"British researchers have spent £50,000 ($60,000) of public money on a study which concluded male and female toilet signs can be seen as 'discriminatory'," Heat Street reports.
Politically correct horse hockey.
You might even say this study discriminates against people with intelligence and eyesight who refuse to be silent about boys and girls and the facts of life.
So this particular outbreak of brain-killing loopiness is occurring in England.
Thus reports Heat Street: "A team from Sheffield Hallam University spent a year asking members of the public whether they believed people should have a choice on which toilet they use."
The drama queen findings? "Participants thought it was important for others to not judge people’s choice of toilet."
Now -- that's progress.
You see, it's ethically evil, regressive, and icky to offend the spirit of moral relativism.
Am I wrong, or didn't Islam conquer England last week?
Not that that would be a bad thing. I mean, who's to judge?
But wait, if if (yes -- two ifs on purpose) relativism says judgment isn't allowed, what's the problem with "discrimination" -- whether real or the fairy-tale version?
As if "discrimination" were something bad. How 6th century BC. How last Thursday.
In any case, Obama needs to get over there el quicko to award the good folks of Sheffield Hallam University a U.S. Distinguished Public Service Medal. You know, like the one he just awarded himself.
Speaking of Sheffield, I wonder how many men self-identifying as girls are on the local soccer club's "Ladies First Team"?
Whatarewegonnado? All these mens and womens everywhere. So much "discrimination."
Yee, doggie, Jed, that's a good one.
Alright, people -- That's your laughbreak of the morning. Now back to the salt mines.