Homeless and Transgender
"Let My People Pee!"
I have no problem with transgender people. It's a free country—so they tell me—that freedom extends to people with gender identity issues. So, if someone chooses to live their life in a particular way, that's their right. Living according to ones personal choice should mean taking responsibility for those same choices. That is also the nature of a free society. And, if those choices tend to make our lives more difficult as the result, we are compelled to live with the consequences.
Increasingly, people want to socialize the consequences of their personal choices by using the power of government to compel people to be tolerant—even if it's against their will—thereby establishing a government standardized definition of the term. One where the government has the necessary legal tools, not only to define it's meaning, but, to legally enforce that definition in society. This can, and almost certainly will, come to mean special rights, for special people. Definitions then, are extremely important when it comes to the law, which brings me back to the meaning of the word “Transgender.”
The real problem begins when trying to find out what portion of the population fits the definition. Why? Well, it depends on what you mean by "Transgender." Do we mean people who don't identify at all with their birth sex and live and dress as a person of the opposite sex? Or, do we mean a person who sometimes wears clothes that traditionally are worn by members of the opposite sex.
For those old enough "Annie Hall" the Diane Keaton character from the Woody Allen film of the same name would be considered Transgender by some definitions, even though she clearly had no gender identity issues. This means that the number of transgender people can be as few as 1 in 100,000, to as many as 2, possibly 5 in 100. These numbers are important. By using very broadly defined terms, we can make a case for just about anything using statistics. And, frequently, they are broadly defined for political reasons.
I recently read an article about the problems of homeless, transgender people. Apparently. they were being treated unfairly because public facilities for the homeless didn't distinguish beyond male and female; what to do about those who don't identify as either?
Now, just how many homeless transgender people are there really? This is where numbers matter greatly. In fact, the numbers of actual transgender people, who are also homeless is almost impossible to find. Probably, because they are, statistically speaking, virtually non-existent. That is, unless you broaden the term to be more inclusive. Then, we find a lot more people suffering this problem. By using using semantics, the numbers of those suffering the double malady of homelessness and gender identity issues expands exponentially—and “Voila” we instantly have a new and growing protected class of citizens, with new government mandates, new regulations and a demand for new tax dollars. I’m not referring to homeless transgender people, of course. That new class of citizens, mostly created out thin air, is really government bureaucrats.
You see, there are costs, upon costs, upon costs associated with government mandates. It is never as simple as hiring a few good men and woman to make sure things are running smoothly. There are substantial costs for the employer in the form of lawyers, which are expensive, and new jobs created to monitor how effectively the company is complying with the new law. Hiring becomes more expensive when you must always hire with quotas in mind, making sure you've met a reasonable number of minorities. This compels businesses to bend over backwards in an effort to hire far more minorities than are reasonably reflected in society, all in a effort to look good, just in case someone makes the claim of discrimination. There are costs, yet again, spent fighting frivolous lawsuits and paying off would-be defendants eager to get into some companies deep pockets.
A number of years ago I worked for a Fortune 100 company. In just the one office where I worked there were about five thousand employees. Two of that total of five thousand were transgender. In an effort to accommodate those two, the company had to build separate bathroom facilities or risk the wrath of the federal government. This wasn't really an issue for a global financial power, as long as they complied. If they didn't, the lawsuits by individuals and the government could be very costly indeed, to say nothing of the of bad publicity that could be financially debilitating. They had a reputation as being one of the most race friendly, single parent family friendly, gay and lesbian friendly, female friendly, companies in the world, which they proudly printed on their business cards. These cards were then handed out in malls and other places where people tended to congregate, all in an effort to hire as many minorities as possible. Make no mistake, this wasn't done out of a sense altruism. It was self preservation, pure and simple.
This means that every-time a new, protected class of citizens with special rights and needs is discovered, a new class of politicians comes with them as well. And, the lawyers are always at the forefront, eager to defend this new group of clients, running legal fees to new and stratospheric heights, driving it all.
What will the inevitable cost be for all these newly minted taxpayer dependents? More than we've got, that's for certain. But, we will feel good about ourselves—at least those who need to feel good about themselves at the expense of everyone else—their enlightenment on full display for the world to see and admire. Feeling good about yourself can be very expensive. No matter, the cost will simply be passed along to the rest of us.
What will the real impact be, beyond the feel-good,self-congratulatory “Aw, shucks, aren't we special for being so enlightened” drivel of nee-adolescent progressives? More money will be diverted away from the real problem of homelessness and given over to the new, made-up problem, with the real homeless problem left unaddressed. That's the reality, but children seldom ever care about reality. They are, after all, adolescents, why should they.
Mark Magula
Increasingly, people want to socialize the consequences of their personal choices by using the power of government to compel people to be tolerant—even if it's against their will—thereby establishing a government standardized definition of the term. One where the government has the necessary legal tools, not only to define it's meaning, but, to legally enforce that definition in society. This can, and almost certainly will, come to mean special rights, for special people. Definitions then, are extremely important when it comes to the law, which brings me back to the meaning of the word “Transgender.”
The real problem begins when trying to find out what portion of the population fits the definition. Why? Well, it depends on what you mean by "Transgender." Do we mean people who don't identify at all with their birth sex and live and dress as a person of the opposite sex? Or, do we mean a person who sometimes wears clothes that traditionally are worn by members of the opposite sex.
For those old enough "Annie Hall" the Diane Keaton character from the Woody Allen film of the same name would be considered Transgender by some definitions, even though she clearly had no gender identity issues. This means that the number of transgender people can be as few as 1 in 100,000, to as many as 2, possibly 5 in 100. These numbers are important. By using very broadly defined terms, we can make a case for just about anything using statistics. And, frequently, they are broadly defined for political reasons.
I recently read an article about the problems of homeless, transgender people. Apparently. they were being treated unfairly because public facilities for the homeless didn't distinguish beyond male and female; what to do about those who don't identify as either?
Now, just how many homeless transgender people are there really? This is where numbers matter greatly. In fact, the numbers of actual transgender people, who are also homeless is almost impossible to find. Probably, because they are, statistically speaking, virtually non-existent. That is, unless you broaden the term to be more inclusive. Then, we find a lot more people suffering this problem. By using using semantics, the numbers of those suffering the double malady of homelessness and gender identity issues expands exponentially—and “Voila” we instantly have a new and growing protected class of citizens, with new government mandates, new regulations and a demand for new tax dollars. I’m not referring to homeless transgender people, of course. That new class of citizens, mostly created out thin air, is really government bureaucrats.
You see, there are costs, upon costs, upon costs associated with government mandates. It is never as simple as hiring a few good men and woman to make sure things are running smoothly. There are substantial costs for the employer in the form of lawyers, which are expensive, and new jobs created to monitor how effectively the company is complying with the new law. Hiring becomes more expensive when you must always hire with quotas in mind, making sure you've met a reasonable number of minorities. This compels businesses to bend over backwards in an effort to hire far more minorities than are reasonably reflected in society, all in a effort to look good, just in case someone makes the claim of discrimination. There are costs, yet again, spent fighting frivolous lawsuits and paying off would-be defendants eager to get into some companies deep pockets.
A number of years ago I worked for a Fortune 100 company. In just the one office where I worked there were about five thousand employees. Two of that total of five thousand were transgender. In an effort to accommodate those two, the company had to build separate bathroom facilities or risk the wrath of the federal government. This wasn't really an issue for a global financial power, as long as they complied. If they didn't, the lawsuits by individuals and the government could be very costly indeed, to say nothing of the of bad publicity that could be financially debilitating. They had a reputation as being one of the most race friendly, single parent family friendly, gay and lesbian friendly, female friendly, companies in the world, which they proudly printed on their business cards. These cards were then handed out in malls and other places where people tended to congregate, all in an effort to hire as many minorities as possible. Make no mistake, this wasn't done out of a sense altruism. It was self preservation, pure and simple.
This means that every-time a new, protected class of citizens with special rights and needs is discovered, a new class of politicians comes with them as well. And, the lawyers are always at the forefront, eager to defend this new group of clients, running legal fees to new and stratospheric heights, driving it all.
What will the inevitable cost be for all these newly minted taxpayer dependents? More than we've got, that's for certain. But, we will feel good about ourselves—at least those who need to feel good about themselves at the expense of everyone else—their enlightenment on full display for the world to see and admire. Feeling good about yourself can be very expensive. No matter, the cost will simply be passed along to the rest of us.
What will the real impact be, beyond the feel-good,self-congratulatory “Aw, shucks, aren't we special for being so enlightened” drivel of nee-adolescent progressives? More money will be diverted away from the real problem of homelessness and given over to the new, made-up problem, with the real homeless problem left unaddressed. That's the reality, but children seldom ever care about reality. They are, after all, adolescents, why should they.
Mark Magula