The Genuine Article
One of the majestically impressive feats of the Dominionist Evangelical mentality is how perfectly they defeat their own logic depending on the issue at hand. In the current political moment you’ll see them furiously insisting that we CAN’T have laws restricting access to guns because basically “you’d be restricting the freedom of law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime based on the speculated theoretical future crimes committed by other people entirely.” Nevermind that these “other people” come from among that “law abiding” crowd. The Las Vegas shooter for example was law-abiding, until he wasn’t. Let’s set that logic fail aside for a moment. IF in fact we were top take that argument at face value, as a sincere premise, then how, pray tell, does the exact same reasoning not utterly crush the concept of “bathroom bills”? What, after all, is an anti-trans restroom restriction but an imposition on law-abiding trans people based on the theoretical possibility that a future criminal will abuse the situation to do harm? Indeed, those “future criminals” – on the rare occasion when they appear – do not even come from the cohort who’s freedom is being restricted (unlike in the case of gun violence). Thus, their “gun rights” logic perfectly defeats their bathroom bill argument, and they don’t even see it.
Similarly, it never seems to occur to them that one marker of a person with disordered interests would be a person with an obsessive interest in the genitals of a complete stranger. I mean, the very fact that so many people feel the need to make a political issue about other people’s genitals – indeed, their unproven assumptions about said genitals – would be a red flag in literally any other context. I say assumption because, quite simply, of all the uncounted multitude of women with whom I’ve shared a public restroom, not one of them beyond my wife has any evidence concerning the construct or functionality of my genitals on the day in which we crossed paths. In order to feel threatened they have to make an assumption without evidence. But I digress.
So, when they insist that there are perverted folks creeping in the bathroom stalking potential victims they are . . . absolutely correct!
Here’s an example. A Latina Republican running for California’s 44th district House seat literally not only stalked and harassed a woman but brazenly mounted her phone on a selfie stick and live-stream on Facebook from INSIDE a public restroom in an L.A. Denny’s. Jazmina Saavedra did, quite literally, play out the sort of misbehavior that she was attributing to the innocent woman she was stalking. From the audio of her stream, it seems that she had indeed been actively following this woman on a previous occasion trying to catch her in the restroom in order to set up her “candid” moment of bathroom policing. Naturally, the Dominionist right applauds her for her invasive actions, but what if there had been other, non-target, women in there? What if her assumption that her victim was trans was false (as has happened on several previous occasions of bathroom policing)? In what other context would Pharisees applaud a live-stream from inside a ladies room, let alone in the professed pursuit of privacy? This twisted woman directly violated the very principle she claimed to be upholding, and played the victim while victimizing an innocent.
In other words, she IS that which she claims to oppose. The genuine article, you might say. This is an example of why it can be so very hard to reason with Dominionists (and by this I don’t mean anyone who parrots the anti-trans rhetoric, many “ordinary folks” are just indoctrinated into lies and have never been exposed to anything rational on the subject…I mean the “thought leaders” who work politically to oppress us) – because their belief system has already made peace with being irrational. So much so that they dcan’t see it anymore. It’s like those commercials about being “nose blind” – they think their…trash…don’t stink, merely because it’s there’s.
Photo from m01229