Just recently, arguably because of a very poorly thought out thread this guy started over on Hannity, I realized something about the recent to-do in Charlotte and North Carolina, as well as elsewhere.
No matter what those pushing for self definition of “gender” may claim, or may even believe,in their struggle for some new “equality” what they are really, really doing is removing and possible chance for recourse from — and we must be blunt here for not many men are worried about being ogled or what have you my gals in men’s restrooms — women who do not want men in their bathrooms.
By this I mean that prior to the current push for getting guys who think they’re gals into women’s restrooms, as happened in Charlotte, if a woman was in a restroom (set aside for members of her sex) discovered a man was present she could even demand that he be removed.
She had recourse to do something about him being there.
This is because a woman’s restroom was set aside for people whose sex was female (just as a men’s restroom is for those whose sex is “male”) and by offering it as an accommodation for that purpose the provider actually undertook the obligation to ensure that what was promised was what was given.
Under regulations or policies like that adopted by Charlotte though the promise was upended, and anyone who identifies themselves accordingly may go on in. The legitimization of self-identified “gender” is incompatible with persons having a restroom set aside for those of their own sex and being able to demand the removal of intruders not of the sex, which is to say, pople of the opposite sex.
Now the poorly thought out thread I mentioned compared the State law to making guns illegal.
I pointed out how his OP did not hold up; also, I came up with a more accurate point of comparison.
Statutes like the one adopted by Charlotte, which honor “gender”, are like laws that require retreat rather than permit self defense.
If, for example, a woman does not want men in her bathroom the only way she may expect that is if she retreats, if she ceases to use public restrooms where a confused guy may wander in at any time (at least in theory).
She has no recourse to defend that space for those of her sex.
But statutes like those adopted by the State of North Carolina are like stand your ground laws: they restore or ensure the recourse of people to demand those not of the sex for which the bathroom is set aside be removed.
Such laws were not even necessary till the wacky left started insisting that self-identification is all that matter sand likewise pushing that view on everyone else.
This is in large part why an Article V convention is our last hope. Scotus is unhinged. It isn't satisfied with mere corruption of our Constitution. Through its meddling with the civil society, (abortion, fag marriage, and much more) it is actually going after our Declaration of Independence! Try as they might, a majority of lawyers in black robes cannot repeal the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Much of the turmoil in 21st century America is attributable to this meddling with fundamental law above the Constitution and beyond the reach of man.
Oh there is still recourse, just not LEGAL recourse.
Ultimately, our last recourse is ourselves, our speech, our fists, or, if needs be, more aggressive measures. By removing the legal recourse, this area of society will now be encompassed under the “law of the jungle”.