I was listening to National Public Radio on the way in to work this morning. It was their usual morning fake news program, called “Morning Edition.” On came a feature about the courageous governor of Vermont, one Peter Shumlin (I think), who was banning paid travel to the retrograde states of North Carolina and Mississippi.
You see, North Carolina had enacted a law that suggested to people with male physical equipment that they use the men’s room, while those with female physical equipment should use the ladies’ room. That, according to the brain-dead Governor Shumlin meant that you were discriminating against those with male equipment who think they’re women, and those with female equipment who think they’re men.
Oooooooohhh!!! Those big meanies in North Carolina!
In Mississippi, they enacted a law that said that businesses or organizations could “deny service” to anyone (read: LGBTQ people(1)) if they could show that it would violate “their sincerely-held religious or moral convictions,” and as long as there were no emergency or life-endangering other circumstances. Or something of the sort.
The NPR reporterette, the intellectually lightest of lightweights, Renée Montaine, asked the obvious: “Well, what about those who have sincerely-held convictions that they shouldn’t provide service for certain people?” Surprisingly, for someone as knee-jerkly orthodox a leftist as Montaine is, it was a good question! However, the even knee-jerkier leftist half-wit Shumlin, perfectly predictably, answered as stupidly as possible: “Well,” he said, “there were people who objected to slavery (of course!) on religious and moral grounds too!”
Stupid, fraudulent argument. Therefore, of course, the go-to argument for the American left.
First: Slavery is the involuntary subjugation of one person by another. There’s simply nothing involuntary about the behavior of the LGBTQ weirdos. Second: If we take that analogy to its proper conclusion, then there’s no reason to discriminate against, any other completely voluntary behaviors like, say, robbing a liquor store. Or selling heroin. Or killing someone else. Or selling and snorting cocaine. After all, it’s just who they are. Who are we to say it’s wrong?
Don’t talk to me about “drawing lines somewhere.” All the lines that had already been drawn, most of which made good sense, have been obliterated. Now, we have to pretend that engaging in sex-like activities with someone of the same sex is not only normal, but great and somehow noble.
Hogwash. It’s abnormal, unhealthy, and harms those who engage in it.
Let’s go back to North Carolina for a moment. You know, the place where they had to make a freakin’ law that says that men should use the men’s room, while ladies should use the ladies’ room. (If you were ever wondering whether this country has gone completely around the bend, off the tracks, and clean out into la-la land…)
Let’s examine what clodpoles like Peter Shumlin are suggesting. Imagine a huge ladies’ room. In it are 99 women. In walks a person who looks, walks, shaves, acts, talks, is like a dude.
The women, outraged, suggest that the dude leave. “But wait! Not to worry,” says the dude, “I’m really a woman, just like you!” How do you think the women will react? Somehow, I don’t think they’ll just say, “Oh, okay… our bad. Come on in and do your business, just like the rest of us.” I think they’ll even more enthusiastically suggest that the dude leave.
Shumlin, though, insists that it’s better to discriminate against the vast majority of the people, than against the very few.
Look, I don’t want to discriminate against anyone, but when a person who to all appearances is a dude walks into a ladies’ room, and is asked to leave, that hardly smacks of any kind of discrimination. Except on the part of the gender-confused dude, who is perfectly willing to impose his, let’s face it, off-the-beaten-track values on the other 99 women(2).
More to the point, if the gender-confused dude were to walk into the men’s room, there’d be no hubbub whatsoever. Everyone would do their business and leave and that would be that.
Yes, yes, yes … I know. What about the gender-confused dude who wants to dress like a woman? Well, guess what, women wear men’s clothes all the time, and look great doing it. You can be a gender-confused dude all you want, but don’t force us, the vast, vast majority of gender-unconfused dudes and dudettes to have to adjust our entire lives to cater to your confusion. Suck it up, and dress like a women on your own time, in your own place. We all make accommodations for everyone else, so they don’t have to put up with our little umm, eccentricities. It’s not “discrimination,” it’s politeness.
I’ve been confused before too — not about my sex — but about plenty of other things. I never believed it was my right to impose that confusion, or my values, on other people, and force them to cater to me. I always figured — rightly, I might add — that I needed to work things out for myself and allow others to live their own lives as they saw fit.
Now, though, morons like Peter Shumlin, the freakin’ governor of a state, figure that it’s okay to force millions and millions of people to act and behave in ways they consider inimical to all that is good, decent and … normal.
Worse: this idiot Shumlin thinks he’s being morally noble in doing so.
We used to have a word for governments that discriminated overtly in favor of a small minority, and against the large majority. We called it “apartheid.” It was a system in place in South Africa, in which the government’s official policy was to discriminate in favor of the very small minority of whites living there, and against the overwhelming majority black population. We used to disapprove of it too.
Now, though, in Vermont, apartheid is official government policy.
(1) The entire acronym is something like LGBTQFIAAP, and includes people who are, I kid you not, things like “gender-fluid.” In other words people who are women when it seems right, and men at other times, as the whim hits them. We used to have a much simpler term for these people: confused. And, if you refused to cater to that confusion, I’ll bet they’d work it out eventually, and look back at their earlier confusion with great bemusement.
(2) A while back, I wrote a piece about Michael Sam (search “Michael Sam” in the search box at top), the openly gay football player who wanted to play in the NFL. I speculated about the idea that the other football players might be reluctant to shower with a guy who views their, umm, equipment as sexually desirable. As it turned out, that did become a problem, and the St. Louis Rams, the team that drafted Sam, were considering making unusual accommodations for his post-game, post-practice showers. I made the remark that Sam’s possibly showering with the rest of the St. Louis Cardinals football team, was like a normal man showering after games and practices with the Cardinals’ cheerleaders. It was a good point. And imposing Michael Sam on the rest of the normal guys would be the exact equivalent of making the cheerleaders shower with the guys. Do you think that just might occasionally cause just a bit of a problem?