Posted on 09/10/2016 9:37:14 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
n recent years, a common refrain accompanying nearly every demand for newly invented “rights” has been: “It doesn’t affect you, so you can’t be against it.”
This claim—whether false or true, subjective or objective—has been played as the ultimate trump card.
If you could not point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, then your concerns—no matter how thoughtful and legitimate—were sacrificed at the altar of the New Regime.
Times change.
On Wednesday, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of high school students and parents, asking the court to strike down a Minnesota school district policy that empowers a male student to enter the girls’ locker room and disrobe.
Not surprisingly, many girls have been distressed by the actions of the male student, which include twerking, grinding, and other sexually explicit actions. The response of the district and other authorities to the concerns has been a collective yawn.
This, along with recent actions by President Barack Obama’s Department of Education and Justice Department, illustrates the evolution of the push to manufacture special privileges for a select few.
The pretense that such demands don’t affect the lives of others now has been abandoned, replaced by two options: (1) get over it and get in line; or (2) be pushed to the margins of society, losing your reputation—and possibly your career—in the process.
In version 2.0 of the New Regime, even if you can point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, your opinion is irrelevant (and perhaps bigoted) when compared to “social progress.”
For example, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that wedding photographer Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jonathan must set aside their freedom to peacefully live according to their faith, a concurring justice stated that the pair “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” Chillingly, the justice added that this compulsion “is the price of citizenship.”
As the situations in Minnesota, North Carolina, and elsewhere demonstrate, the latest test sites for this theory of “social progress” are locker rooms, showers, and other private changing facilities.
In what would have been an unthinkable battleground just a few short years ago, these tile-floored, plastic-stalled, chrome-fixtured, and (formerly) sex-specific sanctuaries are now ground zero for experiments in the subjective theory of gender.
And the wisdom of the New Regime 2.0 goes like this:
The march toward true liberty requires 18 girls to squeeze into a prison cell-sized changing space or abandon their bodily privacy, and their right to safety and comfort in the most intimate and vulnerable of settings.
Why? So that a “bearded individual” can fully disrobe in the girls’ locker room at a parks department swimming pool on New York City’s Upper West Side. Empowered by the mere proclamation that he is a woman, he appropriates the entire space for himself.
Use whatever analogy you want:
The New Regime has flushed common sense down the toilet.
The New Regime has pulled back the curtain and washed away any remaining vestiges of bodily privacy.
The New Regime has transformed locker-room peepholes into doorways.
The point is, the New Regime embraces the idea that individuals can stride with impunity into any private space they choose, regardless of biology. This dismissal of biological fact in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers reeks of irony, in what may be the best example to date of the lengths to which the New Regime will go to impose its orthodoxy.
These spaces, perhaps more than any other physical location, exist for and because of biological differences. Bathroom doors easily could have been labeled as the kid in “Kindergarten Cop” would have it, but decorum prevailed and we used “men” and “women” instead.
Separate locker rooms for men and women do not symbolize a sinister effort to force anyone’s conformity with “gender stereotypes.” They exist because men, women, and children should not be forced to encounter the opposite sex in private spaces or be viewed by the opposite sex while in various stages of undress.
There are reasonable solutions. There are ways to accommodate men and women and boys and girls who struggle to align their subjective beliefs with biological realities.
Consider the family changing room that 18 girls in New York now are forced to use to avoid encountering a man in the girls’ locker room. Indeed, one of the purposes of single-use or “family” facilities like these is to allow fathers to assist their young daughters, or mothers to assist their young sons.
It is an acknowledgement that neither the men’s or women’s restroom is an ideal solution in such circumstances. The same fact holds true for individuals who do not personally feel comfortable entering the private space that corresponds to their biology.
These accommodations protect the privacy of all individuals, not just a select few at the expense of everyone else.
Reasonable solutions are available that protect everyone from unwelcome bodily exposure. But under the New Regime, “social progress” trumps reason.
>>But if a woman complains that a man who everyone can tell is a man is in the changing room or bathroom, I’m not sure it should matter to a business owner if the guy has actually been cut up or not. A woman customer has complained that a dude is in there with girls, and that’s the bottom line. The business owner should be able to decide who the hell uses his own women’s exclusive areas, no matter what. And that decision shouldn’t be forced by the state to accept anyone just because they are mentally ill and also mutilated.
It’s not perfect, but its a lot better than the current “whatever gender you think you are today” business. There are very mannish women and very feminine men who were born that way. All reasonable people accept that and won’t over-scrutinize someone else in the locker room. But it does keep the “woman” with a large crotch bulge out of the women’s locker room. The current state of the law will not.
Just so private business owners can decide for themselves. The NC state law actually lets Target have it’s wackadoo policy, which allows for the ‘gender fluid.’ But it mandates that publically owned facilities are used by the correct sex.
Freegards
Exactly. The Left fights and wins. Conservatives piss and moan about the "good ol days" while making empty threats about what they'd do if this was their daughter's school. Answer; nothing.
Might be worth doing some research on those post ops. From what I have read, women and children are not as safe around them as people think. Look up autogynephilia (and pass up all the sites that claim that it doesn’t exist). With or without surgical modification, those guys are suffering from a mental illness and some of them are just plain monsters. None of them, regardless of whether they have their original equipment or not, belongs in private spaces with women where real men can’t be present to provide protection.
It is very hard for a man to convince me that he is a woman. I see way too many female impersonators in the town I live and have become pretty adept as spotting them. I am teaching my kids, too, because I think it is important to survival to be aware of who is around you and might invade your private space. If one of them comes into a restroom where I am, I leave. Period. Acting like everything is normal is just playing into their little erotic fantasy of “passing” as a woman.
>>With or without surgical modification, those guys are suffering from a mental illness and some of them are just plain monsters.
Of course they’re mentally ill. So are a lot of “regular” men and women. In the history of rapes and murders, how many were committed by post-op trannies and how many by people who think they are the same gender they were born with. It’s one of those Occam’s Razor things.
B$. He is there to see and could care less what they say, he still sees what he came for.
Weak argument.
Life in LGBT Land.
PING!
Maybe he is trying to make a point. Show us how obscenely far it can go. A kind of shower room protest warrior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.