Concerned Women for America takes every opportunity to be transphobic...
We all know that Concerned Women for America is extremely transphobic: this September article, in which J. Matt Barber repeatedly uses the slur "she-male" and characterizes trans women as having "a five o’clock shadow, calves like Schwarzenegger, an Adam’s apple the size of a golf ball and [being] stuffed into a miniskirt like a ten pound turkey in a five pound bag," made that abundantly clear.
But now they've taken to insulting trans women when writing about issues with absolutely no connection to transgender people.
Today CWA published an article entitled "Sex in Bathroom Stalls, Privacy Expectations, and the ACLU," written by Brenda Zurita. (Ms. Zurita is a research fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute.) The topic of the article is the brief recently filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Senator Larry Craig, who was apprehended soliciting sex in a public bathroom in June of last year. The ACLU argues that people having sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
You may be asking, "what in the world does this have to do with trans people?" Well, this is how Ms. Zurita "connects" the two:
If we throw morals, decency and common sense out the window with this argument of expectation of privacy in a public restroom while engaging in sex, what are the implications?
Given the law passed in Maryland allowing men to use women's restrooms if they consider themselves a woman trapped in a man's body and allowing women to use men's restrooms if they consider themselves a man trapped in a woman's body, what is to stop a rapist or pedophile from entering a restroom and abusing a boy or girl in a restroom stall? Would a man have to claim he is a woman in a man's body to use the women's room and if so, what is the proof he's not just a wily rapist or pedophile? And who will be monitoring this? If there is an expectation of privacy then all users of public restrooms would have to assume the sex going on in the next stall is consensual and cannot be reported as it would invade their privacy. Where are the lines drawn?
This is hate-baiting, pure and simple. In the first place, there is no evidence that trans people are any more likely to molest children than the general population-- can anyone cite any cases in which a trans woman was actually prosecuted for such an offense? (I'm not saying that it has never happened, just that such incidents are probably incredibly rare.) In the second place, there is no evidence that trans people are more likely to solicit or engage in sex in public restrooms.
CWA's constant depictions of transgender people as predatory monsters are every bit as hate-driven, bigoted, and ignorant as similar statmentss made by the Traditional Values Coalition in this "Special Report". I wonder whether the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a stance on whether CWA constitutes a hate group.
Maybe I should write and ask.
But now they've taken to insulting trans women when writing about issues with absolutely no connection to transgender people.
Today CWA published an article entitled "Sex in Bathroom Stalls, Privacy Expectations, and the ACLU," written by Brenda Zurita. (Ms. Zurita is a research fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute.) The topic of the article is the brief recently filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Senator Larry Craig, who was apprehended soliciting sex in a public bathroom in June of last year. The ACLU argues that people having sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
You may be asking, "what in the world does this have to do with trans people?" Well, this is how Ms. Zurita "connects" the two:
If we throw morals, decency and common sense out the window with this argument of expectation of privacy in a public restroom while engaging in sex, what are the implications?
Given the law passed in Maryland allowing men to use women's restrooms if they consider themselves a woman trapped in a man's body and allowing women to use men's restrooms if they consider themselves a man trapped in a woman's body, what is to stop a rapist or pedophile from entering a restroom and abusing a boy or girl in a restroom stall? Would a man have to claim he is a woman in a man's body to use the women's room and if so, what is the proof he's not just a wily rapist or pedophile? And who will be monitoring this? If there is an expectation of privacy then all users of public restrooms would have to assume the sex going on in the next stall is consensual and cannot be reported as it would invade their privacy. Where are the lines drawn?
This is hate-baiting, pure and simple. In the first place, there is no evidence that trans people are any more likely to molest children than the general population-- can anyone cite any cases in which a trans woman was actually prosecuted for such an offense? (I'm not saying that it has never happened, just that such incidents are probably incredibly rare.) In the second place, there is no evidence that trans people are more likely to solicit or engage in sex in public restrooms.
CWA's constant depictions of transgender people as predatory monsters are every bit as hate-driven, bigoted, and ignorant as similar statmentss made by the Traditional Values Coalition in this "Special Report". I wonder whether the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a stance on whether CWA constitutes a hate group.
Maybe I should write and ask.