Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter

Patrick Unveils the Long-Awaited Bathroom Bill

At a press conference, the lieutenant governor reveals some details of bill aimed at limiting transgender access to restrooms.

By Comments

Photo by Bob Levey/Getty Images

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick today released the details of his controversial proposal aimed at limiting transgender access to public bathrooms.

“The people of Texas elected us to stand up for common decency, common sense, and public safety. This legislation codifies what has been common practice in Texas and everywhere else forever—that men and women should use separate, designated bathrooms,” Patrick said at a Capitol press conference.

The bill—dubbed the Texas Privacy Act—would include penalties for public schools that do not restrict access to restrooms, changing rooms, and showers to match a person’s assigned gender at birth. But the bill also allows schools to provide single-person bathrooms for transgender students.

“You can mark today as the day when Texas is drawing a line in the sand,” Patrick said.

One potentially far-reaching provision would negate any local nondiscrimination ordinance that can be interpreted as telling a private business how to manage its own bathrooms.

The bill also will include increased penalties for persons who commit crimes such as assault or being a Peeping Tom in a bathroom, changing room or shower. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Lois Kolkhorst, a Brenham Republican, said the legislation leaves it up to individuals to report someone who’s entered a bathroom that doesn’t match their birth gender. “Are we going to have bathroom police, no,” she said.

Similar legislation in North Carolina created a national uproar over discrimination against transgender people because it would require people to use the restroom that corresponds to the gender on their birth certificate. It led major corporations to halt business expansions in the state, and professional and amateur sports authorities to cancel championship tournaments there. A Texas corporate coalition, led by the Texas Association of Business, estimates Patrick’s bill could cost Texas as much as $8.5 billion in lost economic revenue and has noted that the legislation could lead to the cancellation of the NCAA Final Four Tournament planned for San Antonio in 2018.

Patrick said he saw no similar economic impact after Houston defeated its non-discrimination ordinance in 2015. He said the Texas Association of Business study was based on misinformation and “fake news.”

Leading up to today’s news conference, Patrick had been pushing the legislation through his Twitter account. He republished a survey done for his campaign last year showing that 69 percent of Texas voters, including 56 percent of the Democrats, thought it should be illegal for a man to enter a women’s restroom. But the survey apparently did not ask for opinions on transgender women using a women’s room.

Patrick also did an In Case You Missed It post on an Amarillo Globe editorial that blamed the Obama Administration and liberals for making transgender bathrooms an issue by mandating public schools accommodate transgender students and their needs. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton won a temporary injunction last year that put those Obama rules on hold. But the Globe blamed Obama for turning bathrooms into what it called a time-wasting issue:

It is primarily liberals and “progressives” that have pushed the restroom issue on America.

It was the Obama administration that saw fit to force public schools to comply with its mandate that students can pick and choose which restroom they use, regardless of gender. And those school districts that did not bow to the federal government’s wishes faced a not-so-thinly veiled threat of a loss of federal funds.

School districts that have the audacity (sarcasm noted) to want students to use the restroom that corresponds to science have little choice but to look to their state governments for help when the federal government issues its edicts. And this is precisely why the Texas Legislature will more than likely take up the issue.

But conservatives also made an issue out of bathrooms during the debate over Houston’s non-discrimination ordinance. Patrick and Governor Greg Abbott joined local pastors in boiling the whole debate on the nondiscrimination ordinance down to “No Men in Women’s Restrooms.” Patrick said the Houston ordinance would allow a male pervert to enter a women’s restroom merely by claiming he is a woman in his heart. But most transgender people live their lives as the sex opposite of their birth, dressing in gender-appropriate clothing or undergoing hormone therapy or surgery to physically become the opposite sex. There already are state laws to punish peeping Tom’s and sexual assault. And there have been no known cases of a transgender person acting inappropriately in a bathroom.

Related Content

  • St. Anger

    “the restroom that corresponds to science” ??!!

    what year did we take restroom science? missed that one.

    end segregated bathrooms. problem solved.

    • José

      I have not visited a unisex multi-person public restroom but have seen plans. Toilet stalls with secure floor to ceiling enclosures, a screened off area for urinals, and common area for lavatories and baby changing station. Very sensible.

      • St. Anger

        Yes, but why do you even need all that?

        When you consider that people of all different sexual orientations already share bathrooms, why do you need extra privacy protections just because you’re mixing gender?

        We had coed bathrooms in college. Just regular bathrooms, not defcon 4.

        • Seamus

          Well, floor length walls and doors would do well to protect the world from the corrosive fumes of my explosive bowel eruptions . . . or something.

      • And much more expensive, all to accommodate .001% of the population because they do not want to use a single person facility because they need to be ‘validated’ by their choices.

        • José

          Well, you’re absolutely right that there is an even cheaper and simpler solution, which is to allow people to use the restroom that fits their needs the best. And Dan Patrick can start working on some other big, intrusive law that serves no actual purpose other than to generate publicity.

          • And that would be by sex, since bathrooms are designed for different sexes, not different states of mind. I already explained this above. People can believe what they want. They cannot force others to believe it.

          • José

            “Bathrooms are designed for different sexes.”
            My recollection is that either facility is perfectly adequate for providing relief regardless of one’s private equipment. When you leave it up to folks to figure out for themselves how to take care of simple personal needs they’re usually able to manage. Even going potty. They don’t need the big bad government to step in and tell them how.

          • I’m the one for letting businesses run their own businesses. You are the one who does not want them to have the right. And, men’s facilities have urinals, which are useless to a female, no matter how strongly she sees identifies as male. Women’s restrooms have more stalls. Lastly, the women in my life are affected by this, and I and they have as much right to protect our interests as anyone. I know you plan to go on forever on this, so feel free. Stop trying to force people to believe what you want them have to believe, to run the businesses they built they way you want, and to pass laws against their consent.

          • What you are describing are zoning restroom requirements. The government is requiring those types of restrooms. Those businesses are not “run[ning] their own businesses”. The government is currently telling them what to do.

          • José

            “Stop trying to force people to believe what you want them to believe” says the guy who wants to force people into a different social container from the one that is truly, genuinely, and naturally right for them. Man, I love me some irony first thing in the morning.

            I’m going out on a limb here but will guess that, just like me, you have a certain male organ between the legs, that you identify as male, and that you are decidedly more interested in females than males. We got it easy, man. I don’t recall ever making a conscious decision to adopt a male gender or to be straight. But I know people who don’t meet those definitions and they are just as certain that their identity is every bit as real to them as mine is to be. If that’s liberal—humbly acknowledging that my personal experiences and awareness are not the sum total of all reality, and that others who are different can be worthy of value and respect—then so be it.

          • BCinBCS

            José, you hit the nail on the head. Conservatives because they want to conserve the status quo want people to fit rigidly into their definition of how things should be while liberals have the flexibility to adapt to the differences that are inherent in society.

    • No it would not. If a trans person is not comfortable sharing facilities with members of the same sex that are not trans, then how would that be solved by making it all desegregated? Secondly, not every guy wants to take a dump next to a girl, especially when a potential girlfriend might be about, and most women do not want that either. If you are fine with it, that’s great. Some people are fine with doing porno. That does not mean the rest of us have to be cool with it too.

      • “not every guy wants to take a dump next to a girl” – you do realize this is *more* likely if Patrick’s Bathroom Bill passes, right?

        • Hardly, but there is one flaw in Patrick’s bill. If someone has transitioned, their sex at birth should no longer be relevant. If someone has actually fully transitioned, then that should be prima facia evidence of their ‘sex,’ and should not be forced into using facilities that no longer correspond with their body.

          • Then you agree with people who are against the bathroom bill…

          • Only partially. I agree with the part of the bill that says each private business has the right to decide for themselves how manage their own facilities, and they cannot be penalized for it. I also think it is ok for government facilities and schools that we as citizens are required to visit at times, to maintain segregation by sex – especially for underage teenagers. I don’t agree that a person’s sex should be strictly defined (except for medical reasons when receiving treatment and the doctor needs to know) by their sex at birth. I think if they have changed their body, then they are the new sex. So, for that reason alone I oppose it as it is now.

          • I also support requiring the provision of individual, one-person facilities for ANY person that has a special situation that may call for more privacy.

          • BCinBCS

            So essentially you believe that transgenders should be allowed to use the restroom of their orientation but you believe that it is OK for a business owner to force that person into the restroom that does not comport with that orientation.

          • You mis-state everything I said, and I think you did that deliberately. Take a quote from something I actually said, and if you have a question about it, I’ll respond to that.

          • BCinBCS

            You said that you agree with the part of the bill that allows transgenders to use the facilities that conform to their gender preference. (good)

            You also said that you believe that a business should have the final say about who uses which facility that they own. (bad)

            So if a transgender wants to use the facility of their gender preference but the owner wants the transgender to use the facility that conforms with their birth sex then you should understand the comment that I made prior to this one was nor a misstatement.

  • SpiritofPearl
  • SpiritofPearl

    Texas is always “drawing a line in the sand” about something.

    Transgendered people have been using bathrooms that corresponded to their identity for decades.

  • Nolia1

    Texas has been ruined and overrun by the last 20 years of leadership. I hope there is an reckoning soon for how much money is being wasted by our state lawmakers as they continue to pursue their ridiculous preoccupation with what people do in the bathroom and bedroom, and with what women decide for their own health and bodies.

  • José

    It’s clear what are Patrick’s priorities. It’s not education, public health, or the welfare of children. And, contrary to this proposed legislation, it’s not really protecting woo-woos from the prying eyes and paws of weenies masquerading as women. No, priority #1 for Dan Patrick is Dan Patrick.

    • dave in texas

      Exactly. The state has serious and pressing problems. Which bathroom people use is most certainly not one of them.

  • enp1955

    What an incredible waste of time and energy. Nothing but a diversionary tactic to distract us from the important issues that Austin ignores.

  • enp1955

    Has anyone noticed how Patrick and others like him LOVE local control and HATE government overreach right up until it impacts their own power play? Restricting local control at the city level while simultaneously railing against federal regulations at the state level is the height of hypocrisy.

    • He is preventing cities from taking away the rights of business owners to run their own businesses as they see fit. If my city is going to threaten me with a $5000 fine if I ask a guy not to follow a woman into a women’s restroom I paid for, you bet I will ask the state for help in protecting my rights.

      • BCinBCS

        …if I ask a guy not to follow a woman into a women’s restroom I paid for, you bet I will ask the state for help in protecting my rights.

        And what does that have to do with transgender rights?

        • The laws passed in several cities, and attempted in Houston (but rejected by voters 2 to 1), made it illegal for anyone, including a business owner, to question anyone going into any facility, period, or be subject to a hefty fine. It made it impossible for any business owner, for example, to respond to a woman’s complaint about a man entering the women’s restroom or locker/shower rooms.

          • BCinBCS

            It made it impossible for any business owner, for example, to respond to a woman’s complaint about a man entering the women’s restroom or locker/shower rooms.

            I have done a google search for that language and cannot find it anywhere. Please cite specific language in any nondiscrimination laws that allow men to voyeur in women’s restrooms.

          • I NEVER said laws explicitly “allow men to voyeur in women’s restrooms.” That is your spin. I said they make it illegal to question anyone, as you quote me above, which indirectly enables this. Look at the ordinances for Dallas and San Antonio.

          • BCinBCS

            I have looked at the law in SA and it does not allow voyeurs nor does it prevent “questioning” anyone.

            Please cite the language of the law that supports your contention.

          • Send me the link of what you are looking at, and I’ll find it for you tonight. I work during the day for a living. BUT AGAIN, I NEVER SAID it refers to “voyeurs.” This is the 2nd time I have told you that.

          • BCinBCS
  • “the restroom that corresponds to science” – so we’re going to have intersex bathrooms then? Bathrooms for people who do not have strict XX or XY chromosomal combinations? If we’re going by science then businesses are going to have to build more bathrooms.

  • WUSRPH

    They still have not explained how they are going to know which bathroom someone who has, shall we say, had the procedures done, should use. Check for surgical scars? Will Patrick personally do the checks?

  • Andrew Burnes

    The last paragraph provides the most pertinent information. “Most transgender people live their lives as the sex opposite of their birth, dressing in gender-appropriate clothing or undergoing hormone therapy or surgery to physically become the opposite sex. There already are state laws to punish peeping Tom’s and sexual assault. And there have been no known cases of a transgender person acting inappropriately in a bathroom.” For any sensible person, that should end the discussion right there.

    • WUSRPH

      The answer is as old as Cicero:

      panem et circenses

      • BCinBCS

        Brot und spiele
        (for those of you who do not speak Italian)

        • SpiritofPearl

          Latin.

          • BCinBCS

            Oops.

  • Larry Mandarino

    Why is he so afraid of this? Does it challenge something?

  • donuthin2

    If it were some other than Patrick and Kolhorst, I would say they are just playing to the crazies, but with either of them, they may be just crazy enough themselves.

  • oblate spheroid

    Another right-wing “solution” that was devised without the existence of a problem. Someone who was born female but has since fully transitioned to male (build, beard, and all) would be forced into using the women’s room if Patrick has his way.

  • TacoRub

    This is a harbinger of the kind of thinking one gets from an elected official that has forgotten we elected him to prioritize his time to address things like jobs, the economy, citizen-responsive law enforcement, and removal of egocentric politicians. Patrick is a clown.

  • RJE

    This man was a third rate sportscaster in Houston years ago. Now he labels this ridiculous bathroom bill as a top priority. Incredible. Just incredible.

  • RJE

    I have not seen a single comment in support of Patrick. How was he elected?

    • Rickey Benson

      Let me explain it to you. He received a lot more votes than the other candidate (s). That means more voters supported him than his opponent and people who think like you.

      • RJE

        wow. Thanks, Professor.

        • Rickey Benson

          You are welcome snowflake.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Hillbilly.

      • G. David

        Texas is populated by a dumba$$ majority. Many of whom are named Rickey.

        • Rickey Benson

          And have you looked in the mirror lately moron?

          • G. David

            Good one.

      • chris

        Huh, feel like i’ve heard of something like that before. But i’m sure you’d agree that the popular vote clearly isn’t an appropriate way to pick a winner.

  • Grrrrr

    Dan Patrick was a dumba$$ when he was a sportscaster in Houston, a million years ago. Now he’s a [email protected] pandering dumba$$. Why don’t you just crawl back under the rock where you live, Patrick?

  • Rickey Benson

    Typical Liberal stupidity and lies from the author does not surprise as liberals care absolutely nothing about truth or facts when the goal is to push a political agenda. The reference made to hormonal therapy and surgery turning one into a member of the opposite sex is simply not based on fact. If a person is born a male, he possesses an X and a Y chromosome. At the end of his life, the male will die with those same two chromosomes. No amount of hormonal therapy or surgery will turn a Y chromosome into an X chromosome. Therefore, it is impossible to change a man into a woman. For that reason, transgender is not the result of a physical disorder. It is a mental disorder and needs to be ackowledged and treated as such. By all means, if a man has a compelling mental need to take female hormones please proceed to do so. If he then wants a surgeon to cut off his junk please proceed to do so. But do it on his own nickle and not on the back of the taxpayer. Why? Because that lifestyle offends normal people. If a man who has hormoned himself up and had a surgeon remove his male sex organs wants to use a female restroom in a public area, it should be against the law. Why? Because other normal real women don’t want to share a public restroom with a male, no matter how full of hormones he is or if he is now missing male sex organs. This is offensive to normal people. Liberals only care about what offends them. They really don’t care what offends other people because it all about them.

    • There is more to gender than is dreamt of in your poorly informed scientific understanding Horatio:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/48,_XXXX
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_agenesis_and_testicular_agenesis

      Before we even begin to talk about people taking artificial hormones there is a ton of variation in gender. XX and XY are an extreme oversimplification.

    • BCinBCS

      Ricky, you show a profound ignorance of what the x and y chromosome do. If a person artificially does to him- or herself what the alternative sex chromosome would have done, do you see that there is almost no difference between the two results?

    • pwt7925

      Rickey, I’m pretty conservative, but your combative,, generally offensive and indisputably ignorant comment gives Conservatives a bad name. Your attitude and Lt. Gov. Patrick’s attitude are what will cost Texas jobs and business if this ridiculous bill becomes law. What this bill shows is that Dan Patrick is intent on jeopardizing Texas and Texans.

  • Here is why we don’t trust the media coverage: You say “limiting transgender access to public bathrooms.” But the law does not limit trans access anymore than it limits ANYONE’s access. It simply says we ALL must follow the same rules, perfectly legal by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX, that allow for segregation of facilities and team sports by SEX. The trans have access to the exact same restrooms as the rest of us. As for “whatever makes anyone comfortable”, that is impossible because what makes one person “comfortable” makes another uncomfortable. If you have legal segregation of smokers and non-smokers, and then you say people should be able to use any room regardless of smoking status, you essentially have eliminated the segregation altogether, and all rooms become smoking rooms. Bathrooms, and especially shower and dressing facilities for teenagers in schools they are compelled to attend, to say to anyone that they have access to “whatever makes you most comfortable,” regardless of their actual, objective sex, is to essentially eliminate any options for people who have heterosexual modesty – and that is the ultimate goal of the left that refuses to believe that there is difference between the sexes. Patrick’s proposed law actually bends the law in favor of the trans by allowing trans who have made the transition, to be treated under the new “physiological” sex. It also provides facilities for trans that MIGHT be in transition. I say “might” because many kids who identify as trans at some point, change their mind, and decide they are not; and for some, unfortunately too late to undo the damage done to them by a political correctness reluctant to question any teenagers decisions that could alter their life forever. None of this is made clear, or even discussed, in this clearly biased story.

    • SpiritofPearl

      It is a complex set of conditions that cannot be addressed by blanket rules. Hysteria, as usual, accompanies the right-wing meme of “grown men with little girls” shrieks.

      All should learn about genetics, physiology, human sexuality, and common sense. There seems little of that in the Lege these days.

      • The First Amendment and the rights it guarantees of freedom of speech, religions, and of association, is a “blanket rule” that should take precedence over misguided attempts by localities to take away those rights to push a very specific, and I would say ideological, view of sexuality.

        • SpiritofPearl

          Jesus

          • None of what you said is pertinent to the issue of Freedom to choose for ourselves how to run our lives, maintain our First Amendment rights, and our property rights. You can believe whatever you want. Run your business your way. But your views, religious or not, are not mine, and you have no right to demand they be put into law just because you say so. As for choosing paths ‘on a whim,’ that is just you spinning and putting words in other peoples’ mouths. But, it is a FACT that people de-transition after improper encouragement by “professionals” to do so, and I personally know one adult male that regretted his decision to transition to female, realizing it was a mistake. That is reality – deal with it.

          • This isn’t about free speech. It’s science. Try this article:

            https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-olympics-are-still-struggling-to-define-gender/

          • Free speech means that you do not get to tell me, or anyone, what is a fact. We all get to decide on the facts for ourselves on how to incorporate them into our decisions. For example, the scientific fact of blindness does not mean the blind person has a unilateral right to demand movie theaters provide voice-speakers to explain what is happening on screen. We all get to have a say in our society on what is appropriate accommodation. I gave appropriate questions above, which you are both ignoring, focusing instead on an argument that implies that only your view can be considered. Everyone has an equal right to demand comfort – it is not a right that only trans can demand
            for others comply with, with no regard to how others feel. Besides, a trans person is JUST AS DISCRIMINATORY when refusing to share facilities with non-trans of the same-sex (presumably they are ok with trans of the same-sex), as someone refusing to share facilities with anyone of the opposite sex, trans or not. The only difference is one wants to make it by self-identified gender identity (an abstract, indefinable thing), and the other by actual physical, evident sex.

          • SpiritofPearl

            “Free

          • Fine, change the subject to judiciary overrule, but it does not change anything I said. Read carefully a bit more. You are confused about the issues here.

          • You want the right to discriminate. Which is absolutely something you have the right to say as free speech
            No one is debating that.

            But where you’re losing everyone is saying that you should be allowed to have your own set of facts, but that bathroom use should be by “actual, physical evident sex”. Which is what exactly? If we’re going to use non-scientific definitions of gender we have to define those categories. If we use your “facts” you have to tell us what your “facts” are.

          • Au contraire, mon ami. I want the right to NOT discriminate on the basis of self-identified gender identity. Read up on the legal, original, objective definition of “discriminate”. It means to tell the difference. Secondly, FACT, it is LEGAL according to the Civil Rights Act, to discriminate between the sexes for specific things, like showers and team sports. It is also legal to DISCRIMINATE in favor of veterans, and minorities in certain cases. You, clearly use the word “discriminate” as some vague verbal tool that means ‘in a way I, Tim Thomas, do not like.” Lastly, the First Amendment freedom takes precedence over any specific civil right. If you don’t have the 1st Amendment, any other right you get is built on sand.

          • BCinBCS

            Free speech means that you do not get to tell me, or anyone, what is a fact.

            This statement is wrong on so many levels but I’ll correct you on the easiest one:

            Fact – a thing that is indisputably the case.
            – something that truly exists or happens.

            No amount of free speech alters facts.

          • You are not my arbiter of facts anymore than I am for you. But you are so solipsistic in your thinking, you cannot see that.

          • BCinBCS

            If anyone can define any word in any way that they want, then language becomes meaningless. This is especially true when used in law.

            Facts are fact, they are not subject to arbitration. (Reread the definition of “fact”.)

          • Funny you say that, because changing the meaning of words, or using words that have no specific meaning, or changing the words altogether is exactly what you are doing. I will not ask you, but I will ask anyone else following this trail to read the dictionary definition of gender, of discrimination, and of sex, and then see what the laws’ texts say. Simple enough.

          • gender – “the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).”

            discrimination (as used in this conversation) – the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

            discrimination (the type we are not referring to) – recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

          • Those are NEW definitions that did NOT exist when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX were written. Secondly “unfair” is a totally subjective term, and is unusable in law. Thirdly, as I already pointed out, the law allows for treating people differently. Fourth, the law talks about “sex” as a protected category, not self-idenitified gender identity. For the record “gender” was a grammatical term until the 1960’s when progressives decided they could use it to define new policy and thinking, as it has worked on you. In the end, what is “male” or “female” if it social references, as the activists say, is all “artificial”. But if it is all artificial, then what is a trans changing from and to? One artificial social construct for another?

          • It is not about science. It’s about the freedom to not agree with you, and not be forced to (see how I can just as easily make a claim? We can go back and forth just making claims instead of arguments. But since you want to play link wars, here is one that will flip your lid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2jyEDwpEw

          • SpiritofPearl

            You’re gaslighting.

            Texas taxpayers will pay for this foolishness and the bigots will lose.

          • There is no constitutional legitimacy for your argument. There’s no
            scientific basis for your stance. People who demean those that detransition are outrageously callous and disrespectful of other humans who do not comply with their views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2jyEDwpEw

          • SpiritofPearl

            There

          • You really really should review the meaning of “free speech.” It does not mean what you WANT it to mean. You really don’t understand the concept at all. Science does not rule law, nor can it force people into anything, because to do that, it would mean someone gets to decide what the science is, and then force their judgment on others. Science can be presented to the people to discuss and evaluate, but no single group can dictate to the rest what laws they MUST pass. But you do judge people who disagree with you. Let me return the favor by saying that clearly you would put in prison, if you could, anyone who you believed was opposing “science” – whatever you decided it was.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Poor you.

          • BCinBCS

            But, it is a FACT that people de-transition after improper encouragement by “professionals” to do so…

            From a November 18, 2014 Huffington Post report:

            Surgical regret is actually very uncommon. Virtually every modern study puts it below 4 percent, and most estimate it to be between 1 and 2 percent (Cohen-Kettenis & Pfafflin 2003, Kuiper & Cohen-Kettenis 1998, Pfafflin & Junge 1998, Smith 2005, Dhejne 2014). In some other recent longitudinal studies, none of the subjects expressed regret over medically transitioning (Krege et al. 2001, De Cuypere et al. 2006).

            These findings make sense given the consistent findings that access to medical care improves quality of life along many axes, including sexual functioning, self-esteem, body image, socioeconomic adjustment, family life, relationships, psychological status and general life satisfaction. This is supported by the numerous studies (Murad 2010, De Cuypere 2006, Kuiper 1988, Gorton 2011, Clements-Nolle 2006) that also consistently show that access to GCS reduces suicidality by a factor of three to six (between 67 percent and 84 percent).

            Any surgery comes with a risk of regret. It just happens that the risk of regret for GCS is actually much lower than for many other surgeries. Indeed, the regret rate for GCS compares favorably with gastric banding.

            When asked about regrets, only 2 percent of respondents in a survey of transgender people in the UK had major regrets regarding the physical changes they had made, compared with 65 percent of non-transgender people in the UK who have had plastic surgery.

          • You might as well give me the Uber Trans Post as a reference. But since we are playing fact wars, here is a real person who has suffered mis-diagnose as trans, and the consequences.

          • BCinBCS

            One example does not alter the experience of 98 others. You advocate discriminating against a group of people because you found an example of where one of that large group was unhappy with the transition results. You are a quisling.

          • Let me talk your way (projecting unto people): You advocate discriminating against a group of people because you have no respect for anyone who does not accept your view of sexuality, reality, or anything else. You would shred the 1st Amendment and supplant it with “Science as interpreted by BCinBCS” if you could. You are a quisling.

          • BCinBCS

            Your beliefs are so rigid that in order to remain true to them you have to make things up. You do not get to alter the definition of words or reject their multiple meanings. I hope that you enjoy yourself in fantasy land.

    • José

      I can’t help but notice how well this line of reasoning can be used to justify racial segregation. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • No it isn’t. That is like saying that differences between the sexes, or between religions, or between disabilities, are just like racial differences. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, explicitly makes clear that when it comes to bathrooms, showers, and team sports, it is OK to separate by sex – for reasons that should be obvious. Secondly, the law also allows, and sometimes even encourages ‘discrimination’ (that is, making distinctions, which is what the word first meant when the concept became law), for different religions (certain Native American tribes get special exemptions from drug laws), or for disabilities (added provisions may be made for a disabled person, or a veteran, that are not available to others), etc. You have been well-taught by the Left to think of ‘discrimination’ as an emotional, blanket term, and you miss the fact in all this that what the trans activists are calling for, really demanding, is not the elimination of ‘discrimination,’ but changing it from doing it by sex to doing it by self-identified gender identity.

        • BCinBCS

          I pulled up the Civil Rights Act ( https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=97&page=transcript ) and I cannot find a single mention of where it “explicitly makes clear that when it comes to bathrooms, showers, and team sports, it is OK to separate by sex”.

          Please cite your reference.

          • I have to get back to work, but tonight I will make you eat your words.

          • SpiritofPearl

            Haha !

            B will own you like a boss.

          • Okay, finally was able to get to it. But finding this post was hard with so many that followed. You human units are busy! I guess THIS is your day job. Anyway, here is one link I found https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript. Now, you will notice that when it covers “sex” it is only under the sections for employment. “Sex”, or self-identified gender identity, for that matter, is not included as a protected category under sections relating to public accommodations, but race, religion, and other categories are. That is explicitly clear. There is no prohibition of segregation by sex.

        • José

          Your argument is that “the law says so”? Previous laws said that it was OK to separate by race, for reasons that were obvious. Looks awfully similar, friend. Just like the segregationists of the past the real problem is that some folks are uncomfortable with the idea of sharing a restroom with someone different, even though there is no rational reason to be afraid. In fact, unlike race, with the case of gender you probably wouldn’t even know if that person in the next stall is equipped differently. It should matter less!

  • Nicole Greer

    How is it “forcing” people? There’s always been a separation by biological gender.