Do Obama and the Department of Justice want all states to eliminate penalties for “indecent exposure” now that males are going to be semi-nude regularly in front of girls in restrooms?
Girls are supposed to overcome their fear and discomfort, says the Charlotte Observer.
But numerous men dressed as females who’ve invaded women’s changing rooms and restrooms were later convicted of indecent exposure, voyeurism or worse. The YouTube video “Women: Decide for Yourselves” outlines the cases of Thomas Lee Benson, Taylor Buehler, Mario Morales-Herrera and others.
Were these men unjustly convicted? Should women adjust to being ogled or to men who expose themselves? Many of the male criminals described in this video identified as transgendered “women” and were convicted of rape, murder or sexual assault.
So much for the left’s assertion that males who dress as women are never a threat. Nothing pathological here! Move along.
In one of my file drawers is a collection of material started in 1998. The file is named, “Public Sex and Public Nudity,” following the movement advocating legalized sex and nudity in public places.
And guess who’s always at the forefront of this cause? Yes – “LGBTQetc.” activists. Just watching any homosexual “pride” parade shows how repulsive sexual anarchists find natural, God-given modesty.
This week, I reviewed that file. There are curious commonalities between the “bathroom war” and the decades-old “sex positive” movement.
And it gets much more complicated when you look at “indecent exposure” and “public indecency” laws. In most states, it’s still a crime to expose oneself in a public place when one knows it will be considered offensive, and some states have elevated penalties when minors are the victim observers.
So isn’t a school restroom a “public” place? And if many girls are still offended by male genitalia, as the Charlotte Observer acknowledges, does this mean existing indecent exposure laws must now be changed to make public school restrooms an exception? And should boys who believe they are girls be exempt from such laws?
Because biological girls have no right to be offended. The Charlotte Observer has declared it to be so.
And will Target store transvestites be off the hook as well? The girls and women in those restrooms must overcome their unjustified “fear,” too.
A public lewdness citation by police can result in a “sex offender” conviction. But is the DOJ’s new federal directive meant to override most state laws, declaring that lewdness is now in the eye of the offender? That if a male calls himself a female, his exposed genitalia cannot be found offensive by females in the restroom he invades?
Yet registered sex offenders are prohibited from living near a school, much less using the restrooms there, even if they are gender-bending students or teachers.
A friend recently described a situation in a Columbus-area Macy’s store, where a woman encountered an obvious male clad in women’s clothing in a dressing room. She complained to the manager, but was told that if she was uncomfortable, she could use another fitting area.
So we know who now reigns in America: drag “queens.”
Then why not review all the indecent exposure cases in the U.S. where males exposed themselves to females in bathrooms, so some can be overturned? It might be a matter of social justice, and even a form of reparations! Aren’t gender-confused people born this way?
Deviant males are the victims of little girls and their unwarranted fears. Perhaps “exposure rights” can be a new plank in the Democratic Party platform.
This insanity is the logical consequence of the left’s worldview. Common sense and objective truth, by contrast, provide a sure foundation for law and justice. There are actually only two sexes; no one can ever change genders; and it really is a valid expectation that you keep yourself clothed in public.
And bathrooms should continue to be safe places to perform necessary functions, not proving grounds for depraved identities. “I’m really just like other girls!” Or boys.
No, you are not. Go use your own bathroom.
Or perhaps face arrest for indecent exposure, just as the law requires.
But the wise North Carolina paper told us how things ought to be.
The Charlotte Observer’s recent editorial stated:
“Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined.”
Oh, that will make these girls feel better– it’s about equality!
And here many of us parents thought it might be about gross and unwelcome nudity and possible sexual assault. Silly us.
The Observer already displayed its lack of concern for children by failing to report several months ago an important piece of information: that a leader of the pro-transgender measure eventually passed by the city of Charlotte was himself a convicted homosexual child molester.
Several boys suffered because of the actions of Chad Sevearance, but this newspaper concealed the deviant, criminal background of the person leading essentially a pro-exposure movement.
When you strip away all the rhetoric, so to speak, that’s what the bathroom battle is.
It’s about nonconsensual nudity: people of the opposite sex who may expose themselves to you without your implied consent.
It’s also about your own semi-nude exposure to them without your prior consent. And the stakes go up enormously when children are brought into the picture, as Obama has done.
Is this about fear? Or a natural instinct for modesty, human dignity, sexual safety and healthy boundaries?
And if not, why are we not all running around naked, especially in warm weather? After all, many of the ancients did, as we can see from Greek statues and Roman frescoes.
But then, they were pagans. Perhaps this exposes the natural connection between a fondness for public nudity and rejection of Almighty God.
First published at WND
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.