Raw copy of comment

This article is a nasty little exercise in "sliding the bar",  mis-representing the science, and "I'm not prejudiced, BUT...."

It starts with "I don't understand" and progresses to "Because I don't understand, *IT IS OK TO DISCRIMINATE*."

The two statements are not connected.

*I* don't understand evangelicism. I absolutey am made extremely uncomfortable when evangelicals engage in public "witness".  That doesn't mean that evangelicals therefore must be relegated to the fringes of society and denied their rights to make me comfortable. That isn't how it works.

But that is one of the arguments you are making. And it _is not_ about protecting an opinion held by majority of Americans. The MAJORITY support transgender rights - including bathroom access.

"Majority of Americans Oppose Transgender Bathroom Restrictions"
https://www.prri.org/research/lgbt-transgender-bathroom-discrimination-religious-liberty/

It is also quite disingenous to say "not in favor of discrimination....but here are the ways I want to discriminate". Yes, yes you ARE in favor of discrimination. You just wrote a quite long article trying to push discrimination. SAYING it isn't bigotry doesn't make it not bigotry. There is a long history of people saying "I'm not prejudiced, BUT....". Sadly, this is another example.

The attempts made in the article to claim that science is on the side of the bigotry here are also based on falsehoods. The "no such thing as female/male" brains study was  subsequently shown to have used a bad methodology that was akin to saying "everything is made of the same 92 types of atoms, so there is no difference between any two objects". While it is _true_ everything is made of the same 92 types of atoms, the arrangement of them MATTERS:

 "Patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females"
 http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.full

As for the sex binary - no. Human sex is NOT binary. It is a spectrum in many dimensions.

"Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that." http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

And as for drawing a line around intersex and sayng "that's biological, but being transgender isn't" - that is also false.

"Evidence supporting the biologic nature of gender identity."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667367

A growing body of evidence indicates that not only is being transgender biological - it is very likely to BE a sub-type of being intersex. Both are about equally rare.

Moving on to the "but what about the predators!" line - we KNOW that is utterly false. Because laws protecting the rights of transgender people to use public facilities are in place in more than a dozen states and hundreds of cities - and have been in some of them for nearly two decades. The results were....nothing. This has been confirmed by study after study. Absolutely no change in behavior by predators. It just doesn't happen. This is a complete non-issue. And hundreds of organizations SPECIALIZING in fighting sexual assault and domestic violence signed a public letter stating that and _backing_ the rights of transgender people.

"More than 250 Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence Organizations Condemn Anti-Trans Legislation"
http://www.hrc.org/blog/more-than-250-sexual-assault-domestic-violence-organizations-condemn-anti-t

In contrast, 70% of transgender people have been harassed for using a public facility. 11% have been sexually assaulted.

Who exactly is in danger here again?

On the medical side, we have many, many, many years of research into the causes and treatment of being transgender. Your ideas were the _default_ for decades. We know what the result of your ideas are: Dead transgender people. MANY dead transgender people. We also know what the result of supporting transgender people is: Mentally healthy transgender people. This isn't conjecture. This is the results of decades of research.

"Mental Health of Transgender Children Who Are Supported in Their Identities"
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/137/3/e20153223

And we have reached the end. Your article has essentially no connection at any point to facts. It is a grab bag of half-truths, actual falsehoods, debunked claims, and mis-representations about transgender people. It starts with a conclusion and tries to assemble "reasons" why that conclusion is reasonable. Unsurprisingly, having started with the cart before the horse, those "reasons" don't stand up to being examined.