WTF, Bill?
The governor of Colorado just signed into law a bill that expands Colorado’s antidiscrimination laws to cover transgendered people.
Bill Dembski says that this
points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design
To which I can only say, WTF?
Is he saying that this is the sort of thing that happens in an undesigned world? If so, isn’t that an admission that this is an undesigned world?
Or is he saying that the Unspecified Intelligent Designer—who may or may not be the god of the Bible, or might be space aliens—hates teh TGs? (Psst, Bill: your fig leaf for right-wing fundie creationism isn’t working.)
Having said that, bully for Colorado. I’ve known two TGs; I never found out what prompted the first one to make the change, but I read the second one’s story, and it was heartbreaking. Being stuck in the wrong body is not something I’d wish on anyone.
You’d think that as much as the religious right likes to go on about “traditional gender roles”, and how women are naturally submissive and men are natural leaders, and therefore the husband should be the unquestioned head of the family, and all that dreck, that they’d understand that there’s more to being a man or a woman than what’s between one’s legs; that part of gender is in the brain, so what do you do when the two don’t match?
The article that Billy links to raises the fear that—OMG!—a man could put on a dress and use the women’s bathroom or shower for perverted purposes. GMAFB! We’re not talking about peeping toms here. Rather, as I understand it, it’s about allowing women to legally use the ladies’ room even if they happen to have a Y chromosome.
Finally, I do understand, if only partly, people’s opposition to these sorts of bills: like most men, I’m quite attached to my dick, and the thought of someone wanting to have it removed elicits a strong ick! reaction. Also, gays and transgenders don’t neatly fit into a mental model of a world with 100% male men and 100% female women. If those are your concerns, I sympathize. But you still need to get over it.
I think what he’s really saying is “points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without [widespread belief in] design”.
In other words, he’s admitting that he believes what people think about the world is more important than the way the world actually is. So whether the world is “designed” or “undesigned” is irrelevant; so long as people are ignorant and believe that the world is designed, society will be better, according to him.
Epsilon clue indeed.