Sex fear rights: A time-tested method for defeating civil rights

President Trump recently reversed an Obama executive order that said schools had to let transgender students use the restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities of the sex they identify with. This reversal marked a landmark achievement for the coalition of states’ rights and sex fear rights. However, while a major victory, it was far from their first. You see, when a historically discriminated minority pushes for civil rights, it’s tough to argue they shouldn’t have them. Civil rights are supposed to be for everybody, so how can you deny them to a specific group? Well, centuries of denying rights to various minorities have produced at least two effective arguments. The first is states’ rights: The right of a state to decide who to discriminate against and who not to. The second is what you could call, “sex fear rights”: If the minority is given equal rights, it will somehow result in the rape, molestation, or sexual assault of some other group or groups.

Perhaps the most well-documented example of the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition (SRSFRC) involves discrimination against blacks. For centuries, white people used the argument that if black people were freed/integrated/allowed into society, they would quickly use the opportunity to rape white women. Indeed, the longevity of the white-women-will-be-raped argument is amazing. The states’ rights argument lasted as long, but it had to adapt every time the federal government came in and changed something. States can’t decide to have slaves anymore and have to let blacks vote? No problem – we’ll just pass harsh laws that only apply to black people, and put up obstacles that make it impossible for them to vote. States have to provide services to white people AND black people? No problem – we’ll just separate them and give white stuff more funding.

But, what if you can’t convince people that civil rights will rape white women? What if you’re denying rights to, say, gay people? Have no fear – well, actually have lots of fear. For, what at first seems like a challenge turns out to be a boon. Are gay people trying to get into the military? Just say that they’ll sexually assault members of their own sex. Are they trying to get into positions of authority over children? Just say they’ll molest those children. And, since women can be gay, you can extend sex fears from WHITE women to ALL women. And, since homosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, you can make up whatever sex act you want and attach it to gay people. Want to stop gay marriage? Say allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will inevitably lead to polygamy, animalygamy, and toasterovenygamy. Don’t want gay people to be seen as human? Just make up some sexual acts with things no one ever dreamed of, and you’re good. The states’ rights argument is pretty straightforward – say that your state doesn’t want to allow gay rights because, well, just look at all that stuff the sex fear rights people are saying. Also, once you’ve got people good and propagandized, have them vote against it. Indeed, both these arguments have proven so successful, there are still many legal discriminations against gay people.

Unfortunately for the SRSFRC, fighting gay rights has increasingly been seen as a losing battle. So, they moved on to another group: transgender people. Although the transgender community has been included in some legislation protecting other LGBTQ groups, they still have a long way to go, and there are some issues unique to them. That’s why so much of the press in recent years has been about access to restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that match their gender of preference.

Here’s where sex fear rights proponents really showed their creativity: Instead of directly attacking transgender people, they targeted phantom child molesters. You see, transgender people want to use restrooms that identify with their gender of preference, because they identify with that gender. There’s a bunch of science behind why that is, but if there are two things that trump science, they’re sex fear rights and states’ rights. Proponents of sex fear rights decided, rather than target the imaginary perversity of transgender people themselves, they’d say that child molesters might PRETEND to be transgender, so they could go to the wrong restroom and molest children. There’s no evidence this ever happened, but there’s no evidence a gay person ever had sex with an electrical outlet, either. The states’ rights side didn’t have much trouble: Obama signed that executive order, and nothing gases up the states’ rights tank like the federal government telling states what to do. The original anti-transgender state bills that had passed (popularly known as “bathroom bills”) were based on the phantom child molester argument, but when Trump rescinded the federal order, he invoked states’ rights.

Transgender rights are proving to be a fertile ground for the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition, and they’re still having some luck fighting gay rights. But, if history is any guide, these wells will eventually dry up. What minority group will they fight next? And, what people will they pretend are at risk of sexual assault if that group gets rights?


Mississippi HB 1523: Discrimination Protection for Those Who Discriminate

Mississippi HB 1523 – a bill that would severely limit the rights of LGBT people by letting people who have a religious problem with them refuse service – is on the verge of being passed. If the history of Mississippi is any guide, Governor Phil Bryant will sign it into law. But, if the history of other recent “I’ll gladly pay you next century for a giant mistake today” states is any guide, it’s surprisingly less predictable. Some state governors (most recently Georgia’s) have faced so much blow-back from similar bills, they’ve actually vetoed them. Other state governors (most recently North Carolina’s) have faced so much blow-back from similar bills, they’ve signed them anyway. But, assuming Governor Phil Bryant does what Governor Phil Bryant does best, what can Mississippi’s LGBT population look forward to not doing?

From when the law takes effect to when the Supreme Court strikes it down, HB 1523 will be a veritable cornucopia of services deniable to LGBT people. No longer will gay couples have to deal with the pressures of adopting or fostering children, since same-sex couples won’t be legally guaranteed those rights. No longer will they have to worry about everything that comes with planning a wedding, because people who disagree with their lifestyles won’t have to serve them. No longer will people who want gender reassignment surgery have to wonder if their doctors want to do the surgery, because they can deny them based on religious beliefs. And, places won’t have to worry about pesky trans-friendly restrooms, dressing rooms, or locker rooms, since Jesus definitely would not do those. Clerks also don’t have to authorize gay marriages if they don’t want to (Although they’re supposed to find someone who will authorize them if they don’t, the bill doesn’t say what happens if they can’t find anyone.).

Some people claim these and other discriminatory things in the bill constitute discrimination. The problem with this assumption is that the bill is called, “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” so it can’t possibly be discriminatory. It’s actually an anti-discrimination bill, because it’s meant to protect people from being discriminated against by LGBT people who want to use their services. It’s like how the Civil Rights Act protects people from being discriminated against based on things like race, religion, or sex. It’s just adding, “people who think they’re being discriminated against, because they’re discriminating against people” to that list. It’s really the Civil Rights Act’s fault, since it wasn’t forward-looking enough to see that “people who think they’re being discriminated against, because they’re discriminating against people” would eventually be a group of people facing discrimination.

If you still can’t figure out how LGBT people are the ones doing the discriminating, rather than the ones being discriminating against, just open up your Bible. There are, like, five whole verses in there about how LGBT people are immoral. HB 1523 supporters know that, while a lot of things in the Bible have no place in the modern world, you can always rely on LGBT immorality. Obviously, women shouldn’t be subservient to men; slavery shouldn’t be justified; people shouldn’t be stoned for not being kosher; divorce shouldn’t only be allowed in cases of adultery; and racism shouldn’t be weirdly justified by either one dude killing his brother, or Noah’s son laughing at his father for passing out drunk and naked. These are all ridiculous, outdated things, and they’re completely different from viewing LGBT behavior as abominable. The Bible obviously wants us to deny goods and services to the LGBT population, because how else are we supposed to interact with people whose genetics and biology make them different from us?

But, if you still can’t see how denying people goods and services based on things beyond their control makes sense, just wait and see how great life gets under HB 1523. Pay close attention, though, because someone’s going to have to explain to the next generation why a bill that looks terrible was actually a great idea…

Existent North Carolina Takes on Nonexistent Child Molesters

Thank Gender-Secure God for North Carolina. Just as God made man in his own image, man made public restrooms in his own image, and North Carolina has ensured they’ll stay that way. Charlotte, North Carolina, recently passed a law saying transgender people could use the restroom of the sex they identify with, and Governor Pat McCrory knew he had to do something. After all, the overwhelming antonym of evidence shows that every time one of these laws passes, it’s only a matter of time until child molesters take advantage of it. McCrory called a special session of the state legislature, confident they’d be swayed by the wealth of research he’d collected from the Journal of Hasnteverhappenedemiology. Together, they passed a bill saying only the state legislature could make such laws. No longer would cities, counties, or municipalities be able to make anti-discrimination laws pertaining to where transgender people could use the restroom. Finally, North Carolina’s children would be safe from a threat that never existed.

Of course, you can’t make an imaginary omelet without breaking ALL the eggs, so it also made it illegal for cities, counties, and municipalities to make ANY law protecting the rights of transgender men and women. And, just for good measure, it went ahead and made it illegal for them to pass laws protecting the rights of gay men and women, too. Fortunately, cities, counties, and municipalities can still make their own laws protecting religious freedom. It’s a win-win-win, since LGBT members can now be discriminated against by people who claim they’re being discriminated against by discriminating against them.

Oh, and the bill also says that cities, counties, and municipalities can’t make their own minimum wage laws. Because, if there’s one thing child molesters love more than tolerance, it’s wages that adjust to the standard of living…