Matt Walsh:
Dispatch from the Inevitable File out of Seattle: A man undressed in the women’s locker room of a local pool. Actually, he entered the locker room on numerous occasions, once while young girls were getting changed.
Under normal circumstances, the police would be called and the intrusive creep would be arrested. However, Washington state just passed a law requiring that all public facilities allow patrons to use the bathrooms and locker rooms matching their “gender identity.” Most media outlets are reporting — based only on assumption and nothing else — the guy was “protesting” the transgender bathroom policies. I’m not sure if that was the case, but whatever his reasons, law enforcement and the facility’s managers had their hands tied.
Who’s to say he wasn’t “transgender”? Who’s to say he didn’t “identify” as a woman in that moment? And whether he was “transgender” or not, considering “transgender” is a mental illness, what is the difference between a woman being forced to share a bathroom with a man who thinks he’s a man versus being forced to share it with a man who thinks he’s a woman? Either way, it’s still a man. And this man has very conveniently demonstrated that fact.
As the sane members of society have been warning for a while now, when you allow men to invade the privacy of women, you end up in a situation where men invade the privacy of women. When you permit men to walk into the women’s bathroom, the result is — shockingly — men walking into the women’s bathroom. Washington is one of the first to enact one of these patently psychotic, utterly preposterous “transgender” bathroom laws statewide (by the way, the law wasn’t passed through the state legislature, it was simply decreed by the bureaucratic Marxists on Washington’s Human Rights Commission). And it took only a few weeks for the progressive initiative to potentially endanger children. Imagine what it can achieve in a year!
Some may consider this incident hilarious, and although I’m sympathetic to that perspective, and I do enjoy when liberal ideas are exposed as fantastically idiotic, I can’t really laugh about it while women and small kids are involved. But funny or not, it has served to highlight two particular elements to the progressive war on gender. Keep in mind as we proceed that I am not making any of this up. The quotes I share are 100 percent authentic. All of this madness is actually occurring, I promise you, in the real world.
Now, here are two things we’ve learned:
Progressives Erase Lines and Don’t Know Where to Redraw Them
Back in the old days, it was relatively easy to tell if a man was a man because if he was a man then he was a man. You could ask yourself, “Gee, I wonder if that man is a man?” And you’d realize you answered your own question. In similar fashion, you didn’t know everything about a woman just by the fact that she was a woman, but you at least knew she was a woman, which meant she was a woman. If a man was a man, then he was a man; and if a woman was a woman, then she was a woman. It made sense, I thought.
We had our lines drawn. A thing was what it was, and once you knew what it was, you could easily distinguish it from what it wasn’t. None of this was confusing until progressives got involved. Progressives have always been that boring stoner kid in your 10th-grade philosophy class who asks insufferably stupid questions that he thinks are profound. “Yeah, man, but what if a thing, like, isn’t what it is, or is what it isn’t, you know?” Those kids always annoyed me. Little did I know I was entering a world run by them.
Now the lines have been erased, just as progressives erased them with marriage and just as they erased them in many other areas, including the womb. These days, you can’t identify someone by who theyare but by who they think they are or want to be.
No longer do we declare with confidence “I am.” Instead we say, “I identify as.” What we identify as has taken the place of what we are, and in the process, all form of identity — every line of delineation and distinction that defines us — has disintegrated.
But the problem with erasing a line is you’ll soon discover — usually the hard way — that it was there for a reason. GK Chesterton warned that a society should never take a wall down until it knows the reason it was put up. A progressive is someone who demolishes the wall just for the sake of it and then hurriedly tries to re-erect it somewhere down the road when the rabid dog it was fencing in starts to eat his face.
So, back to Seattle. A few money quotes from the local news report on the locker room incident. First, I really enjoyed this one from a woman who witnessed the man intruding in the women’s locker room:
“Really bizarre,” MaryAnne Sato said. ”I can’t imagine why they would want to do that anyway!”
Ms. Sato “can’t imagine” why a man would want to go into a place where women are taking off their clothes. “Bizarre,” she calls it. Yes, it is quite the mystery. What could a man find appealing about naked women? Hmm.
According to the article, David Takami, Seattle Parks spokesman, says they’re working on preventing similar occurrences in the future:
Right now, there’s no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.
Takami explains further:
“This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was ‘identifying’ as a woman,” Takami wrote in a statement to KING 5. “We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities.”
Ms. Sato chimes in with this:
“Either identify yourself as a transgender or you’re not and you’re just taking advantage of a loophole,” MaryAnn Sato, who uses the locker room a few times a week, told KING-5 TV.
Again, if there weren’t innocent women and kids endangered by this madness, you’d have to laugh. A “loophole”? No, ma’am, that fellow was not taking advantage of a loophole. The law is specifically designed to allow men in the women’s locker room. Yes, they may intend only for men who “identify as women” to enter, but whatever he “identifies as,” his actual identity has not changed. The law is made to protect the “right” of a penis-bearing individual to enter a room where vagina-bearing individuals are naked. That is literally the entire point of it. This man did not discover a bug; he simply took advantage of a feature.
But what’s incredible, although not surprising, is that the very people intent on destroying gender norms are now in the position of having to construct new ones. Washington state must come up with “protocols” describing “how a person should demonstrate their gender.” The easiest identification protocol is the one we all subscribed to until progressives decided we must restructure our entire society to cater to the mentally ill: that is, you “demonstrate your gender” by simply being whatever gender you are. If that’s out of the question, we’re forced to devise rules for how a person must demonstrate the gender they want to be or think they are. Ironically, whatever system these fools devise, it will inevitably be more limiting than the original one.
They were convinced this man didn’t “identify as” a woman because he looked like a man and wore board shorts. So what? Are we saying a man who “identifies as a woman” has to dress like one? But what does it mean to dress like one? I thought progressives just spent 40 damned years telling us there’s no such thing as “dressing like a woman”? Now we’re going back to that in order to accommodate the desires of homosexual cross-dressers? Not only must progressives rebuild the old wall, but they must rebuild other walls they already tore down decades ago. Suddenly, it turns out, women can’t wear board shorts. Does that mean women can’t have close cropped hair or a deep voice or hair on their legs? I certainly feel that way, as a personal preference, but I thought feminists were fervently against any notion that women should be required to act, speak or look feminine? Have we changed our minds on that? Can someone write a memo or something just so I can understand where we are now?
Progressivism is so intent on destruction that it even destroys its own “progress.” Amazing.
Remember back in March, 2015, when a man went into a women’s locker room at Planet Fitness and the woman who complained had her membership revoked?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/
Well, she’s suing the gym.
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/10/07/transgender-locker-room-lawsuit
I have known an androgynous person in my past.
Was it just double recessives that he never was able to grow a beard, never had an Adam’s apple or brow ridge?
Or, perhaps was he a twisted XY that was going to be an XX before some cosmic ray hit it, or something?
He was never confused, however.
He always felt he was all man.
He married, had children and those children had children.
When we accept people at their face value, are we doing them a favor if it is a false front?
There have been phony blacks in the NAACP and BLM.
Are they scammers, mentally ill, or something else?
Wimpy people who are like little flowers because they are so easily offended probably will never grow up if we keep kow-towing to their every whim.
Babies who are kow-towed to become little tyrants who rule the house.
This is the level we are sinking to with laws like these.
Let’s face it. Democrats fully support sexual deviants and want to make them “more Equal” with greater rights, while at the same time removing protections and rights to privacy from these pervert’s potential victims. If the Catholic pedophile scandal didn’t happen to have involved Christians, (the rabidly-radical political left’s most hated social association group,) I have no doubt these same Democrats would have more likely than not have defended those (-Catholic church’s-) perverts just as they do NAMBLA and radical Islamic rapists.