Transgenders should use the restrooms according to their gender

Okay. I'm just going to sift through your last response bit by bit and tell you what I notice. "Those 5 incidences are some of MANY incidences that have been happening for a VERY long time. The article was basically saying that if it's this bad now imagine how bad it'll be if this bathroom law is bad. Sexual harassments in women's restrooms would DRASTICALLY increase. That's not a good thing." Fair enough. Your logic makes some sense, but you have to look deeper into why this author wrote this article the way they did. I understand perfectly well that there are several more incidences about sexual harassment in women's restrooms. What I'm saying is that if there were so many, they would give a startling statistic such as, "Over the course of the past ten years, there have been 50,000 incidences of people abusing transgender bathroom laws to sexually abuse or harass women and children." (This is a completely made up statistic; I was only using it as an example.) The reason they put so much time into describing every disturbing detail of each of these anecdotes is because they have no such statistic. There simply aren't that many incidences; they have no information that would shock the public if it were expressed just as a number. Thus, they use this misleading style of relating in depth these isolated incidents. So my challenge to you is to find an actual statistic such as the one mentioned above. Find something that could shock me using the numbers, not the stories. Your argument will be much stronger for it. Next you go on to talk about my reactions to the Breitbart article. You make the same argument as before. You say, "This law will allow the 80% of the people in that article (people like them) to freely enter the women's restroom and prey upon them." Again, that's twenty people. Not very many. I completely and totally understand that there are more than twenty people like this. But there aren't very much more. Because again, if there were too many more, they would give a statistic. Next, about the constitutional issue. "See that's the problem. You can identify as anything you want, but that doesn't make so. I can identify to be a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me a kangaroo." No, I really can't say it does. It doesn't matter that they can't identify as a kangaroo. Because that's not what being transgender means. It's not just making some random willy-nilly decision about wanting to be a different gender simply because you were feeling whimsical that day. I'd advise you to do a bit of research and learn a bit more about the topic before you make blanket statements like that. (In addition, this whole analogy is irrelevant anyway, because the Constitution only grants these rights to United States citizens. Not kangaroos. Or pandas.) Later, you said, "Are you talking about the same government that's been trying to "Change" our Constitution? Just 8 months ago (before the transgender hooplah) you libs where complaining that the Constitution is old and doesn't apply to today's issues.. Now, you are trying to use it to further your narratives. Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop! Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector. I personally know people that have memorized the Constitution & it's entirety." First of all, the government only tries to change our Constitution if it can make it better. Take the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. And the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the law and birthright citizenship. And the Fifteenth, which gave slaves and African-Americans the right to vote. And the Nineteenth, which gave women the right to vote. And the Twenty-Sixth, which lowered the voting age to 18. I believe that we can both agree that all of these changes have been good. So I wasn't aware of some huge hidden government conspiracy that is trying to "change" our Constitution for the worse. My next problem with this passage is where you say that every single liberal has been complaining that the Constitution is irrelevant. I don't know about other people, but I love the Constitution. I have never said or thought anything like this about the Constitution. Next you say, "Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector." I don't even know why you mentioned this. It doesn't matter where they come from. Them being from the private sector doesn't make them any better or any worse than those that would come from other places. The fact of the matter is, they still know the Constitution better than you or me, so maybe we should listen to what they're saying. The last paragraph is so offensive and inflammatory that I'm not even going to bother responding to it. I'd probably end up going on a huge tirade and hit the character limit. So finally, a last note on civility. You say things like, "So you obviously didn't know what you even read." And, "Is what you got out of the article then you obviously have low critical thinking skills." And, "So this kind of proves that you have bad reading comprehension skills too." And, "Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop!" This last one is particularly annoying because I've never flip-flopped on this topic. Perhaps my party has, but I certainly haven't. But the message that you and many other people must take to heart is that civility should be at the heart of all public discourse. Our country is rapidly polarizing and people are getting angrier and angrier and often resort to ad hominem personal insults. This is just wrong and distracts from debate. It divides people. You can still be extremely opinionated without using insults such as these. That's what you and I (and the whole society) need to strive to achieve. So I respectfully request you not dish out these irrelevant personal insults. You, me, and the whole society will be so much better for it. Thank you.