# South Dakota Governor Vetos School / Locker Room Gender Bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2016, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727 "2016-03-02T10:48:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/41 "2016-03-02T20:26:16Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > You people were never slapped or beaten for disobeying your parents? 😕 There’s only one of me, to the best of my knowledge, so I don’t know what you mean by “you people.” And parental discipline, near as I can tell, has precisely fuck-all to do with the conversation. So maybe you’d care to elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/42 "2016-03-02T20:44:16Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > How could children be emotionally/psychologically mature enough to know? The same way you knew that you were a boy\* at that age. \*An assumption that you identify as male–I have you in my head as male, but I don’t know if you’ve ever explicitly said so. Apologies if I got it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/43 "2016-03-02T20:58:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m sorry, but I still need more clarification. The fourteenth amendment requires equal protection of the law for all citizens. You seem to be saying that your examples violate this principle, but presumably are not declaring minimum voter age laws to be unconstitutional. Could you explain the apparent discrepancy in your position? Yes. “Equal protection,” is a term of art in case law that does not literally mean equal protection for all citizens. Instead, it means that when the government treats citizens unequally, it must have some justification, and the requisite justification varies based on the classifications created – that it, if the government treats 16 year old a differently from 18 year older, or persons holding dental licenses differently than non-licensed people, then it typically need only show some rational relationship between the disparate treatment and a legitimate government goal. When the government seeks to treat persons of different races differently, it must answer a far more strict standard: is the disparate treatment narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government goal? ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/44 "2016-03-02T20:58:34Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The spectre that’s being used to oppose transgender anti-discrimination policies is that it will allow cisgender men to hang out in ladies’ rooms for prurient purposes. That is _not_ a thing that can plausibly happen. It’s a phantom menace. No transgender anti-discrimination law legalizes harassing or peeping on people in the bathroom regardless of gender. It does not authorize a man who identifies as male to hang out in the ladies’ room. No act which it is currently illegal for a man to commit in a bathroom suddenly becomes legal by dint of his declaring “I identified as a woman on that particular day”. There is no problem which the SD bill exists to solve, because its existence is predicated on fiction. Phantom menace? [http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534](http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534) ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/45 "2016-03-02T21:03:52Z")
> [@thirdname](#): > > Phantom menace? > > [http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534](http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534) Phantom menace. The state Human Rights Commission [has already investigated that incident](http://www.hum.wa.gov/admin/functions/file_views.php?media_id=320) (pdf)and determined that his acts were _not_ permissible under our state’s transgender protection laws. > [@](#): > > When a man recently entered a women’s locker room at a Seattle pool, his intent was obviously to make the women and girls in the restroom upset and uncomfortable, and to make some kind of misguided point about the Human Rights Commission’s rules regarding equal access to gender-segregated facilities. His behavior is inexcusable and reprehensible. And it is absolutely not protected under the law. According to witnesses, the man never identified himself as transgender. He did not express a female gender identity through voice, dress, or mannerisms. He was a man, but in the wrong place. And even worse, when he was asked to leave, he refused to do so. > > Men cannot go into the women’s locker room, as this man claimed he had the right to do. Only women, including transgender women, can go into the women’s locker room. Persons who enter the wrong gender-segregated facility for nefarious purposes can be asked to leave in no uncertain terms. And they would have no recourse. This is little more an example of small-minded bigots attempting to troll the state and make life harder for vulnerable people by attempting to “prove” the existence of a threat that exists only in their own minds. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/46 "2016-03-02T21:06:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The courts recognize that legislation cannot treat all citizens exactly the same way. Otherwise two year olds would be permitted to vote. So legislatures are entitled to treat similarly situated citizens differently based on some classifications. Age, for example. The courts have recognized that other classifications are inherently “suspect” because they have generally been applied specifically to disadvantage particular minorities. Race is the classic example. As a result, the courts apply varying levels of scrutiny to “unequal” laws based on the type of discrimination involved. Rational basis review, the lowest level, applies to most classifications including age, and is a low bar for the government to meet (actually the government doesn’t even have to meet it because under rational basis review the challenger is obligated to prove that the law is unconstitutional, rather than the other way around). …Right, I get this. In other words, you’re not violating equal protection if there’s a reason to treat people unequally. Edit: maybe the problem is on my end, thinking that using language from the 14th amendment automatically implicates it. If that’s the problem, I apologize: my entire point is tied up in laws that violate the 14th amendment, and I thought my post made that sufficiently clear, but it may not have. This is a bit of a semantic snag here. I’m perfectly happy to concede that if you’re treating people unequally because doing so is the best way to satisfy a legitimate government interest, it’s okay. But Bricker said, > [@](#): > > there is no pervasive problem that this bill would fix. That, and only that, is good reason to not make it law. My disagreement is with “only that.” By analogy, there may be a pervasive problem that another bill would fix: crime in Chicago. The state may decide that, because black people are convicted more often of drug possession, they should pass a law that black people must not be out on the street past 10 pm. In this case, the state is addressing a pervasive problem. However, there would be a good reason not to make it law, namely, it denies black people equal protection under the law. In this case, Bricker is correct that the law is not addressing a pervasive problem. However, I posit that, much like curfewing black people and not white people, it treats people unequally, and that that is **another** good reason not to make it law. Pointing out that other laws treat, say, 17-year-olds differently from 18-year-olds is not relevant to the question of whether 14th-amendment violations are a good reason to veto a law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/47 "2016-03-02T21:21:45Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Pointless legislation in response to a widely held but ultimately incorrect public perception is OK as long as the incorrect public perception is only _demonstrably_ incorrect instead of _laughably_ incorrect. Is that what I’m hearing? > > Sounds like we’re splitting hairs, but whatever. No. The concern about Voter ID is not “demonstrably incorrect.” The concern is: what happens in the rare event of an ultra-close election? I mean, surely you don’t claim there are never fraudulent votes in any number, right? The point I assume you defend is that their number is vanishingly small: if an election with 2 million votes is decided by 20,000 votes, it’s not relevant whether the “real” margin was 19,989 or 20,011. But what if the election is decided by four votes? More to the point: how can you you say that weighing that risk is somehow wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/48 "2016-03-02T21:23:13Z")
> [@](#): > > In this case, Bricker is correct that the law is not addressing a pervasive problem. However, I posit that, much like curfewing black people and not white people, it treats people unequally, and that that is another good reason not to make it law. I don’t think **Bricker** is saying that there is no other reason to veto the bill. I think he is saying the fact that it is a solution in search of a problem is reason enough to veto. In fairness, if that is his meaning he probably could have expressed it better. But presumably he will clarify for you. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/49 "2016-03-02T21:38:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t think **Bricker** is saying that there is no other reason to veto the bill. I think he is saying the fact that it is a solution in search of a problem is reason enough to veto. In fairness, if that is his meaning he probably could have expressed it better. But presumably he will clarify for you. If that’s what he meant, then I don’t disagree with him. But it sounded to me as though he were saying that there was no other good reason to veto it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/50 "2016-03-02T22:13:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If that’s what he meant, then I don’t disagree with him. But it sounded to me as though he were saying that there was no other good reason to veto it. I wrote poorly. If the bill creates a new problem while solving the first it is necessary to weigh the harms. So of course you are correct. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/51 "2016-03-03T19:42:38Z")
Interesting that voter I.D. laws were brought up in connection with legislation that does not “address a pressing issue”. It seems that the Governor of South Dakota doesn’t apply that standard to mandatory voter identification. "Question topic: People should be able to vote without photo identification. Daugaard: Strongly Disagree" [http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis\_Daugaard.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Daugaard.htm) So much for consistency and high conservative principles. Looks to me like Daugaard took an easy way out on the “gender” bill. Note: South Dakota has a so-called non-strict photo I.D. law for voters. If you can’t present a photo I.D., you can sign an affidavit that you’re a legal voter, and theoretically could be prosecuted for perjury if you’re not. Not a terrible-sounding law, and I don’t see a problem with needing to have a photo I.D. to vote, as long as the state makes it cheap and easy to obtain. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/52 "2016-03-03T19:51:32Z")
Daugaard’s views on voter ID laws do not necessarily mean he would not veto such a bill. Was it passed when he was governor? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/53 "2016-03-03T21:07:16Z")
> [@](#): > > According to witnesses, the man never identified himself as transgender. He did not express a female gender identity through voice, dress, or mannerisms. Are these the necessary preconditions to determine what constitutes a “female gender identity”? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/54 "2016-03-03T21:09:50Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Interesting that voter I.D. laws were brought up in connection with legislation that does not “address a pressing issue”. > > It seems that the Governor of South Dakota doesn’t apply that standard to mandatory voter identification. > > "Question topic: People should be able to vote without photo identification. > > Daugaard: Strongly Disagree" > > [Dennis Daugaard on the Issues](http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Daugaard.htm) > > So much for consistency and high conservative principles. Looks to me like Daugaard took an easy way out on the “gender” bill. As I explained above, there is no inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/55 "2016-03-03T21:11:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Are these the necessary preconditions to determine what constitutes a “female gender identity”? I’m not interested in establishing a cadre of Bathroom Police to card everyone at the door and verify that they ought to be permitted to use that particular bathroom. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/56 "2016-03-03T21:24:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I explained above, there is no inconsistency. I remain skeptical. > [@I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8495): > > > [@I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8493): > > > > I contend you are … clinging instead to the tenuous notion that these laws are needed to address a nonexistent problem, which you further insulate yourself from adding a pointless buffer zone: > > > > 1. Voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. > > 2. But _your_ concern is that _public perception_ is that voter fraud is a real problem, therefore it is fair to pass legislation with the goal of _addressing public perception_ rather than voter fraud. > > Yes. Correct. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/57 "2016-03-03T21:28:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I explained above, there is no inconsistency. Um, no. You postulated that voter ID laws might be justified on the basis of a “rare event” (a super-close election where fraud supposedly could be prevented by such laws). But postulated harm from a transgender intrusion in a locker room, an event likely to be about as rare, does _not_ in your view justify passing legislation to prevent it. I think it just kills **Bricker** to have to acknowledge that “principled conservatives” can get entangled in massive inconsistency/hypocrisy just like other folks. Like when he flew into a tizzy over criticism of William Bennett, self-appointed Guardian of Morals, who was revealed to have lost millions of dollars gambling in Vegas. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/58 "2016-03-03T22:46:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. > > But I argue that the proper role of government is not to call out bigots, even when bigots they be. And I argue that fear and ignorance are not the same as bigotry, and the motives for this bill are much more rooted in the former. > > But mostly I point out that this is the reason I praise his response: he says, simply and correctly, that there is no pervasive problem that this bill would fix. That, and only that, is good reason to not make it law. This goes for Voter ID laws too, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/59 "2016-03-03T23:44:51Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Um, no. > > You postulated that voter ID laws might be justified on the basis of a “rare event” (a super-close election where fraud supposedly could be prevented by such laws). But postulated harm from a transgender intrusion in a locker room, an event likely to be about as rare, does _not_ in your view justify passing legislation to prevent it. No, that’s an inaccurate summary. The harm from transgender “intrusion,” is not real. The damage from an ultra-close election in a jurisdiction without Voter ID is rare, but real. You’re trying to compare rarity to rarity. I am comparing rare harm to no harm. > [@](#): > > I think it just kills **Bricker** to have to acknowledge that “principled conservatives” can get entangled in massive inconsistency/hypocrisy just like other folks. Like when he flew into a tizzy over criticism of William Bennett, self-appointed Guardian of Morals, who was revealed to have lost millions of dollars gambling in Vegas. No. As I explained then, and will explain again, there was nothing immoral about losing millions of dollars gambling, especially when the losses were a small fraction of his income. Now, if Bennett had inveighed against gambling in any way, then of course you’d have a point…but he never did. So the argument against Bennett was that he moralized about other people’s behavior, and that other people who also moralize are against gambling, therefore Bennett is a hypocrite. But of course that’s not inconsistent or hypocritical on Bennett’s part. Hypocrisy and inconsistency arise when you espouse a position and then act privately in the opposite manner. Bennett’s a gambler who never spoke out against gambling. How, specifically, is he a hypocrite or inconsistent? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2016, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727/60 "2016-03-03T23:48:15Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > This goes for Voter ID laws too, right? There is a problem that Voter ID will help fix. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-dakota-governor-vetos-school-locker-room-gender-bill/747727.md?page=4)