# The Right Wing Paranoids Are Right Again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 13, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667 "2016-05-13T12:49:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/61 "2016-05-13T17:03:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > On a related note, Antonin Scalia asserted, in dissenting opinions to earlier SC decisions, that the reasoning of the majority would inevitably lead to gay marriage being found to be constitutionally guaranteed. The majorities asserted that this was not the case. Not only was Scalia shown to be correct, but his very words to that effect were cited by judges ruling that the majority decisions in those cases did require gay marriage recognition. > > [How Scalia Helped Screw Texas' Case Against Gay Marriage | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/scalia-gay-marriage_n_4861115.html) > > [http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/08/will-scalias-words-cement-same-sex-marriage-into-the-law/](http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/08/will-scalias-words-cement-same-sex-marriage-into-the-law/) Vehement dissents becoming majority opinion a few years or decades later is par for the course, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bowers v. Hardwick merely being some of the most prominent. The only difference is that those dissenters wanted to be right while Scalia wanted to be wrong. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/62 "2016-05-13T17:13:04Z")
Gosh, I wish hypothetical me would let me speak for myself. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/63 "2016-05-13T17:13:35Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Vehement dissents becoming majority opinion a few years or decades later is par for the course, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bowers v. Hardwick merely being some of the most prominent. That’s not what happened here (or what this thread is about). Scalia’s dissent is not what became majority law. Scalia asserted that the majority’s reasoning would inevitably lead to gay marriage. The majority itself disputed that their ruling contained this implication. Scalia was correct, and this particular assertion was itself cited when that extrapolation (from the majority opinion) occurred. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/64 "2016-05-13T17:18:14Z")
I think what **F-P** is trying to say is that Scalia had a magic mirror that allowed him to gaze into the future. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/65 "2016-05-13T17:19:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think the response to the OP is, for the most part, deliberately myopic. > > First let’s separate the merits of the OP’s claim from the merits of the underlying issue. The OP is obviously not a fan of treating transgendered individuals as having the gender they are, as opposed to the gender assigned them at birth. That’s unfortunate, but it has nothing to do with his inartfully – ok, downright ignorantly – phrased summary of the current situation and how unlikely this would have appeared to an observer in 2008. > > So let’s imagine that a poster on this board had said, in 2008, “I think I’m going to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. They’re really about equal in my eyes, but the one thing that really tips me towards McCain is my concern that if Obama gets in, by the end of his time in office, his administration will threaten to withdraw federal funds from any school that forces transgendered students to use the restroom appropriate to the gender they were assigned at birth. I strongly oppose that, and so I won’t be voting for Senator Obama.” > > Does anyone truly contend that the bulk of replies to that poster would have been that he was mistaken? Many people might have said, “I WISH that would happen, but it never will, or at least not in the next four or eight years.” I doubt you’d have found anyone who would have agreed that this outcome was likely, and no one who would have acknowledged that the concern was realistic. > > That seems to me to be almost undeniably true. > > And of course the answer is: yeah. So what? The last eight years have been a social sea change for the rights of non-mainstream people when it comes to sex and gender. It’s true that even those who wished it would happen didn’t think it would. > > But that wasn’t out of some concealment of some master plan. It just happened that society’s view took a tremendous leap in the prior eight years, one that no one saw coming so quickly…but many people expected would come eventually. No one is being deliberately myopic. If anything, you are, by focusing on one aspect while discarding the rest. We are looking at his claim as a whole, which includes the bigotry that you set aside. And we don’t see any point in disproving a claim the OP never made. He never said it was a conspiracy, just that he was right to be worried–despite no proof that they were. I’m glad you’re able to polish the turd and get some meaning out of it, but that doesn’t make everyone else wrong–let alone deliberately so. No need for the swipe. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/66 "2016-05-13T17:21:06Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > In 2008, if I had stated on these boards, “Barack Obama will order schools to let transvestites to use the ladies room at all American schools, and will threaten any school that does not comply,” what do you think everyone would have said? So, do you play the ponies? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/67 "2016-05-13T17:22:27Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > So, do you play the ponies? Hey, we’re all trying to adjust to transgender issues here; let’s not move on to bestiality quite so fast! ---
**Author:** ![Kyrie\_Eleison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kyrie_eleison/32/7682_2.png) [@Kyrie\_Eleison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyrie_Eleison)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/68 "2016-05-13T17:23:48Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > So, do you play the ponies? Dammit, Plant, we’ve already covered bestiality! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/69 "2016-05-13T17:30:03Z")
When someone says “You would have called me paranoid in 2008 if I said these positive things were coming down the pike for trans folk,” I think that’s laughable. Why? Because if you are for trans rights, you don’t call people “paranoid” if they are afraid of coming trans rights. You call them “bigots.” I don’t think those who support LGBTQ people in 2008 would have thought recognition of trans rights were never coming. Probably not that they would be recognized so soon. So, the most likely response? “From your lips to God’s ears.” Or “I hope you’re right.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/70 "2016-05-13T17:30:43Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I am saying right now that something bad will happen in 2024. > Heed my words. 😕 But . . . but . . . We talked about this, man! I’ve already ordered the explosives, the gas, the genetic-engineering equipment and the Thai ladyboys! Now you say we have to wait until **2024?!** ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/71 "2016-05-13T17:33:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 But . . . but . . . We talked about this, man! I’ve already ordered the explosives, the gas, the genetic-engineering equipment and the Thai ladyboys! Now you say we have to wait until **2024?!** Terror away. I only mention 2024. Plenty of other years for everybody. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/72 "2016-05-13T17:51:48Z")
I think the people most worried about the Transgender in the Bathroom issue are those Republicans who are afraid this might affect their toe-tapping “wide stance” bathroom pickups. They want to make sure that the gent in the next stall offering them a BJ is a “real manly man”. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/73 "2016-05-13T17:52:52Z")
Suppose I observe today that Donald Trump, if elected, is likely going to colonize the moon and detain Muslims suspected of terrorism there in the hope of evading legal protections. You would call me a left-wing paranoid. If that actually came to pass in 2024, would that make your statement today incorrect or unreasonable? Would I thereby be proven to be reasonable in my fear? Of course not. That’s not how rational probabilities work. If I bet big in a massive bluff holding a gutshot straight before the river card is flipped in Texas Hold’em, you would be correct to call that bluff every time even if I make the straight. The OP would be the guy who gets the lucky draw and declares that his opponents don’t understand math. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/74 "2016-05-13T17:57:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [This thread discusses that issue in depth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=792259). You should take a look. Been there. Posted there. Odd that you would direct me there and not the poster making the claim since that thread demonstrates how unclear the whole issue is. But whatever… ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/75 "2016-05-13T18:05:49Z")
I, for one, want to know which liberals were posed with the question of transgender bathroom access 8 years ago that a conservative can be said to be proven right. This whole topic is a big game of “You didn’t listen to us, now we’re right, so listen to us in the future!” But specific issues of transgender bathroom access wasn’t on anyone’s minds 8 years ago, nobody with any sense posed that question to anyone. Conservatives want to look like prophets for predicting something, but they never predicted it. They are taking a current issue and pretending they gave a shit about it and saying they’re right. And my biggest objection to that logic aside from the time-traveling bigot theory, is that the OP assumes conservatives were in the right side morally. Here’s what I would say if I were asked this 8 years ago: “Really, transgendered people get to openly express their civil rights too? That’s wonderful!” In that case, conservatives may be right, but they were right about how bigoted they were 8 years ago. Maybe conservatives should look at other bigoted views they have now, and predict for us which one they will be regretting in 8 years? You guys wanna be helpful? Be less bigoted now instead of later ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/76 "2016-05-13T18:16:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Scalia’s dissent is not what became majority law. Scalia asserted that the majority’s reasoning would inevitably lead to gay marriage. The majority itself disputed that their ruling contained this implication. Scalia was correct, and this particular assertion was itself cited when that extrapolation (from the majority opinion) occurred. A legal opinion is not the same as demonstrating hidden intent (though by Scalia pulling the tactic of “If we allow sodomy, then the gays might could get married!”, it truly reveals what a shitty justice and human being he was). ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/77 "2016-05-13T18:21:07Z")
I am amused to see how a conservative blog portrays these ghastly events: > [@](#): > > After hearing about Obama’s executive order that all colleges and schools k-12 will guarantee that all transgendered people will have restroom accommodations, and considering the Supreme Courts [sic] ruling of basically stating that gay people are normal… My god, where will our decadence end? ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/78 "2016-05-13T18:21:43Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I think the people most worried about the Transgender in the Bathroom issue are those Republicans who are afraid this might affect their toe-tapping “wide stance” bathroom pickups. They want to make sure that the gent in the next stall offering them a BJ is a “real manly man”. As I’ve said before, otherwise they might accidentally cheat on their wives. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/79 "2016-05-13T18:23:02Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > A legal opinion is not the same as demonstrating hidden intent He didn’t say it was hidden intent. He said that the reasoning used in that particular decision, once applied to gay marriage, would lead to that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667/80 "2016-05-13T18:33:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He didn’t say it was hidden intent. He said that the reasoning used in that particular decision, once applied to gay marriage, would lead to that conclusion. Ah, but the OP deals with hidden (or unacknowledged or unexpressed) intent. Glad you see the difference now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-wing-paranoids-are-right-again/754667.md?page=5)