John Kasich (shown) may be the most pro-amnesty Republican running for president, but now we learn he’s also pro something else: having men in women’s bathrooms and boys showering with girls. This is apparently the case as the Ohio governor recently stated he “‘wouldn’t have signed” the recent North Carolina “bathroom bill.”
While being interviewed by CBS Face the Nation host John Dickerson on Sunday, Kasich said he opposed the law “out of concerns about LGBT discrimination,” as WND.com put it. Yet the law, known as House Bill 2 (HB 2), was a defensive measure — designed to preserve a common-sense status quo — and enacted in response to a radical Charlotte city ordinance. As North Carolina lieutenant governor Dan Forest explained, “The giant loophole they created was that this ordinance would then allow any person to enter any bathroom at any time,” reported WND. He continued, “A man can enter a women’s bathroom, a women’s locker room, a shower facility. They could enter a girls’ bathroom, a girls’ locker room.” Yet it gets worse. WND further related, the “Charlotte ordinance said that the business community had to comply with this ordinance,” Forest tells us. “They said it was sex discrimination to have men’s room and women’s room labels on your doors.”
In addition, Forest says that under North Carolina’s constitution, cities may not enact public-accommodations laws — that is a state-government role. So the state’s general assembly remedied this overreach with HB 2, which dictates that whether at issue is a government school or agency, “every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility [is] to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex.” Private businesses, of course, can still formulate their own bathroom policies.
Thus, HB 2 merely restores moral and social sanity and constitutionality. Yet the rule of law — and that boys should use the boys’ room and girls the girls’ room — is apparently considered radical by many of today’s pseudo-elites. And John Kasich has now sided with these extremists.
Perhaps, though, he’s fallen victim to a phenomenon evident here, one we can call “argument-flipping.” Sometimes the result of ignorance and corrupted thinking and sometimes of a Machiavellian desire to manipulate the masses, this is when the media and other culture shapers portray a longstanding, common-sense element of the status quo as radical and a radical attempt to change it as reasonable. A good example has been the contraception–mandate controversy of recent years. The Left proposed the unprecedented: forcing some Americans to pay for other Americans’ contraception. Yet labeled extreme were not the advocates of this radical position, but the defenders of the sane status quo stating that people should fund their own recreation — and that this should include recreational sex. In fact, these defenders were actually accused of waging a “War on Women.”
Likewise, that a child or adult should use the bathroom designated for his sex is accepted by virtually everyone the world over and is common sense, but you wouldn’t know it listening to media coverage. And the business community has joined this phalanx of fakery. Paypal and Deutsche Bank nixed expansions they had planned in North Carolina; Apple, Google, and American Airlines have voiced opposition to HB 2; and certain organizations have cancelled or are considering cancelling events in the state.
So argument-flipping can make radicalism appear the status quo, yet this brings us to another point: Undisciplined, free-association change has become such a tradition that anything opposing it — including tradition itself — can sometimes be viewed as an enemy of society. The result is pseudo-elites who consider altar boys more bizarre than altered boys.
Speaking of which, there must be a really good reason for altering civilization to accommodate a self-altering <1 percent of the population, correct? What makes someone legitimately “transgendered”?
We’re told that such people suffer from “gender dysphoria” (although activists prefer it be declassified as a disorder and consider it “normal” variation), which is, we’re told, intense distress induced by the sense that one’s body is not consistent with the “gender” he feels he is. And what of the medical test used to diagnose it?
It doesn’t exist.
There is no blood test for gender dysphoria (GD). There is no identifiable genetic marker. There is no brain scan. Rather, the diagnosis is made based on, as PsychCentral.com puts it, “strong and persistent cross-gender identification”; in other words, strong and persistent feelings that you actually are a member of the opposite sex.
Feelings — that’s it. Thus, giving a man access to the women’s bathroom on a GD basis is no different from granting him access to the Oval Office merely because he strongly feels he’s the president. The latter would be a delusion (assuming the man’s name isn’t Obama), and, likewise, assigning “transgender” status has no scientific basis whatsoever. There’s nothing indicating GD isn’t a purely psychological phenomenon.
And we should hope that it is because, says former “transsexual” Alan Finch, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.… Giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.” And it’s only a civilization starved for Truth that would address psychological problems by creating social problems, as it puts boys who fancy they have girls inside of them inside girls’ locker rooms.
As for these problems, Lt. Gov. Forest points out that the state “had multiple calls from women who had been sexually abused in a bathroom” and who were literally traumatized by the idea of men being allowed in their facilities. Of course, many pooh-pooh these concerns, but whatever “transgender” people may or may not do, “transgender” policies are an avenue of opportunity for sexual predators. For just as someone willing to commit murder won’t bat an eye at obtaining an illegal gun, someone willing to commit sexual assault may not flinch at masquerading as “transgendered.”
Moreover, given that this issue is defined by feelings and that the “transgendered” are never forced to justify theirs, why should the majority have to justify theirs? Must the desires of nine out of 10 people be subordinated to those of one person in 100? If the answer is yes, then we have finally identified the truly privileged one percent.
