Transgender 1st Grader Wins Civil Rights Case...

[Quantum Windbag]

But Children this young don't know Gender, so what possible harm could it do to the actual children? Are they going to look back on this some years later when Gender gains value and find some sort of issue with it?

Also, Katz, dude; that's anecdotal at best- one guy-to-girl failure means squat. Especially considering your article kind of talks about the various crap things happening in his life prior to his suicide that likely were very big contributions too. Let's try not to be disingenuous eh, one case doesn't prove your point anyway- as I'm sure there are successful cases too.

Are we supposed to pretend that an teenage boy is a girl just because the parents convinced him of that when he was a toddler?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s more a tradition of liberals advocating for the rights of the individual and restricting the state.

But this is indeed an ideological issue.

We have yet another example of the authoritarian conservative, using the power of the state to compel individuals to conform to rightist dogma, where conservatives seek to deny citizens their right to privacy and freedom of self-expression, motivated by fear of diversity and dissent and animus towards those ‘different.’

This is a matter for the individual to determine, and if the individual is a minor a matter for her parents and family to decide, not the state.

This is a matter we will likely not agree on, Clayton. That said I respect you and your right to an opinion, and I'll continue this discussion with you for the sake of civil, mutual understanding.

When it comes to ideology, I'm neither liberal nor conservative, though I've been both at one point or another. What seems to be true is that liberals do indeed advocate for the rights of the individual, as do conservatives do. Both do so in different ways. That said, just as conservatives have their flaws, those liberals in this case advocate for such individual rights that they no longer stand on the foundation of sanity and reason. No, with their knack for radical thinking, they will always seek to push further and further into the fringes of society, thus changing the very norms of society... the Overton Window as they call it, I believe.

Their ideology seems to be more grounded in taking equality into the realm of insanity. It is the same when professors deem anti-abortionists to be racists, and the same when people who dislike the notion of communal weddings are considered bigots. Whereas conservatives do seem on average to be more sane, on the other hand they become less compassionate to humanity in general, while also becoming ardent and obstinate in matters of partriotism, when they cannot acknowledge when America is in the wrong. But, since liberalism and some liberals are the target of this discussion, let's continue with it.

You appear to consider this issue to be another example of the authoritarian conservative who uses the power of the state to restrict others into the rigors of rightist dogma. Your description does seem rather colorful. Being neither Right nor Left, I see this public reaction as shock and outrage against what is perceived to be yet another step on the path of insanity. Something as sensitive as an 18-year-old child's life being changed forever due to to less than reasonable desires of his parents and experts is, indeed, a matter to discuss. Talking about it it a critical matter does not make one an authoritarian conservative, now does it, Clayton?

I think your passions are misplaced, my friend. Some things are insane, unreasonable, and crazy. It is no more different than people reacting negatively to a statute that grants all citizens to walk about society completely naked if they wished to, among other things. When something is abnormal and potentially absurd, I find not fault in treating it as such. Furthermore, any expert could call any insane behavior or notion sane, if that person wanted to.

Indeed.

I’ll always advocate for the rights of the individual over that of the state, as only the former knows best concerning his own best interests.

And placing the interests of the individual over that of the state with regard to matters personal and private comports with the original intent of the Framers.

As Justice Kennedy accurately noted in Lawrence, striking down laws making homosexuality a crime:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

And transgender persons will also use these Constitutional principles of individual liberty in their search for greater freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kind of overreacting methinks, Society isn't anymore over then when little black babies and little white babies we're allowed to do things together. The moral fiber of society is not being torn asunder right before your eyes- it is evolving with the changing of the people. That is what it does, chill out before you give yourself an aneurism.

What the ****?

How does morality evolve? Either something is always moral, or it never is. It doesn't change simply because you want to pretend you are smarter simply because you were born later than someone else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is not a liberal versus conservative issue.

You are 100% correct, it is a reality versus delusion issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

7NEWS - Colorado transgender first-grader Coy Mathis wins civil rights case, group says - Local Story

Absolute Absurdity... Entertaining an 18-month-old with this until it becomes a Civil Rights Issue in the 1st Grade should be Conisdered Child Abuse.

And you Thought they'd stop at Kindergarten?...



peace...

And it’s because of your fear and hatred of those different, those who dissent, those who wish to engage in self-expression free form oppression by the state that we have a Constitution and its case law designed to safeguard citizens’ civil liberties.

In its decision, the Civil Rights Division said maintaining the ban "creates an environment that is objectively and subjectively hostile, intimidating or offensive…"

Transgender Colorado girl can use the girls' room at school, civil rights agency rules | syracuse.com

Let me put it this way, if it is wrong for one group to tell a child that homosexuality is a disease can be cured it is wrong for another group to convince a boy that he is a girl.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is not a liberal versus conservative issue.

Oh?

Is it not true that it is mostly liberals who pine for these kinds of social travesties, unlike conservative who cling to traditions of old?

It very well is a matter of liberal versus conservative in terms of ideology. Has it not been for some time a part of liberalism to always try to break past and move forward on issues of social morality using radical thinking?

It’s more a tradition of liberals advocating for the rights of the individual and restricting the state.

But this is indeed an ideological issue.

We have yet another example of the authoritarian conservative, using the power of the state to compel individuals to conform to rightist dogma, where conservatives seek to deny citizens their right to privacy and freedom of self-expression, motivated by fear of diversity and dissent and animus towards those ‘different.’

This is a matter for the individual to determine, and if the individual is a minor a matter for her parents and family to decide, not the state.

No it isn't. This is a case of progressives forcing other people to accept the delusion that self identifying as something that does not match reality imposes an obligation on other people to ignore said reality. That imposes on my right to live in the real world, and not have to pretend that a guy who believes that the government controls everyone through microwave radiation has a firm grasp on reality.

 

[Gadawg73]

But Children this young don't know Gender, so what possible harm could it do to the actual children? Are they going to look back on this some years later when Gender gains value and find some sort of issue with it?

Also, Katz, dude; that's anecdotal at best- one guy-to-girl failure means squat. Especially considering your article kind of talks about the various crap things happening in his life prior to his suicide that likely were very big contributions too. Let's try not to be disingenuous eh, one case doesn't prove your point anyway- as I'm sure there are successful cases too.

Are we supposed to pretend that an teenage boy is a girl just because the parents convinced him of that when he was a toddler?

Who said the parents convinced the kid of anything.
Show me someone, anyone, someplace, somewhere, anywhere that changed their gender definition because their parents convinced them to do so.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh?

Is it not true that it is mostly liberals who pine for these kinds of social travesties, unlike conservative who cling to traditions of old?

It very well is a matter of liberal versus conservative in terms of ideology. Has it not been for some time a part of liberalism to always try to break past and move forward on issues of social morality using radical thinking?

It’s more a tradition of liberals advocating for the rights of the individual and restricting the state.

But this is indeed an ideological issue.

We have yet another example of the authoritarian conservative, using the power of the state to compel individuals to conform to rightist dogma, where conservatives seek to deny citizens their right to privacy and freedom of self-expression, motivated by fear of diversity and dissent and animus towards those ‘different.’

This is a matter for the individual to determine, and if the individual is a minor a matter for her parents and family to decide, not the state.

No it isn't. This is a case of progressives forcing other people to accept the delusion that self identifying as something that does not match reality imposes an obligation on other people to ignore said reality. That imposes on my right to live in the real world, and not have to pretend that a guy who believes that the government controls everyone through microwave radiation has a firm grasp on reality.

I am not a progressive.
You are only in charge of your own reality, whatever that is.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wannabe conservatives do want to force others to cling to old religious traditions.
Conservatives do not.
Conservatives seek to protect the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority, not the most popular thing to do, not the traditional thing to do but the CONSERVATIVE thing to do.
Something to do about the CONSTITUTION, a document dedicated to protecting the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL and limiting the rights of the government.
The Constitution, an interesting document. I suggest you take a look at it.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious and "traditional values" opinions.

I hear you, and that tangent is interesting and deserves its own thread. Do you call yourself a conservative, while also not accepting the exitence of social conservatives as legitimate? It does seem a little bit like that, from your post.

Back to what we were discussing, you say "this" is not a liberal vs conservative issue. So, how so? Are you suggesting that both liberals and conservatives have no qualms about the issue in the OP?

Oh, I accept the existence of social conservatives!
Yes sir, we have been fighting those crazies for how many years down here now?
They lie, cheat, manipulate the Republican state convention every year here. Just last week the speaker of the Georgia House, David Ralston a very conservative Republican, called them out as the looney birds they are.
I am not suggesting that both liberals and conservatives have no "qualms" on this issue. I am stating that is a FACT as most conservatives I know do not care about private family matters that do not affect us and are the rights of the INDIVIDUAL AND DO NOT BREAK ANY LAWS.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Navy Seal that had a sex change stated he had those feelings since age 3.

He has the surgery? Don't think so

Lives as Kristin Beck with long hair, lipstick, high heels, a dress and talks like a woman.
Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.
It is a duck. You may have checked if his Johnson is still there. I don't. He says he had to put that off until later this year.

 

[mal]

Toddlers who think they are kitties should be given a litter box to pee in and schools required to make all children use the litter box too.

Here's a two year old that thinks she's a dog.
Help my 2-year-old thinks she is a dog!

Liberals would demand she put put in a collar and taken on walks with a leash.

This particular brand of Liberal is a Societal Anarchist...

They have been doing this shit since the 40s and 50s... And each decade... Each year... It gets worse and more Absurd.



peace...

 

[Montrovant]

This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.

It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.

If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.

If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.

I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?

Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.

 

[Jos]

got to love girls with a six inch+ clitoris

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But Children this young don't know Gender, so what possible harm could it do to the actual children? Are they going to look back on this some years later when Gender gains value and find some sort of issue with it?

Also, Katz, dude; that's anecdotal at best- one guy-to-girl failure means squat. Especially considering your article kind of talks about the various crap things happening in his life prior to his suicide that likely were very big contributions too. Let's try not to be disingenuous eh, one case doesn't prove your point anyway- as I'm sure there are successful cases too.

Are we supposed to pretend that an teenage boy is a girl just because the parents convinced him of that when he was a toddler?

Who said the parents convinced the kid of anything.
Show me someone, anyone, someplace, somewhere, anywhere that changed their gender definition because their parents convinced them to do so.

For one, I did, but I am far from the only one. There is no way an 18 month old would be self aware enough to be able to determine that they were in the wrong body unless they were taught to believe that by an adult with an agenda. Believing otherwise would require extraordinary evidence because it is an extraordinary claim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It’s more a tradition of liberals advocating for the rights of the individual and restricting the state.

But this is indeed an ideological issue.

We have yet another example of the authoritarian conservative, using the power of the state to compel individuals to conform to rightist dogma, where conservatives seek to deny citizens their right to privacy and freedom of self-expression, motivated by fear of diversity and dissent and animus towards those ‘different.’

This is a matter for the individual to determine, and if the individual is a minor a matter for her parents and family to decide, not the state.

No it isn't. This is a case of progressives forcing other people to accept the delusion that self identifying as something that does not match reality imposes an obligation on other people to ignore said reality. That imposes on my right to live in the real world, and not have to pretend that a guy who believes that the government controls everyone through microwave radiation has a firm grasp on reality.

I am not a progressive.
You are only in charge of your own reality, whatever that is.

Did I say you were?

Reality is that this child is a boy. People want me to believe that something happened in December of last year that changed what has always been classified as a mental disorder into a legitimate medical condition. They presented no scientific evidence that there are actual people who are born in the wrong body. One way for them to accomplish is to first prove that life exists outside the body, and that we have a spirit or soul that preexists our birth. I haven't seen, or heard, of any such proof.

Another way would be to provide genetic evidence that some people are born a sex other than the one they are assigned by chromosomes. Ditto on the evidence of that.

What makes you so sure that people who make these claims are correct? What evidence do you have that they are actually born the wrong sex?

By the way, if this is a legitimate condition, and people are actually born the wrong sex, why does anyone want to go back to the original sex after getting corrective surgery? Why does detransitioning exist at all if this is not actually a delusion?

Perhaps you just want to prove that your conservative values are not dictated by social conservatism, and that desire has caused you to embrace a falsehood.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.

It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.

If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.

If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.

I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?

Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.

Because with regard to pubic restrooms, neither men nor women constitute a ‘minority’ subject to discriminatory measures, and neither men nor women constitute a class of persons adversely effected by the state regarding this policy.

That’s clearly not the case with transgender persons, who indeed constitute a minority and an adversely effected class of persons.

The issue isn’t restrooms made separate by gender, rather, the issue concerns the individual right to self-determination in the context of privacy, where the state may not discriminate based upon how an individual elects to live his life, where there are boundaries of personal liberty the state may not cross:

“It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

 

[Montrovant]

This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.

It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.

If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.

If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.

I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?

Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.

Because with regard to pubic restrooms, neither men nor women constitute a ‘minority’ subject to discriminatory measures, and neither men nor women constitute a class of persons adversely effected by the state regarding this policy.

That’s clearly not the case with transgender persons, who indeed constitute a minority and an adversely effected class of persons.

The issue isn’t restrooms made separate by gender, rather, the issue concerns the individual right to self-determination in the context of privacy, where the state may not discriminate based upon how an individual elects to live his life, where there are boundaries of personal liberty the state may not cross:

“It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Again, though, I ask....what is the reason for having separate bathrooms in the first place? Does a transgendered person using an opposite-gender restroom violate that reason?

Further, whether someone is a member of a minority or not should not be grounds to allow discrimination against them.

Also again, this is not just about an individual or their actions in private. This is about at least semi-public actions. A person can claim to be whatever gender they want, but in this case the ruling is, in effect, forcing others to hold the same opinion. If separate bathrooms are to keep boys and girls from being together while going to the bathroom, only those who accept the idea that this child is a girl despite having the physical characteristics of a boy can accept the use of the girl's bathroom.

This case puts the whims of one set of parents above that of all others. It makes gender essentially a meaningless term and separate bathrooms pointless. That being the case, why are the separate bathrooms allowed in the first place?

If this were a case of an adult having undergone sexual reassignment surgery, I would feel differently. But it is a young child, it is a child without (so far as I am aware) any physical characteristics which would call his/her gender into question, and that makes this different. Whether one agrees with the choices made by the parents in raising the child is irrelevant to the point that other parents may not want a child with a penis in the bathroom with their daughters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.

It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.

If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.

If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.

I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?

Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.

Because with regard to pubic restrooms, neither men nor women constitute a ‘minority’ subject to discriminatory measures, and neither men nor women constitute a class of persons adversely effected by the state regarding this policy.

That’s clearly not the case with transgender persons, who indeed constitute a minority and an adversely effected class of persons.

The issue isn’t restrooms made separate by gender, rather, the issue concerns the individual right to self-determination in the context of privacy, where the state may not discriminate based upon how an individual elects to live his life, where there are boundaries of personal liberty the state may not cross:

“It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

What the ****? Can you show me which court decisions you based your absurd argument that delusional people constitute a minority that evokes any state interest in who uses a bathroom? Don't try to argue that it is Planned Parenthood v Casey, that has nothing to do with discrimination, it was decided solely on the basis of of an individual's right to privacy, which would apply to everyone who is using the restroom, not just the people who insist that I have to accept their delusions.

 

[Gadawg73]

Every transgender person in the world is a liberal.
Conservatives would never be transgender.
Do you good folks understand how stupid that opinion is?

 

[Gadawg73]

This thread seems to have moved from the real question of the OP.

It seems to me that the first thing to ask is whether separate bathrooms should be allowed. Is there a compelling reason for the state to segregate bathrooms? If not, the entire case is really just a symptom of the bigger problem and we need to get rid of segregated bathrooms.

If, however, there is such a reason, we need to see how it applies to this particular case. If societal ideas of modesty and decency are the reason, does having a boy who identifies as a girl violate those ideals? I would imagine so; it seems that separate bathrooms are in place to avoid exposure of one gender to the naked bodies of the other gender. So, as this child still has (at least as far as the article in the OP) male genitals, keeping the child from using the female bathrooms makes sense.

If there is a different reason for segregated bathrooms, that reason needs to be clearly stated and it needs to be seen if it applies to this case.

I think there is a large disconnect going on here. If it is discriminatory to prevent a child who identifies as the opposite gender to their physical makeup to use the opposite gender bathroom, why isn't it discriminatory to prevent anyone from using bathrooms of the opposite gender? How is preventing me from using the women's bathroom not gender discrimination? What is the compelling reason that prevents me from doing so, but doesn't affect me if I identify myself as a female (but still have the same physical characteristics I do now)?

Based on the little information provided, these parents sound like fools. Children are provided with boundaries and discipline regarding any number of things, I don't see why pointing out the facts of their physical gender needs be any different. Still, it is their child, not mine. However, as they are asking to affect the lives of all the children and adults around them in the school, this moves beyond simple individual rights IMO.

Because with regard to pubic restrooms, neither men nor women constitute a ‘minority’ subject to discriminatory measures, and neither men nor women constitute a class of persons adversely effected by the state regarding this policy.

That’s clearly not the case with transgender persons, who indeed constitute a minority and an adversely effected class of persons.

The issue isn’t restrooms made separate by gender, rather, the issue concerns the individual right to self-determination in the context of privacy, where the state may not discriminate based upon how an individual elects to live his life, where there are boundaries of personal liberty the state may not cross:

“It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter…These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

No, the issue to the right wing is:
1. Transgender folk are all liberals
2. Liberals want to force others to be transgender
3. Right wing social conservatives know what is best for all children and parents should listen to them first and not their children