# Political fallout of transgender bathroom issue **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 14, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775 "2016-05-14T18:29:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/541 "2016-06-04T23:45:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > And again, I am not talking about a truly transgendered person who is born male, but self identifies as female. I am talking about a smartass little punk who is born male and identifies as male, but is screwing with the system to watch the girls shower. Even if a teacher didn’t stop the smartass punk, or lawsuit fears prevented a teacher from doing so, I would think the girls themselves would take care of it. Dating was quite competitive when I was in high school, and it seems just as much so now. Any ‘smartass punk’ who tried this might be successful in getting into the girls locker room to look, but do you think he would have any serious chance of getting a date with any of those girls? Or any other girl they talked to? (And the girls always had a pretty active rumor mill going in my high school.) And frankly, any 15-year-old guy can see more explicit stuff on the internet than in most high school locker rooms. Without risking the hit to his reputation from claiming to be transgender. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/542 "2016-06-04T23:55:45Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > In what way does any of this counseling, paperwork, etc. mean that this fact is “recorded legally”? . . . It’s recorded formally. It’s on record in the school office. It’s part of the kid’s permanent record. It isn’t just something he or she decides to do on a lark, on the spur of the moment. Why is this so incomprehensible to some people? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2016, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/543 "2016-06-05T06:01:31Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > …Or is the answer simply that those on the right who demand transgender persons register themselves somehow are just bigots who think the kids are icky? Ding ding ding ding ding…we have a winner! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/544 "2016-09-13T18:09:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is not the type of thing that you would expect to be found in one hard-to-find source. 28,000 responses from institutions is a big deal.OK, so forget the exact number. Find something that there was a request for public comment and responses from a bunch of educational and other institutions. I would note that there is no mention of this in the DOJ letter itself or in the DOJ blog post about it, and the reporting I’ve seen mention the DOJ assertion that it’s been in the works for months as a claim by the DOJ, not as something that would have been previously well known based on a comment process of that scale. > > It’s extremely unlikely that your claim is true.I agree with you, but your point undermines your claim. > > The fact is that most “dear colleague” letters, as you call them, are not a big deal _even when they’re issued_, and that’s why even if they were at some point in a “request for comment” phase, they don’t attract much attention. But here we’re discussing a very hot-button issue that made huge headlines when the letter was released, and if there was a request for comment process that was broad enough to attract 28,000 responses from institutions, it would have attracted some more notice (and even now, would leave more of a trace). > > To be clear, I’m not accusing you of making the whole thing up out of thin air. I think you’re most likely confused about something you read. However, now that it’s been challenged, the forthright thing to do would be to put up or back off. Unfortunately, considering your performance in this thread, where you’ve previously posted bogus information and failed to acknowledge when this was refuted, that’s probably unlikely to happen this time as well. This relates to **tomndebb** ’s repeated false claim that the DOJ letter came about when they “_responded to numerous requests by soliciting input from multiple institutions, educational and otherwise, beginning last fall, and received over 28,000 responses […] this was not a hastily thrown together attempt to attack North Carolina, but a nation wide response to genuine requests for guidance from multiple locations throughout the country that was in the works for many months_” I was reminded of that claim when I was reading about the court decision putting that guidance on hold. Random cite from the [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-texas-transgender-directive-20160822-snap-story.html) (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > O’Connor, who was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007, stated that the federal government had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act in bypassing its notice and comment process and issuing directives that “contradict the existing legislation and regulative text.” [This is perhaps a bit of a minor point to be dragging up a 3 month old thread. But I didn’t realize the discussion was that old when I began searching for it, and once I’ve come this far I’m going to post it. Sorry. :)] ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/545 "2016-09-13T18:40:20Z")
Your cite doesn’t contradict the claim that DOE received thousands of request for guidance, and I’m not sure how you thought it did. Notice-and-comment rulemaking is a formal legal procedure involving the promulgation of draft regulations that are then modified based on public comment. It is required for certain kinds of administrative rules, but not every administrative rule. The presence or absence of that procedure has absolutely nothing to do with whether the DOE received requests for guidance. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/546 "2016-09-13T18:45:10Z")
ISTM that the claim that they “_responded to numerous requests by soliciting input from multiple institutions, educational and otherwise, beginning last fall, and received over 28,000 responses_” contradicts the assertion by this judge that they “_bypass[ed] its notice and comment process_”. Unless you’re claiming that they did issue notice and request and receive comments but violated the official process in some highly technical sense. If this is indeed your claim, please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/547 "2016-09-13T18:55:38Z")
I’m informing you that “notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law, referring to promulgating and modifying a draft regulation. Whether it happened or not is completely independent of whether what **tomndebb** describes happened or not with respect to the letter. Agencies solicit and receive feedback on informal regulatory actions all the time. There is a narrower subset of regulations for which they do notice and comment rulemaking. They are logically and practically independent things. That’s not a “highly technical” distinction. It’s the difference between saying the President has not given a State of the Union speech this month and saying the President hasn’t talk about the conditions in our country this month. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/548 "2016-09-13T19:14:46Z")
Your first paragraph is built on your assertion that “_“notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law_”, but in your second paragraph you go on to say that the lack of this is “_not a “highly technical” distinction_”. Are you differentiating between “technical” and “highly technical”? I am not inclined to argue that … Again, please clarify. In what substantive manner did a process that solicited comments from over 28,000 institutions fail to comply with the procedure? (Perhaps that the proposed rule wasn’t published in the Federal Register? But that begs the question as to why an agency going through the process of requesting comments from over 28,000 institutions in a deliberative and open process wouldn’t take the simple step of publishing it in the FR.) ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/549 "2016-09-13T19:59:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your first paragraph is built on your assertion that “_“notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law_”, but in your second paragraph you go on to say that the lack of this is “_not a “highly technical” distinction_”. Are you differentiating between “technical” and “highly technical”? I am not inclined to argue that … > > Again, please clarify. In what substantive manner did a process that solicited comments from over 28,000 institutions fail to comply with the procedure? (Perhaps that the proposed rule wasn’t published in the Federal Register? But that begs the question as to why an agency going through the process of requesting comments from over 28,000 institutions in a deliberative and open process wouldn’t take the simple step of publishing it in the FR.) One is privately working with certain institutions with technical expertise and practical experience with a given topic. The other is going “Here’s our plan, what do you think?” to the [del]ignorant[/del] uninformed public. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/550 "2016-09-13T20:14:05Z")
I don’t know if you could describe over 28,000 institutions as “certain institutions with technical expertise and practical experience” - especially when you consider that’s only the number of responses that tomndebb was claiming they got, not the number of requests they sent out. One can only imagine how many requests they would have to have sent out to get that many responses. My impression is that while in general these requests for comments are open to anyone who wants to comment, as a practical matter the ones who comment are those who have a keen interest in the subject. The ignorant uninformed public rarely comments, or even - being ignorant and uninformed as they are - has any idea that it’s going on. [My own firm is constantly commenting on proposed regulations which impact employee benefits, but you never hear this come up in ordinary conversation … :)] That said, I did note earlier in this thread that any request for comment which was broad enough to receive actual responses from 28,000 institutions on such a hot-button topic as this would have attracted some notice in the media, and would even reach the ignorant uninformed masses, and the fact that no one besides tomndebb has alleged that this process took place, and even tomndebb himself can’t produce any evidence that it ever existed, is yet another reason to believe that the whole thing never happened outside his imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/551 "2016-09-15T00:31:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your first paragraph is built on your assertion that “_“notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law_”, but in your second paragraph you go on to say that the lack of this is “_not a “highly technical” distinction_”. Are you differentiating between “technical” and “highly technical”? I am not inclined to argue that … > > Again, please clarify. In what substantive manner did a process that solicited comments from over 28,000 institutions fail to comply with the procedure? (Perhaps that the proposed rule wasn’t published in the Federal Register? But that begs the question as to why an agency going through the process of requesting comments from over 28,000 institutions in a deliberative and open process wouldn’t take the simple step of publishing it in the FR.) The fact that something has a technical definition does not imply that any differentiation from that concept is a technical difference. Pretty sure you understand that, and I’m really not sure how I would explain it further if you don’t. A grenade has a technical meaning. A pineapple is not a grenade, and that distinction is not technical. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/552 "2016-09-15T13:38:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The fact that something has a technical definition does not imply that any differentiation from that concept is a technical difference. Pretty sure you understand that, and I’m really not sure how I would explain it further if you don’t. A grenade has a technical meaning. A pineapple is not a grenade, and that distinction is not technical. If you ask me, this approach of covering for shallow and misleading arguments by adding some condescending language about you “explain[ing] it further” does not become you. You’re a bright guy and capable of making valid and substantive points, but everyone messes up sometimes and when that happens you should be forthright about it, instead of resorting to tactics like this. But I can’t tell you what to do, and perhaps you feel it works for you. In any event, the following should be obvious and probably is, but since you’ve chosen to obfuscate it, I feel like I need to expand a bit. It goes without saying that, as you say, “_the fact that something has a technical definition does not imply that any differentiation from that concept is a technical difference_”. That’s one reason why in my prior comment I didn’t suggest otherwise. What I did say - and note the added emphasis here - is “_Your first paragraph is **built on** your assertion that "“notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law_”. Pay attention to that, because it’s important. To use your own example, someone attempting to explain why a pineapple is not a grenade would not begin by saying, as you did here, “_‘[grenade]’ is a technical term …_”. Because the reason a pineapple is not a grenade is not based on ‘grenade’ being a technical term. A pineapple and a grenade are clearly very fundamentally and functionally different with no resort to technical definitions. But that’s not the case here. The claim being made is that the feds initiated a request for comment process on a scale so broad that they actually received over 28,000 responses from educational and other institutions. From a fundamental and functional standpoint, this is remarkably similar to the concept of giving notice and receiving comments. So when you asserted that these requirements may not have been met despite such a process, I suggested that this might be because they failed in some highly technical sense. Because, again, from a fundamental and functional standpoint, it seem pretty clear that it’s essentially the same thing (at least as to the “comments” aspect). In your response, you - perhaps unwittingly - acknowledged that yes, the issue here is that _““notice and comment rulemaking” is a technical term in the law”_, but then in your second paragraph backed off this in declaring that the distinction is not “highly technical”. Which is what I called you on. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775/553 "2016-09-19T19:44:51Z")
So North Carolina is dropping he HB2 lawsuit because its too expensive?!?!?! WTF?!?!?! I thought this was about principle and protecting the chilluns and womenfolk!!! What price is too much to pay for principle and protecting the lil ones and womenfolk from perverts? I don’t want to be cynical but is the governor of north Carolina in danger of losing his next election to the coach of Duke basketball over this principled and not at al bigoted law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-fallout-of-transgender-bathroom-issue/754775.md?page=27)