Last week North Carolina passed a law that preempted a local Charlotte law and preserved many of the good features of that law. The nondiscrimination provisions that covered gays and lesbians however had the door slammed in their face. I can only assume that was intentional and based on prejudice. As the corporate boycotts of North Carolina I believe are claiming. If so it is disgusting.
However there’s been another claim, that there is a “moral panic” about transwomen committing sex crimes in public bathrooms. The Charlotte law was one of many ‘gender identity’ laws that allow anyone access to the women’s bathroom on the basis of a self identification as transgender. What does that mean? It means they don’t have to look like a woman, they don’t have to have had a sex change operation. It means convicted sex offender’s including ones who have committed assault in bathrooms are not systematically excluded from using the women’s bathroom. It means that if you’re a woman in a bathroom and there’s a dude in there you can’t say Hey get out of here, and yell for security. Obviously we can still do that but we might discover afterwords we’ve committed a ‘hate crime’.
The moral panic canard: for something to be a moral panic it has to be something that’s all over the media, that lots of people are talking and waxing histrionic about. Almost nobody’s talking about transwoman and male cross-dresser sex crimes in public bathrooms. The other thing about a moral panic is the thing that is being featured has to not be real. Sex crimes in public bathrooms occur. They are bad, they count. I suspect the people who call concern about these crimes a “moral panic” would when questioned admit that they don’t really think these crimes are important. They’d pooh-pooh the idea that it’s harmful to discover someone staring at you and masturbating when you’re having a pee.
There are various compromises the transgender lobbyists could suggest, as Gallus Mag points out:
It’s interesting that the transgender lobby continually opts not to offer the slightest compromise- for example inserting an “improper purpose” clause or excluding convicted male sex offenders from accessing women’s facilities.
They could also define the intended protected class “transgender” by assigning it objective, measurable criteria, such as a documented medical diagnosis, etc.
There are any number of compromises they could offer in these cases but it’s pretty revealing that they don’t.
Anyway I made up these graphics to address the question of bathroom perverts and ‘gender identity’ laws.
Thanks to Jane Dark for the top two screenshots, which she posted in the comment section Gender Trender here
And to the blog Ban Rapists and Violent Predators from Changing Legal Name and Gender for the third screenshot.
Feel free to share these graphics.