Welcome to the newest "New Normal," my friends. And also the death-knell of the Charlotte Observer's circulation that puts them out of business, if there is still anybody sane in that city:
A recent editorial in North Carolina's leading newspaper says that when it comes to [gender impersonation] issues, girls must get used to seeing male genitalia in school locker rooms. [emphasis added]
Um, why? Traditionally, girls didn't have to get used to seeing dongs until their wedding night. That's the way it's supposed to work. This is tantamount to saying that all girls are going to be whores and sluts (if they're lucky; gender impersonator recruits if they're not) by government edict, and they must learn to submit to it....or lie back and enjoy it.
Understand, folks, that this is the Observer's starting point. Total desensitization to indecency. Where, pray tell, is even the narrowest window for compromise in this? And where are parental rights? What if I don't want my daughter - or future granddaughter, since my little girl is mercifully grown and on her own - to have strange protruding peters bouncing in her face on a daily basis? What if SHE doesn't want it? Why do OUR preferences and sensibilities get round-filed in favor of the freaks and pervs?
Ask the North Carolina "paper of record":
Responding to the Obama administration's [illegal, despotic] nationwide directive that public schools must allow [gender impersonators] to use the bathroom they feel most comfortable with, The Charlotte Observer's editorial board has likened the issue to [drumroll, please] civil rights legislation.
"This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday," reads the editorial, which was published May 13th but is now gaining national attention.
"Nudged"? Nudges are gentle. This was like having your skull caved in with a sledgehammer.
"Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls' locker rooms — and vice versa — might be distressing to some.
"Some"? God, I hope it's more than some. And there's a damn good reason why it's "distressing" - because it's bleeping outrageous. In any other time before this one it would have resulted in arrests on what used to be called "morals charges". "Indecent exposure"; that ring a bell with anybody in the "Queen City"?
But that sentence was simply the condescending prelude to the faux anti-moralistic sermonizing:
But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort — with blacks sharing facilities, with [homosexuals making a debased mockery of] marriage — then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined."...
Blacks are human beings. Ethnicity is an immutable trait, and an irrelevant one. Homosexuality is entirely volitional, which is precisely why it has a moral content to it - and is, thus, immoral and unnatural. Gender impersonation is all the more so, just as it is correspondingly greater evidence of acute mental illness that needs to be treated and cured rather than enshrined as a make-believe "right" in what amounts to a tyranny of the tiny minority over the vast majority who haven't lost their minds and moral compasses.
Yes, the latter two are as awful as "some people imagined". They're worse, actually, because it's not a question of "imagination," but of eviscerating the established biblical standards that have been the norm for five thousand years. Or, to colloquialize it into a pithy, bumper-stickerable phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it". The other one is, "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." And there is no necessary reason to force perverts into the wrong public bathrooms and lockerrooms.
But try convincing these lunatics of that:
"That leaves the issue of privacy and the oft-stated notion of women and girls sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with someone who has different genitalia," the Observer editorial reads. "It's an image that's uncomfortable even for some who are sympathetic to the [gender impersonator] cause."
Why? If they're sympathetic, they have to know and embrace all the details, which are not all that difficult to figure out in advance. Especially since they're insisting on inflicting it on everybody else.
As to "different genitalia," note how that could mean almost anything - no genitalia (the Ken & Barbie doll look), a penis and a vagina, two penises, a horizontal vagina (for girls who want to go "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b..." when they go down the playground slide), a three-headed penis with a pencil-sized clitoris chaser - every last one of them entitling its owners to more civil rights than all of us normal people. Because if they said, "opposite sex," that would clarify things, and clarification is the last thing they want. The more sexual and moral confusion amongst the general populace, the better, as it makes the vast majority more easy to control and keep divided and cowed.
The editorial then lists examples in public schools across the country where [gender impersonation] issues are being successfully addressed head-on.
i.e. Being shoved down the throats of everybody else by force.
"The measures follow a simple premise: Offer those who are uncomfortable a chance to be comfortable, but give choice to everyone instead of taking it away from some," reads the editorial.
Which is bullshit because everybody else is having that choice taken away from them. Because that's the whole point.
Exit question: If I walked into a Charlotte Observer editorial board meeting unannounced, dropped trou, and put my junk on close inspection for its female members, then announced that I was "transgender," would they accept me (and it) or call the cops?
If I could afford the plane ticket, I might be tempted to find out.