The OP is absolutely correct. Everyone sees color. This exact question has been observed using functional brain imagining – fMRI, and PET. What those studies found was that our brain registers a person’s color first, before it registers gender or other physical characteristics. In priming studies, it’s also been demonstrated that we (both white people and black people) associate white with good things, and black with bad things. Do these things make you racist? Absolutely NOT. However, denying that they exist is just plain dumb.
 June 27, 2016 at 10:50am
Should the same regulations apply to eye-care centers? How about general practitioners in small towns?
They do apply to both...when they are doing surgeries...the only people they do not apply to are abortion clinics.
That's not correct. Dental surgeries are not Subject to the same rules nor are centers that perform colonoscopies just to name a few, all performing invasive surgeries requiring anesthesia and much more serious medical considerations/procedures. . And both of those professions have much higher rates of complications and hospital admissions than abortion clinics. Outpatient surgery centers of all types did not have to meet the same restrictions and requirements, only abortion clinics.
You may want to read up on the inconsistencies, that is exactly why this legislation was not held up by the Supreme Court, it was inconsistent, illogical, Had they also required the same of all types of surgical centers, then perhaps they would have been able to show some consistency in concern for public health. It was never about public health, that was the problem.
 June 26, 2016 at 5:35pm
I think there is a lot of validity in your comment, but conservativism like any -ism has a values/cultural layer, and a doctrine/philosophy layer. I don’t doubt for a second that you have much more in common with conservatives than liberals. But there is more to the label “conservative” than just cultural affiliation or resonance. There is a layer of ideas. That layer was created by people like George Will, John Locke, Milton Freidman, Russel Kirk, Buckley and others who defined what conservativism really means. We can’t throw all that away because trump has lots of good one-liners.
 June 26, 2016 at 12:55pm
Many of you don’t have any idea about the intellectual foundations of conservativism. I suspect for most of you, that’s totally fine. Maybe they are no longer relevant in an era of reality TV stars, and 140 character concepts. Nonetheless, at least know that even if you won’t (or can’t) understand the philosophy of conservativism, it does exist. Calling George Will a Rino reveals your own shocking stupidity. Perhaps it’s time for a party to split off and call yourselves something else because the word “conservative” does have meaning. It’s not just something you can claim because you like it, or dislike liberals. It represents a set of ideals. You don’t get to claim that label until you at least make an effort to understand what those ideals stand for.
Or maybe you've always lived them, and understand them at a gut-level. Somewhere along the road you come face to face with the nonsensical alien notions of the rabidly liberal and begin to understand the attitudes and meanings behind the words "conservative" and "liberal" and "progressive".
I was always busy with my life and never paid too much attention to politics, except to know that every politician lies at one time or another to get votes. But 9/11 happened, and I couldn't believe the assinine questions that were brought up on NBC, and important questions that were avoided. That's when I had my epiphany on the state of our media.
I think there is a lot of validity in your comment, but conservativism like any -ism has a values/cultural layer, and a doctrine/philosophy layer. I don't doubt for a second that you have much more in common with conservatives than liberals. But there is more to the label "conservative" than just cultural affiliation or resonance. There is a layer of ideas. That layer was created by people like George Will, John Locke, Milton Freidman, Russel Kirk, Buckley and others who defined what conservativism really means. We can't throw all that away because trump has lots of good one-liners.
"Calling George Will a Rino reveals your own shocking stupidity."
Thanks for saying what I was thinking. Saved me the trouble.
The intellectual level of commenters on this site has gone straight downhill over the past year.
Ego- I never said I thought Will was NOT conservative. I was agreeing with you, but giving my rather humble and homespun example. I'm from farmer stock, but that doesn't mean I haven't done a fair share of reading and thinking. Winters are long up north, lol.
 June 26, 2016 at 12:45pm
Why would they need to do that when NATO already provides the same service, and EU membership is not a requirement? Where do you come up with this stuff? An EU military would not only be redundant with NATO, it would also be inferior to it – which is pretty shocking considering what a gem NATO has become.
 June 23, 2016 at 2:59pm
What you said is false. It’s true that we all have a set-point, around which our weigh will hover, but it is not true that “most” obesity is the result of genetics. If that were even remotely true, we would expect the rate of obese people to have remained fairly steady over time. In fact, obesity has been skyrocketing. Genetics is NOT to blame. Eating too much food, too much sugar, and not doing enough exercise is the reason people are overweight. A very few have genetic variations that create significant impairments of metabolism. These are RARE cases. Every overweight person has the ability to lose weight. It may be harder for them to maintain a low weight, but it is very possible to maintain a healthy weight. It’s a matter of priorities, not genetics.
[-8] June 13, 2016 at 12:20pm
What a stupid comment. I love shooting, and I believe it’s important to be allowed to own a gun. That said, there are other things in my life that have more value. Would you go to prison instead of giving up a particular type of gun? Would you let your family be kicked out of your house when the mortgage defaults because all your money is going to your legal defense? Would you let your your children be teargassed, or your wife be beaten down to the ground? Until you can answer “yes” to all of those, don’t be an idiot and talk about revolution.
Ummm your family is going to be slaves of the government if you don't grow a pair.
Absolutely to all your questions coward.
Same FN style of weapon our govt hands to people attempting to overthrow their govt.
No wonder they’d like them banned. You have a horse sht argument.
Yes to all of your gutless, ball less questions. I would fight for that one right! Because the next thing you're going to hear from the liberals is, This is the church you're going to attend. This is the channel your going to watch on TV, this is the newspaper you're going to read. We are going to take what you have because we don't feel like you need them.You can sit in jail for the next 5 years while we decide what to do with you. The king decides your fate. You don't get to vote anymore, if i say so. and so on!! Dumbshit!
Ego, to paraphrase one of our Founding Fathers (Benjamin Franklin), those who sacrifice liberty to secure temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Either you recognize (as the Supreme Court and Founding Fathers did) that certain rights (such as those spelled-out in the Bill of Rights) pre-date government and are considered as bestowed by the Creator, or you accept that rights are granted by government and therefore subject to the whims of whatever abuse the government deals out to the citizenry.
Bottomline: When the citizens fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the citizens, there is liberty. (again, to paraphrase Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson) If you are not willing to sacrifice anything or suffer anything for your liberty, then you do not deserve it--men and women have long sacrificed for this nation and I believe that, if needed, they will again.
There are still those of us who value freedom above all else. Freedom above our lives, our fortunes, and even our honor.
I get that this is not most people. Most people value their stuff, and their illusion of security. They'll give up freedom for these things. They have too much to lose. They don't understand that what they have is really worthless.
History repeats itself. Eventually, too much freedom will be removed, and the only way anyone will get it back is by force. It's not a matter of if. It's simply a matter of when.
[-8] June 6, 2016 at 11:14am
Are you insane? You chose to read the article, and take the time to comment?! When was the last time a trans person came to your trailer door? No one is interested in recruiting you for this cause. You already are being left alone.
[-14] June 6, 2016 at 11:11am
You do know that estrogen is not performance enhancing but testosterone is, right? The hormones she is taking IMPAIR her performance. Your comment is nonsensical.
[-1] June 5, 2016 at 8:11pm
This is by far the stupidest pro-second amendment platform. No one who has seen the force of the US military could be stupid enough to believe that small arms would be adequate to derail a concentrated government effort to crush rebellion. Are you going to try to shoot at the drones, or maybe the hellfire missile that the drone sends your way. Get over yourselves. I’m a staunch 2A supporter, who owns many rifles (and two handguns). There are better ways to support the cause than vague threats of ant-government violence.
 June 2, 2016 at 10:09am
As a conservative, nothing embarrasses me more than the comments to stories like this. So many of you come off as bumpkins who have never been outside your county. Haven’t any of you met deeply Christian people who have been born with this struggle? Of course you have! Unfortunately, you have created a climate where they don’t believe they can talk about their struggle without being judged by pitiful small people. Don’t forget your porn addiction, or whatever you struggle with is no better or worse than what this guy is going through.
Define, "deeply Christian."
Most would (or should, rather) define this as "Christ-like" or those who believe and follow the Bible.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice in verse 11 the verb, "were" referring to fornicators in verse 9 is past tense.
Struggle my ass. Obviously a genetic FU. Most of us just don't care so how about shutting up about it. You need to bone up on American History to really get a feeling for the word struggle.
"Don’t forget your porn addiction, or whatever you struggle with is no better or worse than what this guy is going through."
Acknowledging a burden is not the same as celebrating it.
This man no longer struggles to overcome this sin, he has given into it. He has chosen a life of sin and depravity. He has quit and that is a tragedy.
You both (@Ego and @Its_just) are correct, so put your heads together and agree that Homosexuals who struggle in their sin(s) need prayer and deliverance. However, they must want it. If they do not, it makes me wonder whether they are truly born of the Spirit of God through Salvation in Jesus Christ OR if they just now realize where they are in life. I pray that some true follower of Christ prays with this guy and asks God to deliver him AND YOU ALL SHOULD BE DOING THIS, AS WELL.
[-9] May 23, 2016 at 10:11am
Spong Bob? Burt and Ernie? I suspect there is someone seeing gayness everywhere, but it isn’t your kids. You should just schedule a massage on Craig’s List and relax in the company of a strong-handed professional.
 May 21, 2016 at 12:22pm
How can you say it is an anti-trump article if it’s true. That position reveals your childishness.
 May 21, 2016 at 12:20pm
You may follow a liar but don’t lie yourself. His campaign said that it was 4.5 million. Read the original WP article. The campaign said it wasn’t 4.5 million, and they will clarify the amount in the coming days.
We won’t forget who supported this man. We won’t forget.
 May 19, 2016 at 12:40pm
If you could clone yourself ten thousand times, you still wouldn’t have a fraction of the influence Facebook has. Hardly a child’s toy. It’s a fool’s mistake to underestimate the players on the board.
Yes, a great revolutionary once said, “Political power grows out of the forums of Facebook and TMZ.”
"It’s a fool’s mistake to underestimate the players on the board."
I couldn't agree more.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
 May 17, 2016 at 10:57am
Do you imagine the girls would continue to undress in front of the boys? Perhaps you also think that slumber parties have an erotic element? High school is still high school. Trans kids have a tough road socially. I have seen this firsthand with my trans patients. In the age of Internet porn, no boy is going to label himself trans just so he can be shunned and avoided in the girls locker room. Stop thinking of it as an 80s movie, and really engage with the reality. For a boy to make a decision that will alienate him from both the boys AND the girls, he must genuinely be in great pain. He may still be confused, and he may be trying a solution that won’t ultimately work. Nonetheless, it’s very unlikely that he is motivated by the chance to peak at a girl in undies.
Exactly, it's the perverts and there are a lot more of them than transgenders.
"Stop thinking of it as an 80s movie, and really engage with the reality." Great line and so true. The fear of a possibility doesn't trump someone's right to equality under the law, in this case the right to be protected under Title lX including it's 2014 sexual discrimination guidance.
Your patients? LOL Who was the shrink that said that "transgenderism" was a mental illness? I can't recall his name but he was the head shrink at Johns Hopkins.
And that boy's identity crisis must become the crisis of young girls???? Students can support fellow students in this crazy journey that is middle school, but I think that you are asking an awful lot for these young students at a time that is at best uncomfortable; very few middle schoolers are comfortable with their own rapidly changing bodies, let alone someone else's. Please! Show some empathy toward the girls!
Trannies are not gay. Many are still attracted to the opposite sex. Perverts need help, not a gov that continues to push their sick delusions. Just because they are sick, does not give them the right to take the rights away from 99.7% of normal people.
Again, we're not worried about the genuine transgendered. We're worried about the likely more numerous cisgendered perverts using them for cover.
 May 17, 2016 at 10:49am
To be fair, I’m not sure many boys would self-identify as transgendered just to go in the girls locker room (where the girls would be taking steps to remain covered). Being openly trans is not exactly a good strategy for social success in high school. Also, we still have yet to see any of the bad things that people seem to be worried about. It’s a bit naive to image that sexual predators have ever been dissuaded from acting just because they weren’t supposed to be somewhere. In fact, there have been instances of men doing something sexually inappropriate or even violent in women’s rest rooms. However, the frequency of those things hasn’t increased because of these changes in law. Even in states where it has been changed for years. Some men do terrible things despite the law, not because of the law. It is exactly the same as criminals who commit gun crimes. Obviously, more laws on the gun won’t change their criminal intent.
The problem is there will be some overly hormonal boys that would, hell I remember guys going into girls rooms when I was a teen back in the 1970s.
I don't really agree once the boys find out that can go in to take videos and such no one is going to think they are a real transgendered everyone will understand they are just doing it to see the girls.
Outside the schools it will be flashers and the millions of registered sex offenders.
There are so few real transgendered less than 1/2% that they are not a real problem
I’ve seen boys, on a dare, do crazy things. I have a straight nephew who put his sister’s bikini on as a result of a dare and went running down the beach. His friends did the same. Kids do crazy things all the time, some not safe. There should be rules. Even though they may not be trans, someone might decide to violate another person’s rights, just as a joke.
My nephew is now married, crazy in love, with his wife. One of the other boys is also getting married this year.
I always liked my privacy whether in the bathroom or getting changed, even when with other girls. I would have no problem with giving a transsexual private bathrooms. Give them the faculty restroom.
About your comment: "...we still have yet to see any of the badk things that people seem to be worried about."
I disagree, 3-4 years ago in my metro area there was a man following young women and girls into the dressing rooms at Target and Walmart. The man was caught and convicted.
What this law does is take away our right to prosecute the perverts.
Firey... Why do these laws take away the right to prosecute perverts? Did your city or state rescind laws against peeping, indecent exposure, lewd behavior, or sexual assault? I'm pretty sure not.
A woman exposing her vagina in a women's change room is not a crime. A transgender woman exposing her penis in the women's change room is a crime. Whether your city or state has decided to not prosecute these crimes may be a separate issue. I'm not aware of any transgender person wanting to expose their genitals in the change room as they don't want to risk other people identifying them in a manner inconsistent with their self-identity. If some guy is exposing his penis in the girl's change room, he's a pervert and sex offender. Jail him.
Answer one question...If it's as you say, why make it easier for perverts?
The problem, even as these girls have articulated, is not the legitimate transgender. It's the boys who would exploit a policy like this to do what boys do at that age...try to get a look at the girls.
The fact that people commit crimes despite the law is no reason to change the law in such a way as to make it easier to commit crimes and more difficult to convict them. People's fears are not going to waved away by unsubstantiated assurances that few boys will self-identify as transgendered just to go in the girls locker room, or by pronouncements that "we" have yet to see any of the bad things that people seem to be worried about, when a simple internet search produces multiple hits that list documented accounts of those very bad things happening. Neither will they be reassured when all of those accounts are summarily waved aside with the facile assurance that they could not possibly have had anything to do with the change in bathroom usage policy. They can smell a foregone conclusion that is immune to contrary evidence.
In the case of a locker room situation, allowing cis-gendered women to disrobe and expose private parts while getting dressed / showering but preventing transgendered women to do the same would be discriminatory. That's the whole point....transgendered people claim that they are uncomfortable using facilities designated for their birth given gender...and denying them full use of the facilities of their chosen gender is discriminatory.
Dealing with penises & vaginas is only part of the issue though. The other matter is with abuse of the law. There is a whole lot of grey space between glancing at someone and leering....between incidentally exposing oneself while dressing & doing so maliciously.
Makingout… What could possibly be easier for perverts then the fact that their is no law in most of the nation preventing them from entering a restroom/change room of the opposite sex, yet there is not a plague of perverts victimizing people. Yet, perverts regularly get caught and convicted by applying other laws.
And, again, you think these laws, such as the one in NC, make it harder for the perverts, but there are over 40 cities in country that have already tried it, and it didn’t make a difference. So, what you think makes it harder for perverts doesn’t work. Perhaps we should try something else that might work? But why do something proven to not work?
Where have you been? There have been men grabbing little girls, men showing themselves to kids and refusing to leave because the law says they can be there. There have been so many cases already and the perverts are coming out of the gutters, celebrating this new stupid law. Trannies usually look enough like women, you usually do not know. I think they need to make it penis's and vagina's.. If this goes through, women need to start going into the men's room and watching. You think men will stand for their privacy to be invaded, especially if you look and laugh. Just kidding.
You're on your own. I already provided examples of what I was talking about and will not get drawn in to a debate with you. If you wish to remain ignorant, that's your problem, not mine.
Tammy/Makingout. You are both being swayed by media attention. For most of the nation we went from having no law preventing a man from entering a woman's restroom (what possibly could make it easier for perverts) to having a law that still does not prevent a pervert from entering a woman's restroom (but does support a transgender person to specifically do so). Media attention has only made it seem like there are more perverts out there, but the 40+ cities that enacted laws preventing a man from entering a women's restroom have not shown any fewer cases of perverts getting caught. Same rate as before. Your focus on media reports distorts the reality.
Now, if you could show that those 40+ cities had fewer incidents of perverts getting caught in the women's restroom, you'd have a case to support biological gender specific restroom laws... and I would be convinced to change my position. My position is based on facts and so far no one has provided any facts get me to reconsider. Media reports are not facts.
But, as I have also said in other posts, my personal concern is not with transgender rights; it's about my own rights to privacy. And while some hot-heads say they will shoot/assault the first man they catch in the women's room, what is my recourse when some idiot accuses me of being transgender and doesn't allow me into the restroom when I need to go? How will you respond? There are already media reports of this happening. And there are far more people that will be wrongl
Actually, we have seen non-transgendered male perverts using the cover provided by laws to gain access to women’s/girl’s rooms for purposes of voyeurism (and occasionally worse). I seriously doubt that real sufferers of ‘gender dysphoria’ are doing any of this ****, but there being no standards of what qualifies as a real transgender person is a problem. I’m thinking that the cutoff point (no pun intended) should be when the person has been on hormonal therapy for long enough for its effects (re. secondary sex characteristics) to be apparent.
Yeah, keep thinking that.
Well, logically, because you and others cannot respond to my questions with new facts, I have to keep thinking what I think. I would change my position if new facts were presented and I would not ignore them to avoid the discomfort of admitting that my previous views were wrong. I'd have to be willfully ignorant or a hypocrite to do otherwise.
Some have the view that it is a fact that laws such as the one in NC will help protect people from perverts, but I have the fact that over 40+ cities have already tried it and it didn't make a difference. Other have the view that is fact that there will be more perverted incidents in restrooms/change rooms if there is a law that does not prohibit men from being in the woman's restroom/change room, but I have the fact that except for the 40+ cities and NC, there are current no laws preventing a man from being in the women's restroom already, so why haven't the perverts already been abusing this absence of laws?
ptwonk, Yeah, keep thinking that.
@ptowonk - You are being ignorantly obtuse. That is your right. This was not an issue last year. Why make it an issue? Now that it IS an issue, more and more will see the opportunity to take advantage.
This article expresses the issue quite concisely.
Half - I've read all about it. The young man in question has obviously taken advantage of the confusion. He has, in my opinion, demonstrated indecent exposure and there are existing laws in Washington State to address that. It is a singular example.
Perhaps he is wanting to be a test case of the legality of the new rules (or he wants his a** kicked). He apparently - wrongly in my opinion - thinks that all the other laws on indecent behavior (exposure, lewdness, peeping, etc.) were annulled; they were not. What he should end up with is a criminal conviction and registration on a sex offenders registry. Too bad the pool staff were idiots not to protect the patrons of their business and call the cops. When the man ends up in jail, others will not be repeated his foolishness.
Believe it or not, there was no law in Seattle preventing a man from being in the women's change room before the transgender policy was brought in. The same laws that addressed perverts then still apply. The man and perverts like him will be caught and convicted.
@p - I had a response written, but after having perused your posting history I deleted it. It is painfully obvious that you are naught but an agenda driven troll. You would not accept any argument accept complete capitulation with your current perversion of choice.
I've repeatedly provided logical arguments and have asked questions that I would like to know if there answers to. I admit having a disdain for people that cannot provide a logical response. For the most part I respond in reference to specifics of the article or comments made back to me. I'm mostly respectful with the exception of those whose only response to me is a personal attack (GitR being the sole example of someone who only attacks and trolls and has managed to get under my skin). And you would be hard pressed to find personal attacks ever initiated by me in my posting history.
So let's see. You didn't respond to the content of my post. You did decide to call me a troll and a pervert. You have provided no arguments of your own. And your posting history might be best described as drive by shootings. Who's the troll?
If you don't want to reply or join the discussion, don't.
ROFL!! “I know you are, but what am I?” Great troll response!
Anyone that wanted to take the time to actually read my post history will find that my “drive by shootings” have stemmed from a history with people on this site. Much of this lately has stemmed from the TrumpRumper community that curiously showed up about the same time that you did.
From your posting history, it is obvious you only show up to “stir the pot” on your favorite leftist topic du jour. You really couldn’t care less about the responses of others as you sit in your mother’s basement in your Cheetos-stained, Wonder Woman Underoos waiting for the chance to champion your next perversion.
I wonder what will strike your fancy next… Anthropomorphic global coolin… I mean warmin… err climate change? Abortion (60,000,000 and counting in my life time)? Macro evolution (could you please start with abiogenesis?) How about that pesky Constitution and the ridiculous number of amendments? Gay Marriage? Hmmm… I wonder if you have hit the pedophile story yet.
You are a leftist troll, and I am done feeding you here.
Yikes. An off-topic personal attack from a conservative fascist troll. I'm honored.
 May 16, 2016 at 10:15am
Think about your position for a minute. Do you know any intolerant athiests? Do you know any tolerant Christians? Unless you’re a hermit, the answer to both questions is “Yes.” Intolerance is a human trait not a Christian trait. I’m not Christian, but I do see many in my practice. Without question, religious people are more proactive about bettering themselves. For example, religious people are more likely to seek my help earlier in their addictions. That isn’t a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a trend. Religious people seem to be more likely to battle their own shortcomings because they believe doing so is a moral imperative. That characteristic has great value, and is lacking from the philosophy of athiests. Again, these are trends not rules…
 May 16, 2016 at 10:05am
There has been a solid body of research on this question, and religious people tend to be happier than atheists. However, the data shows that it doesn’t matter which religion a person holds – Christians aren’t happier than Muslims, for example. The data also shows that religious people are more resilient (they recover more quickly from emotional stressors).That doesn’t mean atheists are unhappy, or immoral. I believe that you are telling the truth and that you did raise a moral and happy family. It also doesn’t mean that God is the reason for their increased stability. In fact, it’s probably the act of believing that confers the benefit. That’s why the effect persists despite the variety of religion. If you take 5 minutes and go to Pubmed or google, you can verify all these results.
 May 15, 2016 at 11:39am
No one being intellectually honest could assert that isn’t trump’s voice. C’mon…at some point you are going to have to get your head out of your a–!