Democrats & Liberals Archives

Straight Talk on the Progressive Movement and its Embracing of "Safe Spaces" and Transgenderism

“Progressive: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.”

Anyone who’s paid any attention to the race for the Democratic nomination knows that the question ‘What is a progressive’ has been asked many times and given a number of different answers. But it seems today to have been redefined by “educational liberals” as having to check all sanity at the door to the political arena. From the redefinition of “political correctness” to mean the sanity-free zones called “safe spaces,” to the new mass embrace of “non-binary gender identities,” the term “progressive” is being morphed into a term synonymous with “hippie.” This progressive is saying to his fellow Democrats and those left-of-center that it’s time to take our ideology back.

A couple of weeks ago, South Dakota passed a bill prohibiting anyone from using a restroom that differs from their physical sex. Many of my fellow liberals had a crying fit over this common-sense legislation. If a man wants to dress as a woman, or a woman wants to dress as a man, that's his/her business. But as long as they've got the equipment to prove it, they should be relegated to the correct bathroom based on their sex. The bill was unbelievably vetoed by Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard.

The new fad among these "educational liberals" who go nuclear on their professors when they don't support disciplining students for dressing up like Native Americans on Halloween, is this garbage about "non-binary gender identities." Apparently now gender and sex aren't your hormones, chromosomes, and anatomy, it's whatever you feel like it is. In my two years on the campus of a major university, I met one woman who went so far as to legally change her name because she was angry at people calling her ma'am, due to the fact that she's obviously a woman. This has led to people like the man in Pittsburgh who thinks he was supposed to be born a dog, sleeps in a doghouse, plays with chew toys, and eats Alpo out of a bowl on the floor.

It's led to people like Rachel Dolezel being accepted as "transracial," and now a Canadian man in his fifties who left his wife and seven children to change his name to "Stefonknee" and pretend to be a six-year-old girl living with an elderly couple who pretend to be his parents.

It's led to an atmosphere on college campuses where everyone seems to be walking on eggshells. My freshman year, a faux-feminist (another term that's been hijacked by the Educational Left, more on that in a moment) became enraged at me for using the term "bitch" as a verb, as in "to complain," screaming at me that I'd used a "sexist slur that is on the same plane as the N-word."

It's led to a number of people insisting that men be able to use women's bathrooms, and women be able to use men's bathrooms just by claiming to be transgender. They want to allow perverted men with potentially bad intentions to hide behind the "transgender" label to enjoy a shower with numerous naked women and young girls. They want to open up a confused girl to possible assault because she insists on showering with the boys after gym class.

Even worse, it's led to parents like those of Jazz Jennings, who pumped their son full of hormones when he went through a phase of wanting to be a girl instead of getting him into therapy or waiting for the phase to pass.

It's led to the term "feminist" becoming used interchangeably with "misandrist," or someone who hates men. A feminist is anyone who believes that men and women should have equal opportunity in economic and social status and potential, and by that definition, I'm a feminist. However thanks to the Educational Left, it's become a term for a woman who hates men.

Being a progressive does not and should not mean that you have to check your sanity at the door. We need to rise up and put a stop to these kinds of fads and prevent them from going mainstream. We need to ban doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and other transgender "hormone therapy" to anyone under 18, and pass laws at the state and federal level to prohibit anyone from using a bathroom that differs from their physical sex at birth. We must rise up as rational and sane people and end this transgender joke and stop the Democratic Party from embracing it.

Simply put, we as progressives must take back our movement from those that seek to turn it into a sideshow and show the country that we're not all pot-smoking socialists on ivory towers.

Posted by TreyL at March 5, 2016 11:31 AM
Comments
Comment #403222

Trey,

Do you actually know anyone who is transsexual? Do you understand the difference between one’s gender and one’s sex? Believe me, it is not as simple as dressing up in men’s or women’s clothing. Even before the reassignment surgery, it is quite common for people to undergo hormone replacement therapy for many years.

Why are you so hung up about someone’s genitalia anyway? Just mind your own business!

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 4, 2016 7:11 PM
Comment #403227

Much better Trey much better, I agree.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 5, 2016 1:10 AM
Comment #403233

Very refreshing post TreyL. Much appreciated.

Please write a piece on “political correctness”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 5, 2016 4:06 PM
Comment #403234

Didn’t he write write one just a few months ago?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 5, 2016 5:04 PM
Comment #403235

“Being a progressive does not and should not mean that you have to check your sanity at the door.”

Hear! Hear!

Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2016 8:17 PM
Comment #403259

For decades now, the progressive movement has been demanding special treatment, rather than equal treatment, for their ‘protected’ voting groups. Differences can no longer just be tolerated, they must now be embraced and pandered to.

I don’t disagree with Trey’s post, I just find it interesting that he seems surprised by these very expected results and feels as if progressives must now “take back their movement.”

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2016 10:15 AM
Comment #403260

kctim, As we make progress in one area whether it be gun rights or gay rights we tend to go from one extreme to the other,IMHO. I disagree the progressives have been demanding special treatment for decades, just like gun rights advocates haven’t been demanding special rights for decades but as the pendulum swings we generally go to extremes before we we get back to a realistic position. Look at the guns rights people of today no different than the progressives wanting to use whatever bathroom they choose.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2016 12:22 PM
Comment #403261

J2, the so-called ‘progress in one area’ that you speak of, always has a ripple effect that will spread into other areas. When you redefine words and law (special treatment) to please one group, common sense dictates that other groups will demand the same special treatment.

IF when you work on the individual level rather than the group level, the swings to the extremes are greatly minimized.

The 2nd Amendment is not relevant here at all, and to compare those wishing to retain their 2nd Amendment rights with those wishing for special treatment, is ridiculous.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2016 1:04 PM
Comment #403262

Look at the guns rights people of today no different than the progressives wanting to use whatever bathroom they choose.
Posted by: j2t2 at March 8, 2016 12:22 PM

Voted the most stupid, inaccurate, and silly comment so far this year. Not surprising when one considers that liberal progressives find new “rights” with regularity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 8, 2016 1:23 PM
Comment #403263

Don’t look now Trey, but it looks like that mayor Bill de Blasio nut disagrees with you. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he considered you a ‘hateful bigot.’

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/7/bill-de-blasio-mandates-transgender-access-new-yor/

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2016 1:36 PM
Comment #403264

Why is everyone upset with giving transgendered people the same right to use a public bathroom that everyone else enjoys?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 8, 2016 1:46 PM
Comment #403282

They already have the same ‘right’ to use a public bathroom that everyone else enjoys, what they want is special treatment.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2016 9:16 AM
Comment #403287
voted the most stupid, inaccurate, and silly comment so far this year.

Oh Royal using your vote foolishly once more I see. Using only a bit of the information to decide your vote is so conservative. Since you seem incapable of understanding the point Royal let me help you out. I’ll bet you saw gun rights and gay rights in the same sentence and freaked out without even taking a moment to understand how us Americans react to things.

Look at gun rights activist today, under the faux impression the administration was coming for their guns the past 7 years, to the point they felt the need to protect Texas from a federal invasion last June, they have taken to carrying assault rifles out on the street. Overboard IMHO.
Now back when Reagan was shot and gun control was on the table did we have people walking into grocery stores and restaurants with assault rifles strapped to themselves? No we didn’t. But as they have gotten more extreme they have went a bit overboard, to the point police are shooting black guys with toy guns in Walmart.

The same can be said for the “bathroom rights” people who seem to be a bit overboard as they take gay rights to another level.

Kctim, The relevancy is the extreme measures people take to win their points. The gun rights people are in the same bed as the gay rights people, so to speak, when it comes to rights whether they be natural rights or not ;) I mean when you get to the point “ammosexual” is used to describe some gun rights activist there is a relevancy you seem to have missed.

Seems to me the answer is easy, using guidance from little Marco and the Donald, just look at your hands, right? Small hands to the womens bathroom large hands to the mens, problem solved ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2016 11:30 AM
Comment #403288

J2, creating a right to appease people pretending to be the opposite gender or to ‘protect’ people from differing opinions, are extreme measures.
Protecting rights we have always had, are not extreme measures.

The term ammosexual was created for the same reason the left has redefined words like racism, sexism and hatred: so they can deflect from the issue and use guilt and fear to score votes.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2016 12:01 PM
Comment #403289
They already have the same ‘right’ to use a public bathroom that everyone else enjoys, what they want is special treatment.

Apparently not, as these laws in South Dakota and elsewhere are prohibiting them from using particular facilities solely on the basis of their anatomy.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 9, 2016 12:34 PM
Comment #403291

Those laws prohibit all of us from using particular facilities solely on the basis of our anatomy.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2016 12:45 PM
Comment #403292

Jim Crow laws prohibited all of us from using particular facilities solely on the basis of our skin color.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 9, 2016 12:55 PM
Comment #403293

Ah, the ol ‘we are all human so gender means nothing’ argument again. You jumped to the ridiculous extreme quickly this time, Warren.

So, you see common decency and protection laws based on gender, as just another case of ‘separate but equal’ on par with those Jim Crow laws?

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2016 1:42 PM
Comment #403296
J2, creating a right to appease people pretending to be the opposite gender or to ‘protect’ people from differing opinions, are extreme measures.

On that we all seem to agree kctim. However why do you think someone is creating a right? I think there is a difference between a civil right/group right and a right/individual liberty and it seems these people are trying to create a civil right. I mean who really has a right to a public bathroom, it is a civil right they are trying to claim IMHO.

Framing the issue as “to ‘protect’ people from differing opinions” is extreme as well kctim. It isn’t the opinions it is the language the extremist use that offends, and is done so intentionally to insult and degrade, a limbaughism perhaps. It sure explains why you choose to blame the left though. These words you mention aren’t redefined by the left they describe the person doing the act. Differing opinions, jeez, really?


Protecting rights we have always had, are not extreme measures.

Using extreme measures to protect the rights we already have is extreme measures none the less kctim. Especially when the right being protected is is to the extreme. Ammosexuals can be considered extreme IMHO kctim. In the cities and suburbs traipsing around locked and loaded with an assault rifle to visit the local grocery store in this century is extreme IMHO. These actions do not make the right extreme just the actions kctim.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 9, 2016 2:02 PM
Comment #403299
Ah, the ol ‘we are all human so gender means nothing’ argument again. You jumped to the ridiculous extreme quickly this time, Warren.

So, you see common decency and protection laws based on gender, as just another case of ‘separate but equal’ on par with those Jim Crow laws?

Yes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 9, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #403313

J2

Social freedom and equality are two way streets, my friend.
Most people do not embrace abnormal behavior so they create rules. When special interest groups realize their cause is not supported by the people, they know they cannot change the rules. That is when they redefine their cause as some kind of right so that they can bypass the will of the people and use biased courts to their favor.

When you strip away the freedom of normal folks to force acceptance and embracing of abnormal behavior, you are violating their freedom and equality.

“Framing the issue as “to ‘protect’ people from differing opinions” is extreme as well kctim.”

No J2, it is honesty and for some reason you have had a really hard time lately with the honest framing of the issues. They call them ‘safe spaces’ for a reason, J2.

“It isn’t the opinions it is the language the extremist use that offends, and is done so intentionally to insult and degrade”

Individuals and businesses are targeted and attacked because of their support for traditional marriage, not because of extremist language.

“These words you mention aren’t redefined by the left they describe the person doing the act.”

You have more integrity than that, J2.
The left labels people who don’t support the extreme redistribution of wealth, as racists. They label those who do not wish to pay for BC and abortion, as sexist. They label the support of traditional marriage, as hatred.
That’s not describing people who are actually guilty of something, that is attacking those who disagree.

“These actions do not make the right extreme just the actions”

There are a few things to be considered here:
- Such measures are considered ‘extreme’ by the anti 2nd Amendment crowd, not those who support the 2nd Amendment and have respected and lived with it their entire lives.
- Such measures were not taken until the anti 2nd Amendment crowd started blaming and targeting 2nd Amendment supporters for the problems in urban areas.

The lefts steadfast refusal to address those actually responsible, is what has led to this point. NOT the creation of a new right or the desire for special treatment.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2016 10:25 AM
Comment #403314

Yes?
Really Warren? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

Are you willing to apply that consistently, or just on certain issues here and there?

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2016 10:31 AM
Comment #403316

I believe that rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 11:16 AM
Comment #403319

“I believe that rights belong to individuals, not groups.”

As do I, Warren. I’m just willing and able to apply it across the entire board.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #403321

Then how can you argue that women have different rights than men.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 11:35 AM
Comment #403323

I don’t.
I make a distinction between a right and a privilege and often argue from the point that privileges come with rules, but I believe men and women have the same rights.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2016 11:55 AM
Comment #403324

Is access to a public toilet in a public building a right or a privilege?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 12:18 PM
Comment #403327

Warped, are public restrooms a right or a convenience?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 10, 2016 1:39 PM
Comment #403328

Public restrooms are a public accommodation. Equal access to these public accommodations is a right.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 1:45 PM
Comment #403329

Warped, Why would you want to go into a Woman’s restroom? Are you a pervert? Or are you that hard up?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 10, 2016 1:48 PM
Comment #403330

I have no desire to go to a woman’s restroom. However, not going into a woman’s restroom is my CHOICE. Not something that I should be compelled to do by law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 1:58 PM
Comment #403336

Warped, Glad to see you have some morals, and it is MORALS that govern the use of public restrooms. Are we always supposed to cave to a small minority who want special treatment?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at March 10, 2016 2:44 PM
Comment #403337

Warren,
Public restrooms are a convenience and access to them is a privilege. It is equal access to them that is a right.

We have laws that segregate by gender in order to protect the privacy and security of individuals, but there are no laws that deny equal access to a public facility.

While it is a little bit insulting that you are comparing abnormal behavior with the outright discrimination and intentional dehumanization of an entire race, I do understand the point you are trying to make that segregation based on gender is no different than segregation based on race.
One thing I think you are missing is that the rights of one individual trump the desires or fantasies of another individual.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2016 2:48 PM
Comment #403338

KAP,

Morals also explain why I don’t print copies of Mein Kampf. However, I would not support a law the prohibited someone else from doing the same. This doesn’t mean I am giving Neo-Nazis special treatment. In fact, I am treating them the same as I treat anyone else.

I am confident that cisgendered and transgendered people alike are intelligent to pick the bathroom that is most appropriate for them.

kctim,
I’ll respond to you after my seminar.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #403340
We have laws that segregate by gender in order to protect the privacy and security of individuals, but there are no laws that deny equal access to a public facility.

By definition, if a facility is segregated, then there cannot be equal access. This was precisely the finding of the SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education, Boydon v. Virginia and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Thus, what you have written is a non sequitur. A law that segregates on the basis of gender or s*x denies equal access by definition.

While it is a little bit insulting that you are comparing abnormal behavior with the outright discrimination and intentional dehumanization of an entire race, I do understand the point you are trying to make that segregation based on gender is no different than segregation based on race.
I am sorry if I offended anyone, but defending unalienable rights comes before making friends in my book. Regardless, the behavior that is truly perverted is the obsession South Dakota lawmakers have in verifying the genitalia of people using public restrooms.
One thing I think you are missing is that the rights of one individual trump the desires or fantasies of another individual.
Absolutely. The right of a transgendered person to select the appropriate restroom facility most definitely trumps the desire of a cisgendered person to force compliance with rules based upon anatomy. The idea that most transpeople are heterosexuals in disguise seeking sexual gratification is pure fantasy and has no place in a serious discussion of this matter.

If a heterosexual did disguise him or herself as transgendered and entered a public facility with the sole intent of sexual gratification, then yes, that individual should face consequences. However, we already have laws against peeping toms, exhibitionism and the like. Prohibiting people on the basis of anatomy is not needed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 10, 2016 5:27 PM
Comment #403347

Warren, I like where you are going.
Would you then say that any law which segregates, denies equality?

Remember, you are “defending unalienable rights,” not issues, positions or emotions.

Posted by: kctim at March 11, 2016 10:03 AM
Comment #403348

Warren, is it wrong and an example of segregation, to identify the gender of a new born on a birth certificate?

I haven’t checked this and would like to know if “race” identification is still revealed on birth certificates in any, some, or all states.

Whatever gender is named on the BC identifies that person as male or female for their entire life and it affects many areas of their life.

Do we need gender neutral birth certificates?


Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 1:20 PM
Comment #403352
Warren, I like where you are going. Would you then say that any law which segregates, denies equality?

Remember, you are “defending unalienable rights,” not issues, positions or emotions.

Yes. However, I will allow that there are situations where segregations (and corresponding abridgement of equality) can be justified. For instance, it is justified to segregate individuals over and under the age of 21 in an establishment that serves alcohol. Another example: If a scientific randomized control trial demonstrated that children fare better when raised by a heterosexual couple than a homosexual one, then I see justification for prioritizing potential heterosexual adoptive parents over homosexual ones.

RF,
There are many justifications for abridging equality in the case of birth certificates.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 2:48 PM
Comment #403353

“I will allow that there are situations where segregations (and corresponding abridgement of equality) can be justified.”

OK, we will agree that some segregation is justified. The question then becomes, who decides?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 2:55 PM
Comment #403355

The Courts.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #403357

Really Warren? The courts can decide to segregate whenever and whatever they wish. On what legal basis would they decide? Or, would they simply decide based upon popular opinion or political pressure?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 3:37 PM
Comment #403358

I will add that the Courts should apply the standard of “Strict scrutiny”. This means that in order to justify segregation, there must be a compelling government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest and that interest alone.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 3:40 PM
Comment #403359

Warren, please apply “a compelling government interest” to same gender privacy. The courts have ruled on the privacy of our bedrooms. Should there be no privacy in our public bathrooms and other public places where people perform very private activities by necessity?

Will it be become necessary for our children to bring their own toilets and showers to school to maintain their desire for privacy?

Why would any court rule that our children should have no privacy in performing toileting and showering?

Should courts demand that toilets in public places removed stall shields?

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 11, 2016 3:52 PM
Comment #403360

Warren

“I will allow that there are situations where segregations (and corresponding abridgement of equality) can be justified.”

If you are going to justify it for your cause, others are going to justify it for their cause. And does that not just bring us back to having laws that segregate something in order to control, but not deny access?

Posted by: kctim at March 11, 2016 5:00 PM
Comment #403362

“strict scrutiny” and “compelling government interest” have been defined by the courts. Ask a legal scholar if you want to know what those terms mean.

Should there be no privacy in our public bathrooms and other public places where people perform very private activities by necessity?
There is a right to privacy inside a public bathroom. This is precisely why it is illegal for a peeping tom to bypass the protection offered by a stall shield, no matter his or her sex or gender. Clearly, such behavior violates the privacy of the toilets’ occupant.
If you are going to justify it for your cause, others are going to justify it for their cause. And does that not just bring us back to having laws that segregate something in order to control, but not deny access?

The distinction is that the burden of proof is upon the government to demonstrate a compelling interest. A majority cannot simply vote to abridge a right just because it offends their feelings.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 5:31 PM
Comment #403363

“strict scrutiny” and “compelling government interest” have been defined by the courts. Ask a legal scholar if you want to know what those terms mean.

Should there be no privacy in our public bathrooms and other public places where people perform very private activities by necessity?
There is a right to privacy inside a public bathroom. This is precisely why it is illegal for a peeping tom to bypass the protection offered by a stall shield, no matter his or her sex or gender. Clearly, such behavior violates the privacy of the toilets’ occupant.
If you are going to justify it for your cause, others are going to justify it for their cause. And does that not just bring us back to having laws that segregate something in order to control, but not deny access?

The distinction is that the burden of proof is upon the government to demonstrate a compelling interest. A majority cannot simply vote to abridge a right just because it offends their feelings.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 5:32 PM
Comment #403364

I have a comment being held pending approval from TreyL.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 11, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #403372

First let us speak to what it means to be transgender: in essence, you don’t identify as the gender of your birth. Born male, but you feel female, born female, but you feel male. It’s more than just cross-dressing. What’s more, you can’t just show up wearing blue jeans, a beard, and a ratty t-shirt, going into a woman’s restroom, and just say, “wait, I belong here, I identify as a woman.”

That would probably get him dragged out even quicker.

No, most Transsexuals are going to show up wearing gender appropriate clothing. Their appearance is going to complement their perceived gender. What’s more, there have been next to no attacks on children or women by people claiming to be transwomen. It just hasn’t happened.

If you’re really a molester or a rapist, you don’t risk being spotted outright by just walking into the restroom, mostly public restrooms in this case, which might be occupied by other people. They’ll usually try to grab their victims when they’re nowhere near help, not inside a building where they could scream out for assistance, etc.

This kind of bull-hockey is marketed as common sense, but it’s really akin to shameless ignorance. If you’re a trans-boy or man walking into a men’s restroom, you’re not going to announce that underneath your clothes you have female parts. Same thing with trans-women. They’re not terribly interested in being outed in that manner. They want to blend in. This isn’t transvestitism (which is in fact more common among straight people who identify along their birth gender) This is people working from a persona they believe to be their true selves.

That is what you’re discriminating against. You can cite the people who “identify” as some other race or thing. The race thing is BS. If I were transgender, I would be dealing with something that’s deep-seated, biologically speaking. Neurological gender is a profound thing. Racial identity? That’s cultural, no deep-seated compulsion working on what is likely a neural or hormonal level. At best, it’s just standard issue Syncretism, people adopting cultural customs and costumes not their own because they’re enchanted by it. At worst, it’s just somebody trying to hijack perceived cultural virtue they have no right to pretend to. No, you’re not tough, young white kid with the jersey, the drooping shorts, and the chains around your neck. No, you’re not tapping into the wisdom of the ages, just because you wrap yourself in saffron robes and chant Sanskrit verses you copied off a website.

The government doesn’t have to respect pretension, but it should have to respect biology.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 11, 2016 10:43 PM
Post a comment