Here’s a quick summary of events:
- Charlotte City Council tried to pass an ordinance allowing men to use women’s bathooms and locker rooms (and vise versa), in the name of trans-sensitivity (after it caused problems in a few other locations)
- They were warned (multiple times), if they did that (and they didn’t do it well), there would be backlash. They ignored the voters, passed it anyways (going around democracy without a voter initiative).
- Activists made false claims (equal rights, it was a big problem, and so on)
- Opponents made truthful claims (violating societal norms, poorly written law, had a creep factor, created varying state standards)
- They got backlash. The State/Governor stepped in, passed HB2, and said these things should be consistent across their state, and so cities no longer have the power to grant special protections on whims. It was a moderate REACTION, and said that private companies could do what they want, it just said public schools and buildings would continue to enforce gender differentiated toilets based on legal gender (which could be changed).
- The Politically Correct lost their nut and started saying their tantrum of lies (this was anti-LGBT and discrimination, etc). San Francisco and the progressive left jumped into a topic they are misinformed about (as normal), took a radical (and stupid) position, and putting a travel restriction against going to such a horrible self-governing place as North Carolina… while hypocritically ignoring that they don’t have a law this extreme, not block travel to places that treat trans folks much worse (like within their own state).
- Some companies jump on board the political bandwagon, making them targets and magnifying the polarization. (When did companies become stupid enough to jump into political fights?)
- The army of hypocritical performers came out in full force, and started cancelling concerts to such hateful places as North Carolina or Mississippi, after just returning from places like Dubai or Egypt, where gays are put to death.
- Obama reacted by overriding states rights and local community rights, and trying to pass an unconstitutional Executive Order (that will waste millions in taxpayer money, and lose, eventually). The fed does not have the right to extort states and promise to give them the money taken out of their State back, only if they comply with the shifting whims of the Whitehouse.
The bay area and left-activists proved they’re not tolerant or informed, they’re trans-tolerant (latin for beyond tolerance): tolerance only applies to others. They’re willing to cram their bias and bigotries on other people, thousands of miles away, for things that don’t impact them in any way whatsoever, and throw gasoline on any fire, spread ignorance and disinformation, if it’s for the cause of political correctness and corrosive division. I fully expect to be attacked for daring to point out some of the truth and balances in this crusade against the facts and moderation.
(1) Passing a bad ordinance
Feb 22. (2016), after a few prior failed attempts , the Charlotte City Council (North Carolina) got a couple new Democrats, and they decided to flex their muscles. Instead of leaving a controversial issue up to the voters, they overrode democracy with a new LGBT law (ordinance), that said men can use women’s bathrooms or lockers, by claiming they associate with the other gender.
While it might have been well intentioned (in spirit) to give trans folks permission to do what they’ve been doing for thousands of years, it was not thought through at all, horribly written, the most aggressive legislation of its kind in the nation, disagreed with community values, fractured the state and city ordinances, and they were jerks with how they did it. But other than that, good try.
(2) Ignored warnings, passed against the publics wishes, and subverting the democratic process
A year before the city passed this law, they were warned by the community to back off (this was not a cause they wanted). Let it keep happening, just don’t cram it down our throats.
The first rule of democracy is persuade people and get them on your side before passing a law (ordinance), or the lash will just cause the backlash. If the city council put up a voter initiative, or education initiative, and had a debate, who knows? We might have gotten the city to get behind it over time, and done something useful. But like most crybullies, the progressives just decided that they know best, and passed it anyways, figuring that the other side would cave to their bad idea because they said so.
Life rarely works that way: telling other people to change their values because "I said so" only causes retaliation and a fight. The fight was picked (as most are) by the progressive left trying to tell people what to do (and how to do it). Fights are rarely started by leaving everyone alone (or by being OK with the status quo). Once their bully-behavior gets a reaction (backlash), the bullies cry foul and claim the other side started it (by not wanting to change their beliefs for every Politically Correct whim). That backlash usually does more harm to the groups they’re claiming to want to help (trans community, in this case), but instead of taking responsibility for pushing the fight, the progressives blame the other side for not bending to every bad idea they can think up. And then we get these culture wars (or battles).
(3) The activists claimed it was about (a) giving them equal rights (b) this was a big problem (c) anyone that disagree with them was a bigot. They lied.
(a) Activists claimed, “this was so we could be treated fairly” (equal rights), but it was the exact opposite — it was treating trans-folks special, and giving them permission to do something that other men and woman couldn’t do (use the opposite genders bathrooms). We can argue whether that’s a worthy exception to justice being blind (I’d support the actual law, if better written) — but they’re lying when they say this is about equality, it’s about making two rules: one for trans, and one for everyone else. To try to make up for a special burden that trans people carry.
(b) Activists claimed this was a big problem, it wasn’t. No one showed a single case of injustice, let alone that it was a big problem. About 0.3% of the population is transgendered, and 99.9% of the time, they can readily use the “other" bathroom if they’re “in drag” (as long as they don’t pee standing up, or make a scene about it). So in a city of 800,000 people (Charlotte), there’s probably about 2,400 trans people total. Daily use by all of them, would mean only 2.4 incidents per year: at MOST. And most of those “incidents” would be a dirty look, or saying something rude. And the law didn’t impact all trans folks, any transexual person could ALREADY use the other genders bathroom, if they had their gender changed on their drivers license (which was allowed). So this wasn’t really to protect transexuals, just transvestites (or those early in transition who hadn’t filled out the paperwork), which is a smaller subset. And then, it would still only be an issue if they weren’t using one of the many single-user/unisex/family toilets… and they (or someone else) made a scene, in the 15 seconds while entering or exiting a stall. And in many workplaces with trans folks, everyone is used to them, and fine with their choices, making this non-problem, even more rare. So while I agree with their cause, they’re lying when they try to make this a bigger deal than it is.
(c) There’s no doubt that there’s a few bigots in the anti-trans side of this and other issues. But the meat of their argument (no pun intended) is more about traditions, societal values and the creep factor. Ignoring all that valid stuff, and only stressing the exceptional bigot, is cherry picking data and a lie of omission. The bigots are the exception, not the norm, and until you show otherwise, we have to assume there’s as many bigots on both sides of the argument. So the claim of bigotry does more to polarize and divide us, than to help, and it cuts both ways.
This was about bullying anyone that disagreed with the activists and it wasn’t about a real problem, about bigotry, or about "equal rights".
(4) The community claimed it was (d) an intrusion on tradition and religious liberty (e) it was poorly written (f) could be abused by pervs and creeps (g) it wasn’t passed in the right way. They told the truth.
(d) think we can all agree that most religions (and most of society) believes in separation of genders, especially while expelling waste (for thousands of years). Changing that impacts a lot more than 0.3% of the population. So whenever the law gets in conflict between two groups, you generally go with societal norms and traditions of the larger group (as long as it isn’t violating another groups rights, which we showed this wasn’t). Activists did the opposite: picked a fight, over a non-issue, didn’t try to compromise or find balance/progress, and then called everyone that disagreed with them bigots. And viola. They got the fight they picked.
(e)(f) The law was horribly written, since transexuals could already change their identity on their drivers license. This just basically said that anyone could use the other sexes bathroom by claiming to be trans (and not doing the investment to prove it). While I don’t care what bathroom they use, I get why the public has concerns about a creep peeing in the sink in front of their teenage daughters, or staring at them through the stall cracks. Those pretending there’s no valid concerns (and everyone else is a bigot) are being asshats. There were cases that were already getting the medias attention, and so the public had a point:
(g) The right way to have a debate is to list the pros and cons, and put it on on a public referendum (vote). When they don’t agree, you try to persuade them, and put it up again. Usually after a couple of tries, it will pass. It just takes longer to do it the right way (education, not force). But if you don’t have good arguments (like the numbers aren’t there, or people can point out trans-folks can just change their drivers licenses), then you can’t argue and persuade because the truth isn’t on your side: thus bullying is the only way to get their way.
After Charlotte city council ignored the public and passed the law, they got the natural reaction: public backlash, which the state politicians responded to. They passed a law back ( (HB2) that said that the state should have some consistency and they took the power away from Charlotte to override societal norms based on the 7 dumbest people they could put on a city council. And the left lost their nut and called this an anti-Trans racist law. Their actual concern was it was an anti-stupid-progressive law.
> NOTE: Progressives claim that the state should override the city/counties on issues they support, like taxes for causes like high speed rail, gun control, school regulations: “it has to be state wide”. But then they argue the opposite when it suits them, “the state shouldn’t intrude on a city law", when San Francisco is ignoring state and federal law as a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens, or causes like this. I’ve heard no consistent ethics for why, beyond, "I’ll know it when I see it". (E.g. the only ethic is "my side is always right").
(6) Losing their nut
The normally divisive and left-leaning media outlets (HuffPo, CNN, NYT, etc), all told half the story, to inflame the ignorant and make this seem like a great injustice, without giving their audience both sides of the story — and claimed this was about bigotry and a huge injustice. As you read, it’s a lot more nuanced than that.
These half truths inflamed the cadre of activists, always looking for something that impacts them in no way whatsoever, but they can get behind.
San Francisco jumped on board, saying this was so offensive they had to outlaw travel to such a vile place. (Instigating a sort of travel ban light, in a polarizing publicity stunt). While they had not passed nearly as aggressively bad ordinance themselves. If it’s such a good law, then why not copy it word-for-word and pass it in their city, and lead by example? Oh wait, hypocrisy never slows the city by the bay. And if you want more irony, SFO will still gladly fly to Saudi Arabia flights where they kill gays (and trans). Irony/hypocrisy impairment is a symptom of SJW disease.
(7) Companies follow the Bay Area stupidity
PayPal decided to put activism over tolerance and hypocritically announced they were pulling expansion plans from North Carolina over them self-legislating in the way that has no impact on Pay Pal employees whatsoever (since the law allows private companies to do what they want with bathroom regulations).
They released an ignorance filled rant claiming that, "every person has the right to be treated equally,”… except transgender folks, or anyone who claims to be transgender — then they get special privilege to use the other genders bathrooms. They of course do business in many other states and countries that have far more restrictive bathroom policies than North Carolina. So stupid (and hypocritical) it burns.
(8) The army of hypocritical performers came out in full force
It’s shameful when State legislators don’t clear their proposed laws with 80’s musicians trying to make themselves look important or politically correct for free Press. It’s embarrassing that the Press fails to notice that all these sunsetting celebs, did concerts in places that put gays to death, and they’re complaining because North Carolina said that if pedophiles and tranny’s want to use the other genders bathroom, they need to get their gender legally changed first.
- Bruce Springsteen makes a preachy letter to claim solidarity with the freedom fighters, assuming some creepy guy in a van with the pedobear on the side is a freedom fighter:
- He’s smacked down by a few others with common sense:
- Ringo Starr Cancels a concert in North Carolina, both of his fans that were going to attend the State fair to see him, were really upset.
- Bryan Adams brings Canadian hypocrisy to America by cancelling his concert (in Mississippi), immediately after returning from Egypt, where they put gays to death.
- A few other memes and tweets went around pointing out the hypocrisy with regards to lefty performers legally being able to deny service (and break contracts) to others in support of their personal beliefs — but the same folks don’t think that liberty should apply to those who make Pizza’s or bake cakes (for gay weddings).
- Again, I reiterate — I have no problems with gay weddings, just the double standard that says some people should be allowed the freedom to deny service and others should not. Justice is supposed to be blind, not politically correct.
- Cirque du Soleil cancels North Carolina shows over transgender law, but the show goes on in Dubai, where gays are put to death — continuing the trend of Canadians being stupid hypocrites (especially the French ones). Oh, BTW, nowhere in Canada do they have a law as lax as the Charlotte law, that caused the horrible backlash law saying you must change your birth certificate before using the other genders potty’s.
(9) The federal government became a tool of the ignorant
The progressive wing of the Justice Department tried to bully a state on something that is a state’s rights issue, and N.C. is not backing down but fighting back. Now whether you agree with NC law or not, if you care about state’s rights and the constitution, you can be on their side, or take the Justice Department’s side, of the losing-ist administration in history. (The Obama administration has set records, if you look at the amount of times the Supreme Court has declared them wrong).
If you have a good cause that you believe in, you just tell the truth, and let the public decide. If you have a progressive cause, you just lie and call everyone who disagrees with you names, and know that your base is too lazy and imbalanced to look things up, question, or consider the other sides points. (Or at least that’s what happened here).
Trans people drew a shitty lot in life. Society has a thing for knowing gender, and not liking gender fluidity and confusion. It’s a noble cause to try to be tolerant towards that. But that wasn’t what this fight was about. This fight wasn’t about equal rights — it was about special privilege. It wasn’t a big problem before — activists made it a problem by not trying to educate, and trying to bully the public instead (and using a few dickhead on a city council to do it). The public’s problem was with a dumb law that violated societal norms, and would allow creeps to abuse it. Ignoring that, and calling everyone that disagreed a bigot, is what inflamed both sides and got this fight into high gear. With the informed versus the progressives. Now that the activists coupled douchebaggery and verbal abuse, with trans-causes, they’ve probably done more to set the trans-movement back, more than it helped it forward — but that will give the politicians and activists more clickbait to fight about. And that’s what’s really important, right?
If this wasn’t activism, they could have admitted that people have legitimate concerns without being trans-phobic, and looked for some reasonable compromises… more modest laws like San Francisco passed that just said, "please provide at least one gender neutral or family bathroom where possible". That’s something that the public would have a lot harder time opposing. But they chose to pick a fight instead.
Tolerance cuts both ways. It’s not how you treat people you agree with — it’s how you treat people you disagree with that matters. And the activists, lied, called names, and passed stupid laws to try to bully anyone that didn’t agree with them. Then they’re shocked that others took offense and fought back? This whole fight is an example of why we fight — because progressives aren’t moderates, they’re cry-bullies that divide us, over issues that are thousands of miles from them (and have no impact on their lives), then are shocked at the tone they get back? Or they use the worst of the backlash to rationalize their bad behavior first. If you want to know what fascism looks like, it was saying that political correctness should win out over reason and common sense — the "big lie", telling a lie so brazen that the masses wouldn’t doubt it, and just follow (like the law was discrimination). Or that you should be intolerant towards others views, religion, and beliefs, like the activists are doing to North Carolina. It looks a lot like this.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. As soon as we can teach the left, to look for common ground, and working towards moderation and compromise, accepting that people have opposing views and the other side isn’t always 100% wrong (and they’re not 100% right). Basically, to get them to grow out of their mental teenage years, and stop seeing everything as a cause… and that there’s traditions and a pace of change that can be frustrating, but as long as we’re making progress, things will keep getting better. And if you push too hard and too fast (and are too abrasive), you’ll set things back. If they could stop and reason this out, they’d realize this is a non-issue, and we’d all be better off if we didn’t turn little things into big wars of ideology. But if progressives could stop and reason, they’d go extinct, so I guess they need to be loud-mouthed asshats for the survival of their species. Otherwise, folks might realize, things would progress just fine without them.
- Hypocrisy Video:
Questions about Transgendered people:
- Must watch video of the consequences of these activist laws:
- Dysphoria’s go beyond just gender, should we be required by law to entertain all their delusions? : https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/25/secret-life-of-the-human-pups-the-men-who-live-as-dogs?CMP=twt_gu
- Christopher Buckley’s take on Orwell’s 2+2=5 : https://www.facebook.com/christopher.buckley.100/posts/10153449961801105
- You could substitute O’bama for O’Brian
The exchange through torture goes something like this:
- O’Brien – You know perfectly well what is the matter with you, Winston. You’ve known it for years, though you’ve fought against the knowledge. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction… an effort of the will. How many genders are there, Winston?
- Winston – Two.
- O’Brien – And if the Democrat Party says there are not two, but five, or an infinite number of genders, then how many?
- Winston – Two.
- O’Brien – No. That’s no use. You’re lying. How many genders, please?
- Winston – Two. What else could I say?
- O’Brien – Five, or anything you like.
- Winston – Stop the pain.
- O’Brien – How can I help it?
- Winston – How can I help what I see in front of my eyes? Male and Female makes two.
- O’Brien – Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five, sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. Neither the past, nor the present, nor the future… He, She, Ze and Hir… Reality is in the human mind… not in the individual mind… which makes mistakes and soon perishes… but in the mind of the Party… which is collective and immortal.
- Winston – No.
- O’Brien – How many genders, Winston?
- Winston – Four. Four, I suppose there are four.
- Winston – I tried to see five. I wish I could.
- Winston – Which do you wish? To persuade me that you can see five genders, or really to see them?
- O’Brien – Really to see them.
- O’Brien – Again. How many, Winston?
- Winston – I don’t know.
- O’Brien – Better.