Texas Judge Temporarily Blocks Obama's Transgender Bathroom Directive
This is probably the right decision. The position makes no sense, the arguments of the DoJ are a disaster, and this is exactly the kind of important social change that needs to be thought about carefully over a relatively long period of time rather than being rammed through.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:58 PM
2 Comments:
I still don't understand why this is so commonly referred to as Obama's "bathroom" directive when the actual guidance explicitly covers not just bathrooms, but all single-sex accommodations, including locker rooms, saunas, showers, and shared habitation, like dorms or hotel rooms on class trips.
The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, Reuters, and TIME all did this today, as well as Bloomberg, the WSJ, Fortune, NBCNews, and tons of others.
Even news orgs that got the headline right, like NPR's "U.S. Judge Grants Nationwide Injunction Blocking White House Transgender Policy" focused the lede and the entire story around bathroom usage, going so far as to illustrate the story with a photo of a "gender neutral restroom" sign.
The NPR story never even mentions that the guidance covers anything other than bathrooms.
It's not like this is some meaningless distinction.
Even many who might be inclined to grant a little leeway in terms of semi-private bathroom usage would flat-out revolt if they knew their teenage daughters were being required by federal law to shower with teenage males.
That is, if the news media informed them of this, which they seem uniformly determined not to do.
I'm not asserting some sort of conspiracy here, just sloppy reporting, mixed with a dollop of media manipulation. Progressive lobbyists for trans rights wanted to brand their usurpation of federal law as a "bathroom" controversy, and they succeeded. The rest writes itself.
That's a really important point, JP.
I should post something about that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home