Gentle reader will have observed, perhaps, that I quite carefully avoid writing about topics, or mentioning searchable data, which would permit me to be identified. This is not accidental; I decline to expose myself to the kind of internet harassment which is now a standard part of the generic toolkit which today’s leftist carries with him.
But today . . . today, I will reveal Who I Am.
Before we get there, though, I want to share a few thoughts on what has become (in)famous across America as “H.B. 2,” or House Bill 2, the legislative designation for the statute which recently became law in North Carolina. Here’s a link to their legislative website that has the full text of the statute.
Several of my leftist Facebook friends have been feverishly posting all manner of tripe about how the thing is Just Such a Terrible Assault on the Very Humanity of these poor souls who once upon a time were more honestly called “cross-dressers” or “transvestites,” but now, in a dreary attempt at linguistic promotion to a scientifically valid category, call themselves “transgender.” Now, mind you, they still have either an X and a Y chromosome, or two X chromosomes, just as they did the day they were born. In many cases they will still be wearing a penis and testicles underneath their hot little black dress. But they’ll be dressed to the nines to look like a woman.
They are to be pitied more than censured. Dressing up to pretend like that is just pathetic, as it speaks to a self-dissatisfaction so profound that you have to wonder how they face the world each day. You don’t have to be a narcissist, but how much would you have to hate yourself not even to like what sort of human you are, so much that you priss about in public wearing heels?
“Identify”: That’s what we’re told these poor creatures are doing; they’re “identifying as” whatever it is they claim to be. By which they mean “self-identify,” because of course biology has identified them as male or female. Yes, I’m perfectly aware that there are children born with bits and pieces of both, but we call those sorts of things “birth defects”; there are a tiny number of those born per 100,000 live births; and there’s a very well-regarded organization — the March of Dimes — which takes it for its mission the avoidance and correction of such birth defects. We’re not talking about adults with uncorrected birth defects. We’re talking about adults who want to play-act at being what they’re not.
And of course, there are the cross-dressers who, for want of a more gentle expression, are neither more nor less than sexual deviants. They don’t “identify” as this-that-or-the-other. This is just how they get their jollies. Excuse me if I’m not impressed.
In any event, North Carolina passed a statute which does three principal things. It requires schools which have bathrooms, locker rooms, and other spaces in which it is reasonably foreseeable that a student will be in whatever stage of undress, and which spaces are capable of being used by more than one person at the same time, to designate such spaces as being for the use of either but not both males and females. [Single-user spaces are not required to be so designated.] And it requires them to permit the multi-user spaces to be used by, and only by, persons whose biological sex, as indicated on their birth certificate, matches the sex designation of the space. The bill requires “public agencies,” which are defined so as to include pretty much every governmental actor other than schools, to make similar sex and use designations for their own multi-user bathrooms and changing facilities. For both schools and public agencies there are exceptions — pretty narrow, to be sure — to the use restrictions. Finally, the bill prohibits localities — cities, counties, and their respective agencies — from requiring private actors, principally contractors doing business with those localities, from establishing, as a condition of doing business with the local government, a duty to permit cross-dressers from using whatever multi-user space they please at the moment.
That’s it. The legislature wished to exercise its absolute prerogative to centralize decisions such as that at the level of the state. And then it exercised its authority to set the ground rules for the entire state.
I’ve read that statute through multiple times and I’m just not seeing the hatred in it.
Oh, but you see, the hatred is in my refusal to accept as legitimate your little game of “today I’m a girl.” No you’re not, and I have zero moral obligation to play-act along with you. If you’re so damned proud of who and what you are, then own it. It’s like homosexuals who want you to call them “gay.” No, you’re not “gay,” you’re homosexual. If you’re so all-fired-up proud of it, then call it by its right name. Don’t hind behind a euphemism. More to the point: You have no legal right to demand that I play your games, that I adjust my life to make room for what you do with your genitals to get yourself off.
To get an idea of just how horribly messed up things have got in this country, recently a fellow went to the University of Washington campus. He’s a white male, roughly 5’10” tall, and obviously adult. He asked people he ran into to explain to him, if they could, why he was not a 6’5″ Chinese seven-year-old girl. No. Seriously. He did this, and those sad-sack “social justice warriors” (here’s a list of some of the most prominent, so you don’t, if you’re responsible for hiring in your company, accidentally hire any of them) couldn’t muster up the guts to tell him he was simply incorrect, that he was neither female, nor 6’5″ tall, nor Chinese, nor seven years old. One girl politely questions whether he’s quite that tall, but that’s it. Watch the whole video. As the commentary accompanying the video at the link points out, these people are ripe for dictatorship. Over at Ace of Spades, they connect the dots:
“People conditioned to accept outrageous falsehoods from people claiming to have a special right to their own reality are an existential threat to the republic. If a 5’10” white man can tell you he’s a 6’5″ Chinese girl, and you are required to believe him because each person constructs his own quantum reality moment by moment, it’s no difficult thing to also accept that killing the kulaks and putting the farms under inefficient state rule will result in a greater grain harvest.”
This is all the more true when you consider that there’s no logical boundary line between my quantum reality and yours. You are a part of mine, and I of yours. If I “identify” as a struggling member of the proletarian class, how am I not equally entitled to “identify” you as a member of the kulak class, whom I “identify” as my oppressors? If I convince an entire nation to “identify” as the victim of a Diktat designed (ed: as it in fact was) for the indefinite future to suppress my people, to burden them in this world and the next with the responsibility for a war (which I “identify” as having been forced upon my reluctant Volksgenossen), where is the objection to my “identifying” whatever group I please as having sold me and mine down the river?
Do you see how hilariously funny “identification” can be?
I don’t have daughters, a fact prominent among my list of blessings. I was terrified I might. When, before the birth of our third son, the wife decided that with this one we were going to find out ahead of time (she was convinced her luck had finally turned and I was horrified she might be right), we went to the ultrasound clinic. After doing the usual sorts of measurements and whatnot, the tech kind of rolled things around on the screen so we could see better and there was no doubt about what that was, showing between the femurs. My relief was so great I exclaimed, “Hat trick!!” That almost became his nickname.
People like the men who play-act as women are why my wife and I have not permitted our sons to go to public bathrooms unaccompanied until they were of an age to fight or flee on their own. Remember, if this man “identifies” as a woman, then he views my son as fair game. And for the heterosexual pervert who simply wants to prey on women and especially small girls, how much of a leap is it for him to dress up (hell: he needn’t even do that; he can just say he “identifies” as female and it’s open season in the girl’s locker room) in order to gain access to his victims? He’s already a monster and knows it; why should a little rouge and eye liner upset him?
The retort is made that I’m tarring all the transvestites with the same brush. I’m not. In no way am I saying that every man who insists on using the women’s room is a pervert who’s just trolling for his next victim. What I am saying is that there will be some. And I cannot know, until it is too late, whether this particular man is or is not among them. You know, we don’t screen every last passenger who gets aboard an airliner because we think everyone is a terrorist; we screen them because we don’t know that they aren’t.
So who am I?
Well, I “identify” as the Emperor Napoleon.
I demand that I be treated as the Emperor Napoleon, conqueror of Europe, may rightfully expect to be treated. I demand that I be given whatever works of art I demand for my imperial collection (got my eyes on a couple of Vermeers from the Met). I demand that the commanding officers of the armed forces recognize in me their commander-in-chief. The laws of course do not apply to the emperor, so we may dispense with that. And every, but every woman is mine by right of sovereignty. You, o peons, may address me (while averting your plebian eyes, of course) as “Your Imperial Majesty” or simply, in later conversation, just as “Your Majesty.” I demand that airplanes, buses, elevators, and all other forms of public accommodation shall await my pleasure. You must treat me according to my royal station; we royalty suffer untold pangs of degradation when our sacred persons are denied the recognition that is lawfully ours. You non-royals simply don’t understand.
If some nasty ol’ 6’4″ hairy-legged man in sensible shoes has the right to cop a squat beside your eight-year-old daughter, then I have the right to be the Emperor Napoleon. There is no defensible moral or functional distinction between those positions.