Transgender bathroom bill heads to Governor. Yea, or Nay?

From public broadcasting:

A measure known as the transgender bathroom bill is on its way to the governor’s desk. House Bill 1008 survived the State Senate on Tuesday. Fifteen lawmakers in that chamber oppose the legislation, but 20 support it.

Supporters of the so-called transgender bathroom bill say it protects student privacy by securing restrooms for opposite biological sexes. The bill determines sex based on anatomy and birth certificates.

Read it here.

What are your thoughts?  Should the Governor sign the bill, or should he veto it?

102 Replies to “Transgender bathroom bill heads to Governor. Yea, or Nay?”

  1. Springer

    I approve of the bill. And no, I don’t hate transgenders which is where the nays always jump to. I just think it is as important to protect the privacy of girls and boys (yes, there are two specific genders in most cases and they deserve protection too) as those of transgenders. For pete’s sake, put in a bathroom in the schools that is gender neutral, like we find in many clinics etc nowadays, and if a person is confused about his gender, he/she can use that one. But please respect the privacy of all, not just a few. Thank you, legislature. And I highly doubt there is going to much of a boycott if this passes; boycotts are always threatened, but call them on it. It won’t affect our tourism industry.

    1. Jason Sebern

      Have you considered the impact that this will have on our transgender students? Have you visited with students to gauge if this is an issue? Please open your mind and try to understand that not everyone shares your thoughts. And your thoughts are violating the natural rights of transgender students. Stop the hate.

    2. Anonymous

      You do hate transgenders if you support this bill. There’s no way around that. This bill is stupid and hateful. We’re not supposed to be concerned with the private parts of others, ever.

  2. Anony

    Great floor debate really inspiring. Evidently bill is to protect young girls as boys need no such protection. Going to miss omdahl and his wisdom.

  3. Anonymous

    Installing gender neutral bathrooms would be great if the funds and space are available, however many attempts create inequality as trans students may have only one option on the far end of school. Trans suicide is a much greater risk than the safety of female students. Please research the issue.

    1. Anonymous

      –“Trans suicide is a much greater risk than the safety of female students. Please research the issue.”

      Research shows that even with surgical changes, the rate of suicide among trans adults is the same or higher than those without the surgery.

      1. crossgrain

        Thank you for reinforcing the point. When we ostracize LGBTQ folks with separate but equal facilities, it only exacerbates the issue.

        1. Anonymous

          In most modern facilities, there are more female toilets than male for OBVIOUS reasons.


          1. There are separate facilities and
          2. they’re not equal.

          Men & woman have NEVER been equal. most noticeably in their toiletry needs (since it’s a frequent function).

          Here’s some news for ya: MEN & WOMEN ARE NOT THE SAME! This is a matter of biological FACT, not some society-imposed construct.

          It’s like these morons want to ignore science in favor of their agendas. Talk about ANTI-SCIENCE!

          1. crossgrain

            Swing and a miss. If you think human sexuality is purely a black-and-white binary configuration, you’re behind on the science. We’re a bit past sperm and egg here, and into emotion, genetics, environment, society, intellect, and what it means to be human v. animal.

            1. Anonymous

              “We’re a bit past sperm and egg her”

              Well no, we’re BEFORE the sperm & egg here.

              See, there’s your OBSESSION with sexual activities showing through again.

              You keep writing about sexual reproduction when this bill has NOTHING to do with that. NOTHING.

              The bill is about urination & defecation & washing. Period.

              How you manage to conflate the two is simply weird.

              Look, students know the difference between excrement and excitement.

              Why don’t you?

              1. crossgrain

                If it’s only about taking a dump, why do we have gender-specific bathrooms at all? Modesty? What’s there to be modest about if we’re only talking about a biological function? Do we have to go to gender-specific rooms to sneeze? Or are you simply trying to be on two sides of the same fence?

                1. Anonymous

                  Oh so, now you’re advocating “gender-neutral” facilities ?

                  I’m all for designing and constructing public facilities like that.

                  I don’t think that the LBGTAQA zealots are going to go for it though.

                2. Anonymous

                  — Do we have to go to gender-specific rooms to sneeze?

                  If one had to disrobe to sneeze, then you may have a point.

                  But, you don’t.

                    1. Anonymous

                      — Pick a lane.

                      Highways of tolerance have many lanes.

                      Your demand that this become black v. white two-lane highway is typical of religious zealots like yourself and those from Westboro.

                      Sorry, I’m not getting in your lane of us v. them intolerance.

        2. Anonymous

          I have kids, and I don’t want my little girl having to share a bathroom with little boys and vice versa. If the LGBTQ people feel ostracized, so be it.

          1. crossgrain

            Weird. I have kids, too. They don’t seem to care much who else is in the can when they’re dropping a deuce. A little privacy and some 2-ply, and they’ll crap in whatever room works.

          2. crossgrain

            And what if our august legislators out in Pierre passed a law that said your little girl had to use the mens room from now on… would you be okay with that?

  4. Anonymous

    If a female passes as a male and gets undressed in a men’s locker room in front of a bunch of teenage boys, God help her.
    If a male passes as female gets undressed in a women’s locker room in front of the senior varsity girls’ basketball team, God help him.
    I don’t think we need to worry about kids being exposed to the sight of unfamiliar anatomy; if they haven’t seen it before they won’t know what it is.
    I think we need to worry about acts of violence on school property.

    1. crossgrain

      Well, you’ve just gone and made the argument for comprehensive sex education, haven’t you? As far as their reactions go, doesn’t that start at home? If kids are raised to not be bullies, then they won’t be bullies. If they’re raised to be fearful and hateful of “different”, then that’s exactly what they’ll end up being.

      1. Anonymous

        Or, if they’re raised to be modest and civil, they & their conscientious parents will support this bill.

        I don’t see how “comprehensive sex ed” would make a difference when it comes to bodily functions or showering together–unless you wish to ignore biology like most sex-obsessed & prurient opponents of this bill are.

        1. crossgrain

          Comprehensive sex ed would go a long way toward removing the stigma and shame of human sexuality in all its forms. Civility towards others begins at home.

          Trying to turn the tables on opponents of this bill as somehow being perverts is simply ridiculous, and warrants no further discussion.

          1. Anonymous

            What do biological functions performed in the toilet, or bathing to cleanse the body, have to do with “sexuality” or sex ed?

            Do you stare at cows defecating in the pasture, and wonder, “gosh, I wonder if those cows are mating?”?

            Sounds like your prurient obsessions with the sex lives of young boys & girls are crossing over into the normal, everyday biological functions and cleanliness that babies, toddlers, adolescents, middle agers, and elderly perform everyday.

            This bill addresses the biological functions performed in the bathroom, not sexuality or sex ed.

            Only weirdos can conflate the biological functions performed in the toilet with the sexual activities performed in the bedroom–and yes, if that’s you crossgrained, you should be ashamed and shamed.

            One would hope that these distinctions are obvious, but it seems that zealots prefer to use anything to further their agendas.

            1. crossgrain

              Been awhile since you had sex ed, eh? You do know that they teach the biology right? The comprehensiveness of that education should include instruction on healthy and safe attitudes towards those whose biological parts, functions, and desires differ from our own. The only way perversion comes in is when folks like you attempt to demonize nature.

              1. Anonymous

                –and desires differ from our own.

                Oh, so there are biological “differences” that would explain or justify different accommodations, right?

                I’;m glad we’re coming to an agreement.

                1. crossgrain

                  “Justify”? No. Accept those differences and move on. There’s no need for this bill if we would simply accept others for who they are.

                  1. Anonymous

                    The bill is all about accepting kids for who they are, based on science, biology, and genes.

                    You’re not anti-science are you?

                    1. crossgrain

                      If you think being transgender is a choice somehow separated from biology, genetics, environment, psychology, and other factors, I invite you to show me the research.

                    2. Anonymous

                      –if you think being transgender is a choice

                      Obviously YOU think it’s a choice since you deny the science of biology and genetics on which this bill is founded.

          2. Springer

            I haven’t heard any single person say that to oppose this bill means that person is a pervert (except you). But I have heard many people claim that proponents of this bill are bigoted etc, and this is also untrue, and if that is all you have to argue your side, it’s pretty weak..

            1. crossgrain

              Er… the ONLY reason to support this bill is PRECISELY because you ARE a bigot.

              The arguments against this bill are myriad:
              1. It’s bigoted.
              2. It harms vulnerable kids dealing with their sexuality by further stigmatizing them.
              3. It’s bigoted.
              4. It’s unenforceable how it’s written (can non-students use school bathrooms? Doesn’t look like it from the text of the bill!)
              5. It’s bigoted.
              6. It’s attempting to ‘solve’ a problem that we don’t even have.
              7. It’s bigoted.
              8. It sends a clear message to the rest of the nation that South Dakota doesn’t understand human sexuality very well.
              9. It’s bigoted.
              10. It will result in lawsuits – expensive lawsuits that will result in it being overturned.
              11. It’s bigoted.
              12. It cause SD to lose Title IX funding.
              13. It’s bogoted.

              Weak enough for ya?

            2. Anonymous

              Agreed Springer.

              Often addressing the absurd using absurdities is an effective debate tool.

              I don’t think crossgrain is open-minded enough to appreciate the absurdities of the name-calling.

              But name-calling (“bigoted”; “Westboro baptists”, “f@4-haters”) is about all he has come up with. I have tried to swat these down as best as possible, but ….

          3. Anonymous

            Trying to normalize the abnormal is not something I would support. If you have psychological issues, deal with them-don’t try to say “This is the new normal” (Bruce Jenner)

            1. crossgrain

              Science tells us that it’s far from “abnormal”. This affects something like 1 million Americans. Caitlyn Jenner is just fine. She probably made that Wheaties box you held on to with her picture even more valuable.

      2. Anonymous

        From your lies about quoting Ben Franklin; to red v. blue state rants on $10 barrel tax on oil (that, of course, is largely a tax on red states) & where you refused to explain whether you support or oppose federal funding of SD highway projects; to this little rant where you responded to a prayer with an invocation of “logic” after which you then agreed that prayer does not involve logic…

        you’ve got quite a record of trolling around here.

        Keep it up!

            1. crossgrain

              It’s a reference to the Westboro Baptist Church – you know, those clowns that picket soldier’s funerals and such? It’s damn offensive, just like this ridiculous bill. By defending it, you are no different that those jackasses.

              1. Anonymous

                Off on another path goes the troll!!!!

                So, it’s fine to use despicable language on this blog because other despicable people from KS use it?

                My, what happened to your “logic”?

                1. crossgrain

                  Look, you found it offensive, right? That was the entire POINT of it. IT IS OFFENSIVE. JUST LIKE THIS BILL. There is no difference in my mind between the hateful bigotry of the Westboro clowns and the supporters of this bill… except for the fact that the Westboro clowns can at least admit they’re all about discrimination.

                  1. Anonymous

                    “except for the fact that the Westboro clowns can at least admit they’re all about discrimination.”

                    EVERY piece of legislation is about “discrimination”:

                    Either you’re affected by the law or not.

                    Either the bill criminalizes your behavior or not.

                    Either the bill raises your taxes or not.

                    The question remains is whether the bill–THIS bill for example–is rationally related to resolving the issue of how to classify “male” and “female” in the context of restrooms and showers.

                    Logic (YOUR preferred means of analysis) would dictate that genes can and do and will determine maleness or femaleness.

                    Now, if an individual wishes to deviate from that logical, genetic, scientific & biological determination, fine!

                    The consequences are clear in terms of public accommodations.

                    That’s 100% LOGICAL! 100% SCIENTIFIC.

                    Aren’t those the bases on which we should make public policy determinations?

              2. Anonymous

                And folks need to note that crossgrain did NOT use quotes around his hate-filled and unchristian words.

                He’s now trying to cover his tracks by claiming he was referencing some haters from KS.

                nice try, bigot

                  1. Anonymous

                    Yeah, kinda odd how YOUR views can be analyzed in the same way using the same words….

                    How does it feel?

                    Any reconsideration of YOUR views?


                  2. Anonymous

                    What in this bill, or in the original post, or in the comments that followed, provides ANY BASIS to your view that somehow “Christianity” was/is involved with this bill?

                    Really–YOU are the ONLY one who even tried to insert religion into this discussion. What does or should that tell us about YOU?

                    1. crossgrain

                      It should tell you that I rather like Christ, but I have a problem with Christians who support this bill.

                  3. Anonymous

                    “It should tell you that I rather like Christ”

                    So, now YOU are using your religion to bash supporters of this bill.

                    So, when do we compare YOU to Westboro folks who, like you, use their version of religion to tear down their opponents?

                    In the end crossgrain, you have shown yourself to be no better than those whom you condemn, AND in this matter on this thread, you were the first and the only person to insert YOUR religion into the discussion.

                    That’s not very open-minded.

                    That’s not very tolerant. There’s no such thing as “I’m tolerant as long as you agree with my views”.

                    Sounds like you have some work to do….

                    1. crossgrain

                      Getting you to think through and defend your positions means I’ve done what I set out to do. If I change a mind or two, great! If I don’t, no worries – I tried, and by having to defend my OWN position, I better understand myself.

                      You should stop getting so worked up, dude. It’s not good for your heart.

                  4. Anonymous

                    –Getting you to think through and defend your positions means I’ve done what I set out to do

                    You have only exposed yourself to the same intolerant ridicule you’ve tried to cloak others with.

                    Your anti-science and faith-based positions have only served to reinforce the common sense that underlies this bill, and that most folks appreciate.

                    –You should stop getting so worked up, dude. It’s not good for your heart.

                    I’m fine, thanks. And my readers thank me for exposing you as just another thoughtless and angry liberal ranting in these spaces about “them”.

                    It’s about “us”, amigo.

                    1. crossgrain

                      Oh, please. Your “readers” are only me at this point. Everyone else gave up reading either one of us long ago. We argue for the sport of it, and to better understand ourselves and our positions. Believing we have “readers” who hang on our words is stretching credulity further than the elastic in my Aunt Ethel’s girdle.

                    2. Anonymous

                      –Your “readers” are only me at this point

                      Still living in your “excrement is sexual excitement” fantasy-world?

                    3. Anonymous

                      You gotta admit–your insistence that toilet functions are sexual activities is just perverted, no?

                  5. Anonymous

                    Whatever happened to this exit of the drama-queen?

                    “Trying to turn the tables on opponents of this bill as somehow being perverts is simply ridiculous, and warrants no further discussion.”

                    It’s nice that you stayed around, amigo.

          1. Anonymous

            No, he doesn’t hate people who have homosexual tendencies, but trying to say that this lifestyle is just as good, right, and normal as heterosexuality for the sake of making a segment of society feel good about themselves is wrong, harebrain.

            1. crossgrain

              And there we have it. You want us to believe that transgender people are evil, wrong, and abnormal. Making them use the wrong restroom will certainly go a long way towards “fixing” them, right? Perhaps a little shock therapy? Imprisonment? The ol’ ‘Final Solution’ perhaps?

  5. Anonymous

    The Governor should, undoubtedly, sign it. If he does not, he will lose virtually all of the support that he has among conservatives. His veto would be the last straw piled upon those for his proposed Medicaid expansion and sales tax increase.

  6. John Campbell

    Nay – veto.

    Trans kids have been using bathrooms of their choosing for a long time – I knew them in the 1970s. School districts have dealt with any concern on a case-by-case basis. Twelve states explicitly allow transgender citizens of any age to use bathrooms of their choosing, and there are zero reports of any victimization by transgender citizens in those states. Last Thursday, Watertown students gave the Senate committee their petition signatures stating that transgender bathroom issues aren’t any concern for them or their generation.
    The best that can be said about this bill is that is a solution looking for a problem. Let school districts keep handling local concerns. Don’t mandate that trans kids be treated “separate but equal”, which has proven to be legally and morally illegitimate. Don’t put Title IX funding at risk, and don’t waste state and local dollars defending a bill we already know will be challenged and overturned.

    1. Springer

      Your comments can be turned around. If there were no problems noted before, as you state, then why are laws being passed mandating that one sex can use a bathroom of the opposite sex? Seems this is a law looking for a problem. Instead as you say, let this be dealt with on a case by case basis, but that is no longer allowed because those promoting transgenders using any bathroom they choose already passed bills mandating this.

      I am so tired of people mandating tolerance of their views, while being completely intolerant of opposing views and calling them bigoted or racist or whatever.

      1. Anonymous

        –, let this be dealt with on a case by case basis

        That would appear to be the reasonable route to take, but the LGBTAQA zealots simply are not reasonable.

          1. Anonymous

            Gee , I thought you were deeply attuned to these issues.

            I guess we see you’re just as shallow as most zealots for the “cause”.

            1. crossgrain

              I never once claimed to be “deeply attuned” to these issues at all. I just have enough respect for folks to refer to them per their preference. I’m not familiar with the LGBTAQA acronym, so I asked for clarification. So take a moment to educate me, or continue to be obtuse. Your call.

      2. John Campbell

        Springer – why are laws passed proactively protecting people’s rights? Because minorities in society are too often not afforded the same measure of rights and dignity afforded to the majority. I didn’t call you “bigoted or racist or whatever”. I did say that the idea of “separate but equal” has been discredited morally and legally. I think HB1008 is precisely “separate but equal”, a huge step back for South Dakota.
        Don’t listen to an old fart like me. Go ask students if bathroom segregation is a pressing or fearful issue for them. It’s not. Where’s the problem? What exactly is the problem being solved by HB1008?

    2. Anonymous

      –Last Thursday, Watertown students gave the Senate committee their petition signatures stating that transgender bathroom issues aren’t any concern for them or their generation.

      Are these the same Watertown students who enjoy their racist Ki Yi chants and parade around town in their faux native American outfits?

      Sorry, public policy should be formulated by intelligent adults, not “concerned kids”.

      1. crossgrain

        Sorry, public policy should be formulated by intelligent adults, not “concerned kids”

        Hey! Something we can agree on! Intelligent adults have no business dictating gender.

          1. crossgrain

            If God dictates gender, then God is perfectly okay with transgender men using the mens room. This bill should be vetoed because common sense and God!

            1. Anonymous

              Now you sound like the Westboro church folks.

              In fact, you actually SOUND like the Westboro folks:


              February 17, 2016 at 10:40 am
              God hates fags.

              Congrats crossgrain–you ARE what you previously condemned.

      2. John Campbell

        “Sorry, public policy should be formulated by intelligent adults, not “concerned kids”.”

        Intelligent adults were already dealing with bathroom issues for trans kids, disabled kids, etc. on the district level, and they were doing just fine.

  7. PlanningStudent

    I’m a conservative christian and don’t like this bill. We believe in natural law and that there is a natural order to things. We don’t believe in the need for a law every time someone sees a potential problem. We don’t believe in the government defining everything for us. We believe that a good god fearing people can regulate their own lives. We don’t need state law interjecting itself into this discussion. We don’t really need this discussion. When, at some point this scenario actually plays out can’t the teachers, parents, and children in that community address it themselves.

    Some people who support this bill are bigots, sure. There’s bigoted, closed minded people on both sides of this bill and every issue.

    1. Anonymous

      By natural do you mean God’s law or the law of mother earth or some other wacky spiritual-but-not-religious viewpoint? I support the law and haven’t been twisted by a state college or university into believing that there is no right and wrong.

        1. Anonymous

          So, when others are “twisted” by “mysticism”, that’s all wrong.

          When YOU are twisted by your faith-filled adherence to some mystical science that you have yet to explain to us, you’re principled, right?

          Please explain: Where are the biological or genetic markers for gender ID?

          Otherwise, you’re just another mystic of the crossgrain church.

      1. John Campbell

        Anonymous 6:09 pm, when you assert that education is a bad thing, you make all my arguments for me.

        I commend PlanningStudent for his/her principled and restrained approach to this issue.

  8. crossgrain

    Obviously YOU think it’s a choice since you deny the science of biology and genetics on which this bill is founded.

    This bill is founded on bigotry, not science. Putting lipstick on your pig of a bill doesn’t make it anything other than what it is: a bad, hateful, problematic, bigoted swine.

    “Oh, but biology!” you say. Well I say Baloney! You don’t get to co-opt the argument that science backs you up on this – it clearly does NOT. Science tells us that there is an entire spectrum of human sexuality, not just the black-and-white, boys-and-girls ONLY world that you want to live in.

    And and unequivocal NO. I don’t believe these kids are choosing to be transgender. Science and common sense back me up on this as well. Who’d choose to live like that? To be bullied like that? To have to listen to the hateful comments from Senator Omdahl? To be told what their gender should be, rather than what is actually is?

    1. Anonymous

      –Science tells us that there is an entire spectrum of human sexuality,

      Show me the scientific study that substantiates that a person with a penis can urinate through a vagina.

      THAT’s what this bill is about. It’s not about what one genitals one FEELS he/she has, it’s not about to whom one is sexually attracted to (your obsession with sexual activities of boys & girls) , it’s the BIOLOGY of urinating & defecating. Why do you find urinating & defecating sexually interesting? Your obsession with the sexual attractions and sexual activities of boys & girls and when & where they’re urinating & defecating is just plain weird.

      Why are you denying science, biology and genetics?

      One can only accept your views if one denies the science that genes do not determine sex. Now, what an individual FEELS is his/her sex may be confused, but the SCIENCE can and does determine sex–the biological acts of urinating & defecating follow those genes since the equipment for urinating & defecating forms because of the genes. Bio 101, freak..

      No one is talking about “gender” or gender identification except you; and you obsessively talk about it in terms of sexual attractions and sexual activities.

      This bill is about where to poop, not with whom to cuddle.

      Get over your sex obsessions about boys & girls and in betweens.

      1. crossgrain

        You’re right – no one else is talking about GENDER, and that’s exactly why there’s a problem. GENDER is the whole damn issue here. GENDER is not determined at birth. GENDER is not chosen any more than shoe size. There are plenty of peer reviewed scientific studies that tell us that while we might have male or female (or both, or neither) genitals, our GENDER is independent (sometimes) of what our sex is.

        This is obviously impossible for you to get your head around, hence your hang-up on the bits between folks’ legs. You continue to conflate sex and gender. They’re NOT the same thing.

        I keep hearing two main arguments for this bill:
        1. We need to keep little Suzie from seeing a penis in the locker room.
        – this is why I stated that this wouldn’t be a problem if we had comprehensive sex (and gender) education, and a home environment that fosters an attitude of acceptance of “other”.
        2. We need to keep little Suzie from being oggled by a guy pretending to be a girl in the bathroom
        – Why do you think there’s any oggling in the first place? Maybe that person is just there to take a leak.
        – Why stop there? Do we segregate gay/lesbian/bisex people from oggling their preferred sex(es) in the bathroom?

        Finally (!) I read in the Argus that Gov. Daugaard doesn’t even want to talk to transgender South Dakotans because he claims he wants to form an “objective” opinion on the bill. WTF. I what bizzaro world does he live that he believes remaining objective can only be accomplished by not listening to the very people whom this legislation would most affect?

        If the gov. signs this bill, you’d all better get some lawyers on speed dial, because this will get litigated fast and furious. This sort of institutionalized bigotry can’t and WON’T stand. Time to suck up and start loving your damn neighbor and quit worrying about what he’s got between his legs.

        1. Anonymous

          — GENDER is not determined at birth. GENDER is not chosen any more than shoe size.

          So, how does gender “become”?

          [this is gonna be good!]

          1. crossgrain

            The heck? How did YOU become YOU? Biology, genetics, upbringing, social expectations, positive and negative reinforcement… everything.

            If you believe either SEX or GENDER are a strictly binary proposition, you’re sadly behind on the science and the times.

            1. Anonymous

              –Biology, genetics, upbringing, social expectations, positive and negative reinforcement… everything.

              So, according to you, “upbringing”, “social expectations” and “reinforcement” are factors, right?

              Those three are malleable.

              “Upbringing”: while one cannot relive the past, with counseling and guidance, counselors and psychologists have had tremendous success in changing the trajectories of the lives of most people who survived terrible upbringings. So, unless you wish to totally discredit the work and successes of psychologist and counselors and years of experience, one’s upbringing and can be changed for a different future.,

              Social expectations: US society is transitory and mobile. For example, the societal expectations found across SD are largely different than those of NYC or San Fran. In today’s society, citizens can easily move
              to an area and a society more to one’s liking, thereby CHANGING the expectations of the behaviors that may or may not be acceptable in that new societal setting. Thus, “societal expectations” in the US can easily be altered simply by moving to a different part of the country (or of a state, in some cases).

              Reinforcement: If reinforcement contributes to one’s gender identification (as you claim), then one can just as easily “reinforce” a DIFFERENT gender ID, right? Thus, your claim about reinforcement actually supports opposing claims that gender ID is indeed a choice depending on which reinforcements are used, or which reinforcements one is subjected to.

              1. crossgrain

                Oh, god. Really?

                Malleable those factors may be, but the millions upon millions of events both large and small that shape who we are and how we see ourselves when combined with our unique genetic makeup are NEVER going to be able to be changeable or “fixed” like you expect.

                1. Anonymous

                  –but the millions upon millions of events both large and small that shape who we are and how we see ourselves

                  1. Yet, a life well lived will lead to millions and millions MORE future events small & large that could just as easily RESHAPE what we thought we were, right?

                  Moreover, one can CREATE dozens of large events (say, with long-term counseling and psychological help) that could just as easily RESHAPE who we BECOME, right?

                  Gosh, I think you’re beginning to sound like gender ID isn’t as fixed as you claimed earlier!

                  –combined with our unique genetic makeup

                  Please, simply tell us which biological or genetic markers that you are referring to. Where and which??? Really, since the science is settled (according to you), please inform us which “genetic makeup” indicators lead to which gender IDs. It should be easy since the science is all settled, according to you.

            2. Anonymous

              “Biology, genetics, ”

              Okay, Which biological or genetic marker(s) or indicator(s) determines or contributes to gender ID?

              1. Anonymous

                I want to be educated by you.

                You’ve spent hundreds of words (thousands?) telling us about how much you know about genders and gender ID, and how informed people opposed this bill. I, like all my readers, want to be as understanding and tolerant and informed as you claim to be, so please, if your views are so scientifically sound, just explain it to us in your own words..

                You’ve done such a wonderful job so, far, please continue. If we wanted to read left-wing pseudo-science, we could google it.

                Or you now conceding that you cannot really explain gender and gender ID to your fellow citizen in an intelligent and sound manner?

                1. crossgrain

                  I’ve explained ad nauseum. If it’s not up to your particular standards, please reference the link above. I generally believe the scientific peer-reviewed articles at the very top of the results would contain the particular information you seek.

                  1. Anonymous

                    –results would contain the particular information you seek.

                    The information I seek would be yours. After all, YOU ARE the advocate agaisn tthis bill, so surely you have all that scientific information that you claim your opposition to the bill is based on. You’ve expressed your view as a Christian that supporters of this bill are unchristian and bigoted–surely you have more than that. You’re not the Westboro folks, are you?

                    One last try:

                    Tell us where to find the biological or genetic makers for gender ID. GIVE US THE SCIENCE, as you know it. NOW.

                    I’ll give you 36 hours before completely embarrassing you as an anti-science zealot.

                  2. Anonymous

                    Crossgrain was given plenty of time to explain his anti-science views.

                    He has refused.

                    He did not and could not tell us the biological or genetic markers for gender ID, yet he asserts that gender ID is not a choice. He asserted that gender ID is melting pot of environment, upbringing, and biology. I’ve addressed the former two, and challenged him on the latter–he has could not provide the science that would support his claim.

                    He even tried to use his belief in Christ to assert that OTHER Christians were not true Christians if they supported this bill–this of course is exactly the same tactic used by the Westboro Baptist zealots (again, he missed the irony of his railing against Westbroro)

                    I don’t take on bigots like crossgrain in order to embarrass them, but their views, trolling, and snarkiness is easily addressed and discarded. Their “progressive views” are based on little more than their faith in their feelings that they’re right and all others are not just wrong, but intolerant and evil.

                    Lastly, this bill is about the biological functions performed in the restroom; crossgrain and his LGBTAQAA zealots-allies want to turn this bathroom issue into the bedroom issue of who is sexually attracted to whom. They’ve weirdly twisted where to poop into whom to cuddle.

                    It’s truly perverted and creepy.

    2. Anonymous

      –Science tells us that there is an entire spectrum of human sexuality,

      NO ONE is talking about “sexuality” except you!

      This bill is about human defecation and urination. Period.

      Are you perpetually anal?

  9. Jason Sebern

    The South Dakota Republican majority is out of touch with humanity. This bill is a violation of the natural rights of each individual.

  10. Noddy Holder

    Again, this heavily Republikan-controlled Legislature has gone out of its way to legislate an issue that really was non-existent until they stepped up to the plate and whiffed big time. Let’s get back to biennial sessions so we don’t have to put up with this waste of time and resources. I didn’t know this was a problem in our schools till these Republikans brought it up.

  11. father of three

    This past summer I was on a tour of Europe and while there we would routinely see mens/womens/”open” restrooms. There were more restrooms that were “open” to the general public, no sex/gender/hair style/or other delineations noted. There were no urinals, everything was a “sit-down” facility with privacy stalls. The attitude was you go in your stall, do your business, and then leave. No big deal. After using them the first couple of times it was like, what is the problem, you see more skin at the pool then in here.
    Now I am not naive enough to believe that some people would not use this “label” for less then nobel purposes. I know for a fact that as a teenager, if I knew that I just had to say I was this label or that and I could use the womens rest room and locker room, I would have done it and I would not have been teased or bullied by my peers, I would have been high-fived for figuring out a way to legally get in there with the girls.

    If this bill would have left the rest rooms alone and only targeted locker room and shower facilities, I don’t think it would be getting as much “flack” as it is.

  12. chloe barnes

    Yea, Good Going South Dakota! Hopefully other Misguiding, Deluded States, would take a page out of your book and enact some common sense Legislation. There is No such thing as “Transgender”. A Man cannot be a Woman or a Woman a Man, it’s just biologically impossible. States must quite legislating a clear, self evident Delusion. ‘Gender Dysphoria’, is like any other ‘Dysphoria’. Karen Carpenter, had a Body Dysphoria, symptomatic of her Anorexia Nervosa. I am sure, we would all agree, that the obese image she saw reflected in a mirror, existed only in her head. A Man’s gender, CANNOT be a Woman. Whatever he thinks, feels or how he behaves, can only ever be expressions of his unique self. He is a Man. I mean Really! Who among us, actually believes that Bruce Jenner, is a Woman. Really? For anyone who believes that, there’s only one word, SAD.

  13. recato

    As a former South Dakotan, I hope this bill is signed.

    I have actually shared a bathroom with a transgender individual when I took a training class for work.

    The bathroom was locked, and I had to loudly ask for the key. (My profession is male-dominated.) Nobody told me why the bathroom was normally locked.

    Within a minute or two of entering the restroom, there was a man dressed up as a woman (and at least twice my age) jiggling the stall door to see if it was occupied.

    Now, you have to understand, that if I complain to HR, the only problem they see is that the restroom was locked. And this was several years ago.

    I don’t mind loving those different from me. Transgender individuals clearly need an area to change in. But I have to wonder about the greater agenda when it isn’t good enough to offer a transgender student a private changing area. The idea that a man’s perception of himself trumps a woman’s right to privacy is absurd and misogynistic.

    I do understand the concern that an appropriate bathroom might be too far away. But the opposite scenario…asking the rest of the school to use a single use stall to maintain privacy…is simply untenable.

    I would also ask young people who identify as transgender to understand that this isn’t all about them. Other people have a right to modesty, even though it may not be a value that resonates with you.

    1. Anonymous

      Amen to your last paragraph. “I would also ask young people who identify as transgender to understand that this isn’t all about them. Other people have a right to modesty, even though it may not be a value that resonates with you.”