Yesterday I filmed the quick little vlog and within a few minutes it was up on the site. Bam — content just like that!
Today En and I had a bit of a tiff about it. She opined that I may have come off a bit harsh in both the video and the comments about it.
To sum up, laws don’t prevent crimes. Laws serve only to as something to charge someone for a crime of breaking that law. I’ve talked about this at length with regard to gun laws.
I’ve ranted in the past about gun laws and perhaps the ineffectiveness of those laws. I have some opinions about them but I can hold a conversation about it with others. The other side at least has standing to want regulations on guns based on actions by people using guns. We differ on the laws we would enact, but we can agree that there is gun violence and something aught to be done. (Again, I would likely have a very different set of ideas, but that’s for another day)
The problem I have with the trans toilet debate is that there aught not to even be a debate. There simply isn’t even a problem. Laws could be used to charge a trans person for using the wrong bathroom. It wouldn’t prevent someone who has (or had once had) a penis from walking into a women’s room, nor someone who has (or had once had) a vagina from walking into a men’s room. If you want to provide certainty of no violence in the restroom, well you need to post an armed guard at the stalls, no?
Laws don’t prevent violence, they just provide a means to charge someone of a crime. Is not violence already a crime?
This is taking a minority group, setting up a straw man argument, then constructing a controversy around straw man. The controversy serves simply to make the majority feel better about themselves while simultaneously solving no extant problem and also removing rights from that minority class. As a helpful aside, this also serves as a convenient distraction about everything else that’s going on.
How many times have we as a country — we as a world civilization — demonized a group for nationalistic purposes? I’ll let you figure that one out.
So, yes, I am being harsh. I don’t want to come off as simply doing “containment.” My assessment is that sometimes the cold light of harsh is what’s required to draw attention to the absurdity of these arguments.