Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Shower Nuts Know They're Wrong

Our friend Alvin McEwen cross-posted something he noticed yesterday at Pam's House Blend and his own site, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters.

I don't know if our suburban county was the first place where the Nutty Ones tried to make the case that outlawing discrimination would result in male pedophiles and predators lurking in ladies rooms, leering at the women and girls and waving their festering penises at them. Because of overly permissive laws passed by liberals, there is nothing you can do to stop them! Maybe Montgomery County was the first place they tried that stupid line, but it certainly was not the last. We've seen it repeated all over the country.

Missoula, Montana -- a place I have always wanted to go, by the way -- just passed a nice nondiscrimination law, and the Concerned Women for America, naturally, opposed it, citing, among other things, the "men in the ladies room" argument.

Alvin noticed something in a Missoulian article:
Even one of the most staunch opponents of those laws can't point to increases in frivolous lawsuits or sexual predation. Still, Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright said such ordinances lead the country down the wrong track.

"We have a constitutional protection for religious freedom in our First Amendment," Wright said. "There is not a constitutional protection for sexual orientation, and yet judges and city councils and others are acting as if sexual orientation trumps religious freedom."

The Concerned Women aim to bring biblical principles to public policy, and the Montana office opposes the Missoula ordinance. It's one member of Notmybathroom.com, a group that formed to defeat the local ordinance in large part because of fear sexual offenders will prey on women and children in bathrooms and locker rooms.

Wright couldn't point to places that have counted increases in sexual offenses because of such laws, but she said such data is beside the point.

"It doesn't go back to numbers," Wright said. "It goes back to the issue that people will have legal rights that will trump other people's rights. The right of a woman or a girl to feel safe in a fitting room, a locker, a restroom, their rights will be trumped by a person who is claiming their sexual orientation right has legal protection." Other towns see protection, little trouble with anti-discrimination ordinances

Alvin drilled down to the core of meaning in this little snatch of interview. He wrote;
While there should be some appreciation of Wright's admittance that the "men in womens bathrooms" argument is without proof, she shouldn't be able to get away with claiming that the lack of proof is beside the point, mainly because the lack of proof is the point.

In the next sentence after she admits the inaccuracy of the "men in women's bathrooms" claim, she says that that the right of women or girls to feel safe would be trumped by pro-lgbt laws.

But Wright's concern leaves me scratching my head. Didn't she just admit that she doesn't know of any example in which the safety of women and girls would be threatened?

And yes, he's right. The Concerned Women for America -- and here we have the rare case where their spokesperson is a woman -- have used the "men in the ladies room" thing more than anyone. They believe that the safety of women and children requires the right to discriminate against gay and transgender Americans. But in all the regions of the country where such discrimination has been banned -- and there are lots of places, including, now, our county -- there has been no increase in sex crimes and no reports of anyone using the nondiscrimination laws as cover to lurk in women's shower-rooms and bathrooms.

And they know it.

They just keep saying the same thing over and over again because it scares people who live in restricted little worlds. If you are paying attention to the issues, you will have recognized this argument from all the previous times it has been used, and you would understand that it is just a formula that the self-righteousness carnival brings to town to excite the locals. You would know there's nothing to it, it's just a talking point. Predators and pedophiles are not going to pretend to be women, even "women on the inside," so they can lurk and leer and molest women and children. That's not how it works. But if you only know what you hear on talk radio and see on Fox, you can be led to believe that there is a real danger of that happening.

Alvin concludes:
Wright further admits why CWA opposes pro-lgbt non-discrimination ordinances and of course it has nothing to do with "safety issues."
Wright said one big reason Concerned Women opposes such laws is because the group does not want local ordinances to be used as stepping stones toward making gay marriage legal and teaching it in the public schools.

In other words, lgbts having the right to be free from discrimination is just another way to "force gay marriage."

By the way, as a born-and-raised Westerner, I want to point out that this is Montana we're talking about. We think of that as a pretty conservative region, but it may turn out to be conservative in a good way. People there value their freedom and realize they have to work together to protect their own and their neighbors' liberty. I recently came across this video from another town in Montana. As far as I'm concerned, this is what it's all about -- people taking care of each other:

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one is talking about a law that only females can use the girl's room

what CWA wants it for the government to stay out of a business owner's right to set his own policies

why not say all gender-specific bathrooms are sexist?

if we passed a law forbidding gender segregated bathrooms, do you think it would endanger females?

I know there's no proof it would

what do you say, TTF?

April 14, 2010 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the next sentence after she admits the inaccuracy of the "men in women's bathrooms" claim, she says that that the right of women or girls to feel safe would be trumped by pro-lgbt laws.

But Wright's concern leaves me scratching my head. Didn't she just admit that she doesn't know of any example in which the safety of women and girls would be threatened?"

Well, she say she couldn't point to any specific instances but that's it's important for girls to feel safe. The only "claim" anyone has made is for the potential and the concerns of women.

Alvin, you know you're wrong.

On a topic of proof, TTF says all kinds of things without proof all the time. Examples:

1. Homosexuality is irresistable among those afflicted.

2. Teaching kids to use condoms will reduce teen pregancy.

3. Homosexual behavior is completely safe.

4. Homosexuals are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

April 14, 2010 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in a rare bit of good news for TTF, Dems hold on to Boca Raton:

"There was no Massachusetts Miracle in South Florida Tuesday.

Democrat Ted Deutch won the nation's first congressional election of 2010, allowing his party to retain the overwhelmingly Democratic Palm Beach-Broward District 19 seat that "fire-breathing liberal" Robert Wexler represented for 13 years.

Incomplete returns late Tuesday showed Deutch with a sizeable lead over Republican Ed Lynch and no-party candidate Jim McCormick. Lynch conceded the race before 10 p.m."

April 14, 2010 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more good news for you guys, CNN today:

Obama 53 -- Romney 45
Obama 54 -- Huckabee 45
Obama 55 -- Palin 42
Obama 55 -- Gingrich 43

might be illusory though

April 14, 2010 2:02 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"We have a constitutional protection for religious freedom in our First Amendment," Wright said.

Not when the practice of that first amendment requires that you deny other Americans of their civil liberties.

"There is not a constitutional protection for sexual orientation, and yet judges and city councils and others are acting as if sexual orientation trumps religious freedom."

The civil rights of LGBT Americans do trump the “religious freedom” to take them away.

And while we’re on the subject, your “majority rules” song and dance is unconstitutional when it comes to voting on the rights of other Americans. If majority rule can pass laws against one group of Americans, then they can pass any law against any group, for any reason--ultimately resulting in theocratic-tyranny.

Which is exactly what these hate groups want--control over the rest of us.
---
Great video, Jim.

April 14, 2010 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Not when the practice of that first amendment requires that you deny other Americans of their civil liberties."

improv, you're an idiot

constitutional protections protect from the government

free speech is absolute even if a deviant doesn't like it

April 14, 2010 2:49 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon wrote:
On a topic of proof, TTF says all kinds of things without proof all the time. Examples:
1. Homosexuality is irresistable among those afflicted.
2. Teaching kids to use condoms will reduce teen pregancy.
3. Homosexual behavior is completely safe.
4. Homosexuals are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals.


Just for the record, in case anyone is not familiar with Anon's "style," no one at TTF has said any of these things. The possible exception is #2, clearly a condom properly used will prevent pregnancy. We have quoted people and statistics on this point, there really isn't anything to debate there. The latex blocks the sperm, end of story. I don't recall seeing research on the effectiveness of education in proper usage, but I would say with some confidence that if you teach them how to use the thing right, they'll be more likely to use it right, with a reduction in pregnancy rates.

The other statements here appear to be meaningless and/or irrelevant to TTF's mission.

JimK

April 14, 2010 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The possible exception is #2, clearly a condom properly used will prevent pregnancy."

so will abstinence when "properly used"

the argument that TTF endlessly makes is that science has proven that abstinence is impossible to teach but condom usage is in a different magical category of teachability

April 14, 2010 4:32 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

the argument that TTF endlessly makes is that science has proven that abstinence is impossible to teach but condom usage is in a different magical category of teachability

Again, no. Abstinence-until-marriage education tries to use shame and fear to scare young people into avoiding sex. It doesn't keep them from having sex, it only poisons their appreciation of it. A recent study did show that using facts and reason with young people can result in their delaying having sex until an age when they might be more responsible. We're all in favor of that, I think, teaching students why they should be abstinence, giving them reasons, letting them choose the best thing.

Condoms work if you use them right, there's nothing magical about that. If you block the sperm there will be no impregnation. There are some skills to know in correct usage, and those skills are easily taught, again there is no magic required, you just tell someone what to do and it's not hard to do it.

I'm getting weary of these lies, Anon, and will start deleting them if you keep this up. If you disagree with TTF's positions, fine, give us your side. But it's stupid to come to our web site and tell us we believe X and Y when it is obvious to anyone who can read that your statements are false.

JimK

April 14, 2010 4:48 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“free speech is absolute even if a deviant doesn't like it”

Irrelevant.

April 14, 2010 7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

irrelevant to what, idimproviot?

btw, Jim now says the following haven't been proven:

1. Homosexuality is irresistable among those afflicted.

2. Teaching kids to use condoms will reduce teen pregancy.

3. Homosexual behavior is completely safe.

4. Homosexuals are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

April 14, 2010 7:40 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, anyone who can read knows I did not say that.

JimK

April 14, 2010 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

Hey, AnonBigot!

Did you hear that Montgomery County is the second most liberal county in the entire USA?

Time for you to move!

Read the article here:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/04152010/prinnew164226_32550.php

April 14, 2010 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Level Headed said...

Seems JimK is always scratching his head. May I suggest you try some new shampoo. Try a natural one. The chemicals of what you are using must be distorting your thoughts and writings.

April 14, 2010 10:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heterosexuality, thy name is promiscuity, "Anonymous"

April 14, 2010 11:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
Bigotry and ignorance is irristible among those afflicted.

April 14, 2010 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What a moving video, Jim. It's heartening to see a community pull together and stand up in support of their minority members to protect them from injustices like discrimination and threats.

April 15, 2010 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Besides fallacious, straw man statements, anonymous specializes in gratuitously insulting people. It makes him feel clever.

This is archtypal trollery.

April 15, 2010 9:53 AM  
Blogger David Weintraub said...

Nice, Jim - I didn't see this until after I published my post about Missoula.

The quote from Wendy Wright is priceless - 'the data don't matter at all, it's all about our feeeeeeelings.' Sorry, Wendy - you were correct when you acknowledged that the right of people to actually BE safe as who they are trumps the "right" of others to a subjective "feeling" with no basis in reality. You just didn't realize it.

April 16, 2010 10:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home