Thursday, April 21, 2016

A very brief post on the ongoing transgender bathroom debate

This week, a major retailer bravely faced the applause of the elite for declaring that any person is free to use any bathroom or changing area he or she feels like using while in that retailer's stores.

These "transgender bathroom policies," so they tell us, are all about diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. They are also about opening up private spaces, especially private spaces used by women, to full access by any man who chooses to enter those spaces for any reason whatsoever.

As many as one in six women will be the victim of a significant sex crime, including rape, in her lifetime. Men who prey on vulnerable women are probably thrilled that it's now seen as impolite—or even illegal—to challenge them when they follow women or girls into a women's bathroom, locker room, or changing area. This will give them greater access to victims, without helping people who really identify as transgender much at all. 

Should fifty percent of the US population be put at constant risk so that a fraction of a percent (transgenders reportedly number about 0.2% of the population) can have their feelings validated? This isn't a diversity issue; it's a safety issue, and it's disappointing that in all the self-congratulatory posing of the elite there is no acknowledgement of that reality at all.

22 comments:

Sammie said...

They haven't really given any rights to anyone. What they have done has taken away the privacy and safety rights of all females who have need to use these types of facilities in these places.
They have also given sexual predators easy access to females in vulnerable situations.
These multi-gender facilities should also provide a female security officer in each and every one of them or build a restroom that is specifically for the people who find it difficult to use the proper facility according to their gender.

There are many logical solutions to this issue without putting females in danger or uncomfortable situations.

L. said...

I personally share restrooms with men all the time over here in Japan, where unisex restrooms are common -- and the only unwelcome sexual touching I've personally encountered has been on crowded trains.

So I am not among the delicate females who feels a need to claim a "safe space" to relieve myself, and I think unisex bathrooms for all (and private stalls for shy people of both genders) could nip this ridiculous issue in the bud.

Svar said...

And why do we need to change anything for a bunch of deviants, L? They can go out in the woods, for all anyone care's. And I'll bet you're pretty delicate, don't act tougher than you are.

Erin, trannies and their shenanigans are nothing but a symptom of a deeper underlying symptom: the lack of steadfastness and strength amongst the men of the West. Just about everything we see is nothing but a symptom of that.

Fight the War for the Spirit of the Age and you'll win the Cultural War and more importantly, you'll effectively weather the existential issues which matter more than anything else.

L. said...

Svar, nothing about me is "delicate" -- in fact, I'm somewhat of a "deviant" myself, depending on how you define it. Since I'm one of those feminists allegedly seeking to emasculate men, don't men need protection from ME? ;)

Seriously, I've been sharing public restrooms with men since 1985. As I've said, I consider this issue to be ridiculous, all the way around.

Alex said...

This bill does put small boys at risk though because it was so poorly and hastily written. There is no exception for mothers bringing their small children into the ladies' restroom with them, so they must send their sons unaccompanied into public restrooms. Is that really safe for a four-year-old boy?

Technically, even a mother taking her infant son into a public ladies restroom to change his diaper is in violation of this law because the baby's male biological sex makes him unable to enter.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

It might lend some clarity to the debate if some regular Target customers filed a class action lawsuit against Target for failing to protect their privacy and safety while shopping at the store. Or they could call a boycott... there are other chains to shop at. Lands End learned rather quickly that its not cool to be cool, although they stumbled again. How many Target loyalty cards are in the hands of transgenders anyway?

L. said...

Alex, exactly -- I just posted this on Twitter, coincidentally:

https://twitter.com/Lisa_Twaronite/status/725123090368208897

L. said...

Siarlys, I don't believe there is any right to "privacy" on private property. People who don't like Target's policies are free to shop elsewhere. They can go to Hobby Lobby, and then grab lunch at Chick-fil-A.

And how many Target loyalty cards are in the hands of transgender allies?

Svar said...

"Svar, nothing about me is "delicate" -- in fact, I'm somewhat of a "deviant" myself, depending on how you define it."

Ah, the Definition Game. Boooring.

"Since I'm one of those feminists allegedly seeking to emasculate men, don't men need protection from ME? ;)"

You can't emasculate those who don't want to be emasculated already. I mean, just look at the trannies.

"Seriously, I've been sharing public restrooms with men since 1985. As I've said, I consider this issue to be ridiculous, all the way around."

I do too. This sort of issue distracts from the real issues like national sovereignty, American foreign policy (American blood is not to be taken for granted), labor policy, American high finance/banking, trade policy, and immigration. It's a made up issue that no one actually cares about (besides being disgusted at the thought of trannies) and a way to distract the American populace from the fact that they're not just having their culture destroyed and defiled but that they're being swindled by special interests.

So, in essence, I could care less if you're a feminist unless you have some prominent role in determining which way this country goes on existential issues. Go to the bathroom with men all you want.

Alex, when I was a very little kid, I would go to the women's restroom with my mom. You don't need a law to allow 4-year olds into the bathrooms of the opposite sex with their opposite sex parent. There is no need for that protection because of what little cultural consensus we have, we all agree that it's okay for little girls to go to the men's restroom with their fathers and little boys with their mothers.

L. said...

"Ah, the Definition Game. Boooring." --> Boring, but quite relevant when it comes to the law we're talking about.

".... we all agree that it's okay for little girls to go to the men's restroom with their fathers and little boys with their mothers."

But according to the North Carolina law, children age 8 or older have to go with a parent of the same gender or go alone.

I would say 8-year olds still count as "little girls" and "little boys," but the law doesn't define them as such.

I let my 8-year-olds pee alone in public in familiar, safe-seeming places, but when we were traveling, I still brought my sons into the women's room with me in airports rather than go to the men's room by themselves.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Siarlys, I don't believe there is any right to "privacy" on private property. People who don't like Target's policies are free to shop elsewhere.

L, you and Lester Maddox, in agreement on the fundamentals!

I believe that a "public accommodation" might have a DUTY to provide restrooms, and, if it does so, to provide them in a manner that respects the privacy rights of the customers served by those bathrooms.

And how many Target loyalty cards are in the hands of transgender allies?

Precisely. Losing a whole flood of loyalty cards might cause the board to reconsider where their interests lie. Corporations don't have principles. Corporations don't believe in anything. Corporations do whatever they THINK will make them popular and well-liked and, above all (the only reason it matters to be popular and well-liked), bring them more customers spending more money. Sometimes, the corporate leadership gets that wrong. See also, "Lands End."

L. said...

Well, even if you believe that a "public accommodation" has a "DUTY" to provide restrooms, that doesn't legally compel them to do so. As far as I know, federal law only mandates that businesses offer employees a restroom to use, and whether or not they're also required to offer them for customers depends on state & local laws. And I don't think they have to be "private," just accessible for disabled folks.

Corporations are run by people, and sometimes, people do have principles -- and other people don't always agree with them. Let's see if this whole kerfuffle helps Target's bottom line, or hurts it.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

L, perhaps when "As far as I know" reflects some significant contact with a law library, jurisprudence, or statutes (also available on line), not to mention significant vestiges of the Common Law, rather than "The World As I Like To Think About It," we could have an informed discussion on these matters. Most commercial real estate serving the public would be unable to build an edifice or get an occupancy permit without restroom facilities, and once there is a requirement to provide them, a good deal of additional law applies to how they are administered.

Svar said...

"L, you and Lester Maddox, in agreement on the fundamentals!"

Is this true L? If so, I hope more feminists were like you.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I don't know whether my response is lost in cyberspace, or Erin hasn't been checking lately. Either one is understandable.

What I believe does not compel anyone, or any institution, to do anything. IF, as I believe, THE LAW imposes a duty, then that would legally compel compliance. Public health alone would justify that any place of business with a sufficient minimum density of clientele on hand provide restrooms. IF there is a duty to provide restrooms, then privacy may be a legitimate issue in how they are arranged.

Corporations, as British socialist Jenny Lee's grandfather used to say, have neither a rear end to kick nor a soul to save. If the capitalist class finds it beneficial to push this sort of bad LSD trip, then it is probably in the interest of the working class to smash it.

Let's see if this whole kerfuffle helps Target's bottom line, or hurts it.

By all means. I must admit, I can contribute nothing to the boycott, because I never shopped at Target anyway. Now I have even more reason not to do so.

L. said...

Siarlys, do you really want an "informed discussion?" Or would you prefer to continue talking about "The World As I Like To Think About It?"

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/rules-regulations-business-public-restrooms-68740.html

I repeat: Most laws covering restrooms are local, and inconsistent.

Also worth repeating: Unisex bathrooms (and private stalls for shy people of both genders) could nip this ridiculous issue in the bud.

L. said...

Wasn't Lester Maddox the southern governor who refused to serve black customers?

What would be the "feminist" equivalent of that, I wonder? Denying restroom access to everyone with a penis, perhaps?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Svar... I think you scared her off...

L. said...

No, I think my last comments were just lost -- or perhaps deleted by Erin (though I don't think that they were particularly inflammatory or controversial, so maybe they just went to the spam folder, as has happened before).

I don't "scare off" easily. ;)

Siarlys Jenkins said...

No, but I lured you out of the woodwork!

(I'm in a chipper mood. I just got an unsolicited phone call from someone who said they were calling for "The Conservative Majority." I told him "I'm not a conservative. I'm also not a liberal. A pox on both your houses." He asked me to stay on the line for a disclaimer, and I hung up.)

L. said...

So were my comments found in the spam folder? Or do I have to try to remember what I said?

You get more interesting phone calls than I do.

Red Cardigan said...

L., I've checked my spam folder and didn't see anything. I did see a couple in the "awaiting moderation" folder but I'm pretty sure they were the same ones I approved earlier this week--went ahead and "re-approved" just in case. Blogger's comment stuff still remains frustrating. :)