April 19, 2016, - 1:21 am
Bathrooms, Trannies & Some “Stupid” Questions: Michigan’s Dumb Law vs NC Law
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
I have a few “dumb” questions about the corporations and aging rock stars and others who are upset with the North Carolina law they claim is about bathrooms and legalized discrimination (it isn’t). I also want you to know about the proposed Michigan law, which goes in the complete opposite direction and is ridiculous.
Let me start out by saying that I personally don’t have a problem with people who deface and mutilate their bodies to become cosmetic approximations of–but not actually–the opposite gender with which they were born (and the DNA of which they will always have). I think it’s a psychiatric condition, and they’re sick in the head (Caitlyn Jenner is Exhibit A). But we live in a free country, and if they want to be bizarros and follow through on that with painful, depraved surgery, go ahead. I’m libertarian on it, even though I don’t approve. What you do is your business. Just don’t make taxpayers pay for it and religious schools hire you as kids’ teachers. I do object, however, when it’s shoved down our throats (pun not intended) and celebrated–which is what has happened. It’s an illness, not heroism, no matter how many awards chick mags give out to the artist formerly known as Bruce (Jenner). Yet, we’re told not just to “tolerate” it, but to happily bend over when it’s shoved in our faces at every turn.
Then there are the questions regarding bathrooms. And it’s not just bathrooms. It’s locker rooms, too. And not just locker rooms in school, but at health clubs and gyms, etc.
A couple of weeks ago, I had lunch with a liberal friend of mine who is a prominent member of the Detroit media. He and I were discussing the bathroom issue and North Carolina’s law . . . and Michigan’s proposed law. As much as you’ve heard the overwrought shrieking and moaning about the laws in North Carolina and Mississippi (which merely affirm the religious freedom laws in those states that have been in effect since at least the early ’70s), I’ll bet you haven’t heard a word about what’s going on in Michigan. The Michigan Board of Education and the State Legislature were about to enact laws that mandate public schools to address transgendered kids by their preferred name and gender and allow them to use the bathroom of the gender with which they currently identify. Oh, and school officials weren’t allowed to inform parents of this. This absurd law was about to become Michigan law until some conservatives rightfully sounded the alarm. We’ll see what happens.
My lib media friend at the lunch said, “What’s the big deal? They are in bathroom stalls. There’s a separation and privacy.” Um, not exactly. I personally don’t have a problem with men who pretend they are women using bathroom stalls next to me. But that’s just me, and others–whose beliefs and views I respect–do have a problem with that, and their rights are being trampled upon here. Plus, I have a “stupid” question about this. If the argument is that there are separate bathroom stalls and nobody will see anything, then why have separate bathrooms for the actual genders at all? If the argument is that bathroom stalls separate everyone and there won’t be leering bisexual trannies looking at women in the stall next door, then why not have actual men and women share bathrooms and make them all unisex?
Well, you see, it’s not just about stalls at all, which is why there are separate bathrooms. Anyone who pretends otherwise is intellectually dishonest. People often change clothes (and, therefore, get undressed) in bathrooms outside of the stalls (which are far too small in many cases and usually too gross and disgusting in which to change). There are also urinals in men’s rooms and there are no “stalls” between those.
Then, there is the fact that the use of bathrooms isn’t different from the use of locker rooms. In fact, at many gyms and health clubs and in many public schools, the delineation between the bathroom and the locker room isn’t there. It’s basically one facility. And I don’t wanna accidentally see some post-op or between-ops tranny naked. Sorry, I don’t. And it can’t be helped. I can’t count how many times that some gross person–it’s always a gross, “ungroomed,” chunky person–at the gym loves to walk around naked in the locker room and you cannot avoid the image you wish you could erase from your mind. Unsee! Unsee! Unsee! It happens. And the laws in question would apply to locker rooms, not just bathrooms. Caitlyn Jenner, who is now a “female” according to the law (and a newly “corrected” birth certificate) but still has penis, could walk around naked in a women’s locker room, and the gym or club or whatever establishment couldn’t do anything about it, unless there are laws to protect the establishment. There is a reason–several reasons– why there are separate men’s and women’s locker rooms.
The laws in North Carolina and other states merely reiterate those reasons and reconfirm existing law. Yes, it’s being billed as bigoted and discriminatory. But I don’t want to see Caitlyn Jenner’s unit in my gym’s locker room. And I especially don’t want to see it in between his castration and, uh, “reconstruction” surgeries or after. Do you?
If that’s intolerant of me, so be it. I see enough gross stuff in the movies I review. I don’t wanna experience it in person. And neither do North Carolinians . . . or Michigan elementary school children.
So, while, as I said, I believe in live and let live on the whole tranny thing, and I completely oppose persecuting them in any way, this is something different.
I believe in basic human dignity and in treating people I see in person with respect (except jihadists, Jew-haters, and certain others). That includes transsexuals. I’ve encountered them in women’s clothing stores and so on, and I act as if they are just regular fellow women (even though they aren’t women, no matter how many warped liberals tell me so). I wouldn’t dream of embarrassing somebody like that. They have enough issues, and I feel sorry for them. They are ill (though the elites keep lecturing me that this is “normal” and “don’t judge”–nope, it ain’t normal, and there is too little “judging” going on in society today, which is why America is in the sewer).
But I also wouldn’t dream of sharing my gym’s locker room with one, either. Like I said, I just don’t wanna see Caitlyn Jenner’s penis, which is still intact as far as we know.
And if that’s “intolerant,” then it’s also “intolerant” for women not to want straight male flashers in women’s locker rooms.
It’s the same thing. And both “men” have the same mental defects.
Also, mentally defective: the people who want to impose this on me and other women in the locker room, anyway.
Again, if this is “necessary,” then why do we have separate bathrooms at all? Let it all hang out, right? Isn’t that what they want?
I have a suggestion: let’s have trannies in the women’s bathrooms at all the mosques and Islamic schools across America.
And see what Bruce Springsteen does when they refuse to comply. Before he’s beheaded.
**** UPDATE: Reader Lisa asks: “Why not join a women-only gym?”
Well, I personally hate “women’s gyms,” which are basically lazy, fat clubs with bad equipment that is rarely used.
But this raises another point: right now, in states without the North Carolina law, a person like Caitlyn Jender–who, again, still has a penis as far as we know–can join a women-only gym. And refusing him/her/it, would be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. After all, as noted above, Bruce Jender now has a driver’s license and birth certificate saying he’s a woman.
That’s another reason the North Carolina law is necessary in our depraved, warped world. Real women who want to avoid the Caitlyns won’t be able to get away from them.
I mean its actually about abolishing gender differences.
Why make a fuss about feminism? There is no such thing as a man and a woman.
A biological fact you say? No, you’re wrong, gender is a social construct.
What has man has defined, he can undo.
Why worry about bathrooms? You shouldn’t care who the person is for the person has an identity and what the person does with it is their business.
Except when it comes to imposing it on every one else.
Then its no longer one’s personal affair, is it? If gender is irrelevant, do we really need to make rules about it?
That’s the question society will have to answer.
NormanF on April 19, 2016 at 2:18 am