Earlier this year, North Carolina’s legislature, governor etc. passed their House Bill 2, the gist of which seemed to be that trans girls are presumed dangerous in ladies’ bathrooms on assumptions that many conservatives take for granted, but that I’ve heard nobody explain coherently, though my liberal friends have been VERY articulate about pointing out the flawed rationale in the bill, the general hostility underlying the mindset, and so on.
In response to this, Target Corporation pointed out that girls like me are welcome to use the girls’ restroom in Target stores, and as a consequence (as the above picture suggests) I now do much of my shopping there. More importantly, half the country now seems to hate Target and the other half seems to love Target even more now — and both sides are arguing about it very loudly.
How loudly? Well, a week or so ago, some local teenage boys approached me, wanting to buy an old Mitsubishi Starion that I’ve been half-heartedly wanting to restore. As so often happens in small Nevada towns, the conversation became friendly and slightly personal, albeit politely. At some point, I was trying to explain that I’m a trans girl. They seemed a little puzzled, so eventually I said “as in the Target restroom situation” and that seemed to make the penny drop. Even in the small Nevada town where I live, people have heard of the Target restroom issue, even though there isn’t a Target in the entire county, nor the next one over, nor the next one over beyond that.
Meanwhile, what nobody seems to focused on is the ACTUAL wording of that ENTIRE bill. My girlfriend is a voracious reader, and a staunch supporter of all things logical, so she picked up on someone’s comment to the effect that they personally live in North Carolina and they considered the t-girl bathroom issue to be intentional misdirection. While folks were up in arms about Target, restrooms and girls like me … the rest of the bill managed to avoid the spotlight.
She found a copy of the bill online, and read it. It makes for VERY interesting reading, and analysis. So, now I am suspicious that perhaps the first section was put in there to be a distraction. It certainly succeeded as such.
Was this intentional? I don’t know, but my opinions are colored by the dark cynicism of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, whose writings introduced to me the idea that mistakes on so large a scale are not made innocently.