Thursday, May 26, 2011

This does not surprise me

Leave it to fearmongering organizations to use the old "men are out to attack little girls!" argument to justify discrimination against transgender people. But I think the messed up part is that this one scary ad is used by multiple organizations.



A child molester is evidence that transgender people should not use the bathroom of the gender they identify with?

7 comments:

Bema said...

I personally think that there shouldn't be any gender separation in bathrooms at all, and everyone should get their own stall. But I might just be a flaming liberal.

Marc Jones said...

What the actual hell? How can this monstrous act of discrimination be allowed on TV, I mean it’s so blatantly misandrist and transphobic that in a warped way I’m actually kind of impressed, it’s like they seriously don't give a damn who they demonise as long as they can scare enough people into voting for their hateful policy’s. Wow I mean just Wow.

Jim said...

Bema, more and more oyu see places that have individual restrooms making then unisex.

Danny said...

(This comment was originally posted by someone under the handle "Jim". My apologies for it not showing up Jim. By chance are you the JIm that hangs out at Feminist Critics? I think you've had issue commenting here before. If you're willing to share some info like what browser, OS, etc..... you're using I may be able to figure it out.)

Bema, more and more oyu see places that have individual restrooms making then unisex.

Danny said...

It would seem they don't give a damn Marc.

Its not like that child molester was only able to do that because of transgender people using the bathroom of the gender the ID with. That molester had decided to go after that child and a law on bathroom use would not stop it.

Toysoldier said...

While it is technically true that the law would not cause or stop a child molester from entering a restroom, the ad does have a point in that the law would provide the perfect legal pretext for a child molester doing so. If a man or woman follows a child of the opposite sex into the restroom, the potential offender could always argue that they were just using the facilities, not trying to target the child. The ad is a very egregious way of making that argument, but the argument is sound.

Where the ad falls apart is in the association of child molesters with trans people. There is no connection between the two, so this is nothing more than fear mongering. If they wanted to oppose the law, why not directly state what their opposition is? I suppose that showing a literal situation would come across as too comical, so they used something to scare people instead.

Danny said...

TS:
If a man or woman follows a child of the opposite sex into the restroom, the potential offender could always argue that they were just using the facilities, not trying to target the child.
I don't know TS. If that were the case the child would not have been harmed right?

-->