Ben Shapiro misses the point. By about a mile.

Hello boys, we’re back at it again with another piece from our good friend(?) Benjamin Aaron “Ben” Shapiro. This time, in article form, rather than an excerpt from a speech. Oh, how I do enjoy the extreme care and Fox News-brand conservatism that comes from him.

I talked about his opinions on transgenderism a while before, but he’s back at it again now.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13794/trump-kills-obamas-transgender-bathroom-policy-ben-shapiro

Let’s get right into it.

So, President Trump has rolled by an Obama-era regulation crammed down on public schools across America – no longer will public schools be forced to admit boys who believe they are girls into the little girls’ room.

Wow, Obama-era feels so weird to say. Hehe.

Already we’re with an inaccuracy. First of all, this applies to all trans kids. From the wording, it sounds like it’s only being used to biologically male trans girls. However, I assure you, the regulation also applies to biologically female trans boys. Because, you know, equality is a thing.

Also, as I’ve said before, “boys who believe they are girls” is not what trans girls are. They are trans girls. Just girls. It’s not part of some delusion or belief, inasmuch as any other woman “believes” they are a woman. It’s sort of an inaccurate statement. Even if you define do define gender as whatever parts the person was born with, I would say that just saying “trans girls” is just more fitting. Everyone knows what that term means– and whether they interpret “trans girl” as meaning “male girl, real girl” or “boy who thinks he’s a girl,” the two differing viewpoints, it’s an accurate representation of the group.

Now, I won’t say that it doesn’t apply, as quite a lot of children who believed they were trans come to find out that they were simply mistaken, and some of these examples are boys, so in those cases it would be true, but it’s not representative of every example by a long shot.

Also, I don’t get why this is considered to be an overly-restrictive regulation, as you implied… this is ensuring that people have the negative right to use the bathroom that they correspond with, that they feel most comfortable in. Usually the one that they’ll be more accepted in, considering their appearance– I know you might bring up examples of genetically-unlucky adult trans people, but I’ll say examples of such don’t quite apply for schoolchildren, many of whom presumably are not fully developed.

This, according to the left is a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions: unless society humors transgender people in their delusions as to their biological sex, horror upon horror will occur.

“delusions,” ahahaha. Trannies aren’t delusional, mister Shapiro. Dysphoria is not the same thing as delusion.

No government body in America (except maybe New York???) is asking that people validate transsexuals. We’re not making legislation that says “you have to call a tranny whatever pronouns they want to be called.” We’re not even saying you have to agree that they belong in the bathroom they go to. The government isn’t dictating opinion or personal belief held, it has nothing to do with society. It’s allowing for negative rights. Negative rights meaning, the government can’t enforce something onto you. We have the negative right to go to an Eminem concert, or to go to a Ben Shapiro talk, whichever one is happening whenever, or we can choose to not go at all; our government doesn’t force us to go there because it’s our negative right of association. If the state government said “you have to go to an Eminem concert if you want to go anywhere tonight” or “you can’t go to one of Ben Shapiro’s speeches if you’re registered as a Democrat,” that would be the state enforcing its will upon us. It would only be logical for the federal government to step in then and say “no, you can’t do that.” This is an example of the federal government not giving the state governments the right to infringe on individual rights. I mean, it’s a question of what you value more depending on what situation– state rights or individual rights?

That’s not to say that I disagree with state’s rights. I think if a state wants to legalize weed, it is the right of that state to do so. Then, if they want to make it illegal again, it is still the right of that state to do so. I have my own opinion on it, of course, and I would prefer if the federal government just up and said “weed’s legal everybody!” as that would be quicker, but I respect the right of that state to impose that law or not. However, when it’s (potentially) actually a right’s issue, like this one, my viewpoint shifts. I don’t think state’s should legislate things like this, it’s honestly just none of their business.

I also think you slightly overstate what the issue would be like, I don’t think people are calling it “a tragedy of cataclysmic proportions.” There are bad things that will happen, but anyone saying this is overstating it. A good source for what will happen, though, can be found here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/us-transgender-survey-bathrooms-access

The statistics there are honestly why I don’t like this one little bit. I’m not fine with any kid avoiding eating or drinking. I don’t care if it’s a fraction of a fraction of the population, I’m still not fine with it, and if the problem can be minimized, especially without negative consequences occurring subsequently, then that is the solution I go for. And not giving a fuck seems to be the policy that does just that.

This has been the commonplace line from the entire left and media – Trump’s going to get kids killed!

No, no, Trump (and Obama) only kills little kids when they’re not living in America. We’ve been over this.

This action, I don’t think, will get people killed, necessarily. I would like to point out, though: Eight percent [of trans students] said they’d had a kidney or urinary tract infection or another kidney-related problem because they’d avoided using bathrooms”

So, they might not die, but they’ll certainly be in better health. Which is always a goal, right? I mean, the left and you might disagree on whether single payer or private healthcare is the answer, but obviously a goal is that people are not getting so unhealthy in the first place, if it can easily be avoided, right?

The federal government has no role in redefining sex for an entire country, particularly not under laws like the Civil Rights Act specifically designed to protect biological women from biological men in many cases.

The federal government isn’t redefining sex for everybody. Even if that was what the regulation did, it only applies to public schools. Public schools aren’t everybody, as most people aren’t school-age children– and even some school-age children go to private schools! But, still, it’s not redefining sex. It’s just saying “hey, trans kids exist, why not let them be comfortable?”

Also, the Civil Rights Act was “specifically designed to protect biological women from biological men?” Eh? I thought that was also upholding negative rights… well, in any sense, the regulation doesn’t put biological women in danger. The only biological women that may be in danger are trans boys, actually. Also, biological men who are trans women get attacked, too. I’m not seeing a lot of trannies assaulting/sexually assaulting any non-trannies, though.

This is an issue for states and localities, if it is an issue for government at all – which it isn’t, since assaults are already prosecuted, and transgender people have equal access to protection from the police.

Honestly, I believe that it isn’t the government’s business, in what toilet anyone does their business– especially if it’s a public restroom. For a private business, do whatever you want, what the fuck ever, you’re not the government. But when it’s government, I don’t think they get to discriminate arbitrarily. It’s just stupid of them, it’s not ethical to do so. I pay my taxes, I shouldn’t get fucked over by the government.

Women Have A Right To Their Spaces.

I thought you were against safe spaces.

The left keeps saying that women should stop being bothered by men entering their bathrooms and locker rooms if the men self-identify as women. That’s insulting to women and dangerous for them.

“The left,” I guess Trump was part of the left when he said Jenner could use any bathroom she wanted to??? It’s not entirely a left-wing position, it’s more like, a socially libertarian position. Just one that the American Left happens to support commonly. But yeah, semantics.

Again, the regulation is not saying that people shouldn’t be bothered. It’s saying that they shouldn’t be allowed to restrict access. You might be bothered by something I say, and I might be bothered by something you say, but neither of us are allowed (or want to) censor each other. I don’t believe in thought crimes

And… dangerous to women? Trans people? I was once linked to a trans-exclusionary blog that tried to record every instance of MTF transsexual violence against born women they could, to try and make the case that there’s a correlation between transsexuals and violence. Like, some sort of “the patriarchy seeks to subjugate us *hiss*” sort of garbage. They had less than sixty examples in total. Less than sixty examples total, for like, ever. That’s just what they could find, sure, but it was less than sixty. You want to count all the articles about a non-transsexual, man or woman, putting a woman in danger? Would you even try to count all the articles of something like that for a given year? I can bet you’d say no, you’d probably be looking around for a while. I estimate there’s at least thousands of instances, and in the thousands of instances, trans women have sixty. That’s, like, less than one percent. In fact, rather, transsexuals are disproportionately victims of violent and sexual crimes.

And also, I’d say the claim that it’s insulting is also inaccurate. I’d at least say that it doesn’t apply to any more than a minority of cases, those such cases being radically trans-exclusionary types; feminists with a devotion to their biology that ironically causes them to deny science and religious fundamentalists who just deny science. Because, and this might be anecdotal evidence, but in my experience, it’s a stark majority that actually ever give a shit about trans women. At my last school (as per state law) I used the girls’ bathroom and changed with the girls. And nothing came out of it (because I’m not a creeping peeper lol). Literally, nobody cared. It’s not like I brought out my dick and was rock fucking hard, that shit didn’t happen, and as far as I know, it just doesn’t. Most of the time, people don’t give a shit.

The idea of “why should we cater to the feelings of a stark minority” is something often argued in opposition to allowing trannies from using whatever bathroom. In reality, it’s more like the opposite.

And also… the regulation applied to trans women and trans men. This phrasing things so that it sounds like men preying on women is getting old.

First off, not all transgender women look like women, as some advocates seem to say

The vast majority of traps I know of look feminine. Out of those who I personally know, there’s not even an example that comes to mind to me who I can really say “definitely not a woman.” There’s kind of a broad range of normal, and, at least for most features, quite a few traps find themselves somewhere within that range. Of course, there are also many that do not, for quite a few features, and there are surgeries for this which are usually done. And they usually get them. Like, literally, for a lot of these surgeries traps make up a disproportionate percentage of recipients. And not even every one of them is genetically unlucky. The misrepresentation that most traps are, like, super masculine with just slightly long hair and poorly done eyeliner. That might be true for fucking Tumblr “””trans””” who wanna make a pro-trans political statement about “we don’t have to try to pass!!!!”

“some advocates” I guess is technically true, but these advocates are not representative of most trans people.

the whole proposition of transgenderism is that you can look like Mr. T and be a self-identified woman following other women into the bathroom.

A lot of trans people look super masculine before they transition. Doesn’t mean there was a time when they weren’t trans, just that they didn’t know it yet, or didn’t want to go public with it due to fear of how others would react.

Also come on, even the least-passing trans woman in all of history looked more like a girl than Mr. T.

There are some men who have taken advantage of this. Does the left believe that men should simply be allowed to use women’s bathrooms?

Trans women =/= men

If not, then why would they assume that self-identified men are significantly more dangerous to women than men who identify as women?

Nobody believes that men are inherently violent/dangerous except for sexists– usually ones who call themselves feminists. Straw man.

Sex Is Not Malleable.

Nobody has said this. No one believes this.

Nobody is arguing that transgender people shouldn’t be allowed to think whatever they want about themselves. They have the right to dress how they want, act how they want, and identify however they want.

If this article were only this sentence it would probably be features on TransAdvocate, aheh.

But their right to wave their fist – just like everybody else’s right – ends when they hit a nose. And mandating that everybody arbitrarily shift the definition of biological sex to self-identification – and threatening to punish those who don’t – is an imposition on the entire society.

Again, the regulation does not punish thought crime. Even if it did, it would not be on the whole of society. And it doesn’t even ask for shifting definitions of anything! It’s none of these things.

Most trans people don’t think like this, it’s honestly a fringe authoritarian kind who actually care far too much. Most trans people honestly DON’T agree with PC culture, or with most people on the left. They just see people who care about their rights, want to make society a better place, and associate with them. Even trans people who are more right-wing care about issues like this. We’re not asking for special recognition, we just want equal rights. To not be socially regulated by any government.

Society cannot simply begin undermining crucial truths like sex because some people are susceptible to more mental health problems due to that truth. That would be an argument for doing away with truth generally.

What crucial truths are you violating by calling what looks like a duck, acts like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, a duck, might I ask?

Yet the left refuses to acknowledge any of these ideas.

These ideas are mostly factually inaccurate and poorly-constructed straw mans. But hey, I’m responding, and I’m center-left, so that counts, right? :3

They want a new civil rights movement, and that means government action, even without Constitutional or legal mandate or even biological support.

The Constitution ensures equal rights and liberties under the law. Whether a woman is trans or not, she should get to use the ladies’ room without being hassled by the government. And we’re not asking for government action. We’re asking for government inaction, for public institutions to not enforce their will upon us. Because, you know, civil liberties and all.

Oh, and as for “no biological support,” try taking a look at the science behind this for once.

But then again, even after you’ve been shown the facts…

shapiroemails

screenshot-mail-google-com-2017-02-23-18-37-50

Here’s Shapiro responding to me via email about my blog post and saying that he’d respond to my blog on his podcast. Id est:

benresponse2

And, four days of podcasts… not a mention of me. He mentioned trans topics quite a few times, and answered emails from fans, but he didn’t say a word about me. And, then, he jumps right back on to narratives that I told him were misrepresentations of most of the trans community.

Now, I’m not going to accuse him of anything. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about what’s going on there. But I’m going to say that he’s made it clear where he stands on this. At best, it’s not support, it’s not respect, it’s just indifference– at best.

That’s all I have to say, lovelies. ❤

Advertisements

One thought on “Ben Shapiro misses the point. By about a mile.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s