Monday, 19 January 2009

Perversion (n)

Middle English, from Anglo-French purvertir, pervertir, from Latin pervertere to overturn, corrupt, pervert, from per- thoroughly + vertere to turn.

Date:
14th century

1
a: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt
b: to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : misdirect
2
a: to divert to a wrong end or purpose : misuse
b: to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary

Recently, the Gainesville (Florida) City Commission passed an ordinance that adds the words "gender identity" to a list of classes of people protected from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation and obtaining credit. Already covered in the ordinance are race, sex, sexual preference and religion.

The Perverts at the "Citizens for Good Public Policy" made a film about this, and here it is below:


These Perverts claim that
"As written, the ordinance allows any man (e.g., a drunken football fan or a sexual predator) to legally enter women’s restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, etc. Furthermore, he can only be questioned after the fact, and merely needs to claim he had an “inner sense of being” female at the time. This enables people with criminal intent to “scout” restrooms and other facilities for opportunity. Thus, the issue is public safety."
Except... that the only case remotely like this happened in Portland Oregon, and the accused didn't even bother offering up such a laughable defence. The Portland law in effect at the time has substantially the same wording as the Gainesville one. These Perverts have "twisted the sense and meaning" of the ordnance, as can be plainly seen by anyone who actually reads it.

Number of years such ordnances have been in force in other jurisdictions: 33.

Number of instances of attempts to use such ordnances being used as a defence: 0.

Number of admitted attempts to frame transsexuals by members of groups like this one dressing in drag : 1.


Those are the facts, and no amount of repeating a "Big Lie" in shriller and shriller voices can make them false.

The Perverts not only made an advertisement that verges on being paedophilic porn, but they also have both "turned away from what is good or true or morally right" by concealing the facts in order to oppress others. They have "diverted to a wrong end or purpose" the cinematographer's art, and their claims to "not fear or dislike transgender persons" are belied by their actions.

It does no good to engage in hyperbole or exaggeration when making one's case. But yes, these people are Perverts in several senses of the word. Now most of those opposing the ordnance are good and well-meaning people, who have made the mistake of trusting the "Thomas Moore Law Centre" and others who have blatantly lied to them. I can't blame them, these Perverts are outwardly respectable people. But I ask them to step back and think for a second: do they really believe that a City Commission would pass a "let men in the women's room" law, as it has been described by the Perverts? Does that seem remotely plausible? Sensible? In accordance with what they know of Reality? A reasonable interpretation of the ordnance itself? Or are they being taken for fools by professional liars who know how to manufacture an issue to keep the donations rolling in?

Listen to the Dog Whistling here:
7. So what is a transgender person supposed to do?

The Gender Identity Ordinance specifically addresses “gender identity disorder,” which is medically classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th. Edition (published by the American Psychiatric Association), as are other disorders like alcoholism and substance abuse.

As citizens concerned with public safety and public health, we ask ourselves the same question regarding sexual disorders that we would ask regarding substance disorders: Is it the role of civil government, at any level, either to provide help to individuals suffering from such disorders, or to “mainstream” disorders (i.e., make them socially normative) via legislation and the granting of special rights?

We believe the answer is “no” in both cases. Whether the issue is alcoholism, gender identity disorder, or some other medically classified disorder, we believe private treatment, not government intervention, is appropriate, and that it is beyond the proper scope of seven lone commissioners to redefine something as important as society’s moral boundaries. The people themselves should make that determination, which is why we have worked to bring the issue to a vote.

(Bear in mind that both the American Psychiatric Association and the Gainesville City Commission address the issue as “gender identity disorder.” The term is theirs, not ours.)
And comparing transsexuals to drug addicts and alcoholics is not meant to denigrate them. Of course not.
9. Surely you are aware that the “sexual orientation” provision of local civil rights law will be nullified if the Charter Amendment is approved. Isn’t that your real target?

No. CGPP’s goal is, and always has been, nullification of the Gender Identity Ordinance, and the restoration of good public policy in a city with a local “Government Gone Wild.” Unfortunately, the City Commission chose to draw the battle lines, and have since gotten caught in the crossfire of their own social agenda.

The sexual orientation provision in the code of ordinances has been law in Gainesville since 1998, and during that time none of the principal organizers of Citizens for Good Public Policy ever mounted opposition to it. However, the City Commission bound the two issues together when they passed the Gender Identity Ordinance, thus taking sexuality out of the private bedroom into the public restroom, thereby infringing the rights of thousands of local citizens.
Read that paragraph again. Then again. Then try to follow the logic. Now consider not the words, but the actual effects, of not just repealing the ordnance, but also protections based on sexual orientation as well.

Reflect on how difficult it would be if the only objective was to "protect the wimminfolk" to have a referendum on just the ordnance and nothing else. Or even to amend the ordnance to make sure that "transgender" is not meant to mean terrorists, merchant bankers, astronauts, or sexual offenders.

It's pure bafflegab. A Big Lie, that even a moment's thought and reflection would show to be totally absurd. A Perversion of the English language. So while much of the Rank and File of the opposition are merely gullible, those at the top are Perverts, and in more ways than one.

Of course I don't mean to compare the Perverts here with other Perverts who make movies about children and men entering restrooms with them. Any more than they mean to denigrate Transsexuals by lumping them in with Drug Addicts. But no less, either. If the shoe fits...

4 comments:

sumptos devil s advocate said...

Well, I don't know, if by whiskey...

Seriously, these people think that by dressing up as their respective preferred sexes, the transsexuals are being sexual and are imposing their sexuality, by the very fact of each one's dress, upon others who must look upon their sexual practices, that of their each dressing up as the opposite sex. For example, when that Jazz kid wanted to be a girl in elementary school, by dressing the kid up as a girl they were forcing him to engage in sexual practices, but if they had done as they were supposed to and dress the kid up as a boy, then they were just helping the kid develop normal habits.

You see, this is the problem transsexuality causes: there is no longer any objective base for people to stand on; all rules go out the window.

Laserlight said...

Zoe, you've got to be careful appealing to "Does that seem remotely plausible? Sensible? In accordance with what they know of Reality?", because your opponents can equally well use it against you: "This dude is claiming he's really a chick in his head, and he wants to use the ladies room--does that seem remotely plausible?" etc. Or for that matter, "This joker is claiming he can sail West to get to the East Indies...does that seem" etc. Base it on what IS real, rather than what your average joe--who doesn't know and doesn't care--FEELs is real.

Anonymous said...

Why do these outdated heteronormative bigots keep sexualising everything?

What is it with these people? Why is it that whenever something regarding gender identity is mentioned they instantly think of sex and go off on a tangent not even remotely associated with the topic of gender identity?

Why are they so obsessed with sex?

Nicole

Battybattybats said...

SDA said:"You see, this is the problem transsexuality causes: there is no longer any objective base for people to stand on; all rules go out the window."

Huh?
How about people stand on the basis of The Enlightenment? you know.. On The Rights Of Man? Liberty and Equality? Egalitarianism etc?

Where human rights come from!

Cause TS does not conflict with that HIGHER set of principles, those principles that remain logicly sound irrespective of faith or culture.

Principles which allow for equality of races, sexes, sexualities and yet dissallows bestiality (animals can't give consent) pedophilia (children can't give informed consent) etc.

And above all it's a truly objective set of principles! Ones where you can easilly discuss the WHY something is right or wrong. Because its simply logical reasoning based on simple precepts.

The enlightenment was centuries ago, all of western democracy is based on the assumption that its precepts were right but we still are yet to extend them to everyone properly. So how about we start giving it a go properly or should we go back to absolute monarchy?