THURBER WAS AHEAD OF THE REST |

Just a matter of time before this scenario plays out in “your gender can be whatever you please” restroom near you.

The current gang occupying the turf around 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will spend money taken from the population to support a new sub-gang called “#PLM” (pervert lives matter).

Progressives will wring their hands and decry how divided our country has become and will shake their heads in bewilderment as how this ever came about.

#blacklivesmatter will blame it on white police officers.

Middle class, hard working Americans will drive up new gun purchases to heights never seen before.

Al Sharpton will start wearing his wig again, put rouge and lip-stick on, and start researching the problem.

If America is a stage, the whole world must be laughing.

P.S.- Elizabeth Warren will also use this to justify her “self identification” as a native American Indian.

America will become so disgusted with what our society has become, they will elect a true conservative President who will sign an executive order requiring all forms asking race and gender have an “all of the above box” which, when checked eliminated any possible chance of being placed in competition with those “minorities accorded ‘special rights'”. Then this circus we’ve been watching unfold for so many years will have gone full circle and returned to the true meaning of “all men are created equal”.

I discovered Thurber many years ago in grade school and enjoy him immensely.

But he lived in a simpler time. If Ms. Riding Hood gunned down the Big Bad Wolf today she would be arrested, charged with a list of crimes as long as your arm, hire that loud mouth, annoying Gloria Allred, and perhaps defense consulting by Massad Ayoob (who, after months of dealing with Ms. Allred would either shoot her himself or resign in disgust), and be litigated for years resulting in bankruptcy.

But then she would be able to sell her story to some author and perhaps a Netflix movie could be produced. Then with prosperity, she would descend into drugs, strong drink and fast living, enter Betty Ford and emerge with yet another book/movie deal.

We live in interesting times.

And what’s an unaccompanied minor (“little girl”) doing with a loaded semi-automatic handgun (she took the gun “out of her basket”)? And if it’s due to the danger of the forest, why would anyone let her go there alone in the first place? Sounds like Child Protective Services ought to be called. Either her parents are engaging in the negligent storage of their weapons or have engaged in negligent entrustment of a deadly weapon.

Dennis, and Michael, you both hit the nail on the head. Americans, are in bad shape. I can’t believe what’s happening with our public bathrooms, (as one example).

I told my friend while at work, progressives, are using minority groups to destroy our families. And our nation.

Dennis: Once when applying for a job, I checked all of the ethnic boxes, feeling justified because of the way the form was worded. Little doubt checking them all got me an interview and the job. I was later fired to make room for firing another “minority” employee, which was why I was hired in the first place, as another employee had told me. First time I was ever hired to be fired. Poetic justice in action there.

Let’s also observe that Little Red Riding Hoodie stopped four feet beyond Tueller Drill distance, no doubt equating Wolfie’s fangs with big, bad blades. LLRH was SO ahead of her time, as the Donald might say. (Go Trump!)

Not to mention that the wolf is on many endangered species list. The tree huggers will need to take a number and get in line to prosecute Miss Hood.

Dennis S. Keough: Yep, everything has really gone to pot, hasn’t it, ever since we passed that pesky Equal Rights Amendment at the end of the Civil War guaranteeing everyone equal PROTECTION of the laws and thus requiring the laws to give special protections to minorities suffering discrimination?

Liberal Dave,

I hesitate to carry this subject much further, but I must comment due to the tone of your post.

First, being against or uncomfortable with “special rights” afforded to minorities is not to be equated with being against “equal rights”. Affirmative action, while maybe a “noble” cause, has nothing to do with equality of opportunity or rights, but, rather, equality of outcome.

Second, your post, if read by a less educated audience than this, would lead the reader to believe that the equal rights amendment was passed right after the civil war. The truth is, to my knowledge it has still not been ratified, thus is not a part of the constitution, was directed at “women’s rights”, not applicable to the topic at hand. (please correct me if I’m wrong, I know it carries the force of law, but not as an amendment to the constitution, you can explain how it became the law of the land,if you wish).

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/states.htm

Third, your tone would indicate that being against special rights would make one a bigot. I have seen bigotry. I graduated from a small rural school in a town in Texas that was close to half and half white and African American. Our school fully integrated my junior year. I fought many a physical fight with other white students and had verbal altercations with a few teachers (I could get away with this because I was captain of a state finalist football team in small town Texas) on behalf of black students I felt were being mistreated. I’m all for equality, but I don’t think the New York Marathon should be cancelled because everyone won’t cross the finish line with the same time.

Fourth, as progressives tend to do, this protection/equality is being extended from its intended “targeted ” minorities, to any and all that wish to claim a life condition that places them outside the norm (the “norm” being heterosexual white males, I guess, since these “special rights” will, seemingly, eventually include everyone but that category). At what point will that group be beat down, discriminated against, and punished enough to satisfy the progressives?

Fifth, I see people as individuals, not as groups. I know this flies in the face of the collectivism doctrine of the liberal/progressive faith. I believe the legally ratified first ten amendments applied to individuals, not collectives. I believe the Constitution, as written, should be and is the law of the land, to only be amended by the collective of “we the people” of the collective states, by a 2/3 majority, not by supreme court ideologues who, with contortionist logic, make laws that end up dividing the country for decades.

In closing, it might interest others to know, especially those who think the hold-up in the ratification of the ERA is to be blamed on the evil, bigoted, southern states, most were concerned that the ERA would strip the “special rights” for women that those states had. I’ve always heard if you go in one direction long enough, you will get back to where you began.

P.S.-Liberal Dave, maybe you confused the combination of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the ERA, which is essentially dead, due to Supreme Court accomplishing the same goals and intent, through various rulings?

ERA passed at the end of the Civil War?

History check on aisle 1 please….

Dennis.

I’m a Republican, have a degree from a snotty, liberal arts school, have studied with Mas and John Farnam, and even have a class 3. I run my own business.

I’m also MTF transgender.

Trans people are not perverts, predators, nor freaks. We’re your friends, your LFI / MAG 40 classmates, your co-workers, and even your family members.

I’m sure you’re infuriated when the knee-jerk left brands all gun owners as gun nuts, people suffering from tiny penis syndrome, or crazy people who are one step away from a mass shooting episode. You hope that the left will keep an open mind, and look upon you as a human first, instead of making broad sweeping generalizations. How can you expect this, when you’re not willing to do the same thing with transgender people?

Please take the time to talk to a trans person, or do some research. Look beyond the lies and the fear mongering, and listen to their story. You’ll probably find that in most ways, they’re exactly like you, and seek the same sort of respect, understanding and toleration that you seek as well.

And BTW, Little Red Riding Hood took MAG-40, and scored at the top of her class. That’s how she was able to neutralize the wolf, while not endangering Hansel and Gretel who were standing nearby. H&G’s GPS gave a wrong fix, and directed them to Grandma’s house, rather than the house of the witch.

P.P.S- Transgender protections were not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although several federal judges ruled that it was inferred under Title VII of that legislation. Due to the reluctance of employers to spend the resources to carry a case to the Supreme Court, thus leaving the issue not completely resolved, the protections were extended to transgenders by the adding it to the rules of the EEOC ( the E stands for employment), a bureaucracy, not the legislature. I assume, as a parting gesture of the his administration, Obama and his enabler Lynch, arbitrarily extended an employment protection to include freedom of choice as to where we pee-pee, by decree (or executive order). Another attempt to remove division in our country no doubt. These issues are always convoluted because that “pesky” constitution stands between us and a dictatorship.

I’ve always said, It depends on how your raised, and it’s our choice as to how we treat each other. You can’t expect legislature to create a kinder society.

Slavery, is and was wrong, way back in our countries history. I’m a caucasian, and a catholic, I know to treat people with respect. And, yes our country is in bad shape.

When an 18 year old girl, brags about taking out prayer at a graduation ceremony, at gulf breeze high school! I would never infringe on, personal rights of an entire school graduation ceremony. Let alone, an individuals personal rights.

Ah, the human mind. That most dangerous weapon in the world. We work at trying to understand it, teach it, learn to utilize it, control it, manipulate it, fix it.

And then there is reality. Unlimited potential. That most remarkable tool has unlimited potential. As a tool or weapon for good, bad or mediocrity.

Dave (tL,n-Uo) … There is no way you can put a limit on it as you imply should be done with a “little girl” or an unaccompanied minor. She has less to do with the issue that you believe.

I know a remarkable retired Navy Lt Commander who is fair (meaning keep your eye on him even if he is 99.9%) with a gun. Then there are those “minors” … a purely legal term. So many have better emotional and intellectual maturity at ages as young as 10, 8 or sometimes younger.

Dave, you discount … nay, ignore the fact that so many have gone before us with access to guns for hunting, farm and other uses properly. Yes, some do not, accidents happen. Same with defensive forearms use in adults and “minors.”

There is no universal age for maturity, good temperament or ability. Good luck trying to convince those of us who have witnessed reality first hand and not denied it. Each individual should be treated with the respect they have earned, regardless of age.

Well said Paul, some people use little sense, when it comes to handling firearms. Or a crisis, of someone breaking into their homes.

I have to apologize for my careless use of imprecise terminology. By Equal Rights “Amendment” I meant the Equal Protection “Clause” of the 14th Amendment, which was passed — if memory serves — in 1868.

I would note that the clause does not apply to just any minority, but only to those who have historically been discriminated against. On the other hand, the Clause is directed to all people having equal protection of the laws, not any specific targeted minorities, but any minority can be added if it can be proven that they suffer significant, widespread discrimination.

One interesting thing about what’s going on now is that LGBT rights have not yet clearly been defined by the courts as being a group subject to protection (the Supremes avoided that issue in the same-sex marriage case, though there’ve been some lower-court cases), but all the anti-LGBT activity since that time such as the bathroom bills and anti-municipal equal rights laws is actually _proving_ that they have been and are now being discriminated against and will continue to be discriminated against unless their rights are protected.

This is all a heavy simplification of the actual constitutional interpretations and laws (which I don’t entirely understand, myself, it not having been a considerable part of my legal practice), so anyone who wants to riff on the words I’ve used such as “significant,” “widespread,” and the exact criteria for which groups can and cannot be protected and to what degree (which varies and on which I’ve not touched, above) will largely just be spinning their wheels. There are fairly good Wikipedia articles on all of this for anyone who cares to really have a basic understanding of how it works.

Finally, what I’ve said so far is only about the constitutional right, not about the enforcement rights afforded by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or about any agency interpretations of that Act.

Emmett,

Point taken- to a point. Yes, the #PLM comment was overly broad and requires more explanation of what it implies from my perspective.

I understand the biology and psychology (actually I did study this to some extent, I majored in biology) of transsexualism. I do not think a true transsexual is a “pervert”.

As a retired, career, big city police officer, I observed both sides of this issue. I started on the streets, after the academy, in the most “active” area of the city, being exposed to the “underbelly” of society. I saw a part of our society I never knew existed up until then. I saw both “true transsexuals” and those that used the disguises for their voyeurism (which sometimes resulted in child rape). I know of no case (at least in my experience)) where a true transsexual was arrested or turned away for using a restroom not matching their biological sex, most probably because no one even noticed. The arrest of the pervert dressed as a woman to enter the restroom for nefarious reasons were only arrested after an assault took place. Thus, the conundrum.

As rookie, I first observed the arrest of transsexuals. These arrests took place in an area known, not for homosexual encounters, but for prostitution (street walkers). As a rookie trainee, I was taught not just the letter of the law ( that occurred in the academy) , but rather the application of the law, by my training officer. We would occasionally arrest transsexual (actually, cross dressing homosexuals may be more descriptive) street walkers, not for prostitution or for being a transsexual or homosexual, but for what is now an archaic law, “disorderly conduct-wearing disguises (a law dating back to stage coach robberies and masks)”. You probably will ask why. So did I- early on. In my training, it quickly became obvious. The area of the city I was training in was predominately African-American. These street walkers were black. Their clientele were mostly illegal immigrants from Mexico. Some of the most horrific mutilation murders I worked were those of transsexual prostitutes killed by a client who discovered, during the act, that the one he was engaging in sex with was not a woman (some heterosexual men seemed to have an angry response to this discovery). I soon realized, that, by arresting these street walkers for a Class-C Misdemeanor, we were not harassing them, we were not only attempting to protect them, we were reducing the chances for another murder.

Not knowing your life experiences, not knowing whether you normally used women’s restrooms before this presidential edict, whether you have ever been confronted or arrested for using the “wrong bathroom”, not knowing if your transsexualism is by dress and sexual orientation only, or includes the surgical transformation, I can’t speak to whether you’ve been discriminated against or not. I do know, from my experience, that their are men who dress as women (and vice versa), on occasion, do so for many reasons other than to express their sexuality/orientation. Some use this cross-dressing for satisfying voyeuristic desires, which in some cases culminates in rapes and/or molestation. These are the ones I refer to as perverts.

The presidential executive order in question, apparently removes even the appearance of a man being a woman or (vice-versa) from the equation. This, I still contend, will lead to violence, eventually, at a public restroom near you.

My use of the term “pervert” may have needed more explanation. Most folks have their own definition of the term. If you chose to believe I was directing a derogatory term towards you, that’s is on you, not me. I re-read my original post and saw nothing where I made “broad, sweeping generalizations” on this subject , unless you’re referring to the liberal thinking that finds a solution looking for a problem that ends up causing a uproar, further dividing us. I didn’t see a restroom problem for true transgenders before the executive order, but I do predict problems after. If your life experiences differ, if you’ve been harassed or mistreated due to your choice of restroom, or even know from personal knowledge, a transgender person that has, I might be more sympathetic to your anger. Even so, like so many liberal causes, this executive order opens up a lot of opportunities for abuse by those who meet my definition of a “pervert”.

I do, however, apologize for the misunderstanding.

Since this is, after all, a gun blog. I believe the pervert will be shot with a well concealed (pun intended) .380acp. loaded with Hornady Critical Defense.

Sorry Mas. Again.

Food for thought, Emmett. Thanks for chiming in.

As long as America has wealth, the Fabian Socialists will be pushing their agenda, to reach their utopia, re-making the world. If our wealth disappears, people will not care about such petty things as who is discriminating against whom. They will be concerned with things farther down on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

If America is so racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic, why do so many people want to immigrate here even during “bad” economic times? Why do holy Muslims want to live in “The Great Satan?”

I guess, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, America is the worst country in the world, except for all the other countries.

One more thing; black lives matter, but criminal lives don’t matter.

Yes, Dave S.K, some people cannot handle a crisis, emotional, political, economic, or whatever. (And thanks, but I should really put the phone down, grab a computer with a real keyboard, take a bit more time and then edit before sending …)

Funny how most of those same individuals can create or muster a crisis with no effort at all.

Always interesting reading at the Ayoob Blog. And leave it to the Master himself to kick us off with amazing insight & perspective and questions, whatever the foray may be.

Thanks everyone, and especially the Master Himself, his Evil Queen and that core of amazing associates.

@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one):

Getting back to the question of the minor with the automatic, are you not judging this case by current firearms law?

After all, this story appears to have been written back during the Great Depression. Firearm laws were less oppressive and unreasonable back in those simpler times. Perhaps it was not illegal back then?

Certainly, there are examples of the use of firearms by female minors in American history. We need look no further than the example provided by Annie Oakley.

From what I understand, Miss. Annie began hunting and trapping at the age of eight. By the age of fifteen, she had made enough money, in such pursuits, to help pay off the family mortgage.

By the age of fifteen, she was also a dead shot. In fact, it was at this age that she entered a shooting contest and defeated a professional marksman by the name of Frank Butler. Frank was so impressed with Miss Annie that he ended up marrying her!

It is my view that it would have been a very unfortunate wolf that crossed paths with Annie Oakley even when she was still (legally) a minor child.

@Dennis: You said, “I know of no case (at least in my experience)) where a true transsexual was arrested or turned away for using a restroom not matching their biological sex, most probably because no one even noticed.”

A. In light of your experience, do you think that the odds of inappropriate alarm, harassment, or assault of a trans man are raised or lowered or the same if forced to use the ladies’ room? (Just to avoid confusion, by “trans man” I mean a person whose genetic or birth certificate sex is female, but whose gender identity and expression is male, so that it appears that a person who is by all visual clues a man is entering a ladies’ room.) Vice versa?

B. Would you agree that the new bathroom bills requiring folks to use restrooms matching their genetic or birth certificate gender are unfair against trans folks whose gender identity and expression is opposite to their genetic or birth certificate gender?

C. It is not uncommon for cisgender women (i.e. women whose genetic gender, gender identity, and gender expression all are the same) to spontaneously use mens’ rooms at bars, arenas, and other venues when the ladies’ facilities are overwhelmed (the turnover rate in and capacity in the mens’ being often much higher than that in the ladies’). While, as you note, a violation of a bathroom bill by a trans person may likely go unnoticed, those cisgender overflow events (pun intended) cannot go unnoticed. As an ex-LEO what do you think the odds are that in jurisdictions that have bathroom bills that all the woman intruders will be apprehended and prosecuted?

I guess I missed it, which was the transgender character in the story, the little girl or the wolf?

More importantly, 9mm Luger or 45 ACP?

Oh me, Liberal Dave, – The what if’s can go on forever. Contrary to appearances, I really don’t like to do long posts, so I will try to be brief.

A. The answer is yes, in both scenarios you alluded. The person(s) you described would be more likely to be assaulted.

(I know where this is going, I’ve been cross examined before, even so, I’ll continue)

B. Yes and no. Now we are getting into the self-identifying problem.

My sex is male, I identify as a male heterosexual. My genitalia identifies me as male, my sexual attraction identifies me as heterosexual (I do not get aroused in the presence of other men, giving credence to my orientation). This question addresses those whose genitalia/birth certificate, doesn’t match their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Says who? We take their word for it? It is my understanding that Dr.’s who do sex reassignment surgery require a psychological evaluation and a waiting period before performing the procedure. How about a note from the doctor/psychologist as a defense against arrest/prosecution?

It’s amusing, as I listen to this unfolding faux crisis. Back in the day of sodomy laws, all related arrests were made in public restrooms, gay bars, or gay theaters, by undercover officers. Dave, your friends in the ACLU couldn’t get a case going in the court system because no one was getting arrested for sodomy/performing a homosexual act, but rather for disorderly conduct- lewd behavior in public (the same violation as for a heterosexual act in public) . Only after setting up a false situation and forcing an arrest in a ” private” setting where responding police officers were led into a private domicile under false pretenses resulting in them witnessing two men engaged in a homosexual act and who refused to disengage until arrested, thus setting in motion the journey through the courts leading to the repeal of all sodomy laws.(a case originating in my jurisdiction by the way, as I recall the attorneys later admitted, even bragged of their tactics).

As for the “bathroom bills”, are they necessary/discriminatory? I don’t have an opinion other than the following. I feel that true transgender/transsexual folks have used the bathroom matching their appearance and/or orientation for a long time without being harassed. I feel that will continue to be the case, not withstanding new laws.

Locker rooms and group showers pose the problem, as I see it, especially in the public school setting. I know that when I was in school, if a biological girl that identified as a male entered a shower with a group of us guys, their would probably be some obvious arousal on our part (and it wouldn’t have been anger). If a boy, who identified as a woman (and was still physically a male) entered the girls group shower, there probably would be serious father/mother repercussions. Maybe in some folk’s world they would be called bigots, in the world most people live in, they would be called parents protecting their children.

Are the “bathroom laws” necessary? I wish they were not. Obama’s executive order? I believe his intentions is to force the fight, much like the sodomy laws odyssey, an attempt to make an agenda the law of the land. (unless a new president rescinds his edict and forces progressives to find, or create, a test case).

C. God, help me! (please allow me that 1st, amendment right to believe and express)

I got to admit, “cisgender” is a new one for me. Other uninformed idiots such as myself will be enlightened to know that this is, I guess, a new word/terminology to describe folks who identify with the sex/gender they were born with, meaning by most estimates, at least 99.5% of the population. I will boldly, and with pride, proclaim my cisgenderism! (of course risking be called a bigot for my majority privilege)

Dave, I would like to believe that police officers would use the same common sense they have used in the past, as it has probably happened millions of times across the country prior to this discussion. I’m sure we would have heard about it ad nauseum had this ever happened in history, especially at a sports venue. Will it happen because of the new “bathroom bills”? I surely hope not. That would give your buddies the test case they want to carry through the courts. I’m sure they probably have a defendant already lined up,ready to force an arrest for a violation of these laws, chomping at the bits to have their name on case law for the cause.

Mas, I again ask forgiveness. I thought my original comment was tongue in cheek, innocent enough. Some folks seem to be looking for a fight on this subject. I’m not their man. I will defend my comment to a point, but hey, “cisgendered”? Even my spell check doesn’t recognize it.

Still friends Dave.

P.S.-This discussion reaffirms my decision to retire to the wilderness, far away from what passes for civilization now. I will go to my lawyer tomorrow to set up an endowment for my only minor grandchild to go to private schools, just like the ruling elites, so she, too, can be shielded from all this.

Please God, don’t let anyone bring up Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, who can’t really make up his/her mind as to what he/she self identifies with. I’m so confused.

William, all I can tell you is that given the period I don’t think Thurber had .50 AE or .44 Mag in mind (the Desert Eagle probably wouldn’t have fit in the basket of goodies anyway), nor .357 SIG, .40 S&W, 10mm, .40 Super, .45 Super, or .50 GI, etc.

Funny how Little Red Riding Hood morphed into this discussion. I blame the damn transvestite wolf for wearing the grandmother’s sleep clothes…

Emmett, one final comment.

If, after reading all of my responses (whew!) you haven’ t realized yet, I have encountered many folks who are transgender, both as a police officer and in private life. Probably, most encounters, like you said, I never knew. Those encounters that I was aware of caused me no more pause than encountering a 7ft. tall person or 3ft. tall “little person” (I hope that is not considered derogatory). They are just people to me. I really don’t like labels. They confuse me. As they say, “you need a program to know what’s going on” now a’days. My use of the word “pervert” was, in my mind, describing one who, either by hiding or using disguises or deceit, to satisfy their prurient voyeuristic desires, or worse.

One last example of an encounter years ago. I was driving past a vacant lot, on patrol, when I observed two people engaged in a violent altercation. At first glance, it appeared that one participant was a completely nude female, the other, a shirt-less, shoe-less male. After making contact it was revealed, what I had first thought was a female with very large, perfect breasts, also was equally well endowed with male genitalia. The other participant turned out to be “her” husband. She explained she had started the hormone therapy and had the breast enhancement, but could not afford the complete trans yet. They were both African-American. I handled it as a domestic disturbance and no one went to jail. Did I handle this wrong? Was this bigoted or discriminatory?

Everyone doesn’t fit a category, nor do you are anybody else, have to fit someones else’s mold. All this posting, just to explain to you (and of course my friend , Liberal Dave, who loves to taunt me), trying not to hurt your feelings, because you chose to believe a word you believed to be derogatory, was directed at you, and that this new presidential edict will most probably lead to un-necessary violence.

No hard feelings.

Dennis.

One question to think about.

Going into a bathroom or locker room, and assaulting a woman or child is a major league felony in most jurisdictions. It’s very serious. Despite this fact, perpetrators are willing to violate the law to engage in this very behavior.

If a perp is willing to ignore serious prohibitions against this sort of thing, why are they going to pay attention to a law banning a trans person from a bathroom?

The answer is that they’re not.

The only people who are going to comply are the law abiding trans folks who wish to avoid getting sucked into the criminal justice system. Since a trans person is not safe using the bathroom appropriate for their birth certificate gender (because they no longer phenotypically resemble that gender), they are precluded from existing, because you can’t function in the world without access to bathrooms. The laws essentially prohibit trans people from being able to exist. That means instead of following medically prescribed treatment that has been proven to address their issues, they’re doomed to deal with all of the negative ramifications that come with being an untreated trans person living in the wrong gender.

We don’t need laws barring trans person from public accommodations. We already have a slew of laws on the books to deal with someone who is causing ANY sort of a disruption in a bathroom.

Here’s the other problem.

You were or are a law enforcement officer. So is Mas and John Farnam. You have power to destroy people’s lives. Not just by shooting or maiming them, but by merely arresting them. Today, just having an arrest on your record (not even a conviction) can get you evicted from housing, fired or passed by for a job, or sent into financial ruin. If you have the kinds of biased views of trans people that you do, any interaction with a trans person is going to be colored by your biases. Those biases combined with the extremely dominant personality possessed by most law enforcement types, have the potential to do serious harm to the people you contact. It’s ok that those biases exist, but you need to be aware of how much harm they can do.

Despite your experience as a cop, most trans people are not criminals, prostitutes, drug addicts, perverts or sex deviants. They’re lawyers, doctors, computer scientists, business people, teachers and yes, even cops and military officers. In short, they’re not much different than you.

Next. You worry about trans people using locker rooms where naked people are going to be about. The typical person on the right spins the scenario that a hairy football player in a dress is going to walk up to your eight year-old daughter, and wave his genitals in her face.

This is absurd. Considering the incredible number of vile comments, threats, and actual instances of violence against trans people, no trans person is going to expose any body part that is going to attract attention. They’re going to change under a towel, behind a curtain, or in a stall. They’re not going to stare, gawk, look at or interact with anyone. They’re going to shower in a bathing suit, change, and leave as quickly as possible. As a MTF trans person, I can’t change in a men’s locker room merely due to what I typically wear for clothing or bathing attire, and the state of my chest.

The only person who is going to wave his junk in the face of an 8 year-old girl is someone who is seriously mentally ill, or an anti-trans activist who is trying to stir up trouble. And again, there are laws to address the issue already on the books.

Final thought. I’m not attacking anyone here. I’m just trying to get everyone to step back from their preconceived notions, and to learn something about this. I was in class when Mas used an analogy about never lying to a cop. He suggested “Once a cocksucker, always a cocksucker.” He didn’t say “Once a muff diver, always a muff diver.” He made a nasty reference to gay people. Everyone in the audience laughed because most of them were heterosexual white males, but if there was a gay person in the audience, he or she would have been humiliated.

I don’t think Mas is mean, vicious or nasty. I just think he was brought up in that testosterone-affected, hyper masculine world of cops, military types and gun folks, and has probably not thought about the other side. He probably never considered that a gay person might be one of his students. So he probably repeated a line that he picked up from another cop or a military guy.

I an not your typical trans person. I’m to the right of Attila the Hun on economic issues. I shoot with a practical pistol group, and had the second best score in the class in my LFI-1 qualification. I’m a huge fan of the Colt .45, and carry everywhere I go. Even though I’m MTF trans, I’m attracted to women just like you. Men do nothing for me. (How is this possible? Simple. Chromosomes, genitals, sexual orientation (who you’re attracted to) and gender (who you feel that you are) are completely separate and unrelated to each other).

I know it’s a huge expectation, but I’m only asking everyone here to set aside your preconceived notions, and open your minds. The answer is not to isolate your kids from the world by sending them to private school. The answer is to introduce them to a trans person, and let them learn about the issue. Let them see that trans people are human like they are, and that they’re not the bogeymen that the religious right claims them to be.

Well, I finally got the inside dope on the semi-automatic pistol that was used on the wolf.

The gun was a Colt 1911 but chambered in 38 Super caliber.

Despite Mas’ admonition to not use handloads for self-defense, it was a custom handload that was used.

The bullet was cast from a Hensley & Gibbs #81 gas-check mold that had been fitted with hollowpoint pins. A 1 to 15 alloy was used for casting.

The resulting lead semi-wadcutter hollow-point bullet, after being lubed and sized to 0.356 diameter and with gas-check installed weighed (on average) about 117 grains.

This was loaded in Winchester cases over a charge of 6 grains of unique powder. Resulting velocity is estimated to be about 1300 fps, from the 5 inch barrel of the 1911, with a muzzle-energy of about 440 ft-lbs.

Those lead hollow-points, at that velocity, sure did the job on that wolf! 🙂

Emmett,

I will have to assume you’re not a progressive troll, trying to start arguments by searching the internet for sites likely to have socially conservative followers. I applaud you for your interest in firearms/self defense/training. I do remember a person commenting on this site a while back calling Mas out for the “c-ck s—er” comment (as I recall he apologized) , so I suspect this may not be your first trip to this site.

My question to you is this. Did you even read my response to your original post? You repeated the same, well known, oft repeated, accusations, and assumptions, as if I had continued some kind of an attack on you and your gender identity. That attack never took place to start with. You took the word “pervert”, and assumed that it was directed at you. None of my response would lead an unbiased reader to see your assumed, vile depictions of my beliefs on this subject. As Mas sometimes admonishes, “geez!!!!”

I will stick by my assertion that the new rules from the executive branch will embolden the “perverts” out there, who most assuredly will abuse this “special right” (not my words, but legal folk’s opinion writings). From my experience, and from statistics, there are more “perverts” walking around in our society than their are the 0.05-0.5% of the population (the figures from most experts that study these things report, not mine), that fit into the category you, for whatever reason, find yourself in. You can continue to go through life believing every “straight” person you encounter thinks that you are a “pervert” if you want, lashing out at every perceived slur. I will go through life ignoring those who hate “corrupt or bigoted cops” secure in the knowledge they could not be talking about me.

Respond if you feel it necessary, but don’t expect a response from me. Instead, I have a fence post out back that I will continue this conversation with. In the past, it has always paid attention to and understood my words. Of course it has no ax to grind nor an agenda.

@TN_MAN: You said, “Getting back to the question of the minor with the automatic, are you not judging this case by current firearms law?” Nope, I’m judging it by the laws of a place that has talking wolves.

Actually, we’re all inappropriately assuming what the laws, nature, or physics of a place with talking wolves would be. It could be that the wolf was actually an intergalactic LEO and that Red was an intergalactic serial killer and the bad girl won. Who knows in a place where there are talking wolves?

@Dennis: Sorry if my last questions to you came across as cross-examination, it’s not what I intended (but perhaps a bit of who I am). I’m not going to reply at length to your long and conscientious response. Emmett Kelly has responded to the one point I might have discussed at some length, the locker room and changing room issue, in his paragraphs beginning “This is absurd” and “The only person” and I have nothing to add to that. Still friends, of course.

@Emmett: I appreciate your long response. I particularly appreciate your understanding attitude toward those who are not necessarily anti-trans or anti-LGBT but who do not yet get it. I was marginally involved with a controversy at another website involving how to refer to a trans person and almost tried to support the person by publicly stating that the person should be able to decide whatever s/he “wanted” to be called and ought to be able to “consider” him/herself to be whatever he/she “wants” to be. Fortunately, before posting that “support” I learned that my understanding was insufficient and my words hurtful, even though my motivation and intention was good. I was appalled and abashed by my ignorance and felt incredibly lucky to have learned better before sticking my foot in my mouth. I’m grateful that you have the kindness and aplomb to give others that chance as well.

PS: Just to note that my “s/he” and “him/her” usages in my last post were not intended to be a slam of the person’s gender identity, but were because I did not want to identify the gender identity of the person involved in the controversy at all, male or female. There have been a number of those controversies online and I do not wish to identify which of them it might have been that I was referring to.

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they have a time machine. I got in it, and went back to 1787. I took a carriage ride to Philadelphia, to Independence Hall. I told our Framers that in the year 2016, Americans would be debating whether trans-gendered, cross-dressing LGBT people should use this or that privy chamber. Thomas Jefferson said he was going to write a letter to King George III, and ask him to become our king again. Ben Franklin told him not to do it. Ben told me to return to 2016 and tell our citizens, “let the states decide, not the federal government.”

Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here!

I am officially offended. It seems I am a bigoted- testosterone maligned (and many other) human. I think I get what both Dennis (God Bless ya) & Emmett are saying. I thought Dennis made a lot of sense.

Oh, wait. I am not a minority nor member of a group violated (in one or more of so many way, including micro agressions and all the rest). So I cannot be offended. I take it back.

I recall my 1st year as a pharmacist circa 1977-78 when a young woman (early twenties by my best guess) presented a medicaid prescription for Premarin (conjugated estrogens). As I recall, the Rx had a typical female name, let’s say Andrea. The medicaid card had a first initial “A” and the same last name.As the Rx. At the time, we had to call in to the state to confirm eligibility on all medicaid prescriptions. I called & was told the coverage was for a 16 or 17 yo male named Andrew. I didn’t put it together (because of the apparent age discrepancy? &/or maybe, in my innocent ignorance, because I saw lots of medicaid fraud, saw a woman in front of me but had never seen nor expected a MTF transgender, much less one in progress?). I told her I could not use Andrew’s medicaid to process her Rx. She said “I am (or was? … I don’t recall exactly) Andrew. I am having gender assignment surgery as soon asi I can. I said something to the effect of “Oh, ok, apologies. I will fill immediately. And I did. I don’t think I was rude, inappropriate or judgmental. I gave good service. I still heard that Andrea made a complaint to the owner. Seems she expected me to have ESP and understand her, while she was not able or was not willing to grant me any understanding.

We see these things every day. Demanding understanding, respect, acceptance, etc while not reciprocating much less giving the opportunity to learn and maybe even be able to offer such.

I met an openly gay fellow at work some years back. He was intelligent & we got along well. One Friday night we were in the office working late on separate projects. I ran into him at the exit. He said he was going across the street for a pizza & asked if I wanted to share a pizza. We did. I had always enjoyed our conversations. Midway through the meal, he turns the conversation, suggesting I was a hedonist and asking me if I ever found myself attracted to men and confessed he was attracted to me.

We remained friends even after I clarified that I was 100% hetero AND was happily married with children. Yea, I know, there are such who still stray (with male &/or female). Sadly, he was found dead in his carina park at 3 am a year or so later. I think his health was bad & that he left NYC to stay with relatives & was lonely.

Where were we? Ah, yes: Mas, it wasn’t a transvestite wolf, it was a transspecies transvestite wolf. The wolf is offended. Bummer.

Peace everyone. Humor is the best medicine. At least until endorphins become a pharmaceutical product.

Dave:

I’m not a progressive troll. The only Democrat that I have ever voted for is Bernie in my state’s primary, and I did that because I have a major problem with Ms. Clinton’s positions on everything. Economically, I’m to the right of Attila the Hun.

Most trans people will excuse pronoun mistakes if you’re making an effort. If the mistakes are intentional, and designed to malign the trans person, the response probably won’t be as patient. Trans people get a lot of abuse, insults and attacks, so it’s not easy to be patient sometimes.

And the pronoun thing is pretty easy. If the person is presenting female (say, wearing a dress, skirt, etc), use female pronouns. If the person is presenting as male, use male pronouns. If you’re not sure, ask or use gender neutral words.

It just usually amazes people that someone can pack a .45, vote Republican, and is trans. Then again, Cait Jenner is a Republican, shoots and is trans.

Kristin Beck is a former Navy Seal, and is trans.

I’m not here to get angry at anyone. I’m just hoping to open some minds, share some information, and dispel misunderstandings and myths.