In the latest such example, Mr. Williams greatly exaggerates the reaction of some to the recent law passed in California that I think is poorly written. The law is intended to extend protections to students who are transsexual, though of course, political correctness insists that the term must be "transgender."
The article is classic Mr. Williams. He exaggerates the reaction of some, linking together several diverse groups in an attempt to give a false impression. And then he attempts to use images from popular culture to sway, so he can avoid making an actual, rational argument.
The only problem I have with the law, is the same problem many have with other, similar laws. It is too vague. Of course, this is how the extremists want it. Kooks like Mr. "Cristan" William seem to have an obsession with protecting the rights of perverts like "Colleen" Francis and "Paula" Witherspoon, the registered sex offender and child molester who was cited for being in the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. Now, personally, I think it rather reasonable to question whether a person such as Witherspoon actually has a legitimate "female gender identity." The evidence seems pretty strong that he doesn't.
The problematic part of the law does not require that a student seeking protection under the law have any evidence other than, apparently, a vague claim of identity:
A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.Now, consider how this is written. Let's take a hypothetical situation that is actually not really all that hypothetical. Now, granted, the situation I am describing happened at a local community college, not a K-12 school, and the person involved was possibly not a student, but bear with me. A male was lurking in the women's locker room in the school's athletic facility, and attempted to attack a woman. Now, suppose a law similar to this were in effect and he were spotted and reported before actually attempting an assault. The police arrive, and confront the perp. He is not dressed as a female, but, thinking quickly, states "I believe myself to be a female, so I am in the appropriate facility for my gender identity." The police officers' hands would be tied. They would probably not even be able to check the person's ID and see if he had any priors or warrants. As long as he had not actually committed an act, he would be "protected," simply by telling a lie.
Now, Mr. Williams would have you believe that such things never happen. He actually repeats a previous attempt to claim that "cisgender women" are actually more of a threat to women in restrooms than men, transgender or otherwise. Poorly written laws put women in danger. As in the example above, had the suspect been confronted, a poorly written law would bind the police from doing their jobs. Now, Mr. Williams tries to imply that NO transgender person would ever engage in improper behavior, but this is simply not the case.
Now, what is likely to happen is that this law will be challenged in court. Also, there is already a move underway to have it rescinded by a ballot initiative. If the reaction indicated by comments on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle website, are any indication, such an initiative would very likely pass overwhelmingly. Comments were overwhelmingly negative. And that is in San Francisco. There was no serious support for the law. A few commenters tried to make the same sort of vague claims as Mr. Williams.
If such a proposition passes, the good parts of the law will likely be thrown out with the one poorly written provision. Personally, I would like to see the provision rewritten to require an actual diagnosis from a licensed therapist, and provisions to protect the privacy of students in situations where there is inevitable nudity. Also, I think it would be reasonable to require that any student accessing sex-segregated areas actually be, as some say, living full time as the "gender" they claim to identify with.
Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:
Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.Now, some might claim this is absolutely true. Some might claim it is a bit of an overstatement. But, because of a very specific phrase (" California-style policies") it is actually an outright lie.
Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:
Employees of the District shall not discriminate on the basis of or engage in harassment motivated by age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, marital status, religion, veteran status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. A substantiated charge of harassment against a student or employee shall result in disciplinary action.Compare that to the wording from the California law above, keeping in mind the fact that this wording is the only real change in California law, which already had, shall we say, "Houston-style policies" on the books for years. Whoops! I would say that what Mr. Williams claims is an outright lie, not just clever semantics.
The bottom line is this... Mr. Williams claims to be a woman, but he seems to have no regard for the actual feelings of women confronted with an obvious man invading their space. He has hounded Virginia Brownworth, accusing her of terrible acts, simply because she does not support the right of men like Mr. Williams to invade places like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or to force lesbians to accept them as sexual partners.
So, I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Williams would lie about reactions to the California law.