Sorry, Girls Just Have to Deal With Being Assaulted for the Sake of Trans People

Dispatch from the Inevitable File out of Seattle: A man undressed in the women's locker room of a local pool. Actually, he entered the locker room on numerous occasions, once while young girls were getting changed.

Under normal circumstances, the police would be called and the intrusive creep would be arrested. However, Washington state just passed a law requiring that all public facilities allow patrons to use the bathrooms and locker rooms matching their "gender identity." Most media outlets are reporting — based only on assumption and nothing else — the guy was "protesting" the transgender bathroom policies. I'm not sure if that was the case, but whatever his reasons,  law enforcement and the facility's managers had their hands tied.

[mattwalsh-social-instory]

Who's to say he wasn't "transgender"? Who's to say he didn't "identify" as a woman in that moment? And whether he was "transgender" or not, considering "transgender" is a mental illness, what is the difference between a woman being forced to share a bathroom with a man who thinks he's a man versus being forced to share it with a man who thinks he's a woman? Either way, it's still a man. And this man has very conveniently demonstrated that fact.

Image source: KING-TV

As the sane members of society have been warning for a while now, when you allow men to invade the privacy of women, you end up in a situation where men invade the privacy of women. When you permit men to walk into the women's bathroom, the result is — shockingly — men walking into the women's bathroom. Washington is one of the first to enact one of these patently psychotic, utterly preposterous "transgender" bathroom laws statewide (by the way, the law wasn't passed through the state legislature, it was simply decreed by the bureaucratic Marxists on Washington's Human Rights Commission).  And it took only a few weeks for the progressive initiative to potentially endanger children. Imagine what it can achieve in a year!

Some may consider this incident hilarious, and although I'm sympathetic to that perspective, and I do enjoy when liberal ideas are exposed as fantastically idiotic, I can't really laugh about it while women and small kids are involved. But funny or not, it has served to highlight two particular elements to the progressive war on gender. Keep in mind as we proceed that I am not making any of this up. The quotes I share are 100 percent authentic. All of this madness is actually occurring, I promise you, in the real world.

Now, here are two things we've learned:

Progressives Erase Lines and Don't Know Where to Redraw Them

Back in the old days, it was relatively easy to tell if a man was a man because if he was a man then he was a man. You could ask yourself, "Gee, I wonder if that man is a man?" And you'd realize you answered your own question. In similar fashion, you didn't know everything about a woman just by the fact that she was a woman, but you at least knew she was a woman, which meant she was a woman. If a man was a man, then he was a man; and if a woman was a woman, then she was a woman. It made sense, I thought.

We had our lines drawn. A thing was what it was, and once you knew what it was, you could easily distinguish it from what it wasn't. None of this was confusing until progressives got involved. Progressives have always been that boring stoner kid in your 10th-grade philosophy class who asks insufferably stupid questions that he thinks are profound. "Yeah, man, but what if a thing, like, isn't what it is, or is what it isn't, you know?" Those kids always annoyed me. Little did I know I was entering a world run by them.

Now the lines have been erased, just as progressives erased them with marriage and just as they erased them in many other areas, including the womb. These days, you can't identify someone by who they are but by who they think they are or want to be.

No longer do we declare with confidence “I am.” Instead we say, “I identify as.” What we identify as has taken the place of what we are, and in the process, all form of identity — every line of delineation and distinction that defines us — has disintegrated.

Image source: KING-TV

But the problem with erasing a line is you'll soon discover — usually the hard way — that it was there for a reason. GK Chesterton warned that a society should never take a wall down until it knows the reason it was put up. A progressive is someone who demolishes the wall just for the sake of it and then hurriedly tries to re-erect it somewhere down the road when the rabid dog it was fencing in starts to eat his face.

So, back to Seattle. A few money quotes from the local news report on the locker room incident. First, I really enjoyed this one from a woman who witnessed the man intruding in the women's locker room:

"Really bizarre," MaryAnne Sato said. "I can't imagine why they would want to do that anyway!"

Ms. Sato "can't imagine" why a man would want to go into a place where women are taking off their clothes. "Bizarre," she calls it. Yes, it is quite the mystery. What could a man find appealing about naked women? Hmm.

According to the article, David Takami, Seattle Parks spokesman, says they're working on preventing similar occurrences in the future:

Right now, there's no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.

Takami explains further:

"This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff — someone who was 'identifying' as a woman," Takami wrote in a statement to KING 5. "We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities."

Ms. Sato chimes in with this:

“Either identify yourself as a transgender or you’re not and you’re just taking advantage of a loophole,” MaryAnn Sato, who uses the locker room a few times a week, told KING-5 TV.

Again, if there weren't innocent women and kids endangered by this madness, you'd have to laugh. A "loophole"? No, ma'am, that fellow was not taking advantage of a loophole. The law is specifically designed to allow men in the women's locker room. Yes, they may intend only for men who "identify as women" to enter, but whatever he "identifies as," his actual identity has not changed. The law is made to protect the "right" of a penis-bearing individual to enter a room where vagina-bearing individuals are naked. That is literally the entire point of it. This man did not discover a bug; he simply took advantage of a feature.

But what's incredible, although not surprising, is that the very people intent on destroying gender norms are now in the position of having to construct new ones. Washington state must come up with "protocols" describing "how a person should demonstrate their gender." The easiest identification protocol is the one we all subscribed to until progressives decided we must restructure our entire society to cater to the mentally ill: that is, you "demonstrate your gender" by simply being whatever gender you are. If that's out of the question, we're forced to devise rules for how a person must demonstrate the gender they want to be or think they are. Ironically, whatever system these fools devise, it will inevitably be more limiting than the original one.

Image source: KING-TV

They were convinced this man didn't "indentify as" a woman because he looked like a man and wore board shorts. So what? Are we saying a man who "identifies as a woman" has to dress like one? But what does it mean to dress like one? I thought progressives just spent 40 damned years telling us there's no such thing as "dressing like a woman"? Now we're going back to that in order to accommodate the desires of homosexual cross-dressers? Not only must progressives rebuild the old wall, but they must rebuild other walls they already tore down decades ago. Suddenly, it turns out, women can't wear board shorts. Does that mean women can't have close cropped hair or a deep voice or hair on their legs? I certainly feel that way, as a personal preference, but I thought feminists were fervently against any notion that women should be required to act, speak or look feminine? Have we changed our minds on that? Can someone write a memo or something just so I can understand where we are now?

Progressivism is so intent on destruction that it even destroys its own "progress." Amazing.

Progressives Don't Care if Women and Kids Are Raped, So Long as Their Agenda Wins

As I've said before, liberalism is an extremely hierarchical ideology, and homosexuals are at the very top. Their desires come first, and recently it seems the "transgender" subset of the homosexual community sits at the highest point of all. Of course, I've always known that children, devout Christians and white men are at the bottom, our rights and wishes always trumped by the demands of literally any other group. But it will continue to fascinate me that "transgenders" — a population that consists of about 18 people — apparently supersede the entire pyramid.

That's why this bill in South Dakota is being met with such absurd levels of hysteria. The law would require that men and women in the state use the bathroom correlating with their biological sex. It defines biological sex as “the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth." I never thought we'd reach a point where states would have to pass laws clarifying the fact that men have penises, but here we are. Obviously, this bill is sensible and sadly necessary, but progressives are practically combusting over it.

One liberal blog says South Dakota is "blazing a trail of bigotry" by telling men to pee in the men's bathroom. Another calls the law "terrifying." Vox shrieked that the bill is "anti-trans" and based on a "myth."

Image source: Orlando Sentinel

Meanwhile, this legislation that horrifies progressives would simply reaffirm what has always been the case virtually everywhere in America until three seconds ago. It would perhaps cause minor emotional discomfort to a handful of mentally ill people, but it would protect the privacy and safety and sanity of thousands more. But with "transgenders" now deemed the victimiest victim group of all, it's simply not acceptable that any of them should experience even a moment's inconvenience. The very thought of a gender-confused man having to go peepee and poopoo in the boy's potty "terrifies" progressives. They are up at night panicked over the thought. The thought of women and children being made vulnerable and unsafe, however? Not nearly as troubling.

One liberal website, reporting on the Seattle incident, explained the hierarchy this way:

Cisgender women might just have to deal with cis men creeps attempting to invade spaces that have traditionally been designated as "safe" for women.

Incredible. Women and children "might have to deal" with potentially being raped or assaulted? Good God, these people are truly insane. And these are the very same whackos constantly screaming about the rape epidemic and the rape culture. But now, for the sake of the practically non-existent "transgender" demographic, women "have to deal" with being unsafe. They "have to deal" with "creeps" invading their space.

Yes, we are certainly in a situation where some group — either "transgenders" or women and children — will simply have to deal. Either gay men who want to be women will have to deal with using the men's room, or all women and girls will have to deal with the potential of grown men walking into the room where they're changing and using the toilet. Astonishingly, the gender-confused men win. Their very deranged desires beat the very reasonable desires of women and young girls. Their fantasies take precedence over the safety and security of women and children. Mothers and daughters will "have to deal" with being raped and assaulted so that gender-confused men don't have to deal with biological realities.

A doctor could spend a lifetime evaluating the collective psychosis of progressivism that's led to this point, but one thing we can now confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt — not that there was any doubt before — is that progressives simply don't care about women and kids. Their agenda is all that matters. Everyone else will have to deal with the consequences.

God save us from these fanatics.

To request Matt for a speaking engagement, email Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For all other comments and death wishes, email MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.