Yet again we’re seeing the safety of females (this time little girls) cast aside in favor of catering to a very small but loud and moneyed population of transsexuals and their supporters. Due to a media barrage of LGBT boilerplate talking points and a mob of protesters, we’re seeing people either being duped by or intimidated by these people into doing very dumb and dangerous things. We’re seeing a slow, piecemeal advance of having women’s and girl’s restrooms integrated into men’s and boy’s restrooms. California is predictably the first state in the US to forcibly gender integrate bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams.
There are obvious dangers there and there are also things which girls do not want to share with boys, such as their first menses. What is going to become of this should be obvious. Why is this happening? Because of the thuggish tactics of the LGBT movement, we have an emerging cultural zeitgeist which places the desires – not needs as this article falsely claims – over the safety of women time and again. It is now more important to spare the hurt feelings of enraged transsexuals than it is to keep women and girls safe. Indeed, these concerns are only addressed with slurs such as “hate” and “phobia.”
This influence in the public sphere of the New Left especially became loud and powerful with the election of Barack Obama, a member of the New Left himself. Yesterday’s campus radicals now control much of modern American cultural, media, and public life. This is a small portion of that result. Unsurprisingly, problems are already arising where such ridiculous laws have taken effect. We have an allegedly transgendered person claiming discrimination in Washington after being asked to leave a college locker room where he was walking around naked with his penis flapping at teenaged girls.
The question also arises if we are supposed to go along with the “identities” of those who reject their “assigned identity” such as people who think they’re Jesus Christ or should be paralytics. Shall we go along with those who have Body Integrity Identity Disorder and go along with their delusional thoughts that they “should be” amputees or paralytics and not only refer to them as such but offer them special public accommodations? Shall we call those who think they’re Jesus “The Lord Our God”? How about anorexics? We can have a movement that forces doctors to tell them they’re healthy and look ravishingly beautiful and support a fashion line for them. After all as the LGBT movement says, “It doesn’t hurt YOU.”
We can even pander to Batman Massacre perpetrator James Holmes and comfortingly tell him he’s now worth 13 value units!
After all, the most important thing is that we don’t hurt the feelings of those placed upon these pedestals or question why they’re even on those pedestals or who put them there and why.
So screw you if you think it’s inappropriate to not want a naked man with an erection in your locker room!!
Why put transsexuals on a pedestal over these people other than that they have an organized, well-funded lobby with enough political influence to intimidate and influence people? It seems all too often that people support these idiotic, dangerous ideas in an abstract sense but when it comes to them or their children or grandchildren facing it in person, the supporters of these laws suddenly become uncomfortable. If only they thought ahead before throwing their support behind the laws before they become laws. If you don’t like the thought of your little girl sharing a locker room or toilet with naked men, don’t tell other people to subject their daughters to it. It’s unbelievable we have to actually address this.
Then-Colorado Governor Ritter signed a very poorly-written law including anti-LGBT discrimination in 2008 which could allow men who “identify” as women to use women’s restrooms regardless of the uproar safety. That safety may not necessarily be of the female occupants, either, as this article’s author encountered a homosexual male in a University of Colorado-Denver women’s bathroom in 2012. I came within a hair of decking the guy on the spot thinking he was some predator.
Iowa has a similarly poorly-authored law as well.
Worse than this, if it is “discrimination” to exclude people born male from women’s facilities, then wouldn’t it be similarly discriminatory to tell a heterosexual man he can’t use the women’s as well? Gender discrimination is illegal, right?