Recently, we have seen a few more examples of the silliness that regularly erupts from the so-called "Transgender Community." The first such example is the ongoing mess about restrooms. Every chance it gets, the Religious Right trots out the "bathroom issue" and every time, transgender activists go ballistic and start raising their usual howl of protest. And everytime, the transgender activists simply ignore the fact that, in many cases, the Religious Right is raising perfectly legitimate issues.
This has happened twice in the past two weeks, with two different outcomes. In the first case, an attempt was made to put an end to a gay rights bill in Gainesville, FL by using the "bathroom issue" as a reason to do away with the current law. And, sadly, the Religious Right has a perfectly good point that was totally ignored by the transgender activists as they ranted against the effort.
Now, this could have been a perfect opportunity for the "transgender community" (which in truth is pretty much an illusion) to show some common sense, and the disarm the Religious Right. Instead, they acted in their usual silly way, and pretty much confirmed that they really don't care if men invade the womens rooms.
The way the law is currently written, prettty much any man (or woman) can enter pretty much any bathroom, and, if confronted, simply claim that, at that moment, their gender identity is at odds with their physical sex. Now, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second before they walk into the wrong bathroom, and they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) one second after they walk out, and quite frankly, they may be a perfectly normal man (or woman) the whole time they are in the wrong bathroom, but as long as they claim that their gender identity "matches" the bathroom that they have entered, they are off the hook. They don't even have to be "crossdressed."
This is, of course, totally absurd, but it is what the law effectively allows. And it could easily be rectified by simply providing that anyone entering a restroom that does not match their physical sex has to be in the process of changing their physical sex and be undergoing the RLT. This could be shown by having a "carry letter" as used to be the normal procedure, or even by having therapists issue small ID cards that would serve the same purpose. Yes, this leaves the crossdressers and the so-called non-ops out in the cold, so to speak, but that is really where they belong.
Further, any such law should make provisions dealing with so-called "unavoidable nudity." That is, in areas where there is a very real chance of someone being seen in the nude, pre-ops would either be banned, or if it is not unreasonable, privacy would need to be provided. This would mean in areas like showers and changing rooms. Either they would need to provide individual shower stalls and changing areas (if the cost would not be too great) or pre-ops would just have to wait until after surgery to go into them.
Of course, such a law would never be acceptable to most transgender activists...which shows that their agenda is not what they claim it to be.
And it should be noted that while the amendment that would have rolled back protections in Gainesville was defeated, an attempt to pass "transgender" protections was defeated in New Hampshire.
Another area where some have shown their true silliness has been the issue of "disclosure." Or at least, the issue of "disclosure as it relates to dating." Now, some of the more extreme gender fascists want to insist that everyone be "out, loud, and proud." They shove their transgender state in people's faces. They rant against the idea of stealth, and attack anyone who prefers to live their life normally. They tend to think that disclosure should be made by all, including post-ops.
Another extreme are those who want to ignore the fact that a pre-op (or a so-called non-op) who does not disclose is, unfortunately, at risk of serious bodily harm when a sudden discovery is made. Now, let me state, up front, that I do not believe that such a discovery is EVER an excuse for someone to do anything violent to another person. If a man discovers that his date is, as some like to put it, "a girl with something extra," then he should walk away...period, end of story! That said, I am also a realist that knows that this is rarely going to happen.
The simple, sad fact is, if a pre-op does not disclose, she is risking her life. That does not mean that this is the way it should be, or that she is "asking for it," or that she "gets what she deserves." But it does mean that she needs to use some common sense. Now, I think the men who killed Gwen Arajuao should have all been convicted of murder, and that they all should have been given life sentences. But, I also wish Gwen had of avoided the entire situation to begin with. I would much prefer that she be alive.
Simply put, the victim is not to blame, but we all need to use good sense. Yes, I played with fire a few times. And I was lucky. I never got burned. But, that was pretty much dumb luck and nothing more.
The problem is, many of the more extreme "transgender activists" are telling people that they should be able to expect people to act in a certain way, when, unfortunately, that is not how people are going to act. In another words, they are encouraging pre-ops (and non-ops) to engage in risky behavior, and are in effect setting them up to become possible martyrs. Even if the laws are changed, as they should be, and the so-called trans-panic defense is banned, people will still get killed. The only thing that will change is that the law will be able to deal with them without them finding that one, lone idiot on a jury who will vote not guilty, resulting in another hung jury, and a mistrial, and some prosecutor deciding to play it safe and allow for some ridiculous plea bargain that lets them get away with murder.
In an ideal world, this would not be a problem. But when the idiot chorus starts accusing people of "blaming the victim" because they try to warn people to avoid dangerous situations, the ultimate result is going to be someone getting hurt.
Pointing out simple truths is not "blaiming the victim." It is trying, desperately, and perhaps a bit in vain, to avoid someone becoming a victim. I am sure some welcome martyrs like Gwen Arajuao. Shoot, there is a day set aside every year when they honor them (the Day of Remembrance). And for all of the noble speeches about how it would be great if we could stop having that day each year, the simple truth is, many are probably secretly glad for increased numbers.
If you want some idea of this, just go to the web page for the event and look at the rather horrid bit of drivel that old Phil Frye of Texas came up with. It is song, to be sung to the tune of "Danny Boy" that glorifies those who had the misfortune to be murdered. I must say, I am thankful I have never actually had to hear this one performed. I think the song can be summed up in the line that goes "And come next year when fall’s again up- on us, if more are killed and killed, more well may be. We’ll honor them and the places they are lying. and loudly say, 'We will re- member you'. And you will hear as we pro- claim a- bove you, and your spirits will warmer, sweeter be."
No, this is typical of transgender silliness. I am sure there are those who get all choked up from such. But really, this is the sort of idiocy that gets people killed. Those who die should be mourned, but they are not really martyrs, nor have they done anything to be honored for. They were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in many cases doing the wrong thing.