Bathroom Boycotts Flush Safety of Women and Girls
Here’s a question for the mayors and governors who are boycotting North Carolina because of its single-sex public restroom law:
“Is your taxpayer-funded, executive office bathroom open to the public, including every Tom, Dick and Harry pretending to be ‘Mary’”?
North Carolina enacted a law on March 23 that bans individuals from using public bathrooms and changing facilities that do not correspond to their biological sex as stated on their birth certificate.
The law repealed Charlotte’s “nondiscrimination” ordinance that allowed individuals to use public bathrooms of the sex with which they identify.
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory’s office issued a statement of “myths and facts” to refute liberal media bias concerning what McCrory and other lucid people consider a “common sense” law. Nonetheless, public officials, who identify as defenders of women’s rights and privacy, have issued executive orders discriminating against North Carolina in the name of ending discrimination.
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, a Democrat, issued an order March 25, barring “any publicly-funded City employee travel to the State of North Carolina that is not absolutely essential to public health and safety.”
In Lee’s leftist universe, protecting the “public health and safety” of San Franciscans apparently does trump eliminating “discrimination” in North Carolina — barely. But Lee thinks his boycott in the name of eliminating “discrimination” trumps North Carolina’s right to protect the public health and safety of millions of women and girls.
It makes sense if you’ve left your brain in San Francisco.
Not to be outdumbed, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, also identifying as a Democrat, signed an executive order on March 28, banning all state travel to North Carolina “not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety.” Mayors of New York, Seattle, and West Palm Beach, Florida have joined the travel ban.
Then there’s North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, another Democrat, who’s refusing to defend his state’s law, calling it a “national embarrassment.” Check the mirror, Cooper. You might want to rethink that one.
Corporate chiefs quickly threw their Wall Street weight against the safety of women and girls. According to Jonathan M. Katz, writing for the New York Times on March 29:
“Bank of America, which has its headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., announced late Tuesday on Twitter that its leadership was joining over 80 chief executives, including Timothy D. Cook of Apple and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, in objecting to the new law.”
If these mighty execs feel so strongly about this, is it safe to assume they are instituting changes in their own executive commodes? If not, why not?
The National Organization for Women (NOW) has a prickly choice to make. Does it stand with the millions of women and girls who don’t want to share bathrooms and showers with a cross-dressing cast from La Cage aux Folles?
“At the 2014 National Conference, NOW members passed a resolution encouraging the use of ‘LGBTQIA’ rather than the previously used ‘LGBT.’”
Contrary to LGBTQIA advocates, sexual predations have been reported in gender-neutral public restrooms:
The New York Post, March 28, 2016:
“A transgender woman says she was raped in a unisex bathroom at the Stonewall Inn — and police are searching for the suspect who they say regularly frequents the landmark gay bar.”
Austin Ruse, writing for Breitbart.com, March 2, 2016:
“The homosexual leader of efforts in North Carolina to allow men to use women’s bathrooms is a convicted and registered sex offender, according to documents made available to Breitbart News… [Chad] Sevearance and his group have taken a lead role in seeking the right to allow males to use the restrooms and showers of females, including those of little girls, which is described by advocates as nothing more than nondiscrimination measures.”
The Family Policy Institute of Washington, Jan. 6, 2016:
“[Jason] Burnes exposed himself to children in a Walmart restroom in 2010 while [Norwood Smith] Pomares dressed as a woman and snuck into a Macy’s bathroom to videotape women in 2013. [Taylor] Buehler wore a bra and wig and slipped into a bathroom and locker room in 2012 to watch women at Everett Community College. All three men were arrested.”
The Varsity, Oct. 5, 2015:
“On two separate occasions — September 15 and 19 — two female residents at the university’s Whitney Hall residence building were the victims of voyeurism, having been filmed while they were showering. As a result, Whitney Hall and its four University College (UC) housing affiliates have revoked their gender neutral policy on many of the residence’s washrooms.”
Lifesitenews.com, on March 4, 2014:
“A biological man claiming to be ‘transgender’ so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed ‘indefinitely’ last week after being declared by a judge a dangerous offender.’”
Doubters should watch the video, “Women: Decide for Yourselves,” available here.
Despite documented abuse, the self-proclaimed defenders of privacy rights at the ACLU of North Carolina have filed a federal lawsuit against North Carolina, claiming that the law “particularly targets transgender men and women.”
That the law prohibits both heterosexual and homosexual cross-dressers from using opposite sex public restrooms, but does not apply to transsexuals who’ve had their birth certificates legally altered to reflect their sexual reassignment surgery, is of no moment to the legal contortionists at the ACLU.
Finally, let’s ask the presidential candidates if they support the 10th Amendment right of states to protect the privacy and safety of women and girls from cross-dressing sexual predators in public restrooms.
One can only imagine what might be sent out in a very, very wonderful and tremendous tweet in the wee small hours of the morning.
First published at American Thinker
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.