🚀 go-pugleaf

I was wondering if the transvesite went to the restauant to eat, drink
and be Mary?

John Savard wrote:
> 
> I was reading the latest issue of Scientific American. There was a
> bunch of good stuff in it, such as articles on new technologies that
> might hold promise for the future of electronics, such as nanotubes
> and tetracene.
> 
> Included was the sad story of how, in the early 1960s, the originator
> of the technique of the technique of executing multiple instructions
> per clock cycle, which helps the Pentiums and other microprocessor
> chips in our computers go as fast as they do, was persecuted because
> of having undergone a sex-change operation.
> 
> This is tragic and unfortunate; nowadays, things are different, of
> course, but it was noted in the article that transsexuals today are
> still the target of hatred and threats.
> 
> This too is unfortunate, but I tend to view this as now merely a
> law-enforcement problem. "Changing public attitudes", in the sense of
> making everyone comfortable with this sort of thing - as opposed to
> making people more likely to respect the rights of others, even people
> they disapprove of in some way - was, naturally enough in today's
> climate, the remedy advocated in the article.
> 
> Well, I recalled a news item from a couple months ago. A transvestite
> - a man dressed in woman's clothing, not surgically altered - sued a
> restaurant owner, and won, because he was prevented from using the
> women's washroom there.
> 
> Events like this will naturally be expected to produce a strong public
> reaction. A decision like this clearly, and obviously, compromises the
> safety and privacy of women.
> 
> Another example: at present, the law forbidding dogs or other animals
> from entering grocery stores and restaurants, and other places where
> food is dealt with, contains an exemption for seeing-eye dogs.
> 
> In Alberta, before the law was amended in this way, a restaurant owner
> was successfully fined for refusing admission to a patron with a
> seeing-eye dog.
> 
> This was outrageous.
> 
> When there is a law saying "do not do this" because doing it would
> *endanger people's lives and health*, then everyone is expected to
> _obey_ that law. To punish someone for OBEYING THE LAW is horrendously
> unfair.
> 
> Of course, presumably the combination of the principle that "ignorance
> of the law is no excuse" with the existence of a law against
> discrimination that took precedence over other laws allowed this to
> happen.
> 
> Of course, there are numerous other examples of this sort of things.
> Women sports reporters and male athlete's locker rooms. A number of
> issues involving homosexuality. Restrictions on how companies can deal
> with drug abuse among their employees. Even the issue of turbans and
> the Canadian Legion.
> 
> Canadians are fair-minded people. They oppose discriminating against
> people on the basis of irrational beliefs.
> 
> But it's not irrational to think that:
> 
> women's privacy and safety is endangered if all a man has to do to be
> able to walk into the ladies' room is wear a dress
> 
> a dog is a dog, regardless of what training it has recieved, and thus
> its immune system and microbial population are also likely to be the
> same, unless it is in a laboratory doing work on gnotobiotic dogs or
> something
> 
> men of certain ethnic and religious backgrounds would be discriminated
> against in the field of pro sport if those with a sense of modesty
> need not apply
> 
> it should be forbidden to communicate with a minor about sexual
> matters without the consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian
> (with exceptions, of course, for police and social workers), and
> certain attempts to promote tolerance of homosexuals are in violation
> of this
> 
> the ability of people to perform tasks reliably and safely is affected
> by drug use
> 
> communities of individuals have their customs and usages; ethnic and
> religious communities are not the only kinds of communities that exist
> 
> What therefore is being rejected is not the hard-won victory over
> discrimination. What is causing resentment and anger is interference
> in the lives of people who are not actively discriminating.
> 
> Since a part of this anger and resentment naturally will spill over
> against the groups on whose behalf these things are being done, it is
> precisely this extravagance that is putting our legacy of tolerance at
> risk. And since tolerance is in itself a difficult achievement (a look
> at history should convince anyone of that), I would think those
> genuinely concerned about the well-being of people would be trying to
> ensure that tolerance would be sustained, rather than trying to go
> beyond it - to achieve a Utopian vision of total equality - at great
> expense to many private individuals, thus creating a climate of fear.
> 
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm