LGB minus T Spells Trouble
For Ted K, who’s run afoul of the LGBT crowd because he’s for LGB, not T rights. For the moment. It’s not that Ted’s opposed to a law demanding that employers respect the right of men to show up for work in fishnets. It’s just that he doesn’t think the time is right:
”The best opportunity for progress is … to follow along on the action of the House of Representatives, and then look down the road to a new day after we have a good Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.”
So what’s with this? Libertarian blasts Obama on LGBT issues. The Anointed One discriminates re marriage. Is it possible that is simply a position Obama is taking in order to get elected? Obama’s fellow senator and supporter seems to think an incoming Democratic administration will want to enshrine the right of cross-dressers to represent American businesses, whether American businesses like it or not.
I suppose that means we’ll all have to start calling skirted guys “she” at jobsites to avoid getting hit with lawsuits, regardless of their genetic blueprints, plumbing fixtures, structural integrity, etc. The law has exemptions for churches and the military, though I can’t imagine the latter exclusion would hold up long under a good Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. Once don’t-ask-don’t-tell is drummed out, it’s only a matter of time before there’s an aboutface on the oppression of GI Janes trapped in GI Joes’ bodies.
The article doesn’t mention an exemption for schools, and I expect that means that once we have a good Democratic Congress and a Democratic president, your kids might end up with a Mrs. Johnson who used to be Mr. Johnson, and maybe still has her johnson. That’s a little creepy, but I guess it’s never too early to embrace diversity. Or mental illness. Or whatever. Which will pretty much sum up what kind of society we are at that point.
Anyway, what’s great about this initiative by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, both Democrats of my state, is that they are honest about the agenda. It is only a stepping stone to the normalization of gender identity disorders.
Which raises another interesting point. Federal law already bars discrimination based on gender. If women trapped in men’s bodies are actually women who need protect from discrimination based on their ambiguous gender, then why don’t they sue for protection on that basis? I’m sure they’ll find some idiot judges to agree with them. I’d suggest the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.
Topics: pols, transsexuals
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:17 pm Comments (2) on Wednesday, April 2, 2008
2 Responses to “LGB minus T Spells Trouble”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
[...] Answer: Because he’s for the LGB but not the T. [...]
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
”The best opportunity for progress is … to follow along on the action of the House of Representatives, and then look down the road to a new day after we have a good Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.”
That is just a totally terrifying statement, as it applies, well, to everything.