Also, There Will Be Outside Agitators!

Ann Althouse is fascinated by the views of people who opposed the Houston civil rights ordinance, wishes to subscribe to their newsletter, and believes you should not suggest that their opposition to civil rights is motivated by bigotry:

The first sentence of a NYT editorial titled “In Houston, Hate Trumped Fairness.”

The language is so extreme — “vilifying,” “hate.” It seems to me that the focus on access to women’s bathrooms wasn’t aimed at the transgendered at all, but on males who might take advantage of a new opportunity to engage in voyeurism and sexual assault.

Hmm, should we take the “BUT MEN IN WOMEN’S BATHROOMS!!!!!!!!!!” objection to civil rights protections seriously? Let us consider the arguments advanced by Althouse:

• Do civil rights ordinances provide an “opportunity” to engage in sexual assault?  No, they do not — sexual assault remains in fact remains illegal, and Houston repealing its civil rights ordinance will not physically bar any man who wishes to enter a women’s restroom to commit sexual assault in any case.
• Do civil rights ordinances provide an “opportunity” to engage in voyeurism?  No, they do not.   Houston repealing its civil rights ordinance will not physically bar any male pervert who wishes to put on a wig and enter a women’s restroom.  In most cases, the only way to know if someone doing so is actually male is if he engages in behavior that would constitute harassment even under existing civil rights ordinances.
• Many jurisdictions already have civil rights ordinances that apply to transgender people.  Have they made BATHROOM PREDATORS a thing? No they have not, which isn’t surprising since the argument makes absolutely no sense on its face.

When someone makes a transparently bad argument as a pretext for opposing civil rights protections, it is in fact entirely fair to call them bigots.  Sorry!

You may also remember Ann Althouse from such arguments as “judges who oppose the constitutional protections for gay and lesbian people while railing against ‘the so-called homosexual agenda’ are not homophobes.”  You might say there’s an anti-anti-homophobia pattern here.