Evergreen College Transgender

WA Human Rights Commission: All businesses must let men in women’s bathroom

Print pagePDF page

If a man says he is a woman and walks into the women’s restroom, it is illegal for a business owner to intervene.  That is the result of a new rule created by the Washington State Human Rights Commission that went into effect on December 26th.

This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to “equality”. So far, the public hasn’t been buying it.

In November, the City of Houston, which has a lesbian mayor, voted against a city-wide, non-discrimimation ordinance that would have allowed men into women’s restrooms provided they claim to be a woman by a 22 point margin.  Voters in Springfield, Missouri and Fayetteville, Arkansas have also repealed laws that would have opened up bathrooms in this way.

This issue has been heating up in Washington for a while now.  School boards throughout Washington State have been wrestling with it.  The YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap County recently made headlines when they created a policy allowing transgender men to use the women’s locker room under any and all circumstances.

However, this is the first statewide mandate that forces businesses to cooperate with a customer’s confusion about his or her gender.

In 2012, a 45 year-old student at Evergreen State College who identified as female despite being anatomically male, undressed in the women’s locker room while girls from nearby Olympia High School and a local swim club were changing.  Evergreen chose to do nothing to protect the privacy of the girls but offered them a private accommodation if they wished not to dress in the presence of a naked man.

This new rule mandates that outcome in all cases.

While we sympathize with individuals who struggle with gender dysphoria, it isn’t appropriate to deny all women and girls their right to privacy in response.

The new rule specifically prohibits businesses and schools from creating a separate, gender neutral facility for use by those who prefer not to use the bathroom for their gender.

The entire text can be found here.

Concern over this policy does not imply that people with gender dysphoria are more likely to be sexual predators but acknowledges the reality that sexual predators are always looking for opportunities to gain access to victims.  This policy creates undeniable and obvious opportunities.

If you believe this could never happen, simply search for Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler on the search engine of your choice.

Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013.  Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch woman at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.

The safety and security of every woman in Washington should not be placed at risk in an attempt to be politically correct.  We should be compassionate for the real challenges people face, but we shouldn’t be stupid.

The rule also affects schools.  Unlike businesses, schools are allowed to assess bathroom situations on a case-by-case basis. However, “In most cases, transgender students should have access to the locker room that corresponds to their gender identity consistently asserted at school.”

This arguably creates a conflict with the state’s indecent exposure law as well, which otherwise prohibits exposing yourself to others while “knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.”  Or maybe women no longer have the right to be alarmed at the sight of a naked man in the women’s locker room.

While this rule was created through rule making authority delegated to the Human Rights Commission, the legislature has every right to fix this.  And they should.

Contact your legislators through the legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or send them an email by clicking here.

If this is the first you’ve heard of this, your tax-deductible contribution of $5 or more will make it possible for us to keep you informed about things that matter to you that no one else will tell you about.

Thank you for being with us all year.

 

155 replies
  1. Robert David
    Robert David says:

    Obama… IT IS WRONG
    … to force men and women to have their nakedness exposed to “surprise visitors” of the other sex in sex-private changing rooms.
    … to put them in a position where they can not avoid seeing the other gender uncovered.
    … to force husbands and wives, who desire to remain covered from the opposite sex by all but their partner, into nakedness before other men and women.
    … to take from parents the right of decision making in when it is appropriate for, and to what degree, their children to be exposed to the opposite sex + sexuality.
    … to take from little ones & teens the right to chose to not disrobe before a member of the opposite sex, and their right to flee lust.
    … to turn the safety of a school environment into a place of embarrassment, shame, lust, bullying and danger, where girls have to look at, talk to, and work with, the same hormone-raging males that look at her nakedness and expose themselves to her periodically.
    … to force boys (many of whom who believe lust is wrong) to be tempted by the nakedness of the opposite sex – it is hard enough already in the school setting!
    … to insist on the “right” of confused individuals to be able to expose themselves to whoever they please, and to ignore the right of every other individual to have a sex segregated privacy space.
    … to force children to sleep in the same rooms with other sexes when it is against their own moral values.
    … to take from parents the right to know (+ of veto) if their child will be sleeping in a room with the opposite sex on school trips.
    … to force the normal person to use gender terms e.g “zee” referring to something that doesn’t exist, and is in rebellion to God.
    … to force liberal evil upon a Christian (yes, still) nation. YOU declaring the passing of christianity does not make it so!

    Reply
  2. mars
    mars says:

    I feel that the only person who would for this is a sexual predator. The segregation of bathrooms is based on modesty and anyone who is willing to advertise they are gay to begin with is obviously lacking that quality. No! Persons feelings should take precedence over other peoples safety these people apparently think that opening up the woman’s bathrooms to any male who claims that they are in the wrong body is OK. I’m sure Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dimmer would have loved that opportunity. That is why I think that anyone voting for that is no better than a sexual predator. This is not about equality or sensitivity this is about the homosexual community seeing how far they can go. Just like any other organization with too much power. You hate people violating your right you are no better.

    Reply
  3. Sukran
    Sukran says:

    LOL! same here I dont care if you are transgender or not.
    If you are man with penis you are belong to men bathroom period.

    Reply
    • Straight Woman NC
      Straight Woman NC says:

      I agree SUKRAN

      I am sick of the “Trans”men/women trying to force every one in each state to agree with them. .To each their own but in reality?i have my own opine as they have their own,and i personally do not like this. I live in NC and i do not want my little girls, nieces,teen children(girls) and my mom a senior sharing a bathroom while out in public if warranted, with a MALE who is still yes anatomically a male,and even if he is not, i still don’t want it,and as some say no matter what surgery you’re having unless you can have a baby or had a child, you are a male period. and or unless you’re having your “monthly” you are still a guy. Bottom line? I think it should be Gender(trans)only bathroom.and that to me make the most sense.

      Reply
  4. Kristin
    Kristin says:

    Your headline reads: WA Human Rights Commission: All businesses must let men in women’s bathroom

    WRONG. Businesses must let TRANS WOMEN in Women’s bathroom. Trans Women are Women. Stop with this inflammatory language and making this into something its not.

    “The safety and security of every woman in Washington should not be placed at risk in an attempt to be politically correct. We should be compassionate for the real challenges people face, but we shouldn’t be stupid,” EVERY WOMAN. Including Trans Women.

    Reply
    • Republican
      Republican says:

      Really? Are you going to make sure every man that walks into a woman’s restroom is actually transgender? If God made you a man, use the men’s restroom!! I don’t need to worry about those who lie and claim to be transgender, trying to rape or attack me and my little girls!

      Reply
      • Garon
        Garon says:

        How is it a safety issue? What about a person walking past you, closing a stall door and using the restroom do you feel threatened by?

        Reply
        • gloria
          gloria says:

          Garonne my elderly mother had to leave the door open so she could be helped off and on the toilet and her clothes pulled up and down and sometimes even changed in the public bathroom. So where are her rights to be shielded from a man’s eyes because he is feeling girly?

          Reply
        • Momofagirl
          Momofagirl says:

          Garon, the concern is not that a transgender pees next to a woman. The concern is that a rapist or pervert will pretend to be a transgender to get access to women and girls in order to rape, fondle, ogle, whatever. Exactly what about this do you not understand?

          Reply
          • BENDER
            BENDER says:

            How do you consider “pretending to be transgender” any different than “pretending to be a woman”? In other words, any sicko could ALWAYS have been accessing the bathroom of their choice, this new law doesn’t change that. It does, however, help a small segment of your fellow humans go potty without being scrutinized by judgmental a-holes. Like you.

    • Kelley
      Kelley says:

      They don’t have to be transgender; they can even simply be cross-dressing for it to be legal per the new law (considering, as a woman, I frequently where jeans and a t-shirt, what does that even mean?!).

      Reply
    • Concerned Woman
      Concerned Woman says:

      Honestly this is yet another way that women are being thrown away in this country. The Progressives don’t give a you know what about women, because they no longer value the mother. They no longer value the family. This is inviting rape, if you can’t see that, then I don’t know what type of world you live in. Perhaps there can be a “gender neutral” lockeroom option. I don’t understand why when girls are speaking up the Progressives are plugging their ears. Why is it that we are being asked to bend over backwards for a small minority in order to invite potential danger on our own daughters? It’s insanity. And there are other ways to address this issue.

      Reply
    • SANDRA
      SANDRA says:

      CURIOUS, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR STATEMENT ” Trans Women are Women” TO BE A FACT? HAVE YOU CHECKED EACH ONE TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD THEIR PENIS CUT OFF? EVEN THEN, THEY’RE STILL BORN- AND DIE***** WITH MALE CHROMOSOMES, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. I CAN CUT MY NOSE OFF, CUT MY EARS OFF AND TATTOO LEOPARD SPOTS ALL OVER MY BODY, DOES THAT ME A LEOPARD?

      Reply
    • Garon
      Garon says:

      Do you honestly think you’re better than transgender people? You’re inciting violence against them, that makes you the bad guy here.

      Reply
  5. Miss Priss
    Miss Priss says:

    It’s OFFICIAL: LAWMAKERS ARE “LUNATICS WITH POWER”!!!! COMMON SENSE HAS “LONG-SINCE” LEFT THE BUILDING!!!!

    Reply
      • mars
        mars says:

        I don’t think the American people have a real say in who gets in. It’s more like a very small number of people who would like to use issues like this to devide the people of this country for their own less than noble reasons.

        Reply
  6. BAT
    BAT says:

    Am a man, and I have gone several times through out my whole life to female bathrooms, but to clean up, and generally once the whole store might be CLOSED.

    Reply
  7. Kay
    Kay says:

    Cancelled my longtime membership at the YMCA this morning. As much as I enjoy their facility, it is time to stand up for what is right. If we want our children, grandchildren and other loved ones safe from this kind of craziness, it’s time to actually make a stand!

    Reply
    • caphilly
      caphilly says:

      I put my YMCA membership on hold for now.
      Everyone has the right to be considered for membership and attend all programs at the YMCA without prejudice. The state law claims gender dysphoria is a disability and only reasonable accommodations are necessary. Private dressing rooms should be reasonable accommodation! Only women and small children should be in the women’s shower / dressing / rest rooms. Only men should be in the men’s locker room. I am not calling transgender people sexual predators, but sexual predators are VERY sneaky and this new policy invites trouble. I know this as an RN who cared for very diverse populations (including sexual predators) and as a woman who was once raped by a man who pretended to be my “safe gay friend.” This is a BIG safety issue!

      Many people choose private dressing rooms for a variety of reasons, keeping small children corralled, those who need more room to fit assistive devices, those with body image problems – too fat, too skinny, scars, whatever (this should include gender dysphoria or transgenders). In the mean time, those who disagree with YMCA’s new policy should quit their membership or at least put it on hold until the YMCA either changes the policy or provides enough safe, private dressing areas for everyone who now needs one.

      I understand no one wants to offend anyone these days, but this steps over the line of common sense and safety!

      Reply
  8. Matthew Crockett
    Matthew Crockett says:

    My response to this issue is this: unless you are pervy enough to purposefully look at other people in the restroom, you have no idea whether anyone there is of the “correct” gender. If everyone behaves themselves, no one will ever do anything to cause you to wonder.

    The first problematic laws (i.e the ones to compel people to use the bathroom of their “birth” gender) weren’t driven by the desire to protect anyone but the desire to hurt “sinners”. If someone who looks like a man is forced to use the women’s restroom, there is a possibility that a woman with a concealed-carry permit will reach into her purse and shoot the “man”. For some people, even threats of murder are acceptable if you claim to be winning against transexuals.

    For any such “christians”, I have a message: anyone who can invoke an “ends justify the means” argument has no grounding in the principles of their faith. The Ten Commandments don’t have any escape clauses. If you can’t find a a way to proceed that doesn’t violate them, that failure is on you; it’s nothing but hubris to claim that God will “understand” if you just scream your motives really loud.

    Reply
    • Mark
      Mark says:

      Please help me out as I obviously missed something. Last time I checked, there are bathroom stalls with toilets in them in both the mens and the womens bathrooms. Why would a man need to use a toilet in the womens bathroom? What’s the difference? Isn’t a toilet a toilet? What right is being protected by this law? What “wrong” is being corrected? Is it offensive to have to walk past the urinals to get to the stall? As you said no one really pays attention so why would someone feel degraded by walking past the picture of a stick man instead of a stick woman to relieve themselves? Where is the injustice?

      Reply
    • Cathy
      Cathy says:

      While you are correct that one cannot easily ID all transgender individuals, I can ID many transgender or homosexual folks with ease. My use or lack of use of a public restroom is dependent upon my comfort with the people within them and the condition of the restroom. My comfort is quite different around strangers than it is within my own home with people who are my friends or family.

      This law causes me to be uncomfortable. I suspect females are quite different in this regard than males. It has nothing to do with being pervy, as you state. If I am dealing with a bad menstrual month, the last thing I want is a man — in any form — in what I consider private, personal space, where I am dealing with private, personal hygiene issues.

      The most recent psychology articles do state that transgender is a psychological issue. That compounds the issue.

      As of this day forward, I will no longer use a public restroom. And as a business owner, I will never provide a public restroom.

      To every action, there is a reaction.

      Reply
    • Phil Johnson
      Phil Johnson says:

      “If everyone behaves themselves”

      Oh the naivety of the left! Who is going to be sued when someone doesn’t behave themselves?

      “Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013. Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch woman at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.”

      Reply
    • Karen
      Karen says:

      You said: The first problematic laws (i.e the ones to compel people to use the bathroom of their “birth” gender) weren’t driven by the desire to protect anyone but the desire to hurt “sinners”. Please provide some evidence for that statement, because it sounds ridiculous to me. I think you’re just “Christian-bashing”.

      Reply
    • Robin
      Robin says:

      How is it that it is okay for anyone, to force me, to allow anyone, to force upon me, your sexual identity problem, and yes I mean problem. I have rights too, OR AT LEAST I THOUGHT I USE TO HAVE RIGHTS. I would think that they would respect my right to privacy and not force me to expose myself to you or any other of the opposite sex. For them to think that none of this is threatening. TO ME THIS IS MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.

      Reply
      • Straight Woman NC
        Straight Woman NC says:

        my folks call it a identity-problem that should not be forced upon us so i agree with ROBIN wholly. I personally am sticking with “men or trans etc.al., just get a separate bathroom then.
        Simple as that. so again i agree with your post Robin,. ICAM.
        and nope. you’re still having RIGHTS, just exercise em more. and same as “they are” you exercise your rights too as much as you’re god willing able to. I hate when some 1 try to force some one belief(s)on me. It is not right.

        Reply
    • Mom
      Mom says:

      Hmmm…so young female children observing a naked man in their bathroom is “pervy”? You need to consider all of the children that will unnecessarily be exposed to these gender confused individuals. Give them their own restroom. Or, give me and my children our own designated restroom and they can have the big public one.

      Reply
  9. Brian
    Brian says:

    This law is obviously disgusting, inhuman and satanic. But female reporters have long been allowed in men’s locker rooms after athletic contests at all levels; like its ok for women to see naked men undressing but not the other way around because “they aren’t looking.” Bottomline is that this society has completely broken down with no end in sight to the lunacy.

    Reply
  10. paul
    paul says:

    I own a fitness business. If this . Is a “LAW” I will do everything necessary to protect our women. I will not contribute to the delinquency of teens or children by allowing just anyone into the locker room of their choice. If their body indicates what they are physically then that is thwir ticket for where they need to change or take care of their needs and see others in a public type locker room. this could only hurt businesses like mine but more importantly the male and female members of our fitness community. Lets make sure this is not ever an enforceable law in our state or nation. Someone is very blind and confused to consider this appropriate.

    Reply
      • Pictured Lady
        Pictured Lady says:

        You are MOST Welcome!
        Please pass this on and encourage others
        to
        STAND FOR SOMETHING
        before we all
        DIE FOR NOTHING.

        Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      Hooray for you! KOODOS to you for your BRAVERY.

      UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE!!!!

      GO GO GO “OATH KEEPERS” IN OREGON!!!
      TALK ABOUT BRAVE MEN WHO I CAN DEEPLY RESPECT, ADMIRE, AND SUPPORT.

      OATH KEEPERS,
      DON’T ALLOW THIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT TO BACK YOU DOWN.
      STAND YOUR GROUND. KEEP OUR CONSTITUTION ALIVE AND “THANK YOU”.

      THIS IS WHAT OBAMA WANTS –
      HE WILL USE IT TO CALL MARTIAL LAW SO HE CAN HAVE ANOTHER HELL-BENT RANT AT THE WHITE-HOUSE,,,,, TO FINISH WHAT HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BEGIN – THE END OF OUR COUNTRY.

      STOP HIM.

      PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,,,, DO NOT ACQUIESCE.

      WHERE IS “ANONYMOUS”?

      HOLD STRONG OREGONIANS AND STAND FOR YOUR FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS AS PER OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

      SHOW OUR COUNTRY WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP ON OUR ANCESTRAL BLESSINGS.
      I AM IN PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION FOR ALL OF YOU AS WELL AS THE REST OF US WITH REGARD TO THIS GRAVE MOMENT IN OUR HISTORY – THIS COULD BE OUR 2ND CIVIL WAR.

      MAY GOD BLESS ALL BRAVE SOULS WHO STAND AGAINST THIS TYRANNY AND EVIL, CORRUPTION OF A GOVERNMENT.

      “THE HOME OF THE FREE AND THE BRAVE” – THANK YOU OATH KEEPERS.

      Reply
  11. Pictured Lady
    Pictured Lady says:

    My entire family will be moving out of this liberally degraded, once-the-most-perfect-state due completely to the new law allowing men to come into women’s bathrooms – THIS IS NOT EQUALITY – THIS IS DISGUSTING, DISRESPECTFUL, DISENFRANCHISING, UN-PROTECTIVE OF EVERY WOMAN’S CIVIL RIGHTS, AND INSANE.

    The idiots who approved this MOST unbelievable law for Washingtonians are OVER-THE-TOP NUTS AND UTTERLY REPULSIVE FOR HAVING APPROVED THIS PATHETIC ORDER. WHO THE HELL IS THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND WHAT FREAK PUT THEM IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH NORMAL PERSONS?

    This is not alarming, it’s appalling – IT’S UNACCEPTABLE AND IT’S OUTRAGEOUS. We’re out of here. Washington is filled with freaks from the curb to the top,,, how gross to see it go this way. Of course, evil always try’s to ruin the most beautiful of God’s creations – once, that was Washington. The liberal desecration of our societal directive has destroyed this state. SHAME ON EVERY PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NEW AND SINFUL ATTACK ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND PROTECTION. LET THE LAW SUITS BEGIN.

    Reply
        • Mark
          Mark says:

          Apparently if you have a differing opinion you are “trolling”. But yet people who say such things will be the first to demand for tolerance.

          Reply
          • Pictured Lady
            Pictured Lady says:

            NO TROLLING HERE.
            Europe for Europeans.
            India for Indian peoples.
            Russia for Russian peoples.
            Mexico for Mexican peoples.
            Africa for African peoples.
            America for American-BORN citizens.
            AND,,,
            SINCE OUR AMERICAN-BORN CITIZEN BASE IS SUFFICIENT TO MANAGE AND MAINTAIN OUR COUNTRY,,,
            I FEEL OUR COUNTRY SHOULD STOP ALL IMMIGRATION – NO MORE NEW CITIZEN’S FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.
            Look at the numbers in 10 years and then, determine if we should remain a “CLOSED COUNTRY”.
            Visitors are welcome but after a fair, per-determined amount of time for said visit, they MUST leave America.

            AMERICA CAN NOT SUSTAIN THE ENTIRE WORLDS POPULATION NOR SHOULD WE TAKE ON SO MANY FOREIGNERS THAT OUR OWN CITIZEN’S SUFFER LACK.

    • Toots
      Toots says:

      sadly whole countries have implemented such laws and NYC just passed a law that makes it illegal to knowingly refer to a trangender person by pronouns associated with their birth sex. you can be fines up to $250K for breaking the law.

      Reply
  12. Beverly
    Beverly says:

    I am actually shocked to hear that Washington state has a Human Rights Commission. Truly frightening. Big Brother, the Thought Police. “Boohoohoo, you HURT my feelings; I’m gonna run home to mommy; better yet, I’m gonna run to the Human Rights Commission and you will pay, pay, pay.” What a tragically weak society we have become! Truly pathetic. A big bunch of mentally deranged babies.

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      Make no mistake about it: these are not babies – they are SADISTS – THEY LIKE SEEING OTHER PEOPLE HURT OR HURTING.

      This is yet another measure by the filthy nation of liars and cheaters who are doing their utmost to bring our country to it’s knees. If you don’t know who they are, look up “goyim”.

      Reply
  13. BeGood
    BeGood says:

    http://breastfeedinglaw.com/federal-law/
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child are otherwise authorized to be present at the location. -This “LAW”
    discriminates against men who want to breast feed their babies with their own breasts in public. How much nourishment do you think a 3 month old child would get from a man who identifies as a “woman?”

    Reply
  14. BeGood
    BeGood says:

    If you are reading this contribution, what you are witnessing in our once great soiety is the results of disfunctionality gone wild. Metaphorically, this is what happens when all the players are legally allowed to bring their own goal posts to the game and have equal rights to have their goal post recognized. It would appear to anyone who respects their Mother that The Rule Makers are in dire need of a checkup from the neck-up. Is it wisdom to establish rules and policies based on a false premises or false equivalencies? Google/Research the question, “Are you still beating your wife?”

    Reply
  15. BeGood
    BeGood says:

    These new “LAWS”………respecting the so-called rights of citizens with a condition….are like JIM CROW LAWS on steroids!!

    Reply
    • Nikita
      Nikita says:

      Please explain how allowing transgender persons to use bathrooms they’re most comfortable using is in any way akin to racial segregation laws.

      Reply
      • Troy
        Troy says:

        When transgender individuals are given a choice that other people don’t have, it’s discriminatory. You’re saying that men belong in their facilities, and women belong in a separate location, but transgender individuals can go wherever they want. This is like the racial segregation laws, where white people were given decisions that others were not.

        If you want to argue that men’s facilities are less safe, less hospitable, or less adequate in any respect, then you are implying that either men are a certain way because of their gender, or that the men’s facilities are inferior to the women’s. The first assumption is sexist. The second assumption is a violation of equal access laws.If either assumption is true, then allowing transgender individuals a choice that men don’t have is no different than allowing white people a choice that black people did not have. Women don’t have a choice either.

        Other people could benefit from having a choice. Unaccompanied children, mentally disabled, or any other individual who runs a higher risk of being a target of sexual misconduct or harassment.

        In the meantime, the women and children who have traditionally used the women’s facilities are the only group that will lose privacy. The phrase, “women and children first’ loses all meaning with this new proposition.

        Reply
  16. AJ
    AJ says:

    The Joke AKA Washington State Human Rights Commission can claim whatever they’d like is law. This would not happen in a business that I owned. I “WOULD intervene and there is nothing that can be done about that. God’s law before man’s law. End of story

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      ABSOLUTELY.
      EVERY business owner MUST have “THE” RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT GOES ON IN HIS OR HER PLACE OF BUSINESS.

      I applaud you for your stand and pray this state has enough intellectual backbone to do THE RIGHT THING: SEE THIS BLUNDER, THIS TRAVESTY FOR WHAT IT IS, AND NEGATE IT’S POWER IMMEDIATELY.

      BRING BACK GOD OR THIS NATION IS DOOMED.
      AND, DO IT NOW.

      Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      It sounds a lot like Sharia Law; there are NO RIGHTS FOR WOMEN.
      WHAT ARE WE DOING?
      THIS IS AMERICA.

      NOW THERE WON’T BE ONE PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHERE A WOMAN IS SAFE FROM THE PRESENCE OF A MAN – SO ALARMING THIS IS.

      I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THIS STATE AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF OUR SAFETY.

      Reply
  17. Suz
    Suz says:

    Suffice to say that I will make sure I am carrying my concealed weapon EVERYWHERE now. One of those idiots tries anything and he’s toast.

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      AT THAT POINT,,,, THE “HE OR SHE”,,,, IS REALLY AN “IT”.
      YOU WON’T BE THE ONLY ONE SMART ENOUGH TO SELF-DEFEND WITH A GUN.
      How pathetic that women of Washington state are now forced to put up with men in their PRIVATE restrooms. WHAT’S WRONG WITH MALES THESE DAYS?
      Why would they even want to be in OUR domain?
      These FREAKS should NOT have ANY RIGHTS TO OUR RESTROOMS.
      If they don’t want to go into the MEN’S restroom,,, then they should go out to the bushes.

      Reply
  18. Micah
    Micah says:

    I marvel that things that are obvious are always ignored when the small in number seek to have what they imagine. In this case, the small in number are those who feel that they are a gender psychologically different than they are physically, and those that speak for them. The small in number ignore all the dangers and equally potent concerns of the majority so that they can they can have freedoms forcibly given them to make them feel fairly treated.

    I have said it unquestionably true, so who dares to say it isn’t true. Now, is forcing the majority to allow any risky behavior justice? The discomfort of the small in number in this case is something they are born with or have developed that is without purpose in the development of the society of human beings. They may accept it and embrace it, and they may love themselves with their uniqueness, but it will still be an affliction to them more than if they were entirely one gender. This burden is inherently theirs, and no amount of legal actions or declarations will benefit society and their comfort level mutually. Law makers must either favor the few and treat unjustly the many or they must ignore the sometimes silent complains of the few and deal consistently with the many. There is simply no form of equality that possible to administer through the law in this subject.

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      I concur. Let’s dismantle this “human rights commission” with instant and desiive measures. I will be looking into filing a class-action law suit. If you want to stand with me and other women against this tyranny and danger to all women, please email me at gmail,,, just use the same name I used here.

      We need to ban together and stop this. REAL men can help us too; I’m certain there are many husbands who don’t want this for their wives,,, brother’s who don’t want it for their sisters, and Fathers who don’t want it for their daughters.

      Reply
  19. Phresh270
    Phresh270 says:

    This article needs a lot of clarification. I found the WAC that its referring to when that article mentions “The new rule specifically prohibits businesses and schools from creating a separate, gender neutral facility for use by those who prefer not to use the bathroom for their gender.”

    The WAC DOES NOT prohibit a business from creating a gender neutral restroom; it actually encourages provisions for privacy. It simply states that a business cannot REQUIRE a trans person to use a gender neutral facility, but rather that facility must be made available to ANY individual desiring privacy.

    Also with regards to primary and secondary education institutions the WAC indicates as follows: “School districts and other primary and secondary schools should assess the use of locker rooms by transgendered students on a case-by-case basis, with the goals of maximizing the student’s social integration and equal opportunity, ensuring the student’s safety and comfort, and minimizing the stigmatization of the student. In most cases, transgender students should have access to the locker room that corresponds to their gender identity consistently asserted at school.”

    In MOST CASES students should have access to the facilities that best correspond with their gender identity, this isn’t necessarily a guarantee.

    These are amendments to RCW 49.60, the Revised Code of Washington that GUARENTEES us Freedom from discrimination. To expect protection under 49.60 for oneself but feel it unnecessary to extend that same protection to others based on a differences in race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sensory, mental, or physical disability is ludicrous.

    One final thought… RCW 49.60 is also the same code that protects a mothers’ right to breastfeed her child in public. Business are BOYCOTTED if they ask a woman to “cover up” or use the “family” restroom when she breastfeeds her child. If people are uncomfortable with a mother breastfeeding in a public establishment, they are encouraged to avert their eyes or leave the establishment because it is THEM who has the issue, it is THEM that have the problem. Not the mother.

    If you are uncomfortable with trans people using the restroom they best identify with it I suggest you do the same and avert your eyes or leave the establishment because it is YOU that has the issue, it is YOU that has the problem. Not the trans person.

    Reply
    • Micah
      Micah says:

      I can appreciate your effort to defend the new legal changes. Have you considered the context of the laws enforcement? If the freedom to behave how we want is granted to some people at the cost of intimidating and controlling others, is it suitable to grant such freedom on all public property? You have a point that the new law is a useful guideline for many establishments and peoples chosen life-styles in Western Washington, yet every time you force people to face a threat of legal action against them if they try to uphold the interests and wellbeing of the public you weaken its enforceability and create a new obstruction of preventing criminal behavior.

      Your argument would be much more convincing if it did not emphasize your opposition to the average person (majority) with healthy and normal sexual boundaries. Since there are two sides to the debate, you cannot simply label wrongdoing on someone because they are of an opposing opinion and expect anyone to listen. I suggest that you develop a strong statement that is not designed as a one sided force of contention. In developing that you will naturally have a stronger opinion to convince your associates with, and be pleased with as well.

      Reply
    • C
      C says:

      So when a man walks into a locker room or bathroom and reveals his penis to your daughter, watches her change clothes, etc., you and her will just avert your eyes and simply leave the establishment? Don’t you see that this doesn’t have much to do with the transgenders, but rather more to do with the predators that will use stuff like this to gain access to their victims? Besides that, if people have the RIGHT to decide which gender facility to use, then why can’t business owners have the RIGHT to decide for themselves whether or not they will support it? If the transgenders/supporters don’t like what facilities a business offers then why can’t they be the ones to avert their eyes or leave the establishment???

      Reply
      • NorthernDancer
        NorthernDancer says:

        Of course you pose a false scenario to scare people. If a transgender woman walks into the women’s locker room, she will almost certainly change in private. I can’t recall seeing group showers in a ladies locker room in the last 20-30 years. (Maybe they’re still common in men’s locker rooms?). People shower in private.

        Don’t target transgender people when your real fear is non-trans men. As the examples above showed, predators don’t need a non-discrimination law to try sneaking into the ladies.

        How do you feel about a balding, bearded, muscular transman walking into the ladies behind your daughter or your wife? Opponents of equal protection concentrate on transwomen but often forget the roughly equal numbers of transmen. Everyone has to pee somewhere.

        If you are truly concerned about predators sneaking into the ladies, ask yourself this: is it easier for the average male predator to imitate a transwoman who probably has had years of hormone therapy (BTW rendering her incapable of attacking another woman even if she is pre-op) or imitate a hairy muscular bearded transman?

        Reply
        • Clark Kent
          Clark Kent says:

          ‘Equal protection’? You have no clue as to the meaning of those words. ‘Everyone has to pee somewhere’. Sure they do; men in the male bathroom and women in the female bathroom. Comprende?

          Reply
        • Pictured Lady
          Pictured Lady says:

          You ask this question: “How do you feel about a balding, bearded, muscular transman walking into the ladies behind your daughter or your wife?”

          I’m gonna answer you!

          FIRST OF ALL,,, Just the pathetic image your description conjures was enough to make the tea in my stomach curdle.

          If such a “thing” walked into the LADIES/WOMEN’S PRIVATE TOILET FACILITIES behind me – I would WANT to turn around and blow his knee caps off so he couldn’t do it again.

          HOWEVER, that’s not my style, I don’t break the laws and I don’t hurt others intentionally. I am RESPECTFUL OF OTHERS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, RESPECT, KIND CONSIDERATION, AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON. YOU KNOW, THE GOLDEN RULE.

          NO,,,, I’d just end up giving him a piece of my mind, as I am doing here, and then I’d WALK OUT OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT AND NEVER, NEVER RETURN.

          BYE BYE PROFIT!

          And since I stopped cursing, I won’t call you a “SICK F*&K.

          NO FEAR HEAR.

          Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      This is craziness.
      IF these freaks need a restroom to use they need one specifically set aside for “freaks”.

      We don’t need to do anything at all to the “status quo” with regard to how we’ve done it for the past 100 years or so,,,,
      Men’s restroom for MEN
      and
      Women’s restroom for WOMEN.

      NO ONE should be forced to go the the bathroom with a freak except another freak.

      Reply
    • Cathy
      Cathy says:

      Yep, I agree. And if the 95 percent of us who are uncomfortable with this stop frequenting public businesses, now wouldn’t that be fun.

      Reply
    • Yolanda
      Yolanda says:

      I really don’t think that’s the issue. It opens the door for predators who will use this law to gain access to victims. It’s the open locker rooms where people are showering and changing that has me the most concerned.

      Reply
    • Clark Kent
      Clark Kent says:

      No such thing as a ‘hate crime’; just as there are no ‘love crimes’. To believe otherwise is to speed towards a society as described in Orwell’s book 1984.

      Reply
      • Pictured Lady
        Pictured Lady says:

        WHAT PLANE ARE YOU LIVING ON?

        HATE IS PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY THING PROLIFERATING THESE DAYS –
        AND IT’S ALL BECAUSE SATAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE
        PROMOTING IDENTICAL CONDITIONS FOUND IN SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

        PEOPLE LIKE YOU,,, WHO BELLY-UP AND “HOMOGENIZE” TO BECOME LIKE THE “PACK” (A PACK OF DEMONIC CONDUITS), WHO ARE USED TO SUBVERT ALL GOOD THINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH THE OPPOSITE, ARE THE PROBLEM.

        Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      Where have you been?
      ALL the “agenda’s and measures” of these perverted souls are HATE CRIMES.
      HATE CRIMES against God-fearing MORALLY SANE people.

      Of course, as has been the case the entire time this has been happening,,,, the proverbial “finger” being pointed is in the direction of NORMAL people instead of being pointed in the right direction: at the freaks.

      Reply
  20. Jacey B
    Jacey B says:

    In June, a national high school debate league announced that their 2016 national tournament would be held in WA, providing a boost in revenue for businesses that provide food, lodging, and office supplies in the area where the tournament is held. Recently, though, we were informed that the location of the tournament would be moved to OK due to “unforeseen circumstances.” After reading this article, I think it is pretty clear what those “unforeseen circumstances” are.
    Washingtonians, please let your legislators know that your businesses are losing revenue because of this policy.

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      Happy New Year to All the sane people writing in this realm; may the ears that need to hear, eye’s that NEED to see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, REALIZE OUR COUNTRY IS FAILING AND IT’S BECAUSE OF THESE “AGENDA’S”.

      Thank you for your commentary as it is that of which any real change may proceed from – after all,, even beyond the LIBERALS need to take care of their own (the freaks),,, they seek to gain not only attention,,, but money too,,,, especially the bureaucrats.

      Not only is Washington going to see a rise in crime and hostility due to this measure,,, the state is also going to see an exodus of proportions as “those of us who have sanity thriving within our minds and souls”,,, WILL NOT STAY WHERE THIS ABOMINATION OCCURS.

      THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.
      LIBERALS SUCK.

      Reply
  21. RayP
    RayP says:

    This has got to be one of the most stupid things we have ever done as a society. Why are we wasting our time and money on such idiotic laws? As a people have we gone completely mad? Just step back and look at this action and try to find any amount of wisdom. If this is all the “benefit” we can expect out of local government, its time to rethink the need. This is not being inclusive nor showing love or kindness to anyone; this is just plain being stupid! I believe as a society we will pay the price for such poorly thought-through behavior. We had better get hold of some kind of beneficial moral compass and start using it!

    Reply
      • Pictured Lady
        Pictured Lady says:

        Thank you Ric,

        I appreciate your intelligence.
        This matter has me extremely upset
        because I’m planning on leaving the place
        of my life,,, the forests of my path.

        I HATE,,, NO,,,, I ABHOR THAT THE EVIL PERPETRATOR OF THESE MEASURES IS ABLE TO FORCE MY HAND THAT WAY. “IT”, IS FORCING ALL OF OUR HANDS.

        GOD’S PEOPLE MUST BEGIN STANDING INSTEAD OF THE OPPOSITE OR WE ARE DOOMED.

        I know, by way of Bible study, “deliberate” seeking of truth, and leaving myself open for his will, that GOD, THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, doesn’t want “HIS OWN” to just sit back and take this. NO. I sense he wants us to stand against these things of injustice and wrong-doing just as THE RISEN CHRIST, JESUS OUR LORD, DIVINE AND RIGHTEOUS SAVIOR stood against the money-changers in the church – THE House of The Almighty & Omnipotent GOD, Our FATHER.

        What form of or accomplishment as “Warriors of THE MOST HIGH GOD” can we claim if we do not defend that which GOD has given us?

        He has given us intelligence.
        He has given us codes of conduct: RESPECT, HONOR, PROTECT.
        He has given us COMMON SENSE.

        THIS PROTOCOL UPON OUR PEOPLE IS OPPOSITE ALL OF THE ABOVE.

        Happiest of New Years!

        Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      YES,,, it appears we HAVE gone COMPLETELY MAD.
      AND,,, we only need look as far as the Zionist Jew influence to find the root of THIS EVIL,,,
      THE CAUSE OF OUR AMERICAN DOWN-SPIRAL.

      IF GOD-FEARING PEOPLE DON’T STAND UP SOON AND TAKE BACK WHAT IS OURS,,,
      WE ARE LOST AND SO TOO, IS OUR SOCIETY.

      Reply
  22. BobM
    BobM says:

    While I am not confused that I was provided by our creator with the proper plumbing, it seems that this articled only addresses that issue. So, when I saw the title I that this was going to address the issue of accompanying my wife into the woman’s comfort room to assist her. She is an invalid and requires assistance. There are businesses that we visit that only have the male of female heads. There are others that have “family rooms”. We visited one that did not have the “family room” and my wife needed assistance. It is normally our practice to announce that there will be a male presence in the female comfort room, and we hear the acceptance, especially when they see me pushing my wife’s wheel chair in. During one such visit, a women that came into the female restroom after we were already there decided it wasn’t right and fetched security, By the time my wife was finished and I was assisting her to finish up and leave there were 4 security personnel in there with us. We had a little chuckle about the whole thing. The business had several restrooms that this person could have chosen to use, but instead she chose to make an issue of it. The security personnel didn’t have a problem with it, they merely suggested that the next time we get one of them to accompany us to the restroom so they can clear it for us. Not a problem, and we haven’t that business with our presence since then.

    Reply
  23. Ryan
    Ryan says:

    So let me get this straight; some men think they don’t have the private parts they were born with and so they are insisting the public turn a blind eye to their true gender because they might have an emotional breakdown? This sounds like mental illness. For the state to make a law criminalizing businesses for interfering will create more problems. Especially when predators start taking advantage of this law and assaulting women.

    Friend (or foe), do you realize this new law comes from a flawed worldview based on feelings above logic. With government issuing such laws, we are no longer a government by the people for the people, but rather a progressive socialist society. We (the good citizens of this state) need to challenge this law and protect other citizens (especially vulnerable women and children and school children in public schools) who come into their establishment. This is a time to resist stupid laws and fight them in court. If my daughters ever are violated because of said law, I will sue the state, and so should you.

    Reply
    • Clark Kent
      Clark Kent says:

      Sue the state? Good luck with that, although I am in total agreement with your concerns. The state would claim they were merely providing ‘equality’ against your ‘bigotry’ and ‘hate’.

      Reply
    • Jill Davidson
      Jill Davidson says:

      There is nothing in the law about trans people having an “emotional breakdown”. This is not about “feelings”. This is about safety. Most trans people do not look like the gender they were assigned at birth. Most cannot obtain surgery, either for financial reasons, health reasons, or because for trans men, the surgery is technically extremely difficult. No one is checking our underwear. Most trans people use the bathroom associated with the gender the identify as, and no one is the wiser. Requiring trans people to use the bathroom associated with the gender assigned at birth poses a much higher danger risk (they will look like the dont belong there).

      And I assure you, trans people are just as good citizens as you are.

      Reply
        • NorthernDancer
          NorthernDancer says:

          Great. Do that. Watch as the cops take you off to jail for assault and watch your savings vanish as the transwoman successfully sues you.

          You don’t get to beat someone up because you don’t like them or they have the temerity to pee peacefully.

          Growing up I’d hear exactly the same arguments from other bigots but about African Americans having the temerity to ys the “wrong” restroom.

          Reply
          • Clark Kent
            Clark Kent says:

            Who said anything about ‘beating up’? And knock of the ‘bigotry’ crapola. I am tired of liberals branding anything they disagree with as ‘bigotry’ or ‘hate’. And by the way, your African American example was silly. One is BORN black, but NOT trans-sexual. Grow up.

          • Jill Davidson
            Jill Davidson says:

            @Clark: “Trans gender folks using the wrong restroom will soon REALLY learn about ‘danger risk’. Wake up.” This implies “beating up” or some infliction of harm. What “danger risk” did you have in mind if not beating someone up?

        • Pictured Lady
          Pictured Lady says:

          YES. THEY BETTER BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE WOMEN ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE THIS ABUSE.

          ANYONE WHO’S AS WEAK A PERSON AS IT WOULD TAKE TO DISMANTLE THEIR MINDS, THEIR BODIES, AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS TO THE DEGREES THESE FREAKS DO,,, TO BECOME THESE FREAKS,,,,
          COULD BE EASILY TAKEN ON BY MOST WOMEN.

          YOU SEE, WOMEN CAN BE AS LIKE A CAT: VERY FEROCIOUS, VERY PROTECTIVE, AND VERY READY.

          OR,,, THEY CAN PURR LIKE A KITTEN –

          IT’S ALL IN THE WAY THEY ARE TREATED.

          BE CAREFUL!

          Reply
      • Pictured Lady
        Pictured Lady says:

        “Trans People”,,,, what is that?

        These are mixed up men or women who’ve lost touch with their source.
        Confused and needing mental help, they are not as good of citizen’s as those of us who keep GOD’S ordinances. If they don’t repent, they are going to burn in very hot, very real, flames. The torture of which, none can imagine.

        If you are a “trans person”,,,, my advise,,,,,, fall to knees and beg for forgiveness,,, then walk away from your bondage and be WHO YOU WERE BORN TO BE,,, not who the “long-tongued” liar has you thinking you’re supposed to be.

        I’m pulling for you,,,, and, we’re NOT all in this together; many of us are in direct opposition to your liberal lifestyles and degrading behaviors.

        Reply
    • NorthernDancer
      NorthernDancer says:

      Hate to interrupt your rant with facts but you haven’t done your research. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), the bible of what is and is not a mental illness, specifically states that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. EVERY major medical group that has a policy on this issue agrees that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness and that transition is the best treatment.

      Reply
      • Clark Kent
        Clark Kent says:

        I am more than happy to interrupt your rant. I could care less what your bible claims. THE Bible (capital ‘B’) states otherwise. God could care less what EVERYBODY says; that is why He is God. Go peddle your bilge at another forum.

        Reply
        • Pictured Lady
          Pictured Lady says:

          YOU’RE THE PROBLEM,
          NOT THE SOLUTION.
          PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE LOST.
          YOU NEED TO SEEK HELP.

          THE ONLY BILGE HERE IS THE SICKNESS OOZING FROM FOLKS LIKE YOU.

          GET OVER IT AND GET HELP.
          THE KRYPTONITE MAY HAVE AFFECTED YOU ADVERSELY – I’LL SAY A LITTLE PRAYER FOR YOU CLARK!

          Reply
      • Pictured Lady
        Pictured Lady says:

        There is ONLY “ONE” BIBLE.
        AND IN THAT BIBLE,,, WE ARE DIRECTED VERY CLEARLY:

        You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.
        It is an abomination.”
        (Leviticus 18:22)

        “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman,
        both of them have committed an abomination.
        They shall surely be put to death.
        Their blood shall be upon them.”
        (Leviticus 20:13)

        “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man,
        nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment,
        for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.”
        (Deuteronomy 22:5)

        Reply
    • Beverly
      Beverly says:

      I am actually wondering why Washington state has a Human Rights Commission. A truly scary thought. Sounds like Canada, where folks are fined outrageous sums because they express an opinion that “offends” someone. How tragically weak our populace has become. “Boohoohoo, you hurt my feelings; I’m going to sue you; better yet, I will sic the Human Rights Commission on you and you will pay, pay, pay!!!”

      Reply
  24. donna
    donna says:

    ALL BUSINESSES NEED TO CLOSE THEIR BATHROOMS UNLESS A RESTAURANT> If a restaurant-just add some porta potties out in the parking lot. EVERYONE who has to deal with the law needs to GET TOGETHER AND DO THIS TO STOP THIS NONSENSE!!

    Reply
  25. John
    John says:

    The solution for many businesses may well end up being the remodeling of all restrooms to accommodate only one person at a time, with a deadbolt lock on the door. In the recent past people with Chron’s disease (a serious bowel disorder) were denied the use of the nearest restroom, but now these guys can waltz in wherever they like?

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      Why should good people who follow the normal, well-established rules and regulations be forced to accommodate those of us who’ve turned away and into something less than RIGHT – FAR LESS.

      WHY IS THIS ROTTEN EVILNESS OVER-TAKING OUR NATION, OUR LEADERS, OUR CITIZEN’S?

      I’LL TELL YOU WHY – THEY SERVE THE WRONG GOD.

      Reply
  26. Tionico
    Tionico says:

    This is not really LAW.. because it has not been enacted through the democratic process of our lawmakers discussing, calling for pubilc input, etc. This is not law it is tyranny, and a very sick version of it.

    Our legislature must take action to reel back in these perverts. I’d also urge them to see about removing those who voted in favour of this insanity. They are not fit to rule over the People of Washington

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      I completely agree: IT IS TYRANNY OF A MOST SICK FASHION AND WE MUST NOT ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE.

      LOOK FOR A NEW PETITION AT CHANGE.ORG

      Reply
  27. Elmer
    Elmer says:

    When the article stated that businesses wishing to use a gender neutral restroom by way of a solution would be regarded as in violation of the law, you have to seriously wonder what the true motivation behind the law is. It would seem to me that a third restroom would be a logical and safe choice, but to specifically bar that option in the wording to me is suspicious – like we’re not really trying to solve the problem, but are trying to promote a change in society.

    Sorry, but I will have a problem the moment someone of such a description follows one of my daughters into the restroom.

    Reply
    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      Elmer, don’t be the least bit sorry. If some obviously male individual follows your daughter into the loo, walk right in behind him, If anyone says a thing, glare at them and point to the creep. If THAT can be in here, THIS can too. Stay until it leaves, or your daughter does.

      Reply
      • NorthernDancer
        NorthernDancer says:

        Great.

        If you walk into the ladies (I assume from your post and tone that you’re male), I’m calling security and the cops. I don’t care if you’re following your daughter or if you’re following a woman that you don’t think looks feminine enough. You don’t know if she’s a non-transgender masculine-looking woman, a post-op transgender woman, or a pre-op transwoman. Women should not have to look pretty enough to you to avoid having you crash the ladies room.

        Calling a person an “it” is a great way to dehumanize her or him and makes it easier for you or others to assault or even kill her or him.

        To be blunt, I’m a lot more scared of you barging into the ladies breathing fire and ready to do violence than I am of a transwoman who walks in peacefully to pee.

        Reply
        • Clark Kent
          Clark Kent says:

          To be blunt, I am a lot more scared of someone like you attempting to excuse the inexcusable. And a ‘transwoman’ does not exist, except in your imagination.

          Reply
  28. Mary
    Mary says:

    Just another injustice against women
    Here again we are being treated as second class citizens
    I hope this means that the WA Human Rights Commission is responsible and accountable for any harm to women.

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      That’s EXACTLY what it is going to mean.
      Once this TYRANNY becomes full-fledged crime reports, the WA Human Rights Commission WILL be called upon in court proceedings. Make no mistake – they are the group directly responsible for any ill that will befall women from this ludicrous and sickening turn of events.

      Reply
  29. Tina L Bond-Kuglin
    Tina L Bond-Kuglin says:

    I am so glad my son’s is out of school now I as a parent would never put up with this, I don’t care how confused you are about your gender what ever is between your legs & inside you is what you are

    Reply
  30. BruceH
    BruceH says:

    Question: “What are you doing in the officer’s club, Private?”
    Proper response: “I identify as an officer.”

    Question: “What are you doing in my office?”
    Proper response: “I identify as the owner.”

    Reply
    • Pictured Lady
      Pictured Lady says:

      I IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN,,, NATURALLY, I USE THE “WOMEN’S” RESTROOM

      ANYONE WHO IS NOT A WOMAN – SHOULD STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE WOMEN’S BATHROOM FACILITIES – PERIOD.

      IF YOU WEREN’T BORN A WOMAN – STAY OUR OF OUR RESTROOMS – YOU ARE NOT WELCOME THERE.

      Reply
  31. Charles Reed
    Charles Reed says:

    State Representative Graham Hunt (2nd District) is drafting legislation to restore decorum to this whole issue. Be sure you call your own Representatives and Senators to support Graham’s bill.

    Reply
  32. Joyce Mulliken
    Joyce Mulliken says:

    Ridiculous. You don’t see women requesting to use the men’s bathroom. Most businesses have unisex “one room” private bathrooms which are acceptable. But, women’s restrooms with stalls should remain off limits to all males over the age of six.
    While you are correct the Legislature can fix this, they shouldn’t have to waste their time on this issue; especially with a Governor who is just as sick as the sickos promoting this. The. Legislature should be fixing roads, bridges, etc. and working to comply with voter approved education mandates. This entire discussion is depraved and actually makes me sick just thinking about my 13 year old granddaughter having to deal with something like this. AT LEAST FILE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THIS RULE!!!

    Reply
  33. Mike Blade
    Mike Blade says:

    Here is what I sent to my legislators:

    I have just learned that anatomically male customers and employees must be allowed to use the restrooms or locker rooms (facilities) of the opposite anatomical sex if they claim they identify as the sex opposite of their anatomy. Alternatively, I suppose this ruling applies to anatomically female customers who identify as male, but doubt that it will actually happen that way. My estimate is that the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of those who wish to use opposite-anatomy facilities will be male…

    I find this ruling repulsive and dangerous. I could count the ways, but trust that any reasonable person does not need to be told the reasons as they are obvious to anyone with common sense. OK, I will spell out one: There is no way (zero) to unambiguously and impartially and for certain, TEST what a person’s sexual identity is. There IS, however, a way to unambiguously and for certain TEST a person’s anatomical gender. Therefore, this ruling opens up a legal way for someone who is pretending to be of a different gender-identity than their anatomical gender to infringe on the privacy and safety rights of other citizens of this state. In addition, this ruling REQUIRES those who object to seek out facilities which are ‘gender neutral’, thus infringing on their freedom, and stigmatizing them as ‘intolerant’ or ‘bigoted’ for simply protecting themselves from this obvious threat to their own privacy and safety.

    Please either sponsor or support legislation to reverse this ruling at the EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY. The rights and safety of the many outweigh the concerns for the very few.

    Reply
  34. GrannyC
    GrannyC says:

    This is pure “********”. Why not require three restrooms. The “HE”, the “SHE” and the “IT”. If these trans-sexual people have not had the surgery to complete their transition, they are still male, and should not be allowed in a woman’s restroom. Sorry, the door doesn’t swing both ways just because you have a mental problem.

    Reply
    • Jon
      Jon says:

      Even if they have the surgery, all they’ve done is mutilate themselves. You will always be the gender you were when you were born. Despite that fact that is trendy to say there isn’t, there is, in fact, as gender binary. You can only be male or female. There’s no in between, and you can’t switch.

      Reply
    • NorthernDancer
      NorthernDancer says:

      This idea was tried before. In the past the 3 signs on the door were “Men”, “Women”, and “Colored”. (Sorry — historically that’s what they said). Again it was because some people didn’t want others that were different sharing bathrooms for a lot of made up reasons.

      Separate but equal wasn’t fair or equal then and it’s not fair or equal now.

      Reply
      • Clark Kent
        Clark Kent says:

        Except that blacks are born black and trans-genders are not born trans-gender. Epic fail for an analogy. Start over. And by the way, male and female bathrooms are both properly separate and equal. Get over it.

        Reply
      • James Grayson
        James Grayson says:

        There is a different in disallowing someone access to your space because you hate them and disallowing them access because you feel endangered or violated. Also, when blacks fought for equal access they didn’t fight those on the grounds that they were really white. Gay rights isn’t based on homosexuals declaring themselves straight. A trans person is not the same sex as a cis gendered person. But we are being forced to ignore the difference. Pretend it doesn’t exist. And we differentiate bathrooms based on sex, not gender. We as a society recognize that the sexes (not the genders) are raised with a level of expected privacy based on their sex. To just take it away in one swoop without regard to the emotional effect of the population is disrespectful and above all NOT a function of our government. The government is our representation, not our overload. Our physical bodies give us a specific life experience. There is no way a man could possibly understand how it feels to be a woman. He has no experience in it. All he could achieve is speculation and buy into what society has deemed is an acceptable representation of what a woman is, should be and allowed to do. And vise versa. No change or solution can be obtained from external sources. If you have rejected your body, your very identity, no external validation in the world will change your discomfort. It is bandaging, but reality will follow you every moment of the day. The solution is to uncover WHY you have rejected your body. Even one of the most Trans friendly country in the world Sweden, reports continue dysphoria post op and suicidal thoughts. Rather than trying to get everyone to accept something that counters science and what they see with their own eyes perhaps we should promote balance through respect of everyone’s rights of bodily privacy. Gender Neutral bathrooms assures privacy for everyone or just labeling all bathrooms as gender neutral. It is at least honest in that no one can expect privacy based on one’s sex. Plus it relieves a business’s and government from policing someone’s “identity” especially since identity is so fluid.

        Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] WA Human Rights Commission: All businesses must let men in women’s bathroom  […]

  2. […] on Twitter, spurred on by worried speak uncover hosts and a “Family Policy Institute” blogger. Ericksen did not respond to a ask for criticism yesterday. In an talk with The Stranger, Hunt […]

  3. […] on Twitter, spurred on by worried speak uncover hosts and a “Family Policy Institute” blogger. Ericksen did not respond to a ask for criticism yesterday. In an talk with The Stranger, Hunt […]

  4. […] Joseph Backholm, executive executive of a Family Policy Institute of Washington, wrote in a blog post. “The new order privately prohibits businesses and schools from formulating a separate, […]

  5. […] Joseph Backholm, executive executive of a Family Policy Institute of Washington, wrote in a blog post. “The new order privately prohibits businesses and schools from formulating a separate, […]

  6. […] Family Policy Institute – this link includes an article about the new rule/law. […]

  7. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,'” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  8. […] frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington […]

  9. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  10. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  11. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  12. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  13. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  14. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  15. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  16. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is partial of a new pull to support gender-segregated bathrooms as an aspersion to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in a Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  17. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  18. […] “This first-of-its-kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  19. […] “This first-of-its=kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  20. […] “This first-of-its=kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

  21. […] “This first-of-its=kind, statewide law is part of the recent push to frame gender-segregated bathrooms as an affront to ‘equality,’” wrote Joseph Backholm in the Family Policy Institute of Washington. […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *