Duh... They Don't Think Of Trans Men

In their animosity toward trans women, the conservatives didn't even think about trans men... in their fear: "Oh God... men will dress as women and rape our girls in the bathrooms!" But look what they created! This is from back in 2017.

Transgender teen wrestler who's used to winning on mat now has a bigger, though partial, victory

Mack Beggs won Texas state girls' title but wants to compete against boys.

ABC News

ByMORGAN WINSOR

March 27, 2017

Already accustomed to winning on the mat, transgender teen wrestler Mack Beggs can now enjoy another victory -- a change in policy that will allow him to compete in some matches against boys, the gender with which he identifes.

The organization that governs amateur wrestling in the United States recently changed its policy to allow transgender wrestlers to compete against the gender which they declare as their own.

[...]

The student won the Texas state girls' title in wrestling last month, capping off a season in which he was undefeated -- but one that drew controversy.

And now we have...

Kansas Trans Guys Are Using Women’s Bathrooms, as Legally Required, as a Form of Protest

A group of transgender men who call themselves the "SB244 compliance crew” have been using women’s bathrooms in protest of a Kansas law that mandates that they do so.

them

By Quispe López

August 20, 2026

Not all heroes wear capes. Some just use the bathroom. A group of transgender men who call themselves the “compliance crew” have been using women’s bathrooms in protest of a Kansas law that mandates that they do so.

The new law, Senate Bill 244, went into effect in February of this year, after the state legislature successfully overrode Democratic governor Laura Kelly’s veto on February 13, and requires all people to use sex-separated facilities in government-owned properties that correspond with their assigned sex at birth, effectively banning trans people from the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The law also incentivizes everyday people to call the police and sue for damages up to $1,000 if they believe they’ve shared the bathroom with a trans person violating it.

According to the ACLU of Kansas, this extends to restrooms and locker rooms, with an additional provision that prohibits trans people from updating their driver’s licenses and state IDs to reflect their gender. The wide-ranging law caused panic when it went into effect earlier this year, as it also invalidated licenses that had gender markers that do not correspond with someone’s assigned sex at birth.

Naturally, as with other anti-trans laws across the country, it is already causing confusion around enforcement, as a trans woman was charged in June for presenting a police officer with a driver’s license that contained a male sex marker, which the new law mandates, though the charges have since been dropped. But if it’s confusion they want, it’s confusion the “compliance crew” seems ready to create.

The group was created by a transgender man named Charles Osman immediately after the law went into effect. Per KCUR, the local NPR affiliate for Kansas City, the compliance crew began going into public women’s restrooms, in a form of protest known as malicious compliance, which involves following a law to its exact phrasing rather than the way it might have been intended, which in this case is likely discouraging trans people from using public restrooms altogether. So far, they have done so in a public library, swimming pool, and water parks across the state, making the point that the law causes discomfort for everyone involved.

I think that it is terrific. It shows how stupid the conservatives are in their hatred of us.

The excuse the Republicans give is to protect women from monsters, but they have actually made it much worse! Now, thanks to the Republicans, they can just walk right in!

And the Supreme Court just put in its two cents, the Constitutional Center writes:

On Tuesday, a divided Supreme Court held that state lawmakers can regulate gender identity in scholastic sports competitions, and in particular, block transgender students born as biological men from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.

On January 13, 2026, the justices heard oral arguments for three hours in both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, a case from Idaho. Tuesday’s decision applied to both cases.

In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.”

Title IX bans discrimination based on sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial funds. However, the Education Amendments Act of 1974, known as the Javits Amendment, allows schools receiving funds under Title IX to establish “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports.”

[...]

In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh pointed to actions taken by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in1975. “HEW promulgated comprehensive regulations requiring that schools provide ‘equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes’ and authorizing ‘separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport,’” he said.

Kavanaugh also held that “the term ‘sex’ in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.” He also rejected claims that the restrictions on trans athletes competing on women’s and men’s sports teams violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Of course, you all know that "cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex" flies in the face of many other Supreme Court rulings!

Beginning with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the Court didn't simply hold that “sex = gender.” It held that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is sex discrimination under Title VII. And then there was Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Court took that logic considerably further. It held that firing someone for being transgender necessarily involves treating that individual differently because of sex. The Court explicitly connected its reasoning to Price Waterhouse: if an employer would have made a different decision had the employee's sex been different, that is discrimination “because of sex.”

But now that all went out the door! And the Court just created a nightmare! And now, in the context of Title IX, the Court has said that the term “sex” cannot plausibly be interpreted to mean anything other than biological sex. But wait a minute... the language in Title IX and Title VII is remarkably similar. Both prohibit discrimination “because of sex.” So how did “sex” become broad enough in Bostock to encompass discrimination against transgender people, yet suddenly become so narrowly defined in Title IX that it means only biological sex?

I mean, it is so stupid! How stupid? Well, think of this: State A allows trans women to play on women's teams. Now suppose a team from a state whose rules permit a trans woman to compete qualifies for a regional competition held in a state whose rules prohibit her from competing. What happens? Is one team handicapped because it has to lose some of its players?

What a can of worms!