Major areas of focus:
I never thought the trans movement would garner the same national attention and force as other social tinkerings from the left (like the same-sex marriage movement). I really thought common sense (i.e., the privacy and safety of women and children--that transcends culture and time) would overwhelm and ultimately prevail over the twisted rhetoric of the left. But social justice warriors’ constant need to find some new “bigotry” to fight against (because there are not enough racists and sexists out in the open anymore) makes them look really hard for bigotry, or they stretch the definition far enough for there to be a problem somewhere that needs fixing—progressive fixing. This insatiable search for bigotry mixed with a feckless and complacent church (i.e., the conscience of society) that is continually conforming to the patterns of this world has us where we are today—continuing to slide down the slippery slope of depravity with no end in sight.
Individual rights/equal protection vs special treatment: The gay rights movement was (at least initially) about individual rights and privacy ("stay out of my bedroom" was the mantra of many in the movement). It didn't impose anything on the overwhelming majority of those who didn't agree with their lifestyle. It merely asked society to leave them alone and not keep them from making a living or face the same discrimination women and blacks experienced in the past. When it came to same-sex marriage however, the request went from "just leave us alone" to, "you need to redefine marriage for us!" Of course that wasn't the explicit message, but that was the implications of what the movement entailed. Similarly, this new trans movement is not asking to be merely left alone (not harassed, persecuted); the movement is asking for accommodations (special treatment). They won't tell you that though. In fact, same-sex marriage and this new trans movement is being sold to the public under the same guise of "equal protection of the law."
The Justice Department said that "access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," a section of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.
Now if you read or hear that quote from the DOJ too quickly the sleight-of-word trickery can slip by and you have just been bamboozled by the straw man tactics of the left. A straw man argument is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position so that it's easier to knock down. The left does this a lot, and they have done it again here. Let me dissect the argument so the straw man is easier to see. The argument from the left is essentially this:
P1: Laws that grant non-transgender people rights that transgender people don't have are unconstitutional.
P2: Most bathroom policies state non-transgender people have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).
P3: Transgender people do not have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).
Conclusion: Therefore, these bathroom policies grant non-transgender people access to rights transgender people do not have and are therefore unconstitutional.
The reason this argument is fallacious is because premise 2 is completely false. Premise 2 ASSUMES bathroom policies/laws are based on “being able to use the bathroom that matches your gender identity/the one you want” unless you are transgender. But “gender identity” or “desired bathroom” has never been the basis for male and female bathrooms. Biology/physical plumbing/physical reality (i.e., what is objective/mind independent) is and always has been the basis for public bathroom, locker room, and shower policy. Psychology (i.e., what is subjective/mind DEPENDENT) has never been the basis for bathroom policy.
The left is using the same straw man tactics they used in the battle for same-sex marriage. How? Let me explain:
What many people don’t realize is that gay people had the same rights as heterosexuals prior to the Supreme Court ruling. They could marry anyone of legal age of the OPPOSITE SEX. Heterosexuals could not marry people of the same sex (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have a right to be married to more than one person of the opposite gender (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry anyone without their consent (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry an animal (ditto for homosexuals). But the assumption is that laws were stated as, "You can marry 'who you LOVE' (as long as you're not homosexual).” But that has never been the nature of the law or a necessary, or even a sufficient component of marriage. As you can see, their appeal to the 14th amendment regarding this issue was fallacious because it did nothing but knock down a straw man.
It’s sad that we have to spend this much time arguing for common sense, but these are the times in which we live. I will end this topic with a quote from the Facebook page Logical Faith: “There are only two types of men who enter women's bathrooms, locker rooms and fitting rooms: the dangerous and the deluded. If we indulge the latter, we will embolden the former. This isn't a matter of hatred or bigotry; it's a matter of safety and sanity.”
- The left's need for bigotry
- Individual rights/equal protection vs special treatment
- The argument from the left defeats nothing but a straw man
- This isn't a matter of hatred or bigotry; it's a matter of safety and sanity
I never thought the trans movement would garner the same national attention and force as other social tinkerings from the left (like the same-sex marriage movement). I really thought common sense (i.e., the privacy and safety of women and children--that transcends culture and time) would overwhelm and ultimately prevail over the twisted rhetoric of the left. But social justice warriors’ constant need to find some new “bigotry” to fight against (because there are not enough racists and sexists out in the open anymore) makes them look really hard for bigotry, or they stretch the definition far enough for there to be a problem somewhere that needs fixing—progressive fixing. This insatiable search for bigotry mixed with a feckless and complacent church (i.e., the conscience of society) that is continually conforming to the patterns of this world has us where we are today—continuing to slide down the slippery slope of depravity with no end in sight.
Individual rights/equal protection vs special treatment: The gay rights movement was (at least initially) about individual rights and privacy ("stay out of my bedroom" was the mantra of many in the movement). It didn't impose anything on the overwhelming majority of those who didn't agree with their lifestyle. It merely asked society to leave them alone and not keep them from making a living or face the same discrimination women and blacks experienced in the past. When it came to same-sex marriage however, the request went from "just leave us alone" to, "you need to redefine marriage for us!" Of course that wasn't the explicit message, but that was the implications of what the movement entailed. Similarly, this new trans movement is not asking to be merely left alone (not harassed, persecuted); the movement is asking for accommodations (special treatment). They won't tell you that though. In fact, same-sex marriage and this new trans movement is being sold to the public under the same guise of "equal protection of the law."
The Justice Department said that "access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," a section of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.
Now if you read or hear that quote from the DOJ too quickly the sleight-of-word trickery can slip by and you have just been bamboozled by the straw man tactics of the left. A straw man argument is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position so that it's easier to knock down. The left does this a lot, and they have done it again here. Let me dissect the argument so the straw man is easier to see. The argument from the left is essentially this:
P1: Laws that grant non-transgender people rights that transgender people don't have are unconstitutional.
P2: Most bathroom policies state non-transgender people have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).
P3: Transgender people do not have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).
Conclusion: Therefore, these bathroom policies grant non-transgender people access to rights transgender people do not have and are therefore unconstitutional.
The reason this argument is fallacious is because premise 2 is completely false. Premise 2 ASSUMES bathroom policies/laws are based on “being able to use the bathroom that matches your gender identity/the one you want” unless you are transgender. But “gender identity” or “desired bathroom” has never been the basis for male and female bathrooms. Biology/physical plumbing/physical reality (i.e., what is objective/mind independent) is and always has been the basis for public bathroom, locker room, and shower policy. Psychology (i.e., what is subjective/mind DEPENDENT) has never been the basis for bathroom policy.
The left is using the same straw man tactics they used in the battle for same-sex marriage. How? Let me explain:
What many people don’t realize is that gay people had the same rights as heterosexuals prior to the Supreme Court ruling. They could marry anyone of legal age of the OPPOSITE SEX. Heterosexuals could not marry people of the same sex (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have a right to be married to more than one person of the opposite gender (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry anyone without their consent (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry an animal (ditto for homosexuals). But the assumption is that laws were stated as, "You can marry 'who you LOVE' (as long as you're not homosexual).” But that has never been the nature of the law or a necessary, or even a sufficient component of marriage. As you can see, their appeal to the 14th amendment regarding this issue was fallacious because it did nothing but knock down a straw man.
It’s sad that we have to spend this much time arguing for common sense, but these are the times in which we live. I will end this topic with a quote from the Facebook page Logical Faith: “There are only two types of men who enter women's bathrooms, locker rooms and fitting rooms: the dangerous and the deluded. If we indulge the latter, we will embolden the former. This isn't a matter of hatred or bigotry; it's a matter of safety and sanity.”
RSS Feed