Here are two articles that I never thought I would see on Fox.
The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had this to say about trans bathrooms,
“This is a solution in search of an issue." must be their talking points both Dr. Krauthammer and Chris Wallace said the same thing.
Chris Wallace destroys myth of transgender predators: ‘This is a solution in search of a problem’Here is another Fox host defending our use of the bathroom and he is not alone…
RawStory
By David Edwards
24 April 2016
Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday shot down the conservative argument that anti-transgender bathroom laws were necessary to stop sexual predators from committing crimes in public restrooms.
During a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, Wallace wondered if GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz was making a mistake by using the issue to attack Donald Trump, who recently said that he disagreed with laws that prevent transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice.
[…]
Wallace, however, dismissed Domenech’s assertion with a quick fact check.
“We actually tried to find out whether it is a public safety issues,” the Fox News host explained. “Whether it is a problem with transgender people misusing bathrooms to prey on others.”
Wallace noted that PolitiFact had looked into the issue and found that there was no known “instance of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States.”
“This seems to be a solution in search of a problem,” he concluded.
The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had this to say about trans bathrooms,
Krauthammer: There’s No ‘Epidemic of Transgenders Being Evil in Bathrooms’Dr. Krauthammer replied,
Merdia ITE
By Josh Feldman
April 21st, 2016
On Fox News tonight, Charles Krauthammer dismissed the giant conservative freakout about transgenders using bathrooms of the gender they identify as. (Or, as Ted Cruz and others have put it, grown men leering at young girls in bathrooms.)
Laura Ingraham said this should be a state issue and “not exactly Rosa Parks on the bus here.” She warned that allowing transgenders into the bathrooms they feel comfortable in would lead to people exploiting the system to do harm.
“This is a solution in search of an issue. I mean, do we really have an epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms across the country? I haven’t heard of a single case.”Would you have ever thought that you would have ever heard two Fox hosts taking our side in the great bathroom debate.
“It is not a major national problem,” he concluded, “and it should have been left that way.”
“This is a solution in search of an issue." must be their talking points both Dr. Krauthammer and Chris Wallace said the same thing.
You spend a lot of time and energy bashing anyone who does not profess the left wing progressive views but in my experience most of those who see their politics from the right tend to want to focus on issues relating to the economy, the national security and the 17 enumerated powers found in Article One of the Constitution and are most comfortable following the 10 Amendment and leaving most issues to the States as the individual sources of experimentation that they are better suited.
ReplyDeleteBy my observation many on the right tend to be libertarian in their views and tend to want a smaller less intrusive government. I worry when I see the size and growth of government sticking its nose into everyone's business. I do not want any government telling you or me where either of us can go when when we have to pee. I also do not like the government telling me that I need to pee and poop into a commode with a 1.3 gallon tank in a bathroom without incandescent bulbs, etc. In general Cruz has been consistent in his positions about a smaller less intrusive government but felt compelled to stick his nose into the 'bathroom' issue. I think that if you sat him down in a one on one situation he would agree that the government has no interest in who uses what bathroom. While I disagree with his position about this issue I support his right to state his position just as I would expect that he would support my right to see things different.
While I lack your experience with being out and about my first time out while dressed and having to use a restroom was during the Carter years. I have never had an issue using the restroom of my choice when out while dressed. Please do not assume that I pass.
Therefore the concept of this being a non-issue looking for a solution may be a good description.
I know, understand and appreciate the argument that the reported instances of T people lurking in ladies room to assault women are virtually non-existent. What I do not hear so much are incidents where T folks have been barred from the restroom of their choice. I have had no issues and while I do not speak for many folks on the trans spectrum I would think that if there were a rash of problems with with bathroom access over the past few decades.
I started to worry a bit when I saw a huge upsurge of people in the T community seeking legislation about bathrooms. I think the issue should have been left alone. I have been in mens rooms when Trans men have used the facility and have seen several situations where trans women used the ladies room. All without incident.
I think that the bathroom bills which have now become a talking point would not be an issue if there were no affirmative legislation.
Leave people to do what they wish and things do have a way of working themselves out. By forcing the issue, one way or the other, what happens is that people tend to react and what we are looking at today are reactions to reactions.
Just my two cents in favor of letting things alone.
Pat
You and I see things differently.
ReplyDeleteI see water as a finite resource that needs to be conserved and it also lowers our septic fees by allowing smaller waste treatment plants. I see requiring LED bulb also as conservation in reducing our dependence on foreign energy and also cutting carbon emissions.
As for why it is regulated by the federal government the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the power under the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states.” Ohio’s waste water is Indiana’s drinking water. The West Virginia’s coal plants affect the air we breathe here in Connecticut. I remember driving into Hartford on Rt. 15 and seeing the city enveloped in a brown smog and much of it was the results of mid-western power plants. Connecticut could pass all types of anti-smog laws and it wouldn’t make a difference because the pollution was coming from Ohio, western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also falls under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 because the law only affects interstate commerce and it also only covers businesses and schools that accept public monies.
As for bathrooms most of the time there are no problems, but there are literally thousands of cases of trans people being harassed in bathrooms. If you search my blog there are many articles of trans people being denied access to bathrooms there have been cases that the CT Human Rights and Opportunities have handled case here in CT.
At one time the non-discrimination bills had bipartisan support but that has changed in the last ten years. When we first non-discrimination bill was introduced in 2007 the vote in the Senate here in CT was 30-6 in favor of the bill but when it passed in 2011 the vote in the Senate was 19-17 right down party lines.
Without the non-discrimination laws we would be put into men’s shelters and it is still hard to get a job if you are trans but it is way better than it was without the laws. Without the laws we would be second class citizens. I know so many trans people who are so frustrated in sending out job applications after job application and go for an interview only to be told that they just filled the position. But they still see the ad for the job posted. I know too many trans people who took their own life or tried to. I know too many trans people who make their living off the street in order to survive.
We do not disagree about conservation or the environment. I save or recycle everything and I applaud the cooperation of the government in helping in that endeavor...I just do not like being told that I must do it or face the heavy boot of government. I do not want the government in my bedroom, my closet, my kitchen or my bathroom and I really do not like the government in my pocket taking my money to buy votes by redistributing the money that I work 60-70 hours a week to earn to others who have a better standard of living than I do.
ReplyDeleteI do not share your sense of alarm that without government control of additional aspects of our lives that all would be chaos and discrimination. I do not think that government mandates can change your heart and mind. Meeting others, working with others, conversing with others is my approach to increasing understanding and acceptance of folks who see things differently than I do.
Many of my life long friends would find themselves to the left of your views. We get along great and respect each other and our divergent views. I have one college friend I have been fighting with since the Nixon years. He now quips that he is so far to the left and that I am so far to the right that we often find ourselves meeting in the middle of our respective backs.
Pax
Pat