The Bathroom Wars
I want to clarify what I think about the recent conflicts over bathroom access.
If a man wants to dress up like a woman, or a woman wants to dress up like a man, it really does not concern me. And if someone who "presents" as a woman, despite having a penis, goes quietly into a stall in the women's bathroom, goes about his/her business, and leaves, then that person should be left alone.
And that is generally speaking the way things have worked. Until activists began campaigning for the "right" of anyone to use any bathroom they want to, if they just "self-identify" as someone entitled to use that bathroom. This pretty obviously creates a problem: per the recent NYC directive on bathroom and locker room access, it seems entirely permissible for me to stroll into the women's locker room at, say, the Red Hook Pool, in which (I assume) there will be many naked women taking showers, and, if anyone objects, I can simply declare "I am a woman." And that is a lot different than the modus vivendi in which people who present as a woman could quietly go about their business in a women's bathroom.
And it was in response to a law like the NYC directive, passed in Charlotte, that the North Carolina "bathroom bill" was passed. And, by the way, the NC bill permitted people to "re-sex" themselves on their birth certificate, so they could quietly go about their business in the ladies' room if they wished to.
So, it was the "trans-gender" activists who disrupted the status quo. The bills passed in North Carolina and contemplated in Texas may be heavy-handed responses to the untenable situation created by the activists' radicalism, but have no doubt, it is the activists who are forcing the situation here. And while these bills might be heavy-handed, they arose when parents realized that what these activists were demanding was that any pervert whatsoever could wander into the locker room in which their teenage daughter was changing after swim practice, and gain the "right" to watch her undress simply by declaring "I feel like I am a woman." And in response to this attempt to protect their daughters, they are being told they are "bigots," and that their state will be economically crushed if they persist in trying to protect those girls.
And, by the way, I hope my focus on biological men in women's private areas is not deemed "sexist," but I think I am on empirically firm footing when I say the risk of a woman being raped by a man are astronomically higher than the reverse, and that there are far more male voyeurs than woman voyeurs. I hope it is not "sexist" to note that, in this regard, women are far better behaved than men!
If a man wants to dress up like a woman, or a woman wants to dress up like a man, it really does not concern me. And if someone who "presents" as a woman, despite having a penis, goes quietly into a stall in the women's bathroom, goes about his/her business, and leaves, then that person should be left alone.
And that is generally speaking the way things have worked. Until activists began campaigning for the "right" of anyone to use any bathroom they want to, if they just "self-identify" as someone entitled to use that bathroom. This pretty obviously creates a problem: per the recent NYC directive on bathroom and locker room access, it seems entirely permissible for me to stroll into the women's locker room at, say, the Red Hook Pool, in which (I assume) there will be many naked women taking showers, and, if anyone objects, I can simply declare "I am a woman." And that is a lot different than the modus vivendi in which people who present as a woman could quietly go about their business in a women's bathroom.
And it was in response to a law like the NYC directive, passed in Charlotte, that the North Carolina "bathroom bill" was passed. And, by the way, the NC bill permitted people to "re-sex" themselves on their birth certificate, so they could quietly go about their business in the ladies' room if they wished to.
So, it was the "trans-gender" activists who disrupted the status quo. The bills passed in North Carolina and contemplated in Texas may be heavy-handed responses to the untenable situation created by the activists' radicalism, but have no doubt, it is the activists who are forcing the situation here. And while these bills might be heavy-handed, they arose when parents realized that what these activists were demanding was that any pervert whatsoever could wander into the locker room in which their teenage daughter was changing after swim practice, and gain the "right" to watch her undress simply by declaring "I feel like I am a woman." And in response to this attempt to protect their daughters, they are being told they are "bigots," and that their state will be economically crushed if they persist in trying to protect those girls.
And, by the way, I hope my focus on biological men in women's private areas is not deemed "sexist," but I think I am on empirically firm footing when I say the risk of a woman being raped by a man are astronomically higher than the reverse, and that there are far more male voyeurs than woman voyeurs. I hope it is not "sexist" to note that, in this regard, women are far better behaved than men!
I think you are wrong on this. How many men have been touring women's locker rooms in NYC? There is a continual search for such issues on the right as a means to define ingroup status and unity so we have laws being passed in the absence of problems. On the left these are usually clarifying real problems.
ReplyDeleteReal problems, like culturally insensitive sushi.
DeleteSorry, Lord, in both NC and TX the activists went first with laws that had no obvious motive: how many men presenting as women were peeing themselves in Charlotte cause they couldn't find a loo?... and the social conservatives responded to the wildly permissive ("I feel like a woman today" appears to be enough to get me into a ladies locker room in NYC) laws being passed.
DeleteI have a theory about this kind of thing. In general this is better left, as you suggest, to implicit pressures and social conventions. A little bit of subtly communicated disapproval or approval goes a long way, and can be flexible and responsive. But we live in a time that abhors the judgment required for that. So when problems arise, in a manner like you describe, the response is a law. But it's usually a bad response, since the law is a blunt instrument.
ReplyDelete