Psychologists have shown that the sexualization of children is inherently harmful and yet society--even parents--insist that it is harmless. Pedophiles universally use this technique to groom children; they depend on it. Predators do not waste their time with "harmless" endeavors.

Just as the fight against obesity in young children is (obviously) not anti-eating, the fight against the sexualization of children is not anti-sex--in spite of the many pedophiles (and their apologists) in our midst who argue otherwise in order to justify their predatory behavior. The dangers over the sexualization of children is due to the fact that it only results in conditioning children to be the ultimate victims for rapists who will not only prey on their lack of physical defense, but also complete psychological vulnerability.

Seconding the comments about reading comprehension and the bathroom issue. I work at a place that is among few universities with a single-occupancy, non-gender-designated bathroom. It was already single-occupancy. So there's absolutely no difference in how it functions except that more people can now use it.

That for Republicans, they chose women who are in the media (and therefore, whose jobs rely to some extent on being pleasing to look at) and ignored all the Democratic women in the media, with the same qualification. Oh well, at this point...they're just reaffirming that to too many people in this world, a woman's looks trump every other single thing about who she is as a human being. I just wish this was ONLY a characteristic of conservatives.

Why is it that Christo-fascists always confuse attempts to prevent teen pregnancy or STDs with attempts to sexualize children? What kind of person gets perverted ideas about a teenager privately requesting health care assistance for a very personal issue? Or maybe they are pretending to be confused about it because they don't want women using birth control at any age. They're just like the Taliban, and they're trying to run our country.

... people really need to get some reading comprehension. Nowhere does the article Tracy linked say that any university is eliminating your usual multiple-stall, conventionally gendered men's and women's rooms, or not building them in new buildings.

What's happening is pretty simple: older single-occupancy bathrooms that already exist, where only one person can be inside at a time and you lock the door, are having unnecessary "men" and "women" signs replaced with a sign that says "bathroom." Anyone who's not incredibly uptight knows that these kinds of bathrooms are already used, and have been for years, by both men and women, because it means you don't have to wait in line and for god's sake, it's not like anyone else is going to be in there anyway. Ironically, these sorts of bathrooms are the safest for those who don't want to encounter transgender people, your personal stalker of either gender, or Larry Craig while in the bathroom. It's really better for everyone, especially when you consider that such bathrooms can serve as easily accessible handicapped facilities as well as changing-rooms that can be accessed by moms OR dads.

The Dulles International Airport in Washington, DC has a really good example of a gender-neutral bathroom that clearly advertises all of the above -- family changing station, handicapped accessible, single-occupancy bathroom with no "men" or "women sign." It's right next to your usual multiple-occupancy men's and women's rooms. That's hopefully the kind of setup we'll see in more places.

Plus, from what I understand advocates at universities are not insisting anything close to "all bathrooms must be gender-neutral." It's something more like, one per building, and letting people know where it is if they want to use it. That's not much to ask for, but of course some right-wingers spin it into an approval of transgender people (horrors!)

First of all, what does it matter which is worse? Does that somehow make pole dancing for 7 year olds ok? It's okay to sexualize prepubescent children because some pubescent children are sexually active and request birth control from the school nurse?

Second of all, you're blowing things out of proportion and skewing the facts to make it seem more alarming than it actually is. I'm pretty sure you got your "facts" from an article written by Bill O'Reilly. Try reading some other articles about it before running with whatever that lying, agenda-driven gasbag says and treating it like gospel. He'll have you believe that there is a Secular Conspiracy afoot, trying to Sexualize our Young Girls, when in reality the school is responding to the fact that some middle school students are sexually active and are asking for birth control, and unwilling to confide in their parents about it. I guess you and the Bill O'Reilly's of the world think the appropriate response to a sexually active middle school student is to let them suffer the punishment of teen pregnancy and/or STDs that they so rightly deserve for disobeying the word of God. Of course you do.

The age of 11, which saeems very alarming, comes from the fact that the youngest kids in middle school are 11 years old, not that 11 year olds are sexually active or are asking for and receiving birth control. Also, the school isn't giving out BC alone; they've had condoms available since 2000. And this doesn't promote sex, the percentage of middle school students in that school having sex has dropped since then.

Furthermore, the parents have to sign a consent order to allow their kids to have medical care at the school, otherwise the kid won't have access to the health center at the school and won't be able to get condoms or birth control if they want them. And the parents who sign the consent form do so knowing that there is a potential their kid could covertly start taking the pill. So if some parent has a problem with this, they simply don't sign the consent form.

If you feel like raising your blood pressure, it airs this Saturday, Oct. 27, at 9 p.m.

No, this goose anus thing has already got my blood pressure high enough.

I'll guess there'll never be enough hate in the world, will there?