‘LGBT’ World: Common sense is the new ‘blood-curdling’ horror

‘LGBT’ World: Common sense is the new ‘blood-curdling’ horror

This really hasn’t taken very long, when you think about it.  It was less than a year ago that the Supreme Court turned “law,” “rights,” the Constitution, and “marriage” on their heads, and proclaimed a fundamental “right” to redefine the institution of marriage – a right that pertains to everyone except people who disagree with the five justices who concurred in the majority opinion.

That exercise in perverting the rule of law opened a bigger floodgate than we may appreciate.  The court ruled in Obergefell on the basis of inverted, deceiving concepts; e.g., the idea that same-sex marriage is “banned” if it is merely not recognized by the state, or that traditional-marriage affirmation is “anti-gay.”  And now such inversions have become the norm, for everyone who wants to advocate for an exotic position.

So it is that we find ourselves, nine months after Obergefell, with transgender advocates proclaiming that it is “blood-curdling” that North Carolina wants to ensure public restrooms and locker rooms won’t be forced to let opposite-sex patrons into them.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?


It’s as if Josef Goebbels took Stalinist propaganda hysterics, pumped them up on steroids, and shot them into outer space.

The “big lie” here is the implication that there’s something horrific about having biological females in one accommodation, and biological males in another.  That’s quite obviously not horrific; it’s the definition of a commonsensical arrangement, based on intractable nature and human experience.*

It is hysterically demented to frame this natural social arrangement as a horror, whose preservation is “blood-curdling.”  Deranged, insane, whatever you want to call it – it fits any description of lost mental faculties.

And yet the mainstream media themselves adopt the position of insanity.  They agree to call it “discrimination,” when public policy doesn’t confer special privileges on transgender people to disrobe and answer the call of nature in opposite-sex facilities.

Mr. Blood-Curdling, Michelangelo Signorile, is quite explicit about that at HuffPo.  There was a time when LGBT advocates used to insist they weren’t demanding special privileges.  But the pretense has been dropped, as Signorile clarifies here (emphasis added):

HB2 [North Carolina House Bill 2] is the most heinous, homophobic, transphobic law we have ever seen — just read it. …

How it overturns existing ordinances protecting LGBT people in localities — and seeks to get around the Supreme Court’s landmark Romer v. Evans decision — is by not singling LGBT people out

So it is now a form of diabolical attack to not single groups of people out for different treatment.  We are to understand that it is heinous and blood-curdling to expect a biological male to urinate or change his clothes in an accommodation for males.  But women who are made uncomfortable by the presence of a biological male in their facility are simply to be dismissed and ignored.  It would be “blood-curdling” to fail to dismiss and ignore them.

Certainly, parents who don’t like the idea of their minor children having members of the opposite biological sex foisted on them in restrooms and locker rooms are to be denigrated, called names, and sued into insolvency by the federal government (through legal or bureaucratic actions against their school districts).

North Carolina’s new law is designed to prevent such assaults by litigation on common sense.  (Do read it, at the link provided by Mr. Signorile.  It’s carefully worded to acknowledge that if authorities, public or private, volunteer to open their facilities to opposite-sex patronage, that’s up to them.  But no one can be forced to do it by the government, or be sued into submission by third parties.)

What’s noteworthy is how quickly common sense has been undermined by the growing menace to religious liberty.  Note this well, if you think the threat to religious liberty doesn’t affect you, because you don’t have formal religious beliefs.  Religious liberty is the canary in the coal mine for all rights to intellectual autonomy and choice.

Where there isn’t religious liberty, the people will be ruled by hysteria, insanity, and big lies.  Poor old common sense doesn’t stand a chance.


* The red herrings drawn across the tracks in these arguments – e.g., that “Europeans have unisex public toilets!” – are merely evidence of how speciously the issue is typically argued.  For one thing, that’s not what’s at issue here.  There are unisex toilets across America too, but what’s at issue is what our laws are going to protect or enforce.  For another thing, if you imagine Europe to be a unisex utopia of some kind, you’re in for a big surprise when you get there.  Anyone who’s been there, for more than a week-long package tour, can tell you that the standard accommodations all over the continent are segregated by biological sex, just as they are in most places on the planet.

J.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.


For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.