The Universal Notebook: Trashing the transgender travesty

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • 13

The rise of ignorance and intolerance in America is nowhere more apparent than in the burning non-issue of which restroom a transgender person should use.

Love and the law should make it obvious: the facility assigned to the gender the person identifies with and lives.

Ignorant and intolerant people – ranging from former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, who lost his job at ESPN for spouting off about transgender issues he knows nothing about, to Gov. Paul LePage, who should lose his job for prohibiting the Maine Department of Education from promulgating rules to guide schools about transgender rights – have made a big deal out of nothing more than their own unfounded fears and sick minds.

In Maine, we have a state law and a Maine Supreme Court decision affirming a transgender person’s right to use the restroom of their choice. Now we have the president of the United States saying the same thing. But that didn’t keep our benighted governor from signing on to an amicus brief in a Virginia trans toilet case that reads in part, “There is no authority for twisting equal protection to force schools to ignore the biology of urination and the privacy of adolescent boys’ reproductive organs.”

Talk about sickos.

LePage earlier joined the trans bigot brigade by refusing to allow the DOE to make enforceable rules for schools to protect the rights of LGBTQ students. The need for those rules, which the DOE and Maine Human Rights Commission had actually developed before LePage stepped in, was made abundantly clear in the 2014 Maine Supreme Court decision in the case of a fifth-grader denied access to the girls’ bathroom at an Orono elementary school.

“Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the (Maine Human Rights Act),” the decision reads.

The court’s decision also notes that the Orono school had a workable plan in place that was helping young Wyatt Maines make the difficult transition to becoming Nicole Maines, but the plan was derailed when a conservative Christian got wind of it.

It seems the grandfather of one of the male students at the school was a member of the Maine Christian Civic League. When his grandson told him that Nicole was using the girls’ room, he ordered the boy to follow her in there on two occasions.

“My grandpappy says we don’t have to have any faggots in our school,” the boy told Nicole.

Did I mention the rise of ignorance and intolerance? How any man who would do or say such a thing could possible regard himself as a good Christian is way, way beyond me. May God forgive him.

Fortunately, Nikki Maines eventually found her way to Waynflete School in Portland, where she was accepted and embraced. She is now in college and has become a pioneering transgender activist.

The transgender travesty in this country is that it’s transgender people who are suffering, not the prejudiced prudes who can’t deal with reality. It’s the transgender youth who are not safe in our schools. But perverse fantasies have the holier-than-thou hypocrites believing that drag queens are about to invade the girls’ room to molest little girls.

But don’t take the word of this liberal Yankee that the transgender bathroom controversy is a complete crock. I refer you to a wonderful YouTube video that went viral a month ago and now has 570,000 views. In it, Tennessee comedian Trae Crowder, calling himself the Liberal Redneck, simply destroys anti-trans knuckle-draggers like Schilling and LePage.

“You do know that transgender people have existed forever, right?,” asks Crowder. “What bathrooms you think they been usin’? How many times you hear about what you’re worried about happenin’, happenin? Hardly not. Never.”

That’s right, Gov. LePage, it’s just not an issue. If there are sexual predators in your bathrooms, they are not transgender.

Crowder correctly charges that those who get all worked up about the transgender bathroom non-issue simply lack the capacity to understand it. They are freaked out because they can’t imagine what it must be like to be a girl trapped in a boy’s body.

“The rest of us are trying to ensure that the next generation, you know, your kids, grow up in a world that’s a little more open-minded,” concludes Crowder, “and that’s happening, whether you like it or not.”

Amen to that.

Freelance journalist Edgar Allen Beem lives in Brunswick. The Universal Notebook is his personal, weekly look at the world around him.

13
  • David R. Hill

    Edgar, how about a link to Trae Crowder? He’s all over YouTube.

  • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

    it is neither bigoted or ignorant to insist on rational public policy that safeguards the entire populace without advancing the interests on one set over others. gay rights are very logical and reasonable and after years of truly prejudicial opposition they have progressed very rapidly in a short period of time. The trans community have pressed for wildly impractical “rights” that are creating chaos in their wake, and alienating what should be supportive moderate voters. c.f. NYC labeling law, and loosely-written policies regarding access to women’s facilities. next up, girls sports teams in schools of all levels. even the LGB community is split surrounding Trans support because the more radical the agenda, the more it threatens to set back gay rights. using courts and media to force the radical agenda will cause more reasonable accommodations to find resistance.

    • Sapient Mulch

      “The trans community have pressed for wildly impractical “rights” that are creating chaos in their wake-”

      With no citation, I find this difficult to believe. You really believe that my wanting the same “rights” as everyone else is wildly impractical?

      It appears you are advocating for limiting trans “rights” because poorly written policy could derail gay rights. Why not just accept there is no reason for all the labels you have applied and recognize HUMAN rights that apply equally to all?

      • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

        it’s not the “same” rights, but that misses the point. there are groups of voters on the right and left whose mind is made up and not going to change, where the policy will happen is with the swath of centrist voters that don’t like radical policy from either side. you may be more, or less “passable” than another, but there’s a lot of middle Americans that don’t want someone that is clearly recognizable as male showering or using the rest room with their underage daughters. don’t give me the talking points about “doing business and leaving” or “you’ve been sharing facilities with trans all along,” because if someone is passable enough to not be recognized then they aren’t the problem. 80%-90% of transwomen are very easily recognizable as men, and those are the ones we are not going to allow into our daughters’ personal space.

        • Kate Johannesen

          The arguments about who uses what restroom target all trans people equally, though. If cis-passing trans women aren’t the problem, why isn’t the general discussion making any distinction?

          And in practice it seems that cis-passing trans women are only not the problem until someone they’re out to decides that they don’t want to be in the same restroom with “a man.” And no, staying in the closet isn’t always an option.

          As far as what proportion of trans women are recognizably trans, it’s a lot less than 80-90%, in my experience. It’s honestly probably closer to 25-35%. And if we’re talking about people who actually look like men (as opposed to just being identifiably trans), it’s much, much less than that. The average trans woman tends to blend in and not draw too much attention to herself, which is good for her but doesn’t do much for other people’s perceptions of what trans people look like.

          If we’re going to go with “looks like a man” and “looks like a woman” as our criteria for who belongs where, then we need to define what those things actually mean. A number of cis women have been criticized for looking too much like men while entering women’s restrooms, so we have to be able to address that in whatever system we come up with.

          • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

            transwomen are easily identifiable as biologically male by a variety of characteristics, including size, stature, facial structure, facial hair, Adam’s apple and build – shoulders, elbows, hands, etc. Have you seen Lila Perry? recognizable as a boy from a half mile. so you wrote a lot of words without answering the question. How do we keep Klinger out of the middle school girls showers?

          • Kate Johannesen

            Some trans women are identifiable as trans, and some are not. Generally speaking, most are not, in my experience.

            I’m not overly concerned about the issue. Lila Perry may not look cis, but she doesn’t look like a guy to me. She identifies as a girl, so let her use the restroom she identifies with and there won’t be any problems on her end. What’s the big deal?

            From my perspective, the system we have now, with protections for trans people in places where they are not already protected, is ideal for minimizing the discomfort of the cisgender population and keeping both cis women and trans people as safe as possible. I’m not the one who wants to come up with an alternative solution.

            If you want to keep a subset of trans women out of girls’ facilities based on appearance, then it’s on you to come up with a system that actually does that. Just be aware that trans men exist, too, and a great many of them are indistinguishable from cis men.

          • April murdock

            This isn’t only about transwomen, what about Transman, men born as women, there are 3.5 Transman to every transwoman, you force these “men” back into the ladies room. Stop only talking about transwomen, you can tell transwomen to use the men’s room & not tell Transman they have to use the ladies room, that’s just wrong on every level & also happens to be illegal

          • Kate Johannesen

            I’m not sure why this is in reply to me. I am talking about trans women because the comment I’m replying to was, and because I recognize that the paranoia leading to bathroom bills is centered around the existence of trans women.

            I don’t think trans men should be forced to use women’s restrooms any more than I think trans women should be forced to use men’s restrooms. And I feel as though most of the discussion ignores the fact that trans men exist, and that putting trans men in women’s restrooms makes everything less safe for just about everyone, because the cis men everyone seems to be afraid of have a much easier time pretending to be trans men than they do pretending to be trans women.

            As for 3.5 trans men per trans woman, I haven’t heard that before, and I didn’t think there were any reliable stats to that effect out there. Has there been a recent study?

          • Deanna Deville

            You really are stubborn, aren’t you. Klinger wasn’t trans. If ol’ Klinger commits a crime in a ladies room but claims he’s trans, any barely competent prosecutor could eviserate that defense in 10 questions or less, if not 5 or less. And it would be fun, too, I would think!

          • Lauren Brooks

            “How do we keep Klinger out of the middle school girls showers?”,,this is a common misconception. The guidelines clearly state that a student that consistently display their identity, should be allowed. Schools are like ‘small communities’, where everyone knows everyone in six degrees or less, this then becomes evident if someone with devious intentions attempts to perpetrate a ruse for whatever ill intent. As far as ‘exposure’ to anatomical appendages goes, ‘sexualization’ occurs within the individuals own perception, how about ‘teaching’ the commonality of anatomy and not the ‘sexuality’ of said anatomy. Let us not ‘punish a marginalized sector because we refuse to educate the masses on inevitable change. This is not the ‘Victorian’ era that some are still stuck in, any more.

        • Deanna Deville

          Oh, yes, you are, Rangeley! LMAO!

        • April murdock

          I don’t know where you get your stats of 80 to 90% but you’re obviously extremely uneducated about the transgender community. There are natal women who look like men, lesbians who look like men & then there are the “men” you’re going to force to be with your daughters, Transman look like men in every way shape & form, they were born women, what will be your complaint then because by your logic that’s who’s going to be showering with your daughters.
          So far these bathroom laws have only affected Nataly born women who were accused of being men because the didn’t measure up the someone’s image of a women, lesbians have been victims of these laws too, transwomen actually haven’t, not even once. Please stop talking you’re nauseating & wasting good clean air. I’m a transwoman & know a tad more than you, let’s see, you’re a 30 something white male who believes he’s got all the answers. Your not going to allow us to use the ladies room & locker rooms, we already have been for years & it wasn’t a problem, not even once………..

      • April murdock

        Trans rights are human rights, as far as gay rights are concerned, without us to use as a bargaining chip gay rights would still be back in the 50s, the gays have done nothing but derail the Trans community long before they wrongfully took credit for stonewall.
        We (transpeople) will make it on our own, the gay community isn’t involved, they aren’t helping or supporting us but, they’ll try to take credit when we do advance our position in this country & make no mistake, we will

    • EABeem

      Transgender people have a hard enough time without having to deal with the unfounded fears of the narrow-minded. Get over it. It’s not a problem. It’s a latest bogus issue concocted by the so-called Christian right to raise money now that everyone understand that marriage equality is not a problem.

      • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

        I think you will find that a lot of the opposition is from moderates who are tired of the tail wagging the dog, and even more so from Blue Dog Democrats. right-wingers make up barely 20% of the population and yet recently CBS News and Huffington Post surveys found 59% and 53% of Americans opposed to self-identification for bathroom access. even the NY Times poll found only 41% in favor of un-challeged bathroom access in public places. so if you do some simple math, that is far more than “Christian right” opposition.

        • EABeem

          We don’t get to vote on human rights. It doesn’t matter how many people want to discriminate against a minority, it’s still not right. As I stated in the column, we have a state law and a state supreme court decision and now a presidential order all saying the same thing. It is wrong to discriminate against transgender people. No one is endangered by transgender people using the facility of the gender they identify with and live. Period. End of story.

          • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

            most rights that are “equal” don’t infringe on others, putting men and boys in girls private space is one groups rights overstepping another’s. the next battle will be over school sports, with biological girls having to compete against transgirls with significant strength and speed advantages that having a male physique provides.

          • Chew H Bird

            As long as anyone can use a restroom no rights are being violated. All people are disagreeing on is the name plaque on the door.

          • Jennyele

            Really so we could go back to separate black and whites restrooms? I mean everyone still gets to use a restroom right?

          • Chew H Bird

            What I am saying is a significant portion of people are straight. Many places have family restrooms (like our local Target). People generally use rest rooms for relief regardless of their plumbing. Who cares? If someone has a problem with rest rooms being labelled based upon 90% or so of the population that isn’t the fault of anyone but the reality of demographics.

            And why is this suddenly a problem when it has been this way pretty much since time began? Shouldn’t we expend more resources on helping all individuals to deal with our differences in a equal and respectful manner instead of worrying about who is using a bathroom?

          • Jennyele

            Transgender people have been using the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity for decades, as to why it’s an issue now simple the right is using the issue as a wedge to bring out their vote demonizing a group has always been an effective method to stir a base

      • Deanna Deville

        Edgar, your article and your comments are wonderful, thank you! So many quotable quotes. Much appreciated!

    • ladyinwaiting68

      Your xenophobia is caused by your inability to see trans people as they are. Trans women are women and trans men are men rather than members of some third group. Trans women, being women, should use the restroom used by women, and trans men, being men, should use the same restroom used by other men. Trans people have always been a part of the human fabric.

      • Rangeley_BLKBEAR

        if all people covered by the umbrella “T” and “Q” looked like Laverne
        C from the TV show, we would not be having this debate. unfortunately,
        there is a wide spectrum from fully transitioned, to in-transition, to
        dresses & make up but no physical/hormonal to cross dressers and
        transvestites to simple (predatory) men in drag. there are no
        guidelines to distinguish between a genuine transwoman and any other
        male masquerading as a woman. maybe you can help alleviate that concern
        for those who have it. meanwhile, my point isn’t that I believe it to
        be wrong and it should end, it is that if the trans community wanted to
        gain acceptance by the vast majority of reasonable, and moderate
        Americans, then they might try reasonable and moderate compromise,
        rather that force-feeding the radical agenda to mainstream Americans
        using the courts and the media. I do not see my viewpoint changing, but
        you might get more support from the middle with a better spirit of
        compromise. Every time there’s a case like Pallatine, Illinois, or Lila
        Perry, or the NY City pronoun ordinance on the news, moderate people
        cringe and there is an understandable backlash.

        • poppypapa

          In your face has always been the approach favored by “loving people” who simply want their “rights” respected.

          Check black lives matter advocates.

          • Deanna Deville

            We’re not in anybody’s face. We just want to pee. And unfortunately, cis men (non-trans) would cause exponentially more harm to trans women, than transwomen have ever caused anybody. As a class, not you personally, you already have.

        • Deanna Deville

          No one has come up with a “moderate compromise” that does not involve segregation or stigmatizing the trans person. Seperate restrooms, even when you call them Family Restrooms, are separate restrooms. And that’s not a practical compromise because it would be too expensive to be practical. And the US Supreme Court ruled on separate but equal facilities (such as restrooms) decades ago. What’s your moderate compromise, Rangeley?

  • Mary

    At long last a journalist that really nails it. Ignorant and intolerant people with their burning non-issue.

    • Real cool guy

      I tried to give you a thumbs down. Apparently only a thumbs up is possible.

      The last thing Ed nailed was his thumb. He immediately called it a racist and marched it off to the inquisition. It currently resides in a gated community with Galileo’s ice pick.

  • Itsjustalila rinpoche

    I agree with Mary. The author tells it like it is.

  • Itsjustalila rinpoche

    Transgender folks just want to be safe.

  • poppypapa

    “Human Rights” is such a useful term, especially in the hands of social justice warriors.

    “In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Human Rights
    Commission has decreed that covered businesses and individuals must use
    whatever personal pronouns employees and customers desire – or face
    fines of $125,000, rising to $250,000 for “willful, wanton or malicious”
    violations. Some examples that “gender-nonconforming people” may desire
    include “ze,” “hir” or “xem.” Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor,
    says that means “People can basically force us – on pain of massive
    legal liability – to say what they want us to say, whether or not we
    want to endorse the political message associated with that term, and
    whether or not we think it’s a lie.””

    • Deanna Deville

      No. That’s asking you to show respect instead of hatred, and provides some serious motivation to show that respect. The misgendering you are referring to, is all about marginalization and erasure. One doesn’t do that out of tolerance, that’s for sure. You poor baby.

    • Michelle Jones

      Political message? How is the fact that I have known I should’ve been born a girl from a young age and only now been able to express myself properly political? When I hear my old name from someone that knew me before, it’s like a slap in the face, and my heart rips a little. Who do you think is going to go through all of the trouble of going to court and such because someone called them a him instead of whichever pronoun they prefer? It has to be “willful, wanton, or malicious.” To me that means pretty direct and intentional. People have always forced other people to say what words they wanted in order to be addressed, they’re called NAMES. How much harder is this than a name, as you can use it for more than one person? It’s more about intention than about words.

    • Tammy Rainey

      so if you don’t believe in interracial marriage, and your white employees Miss Smith marries a black man (Mr. Jones) will you, as her employer, continue to address her as Miss Smith to avoid”endorsing” her sinful marriage?

      Same difference. Respecting other people’s autonomy is what civilized people do. It’s not an endorsement, it’s just being an adult.

      • poppypapa

        I give up; what does your comment have to do with DeBlasio rewriting the English language in NYC?

        • Tammy Rainey

          in the same manner in which, as her employer, it’s reasonable to expect that you address her as she expects to be addressed, regardless of your personal views, it is likewise reasonable for you to be expected to address a trans woman as she/her (or whatever). In the same situation. To refuse to do so is not “taking a stand” it’s being emotionally abusive.

          The law is not in reference to incidental mistakes or ignorance but concerted patterns of such behavior.

          • poppypapa

            Well, I wonder what this will do to the ubiquitous “you guys” terminology common for decades in various eateries, etc.

  • Chew H Bird

    I think the folks who care about this bathroom stuff sometimes forget it is only a bathroom, not a bedroom…

    While I fully support equality and people’s ability to choose I believe is is wrong to force one’s sexual identity on others.

    I notice the Target bathrooms in Topsham are labeled female, male, and family. It seems to me that these are enough choices for the general population.

    Last time I checked, (by accident (but confirmed by my wife)), bathrooms marked female have stalls with doors and do not have urinals so pribate things happen behind closed doors.

    I would think it might be common courtesy to use whatever facility a person most outwardly resembles (with their clothes on). If gender is not able to be identified nobody will care anyway…

    As for safety, I believe schools k through 12 should stick with standard physical male and female restrooms because teenagers will be teenagers (and I was once a teenager). If someone is not comfortable with this scenario, have them use a faculty or staff restroom.

    Making considerations for the minority of people not comfortable being male or female involves separate facilities, not separate signs on the door. Teenagers can be (and I suspect sometimes are) cruel and the target of this anger is often people who are different. Creating a third restroom plaque will (if my teenage memory is correct) simply provide focus for teens wishing harm toward others.

    As for reality, I highly suspect that offensive or violent behavior is initiated by straight people and directed at anyone less outwardly assertive regardless of sexual orientation. I also suspect that teenage males (in general) would be far more likely to act in an offensive manner than teenage girls (in general) based on my own teenage experience (and most would probably enjoy having physical females in the male restroom)…

    And of course, if restrooms are the current non-issue that we are talking about, what happens when it comes time to change clothes for (or shower after) gym class? While I am not a supporter of our governor’s position or perspective, I do believe this is a can of worms we do not want to open.

    • Michelle Jones

      But it is something that we will have to deal with at some point. You can’t expect everyone to hide from the issue forever. I don’t even want to confront it yet for myself, and I really know where you’re coming from, but it NEEDS to be addressed, not locked away and made taboo.

      • Chew H Bird

        Why? Last time I checked anyone using a stall is capable of doing their business in private. If some individuals have an issue with the outward appearance of someone using the sink they really need to mellow out. What a person does, how they feel, how they are are wired, or how they appear, is the business of the individual (nobody else). Last time I checked, we all need to use the rest rooms just as we need to have food and water.

        How about if the person having a problem with the appearance of another person uses the “family bathroom” so they do not inflict their discriminatory opinions on others?

    • Jana Temple

      I gather from what you are saying is that in schools Transgender children should be discriminated against because we can’t trust boys to not be predators? Are there not already rules against anyone entering a bathroom in a school do cause harm? Many school districts have worked this out already without the help of the state or federal government and have made accommodations for all types of kids. Can you really be against that choice?

      • Chew H Bird

        What I am attempting to say is that when I was in high school the restrooms were where really bad comments were made without fear of repercussion. The restroom was where some kids received wedgies. The rest room was where kids traded adult “things”.

        I am not against choice. I against the inevitable abuse some kids will receive simply by being themselves. Male restrooms have urinals. In my day kids made fun of guys who used the stalls to urinate. I suspect human nature has not changed much regardless of how much we wish it would improve.

        What may appear right and fair to us as adults may well have an opposite result when dealing with teenagers…

        • Tammy Rainey

          ” I against the inevitable abuse some kids will receive simply by being
          themselves. Male restrooms have urinals. In my day kids made fun of
          guys who used the stalls to urinate”

          This is not untrue, but THOSE students will mock and deride trans students, regardless, and are more likely to do so once the state says, by it’s choices “yes, this child is not like you ‘normal’ kids”
          The thing to do here is to combat the bully mentality, or install a large number of single-occupancy restrooms – or station an adult monitor in the restroom all day. Maybe record audio in there all day long? I’m not sure – but segregating the trans kids puts a target on their back, even more than they already have.

    • Tammy Rainey

      “As for safety, I believe schools k through 12 should stick with standard
      physical male and female restrooms because teenagers will be teenagers
      (and I was once a teenager). If someone is not comfortable with this
      scenario, have them use a faculty or staff restroom.”

      Are you willing to hear the counter-argument? Here’s some information relevant to that position:

      1. An estimated 1.5 million U.S. students already attend schools covered by the policy of allowing trans kids to use common restrooms (and etc.) consistent with their gender identity and some have done so for over a decade. To date there is not a single example of those policies being abused by “teenagers being teenagers” There’s no evidence at all to support the idea that it will begin now.

      2. Using a separate facility, specifically mandated only on trans people, is a “scarlet letter” situation. It stigmatizes the trans child in the eyes of her peers and implicitly sanctions that kind of disrespect by sending the message to the child that adult authorities do not take the trans child’s gender profession seriously so there’s no reason they (the student) should. The clear message to the trans child is “you are not worthy of even peeing in the same place as a ‘real’ girl(boy) and no one believes your claim” – and says to the other students “this one isn’t good enough to even use the restroom with you.”

      3. The student who objects to the trans child is free to ask for a separate accommodation and, in fact, i think any student desiring more privacy for any reason at all should have the right to ask for one. Some students struggle with body anxiety. Self-selected segregation isn’t the same as enforced segregation.

      4. The same students, trans and non-trans, who are under consideration here leave the campus and go out to the mall, the theater, the restaurant, whatever, and…share the restroom, trans girls with other girls and trans boys with other boys. IF there was the potential for teen mischief, would it not logically occur in these less structured settings than at school? But it doesn’t, so far as we have any evidence. What, then, is the safety interest in asking them at only one location in their daily activity, to revert to the genital segregation model?

      • Chew H Bird

        I am open minded and it has been decades since I was a k-12 student.

        Basically, I am against mandates regarding rest rooms. The kids will figure it out as they go along. If there is a choice of male, female, and some sort of “other”, (regardless of the label on the door) then (in my opinion) there are enough choices.

        Although I am not at all aware of statistics, I suspect the actual number of students (and people) who identify as transgender is small compared with the number of students who identify as straight.

        As long as accommodation and consideration of the minority is appropriate, equal, fair, and available why should the 90 plus percent of straight kids be stressed, uncomfortable, or otherwise concerned about bathroom selection? Isn’t a better education the large picture solution to the symptomatic bathroom debate?

        Seems to me transgendered folks have been using bathrooms like everyone else (as long as there have been humans on this planet) so why now is this a “problem”? It makes no sense to me except as a political distraction from more critical issues like funding better education for all our kids rather than spending resources redesigning restrooms for a small number of them…

  • poppypapa

    Why not mark the spaces with a “P” and a “P” with a line through it?

    • A: Because ‘P’ is not the default.

      Also, because that one body part does not define a person. If a man loses his in an accident (or roadside bomb as happened to 700+ Iraq vets) is he no longer a man?

  • Back in January, some months before South Carolina’s HB-2, the GOP sent out a resolution to their minions instructing them to make as many anti-transgender laws at the federal, state and local levels as they could. Not just against LGBT people but specifically to do whatever they could to prevent transgender people from living normal, happy, productive lives. It worked for them in 2008, with Prop8/marriage equality to get out the vote and bring in donations; they figured it would do the same in 2016. Except this time they are attacking children. But I guess so long as it gets them what they want, it’s okay, right?

    http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/2/25/republican-national-committee-endorses-anti-trans-bathroom-bills
    http://www.advocate.com/2016/3/26/how-gop-laid-groundwork-north-carolinas-antigay-law
    http://harlot.media/articles/1655/the-calculated-republican-trans-bathroom-wedge-strategy

    • Tammy Rainey

      Indeed. FRC actually has a 42 page agenda specifically laying out the plant to use the power of government at every turn against trans people.

  • Lee Anne

    When I began my transition the last person I wanted to be was an activist. I just wanted to blend in and live out the rest of my life in rural South Carolina in relative obscurity. But as Robert Burns wrote: “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft a-gley.”. I now speak before groups, hand out literature at markets and appear at school board meetings. Just to combat this irrational fear of genitalia instigated by fundalmists who preach hatred and bigotry. The last thing a trans person wants is for anyone else to see is their genitals. We are not all that comfortable looking at them so why would we want anyone else to?

    • Chew H Bird

      In my uneducated opinion, the fundamentalists making this an issue need to address their own insecurities and leave everyone else alone. I find it incredible that 240 years or so after our country was created that suddenly so many people seem fixated on other peoples plumbing while using a rest room.

  • Jana Temple

    Thank you for writing this. It gives me hope that most people will do the right things once they choose to educate themselves on an issue.

  • Stevoe

    Hear, hear!

  • poppypapa

    Look; this is their time to shine in the light of celebrity. Don’t take that away from them, Q.

  • nottrans

    I think I understand transgender issues when it come to bathroom use. BUT what about non-transgender feelings about this? Does that count or is this new accommodation for only the very very minority of transgenders? I think we are fighting a very bad LIBERAL change;

    • EABeem

      I am not transgender and I believe transgender people have the right to use the facility of their choice. But it’s not just my opinion, it’s the law in Maine based on the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Supreme Court decision in the Nikki Maines case. The president has also made it national policy, so get over it. No transgender person is going to bother you in the bathroom.

    • Just Sayin’

      You do realize that it’s more than just a ‘feelings’ issue, right? It’s also a safety issue. As much as the current fad is for people to freak out about the risk of transgender people using the freedom to choose a bathroom to sexually assault people, and simply put that does not happen. There have been many places that have allowed transgender folk to use the bathroom of their choice, and it has not led to any assaults or harm.

      There is however, a sadly rich history of transgender people getting assaulted and even killed in bathrooms or after being singled out by having to use a bathroom that is at odds with their outwards appearance.

      Transgender people may be a minority, but their lives are worth far more than your feelings. You’ve been sharing bathrooms with transgender folk for around a decade now, so nothing’s changed. Seems silly to start complaining about it all now.

  • paula

    I would say Edgar Beem is a wise man. Please wright more to debunk the trans bull that is creating so much grief for us trans people.

  • Charlotte Annette Lyons-Hof

    “They are freaked out because they can’t imagine what it must be like to be a girl trapped in a boy’s body”. the Society has been for so long indoctrinated into accepting the concept that those with the Dangly Bits are FAR superior to those who have no Dangly Bits that they cannot get their collective minds around the fact that MANY don’t find that a viable way of life. those with Dangly Bits Syndrome (both male and female) are affronted by the ‘traitors’ who escape to ‘the other side’ and, in effect, put lie to the ‘fact’ that Dangly Bits make for superiority; and, if their Dangly Bits don’t give them superiority, then, in their minds, there is no meaning to life, and they CAN’T allow that to happen.

  • Alans Snackbar

    Still think the sensible thing is to get rid of urinals and just have unisex loos, then there is nothing to get bigoted about

    Problem solved

    • EABeem

      Not a bad idea, but single occupancy probably won’t work in many situations. Intermission at a concert or play? Half-time at a ball game?

  • EVcSparks

    thanks dude 🙂 lol

    • EABeem

      My pleasure.

  • Tammy Rainey

    Standing Ovation. Thank you.

  • poppypapa

    What a great country we live in. With each and every day, the culture and social justice warriors elevate the mundanities of everyday life to a far more dignified level.

    Sultry damsels lolling on their conjugal beds and happy gushing couples in commercials for erectile dysfunction remedies.

    Males and females of all ages romping around in their adult didies, reveling in how they can now deal with leakage and laughing in previously uncomfortable public situations.

    Other commercials waxing happy and eloquent about the variety of catheters and leakage remedies now available.

    Various and sundry commercials demonstrating how various products can free up our bowels, and encouraging us to “enjoy the go.”

    Medication ‘warnings’ alerting us to the possibility of oily discharges and death.

    Cuddly bears describing how new designs in toilet tissue keep you clean enough to wear your undies a second day.

    The mayor of our largest city endorsing business killing penalties if language redefinition desired by gender study warriors are not acquiesced to.

    “Dangly bits” being acceptable terminology on public newspaper discussion threads.

    The parasite on the flea on the tail of the dog controlling the nature of vital discussions of social health.

    The notions of rights, equal rights, and fairness (in the common sense sense) being tossed on the trash heap of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The laws of unintended consequences and slippery slopes being declared overruled in elitist post-modernist circles.

    Other wondrous ‘advances’ too numerous and forgotten at the moment to list here.

    But there is one question I have: when will the assault on drug stores and other retailers begin to outlaw the labeling of aisles with “Feminine Products” signs under penalty of law? And the packaging of what was once considered ‘feminine products’ be required to take on ‘gender-neutral’ appearance, or face fines in the millions of dollars?

    Not that it matters.

    • Just Sayin’

      Wow, that’s a long list of complaints.. but honestly, I have to question if you’ve thought some of them through all the way.

      Sure, hearing ads for adult diapers or catheters talking about leaking isn’t exactly pleasant, nobody really likes it. But if those ads weren’t there, fewer people would use the product, which would lead to more -actual- leaking going on, and some of it out on public seats and benches you might end up using! Aren’t some awkward ads better than that?

      Similarly, if the medications side effects can cause oily discharge or death… I’d WANT to know that!! Seems like a good reason to avoid that medication if at all possible. You know the drug companies would be happy NOT to tell you the side effects if they could get away with it, I’d rather that they had to.

      Just because unpleasant things don’t get mentioned doesn’t mean they don’t happen. It’s often beneficial to bring them into the light rather than sweep them under the rug.

      • Chew H Bird

        While I am open minded about such things as “Pops” has mentioned, I do think it a bit disrespectful for people who are private to see certain commercials at dinner time, or during Saturday morning cartoons… It isn’t about “protecting our children” or censorship. It is about awareness that we all have different levels of openness and acceptance concerning human habits while eating dinner and not being subject to our six year old asking what a feminine napkin is during her cartoon time.

      • poppypapa

        “Complaints?” I’d prefer you think of them as observations of the passing scene, the sort of thing that even amateur ‘journalists’ can report on from time to time.

        Occasionally little bits of gravel build up one by one to make a pile much heavier than one expected.

        • EABeem

          Good people are struggling with difficult circumstances and smugness just gets in the way. Your MO seems to be “how far can I push an idea before it goes over the edge.”

          • poppypapa

            “Smugness?” That’s a real hoot.

            Eddie gives yet another indication of lack of self-awareness.

            The Forecaster’s Saint of Smugness acting as if he turned in his smug credentials years ago…..wow.

          • EABeem

            I am not being smug about the situation transgender people find themselves in, you are. You just blithely pontificate about things you know nothing about, things that do not effect you in way. I ignore your predictable reactionary rhetorical extremism for the most part when it’s just me getting dissed, but you really need to stop denigrating people just because you don’t understand or can’t accept them. I am tired of your pointless, unhelpful comments.

          • Jimmy_John67

            “You just blithely pontificate about things you know nothing about, things that do not effect you in way [sic]”

            You realize you just described every single one of your opinion columns right? Your lack of self awareness is truly incredible.

          • Jimmy_John67

            I also love how Beem’s standard self-righteousness in the comment section has been ratcheted up ten fold since this article has clearly been picked up by a list serve of some kind. Insecure Ed trying to put on a good show as a brave cultural warrior instead of his standard internet troll routine now that one of his troll pieces has made it out of southern Maine for the first time ever. So sad that someone of Beem’s advanced age can be so insecure.

          • EABeem

            Happens all the time actually, but it’s usually anti-abortion and gun rights list serves. Not sure why you think I am insecure. I just find Pem’s self-satisfied conservativism obnoxious and unhelpful.

          • Jimmy_John67

            Usually your stuff makes pro gun or pro life list serves though and you get a bunch of random whack jobs screaming at you in the comments. This is the first time I have seen a left wing list serve pick you up and it’s obvious you are wallowing in the praise from the same “anonymous internet commenters” that you usually denigrate. That is the mark of an insecure person.

          • EABeem

            Secure enough to express my opinion openly using my own name. More than I can say for you and Poppycock.

          • Jimmy_John67

            Are you simple? How many times do I need to tell you that Jimmy John is my name.

          • EABeem

            Sorry, I guess I thought you were kidding.

          • poppypapa

            Why should I have to give my own name, when you and others have so frequently done it for me? And besides, it gives you another straw man to shoot at.

          • poppypapa

            Including one of your fellow columnists at the Forecaster. I suppose you haven’t jumped on that because he shows agreement with you. Only those who question/challenge your words are subject to such criticism.

            How even-handed of you, Mr. Common Good.

          • poppypapa

            PS, Eddie: Can’t help it if you are cis-named. I’m convinced that when I come on here to comment, poppypapa is who I am while I am. Do you have a problem with me choosing how to express my identity? No-one is at risk because I choose to express myself as poppypapa in public comment rooms.

          • EABeem

            This is exactly what I meant when I said you denigrate people who are struggling with real issues. “Oh, aren’t I the clever boots, chortle, chortle, harrumph.” You make fun of people just to amuse yourself.

          • poppypapa

            You see Eddie, as shown in the linked articles I posted, language changes, choices, and all sorts of other things set various precedents and have consequences. The fact that I make observations relevant to them, and apply the terminology and phenomena being added to the cultural and social vernacular is a valid form of discussion, not denigration.

            But since you can’t cede any ground on that, you resort to denigrating and insulting me.

            You and I may have differing views of what “real” means, but such things are in fact issues. You may not like the fact that I highlight them by borrowing them for things other than gender, but that’s already well underway by numerous other actors.

          • EABeem

            By facetiously comparing your “identification” with your screen name to a transgender person’s identification with gender is supercilious at best, just plain mean at most.

          • poppypapa

            Not at all. “Expression” has more than one use. Name and gender, and many other things, are facets of ‘identity,’ like race, ethnicity, etc. All are being opened up these days to ‘fluidity,’ meaning subject to change based on personal preference, and in some cases, fraudulently seeking advantage in various settings.

            Too bad you have such difficulty seeing the consequences of ‘opening up’ the definition of so many concepts.

            When there are no longer such foundations as ‘objective truth’ and ‘objective realty,’ you move into the land of free-for-all, where the imaginary axis takes on new meaning.

            Sounds to me like you are approaching a head on collision, and the car coming the other way is you.

            You are not the redefinition czar for all of humanity. You don’t get to say what can be “socially reconstructed” and what can’t.

            By the way, where are you on the otherkin and human-pup world? And what about the trans-racial movement?

            Consequences, Eddie, consequences. I have no doubt you solidly support all aspects of reproductive freedom, including churning out kiddies without benefit of marriage or any form of familial stability, and the war on poverty. You are in spirit, if not in reality, a child of the 60’s.

            One of these days, maybe you’ll do a column or two on all the good those social reconstructions have done for us as a nation and a people. And how you supported them from the start, and still do.

            Meanwhile, keep demonizing me and others who tend to think things are never as simple and “all good” as modern day campus gurus want us to think they are.

            And I’ll be watching for your comment calling out the others who use a ‘nom-de-comment.’

          • poppypapa

            You know Eddie, your heightened level of micro-agressions is triggering acute feelings of exclusion, marginalization, and harassment in this frail body and fragile psyche of mine. I’m beginning to think my human rights are at risk, and that no one of my persuasion is safe walking the streets of Brunswick at night.

            Inclusiveness? Dynamic discussion and debate on the issues of the day? Respect for differing points of view? Point-counterpoint? Special studies tracks? Comforting of those with minority status of all types?

            Pshaw….not in the College of Professor Eddie.

            The usual obsequious commenters set you up for a humble “I do my best (and it’s really terrific, isn’t it?)” response. Anything less in the way of homage to your offerings results in the dark side of your progressive male privilege (PMP) leaking through.

            Free lance fusillades of insults, name calling, dismissiveness, and other forms of derision come spewing forth, causing one to long for a safe space to cower in.

            Which leads to a suggestion for you to make to your editors. Maybe you could convince them to offer segregated comment rooms for each of your pieces. One could be marked for ‘pro’ comments only, if you get my drift, and the other could be labeled for ‘con’ comments and ‘others.’ That way, those born with PMP, and their soul sisters, would not have to visit the same comment room used by those they revile.

            Which would provide, in some sense, the safe space we increasingly need when we come here to comment.

            I might point out that my opening post in this sequence was a fairly straightforward enumeration of the ‘optics’ of today’s public square as reflected on TV and in media, including this print outlet, and nearby campus hi-jinx. Much as some readers characterized it as vicious and aggressive complaints, a dispassionate reread should show that it was, in fact, a listing of realities ever more difficult to ignore.

            The escalation in acrimony rests almost entirely with you and your asymmetric assaults, and your inability to get a grip on your own excursions along the hyper-emotion axis. Smugness has become such a standard feature of your commentaries on the socio-political scene that you are no more aware of it than you are of the vast majority of the populace who just want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose.

            Funny; that used to be the plaintiff cry of those who wanted to break through ‘social constructs’ that had evolved over time.

            One last thing; keep those ‘dangly bits’ of yours carefully placed and well protected; you never know when a wedgie is gonna be visited upon you, even if only in a figurative sense.

          • EABeem

            Get back to me when you allow comments on your blog.

          • poppypapa

            Typical great response on the points put forward, and deflection to your superior smugness as the overriding value of your reflections on the world that revolves around you.

            Facts, logic, documented items on the record; none matter to someone who cut his teeth as an ‘art critic.’

            “So and so’a pieces evoke the mystique of the supernal charisma of the eternal penumbra of pointed nothingness, and you should not miss the exhibit.”

          • EABeem

            No point.

          • poppypapa

            I’m sorry; what did I say about the ‘situation transgender people find themselves in?’

            And how did I ‘denigrate people just because I don’t understand or can’t accept them?’

            Put the evidence on the table, Eddie, and we can discuss it.

            “Reactionary rhetorical extremism for the most part when it’s just me getting dissed….” Thanks for perfectly characterizing your way of responding to my thoughts.

          • EABeem

            I guess I was mistaken. I apologize. Obviously, you are a good, law-abiding citizen who understands that transgender people using the public restroom of the gender with which they identify does not endanger, inconvenience or discriminate against anyone and is, as I said in the column, a total non-issue except for meddling morons and misguided religious zealots.

          • poppypapa

            Ah….the avuncular Eddie, the other side of his dual personna, makes an appearance with a loving rhetorical snare, camouflaged in subtle attempts to draw me out. Yet the real Eddie can’t resist a role in the closing, in which he shows his love and compassion for all living things.

          • EABeem

            I was being sarcastic. I do not believe for a moment that you have any understand of or compassion for transgender people and the challenges they face. You’re just all about you.

          • poppypapa

            You? You think it’s OK to be sarcastic? For rhetorical effect?

            Wow; a revelation.

            Don’t think I’ve said anything about transgender people. But I do find the cultural consequences of the movement, like redefining language and other artifacts worthy of discussion.

          • poppypapa

            Notice Eddie’s use of this phrase: “Good people are struggling with difficult circumstances…”

            The subtle implication, whether he realizes it or not, is that those who are not part of the struggle are ‘bad people,’ and that they don’t confront ‘difficult circumstances’ in the midst of this movement to force all sorts of redefinitions or reality upon the greater population.

            If he doesn’t think all of this is causing anguish among the population at large, it’s because he only sees one side of any issue….the side of the culture warriors on the front lines.

            No one else matters as he sees it.

          • EABeem

            Doesn’t follow at all. Your usual illogical excess.

          • poppypapa

            “Doesn’t follow” because you can’t see or think beyond the first veneer of your verbal self-absorption and certainty that all who would take issue with anything you say are unworthy of a place in the human race.

          • Jimmy_John67

            “Your MO seems to be “how far can I push an idea before it goes over the edge.””

            Pot meet kettle.

          • EABeem

            Well, at least we agree about Poppycock’s MO.

          • Jimmy_John67

            I have said it before and I will say it again. Left wing liberals and right wing conservatives are just two sides of the same dimented coin. The fact that each side can’t (or more likely won’t) see the glaring similarities is mind blowing.

        • Just Sayin’

          Call them ‘observations’ if you will, but they’re far from impartial observations, and the personal and negative slant you put on them made it quite clear that complaints is a very valid term.

          Journalists, both amateur and professional, can and do complain about things. In fact, I can think of several who earned their paycheck for little but complaining.

  • Alasdair Norris

    Thank you for being the voice of reason and compassion in what has become an increasingly cruel and silly world.

    • EABeem

      I do my best. Thanks.

  • poppypapa

    Before I make my comment, a brief pause for ALCON to make sure fire extinguishers are fully charged and handy.

    Henry Hazlitt is known for his “Economics in One Lesson:”

    “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer term effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

    I’d like to propose a spin off of that idea for use by culture warriors, and call it “Social Science in One Lesson:”

    “The art of societal evolution consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer term effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

    No doubt Eddie will see this comment as smug, hypocritical, unhelpful, and generally despicable. Given his penchant for pontificating on ‘the common good’ on a regular basis, however, one might hope that he reflects on it for at least a microsecond or so, and considers that virtually no governmental act or policy change is free of unintended consequences.

    Let the countdown begin: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…..Man the Extinguishers!

    Eddie’s hair should be on fire right about NOW!

    • EABeem

      I’d probably be furious if I had the slightest idea what you’re talking about, but I don’t and I suspect neither do you.

    • Just sayin’

      “The art of societal evolution consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer term effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

      That’s an interesting idea here. Let’s look at the consequences of transgender people being allowed to use the bathroom of their identity/choice. Several states, our own included, have laws that allow this and HAVE allowed it for over a decade. Many schools have adopted similar policies. We haven’t seen any consequences other than everyone being able to use the bathroom in peace. There’s been none of the ‘bathroom attacks’ that people were so quick to pontificate about on the news lately. That risk, in regards to transgender people assaulting folks in bathroom, is little more than fiction.

      Now, when we force transgender people to use the bathroom of their birth gender, or a third bathroom as is sometimes suggested, they are being singled out as different. There are ways for people to ascertain that they are transgender, and when this happens, there are often sadly violent consequences. Assault, sexual or otherwise, rape, and even murder are all crimes committed against transgender people on an all too frequent basis.

      So to sum up, giving transgender people the freedom to choose a bathroom has no violent consequences for anyone, where as denying that freedom does.

      Makes for a pretty simple choice, no?

      • Chew H Bird

        The concept of “forcing” whether through good intentions or not, is the real problem. Based on human anatomy I believe people of all types have successfully utilized rest rooms for thousands of years regardless of plumbing, sexual biology, or choice. Some things really should not be required or mandated and regardless of feelings, not everything is, (or needs to be) “equal” all the time. Seems to me “the don’t ask don’t tell” concept is actually appropriate for what we need to do behind closed bathroom doors and stalls.

        As an aside, there are five micro businesses where I work. Males are greatly outnumbers by the ladies, and the “men’s room” is often used by females. I have noticed the vast majority of times a female uses the men’s room it is because their “business” leaves a lasting scent in the hall as the ladies room (we leave the doors open when unoccupied) always is “fresh”… This is just an aside and has no bearing on the real topic but I find it interesting in regards to choices people make. BTW, the few males at my office could care less although we, (to the best of my knowledge), have never utilized the ladies room for any reason at all.

      • poppypapa

        Interesting counterpoint, “Just sayin'”. I’ll assume from your comments that you have not read the items I linked above about ‘otherkin’ and ‘human pups.’

        Your comment actually emphasizes the differing views of what ‘immediate’ means as compared to ‘longer term.’

        For example, consider The War on Poverty. What were the immediate effects as compared to the longer term effects. I suggest that the latter, in particular, takes generations to discern, not checking on things after the next election.

        My sense is that you see ‘immediate’ as the days and weeks following passage or enactment of any law or regulation, and ‘longer term’ as the year or two beyond that.

        Mid last century, the ‘stigma’ associated with divorce was essentially eliminated, and then the ‘war on poverty’ came into being.

        As a result, the concept of the nuclear family as vital to the health of our collective society, and the value of two parent families, fell into disfavor. Upholding these archaic, unjustified expectations became a symbol of irrelevance in the post-modern era.

        “What does it matter to you if someone else is unmarried and has three children with no father present” became the standard form of reply to longings for past norms.

        Fair enough, one might say, until decades later, when the consequences, now irreversible, became apparent.

        Rampant family poverty; roughly half of children born into and growing up in unstable and un-nurturing circumstances; second and third generations of the same troubling and inescapable conditions.

        A nation weighed down by entitlement/welfare expectations, and digging deeper fiscal holes every day as demands exceed resources by nearly two to one.

        A downward spiral for the population in general, a rapidly increasing average age, and a birth rate declining precipitously.

        These things are not what you might consider ‘long term effects’ of policies and societal changes dating back decades ago. They are generational changes that once recognized cannot be reversed.

        I encourage you to think of longer term as beyond two or three years from now, and see things in that context. A careful consideration of the history of American society since mid-last century should help you grasp the import of doing so.

        • Just Sayin’

          Ahh, Poppy. Let me introduce you to a phrase that you should have been educated to years ago. “Correlation does not equate causation.”

          You point a finger at higher divorce (Or children out of wedlock) rates as the lone escalating factor for family poverty, but that’s clearly not true.

          Let’s look at wages for the last 40-45 years, which have remained pretty much stagnant when inflation is taken into consideration. Meanwhile the average worker productivity has risen dramatically at that time, and costs of living have generally increased. Even two-parent households often have two WORKING parents at this point, because the reality of the working class is that the stay-at-home parent is no longer affordable.

          Look at the cost of sending a kid to college. It used to be possible for someone to work a summer job and earn enough for their tuition over the year, now it’s common for people to take on mountains of debts for college, often not being able to pay them off until they’re in their 40’s.

          Lastly, you invalidate your own premise when talking about longer term issues, as your original quote involved LOOKING at the longer term. Many of the issues you wrongly attribute to being the fault of the dwindling standard of the nuclear family in the long term could not easily have been predicted decades before they happened. You, nor does anyone else, have the precognition to predict what will happen decades later as a result of the end of discrimination against transgender people.

          What I do know, is that decades from now I would be proud to live in a country that is inclusive and clear mindedly rejecting discriminatory practices and views as a culture, and that conversely I would be bitter and unhappy with one that embraced bias and prejudice.

          You can’t tell me that I’m failing to look into the future in one breath, and then go on to talk about generational changes that will take decades to reveal themselves as if you know exactly what form they will take. Especially not when your own view is so very narrow and excludes so many factors.

          • poppypapa

            Just: I am well familiar with the notion that correlation does not mead causation.

            You say this: “You point a finger at higher divorce (Or children out of wedlock) rates as the lone escalating factor for family poverty, but that’s clearly not true.”

            Actually, what I said is this:
            ========================
            Mid last century, the ‘stigma’ associated with divorce was
            essentially eliminated, and then the ‘war on poverty’ came into being. During that same time frame, having children without benefit of marriage also became perfectly acceptable.

            As a result, the concept of the nuclear family as vital to the health of our collective society, and the value of two parent families, fell into disfavor. Upholding these
            archaic, unjustified expectations became a symbol of irrelevance in the post-modern era.
            =============================
            The first statement, in which divorce and the war on poverty are both mentioned, was not a statement of causation, but one of occurring at roughly the same point in our history. Nothing more.

            From that point on, you drift well afar from anything I said. College expenses are a topic all to themselves. Pride and diversity and all that are fine, but not relevant my comment, as I see it.

          • Just Sayin’

            Oh please, Poppy. You can’t regurgitate that self quote and ignore what you used it to support later in the argument.

            You went on almost immediately to talk about “The consequences” of that shift, and blamed it for “Rampant family poverty”, “A nation weight down by entitlement/welfare expectations”, and “A downward spiral for the population in general.”

            If you want to talk about family economics, which you were for a great deal of our earlier posts, you can’t ignore the changes in family costs, and the explosion in cost of a parent putting their children through college is a definite factor in the economic decline of the average family. You don’t even touch upon the fact that so many families are now those with TWO working parents who still struggle to make ends meet.

            You can’t just ignore the facts (Or your own previous arguments) when it’s convenient for you. Cherry picking and moving the goalposts are both fallacious methods of argument, and they’re ways of avoiding the truth, kindly stop employing them here.

  • poppypapa

    For those of you who think you have a full grasp of the subject matter scope of this discussion, perhaps you’d enjoy a few quick reads to learn about otherkin, human pups, and similar pressing issues of the day:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/its-a-dogs-world/article/2002585

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-bathroom-of-ones-own/article/2002571

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-bathroom-of-ones-own/article/2002571

    Didn’t another commenter suggest we live in an ‘increasingly silly world?’

  • Terri Ellen

    Spot on good sir!

  • poppypapa

    Hey, Eddie: If you still have any hair left after that brush fire that started from my post a few days ago, the following links should take care of whatever is left:

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/6300/former-johns-hopkins-chief-psychiatry-transgender-amanda-prestigiacomo

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/02/transgender-aclu-operative-quits-daughters-intimidated/

    I stipulate, of course, that neither person has the credentials you do in social justice warfare, and hence their views are subservient to yours, which has the benefit of the same sort of consensus oft cited for global warming…no make that climate change…no wait, it’s really climate disruption.

    Anyway, you have a problem with my identity expression via the ID poppypapa.

    In this day and age, people express themselves in all manner of things: elaborate and sometimes garish body piercings; tatoos, often over the top; flamboyant dress; flamboyant hair coloring and cuts; and numerous other forms of expression. Yet you would take issue with poppypapa as a form of expression I use?

    As I said earlier, you could always ask the editors to create two separate comment rooms, and relegate those that don’t praise you to the “con and all others” comment room.

    By the way, as long as we’re on the subject, exactly where do you stand on the “gender is a social construct” view? As an avowed post-modernist, I assume you’re totally down with it.

    Which, one would assume, means that by extension you consider race and ethnicity to be social constructs. Seems to me that must follow, because all are assigned at birth, and derive from one’s DNA. So I don’t see how you could support the gender view, without supporting a similar view on race and ethnicity, and who knows what else.

    Can’t wait to hear your learned denigration of me in response. You must admit, I’m helping you refine your insult and demonization CV, if not your hair on fire rhetoric.

    • EABeem

      If I were the least bit bothered by being criticized, do you seriously think I would have been writing a column that provokes criticism every week for the past 13 years? I expect to be criticized. There are five or six regular posters I have generally given up on, you being one of the most predictable. I only replied this time because you denigrated transgender people. I know what you think of me and I’m sure you know what I think of you.

  • Real cool guy

    The bathrooms and locker rooms for boys/men are separate from girls/woman and no one flinches. Suggest the same in regards to homosexual and transgendered folks and your intelligence is questioned and accusations of bigotry are seemingly acceptable.

    Never mind the enormous cost $ associated with such an endeavor being the more likely reason the institution has chosen to control the language of the debate instead of having it at all. I for one would like my own restroom everywhere I go please!

    Example; the US Navy has completed and launched very few ships of war since women were allowed at sea (1990’s) and homosexual sailors began serving “openly”. The available heads/bathrooms and berthing/common areas were already devided for enlisted/officer. With the female presence they were devided even further. No new facilities were built folks! Ship deign still isnt modified. Homosexuals… Ya, right!? Any idea how many levels and frames a sailor travels to find the male/female enlisted/officer head/bathroom cause they can’t relieve themselves over the side anymore (woman in the workplace)?

    The separate bathroom/locker room option in public places and gov’t buildings simply means construction cost up Beams wazoo or restructuring the current facilities to accommodate all of our differences.

    It’s not ignorance and/bigotry. It’s money.

  • Real cool guy

    Transition? There is a transitional phase? Surgical? Is that a gray area?

    I’ll bet Beam left some details out again.

  • Real cool guy

    Go on Craigslist and look up rooms for rent. Females only, females preferred! Legal? Why yes… shared bathroom!

    Supposedly it’s because it’s shared. The door can be fitted with a lock and what roommate comes in to shower while you’re pooping anyway!?

    You can even exclude homosexuals, transgenders, rednecks, christians, etc etc and it’s not discrimination. It’s a shared living space and you’re legally allowed to be uncomfortable (wow!?) and not be called sexist, racist or dumb by arseholes like you and trust fund Beam.

  • Real cool guy

    Any of you looking for a room to rent? Craigslist is a prime spot for discrimination. Females only! Females preferred! Transgender only!

    It’s legal! It’s discrimination but it’s legal!

    Shared bathroom. In a shared space in your home you are legally allowed to feel uncomfortable.

    Never mind that lock on the door or that home bathrooms are single use!

    A female homeowner advertising an extra room for rent (as income mind you) posts an advert for females only and you party loyalist idiots don’t bat an eye!?