The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of,

As I have confessed in the past, in my early years I found myself active in the Democratic Party and the general liberal methodology. I had no understanding of the concept of the false left/right paradigm. I had no inkling of the dangers of globalism and central banking. I had no concept of decentralization or non-participation. I had never even heard of libertarianism. I knew only that George W. Bush was a criminal (and I was right), but the problem went far deeper than the GOP. I was astoundingly ignorant of the bigger picture.

However, what I did have going for me was an almost violent sense of nonconformity. I hated collectivists, yet I found myself surrounded by them while working within the leftist culture. It was the insanity of self-proclaimed “liberals” that taught me the true nature of the facade of politics. When I realized that the Democrats were essentially the same corrupt entity as the neoconservatives, everything in my life changed.

One aspect of liberalism with which I am now very familiar is political correctness. I didn’t understand it at the time, not until I stepped outside the cultism of it and looked in from a wiser place. It always bothered me, but I couldn’t quite grasp why until later. Then, it hit me like a revelation. Political correctness was not a political ideology. No, it was a religion, a full-fledged spiritual con, a New Age ghetto of frothing mishmash that is sociological voodoo. And the leftists were eating it up like steak night at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

These people were rationally retarded. Every idea they proposed they merely parroted from books and articles they had read. They were like malfunctioning automatons trapped in a cycle of discontented social criticism. Their desperation to invent meaning in the midst of their irrelevant lives made me feel ill. If they could not find a legitimate cause to champion, they would create one out of thin air and defend it relentlessly, regardless of how shallow it truly was.

When I outline my analysis of economic destabilization within the United States or I write about the rise of the police state, I am driven by a fundamental sense of concrete concern. There are indeed real problems in the world, swirling in a storm of obvious factual conflicts. But the warriors of the PC culture don’t see any of it. Rather, they fantasize about injustices that don’t exist, trespasses that are ultimately fictional. They imagine themselves champions of some greater purpose that, in the end, doesn’t matter.

Recently, I read a news story about a “transgendered teen” in Maine. When the boy was in the fifth grade, he decided to dress as a girl and demanded to use the girl’s bathroom at his public school, despite having the biological apparatus of a male. This story was international news, folks! Why? I can’t say, except that the mainstream media have made a point to focus on “gender optional” issues as if they represent some kind of civil rights uprising.

The issue perfectly illustrates the disturbing nature of politically correct culture.

Teachers at the school did not deny the student the use of restroom facilities. In fact, they allowed him to use the teacher’s bathrooms to avoid any confusion. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, on the other hand, had other ideas. It ruled that the school’s refusal to allow the boy to use the girl’s facilities constituted a violation of the State’s anti-discrimination law. The ruling has been heralded as a massive victory for the politically correct narrative.

Now, let me make one thing clear: I could not care less about this boy’s sexual orientation (if he even has one). I do think the very idea that a fifth-grader at about the age of 10 is sexually conscious enough to develop a sense of gender dissuasion is absurd. Children who haven’t even experienced puberty yet, proclaiming they are transgendered? Utter nonsense. I find it far more likely that the student’s PC-obsessed parents influenced him to come to such a decision despite his naivety.

That said, a person’s sexual proclivities are not my concern. In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in the infatuations of any individual. That is a personal matter. I do not judge such people on their attractions. I do, though, judge people on how they handle their infatuations. What happens when someone wears his sexuality on his shoulder like a fashion accessory? Why is that even necessary? Is it not rather mentally backward for any person to base his public persona solely on his carnal compulsions? Do I dance around on the sidewalk bellowing to strangers how much I love the curves of women? Do I require a sociopolitical legal apparatus to vindicate my existence? Do I feel the need to shame gay people into publicly embracing my straight man’s libido? No, I do not.

The PC culture demands that we, as individuals, openly accept the sexual orientations of anyone and everyone; otherwise, we are labeled prejudiced monsters. It is not enough that we object in a logical manner. No, we must fall to our knees and thank the stars for the very existence of gender chameleons.

In the end, the psychological gender position of any particular person does not overrule his biological features. A child with a penis is a boy. Period. He will never be a girl. Ever. Not without surgical aid. And even then, he will never have the ability to give birth, which is the very hallmark of femininity. (Sorry, feminists, but that’s how it goes.) A boy, no matter his mental orientation, does not belong in a girl’s lavatory. The privacy rights of the girls outweigh the gender confusion of the boy. If I were a girl (why not play some gender games since everyone else is), I would beat the living hell out of any boy gallivanting in a dress in a bathroom I was using and make sure he never dared come back. And, by extension, if I were a rather mischievous boy with an aptitude as a peeping tom, why not dress up in a tutu in the hopes of getting a glimpse of the forbidden while being legally protected by the State?

The warped conflicts that arise, though, are not the creation of the child in question. A fifth-grader has no concept of gender rights or political correctness. This issue was a creation of the PC cult and its acolytes. These people don’t actually care about the children they involve in their legal dramas. They exploit them, with every intent to abandon them once they have chiseled their agenda into the gray matter of every American.

What truly motivates these people? Why do they do what they do? I think my experience with leftists makes me a well-positioned observer of the psychology of the culture. Here are the hidden thought processes I have witnessed while dealing directly with the PC army.

PC Elitism

One of the unfortunate side effects of religion is that proponents often use it as a means to feel superior to others. I have seen it in Christianity as much as I have seen it in any other belief system. It is the primary reason why I refuse to subscribe to organized and establishment-sanctioned spiritualism. Religion should be a personal experience first and foremost, not an easy way to fit in with the collective. Communing with others who share one’s beliefs should be secondary. Hypocritically, politically correct adherents often criticize Christians for their collectivist elitism while suffering from the same problem themselves.

PC culture allows participants to pretend as though they have some greater understanding of the world, an elevated knowledge of life that makes them superior to the uninitiated. It is important to understand that when a person pursues the methodology of zealotry, he doesn’t do it to make the world a better place; he does it to feel better about his place in the world.

The politically correct are so violent in the assertion of their ideals because they crave the subjugation of the mainstream and a recognition of their “rightness.” They don’t want people to “accept” their beliefs as tolerable. They want people to adore their beliefs as supreme. They want every man, woman and child to reinforce their ideals without question.

The malfunction of this philosophy is that zealots are never finished. They must always find new ways to feel superior to others. So they continuously engineer new taboos and new sins, no matter how ridiculous, so that they can forever look down upon the laymen. Because of this, there will never be an end to PC law. It will go on forever, labeling numerous social interactions and stances as “aberrant” — never satiated and never satisfied.

PC Futurism

The young are always searching for ways to feel wiser than the old. This is just the natural way of things, at least in America. Now, I know from ample experience that age does not necessarily denote intelligence. I’ve met plenty of idiotic people who had decades of time to learn from their mistakes but didn’t. But the young, many of whom lack time and struggle, have a terrible tendency to either pretend that they have “seen it all.” Or they pretend that the very atmosphere of the day somehow gives them a greater insight than generations past. The reality is that most of them know very little of import. This attitude comes from a philosophy called “futurism” (popular with the Nazis and the Soviets), which holds that all the beliefs and discoveries of the past mean nothing compared to the beliefs and discoveries of the present. This ideology is alluring to the young, because it gives them a way to feel intellectually dominant over older and more “ignorant” people who are “behind the times.”

Political correctness is basically an appendage of futurism. By labeling elders as social bigots and products of a barbaric era who don’t understand the “lingo” of the PC elite, liberalism draws in and collectivizes the fledgling left. Younger generations are given a cultural avenue toward high priesthood, a right of passage usually reserved for the aged. They get to skip ahead past all the trials and tribulations of life and announce their deep awareness of the so-called greater good.

The values of forefathers past become archaic scrawlings of racist and prejudiced cavemen who could never appreciate the “brilliance” of today’s academia. The inherent freedoms of natural law that have existed since time began are nothing more than obstacles to them, standing in the way of a new and better world where they have somehow outsmarted human instinct and centuries of history.

PC Collectivism

The very foundation of political correctness is solidified in a desire for the perpetual reinforcement of one’s worldview. PC people need every other person around them to sing the praises of their pure virtues. If I happen to disagree with the idea of gender bending, for instance, as some kind of socially persecuted subculture that needs overt government protection, then I am, of course, labeled a hateful Neanderthal. If I stand in opposition to the concept of victim group status in general, in which the state demands that designated “minorities” be given special treatment regardless of the status of the individual, then I become a racist political fossil ignorant of the bigger picture. You see, if you disagree with PC culture in any way (even if that way is rational), you cannot win. To refute political correctness is to refute the god of the New Age; and to refute their god, even with concrete logic, is blasphemy.

This kind of blind faith in political correctness lends itself entirely to collectivism. The average person begins to think that without a viable appreciation of the philosophy, he may be left out or cast aside. Most people do not know how to function without the approval of others. Therefore, even if a father happens to have a healthy skepticism over the idea of a make-up wearing fifth-grade boy waltzing into his daughter’s school bathroom, he is likely to keep his mouth shut, because to speak out would be a risk to his position within the group, or the community.

PC Control

The prevalence of PC philosophy is not subtle. I have always found it interesting that political correctness seems to consistently support the demands of the state. Our system smothers children with it in public school, our workplaces are rife with the propaganda for fear of lawsuits and colleges are veritable breeding grounds for the PC oligarchy. Politically correct culture goes out of its way to constantly test others to make sure they are also true believers. This is exactly what is going on in the following interview with Jerry Seinfeld, who, to his credit, dashes the nonsense to the ground.


The truth is some discrimination is healthy, and some discord is needed for a society to remain balanced. As long as we don’t allow our disagreements to end in the physical harm of others, then those disagreements are our natural-born right. If you are a racist (this goes for non-whites as well), that’s fine. Just don’t act out your racism in a violent way around me, or I will have to put you down permanently. If you have a distaste of homosexuality (or asexuality, as seems popular nowadays), then whatever, I don’t care. You shouldn’t have to have organizations like GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) in your face attempting to force you to put on a smile for gaydom, coordinate man-on-man heavy-petting protests in your favorite restaurant (Chick-fil-A) while you’re trying to eat a damn sandwich, push boys into the girl’s bathroom, or trying to shut down your favorite TV shows because the stars happen to share your views (“Duck Dynasty”).

Now, PC proponents will argue that the very existence of bigotry does harm to society as a whole, and it must be educated out of individuals. Frankly, I see that kind of utopian fascism as a far greater threat to society as a whole than bigotry ever will be.

Look at where we are today because of the PC nightmare! We have a Nation on the verge of industrial and economic collapse, partly because companies are forced by law or persuaded by government subsidies to hire people with victim group status, even if they are unqualified, while ignoring highly qualified people who just happen to have lighter skin. We have children not even old enough to discover their own inherent character being clinically diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” by a psychiatric community of quacks, which conjured most PC terminology out of thin air. We have boys who are told that they are stunted for acting out their natural male impulses and girls who are told that true femininity is weakness and that they should act more masculine. We have a mainstream culture that coddles and infantilizes young adults, young girls who think promiscuity is the key to womanhood and that motherhood is disgusting (which I find rather ironic), and young men who have no testicular fortitude and no clue how to take charge of their own lives.

The American family unit has been completely destroyed. We have women who are ashamed to set aside careers to raise children because feminism frowns upon “breeders” who bring down the whole gender. We have men who abandon their children and refuse to take responsibility. And we have a weak-minded population addicted to collective affirmation and unwilling to think outside the box for fear of being shunned and shamed. Honestly, I can’t see a single redeeming quality to political correctness other than the fact that those people who espouse it do so loudly and obnoxiously, making it easier for me to identify and avoid them or to take special note of them as an obvious zombie threat in an America swiftly declining into mundane oblivion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TeamDepends's picture

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

SMG's picture

And that is why the Devil is called the "Father of Lies".


Skateboarder's picture

That makes Obie the Prince of Lies?

strannick's picture

Every paragraph resonated like a grand canyon thunderclap for the curtain falling in the American Empire.m, biblical in its rejection of its principles, its primacy and its God. The hollow men are in the march. Bloom saw it coming in 1990 with his epic The Closing of the American Mind

johnQpublic's picture

which holds that all the beliefs and discoveries of the past mean nothing compared to the beliefs and discoveries of the present


reminds me of 1984, that line does

outstanding article

boogerbently's picture

They are not lucid enough to 

" create one (a cause to champion) out of thin air and defend it relentlessly, regardless of how shallow it truly was."

Four chan's picture

pc is, like "banning a man a steak, because a baby cant chew it". o&e and jim norton

Bananamerican's picture

"the mainstream media have made a point to focus on “gender optional” issues as if they represent some kind of civil rights uprising."

Someone posted up recently an article about an African-American herpetolgist's crusade against Novartis' WIDELY used pesticide, Atrazine...... he found that the herbicide caused hormonal abnormalities. ....said it was causing hermaphrodism, genital mutations, gender flipping...The chemical company, of course, went after him with everything they had, trying to dis-credit the source...countering with paid research papers...the usual corpoRAT horseshit....

Ever since I read that i wonder about this sudden upsurge in "Transgender" rights stories

jmp esp's picture

The US is saturated with xenoestrogens. As a nation, we're being physiologically feminized.

HyBrasilian's picture

Many people have been banned from ZH for not being 'politically correct'. But ~ at least we still have fonestar!

new game's picture

excuse me! but my family unit is strong as hell. united I stand divided you fall. of course this is what they(the enemy within) do best, for statist, new age, mind control. always back to the individual and my actions. Weak individuals, dumbed to the point of no critical thinking - a war wagged for your mind. some things never change. if the boat is sinking then get off! row the fucker to somewhere else...

new game's picture

hey, no pain no gain. i'm awake-no time to dream right now...

nice day to you!

sleigher's picture

I miss francis sawyer.  I really liked reading his posts.  Very harsh but refreshing at the same time.  

Umh's picture

Haven't paid attention to the particular users that are missing, but there is a difference between being politically incorrect and just being obnoxious.

DaddyO's picture

Please explain the difference for us low brow types...


Edelweiss's picture

This is the sort of comment I don't see much of on ZH.  Unfortunately. Regardless of what causes, and methods you would attribute it to, only a fool would deny how feminized the U.S. has become.  I gave up on most mainstream "entertainment" several years ago.  Tired of watching weak minded, ineffectual male characters portrayed as perpetual children that require the guidance of a smart/beautiful/hip, etc. woman.  I work in a setting with quite a few women, and have had some of them complain to me that alot of the men they know are too girly, and don't have a strong sense of direction in their lives.  Agreed.  There are few examples of positive(assertive,self-sufficient,critically thinking) masculine behaviors in pop culture.  I think those of us middle aged, and older, see it more readily.  I've encountered countless younger guys who are happy to tow the PC/feminist line.  As the author points out, people(men and women) are often afraid to be labeled racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe, and the list goes on.  If you don't have a tolerance for rejection by friends, family, and others, you stand little chance of not being swept up in whatever the crowd deems worthwhile/valuable at the time.  I suspect ZH has a fairly high percentage of "outsiders" represented here.  I've gotten to the point where I ignore people only capable of regurgitating someone elses poorly thought out truths. 

Anusocracy's picture

"outstanding article"

Yes it is.

Control and the collective are very powerful survival traits in nature. Ants have been around for over 100 million years, have a class structure, enslaved other ants, developed animal husbandry, and can organize into armies. Mother Nature's example of a successful control/collective society.

The downside is that in human society, control/collectivization are anti-progress and anti-civilization - simply because they utilize people as objects (ants) and enact numerous restrictions on their abilities (slaves).

Freedom works in the opposite: allowing people self-control as individuals, but utilizing their abilities through a reward and failure system to create progress and enhance the quality of civilization.

It is not abnormal for control/collective government to destroy progress and civilization, it's just doing what it was designed to do in nature.

Kobe Beef's picture

Yes, and the people who invented "political correctness" were certainly more interested in collectivism than liberty. The article above does a good job of describing the noxious effects of PC today.

So where does PC come from?

In short, it is a hostile, foreign ideology and explicitly Un-American. It's practitioners are either consciously destructive Marxists or deluded "useful idiots".


max2205's picture

Damn I buy or sell after reading this?!

weburke's picture

buy ! the theater owners long ago (mid-sixties) decreed this road, and gay marriage is the crown jewel. Of course, betrayal is at the base of their designs, so that wont END well, but as a set up, it works well for the theater script. ps, sell all in july 2015                          

Kobe Beef's picture

I repeat, PC is a foreign, hostile ideology, and the fact it is promoted as the State Religion of the USSA, should tell you much about who has hijacked our Republic.

Still more..

You think you can trade this. As an Outsider? I urge you to get realistic. The Civil War cannot be avoided: prepare to win; or prepare to die.

Creeps's picture

Gay marriage is a stepping stone to the children, pedophile is the crown jewel. In twenty years pedophobia will be used as homophobia is today. Keep your families strong, and work on stopping the generational faults, it will pay dividends.

PT's picture

I agree that gay marriage is a stepping stone.  I can't imagine an end point.  It takes zero brains to sign a piece of paper.  It takes great brains and balls to solve great problems - energy shortages, water shortages, food shortages, pollution etc.  As long as idiots can maintain power by concentrating on nonsensical "problems" that can be "solved" by writing several volumes of crap and signing pieces of paper, the real problems of this world will be ignored.

All PC crap should be countered with statements like, "Who gives a shit?  How do we secure solve our energy needs without war?" or "Fucking get a life.  People are starving.  We need to grow more food."  and "You think you can buy a house if only you work harder?  The banksters stole your house and now they are stealing your life and all you want to talk about is ..."

Any idiot can sign a piece of paper.  Who can build dams and pipelines?  Who can develop alternative energy systems?  Who can design efficient cities?  Why aren't those people in charge?

Sean7k's picture


I saw nothing outstanding in this article at all. Painting with a very broad brush, Brandon attacked an idea while failing to address the issue at hand- personal responsibility and individual courage.

It takes courage to stand in the face of tyranny and even potential loss. There is a very real difference betwen PC and tolerance and Brandon's take on the fifth grader violated this line- you see PC has different "faces". He complains about the leftist one, but remans ignorant of the conservative one. The reason?  The conservative often holds to older social mores he embraces.

The fifth grader probably plays with dolls and likes to dress up, etc. This is not sexual. The press may try to use these terms, but the child just identifies with girls. Dress up in a tutu to get a look up a girl's dress? really? We are so caught up on genitalia and its' power over us we might as well be Puritans or Succabus.

It is difficult to teach tolerance in balance. It is not an either or, black and white for most people. Yes, the press plays the hell out of it (Heglian dialectic), but we must be wise enough to raise our children to recognize sensationalism while developing empathy and understanding. 

This article demonstrates how insecure and fearful we can become in the face of tyranny. We lash out at each intrusion of our liberty. However, if we are to turn this tide, we must remember the power resides in The People. Regardlss of how many laws are passed, we must accept them for them to have validity. Thus, PC is meaningless unless we allow it to be. 

I have taught my children tolerance AND empathy. They are a powerful construct for the social "zombies" America is creating. It has healing properties. I'm afraid this revulsion of PC does not. PC exists because of the transgressions of the past. It will become impotent in the face of true tolerance. 


runningman18's picture

There is a line of what people should "tolerate".  If you are fine with boys being present during your daughter's bathroom rituals, then invite her classmates over to your house and have a ball (see how that goes over).  But don't try to use the state as a tool to force acceptance of that paradigm and don't try to use naive children as a way to further your agenda.  Your position basically promotes the morally relative in the name of gaining majority acceptance and consensus, but who gives a shit about consensus?  Why should we abandon our valid concerns just because you personally happen to see them as "insecure"?  Why should we care about your opinion?  In the end, your post said nothing except that we should roll over apathetically because, in theory, that would make things easier.  If we roll over for the PC agenda now, it will not change a thing, because as the author points out, it is an endless bid for superiority and control; it is not about some horseshit conception of tolerance.   

Sean7k's picture

Can you read for comprehension? 

Which part of my comment refers to state interference? Morals are not relative? Really? What makes your concerns "valid"? You dismiss my opinions, but yours should be followed without a supporting argument? Where did I say we should "rollover and accept PC?

Allowing your anger to feed your emotions is exactly way we have to deal with PC issues. If you understood tolerance and practiced it, we wouldn't be where we are today.

runningman18's picture

You're not paying attention.  I said YOUR morals are relative based on an artificial measure of "tolerance".  You are asking us to act the same way (apathetic in the face of social manipulation) for the sake of some nonsensical ideal of social harmony which doesn't exist and will never exist.  I'm just calling bullshit on your claim that your "going with the flow" theory will improve anything. 

Sean7k's picture

No, I am paying attention and your refusal to address my concerns is intellectual cowardice. 

You have no idea what tolerance means. It is not an artificial measure or relative. Words have meaning. "Going with the flow" is never mentioned by me, this is YOUR assumption. However, liberty encourages us to enjoy individual actions and beliefs AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HARM OTHERS. 

Social harmony is a great goal and one worth working towards. Just because your ideal of conservation has failed to produce it doesn't mean it is unattainable. 

runningman18's picture

No, I've address your concerns (opinions) aptly.  But you certainly seem to be trying to avoid my points and questions, so who is the coward?

If the state is being used by PC groups to force their particular philosophy, a philosophy many of us find contrary to our principles and which we find socially destructive, into public schools which we pay for, do you believe that we should "tolerate" that?  Why shouldn't we ask that the PC crowd "tolerate" our concerns and stop trying to force their agenda upon us using government? 

And social harmony is unattainable because people will never completely agree on anything or everything.  The moment humanity does, it will be dead, because continued healthy disagreement is necessary for our survival.  "Tolerance" only goes so far.



Sean7k's picture

Then I guess you will argue that Plessy v Ferguson was a valid ruling and that schools should have remained separate? That neighborhoods should be allowed to dictate whom can live there? 

Yes, I believe you should tolerate that, however, you have the ability to take your children out of school. No one has taken away your ability to teach your children YOUR values. Who is harmed?  

Your willingness to punish the child seems much worse to me, a complete violation of his liberty and person, because you want to enforce your belief system on him. 

Whether social harmony is attainable in the perfect sense is debatable, but working towards it, rather than in the opposite direction is not. Nor is your conclusion it would kill humanity valid lacking any supporting argument. In fact, when people get along, it enhances production and wealth, both physical and spiritual.

runningman18's picture

That's true.  I could take my children out of school.  In fact, I plan to (once I'm in a homeschooler friendly state) since public schools have become completely compliant with the demands of a minority of PC advocates.  But let's apply your "logic" in the opposite direction, shall we...

The parents of the transgendered boy could just as easily homeschool THEIR child, right? Right?! Why not do that instead of using the state to force the school to allow HIM (he's still a boy) to violate the privacy concerns of all the girls within that school and their families?   

Your method of handling the situation is to force your particular definition of tolerance on others, or force parents to remove their kids from the school all so that a transgendered child can use a bathroom he doesn't need to use.  I'm not forcing my belief system on him, you and his parents are trying to force your belief system on everyone else.

As far as segregation is concerned, segregation in public schools was a violation of consitutional rights to free access to taxpayer funded public facilities within one's own community.  Those rights do not, however, extend to violating the privacy rights of others.  Your point has no merit.  Plessy v Ferguson was not about allowing little black boys into the little girls bathroom. 

Sean7k's picture

Yes, they could, but it is a "public" school. This is where your argument falls apart. Public means inclusive, not exclusive, just as segregation of black and white in no different than trangender and gender specific.  While I am not of a mind to support State coercion, it appears to have been the only means left to the parents.

Segregation was not a violation of Constitutional rights at that time, just like  women's suffrage, slavery and poll taxes until they were deemed otherwise. The Constitution has rarely protected rights until people clamored to receive them. 

There is NO privacy right to a bathroom (The right itself is not mentioned, but part of a ruling extending the definition). Plessy v Ferguson was about segregation. To claim it doesn't apply is just ignorance of the Constitution.


runningman18's picture

I'm laughing right now over your cognitive dissonance.  If a public school is meant to be "inclusive", then shouldn't it be inclusive to the privacy concerns of parents opposed to boys in the girls bathroom?  The fact that the boy is "transgendered" is meaningless.  

No privacy rights to a bathroom?  Are you really so obstinant that you can't even acknowledge a little girl's right to use the bathroom without a boy present? Why don't you try strolling into a women's restroom anywhere in the country and then try explaining to the cops that those women have no right to privacy?

By your logic, these children should all be given a single gender inclusive trough to squat over.

Segregation in schools was indeed a violation of the people's right to access of public property and use of taxpayer funded services, just like police and firefighters are public services that cannot discriminate.  Segregation in private businesses, however, was not a violation of the constitution, and frankly, any private business still has the right to refuse service to anyone, and that's as it should be.

Boys and girls bathrooms are "segregated" for practical reasons.  Again, your comparison is irrelevant. Plessy v Ferguson did not violate the privacy rights of the children at the school.  The decision in Maine DOES.    

Sean7k's picture

So, you have no understanding of what inclusive means? No dictionary? 

Please show me where privacy rights in a bathroom exist? Do you even understand rights or their priority? As for troughs, the Greeks and Romans used them, you are showing your ignorance. This is not a right, but a social more. I don't stroll into a woman's bathroom, because I respect women. We haven't developed mores for transgender children, but rights can provide a template. We have a right to freedom of expression, that would be numero uno. Privacy is a court created exemption with less and less application. Priority, it's the law.

If segregation violated one's rights , than why was it the law? Police can't discriminate? You're really going to go there? That's laughable. People had to go to court to stop racial profiling in New York and it is still up in the air.

What is the practical reason they are segregated? This I have to hear.

I never said Plessy v Fergson violated privacy rights, but segregation. See, you really need to read for comprehension. Oh, and try a dictionary and maybe a legal dictionary as well. 

runningman18's picture

And we're full circle again.  The bottom line is, either you respect the privacy rights of others or you do not.  There is no other relevant debate here.  Yes, Greek and Roman SLAVES were forced to use gender inclusive troughs, and had no privacy.  They also had rampant child molestation and nailed Christians to crosses.  Are you suggesting we step back into those kind of moral conditions?

Your right to "free expression" does not allow you to walk into a woman's bathroom, even wearing a dress.  It should not allow a boy to walk into a girls bathroom in a public school.  Screw his psychological gender status.  IT DOES NOT MATTER.  You say you would not walk into a women's bathroom because you "respect women", but apparently you do not repect young girls or their parents who want the same privacy.  This is called hypocrisy.   

Sean7k's picture

Actually all romans and greeks used communal toilets. You may visit the city of Vienne to see an example. The bottom line is this: you cannot hide behind a Constitution you are ignorant of but you can call for a privledge that only exists in your mind. The morals of the Greeks and Romans were no worse than ours, possibly better.

The first amendment has allowed that boy to enter the bathroom. "Screw his pyschological gender status"? Spoken like a true tyrant. Further, being unable to distinguish or prioritize the "rights" of others merely means you're simpleminded. 

Hypocrisy also has a definition. My argument has been consistent, as has yours, it is just yours fails to have validity in a Constitutional framework. 

runningman18's picture

Your argument is completely outside the Constitution, which you have obviously never read.  How does a boy's demand that he be allowed in a girls bathroom amount to "freedom of expression"?   Do you really believe the drivel you are spewing?  I'm intrested to keep your circular arguments going just to see what surreal nonsense you come up with next.

The First Amendment does not supercede the 4th.  You cannot violate the privacy of others and then call it "freedom of expression", first amendment protections do not work that way. If they did, then almost any activity could be construed as "freedom of expression".  Why not take a video camera into the women's bathroom and call it an "art film"?  What about just placing the stalls on the sidewalk so that pedestrians can enjoy the show?  Why not erase all privacy, that way no one ever feels "left out"?

Your evasivness aside, it is clear that most PC cultists like you hold the superficial desires of artificial victim groups as more important than constitutional rights.  You treat the personal social desires of these people as absolute, and the rest of us are just supposed to cater to their whims.  You're willing to rationalize just about anything to avoid admitting your cognitive dissonance.

Yes, I say screw his psychological gender status, and screw his "freedom of expression" (bullshit) if it entails the trampling of other people's rights.  I couldn't care less if this boy is happier in the girls bathroom.  His happiness is irrelevant when compared to the privacy of others.  The great downfall of your argument is that you are willing to twist the constitution (or fabricate your own outlandish interpretations) to suit your particular world view regardless of who gets trampled in the process.  I and those like me will not allow that to happen.  So, we are at an impasse, and most impasses tend to be settled violently.  What do you think the chances are of the PC control freaks when that happens?    

Sean7k's picture

Are you just stupid. There IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in a bathroom. NADA, none, never has been. The fourth amendment is not in play, because it DOESN"T APPLY. If you don't like the first, try the 14th. Take your pick. 

Make an argument using the words of the fourth amendment. Freely available on the internet. 

You will not allow it to happen? What are you going to do tough guy? What a rube. Hell, you sit in chains, a slave of the State and your going to bet it all separate bathrooms? Classic.

There is a difference beween PC and tolerance and Constitutional rights. I realize your not capable of understanding that nor making an argument beyond, "because I say so". This is how all tyrants react. You can't make an argument so you try threats and violence. 

Maybe you're just afraid someone of the opposite sex might see your genitalia. You prefer to keep it locked up in a secret place. Good luck with that.

Anusocracy's picture

"However, liberty encourages us to enjoy individual actions and beliefs AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HARM OTHERS."

Precisely. That, and the concept of other people's property are sadly lacking.

runningman18's picture

As I said, you hold that there are "no privacy rights" where they happen to conflict with YOUR personal ideology.  You have not presented one single concrete argument as to why a boy should be allowed to use the girls bathroom at a public school.  Your only position is that the privacy rights of the girls and their parents don't exist, or do not matter.  This is not an argument so much as a fascist position.  Yours is the typical attitude of an elitist. 

I will stand against anyone who attempts to use the state to trample my privacy rights or the rights of others, and I am far from alone.  The issue in Maine is only one of thousands of examples of PC oppression, and yes, if you want to use the force of state against me to assert your personal dogma, then I will respond with force in kind.  The real question is, what are you going to do once the fighting starts?  PC activists are only brave when they think they have the power of government behind them.  What happens when the government tosses you to the wind after exploiting your gullibility?     

Sean7k's picture

What's the matter? Can't read the 4th amendment? Can find privacy rights? You want to classify people that stand up for civil rights as "PC", incapable of making the distinction between the two. Well, you have succeeded in ascerbating the divisions between us, so in your case, the Elites win. 

Enjoy your stand, I hope you don't get too lonely outside the bathroom.

TimmyB's picture

You seem not to understand this, but let me explain something to you:  girls do not stand next to each other peeing into urinals.  Instead, women and girls sit down in private stalls.  These stalls have locking doors.  

So please explain how allowing a child with male genitalia to use a private stall in a girl's room harms anyone. 


runningman18's picture

Perhaps you have the intelligence of a sack of bricks, or have never been around children, but girls do not like sitting in stalls next to boys while they do their business, even if there is an aluminum divider between them.  How many women's bathrooms have you strolled into lately?  Do you think the response would be positive or negative?

Sean7k's picture

Finally, an authority on what children like and don't like. Must be some kind of wonderful to have such a breathtaking degree of knowledge.Then you deride the intelligence of others? Did you even attend school?

TuPhat's picture

Sean, the statement "I have taught my children tolerance and empathy"  when your whole comment concerns PC, can only mean tolerance and empathy for those who are pushing PC.  What else did you expect it to mean.  If you want others to understand, then write more coherently.

Sean7k's picture

Why? Am I to assume that readers here are incapable of complex thought? That they are too stupid to make distinctions? I have to believe the readers here are smarter than that.

InflammatoryResponse's picture

Some boy tries to go potty with either of my girls his  boy parts will be on the floor and he'll be bleeding.


a transgendered 5th grader is absurd.  far too many folks have just gone off the rails.


TimmyB's picture

What kind of brutes approve of beating, mauling, and disfiguring 5th graders because they don't conform?

Answer: The fucking fascists who uprated the above post.