troubling development related to this are the rise of confected, alphabet-soup pronouns and endlessly-multiplying fabricated genders.

Writing those into laws against discrimination or hate speech is a recipe for madness, as evidenced by — if you’ll pardon the language — some really strange shit coming out of universities these days:

As a side note, there’s a pretty good chance this stuff is publicly funded, like the study to determine whether glaciers are sexist for which the taxpayers were stung with a $709,000 bill.

There’s a soft authoritarianism underlying the notion of writing subjective perceptions of self into law.

It’s a kind of authoritarianism that doesn’t come wrapped in a flag or thumping a bible.

It doesn’t stomp around in jackboots or bear the menacing scowl of a die hard party ideologue who snarls through gritted teeth that you must comply “because the party says so”.

It’s a therapeutic authoritarianism wrapped in the language of “diversity and inclusion”, “human rights” and “multiculturalism” — dissent construed or criminalized as “hate speech” and “bigotry” — which demands that you dismiss fundamental truths and believe that there are five lights when you know there are only four.

It’s an authoritarianism with a kind-seeming face, bearing a smile that doesn’t quite reach the eyes but hides a knife behind the back of a “diversity commissar” who is all too ready to strike anyone who gets someone’s “preferred pronoun” wrong.

There are plenty of valid questions to ask about this issue, but it’s impossible to have any constructive conversations about it when any discussion outside progressive-left orthodoxy is met with incandescent hostility and even violence.

Canada is a country in which comedians are hauled in front of human rights tribunals for telling jokes, and its parliament recently passed Bill C-16, which writes into law protections of gender identity and expression without bothering to define what exactly that means.

Above all, the Obama-era transgender bathroom policy should serve as a stark warning as to the expansion of government power and what could be written into law and policy for the sake of being “on the right side of history”:

Clarification/Correction: Bill C-16 was passed by the Canadian House of Commons, but has not yet been approved by their Senate. 

According to Dr. Peterson, who has followed this extensively, Bill C-16 passed second reading on Mar. 2:

Target Makes a Stand for Transgender People – But Not Without a Fight

One big box store makes a big stand for transgender people…but not everyone is happy with the move.

Target stores have come under fire for announcing that transgender employees and customers are free to use the retail giant’s restrooms or fitting rooms which correspond with their gender identity.

Conservative group American Family Association started a petition calling for the boycott of Target stores.

The AFA says Target’s policy helps facilitate access to potential victims of sexual predators. Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has also joined the boycott, announcing on a Facebook post Sunday that he won’t shop at Target stores.

Just more than a week after launch, the AFA petition has, as of this recording, gathered more than 920,000 signatures and may breach one million before publication.

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Target announced its policy after North Carolina’s Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, known also as the “bathroom bill” was signed into law in March.

The legislation, also known as House Bill 2 or HB2, bans individuals from using public bathrooms that don’t correspond to their biological sex.

It also prevents cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances which would extend protections to LGBT people. Similar bills are being considered in many other states.

This week I spoke with Transgender National Alliance founder Nikki Araguz Lloyd about Target’s move, the backlash, and one unexpected ally.

Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Caitlyn Jenner Wants to be Ted Cruz’s “Trans Ambassador” and I’m Perfectly OK With It



Also found at

Caitlyn Jenner evidently wants to be the “trans ambassador” for Ted Cruz.

Queue the predictable shit-fit

I think it’s great because politics based on ideas are vastly superior to politics based on identity. I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, so I imagine there’s very little on which I agree with Jenner (certainly not Cruz) but I think it’s wonderful anytime anyone refuses to allow their demographic make up (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) dictate their politics whatever they may be or what ideas they might adhere to.

Gay men have already been kicked off the progressive stack and are now fair game for attack, so why not open up the field of play to transgender conservatives? Trans people can be in favor of low taxation and limited government just as much as the next person; Jenner being trans has no impact on that. We now have anarcho-capitalist feMRAs, and anti-feminists who are openly transgender.

I hope that this will help the acceptance of transgender people outside the usual boundaries because If someone like Jenner can expand the voting base, and bring money to GOP coffers, I speculate that Republicans and conservatives who object to transgender people will eventually shut up about it and at least try to learn something new.

I also speculate that you’ll then see more who will come out as conservatives as well as transgender but unfortunately find it more difficult to come out as the former than the latter more because of the vitriol from the left than the ignorance of the right.

Likewise I also believe you’ll see transgender conservatives get the kind of insults that the left denounces as bigoted, but feel perfectly entitled to use against demographic minorities with the “wrong” opinions and “wrong” politics, such as Stacey Dash; Jenner will be no different.

As much fawning, saccharine praise as the left had for Caitlyn Jenner when she transitioned and came out, I knew it would only be a matter of time before the left turned on her like a shoal of pirhanas the moment they remembered or realized she’s a conservative Republican.

I was right and I take no pleasure from that.


The outrage machine keeps humming...
The outrage machine keeps humming…

In a development which should surprise no one, the Huffington Post fairly recently ran a piece whining about jokes comedian Bill Burr made regarding Caitlyn Jenner’s transition because of course they would.

Here’s the bit:

Most relevant to me at least was Burr’s takedown of how the PC thought police won’t tolerate anything but fawning praise:

“Then you couldn’t react. You couldn’t on any level be like, “Oh my God, what the eff?!” on any level. You couldn’t say that or you’re automatically homophobic. You shave your beard off people are like, “Oh my God, that’s your chin?! wow!!” This guy walked out a dude, came back a woman, and you’re just supposed to be like, “Oh, yes, so anyways, Caitlyn.”

Yes I get that by “homophobic” Burr mixes up sexual orientation and gender expression but to focus on that misses the point.

Along similar lines as Bill Maher explains jokes to idiots, the kind of people who thoughtlessly and reflexively sling accusations of “racism”, “sexism” and “transphobia” like candy from a parade float at anything they merely don’t like also don’t seem to understand that some people need or use humor to cope with and process dramatic changes, be it in themselves or beloved childhood heroes.

A contrast instantly came to mind when I thought of people who, without the hate, might think “what the eff” in response to to Caitlyn Jenner’s transition. First is the strikingly beautiful Nikki Araguz Lloyd, with whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. She has, as far as I know, been openly transgender for a number of years, and I had no clue until she told me:


Whatever your politics, trying to argue she is a man makes you a moron…

Caitlyn Jenner on the other hand didn’t transition until she was 65, after she’d achieved celebrity/hero status after winning the men’s decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics. “Passability” isn’t relevant here even if, in my opinion, Caitlyn Jenner looks pretty good for a 65-year-old woman:

I get why people who grew up with Bruce Jenner as an athletic hero might be stunned by who she is today…

As a cultural libertarian, I have in no way a problem with Caitlyn Jenner’s transition. I genuinely wish her the best and happiest life possible. If anything, I expect the authoritarian left to turn on her viciously when reminded she’s a conservative Republican.

Whatever the case may be, some people may need a moment to…adjust, to put it mildly and there’s nothing wrong with using humor to do that.

Comedy is sacred to me because it brings joy, brightens life, and can act as a mechanism for taking the piss out of genuinely awful things and horrible people. The insinuation that Bill Burr’s joke in any way contributes to the murder and death of transgender people is plainly ridiculous and should be openly mocked and ridiculed, which I intend to do, or at least help in doing.

Huffington Post Editor Bill Bradley quips:

If you have to say, “I’m not being a jerk,” you’re probably being a jerk.

But Bradley evidently doesn’t realize, or doesn’t care that, in an age when the public square is dominated by the professionally offended, where political correctness poses an existential threat to comedy, people feel the need to deny being a jerk because people like him will trip over themselves to make them out to be one anyway no matter what they say.