Let’s talk about climate change!

Why screams the hecklers…

Why not.

As in why I am not into the whole climate change thing in the first place.

First, those who do not believe in climate change are called “Deniers”. They take that term from Holocaust deniers. This is a very overt Ad Homonym attack. If we look back upon the beginnings of Quantum Mechanics, today responsible for so many things like GPS and Quantum Computers, The great Albert Einstein would have been called a “Denier”. Yet true scientists of the time, like Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and his cat, instead of crying foul, took up the challenge presented by such opposition and worked harder to perfect their theory. Never once did they whine, cry or moan. They worked harder to prove their case. Not assume that there mere utterance should be accepted as utterances from the Heavens. So why do they in the climate change camp need to do take such an unscientific stance to begin with? After all, as Al Gore said; “The science is settled!” In fact, science is never settled. Isaac Newton’s Theory of Gravity was published nearly 400 years ago and is known to be wrong. Einstein (such much denial from this man) had to re-write Gravity 100 years ago. Yet for all Newton’s version being wrong, NASA was still able to land men on the moon using it. But at no time was it every considered settled, not by Newton, not by Einstein and certainly not by NASA. So why the rush AL Gore? What’s with the personal attacks on those who disagree? Science is never about either, personal attacks or religious dogma? Yet for some reason Global Warming is about both. In a similar vein, we are told that the majority of scientists believe that Global Warming is to be the true facts in this case. Really? Well, see, at one UN conference, on a Sunday night as delegates rushed to take their planes home, a vote on the matter was called. Of those members who remained, a majority of them voted that way. This sounds to be as biased as you can get to wait to call a vote so late in the conference. Those who stayed until the end can be seen as having a reason to remain, creating a sampling error in the vote. Those that voted having a reason to give a yes vote into a higher percentage. Science is about careful consideration. Not a rush to judgement by people with false agendas. Science is the clash of idea, not name calling. And finally, science is the about unbiased consideration of the evidence, not merely who can rig the vote.

NASA says that this past April was the warmest month of April on record. That sounds scary, but is it? Our record keeping is bad, in fact, very bad. Today we use sophisticated measuring devices. But 140 years ago they looked outside for record keeping and wrote colder today. Not as rigorous as we might like. As well, the places where we measured those temperatures were once outside of the city limits to prevent and protect from micro enviromental factors warming their readings. Now the cities have grown around those same locations and they give out readings that show warmer. There seems to be another explanation here than global warming. The other point to discuss is; what does climate change mean? Yesterday, was warmer then the day before and today is warmer still. See Global warmer is proven! Except, not so fast, that sort of evidence is not considered by any side to be evidence of anything, let alone global warming. The reason is, too small a period to measure and say anything meaningful about. What if this was true from months, then years and then decades? Just what is the period needed to say anything with certainty. Alas, we have no answer. Would we dare call it climate change? Recall to mind that in the 1970tys, climate scientists were saying the world is cooling. Wonder how that theory worked out? But yes they scream we now have better models. In fact, scientists do have better models over the last 40 years. And they have better measuring equipment. What they don’t have is any sort of agreement on the size of sample, should they use; a day, a year, 40 years, 400 years, 4000 years? All unknown and uncertain. And in case you missed this point, they only have data of questionable veracity going back 140 years. Ice Core, Tree samples and other sampling methods are of limited value for the global expression, merely recording the local events over time. Then we can look at the computer models they use. These are based on large dimensions of the atmosphere, usually measured in square miles. They would need to have it at the level of square feet, preferable to the leve3l of square inches. This is like watching a very small bit video on a much large screen. The result is pixilation. Large blocks of square things fill in the picture as the video codex tries to make the picture larger without adequate information. It might work on the tiny level; it won’t work in the big leagues.

The whole Meta notion of climate change and global warming are red flags to a bull in a china shop. It enrages the community and draws out less then useful discussions. People simply do not believe in the whole idea because they have been turned off by the heavy handedness, overzealous, holier than thou approach. Instead of trying to form consensus and educate people, the entire approach by climate change advocates has been to threaten people; “a majority of scientist agree,” insult; “deniers”, or belittle; “The science is settled,” and allow for no meaningful debate when the basic facts are not agreed upon yet.

Now, back to reality. I think we all can agree that when a forest fire burns, you put it out. When a ship spill oil, you clean it up. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean is a mass of plastic, the size of Texas. I suspect that no one has studied what this does to the weather not to mention fish and sea life, but can we not agree that it needs to be cleaned up? How about this, we need to lower car emissions to prevent smog in cities. Not we need to lower car emission because they cause green house gas. Nope, we only need to agree so far on this matter to help keep the air clean in our city. No need to poison the well and go that extra mile to say climate change. For we do not need to involve that sort of speculation, Occam’s razor can be used here and still lower the toxic gas we have to breathe. Another example is the many proposed pipelines stretching from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Many environmental groups oppose this pipeline. As do I. But must I oppose it solely on environmental grounds? Or is this a big tent and we can all work against the idea without having to agree on why it should be stopped? Do I have to convert and drink the cool aid? Or can I say I oppose this idea for economic reasons without commenting on the environmental factors?

For all these reasons and many more, I will not agree with anyone that climate change is occurring. How it has been presented to the public, and whether or not it is even science, let along proven fact or “settled.”

Feel free to call me a denier if you like, but don’t make the mistake of calling yourself a scientist, or that you are doing science. It is all propaganda when you resort to insults proving what a weak argument you have indeed.

This would be why I am not a feminist. “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Gloria Steinem stated thus an interview with the talk show host Bill Maher. This is a feminist icon? In effect she has just labelled all women as hormonal sex objects in their quest for males. I wonder just how far that is from say; “What she wearing, she was asking for it!” The problem is that with most good ideas, they become institutionalised that are turned into ideologies. Those ideologies become intolerant of anyone who does not follow the most bigoted of paths according to the likes of some unnamed but all powerful cabal of haters, utter their pearls of wisdom as if handed down from Mt Sinai, similar to what Steinem has said above. In an effort to distance themselves from each other, “Oh were not like that…” Feminist theory have sub divided the ideology of feminism into theories, many, up to 6 different so called “waves.” As if, this makes a difference. “OH no, that is a femnazi, she is only a lipstick lesbian…” Err say what? Those are two different categories of feminism. No, the problem with being a “Feminist” is this; just like all Muslims are expect to apologise for all attack by terrorists no matter who or where they are, as if they were all close friends with any terrorist who raised a gun  in the name of their prophet. All “Feminists” are merely considered the extension of worst offenders in their demand for ideological purity. This is the 21 century; does any rational human being disagree with the idea of equal pay for equal work? Note Donald J trump does. But I repeat, I did say any RATIONAL human being. Thereby the Donald does not qualify. Enraging your audience with a term, “Feminism” that no one understands, (including those who seemingly must divide it into waves in the first place,) but everyone gets leery of, defeats the purpose. The real reason I am not a feminist can be seen as originally stated by Simone de Beauvoir; paraphrased thusly: “The point is not change names, the point is to change things for the better.” Feminism is dead! Long live equality for all, men, women, LBGT. People of world can get behind that phrase a lot easier than they ever will to get behind hateful, utterance of a so call feminist icon like Gloria Steinem. Oliver Cromwell had this to say to her likes; “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! (Address to the Rump Parliament)” I say to you Gloria Steinman, “Go now, you have staid too long atop that throne of false lives and thin veneer of contempt for other women. You are no friend to females as you pretend to be. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you and your tired old hatred of men and women who yearn to breathe their own free air, of their own free will, who won’t follow along your ideological path to oblivion.” That is why I am not a feminist.

Hilary Clinton seems to be destined to win the Democratic Party’s nomination. Where she will then be out-classed and out-flanked by Donald J Trump. This classic definition of hubris shows that even though Bernie Sanders is in the lead over Trump in national polls and would win the election if the poll numbers hold up, she will not let him do so. For her very own Greek Tragedy is not to be denied. This is her last chance to be the first female in the oval office, come hell or high water she is going to beg, borrow and steal every vote she can. Sadly, voters everywhere know it and will vote accordingly. Yet, one thing is clear, once she fails, like Icarus tumbling from the sky in a flaming trail of feathers and wax, she will turn to cast off any blame upon herself and point her fingers directly at Bernie Sanders for not dropping out of the race long ago. He is the one who has hurt her chances by staying in so long. Except for the simple fact that she is the second most hated politician in the USA with Donald Trump being more hated. Go figure why anyone would want to stay in the race to force real issues into the debate?

In other news this week, a lady entering a female bathroom was stopped by a security guard and forcible removed from the grocery store because the guard felt that she was not female enough to use the bathroom of her choice. Yes, she was transgender but this was in New York not North Carolina. Police were called and arrested the security guard for assault and hate crimes. This event calls to mind a YouTube’s “social experiment” of a man wearing a dress and makeup entering a series of women’s bathrooms with a beard. See how funny that is? And can you see the humor in the latest event? See the lady got assaulted, see funny that is? See the guard go to jail for up to 5 years for assault and addition 5 years for a hate crime, if found guilty? Come on, where your sense of humour? Hat is so funny… Oh wait, sorry, none of this is funny. Not the assault, not the social experiment humour. None of it. Because someone, a real person, who just had to use the bathroom, was humiliated and denied service as ever other person would be allowed to use, all because someone felt they had the right to pick on a weaker, smaller, minority group, seen as out of favour by the majority of bigots and transphobes. The people who find this type of humor funny are also going to find it hilarious for a bunch of men to don white sheets and plant a burning cross on the lawn of a black family. And then find it outrageous to be connected to a small, pathetic, mentally unstable man who walked into a black church and kills all the people inside praying. Hate is hate. You can try to call it humour but  people will see right through that and know you are nothing more than a pathetic passive aggressive wanna-be who has failed at being anything other then just mean.

How does one defend the Prime Minister after he brutally attacked Ruth Ellen Brosseau? A sharp, hard, cruel elbow to the chest, followed up by forcing her to relive the moment over and over again as he constantly referred to it in his frequent apologizes. Such pathos, such drama, such melodrama! Or rather what a load of … The problem with this narrative is this; the NDP members were blocking the conservative whip. Justine Trudeau came over to escort the whip to the speaker’s chair, rescuing him from a mob of NDP obstructionists. Wherein the jostling; Ruth Ellen Brosseau was struck in the chest. Lightly, (An NDP member pushed the whip, who in turn bounced off Trudeau, which then pushed Trudeau’s elbow that hit Brosseau) but she immediately took the dive for all the screen actor credits she could get, all the while acting as if she had been assaulted and injured. Thomas Mulcair the disgraced NDP leader immediately took up the outrage as if this had been a deliberate, vicious assault upon her being. As if this was the greatest crime of the century, as if…  And here in lies the whole point. What Mulcair and Brosseau fail to grasp is this; Canadians are not stupid. We can see the video, we can see the faux outrage and we can see the disingenuous hyperbole from the NDP on this issue. There is a reason why they, the NDP voted Mulcair out of his job as head of the party; this very disingenuous behavior on his part. Contrast that with his predecessor, Jack Layton. Like him or hate him, he was a genuine person in the way he talked, acted and behaved. Jack was the real deal, not some ready to scream outrage at any issue, any issue at all, no matter how small they may be as Mulcair clearly is ready to do, showing that  this type of “woe’s me” crying is all the voters could see from him. Thus, they punished the NDP in the last election by voting for the Liberals and remove most of the NDP Party’s historic gains under Jack Layton to another genuine person, Justine Trudeau. This is what drives this faux outrage by the former head of the NDP. The simple fact that Canadians like Justine Trudeau. They like what they see and what they have seen so far. The poll numbers don’t lie either. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-mar2016-1.3469716) If an election was held now, he might get a super majority on top of the majority he already had. So Thomas, scream all you want. It has worked out so well for you this far. Ruth, you need to watch more soccer to see how the professions fake a dive. You are not very good at it.

First, the good news: the Trudeau government plans to introduce legislation next week that will allow for Trans people to be protected under discrimination laws, and bars people from discriminating against them. As well, they will be adding them specifically to the groups protected under hate legislation. While this is long overdue, the ideological hatred of the so called conservative right for anyone not fit into their Neo Con mold, left this group of Canadians literally out in the cold. So far, so good! We await the specifics of the bill, but they tend to leak it for public review prior to actually releasing it. So it should go over well. Since the Liberals have a majority and they will be supported by the NDP so this bill should pass quickly with little opposition from the Conservative Reform Alliance Party. Canada thus is perusing Wales to have the best legislative protection for all members of our society and including the Trans people within out umbrella of protected rights, Wales being the first country to enact such legislative protection for Tran’s people. This is a trend we would very much like to see exported, adopted and duplicated around the world. The next new item would be the opposite, something not to be exported, not to be adopted and hopefully, never more to be duplicated around the world.

Having said the good stuff, let’s turn to the bad side of things. In the state of North Carolina, rather than accept they made a mistake, and change their anti Trans law, double downed on this issue. They filed suit against the US Government, who in turn quickly filed suits against the state. So now this is in the hands of the judiciary, where we have seen just recently that they can in fact be trusted to come down on the progressive side of human rights issues.

But wait! It gets worse! Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick stated this week that Texas would rather forgo billions of dollars, likely to be around 10 billion dollars, in Federal education grants rather than be forced not to discriminate against teenagers. Now even if you are stupid, 10 billion dollars is more than pocket change. But to present ideological unity and to suppress the rights of as many 13 000 Tran’s students in Texas schools, the Lt Governor will toss out 10 billion dollars. Where that money then will come from is unknown. But as education is not on the list of importance for Republicans they may just as well not replace it. After all, they have no education and look how they turned out; mean spirited religious bigots. Heck everyone should be entitled to be that insane. 10 billion dollars over which bathroom a few people will use? Now that is hardcore ideology. For people who claim to be strong supporters of the Constitution, they read the 2nd Amendment and forgo the rest. Like the Supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2) that allows the Federal Government to set the minimum standards for things. You can do more but never less. When there is conflict between federal and state law, whereas the federal law says more is to be done and the state law mandates for less, the federal law must be supreme and be the only law allowed to carry the day. SO the states can do more, imagine just for an instant, the bigot stats doing their job and shaming the federal government into being progressive? What a fine day that would be.

At what point will someone walk up and say; “Stop”? There are real issues to be dealt with, important issues to deal with. This is not one of them. This is the question of who goes to what bathroom. And yet more money will be spent on this issue that could be spent on real issues, health care, education… oh wait Texas will forgo education grants… The face of ideological hatred is scary. With no claim to reason, they will literally cut their nose to spit their face just because they would rather be hateful then be reasonable. At what point along the lines of 10 billion dollars do we pause just for a second to ask, well is this so bad? To allow teenagers in school to be accommodated and allowed to go to the bathroom that they identify with?

An open Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Congrats on the win, now it is time to get to work. Bring forth a legislative agenda to rock Canada with progressive legislation that helps clear the way from the destruction left by Stephen Harper’s government.

• Legalise Marijuana. You ran on this, time to deliver. But, least this become a freak show, free for all, it must have limits. I think that we need to commercialise it and tax it. The best way to do so is treat it as if it was a new round of cigarettes. Simple as that! Collect tax revenue from it as well.
• Call off your tired old morals or something like that. The courts ruled the old prostitution laws where unconditional. So the Harper government brought in even worse laws. Get rid of them all. Again legalise it, make it a legitimate business and then, you got it, tax it. Require a license, that needs a medical exam, and a check or proof the person is over 18, and we cut out organized crime, the trafficking of women to fill this niche and under age prostitution. Best of all, we collect GST on the whole exchange.
• Pass private member bill C-204, or whatever it will be called, allowing for gender identity and gender expression added to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Let’s add one of the most vulnerable groups to becoming full citizens. (Note that this will be introduced in the House of Commons next week. Score one for the good guys!)

People say this is all too simplistic. We need to study the ramifications of this all before we go forward. Really? “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein. Let’s try something new. In one draft we have added two new sources of sin tax to Revenue Canada’s collection plate, decriminalised many acts that people were going to do regardless of what the law says, and last we embrace a sub group of Canadians who have been sorely abused by our neglect.

But wait, you think that is radical? I have one more thing to say. If the above is radical, then the next piece of advice is revolutionary. Surely, it will burn down Main Street in its wake. But… the tax revenue it will generate will be enormous. Take the follow, you go to the store and buy yourself some chips and a coke. You pay the lady at the counter the price for both and she charges you provincial sales tax and Good and Services Tax from the federal government. In Quebec, this amounts to some 15.5% which is a large bit out of your wallet. I will only ask that we collect the same amount of taxes that corporations are charging! I suggest that we tax all stock trades at 1.5% of purchase price. This is the same amount that you will get charged by the trading company or trader that you deal with. The difference is this. Whereas GST hits all Canadians as a regressive tax, this tax only affects the very wealthy and the rich. The TSX could generate tax revenue nearing 3 million dollars per day, perhaps as much as a billion dollars per year or more. Best of all, this sort of tax effects only the wealthiest of people and spares the middle class from its reach. Same deal for my last suggestion. Presently, there is no inheritance tax for wealthy Canadians. So for those with estates worth over 100 million dollars, we should charge them 1%. The counter is that this money was already taxed once and would now be taxed a second time. While this is true, the money belongs to a dead person who seemingly no longer has any use for it. But seriously, the money was made by the help of Canadian society to raise it, safe guard it and now can be used again to help Canadians. The only people who would complain are those who inherit it. They are merely not getting as much as they would have and 1% less is hardly noticeable for the estate. But it will help out the deficit and other social needs of Canadians.

So in short, here is a legislative agenda bordering on revolutionary. Best of all, it amounts to untapped sources of revenue that government can use to pay from infrastructure, education and health care. These bills that are due today and need funding at an ever increasing amount will need to be paid from somewhere. New sources for revenue must be found. And the middle class cannot be where the money comes from. They already pay their share. Take a small bit from the rich or charging people tax on new forms of legal entertainment are a great way to help out the public purse.

As Fort McMurray burns from an out of control wild fire, forcing the evacuation of some ninety thousand people, fleeing here and there to escape the inferno, is it now time to address Global Warming? In fact, I think it is a very bad time to get into that whole kettle of dead, smelly, stinky fish. For a number of reasons, first, Al Gore claimed that “The science is settled.” on this end of the world apocalypse as we know it theory. In fact, at no point is any piece of science ever settled. But just like one does not swear in a church, bring up such a contentious issue has a better time and place then over the smolder ruins of  what used to be a city. The problem being is that Global Warming is not a strictly speaking scientific debate. It has no real standards to compare itself to or what measure to go by. All science is based on study of events in repetition. So I drop the ball and measure it. I do this a thousand times I can measure the acceleration of gravity. Global Warming is a singular event, happening right now. Scientist point to previous events that may show similarities to our modern event, but over what length or period time do we compare it with, how many years, century, or millennium, do we compare this present period with or to? For example, it seems to me that winter is coming about a month later and November and December are not as cold as they used to be. April is frightfully cold the last few years, at least 3 or 4 of them. Is this my subjective view point, or will time passing bear out a shifting of our seasons? Did I detect climate change? Or is that just another example of uncertainty on what time period or term we can use in our understanding of climate change? No agreement on any definition, boundary or timeline exists in the literature even from the scientists who claim Global Warming to be fact. Yet Fort McMurray continues to burn into the long cold night.

On the other side of this debate are the irrationalists; who claim that science is nothing, evolution is not even a theory and that the only work to be trusted is the Bible. They discount the global warming claims not for valid scientific reasons but because they don’t understand anything to do with the scientific method. (Do not pat yourself on the back if you do support the Global Warming hypotheses, you have Al Gore and his religious view of the settled science involved.) Thus we have two distinct sides with strong differences and yet strangely enough, Fort McMurray continues to burn with neither side offering us any solution or even a way to help those unfortunate victims. To which I say, they are both wrong, we need a new third alternative. In the middle of the Pacific Ocean lies a mass of plastic bottles the size of Texas that by 2050 is expect to grow so that there will be one bottle for every fish in the seas. For all the global warming debate, can we not agree that somehow this is not a good thing and that someone should clean up this mess? Stop adding to this mess, and find a lasting solution to this mess? We can start by agreeing that this is a mess that something needs to be done to fix it.

In the case of Fort McMurray, the cause of this fire; be it a lightning strike or a dropped cigarette, a camp fire not extinguished properly, the cause is not global warming. It is human. The disaster is compound not by climate change, but by a city government that allowed for a river to act as their only fire break, thinking the roaring flames will never jump over the cool water, until they did in May of 2016. See, I don’t need to call upon God to accept responsibility for this disaster. Nor do I need to scream Global Warming or Climate change as if the fault could be so easily assigned. No, the problem is human error and only humans can fix it. A fire break would cost the city money. So much money that they cannot afford it… How much will it cost to rebuild the whole city after fire destroyed it? I am betting that it would have been cheaper to have a fire break. Just a guess mind you, but I stand behind it. I am also betting that the new city will have a fire break and the budget to maintain it each year. Thus I say to you, we need not accept the religious element of either side. I don’t know and I don’t care if Global Warming had anything to do with this, I do know that Fort McMurray continues to burn and someone has to put that fire out. Abstract theories need not apply. So for the bottom line, Climate Change or Global Warming or its polar opposite the deniers need to both step aside, they are doing no good.  Not knowing the answer to some abstract Cause Belli won’t put out the fire at Fort McMurray, nor will they pick up an empty plastic bottle. We will put out the fire there, not to prevent Global Warming but to save communities. We pick up the plastic bottle not because leaving it causes Climate Change but because we may need to drink that water, or eat of the fish that live in that ocean. The third path is to have real reasons, to deal with real issues to find real solutions. Leave the abstract world to its own eternal debate. Grab a water hose and help fight the real fire.

But I am countered by the notion that if we could find the cause of the dry weather then we could eliminate the problems altogether. To which I say, that this is silly. Fort McMurray burns by human error in protecting the city with a large enough fire breaks. Forest fires will happen no matter what you think about the science of climate. They will not stop even if we had a complete picture of the environmental change which we at present do not have. The question is to make sure Fort McMurray’s disaster won’t happen again. I can get near universal agreement on making the next city have fire breaks that are larger and more effective. I cannot find any agreement on Climate change, nor upon what to do about it. More study is needed to find a smoking gun. No study is needed to see we have to protect out cities with better security, fire breaks and political will to make sure they are respected.

To Donate to the Red Cross to help out the victims of Fort McMurray, donations are being matched by both the Federal and Alberta Governments.

http://www.redcross.ca/

Thanks for reading!

This gift keeps on giving…

In my recent blog, I posted about North Carolina and their law banning transgender people from going to their self selected bathroom, forcing them instead to the bathroom of their biological identity. In reaction, many videos have surfaced showing the results of this open display of ignorance at best and sheer discrimination at worst. I would like to review three of them that caught my eye. First video (Linked below), taken in December, (2015?) surfaced showing police demanding identification from a lesbian woman deemed by said police to be not worthy of being female based on her looks, to being allowed into a female bathroom. When she refused, not having any, she is escorted out of the bathroom, insultingly called “Sir” by the police. (Who carried ID to the bathroom?)Now we can see future fall out, women will need to carry and show ID to law enforcement be allowed into bathrooms. Those without will be removed as a danger to society. Luckily, and surprisingly, no lasting damage or assault by the self righteous police officer was done even as they were rough in their handling of her for attempting to illegally pee… Wait, I am sure that there will be forthcoming future assaults. But things get worse.

We turn to our second video, where a black man, who sounded on the video to be foreign, perhaps poor sound quality, made me think he was African? Hence, my use of his racial identity in this description. Specifically, my thought was he sounded foreign? Maybe he is from Uganda; the country that outlawed being Homosexual by putting them to death, and thereby explaining why he was so hyper alert? In any case, this man follows a woman into the bathroom because he felt she was not female enough. So we may see in such a short time, what an accomplishment this new law in South Carolina has done. Not only does it bar transgender from using the bathrooms, but we may now morally discriminate against women born as women, using the women’s bathroom, if we self select that they are not feminine enough for out liking, even to the point where police can now throw them out for such offending individuals and call them “Sir” just to be on the safe side from any potential lawsuit or other legal ramifications if they fail to produce gender identification sufficient to police.

Our last video, to which I will not link; for any publicity might earn him YouTube money, is I would have hoped inspired by bad comedy, long since past any point of being humorous.  A bad joke doing in an attempt to make light of this clearly outrageous law… I seem to recall a similar skit from the Garry Shandling show, “The Larry Sander’s Show”going along the same lines but I could be wrong as it was so long ago. (And one of the actors now plays a transgender person on HBO series.) In any case, a man does a “social experiment” to see just what happens when a male enters a female bathroom, much to amusement of viewers? So wearing a dress, makeup and a wig, cameras rolling, he enters a female bathroom. Only to be told to leave repeatedly by different women, even as he explained that he was transgender and just trying to use the washroom. One can see the comedy potential here right? The thing I forgot to mention? He had a full beard, a face full of facial hair. Haw haw, yuck yuck. Clearly this is comedy right? The saddest part of all? Is that this is not the comedy channel but a serious political commentary. This guy actually thinks this is his exposing the transgender “lies” for what they are. Showing the justification for such a law and why it is needed. As if a man transiting to female would not shave, or a female transiting to male would wear wigs, dresses and makeup with a beard. Yet this is the level of sophistication for the supporter of the anti transgender bathroom law from North Carolina. Is it any wonder why this law gives rise to a new level of hatred toward anyone differing from normative values of self imposed white male politicians? This law not only allows for open discrimination against Trans people, it now allows for misogyny to show open contempt for women and misogynists be openly critical or women’s dress habits, even up to police intervention. Recall in the first video, how the police called the lady “Sir” to further humiliate and demean her and her sex. She is not following their normative in wear, or makeup and thus must harassed, humiliated and treated like a criminal, all for going to the bathroom. This is the real legacy of North Carolina. Congratulations; this is surely something to be proud of! In one foul (sic) swoop, not only do they demean a minority group, they put all women on notice, there is now a bathroom dress code. And the Police are now ready to enforce it. But they now have opened the door to outright hostility towards anyone not living up to the expectations of what a woman should wear and look like.

Lesbian evicted from bathroom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVuHAS2CtUM

Women’s Bathroom Patrolled by man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMA0mTPul-g

North Carolina deserves a note of thanks! Not for passing a discriminatory bill against transgender people but for opening that whole discussion to the national political stage and international reflection. We can ask ourselves just what is their problem with regulating bathrooms in the South? You would think they would have better things to do? I think this is a happy time! It really is. Look at the history of discrimination in the South. First there was Slavery. This caused the American Civil War and when civil rights won out, Amendments were made to the constitution. The result was Jim Crow laws. Complete with separate bathrooms, separate but equal no doubt. The answer was civil right legislation. Being unable to discriminate against blacks any more, they switch to gays and lesbians. Again the Supreme Court crushed there laws on discrimination. So now they are reduced to regulating who stand up to pee and who sits down? Perhaps we should simple rename this as #pee-gate.

Being transgender is not simply guys dressing in drag. It is a lot more involved and a lot more complicated. Starting at a very young age, perhaps before the age of 2, GTM, Girls to Men, MTG, Men to Girls, before they can even think of themselves as having a sexual identity, start to act out in such a way as to portray themselves as the opposite of social norms society has assigned for their biological gender. Thus when they can articulate for themselves, they will assert they are in fact in opposition to that biological destiny assigned by society. They will think of themselves as the other sex and act accordingly. Thus leading to a lifetime of conflict with social normative views and sadly being outcasts from what we expect a little boy or little girl to be and to act. Thus growing up, they struggle with the overwhelming message sent by society to behave according to script on the one hand and yet their inner need to be true to themselves. Nietzsche, perhaps out of context did offer the answer. “Become who you are.” Today, we live in a more open and understanding society, North Carolina notwithstanding, that people who are transgender are given a more accepting and welcoming transition. Laws are still need to be enacted and amended in order to ensure the safety and protection from discrimination for transgender people. But as with the Stonewall Riots that forced society to confront the lesbian and gay community. North Carolina will force society to now confront transgender people. This is why North Carolina has done a good thing, they play the villain as we are forced to confront such outrageous hatred in the 21 st century. In the end, we can and will pass laws to protect these vulnerable members of society.

The reason why people can think that Transgender are some sort of pervert waiting to rape little girls in bathrooms, (seemingly rape, molestation and assault are still against the law in North Carolina? What need is there to add another law on top of those, if not to merely discriminate against an undefined but clearly in need of protection minority group?) is because they do not know who or what a transgender person is. In order to help you, and myself, I went to YouTube to find transgender peoples who could explain who they are in their own words. I don’t think you need agree with everything they say, or even find all their content to be universally enjoyable, to find that after only a few minutes watching that these ladies are smart, articulate and above all else, human beings worthy of our respect and admiration for showing the straight world who they are but also granting us a view with these small slice of their world.

Be they smart, funny or beautiful, they do not ask your permission to be who they are, they, in the immortal words of Marin Luther King, “They shall overcome!”

Maya

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf0CRezZYOUcvqrdMmozowQ

Brittney Kade

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcKor6He5ZbTUYlvNntcEmw

PRINCESSJOULES

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT9lRRTBWIqMIfVgSyfsg7Q