It breaks my heart when left-wing organizations blindly follow the transgender ideology line. Not just because they are perpetuating something that’s harmful. But because it shows that they didn’t bother to actually think things through. They knew somebody who knew somebody who said “Oh trans is really important” and now that is their ‘belief’. Political activists are supposed to be smarter than that.
Mediamatters.org, which maybe is more liberal-activist than left wing, made this horrible infographic over a year ago. And when I looked at it closely I noticed there were some things wrong with it. So I added some bits. So that we could all understand the information better!
The other day the excellent Elizabeth Hungerford, A Lawyer, re-posted this
wherein she has a chart of all of those states that when they made civil rights laws to protect transgenders they also added a provision that sex segregated bathrooms and locker rooms could be preserved. Quel surprise! To hear Messrs Springsteen et al talk one would’ve thought it was all or nothing. And oh look, a bunch of the states that still allow sex segregated bathrooms despite having transgender protection laws are the ones that appear in media matters.org’s infographic! States where according to their infographic everything is hunky-dory, there haven’t been any bad things happening in women’s bathrooms. Which incidentally they cleverly frame as being sexual assault, when that isn’t the main bathroom pervert crime. Voyeurism and public masturbation are. So Media Matters went out of its way to piss and moan about people complaining about gender identity based bathroom laws and it’s nifty spiffing piece of evidence was a list of states most of which were very circumspect and limited in the pro transgender laws they made. But hey, I’m sure one laws very much like another.
If I understand Hungerford’s information correctly if you run a gym or a restaurant or a school in the states in her chart (available at the link above) and you want to ban some guy who looks like the one in my graphic, with the beard who claims he’s a woman, from being anywhere near the women’s bathroom or locker room you would be fine. Versus you would be committing a civil rights breach.
Now how many of Hungerford’s Circumspect Transgender Bathroom Law States also appear on Media Matters infographic as instances of Hunky-Dory Land?
Rhode Island ✔️
So only three of the states in Media Matters’s wonderful evidence of hunky-doryness are states that might not have the more circumspect version of transgender laws. Hmmmm. 🤔 Well, I feel reassured.
Addendum, May19, 2016
What Are ‘Gender Identity’ Laws?
There are laws that ban discrimination against different classes of people in public venues like restaurants or the public swimming pool. Laws that say you can’t ban Black people or gay people or women from your restaurant.
These are good normal straightforward laws that the transgender movement is attempting to pervert and use in order to get transwomen access to women’s bathrooms, etc. This would be a problem under any circumstances. But the current version of this has a wrinkle that makes it a million times worse. There are people under the bizarre trans umbrella who dress up as women part of the time. There are men as we all know who have breasts and a penis. So they’re all these bizarre things that are not simply having the full 1960s style transsexual treatment. The current version of these antidiscrimination laws is designed in order to keep anyone who works at these facilities from being able legally to question anyone who seeks to use the women’s bathroom and other women’s facilities. What the laws say is that a person should use the bathroom etc. that accords with their “gender identity”. The purpose and the burden of this is that whether not someone counts as a woman would be based on self identification. They could’ve just called them self identification laws. Even the terms in the laws are deceptive because this is trans.🙄 The transgender activists probably intended that the breast and penis men should be treated the same as actual transsexuals. But they have opened the door to weirdos like Alex Drummond pictured in my graphic. Who claims that he is a woman based on his internal “gender identity”. If Alex Drummond can use women’s bathrooms and showers and not be questioned by the staff then any man can.
Weirdly, the Obama administration has decided to go balls to the wall in favour of these extreme self identification based laws. The objective is to stop anyone who works in these facilities from asking who is trans or having distinctions between say someone who has had all the surgery versus a weekend cross-dresser. That is made clear in this paragraph from Sarah Ditum’s recent New Statesman article:
“But the Trans Inquiry conducted by Maria Miller’s Women and Equalities select committee earlier this year recommended that the protected characteristic should now become “gender identity”, and changing this should be possible by a simple form on a website. The US is also moving in this direction, with US attorney general Loretta Lynch ruling that schools must “treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex“. The Department of Justice guidance adds: “A school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity.” (emphasis added)
“Gender identity” based laws are a huge expansion of who counts as transgender. It’s also embracing the extreme, evidence-free and linguistically opaque postmodernist conception of all this trans rigmarole. ‘Genderfluid‘, ‘non-binary‘ etc. In other words the thing with the least scientific and real world credibility. That’s bad enough in itself. And strongly suggests that the persons drafting these laws don’t understand what these words and concepts actually mean. They don’t understand that there are the penis and breast men, perverts, who are trying to pass them selves off as people having a strangely surgical treatment for a psychological condition. By falling back on “gender identity” the US government is refusing to define what the characteristic is that makes this a protected class of people. They’re buying into the activist nuttiness and refusal to specify what it takes to actually be transgender. They’re saying anything goes. This is not a normal way for the law to behave.