Human Rights Commission at War with Itself

In the wake of a man at Greenlake Park in Seattle who cited the Human Rights Commission’s new bathroom rule as justification for changing in the women’s locker room, the Washington State Human Rights Commission issued a statement defending its new policy.

The Human Rights Commission said in their statement that said, “Men cannot go into the women’s locker room, as this man claimed he had the right to do. Only women, including transgender women, can go into the women’s locker room.

That seems comforting.

It seems that everyone agrees that men shouldn’t be in the women’s bathrooms.

But as in all law, the devil is in the details. As in all debates, whoever defines the terms wins the debate.  The conflict lies in the fact that the Human Rights Commission (and their sympathizers in the legislature) disagree with the rest of the human species about what it means to be a man or woman.

They feel that once someone says they are a particular gender, that they are.  And the public be like, “Wait, what?”

The task of distinguishing between a transgender woman and a man, as a legal matter, is impossible.  Sure, we all think we know the difference between a person who had gender reassignment surgery and a frat guy who thinks he’s funny, but legally speaking, the concept of gender identity or gender expression depends entirely on the emotional state of the individual involved.

You need not consistently present yourself in a particular way to be covered by this rule.

Indeed, “gender expression” is a temporary condition by definition.  It’s an “expression” of something that makes you feel good. Kinda like when you put on your Russell Wilson jersey before you go to a Seahawks game.

You don’t wear it all the time, but sometimes it’s fun.  Some people treat gender the same way.  And the Human Rights Commission wants to force you to make the adjustments with them.

The simple fact is, the language of the rule gives people a legal right to access the bathrooms depending on an individuals mood.

Those who support the open-bathroom policy are frustrated by the fact that their crystal clear intentions are frustrated by the mess they put on paper.  They are forced to choose between rational public policy and good intentions.

Will they work to do good, or simply feel good?

The public continues to be outraged because they recognizes this rule is the equivalent of the IRS stating that, “You don’t have to pay your taxes if you are sad.”

Suddenly, magically, tragically everyone would be sad.  And you can’t prove they aren’t.  Some people laugh when they’re sad.

Would the Department of Ecology ever allow contractors to “identify” as compliant? Of course not.

When the standard you have created exists entirely inside the mind of one person, it’s impossible to show that anyone has failed to meet the standard.

It is a rule that eliminates all rules.

Apparently, the Human Rights Commissioner’s are the only ones who can’t see it.

But this was not the only way they attempted to get the public to focus on their intentions rather than the rule they wrote.

In their statement from Friday, the HRC also emphasized that, “If a business has a reasonable belief that a person is in the wrong place, there is no rule that states that the person cannot be questioned and required to leave.

Odd thing to say.  Why would they feel the need to clarify that people are allowed to ask questions?

Well…because the actual rule they passed says this.

 (2) Prohibited conduct. Prohibited conduct may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Asking unwelcome personal questions about an individual’s sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, transgender status, or sex assigned at birth;

So basically they issued a statement that said, “You know that rule that says you can’t ask questions, it means you can ask questions.”

They are officially at war with themselves.

18 replies
  1. Paul Austin
    Paul Austin says:

    Human rights commission? Which humans? Those who are Godly (Reverence for all people), or un-godly (Reverence for whoever sneaks in first to change the rules)?

    Reply
  2. Dahn Carey
    Dahn Carey says:

    As we work together to shine some light on the confusion, hypocrisy and dangerous “law making” behind “we the people’s” back, I’m encouraged. It seems to take this kind of alarming action by the so called “Human Rights Administration” to wake us all up and inspire action. It’s important to understand the mind set of activists who are taking these positions. It is a calculated endeavor to promote unhealthy lifestyles and for the sake of future generations, the silent majority of the population needs to “just say no” to future dangerous confusion. I’m astounded that after attending a March for Life, where thousands and thousands of citizens gathered on our capitol’s front step, there was no news coverage. On the contrary, a few citizens who looked like they thought it was Oct. 31st taped some toilet paper to a legislators office window and it’s supposed to be relevant news for all to consider. Time to turn upside down reporting right side up!

    Reply
  3. jeannie
    jeannie says:

    I feel totally violated by this new law. I don’t care how they identify I am a woman born as a female. They are infringing on my personal rights and feelings. If they were born male and are still intact they are a male. This has gone too far. I have grandchildren that are teens and grade school level. My fear for them is their safety which at best still wasn’t good before this mess. There are so many perverts, pedophiles and sex offenders that are out there. I don’t even feel comfortable going into public restrooms or locker rooms due to this new law. They have over looked my rights and how this makes me feel. It’s wrong.

    Reply
  4. remember alamo
    remember alamo says:

    The HRC needs to go back to school and take human anatomy 101.
    And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
    Genesis 2:27
    That kind of reasoning by the HRC only exists in the minds of ignorant people.

    Reply
  5. Tionico
    Tionico says:

    Not only are these perverted clowns on this commission making no sense, and are deluded, thaty are also engaging in theivery. How so, you ask. Simply by representing themselves to be government servants, then wasting their and our time and energy to play games, lie, prevaricate, tell not the truth, twist, imagineer, humiliate, insult, threaten, us who pay their salaries….. when one considers the value received for value paid out equation, these guys ARE thieves. And so is the piece of wprk that put them in their positions of tyrannical power.

    Reply
  6. Steve
    Steve says:

    Please bring this to a statewide vote and when the huge majority in the state feel this absurd ruling be overturned, we can have the ultra liberal state Supreme Court state on the constitutional status.

    Reply
  7. Erich B
    Erich B says:

    It amazes me how all these highly educated people on the Human Rights Commision have such a hard time figuring this out. If this is what happens to your ability to reason through a simple thing like who is male or female, after years of higher education, then I’m glad I stuck with the trade schools.

    Reply
    • Tionico
      Tionico says:

      A certificate or diploma is NOT identical to an education, nor to wisdom or intelligence. I am beginning to think these clowns THINK they are intelligent and wise, and thus so they are.. in THEIR eyes. We are seeing the proof, from their own words, theat they are far more deceived than they are trying to make us seem.

      Reply
      • Jerry
        Jerry says:

        By definition, they are liberal elites who believe only they know what is the right way and they will impose their will on the lowly masses.

        Reply
  8. Nancy
    Nancy says:

    The panel on the WA state human rights commission must be mind readers to establish such a ruling; therefore, they should be available any time of day or night to officially decide each and every situation that comes up. As good citizens, we certainly wouldn’t want to offend a transgender, and since we would be subject to criticism (also, perhaps a fine or charge against us) if we asked any questions, all of the judgment calls related to the use of bathrooms should remain in their expert hands. We truly need the phone numbers of each member on the committee available to us at a moment’s notice. With this thought in mind, I believe we should all email or call and request this information from the folks in Olympia. Would the governor’s office be the best place to start since Mr. Jay Inslee appointed the committee?

    Reply
  9. JohnR
    JohnR says:

    You have to love Progressives. If the discussion is global warming (or whatever they are calling it this week), we are told that we must follow the science and that the science is both irrefutable and unassailable. Well, the science behind DNA is even more irrefutable. The intersexed excepted (nature occasionally creates mutants), every cell of every human being, past or present, contains DNA that is either male or female. There is no middle ground nor is there any means of changing one’s DNA from one sex to the other. Yet when the discussion is transsexuality, Progressives tell us to ignore the science and look at the individual’s wants, needs and desires. Apparently, to a Progressive, a wig, make-up and breast forms (or, occasionally, just really wanting it to be while clicking your heels together), not DNA, can make a male a female. That, in a nutshell, is what Progressive consider scientific thinking.

    Reply
  10. Dmaninseaettle
    Dmaninseaettle says:

    Heh no you’ve got it all wrong! You can ask questions, you just can’t ask unwelcome questions! Its perfectly clear really.

    Reply
    • Kelly Tacoma
      Kelly Tacoma says:

      How is one to perceive an “unwelcomed question” for another person? Isn’t that completely within the mind of the one being questioned? How then can the subjective perception of a single person be the arbiter of a criminal offense? Law is meant to be objective so as to be just.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.