Skip to content

Mike Johnson can go fuck himself

Here's the thing. There are places where I think the trans movement goes overboard, either by promoting extreme niche issues (biological boys in girls sports) or by dismissing inconvenient science too cavalierly (puberty blockers).

But then a trans woman gets elected to Congress and Republicans respond in their usual repellent way by loudly banning trans women from women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill. Can't give the bigots in your base any cause to doubt your genuine viciousness, after all. And you know what? Fuck 'em. In the face of this kind of performative cruelty I suddenly don't care about the other stuff so much.

176 thoughts on “Mike Johnson can go fuck himself

  1. Srho

    I've just been reading about Rep. Oscar de Priest, the only Black member of Congress from 1929 to 1935, at a time when the US Capitol restaurant was racially segregated.

  2. MartinSerif

    It might be worth thinking through this with some care. There are females (some very progressive in their political views) who object to males in their spaces. They may not have reason to fear a particular trans woman, but they feel a need for a criterion that discourages potentially unwelcome behavior from males. And here the problem is that there is no precise definition of trans woman. According to the criterion of self-identification, any male can declare himself to be a trans woman. A stricter criterion might require consistent conformity to certain stereotypes. A yet more restrictive requirement might insist on medical interventions.

    In the UK there has been an attempt to resolve this difficulty via the introduction of a "gender recognition certificate", but again complexities have emerged. Can one formulate a consistent rule that protects females? The number of females who feel potentially threatened may be a significant proportion of half the human population.

      1. MF

        So we have to change architecture of every building and massively increase costs of bathrooms (single occupancy bathrooms cost a lot more and take much more space than stalls and urinals) to cater to a handful of deluded men who think they are women.

        Nah.

        1. Crissa

          Ahh, yes, the bigot uses another slur.

          Also, you're lying. Women are far more likely to support trans rights - including in the bathroom.

          Who's deluded here? The person calling people mentally ill in a way known to promote suicide, or the person acting like a normal woman?

          1. MF

            What slur?

            "The person calling people mentally ill in a way known to promote suicide" - so, wait a minute... you are not even arguing that the mentally ill person is correct. You are just worried that if we do not humor his delusions he might commit suicide.

            I am curious... if a furry insists he is a dog will you agree and say we must humor him so he does not commit suicide?

            Does he get to fly on planes as a dog without buying a human ticket if he has a human with him to escort him? (Given the cost of some flights these days, I'm going to tell my kids to become furries so my wife and I can take them on flights as emotional support animals!)

            When a woman acts like a woman that is normal. When a man insists he is a woman that is a sign of mental illness just as if a man decides he is a dog or a Pez dispenser.

              1. MF

                Shrug. It means that a person who is a woman "acts like a woman" which is quoting Crissa.

                I'm not quite sure what a "normal woman" is - for example, does she wear jeans or skirts - so I skipped that word.

          1. Crissa

            Troll misinformation need to be countered. Their past misdeeds need to be remembered.

            Else the next person reading them might get the idea they're honest.

                1. emjayay

                  There are many shortcomings to the WordPress format and I have bitched about them a number of times. Just look at the number of "+1" comments (because there's no simple up/down vote function) for example.

                  I have no idea why he has his otherwise excellent blog on such a crap place (or whatever you call it).

        2. lawnorder

          A stall is effectively a single occupancy bathroom. For that reason I don't see the issue. There is no reason for any user of a women's toilet to expose his/her genitals to anybody else. For the shyer members of the male population, replacing urinals with stalls would not be a bad idea either.

          1. Art Eclectic

            Right? Just make the stalls more secure like they are in fancy hotels. Little individual rooms within a larger communal space.

            Alternatively, add one or two single bathrooms that are gender neutral and people can go where the feel safest and most convenient. Hospitals do this, it's not hard.

            1. DButch

              Yes - I've seen a number of restaurants set up locking stalls with doors that come down just above the tile flooring and are pretty tall. Opposite to the stalls are common sinks. It works well.

              1. aldoushickman

                That's how it is in many public restrooms in Italy. And nobody bats an eye. In Italy, a country with well-deserved reputations for both machismo and Catholicism.

                If they can do it, not sure why America can't.

          2. emjayay

            As a male urinal user person: simple dividers between the urinals (sometimes they're there, sometimes not) or maybe using the version almost universally seen in Japan (kind of a combo of the olde tyme tall ones and the modern short versions so they don't need some at a lower level to accomodate kids or shorter people, plus enough ceramic wings to serve as dividers.)

            I'm gay and am certainly not shy about various penis uses, but don't like the modern style urinals when there's no divider in between them. Don't get me started on the old ball park/military long troughs....

            (Kevin - did you plan on this becoming a bathroom design forum?)

      2. OwnedByTwoCats

        I didn't watch Allie McBeal, so I'm guessing. How is "multiple occupancy gender neutral" different from a bathroom with no urinals and floor-to-ceiling partitions and doors around the toilets? Every bathroom user can share the sinks/soap dispensers/towels/hand driers.

    1. aldoushickman

      "Can one formulate a consistent rule that protects females?"

      Oddly, nobody ever cared about this until Republicans decided that they could abuse the basic decency of Democrats by forcing them to stand up for trans women. And yet suddenly we all have to care about this because Republicans--rather than passing legislation to help people--are wasting time drawing up statutes about who can use which toilet.

      It's almost as if this wasn't a problem, isn't a problem, and is just a political stunt to waste our time and divide and distract Americans from the Republicans gleefully hauling this country ever more deeply into the Failed Democracy category.

      1. MF

        Actually, most places have laws preventing men from using women's toilets, locker rooms, etc.

        Nobody really ever cared about this until Democrats suddenly discovered that they no longer knew how to define "woman".

        1. Crissa

          Literally trans people have been using the toilets of their gender for all of time.

          But you pretend this has something to do with Democrats because why?

          1. MF

            It has something to do with Democrats because the vast majority of Republicans think that men who claim to be women are still men and need to use the men's room and men's locker room.

            Have trans men like Lia Thomas been stripping naked in women's locker rooms and displaying their penises to young women who do not wish to see them for all of time?

            I can tell you for sure that back in the 1980s men in women's bathrooms was not accepted. I saw it happen once in the New York Public Library. Woman screamed and ran out, a bunch of guys dragged the guy out and beat him up a bit until the police arrived and arrested him.

            1. gibba-mang

              The obvious hypocrisy is that while Republicans claims to care about the safety of women by preventing trans women in their bathrooms, they are also supporting a convicted sex offender who has nominated a pedophile and other sex offenders to his cabinet. You know very well that this isn't about the safety of women but rather using it as a wedge issue.

                1. aldoushickman

                  Gaetz is much less of a threat now, since he resigned both his seat in Congress and his candidacy for AG. A win for America!

                  If only Johnson and others would follow his shining example.

                  1. KenSchulz

                    There has been speculation that the entire episode was always just a way to ensure suppression of the Ethics Committee report, without it being obvious that Gaetz’ resignation was for that reason. Thus, he is now free to run for Governor of Florida with a sufficiently laundered reputation to win. Not that Republicans are reluctant to vote for sexual offenders.

                    1. aldoushickman

                      Trump's razor: the whole episode was just because the people involved are morons. Gaetz resigning to dodge an ethics report about his sex scandals is not materially worse than resigning to be AG but then dropping out of that in the wake of reports of his sex scandals.

                      Even better, we should be loudly reporting on this as the first major faceplant/embarrassment/own goal/LOSS of the second Trump administration.

                      As in, Trump lost his own pick to be AG even before he was sworn in, and decreased his majority in Congress in the process. Some say this sets the template for further losses by the Trump administration, despite Trump's desperation to be perceived as a winner.

              1. emjayay

                Nancy Mace is a well known attention whore. A couple hundred emails and two bills submitted over a day or two is a new low for her.

                (I was put in 24 hour Twitter jail for using the phrase in the first sentence. But then despite being super careful after that I got semi-banned (read only, and only a bit each day) forever on Xitter for unknown and unknowable reasons.)

            2. DaBunny

              Ah, so the solution for women allegedly being forced to view genitalia is for you (or your designee) to carefully scan the genitalia of every woman entering.

              Such dedication to women's safety! I mean...unless they're being groped or assaulted or are minors being trafficked by a Republican.

              1. emjayay

                A simple solution would be to hire a guards for ever rest room in the country and require everyone to carry a birth certificate or submit to a strip search before entering.

                Not sure about how to deal with trans women who have had below the belt surgery. Maybe BOTH a strip search and birth certificate should be required.

        2. Narsham

          "Actually, most places have laws preventing men from using women's toilets, locker rooms, etc."

          That may not be accurate (I don't trust MF to do any research ever). But let's assume it is, and that such laws already apply to the Capital building and its associated offices.

          Why did Mike Johnson have to put this new rule in place if a rule already existed? And what is the purpose of this new rule: to protect women, or to humiliate a single elected representative by forcing her to use the Men's room?

          If no rule already existed, please explain how this new rule makes a single woman (or man) employed in these buildings safer from sexual assault, keeping in mind that men actually accused of sexually assaulting women can freely serve in Congress, as President, or indeed may soon be confirmed to some of the most powerful appointed positions in the land.

          This is quite literally passing a rule to prohibit a single person from using the women's toilet. Otherwise you'd need Capital guards posted at every public restroom and Capitol locker room to check the "assigned sex at birth" of every person wanting to use the facilities.

          1. MF

            Well, now that, as we saw with Ketanji Jackson, Democrats no longer know intuitively what a woman is we have to define them for legal purposes.

        3. zic

          Even more oddly, most places have laws agains sexual assault, yet here we are with 1-in-3 women assaulted, and nary a man in sight responsible for that assault.

          Men fucking suck, and whenever I hear one go on like this troll, my pervert alarm rings loud and strong.

      2. ConradsGhost

        Bingo. Plus as Kevin pointed out, it's an intentional, in your face display of the sick pleasure these grotesque unhumans get from performative cruelty and ritual humiliation of the most vulnerable, also known as sadism. Plus plus it's a troll, intended to trigger an equal and opposite reactivity, which distracts from and normalizes the sadism. Hopefully activists don't rise to the bait. Plus plus plus it's meat for the base, the 25% of this country whose withered souls recognize Trump and Johnson as fellow Orcs.

        But mostly it's exactly as you said, a distraction from the project of eviscerating the liberal democratic state, and returning as much of the country as possible to something analogous to the antebellum south.

      1. MF

        Actually, sex.

        No one cares if you think you are a woman trapped in a man's body or the reverse. If you have a man's body most women don't want you in their bathrooms or locker rooms.

                1. ScentOfViolets

                  See what I mean? Tell us what you think 'Ad Hominen' means. Better yet, tell us what you think ad hominem means. Given your usage, it's a safe bet to assume you don't.

                  1. MF

                    Ad hominem is trying to use a personal attack as an argument.

                    Since we are doing vocabulary quizzes, can you define eleemosynary?

            1. call_me_navarro

              "What did I say that was bigoted, insulting, or misleading?"

              it is your dogged insistence on being as dehumanizing and demeaning as possible to trans folk (and truth for that matter) as possible all while throwing out a parade of bad faith arguments.

              you seem to enjoy performative cruelty so allow me to do the honor of being performatively juvenile. taking a turn from the well-known winston churchill.

              i have printed the remarks of yours i could find in the discussions above onto a paper resmbling newsprint. i have gone into the woods and dug a hole. presently your words are in front of me but soon they will be behind me.

              1. MF

                No. What I do is reject this absurd belief that people can change their sex or that gender and sex are somehow different.

                In your world Mike Tyson could announce tomorrow that he is a woman and immediately become the women's wolrld heavyweight champion. In mine he gets laughed at.

    2. Srho

      "they feel a need for a criterion that discourages potentially unwelcome behavior from males."

      Nope, I'm not buying this old line from the Potty Patrol. Unwelcome behavior is already forbidden; what the Potty Patrol imagines is that a pervert, if caught, will escape punishment by claiming a right to be there.

    3. cephalopod

      Under this rule transmen will have to use the women's restroom. They will by and large look like men, facial hair and all.

      It seems to me that a rule that specifically requires that someone taking a bunch of testosterone has to use the ladies room just makes it that much easier for a cis- gendered male creep to saunter in.

    4. Crissa

      Citation needed on those 'progressive views'.

      Also citation needed on that declaration. Can any female 'declare' themself a woman? How do we know they're a woman?

    5. geordie

      Others have responded cogently but I think there is at least one point that has not yet been expressed. It seems completely ludicrous to me that very many men would be willing to present as female in public just to get into a bathroom to cause a problem. The existing small threat from other cis-women is almost certainly much higher than from this mythical cross-dressing predator.

    6. Doctor Jay

      Ok. I am quite clear and adamant that every woman, every person, has the right to use the toilet without being harassed or peeped or be subject to other malicious behavior.

      PIease note, though, that I described "behavior" not "identity". Complaints that another person who is "problematic" exists don't really cut it. If someone is causing an actual problem, if they are behaving inappropriately, throw the book at them. And by the way, if someone comes into a women's bathroom that Sarah McBride or my daughter happens to be in, you will find them a ready ally, who will help you shut down any troublemaker.

    7. kkseattle

      Every Republican just licked the boots of a sex predator who owned a beauty pageant so that he could ogle the contestants in their dressing room.

      Kevin is right. They can all go fuck themselves.

      They’re not serious people. They’re bigoted assholes.

      If there had ever—even once—been an incident of a trans woman assaulting another woman in a women’s restroom, it would have been on Fox News 24/7 for months. This is just made-up bullshit.

      The cruelty is the point.

    8. zic

      "They may not have reason to fear a particular trans woman, but they feel a need for a criterion that discourages potentially unwelcome behavior from males. "

      There you go, blaming trans women for the bad behavior of bad men.

      Fuck that shit. Men own it. Not trans women. They hide behind the skirts of others.

    9. megarajusticemachine

      It might be worth thinking through this with some care.

      It's bullying, pure and simple, but you go ahead and keep weaponizing definitions to excuse hate.

  3. Sylvia

    She was put in a no-win situation, as intended.

    And Kevin, please stop using the term "biological men/boys". As a trans woman I have breasts, a vagina, no facial hair, soft skin, brittle nails, and so on down the list. My risk for everything from heart disease to breast cancer is similar to that of cis women. There's very little "biologically male" about me except for the SRY gene, which has been inactive since I was born.

    1. Kevin Drum

      There aren't a lot of alternatives, I'm afraid, that aren't hopelessly academic. I know this phrase doesn't apply to 100% of trans women, but few things in life are 100%. Apologies.

        1. geordie

          So then title IX and women's sports are a form of segregation akin to Jim Crow and should therefore be eliminated? For the record I am not saying you espouse that, merely that your sentences as written lead to that conclusion.

          Biology is not destiny but it does exist. It's statements like yours that created the Trans Excluding Radical Feminist (TERF) movement. I understand the "camel's nose in the tent" problem that trans people are confronted with, but drawing the line as far out in the desert as you have, probably doesn't help the cause of equality.

          Having simple terms that allow for meaningful distinctions is useful. It doesn't change that some people are hard to neatly categorize. Nor does it mean that people should be prevented from living the role they want to play in society. And before anyone misconstrues that sentence, when I say role I am absolutely not excluding cis people. Sociological gender is always a role that one plays.

      1. TheMelancholyDonkey

        Aside from what Sylvia said, the other problem with the term "biological men/boys" is that it vastly oversimplifies. Determining what sex someone is is vastly more complicated than just looking at external genitalia or even whether they produce eggs or sperm. There are people that produce neither, and a few that produce both.

        There are five biological markers for what sex someone is: genes; chromosomes (which are not the same thing as genes); hormone production; cellular chemistry; and external genitalia. In a large majority of humans, all five point in the same direction. But any of them can be flipped such that they indicate a sex other than the one the others do. And more than one can do so.

        Sex isn't binary. It's bimodal.

        1. memyselfandi

          "There are people that produce neither, and a few that produce both." I don't believe that's possible. I can cite lots of places that state intersex people are inherently sterile. Could you point me to somewhere where there is evidence that it is possible.

          1. KenSchulz

            Check Wikipedia. There have been small numbers of fertile intersex people. There are no recorded cases of any individual producing more than one type of gamete, however.

      2. Narsham

        Is "cisgender" hopelessly academic? Originated in 1994, now generally findable in your dictionary of choice, short and straightforward. I'm sure using it will upset Mike Johnson.

      3. lawnorder

        Since the whole controversy centers around the presence or absence of one appendage, I think the distinction could accurately be made between "people with penes" and "people without penes".

    2. MF

      If your SRY gene is inactive then you are arguably a woman with a chromosomal abnormality or intersex.

      Such people are complicated to deal with. Before we had men pretending to be women and demanding that we humor their fantasies it was possible to handle such people on a case by case basis. Now everything has become complicated.

        1. MF

          Sylvia opened up the discussion about her genetic abnormality. If she considered it private business she would not have done so.

          If you have a problem with that I suggest you complain to her.

      1. memyselfandi

        "Before we had men pretending to be women and demanding that we humor their fantasies" Why publicly document that you are a dishonorable piece of human filth. And why ignore the people assigned female at birth that believe they are males?

        1. lawnorder

          Nobody is "assigned" a sex. The sex of a new born baby is observed, not assigned, and in the vast majority of cases that is that. There are a few cases in which the sex of a baby is unclear, and a few cases in which gender dysphoria subsequently arises, but that doesn't change the validity of the routine post-natal observation.

          1. Doctor Jay

            This is such a cul-de-sac. I know where the terminology comes from, and yet it is so very, very insignificant in comparison to bathroom denial, gender-affirming care denial, and even that other fairly trivial issue: trans people in sports.

            So here's where the terminology comes from. At birth, characteristics of the infant are observed, and in consequence of those observations, a gender is assigned. I mean, one can have a birth defect that means an XY doesn't have a penis, right? That's possible. One is not equivalent to another.

            And it turns out that there is something in one's brain - something that cannot be observed at birth that has a big inluence on how one experiences one's own gender.

            And that's the situation that the word "assigned" is intended to acknowledge.

          2. KenSchulz

            No, the ‘sex’ of the baby is not observed, the external genitalia are, and sex is inferred from that. In a very large majority of cases, appearance, chromosomes, potential to produce gametes, etc. are all correlated. But in a world of billions of individuals, a ‘small minority’ in which these markers disagree means a lot of human beings. All of whom, along with all others, deserve to be treated with equal dignity.

        2. MF

          For biological and cultural reason women who want to be men are not as much of a problem. They gain no athletic advantage, they don't seem to enjoy exhibitionism in men's locker rooms, and men are usually less bothered than women about opposite sex people who enter their bathrooms and locker rooms.

    3. Doctor Jay

      Sylvia, when my family tries to discuss things like this (I have a trans daughter), we usually refer to someone as "an XX" or "an XY". A doctor we know (who had a lot of experience with trans and intersex persons) once described a condition where "an XY doesn't have testosterone receptors".

      For me "XX" or "XY" describes a sort of reality that avoids making judgments about social roles, and also doesn't sound too academic. Most people in my world know what "XX" and "XY" refer to.

      How do you feel about this sort of description? Should we be looking for some other terminology?

        1. KenSchulz

          And then there is mosaicism, in which some cells have genetic makeup different from other cells. And suppression of genes.

  4. OldFlyer

    Taking its rightful place with sexual harassment, assault, racism, bigotry, mysogyny, xenophobia. ymmv

    Now resume prerequisites for Team Trump 2.0. Kiss the ring GOP

  5. Jasper_in_Boston

    Fuck 'em. In the face of this kind of performative cruelty I suddenly don't care about the other stuff so much.

    They traffic in this kind of cruelty because they believe doing so helps them with elections. Ginning up a moral panic is classic Right Wing 101.

      1. Crissa

        You are lying.

        First: The majority of women support trans rights, insisting upon checking genitals or birth certificates would harass cis gender women.

        Secondly: 'cosplaying' means a costume. You can take off a costume. A trans woman can not take off her gender. Some are able to be genderfluid, but tha's both more rare, generally temporary in most trans people's lives, and even then...

        ...it means adhering to the social role they're presenting as.

        So you, Mr supports-murderers and racism, are promoting a bigoted falsehood that trans women are performing gender to sexually harass other women. It fails the basic Occam's razor: as any man who wished to sexually harass just could, without the rigamarole and cost and body load of transitioning and also get appointed to Trump's cabinet.

        You're just so gross.

        1. MF

          1. Please provide your evidence that a majority of women support allowing trans "women" to use women's bathrooms and locker rooms.

          2. A trans "woman" can certainly take off his women's clothes and wear men's clothing. It gets tougher if he has had surgery, but if I have surgery to make myself look like a dog I am still a person.

            1. Narsham

              You made six "contributions" to the thread, all telling someone RESPONDING to a troll that they should shut up.

              The troll, meanwhile, keeps posting whether or not anyone responds to him.

              How are you helping? Seems like unless Kevin decides to block MF so he can't LactatingAlGore up the joint, the troll is here to stay regardless of what anyone says or does. And meanwhile, you're yelling at someone who isn't a troll while leaving the troll alone.

      2. emjayay

        I wonder how this discussion is going in Germany and other northern European countries. I was recently at a higher end hotel there, so not even a separate spa sort of facility. It had an indoor pool and sauna. And one locker room/showers.

  6. cld

    If Mike Johnson did that the app he and his son share on their phones to track one another's boners would shudder, and melt the phone into a smoking puddle, because a trans woman pissed in his bathroom, which is the same as if he did it, and everyone in that kid's schooling going to know it, because it went off in his pants, and it will go on his permanent record destroying his innocent life forever.

  7. VaLiberal

    I agree with you, Kevin. The people who elected Sarah McBride wouldn't pull this shit.
    Virginia has a trans woman in the House of Delegates and she is an awesome voice for her constituents. I don't think Virginia women delegates pulled that shit on Danica.

    Also, guess what: When Nancy Mace enrolled at The Citadel, they changed their bathroom policy ON HER BEHALF.
    Mace can go to hell.

  8. bad Jim

    From No More Mister Nice Blog:

    They know there's no urgent civilizational crisis here. As Charlotte Clymer noted on Threads,

    ... trans women have been using women's restrooms in the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings and the White House and the Pentagon for many years now, including during all four years of the Trump Administration.

    Under Donald Trump's leadership, trans women were permitted to use women's restrooms in federal buildings in D.C. and there was never any issue.

    In the four years that Rep. Nancy Mace has been in Congress, she's known that trans women use women's restrooms in federal buildings in D.C. and it's never been an issue for her. Not once. In all this time.

    Until the first openly-trans person was elected to Congress. Then it suddenly became an issue.

    1. Srho

      As with Rep. de Priest, mentioned above, the Capitol restaurant wasn't off-limits to Black staffers until he, a Black Congressman, was elected.

    2. Joseph Harbin

      Nancy Mace was in the first class of women to be admitted to The Citadel. The school spent thousands of dollars to build new, separate bathrooms for her and the others. Out of respect for women, the school added new rules, including one that required anyone entering a cadet's room to first knock if the door was closed.

      The school tried hard to accommodate its new members. Mace benefitted, but apparently failed to learn the obvious lesson that it pays to be a decent human being.

      Contra Kevin, I don't think what motivates Republican voters is pushback against perceived trans overreach. It's bigotry, hate, and fear, and the permission to finally have a socially acceptable target that they can push around. People who vote for Trump and these assholes do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

      1. emjayay

        As I may have commented here before (and maybe it's too obvious anyway) gay people in the US and many other countries have achieved (mostly) social and legal equality so the bigot agitator crowd had to move on to the more fringe hot button issue. And make stuff up, like how schools have free tampons for boys and kitty litter boxes for kids who think they are cats.

      2. MF

        Mace was a woman entering a previously all male environment. Changes were necessary.

        McBride is a man entering an environment that has all of the necessary facilities due men. His pretense that he is a woman does not change that.

        1. Jasper_in_Boston

          McBride is a man entering an environment that has all of the necessary facilities due men.

          McBride is a woman. Are you contending that the medical profession is powerless to transition a person from one gender (or, if you prefer, sex) to another? Do hormone treatments have zero effect? Do gender-affirmation (sometimes called "sex-reassignment" by the uninformed) have zero effect? Are the people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these therapies getting literally zero in return? Aren't they (and their doctors) the most informed people in terms of whether these treatments are valid, or not?

          To be it bluntly, if McBride possesses a vagina, and enlarged, female-style breasts, and female-typical estrogen/testosterone levels, and speaks with a female-toned voice, why on earth is she not a woman in your view? What's the key difference that renders a woman who required gender affirming healthcare a man, as opposed to a woman who did not require such treatment? Are the women who now have vaginas and other classically female attributes illusions, or holograms? Or are you perhaps simply ant-science, or anti-healthcare?

  9. iamr4man

    I’m not sure I understand. Does this mean that Ms McBride must use the men’s restroom? I’m pretty sure a lot of people will be uncomfortable with that.

      1. iamr4man

        I suppose that this also means that when transgender men need to go to the restroom they must use the ladies room. Is Mace ok with that?

  10. cmayo

    This is actually an instance where I have zero doubt that it's performative. I think they really believe this shit and really feel this way.

  11. Crissa

    Kevin, don't use nonsense (and bigoted terms) like 'biological boy'. All humans are biological no matter their sex or gender or lack thereof.

    Secondly, why would you separate boys and girls who haven't experienced puberty? There is no known difference in their performance.

  12. Crissa

    Also, your 'inconvenient science' isn't, in fact science. Excluding relevant experience and experts is not scientific. Banning a medicine based upon gender identity (and not medical outcomes) is not scientific.

    They're banning these drugs for trans kids undergoing precocious puberty but not cisgender kids. That's not science, that's bigotry.

    1. baitstringer

      I was going to call out Kevin on that, but you beat me to it. It sounds as if you think he’s talking about the deeply flawed Cass Review, which was my guess. I wish he could make one post in his life about trans people without including a backhanded slap like that.

      1. emjayay

        I assume he doesn't mean any offense. No one's perfect and this is a new and evolving thing in widespread discourse, but I'll award bonus points for the "Mike Johnson can go fuck himself" headline.

  13. Justin

    I feel bad that so many young people are being led to think that the expression of their transgender identity would lead to something good happening. It's a tough situation. I want everyone to be able to live without distress and as they see fit, but going forward that might be a dangerous choice. Homosexuals sort of pulled it off starting in the 1990's. There remains a deep reservoir of tolerance for them though it's not clear how long that is going to last.

    This was always going to be a tougher fight. There will be casualties. I'm not worried about McBride though I would not have voted for them in a competitive democratic primary. McBride wants to believe they can be an effective representative for all of their state, but I don't think so. Their candidacy is as performative as the actions of Mace. It's just dumb all around. Needlessly provocative. But this is what democrats do sometimes. When you push, it's possible you make a breakthrough. It's also possible you get your ass kicked. People think they have to pick sides in this argument because you want to stand against this performative cruelty. But come on... this is nothing. McBride will be just fine.

    Required reading for all who care about transgender folks:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2024/oct/12/gavin-grimm-trans-youth-rights

    Cry all you want about the injustice of it all, but this is their real life. Some people are going to get by ok and some will not. People talk about these issues in the abstract and forget how awful life can be when you a "misfit".

    1. emjayay

      "Their candidacy is as performative as the actions of Mace." So McBride is reduced to one issue and should not have run for office? Did McBride tweet about bathrooms 326 times in last 72 Hours?

  14. Leo1008

    “In the face of this kind of performative cruelty I suddenly don't care about the other stuff so much.”

    That’s great, Kevin. I’m sure Trump is delighted to know that Dems will keep letting him use that “other stuff” against us. Really an amazing position to take two weeks after Trump very effectively used that “other stuff” to win reelection. Have fun with your ideological purity. Meanwhile, the dwindling number of adults in the country, the ones not joining you in your pouty tantrum, will have to actually do the work of winning elections again.

    1. TheMelancholyDonkey

      I'm sure that Republicans are delighted that folks like you are willing to discard the rights of people not like yourself in the interest of expediency.

      1. nikos redux

        Well, the alternative is we cede power to MAGA to run the country while we wait for the culture to play catch-up.
        That doesn't sound so good for minority groups, either.

        1. aldoushickman

          I'm pretty sure that Kevin could characterize his stance as (a) thinking that all people should be treated with dignity, and (b) disliking bullies.

          That seems like a winning stance to take: Johnson, don't be a dick, let the lady pee in peace.

          Another might be: Hey Johnson, get back to work on something serious. Nobody cares who gets to use your precious Congress bathrooms.

          1. MF

            To the half of the country that win this last election, that's a man, not a woman, and we are happy to let him pee in peace in the men's toilet.

            1. aldoushickman

              "To the half of the country that win this last election"

              Less than half, actually, but I forgive you--math skills are not your type's strong suit. That's why you vote for Trump, after all!

    2. Josef

      Letting him? What an odd way to describe the situation. Trump using the Democrats support for transgender rights against them isn't their fault nor are they at fault for how successful it was. The fault lies with Trump and the electorate. The Democrats didn't try to placate bigots in order to win. That's commendable.

    3. Narsham

      One post from Kevin on his blog will determine the results of the next election? Kevin making this one post on his blog means he no longer has time to "do the work of winning elections"?

      Your post seems more like a pouty tantrum than Kevin's. He's posting on his blog, which he does a fair amount, and sharing his thoughts. You're telling him in his comments that by doing it, he's guaranteeing Democrats never win another election. One of these two things seems reasonable and proportionate.

      "Treating other human beings with basic respect and dignity" = "ideological purity" in your mind, does it, and both are to be avoided? That is certainly consistent with your posting history on this site. One might wonder why putting this new rule in place right after a transperson was elected to Congress isn't an example of "ideological purity," or demanding anyone working at the RNC declare that the 2020 election was stolen, or any other example that you evidently aren't upset enough about to mention in the comments on this site.

    4. Five Parrots in a Shoe

      Are you really this ignorant of history? R's have always scored political points by sh!tting on vulnerable minorities: for a long time it was black people, and then for a while it was gays, and today it is trans people. To be a R is to be on the constant search for "who are we going to sh!t on this time?"
      They don't need D's to let them do it. They always do it no matter what.

  15. Austin

    Unless Mike Johnson and Nancy Mace are going to look up all the women’s skirts before they enter the bathroom, there will be trans people using the bathroom. As there have been in public restrooms for all of human existence.

    You’d think the people who understand that banning crossing the border without the proper documents still leads to undocumented people entering the country would also get that banning entering the women’s room without XX chromosomes still will lead to people with XY (or any other combo of chromosomes) being in there. But nobody ever accused Republicans of being logically consistent, especially when they simply want to be attention whores.

    Fuck Johnson and Mace and all the Republicans. Democrats should all refuse to use any of the restrooms in solidarity, and leave smelly dirty diapers in all the trash cans every day.

  16. Doctor Jay

    Six months to a year ago I said, on this blog, that discussion of trans people in sports seemed too much like bad faith.

    I normally don't engage in "I told you so", but man, this is really rubbing me raw. Of course it was bad faith. How is it that you couldn't see that? Was it that garbage NY Times series? (Also bad faith in evidence).

    As an aside: Nancy Mace, and every other woman in the country deserves to be able to use a restroom without being harassed or peeped - regardless of who's doing the peeping or harassing.

    It's the notion that someone's identity predicts such harassment that's the problem. I would expect that if someone came into a women's bathroom with malicious intent, and my daughter - or Sarah McBride - were in there, they would help you, not the intruder.

    1. lawnorder

      The interesting thing is that the debate seems to be stuck on anatomy rather than proclivity. I would think that a lesbian woman is at least potentially more of a threat to other users of a women's bathroom than a trans woman is. Certainly, the prospect of a gay man at the next urinal makes many straight men uneasy. However, we don't see laws trying to dictate which bathrooms homosexuals use.

  17. Atticus

    They should take an anonymous vote of all the congresswomen. I wonder how many of them are ok with men in their restrooms.

    1. gibba-mang

      weird how this was happening for the past 9 years and only became an issue now. how many trans women attacked or peeped another woman over the past 9 years? how are republicans going to "confirm" a random visitor to Capitol Hill is actually a biological woman?

      1. Atticus

        Did anyone know it was happening? I have no doubt that men dressed like women have gone into women's restrooms before (and vice versa). Nobody is suggesting anyone needs to confirm anything. In this case it is not needed. The represtntive has made it public he is a biological man.

        1. gibba-mang

          There was no prohibition of it. Weird how these chuds are all worked up about a trans women going into their bathroom but not bending a knee to a rapist with a long history of sexual assault. We all know it's theater but here you are arguing in bad faith

          1. Atticus

            It used to be you didn't need a law prohibiting it. If a guy got caught trying to go into a women's restroom he probably would have gotten his ass kicked. No one would have considered it ok, regardless of if there was a law on the books.

            1. aldoushickman

              Yeah, the days of lynch mobs queerbashing are long over, so poor Mike Johnson is forced to be dick to a freshman congresslady.

              If only the bathroom-enforcement brownshirts that assuredly were roaming the halls of the capitol just a few weeks ago were still around, this whole thing would be wholly unnecessary.

            2. MF

              There were laws prohibiting it.

              When I was in high school I saw a guy get caught in the women's room in the New York Public Library (the main branch in Manhattan).

              A woman screamed, several guys dragged him out and slapped him around a bit until the police arrived and arrested him.

              I don't know what he was charged with, but they arrested him, not the guys who beat him up.

        2. ColBatGuano

          "Did anyone know it was happening?"

          And you have discovered the point without even realizing. Congratulations on being perceptive once.

    1. emjayay

      And Hegseth stuff is coming out. The fact that both (and most of the rest) are wildly unqualified for anything like the positions they were nominated for is not enough. A good hot sex abuse/rape scandal is though, but just barely particularly since the nominating person is guilty of multiple ones himself.

  18. Lon Becker

    You imagine that there is scientific evidence suggesting that using hormone blockers to put off puberty that makes it not cruel to ban such treatment, but think that people are unreasonable about bathrooms? It is true that you quoted a doctor from Britain who did a survey of the field, despite not being an expert in the field, as saying that using puberty blockers in this way was a waste of time. But it turned out the reason it was a waste of time is that everybody who took the puberty blockers continued to believe they are trans. But that just highlights the cruelty of taking the choice away from them and having them go through puberty in a way that they will want undone.

    I am not saying that Mace and Johnson are not being cruel here. I am just puzzled as to why somebody would think that policing bathrooms is more cruel than limiting health care options for other people with regard to a procedure that has a trivial regret rate is less cruel.

    1. Lon Becker

      I am not sure if it is your point, but I think you may be getting at something I have been thinking about lately, namely that we are likely to see a big shift in opinion on a variety of issues as the Trump people put into policies that wear their cruelty on their face. Drum has been tentatively giving air to ridiculous attacks on trans people involving health care, but seems to have just discovered that these arguments are coming from people filled with hate rather than being a scientifically driven attempt to protect at risk children.

      Similarly as disgusting as whatever Trump winds up doing about illegal immigration will be, it will likely be done in a performatively cruel way that will actually increase support for immigration and immigrants, probably by as soon as March.

      I suspect this will happen on a variety of issues depending on how obnoxious the Republicans are in pursuing them.

      1. KenSchulz

        I hope you are right, but the fact that a majority of Americans disapproved of family separation at the border in TFG’s first term, and yet voters were OK voting him back in, even though he appears poised to do more and worse. Planning to deport undocumented members of American families; denaturalizing birthright citizens.

        1. Josef

          I think whatever benefits his supporters think they are getting will pale in comparison to what they'll lose. The realization that they've been played will override whatever prejudice they have.

      2. Josef

        I think the dems should let them do what they want, for the most part. I dont think Trump supporters realize just how bad his policies will be for them. I think they need to experience the full Trump effect. And for clarity, Trumps policies are the same as the policies of the GOP. The Dems can use their bad policies to regain control in 2026 and 2028 if necessary. Kevin's attitude might be more widespread amongst most Americans in 2026. Attacks on trans people might not have the same effect. I would hope not. Though the tendency of Americans to vote against their own interests is still an issue.

  19. zic

    Glad to see you coming around, Kevin.

    Because the one thing I know, loving mother of a beautiful trans-daughter, is that the cruelty not-so-lucky children experience at the hands of their families is cruel; this tiny population of the nation is something like 40% of the runaway population living on the streets.

  20. pjcamp1905

    For god's sake! This was idiotic during the Equal Rights Amendment debate and age has not improved it. Here's an amendment I offer for free to anyone who wants to add it to the bill.

    Step 1: put all toilets inside a stall with a lockable door.
    Step 2: Remove gender from all restrooms.

    This has been another episode of Solving Stupid Problems in Two Easy Steps.

Comments are closed.