Here is a hysterical screed meant to induce panic in the hearts and minds of garden variety wingnuts, written by Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily:
Yes, look how far we going! So, if you’re guessing that this is typical anti-trans panic about “men in dresses” peering at wingnut ladies in the bathroom, you’re right.
Homosexual activists are demanding cities across Kansas add sexual orientation and “gender identity” to their protected classes, a move attorneys warn could hit even churches and other faith-based groups.
The “coed shower” plans have been around for several years, with the infamous battle in Montgomery County, Md., several years ago in which officials adopted special provisions for those who choose an alternative sexual lifestyle then manipulated election rules so that voters were not allowed to express their opinion on the law at the ballot box.
If you’re confused as to how we went from, in one paragraph, anti-discrimination laws, to “coed showers” in the second paragraph, then you are obviously not an excitable wingnut.
Word on the latest effort comes from Liberty Counsel Action, which says Kansas is the “latest battleground” over “granting special rights to homosexuals and cross-dressers.”
Well, if it’s coming from Liberty Counsel, the wingnut welfare emporium of law firms, that enhances the credibility of this report.
“Human Relations Commissions and/or homosexual activist groups in Lawrence, Hutchinson, Salina, Wichita and Pittsburg have asked their respective city councils to add ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to protected classes,” Liberty Counsel Action reported.
Lawrence passed the ordinance and the Hutchinson city council will vote May 1, the group said.
The organization noted, “If the Hutchinson city measure passes, places of worship that rent out to the general public would be required to rent out their building for homosexual marriages or drag queen parties.”
Are there lots of “drag queen parties” in Hutchinson, Kansas? Just curious. But yes, this is the same old issue — no one wants to make churches do anything that violates their beliefs, but in those cases where they market their non-worship facilities for the general public, they should be expected to abide by the laws of the general public.
Under the recommended changes, an employer, landlord or business owner would be deprived of the ability to make decisions based on his or her own religious faith. People would be allowed to choose a restroom or shower based on their “gender identity,” which may or may not be linked to their “birth sex.”
It’s sort of like how religious people with “deeply held moral beliefs” about the inferiority of racial minorities had to suck it up and act like adults after the Civil Rights Act passed. And really, again, why are we talking about showers?
If a female is uncomfortable with the idea of a man dressed as a woman sharing the restroom or locker room facilities, business owners and others are encouraged to offer “the use of a private restroom to a member of the public, or encouraging that individual to wait until the other person has left the restroom.”
Except that this isn’t about “men dressed as women.” I am aware that wingnuts and actual factual knowledge are like oil and water, but it would be useful for Bob Unruh to take a little time to learn what the hell a transgender person actually is. Transgender people are actually real people who, as medical science can very easily explain, are born with physical bodies that do not match their brains, gender-wise. It’s not an “agenda.” It’s reality.
Here’s Mat Staver, one of the aforementioned Liberty Counsel Wingnut Welfare lawyers, with some word salad:
Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, argued that all rational Americans are against discrimination, but making “gender identity” a civil right, comparable to a disability or a skin color, just creates more bias.
Shorter version: Mat Staver doesn’t believe in the reality of transgender people, therefore he should be able to stick his fingers in his ears. This man is a lawyer…
“The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid the foundation for future civil rights laws,” he said.
Yes, and science and reality have proven that LGBT people should be considered protected classes.
“Homosexual activists are attempting to hijack the civil rights train by claiming that homosexual behavior deserves the same special protection granted to racial and gender minorities.”
And transgender people are, um, a “gender minority.” Again, this man is a lawyer, at least in theory.
Staver contended that if “gender identity” laws become commonplace, “then any person who speaks against deviant sexual practices will be vilified, their rights will be thwarted, and their freedom of religion and of conscience will be crushed.”
Well, that’s melodramatic.
And those “coed showers” in public accommodations?
“Individuals who are … uncomfortable with sharing locker or shower facilities with a transgender person should be accommodated by allowing those individuals to shower or change at a time when they will be able to use the facility in private,” the Hutchinson plan states.
Okay, besides the gym, what the hell are these people talking about? The next section of the piece has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the piece, but I guess Bob Unruh felt the need to make his dumb readers panic even more:
WND reported recently that a New York legal team has sued an American evangelist over his biblically based religious belief that homosexuality is a sin.
“I am an American citizen [being targeted] over the persecution of homosexuals as they define it as a crime against humanity – for speaking the truth of the Bible in a foreign country,” Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries told WND after he found out about the legal action.
He said the definition of “crime against humanity” comes from European progressives, and the accusations appear to be based on his speeches and writings about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.
Scott Lively is the most homophobic man in America and his seminar in Uganda, which was filled with hate and lies, was a direct precursor to the Kill the Gays bill in that country. Sorry, wingnuts. Actions have consequences.
Back to trans panic:
WND also reported that the council for Baltimore County, Md., was working on a plan that would prevent “discrimination” cases that primarily involve men who dress as women and portray themselves as being female.
No, again, it’s about transgender people. The fact that wingnuts don’t believe in reality really doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist.
Ruth Jacobs, president of Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government, which maintains detailed information on the issue at notmyshower.com, says the bill’s definition amounts to “gender identity theft.”
“Many people believe that transgender people have had surgery to change their sex, but in most cases they haven’t,” she told WND. “I call them a fake female.”
Well, isn’t Ruth clever? (No.) Is she saying that she wouldn’t have any problem with this if all the transgender people would simply transition?
According to the MCRG website, such bills “legally protect cross-dressers and transvestite behavior by forbidding discrimination against men who self-identify as women.”
“This dangerous Peeping Tom bill will allow cross-dressing men to enter women’s bathrooms and dressing rooms even if they are sexually attracted to women.”
AND lesbians can do that as well. Except that this isn’t about “cross-dressing men.” I feel like I’ve been making the same point for the last twelve paragraphs, but until wingnuts get it through their heads that transgender is actually real, we’ll continue making the point.
MCRG noted that since Montgomery County, Md., adopted the change several years ago, women have been raped in the restrooms at Montgomery Community College, Asbury nursing home, Pelican restaurant and the Bethesda Hyatt.
“Women are easily victimized and ladies’ bathrooms can be risky places when men have access,” Jacobs noted.
Wait, have they been raped by cross-dressers? Because I think that would be an important detail to discuss. Or is Bob Unruh simply disingenuously inducing panic in extremely dumb people?
She also pointed out the outrage when a 48-year-old man went into a women’s locker room and was changing his clothes with little girls present.
Outrageous! Wait, was it a 48 year-old transgender person?
Our opponents really are going off the deep end, y’all.
