The dreaded "bathroom issue" has reared its ugly head again, this time in Gainsville, Florida. About a year ago, the city council there passed an ordinance that, among other things, granted "transgender people" the right to use whatever bathroom they choose. Now, a conservative group has started an effort to repeal the law. As part of this effort, they have put out a very controversial commercial. The thing is, the conservative group raises a vaild point.
Now, I know that is remark is going to be taken as heresy by the transgender crowd, but that is just another example of how short sighted they can be. This ad exposes a very real problem with this law, but it is one that the transgender activists want to ignore, or perhaps pretend is not really there, but it is there, and it needs to be addressed.
The law simply states that access to facilities cannot be prohibited on the basis of, among other things, gender identity. It does include an exception where nudity is unavoidable, such as dressing rooms and showers.
The problem is, the conservative groups have targeted the very obvious flaw in this law. It is simply too vague. Now, it is very possible, even probable, that this is not their actual purpose, but it is still true. The transgender activists have, of course, been raising a howl. They are complaining that they are being portrayed as "sexual predators." But the strange thing is, that is not what is happening at all. I really don't see where they are remotely suggesting that "transgender people" are going to be doing something wrong. What they are pointing out, and quite rightly so, is that as the law is written, it allows anyone to enter any bathroom, and simply claim that at the moment they did so, they have a certain gender identity. And that is obviously a problem.
The commercial that has everyone up in arms does not even remotely portray a transgender person, at least not obviously. It shows a man, clearly presenting as a man, entering a women's room. I certainly don't think that is what the law was intended to protect. But, it is exactly what this poorly written law would allow.
So, what is the answer to this sort of problem? Some would simply say that anyone born male should be forced to use the men's room. That would do serious, and grevious harm to those born with HBS. So, as is often the case, we are caught between two extremes. Obviously a compromise is needed.
The proper answer is quite simple. The law should simply put reasonable restrictions on who is, and is not, allowed to use a bathroom that does not match their anatomic sex. It should be restricted to those who are undergoing treatment for HBS or transsexualism, who have started the real life test and are thus living full time as a female. Tranvestites, so-called non-ops, and those who identify as gender queer would either use the restroom appropriate to their birth sex, or else need to find a unisex restroom (which are increasingly provided in public places for situations where assistance is needed, and the care provider my not be the same sex).
This would solve the problem for everyone. The religious right would have less to complain about, those who really need to have this right would receive it, and it should reallty do no harm to those who wish to identify as women while retaining their penises. In fact, it would give those who are gender rebels a chance to be very "out, loud, and proud." And most importantly, it would remove a defense that could be used by those who might abuse it.
Would this make everyone happy? No, of course not. But it would do what is right, and accomplish what was probably originally intended,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
6 comments:
Somewhere in there is a point i might agree with.
The more i read online and experience offline, the more annoyed and withdrawn i become from the 'transgender community' that i'm supposed to turn to. And i never even felt comfortable with them to begin with.
Twice now i have encountered so called gender rebels that have thrown me into a flashpoint of sudden anger for being associated with them, when they claim to be the same as me.
i live in fear of some idiot crossdresser pulling some stunt in my city, and making my life even harder than it has to be. Though officially papered and recognized as female by my state, there are plenty of people i've seen that are outraged about that being possible without surgery.
But despite my meeting all the criteria for 'true' transsexualism, your brand seems to vaguely threaten judgement on me for surviving enough suicide attempts to start late in life, or not being invisible in a crowd, or not being able to afford surgery yet.
i don't know. i'm on the fence with regulation, and how to handle it.
Well, as I have said many times, transgender is an artificial political/social construct that has no objective meaning. Unfortunately, the ones pushing that paradigm don't see it that way.
As to your situation, I can understand the issue of cost. I struggled for a long time with that, much longer than I would have liked. A lot of that was because, being as dysfunctional as I was while pretending to be a man, I had not built up a very good work history. Nor had I been as successful as I should have been in school. Still, I reached a point where I was finally able to start saving for surgery, and I had the rug pulled out from under me.
After moving across the country, and living on about half the money I really needed, I was finally able to complete my transition. It can be done, if you really need it. And if you don't really need it, then it is best to not go that path.
T;
Your best off staying away from the TG's.
Most of them are so self obsorbed they can't see past their genitals...
They as a group tend to feed on those who won't follow the party line and guzzle the Tranny Kool-Aid and embrace victimhood.
S
Sue,
That is very good advice.
So I take it the conservative argument is this:
The law is vague and allows anyone into any bathroom. This opens the possibility that male criminals could enter bathrooms and just say they identify as women and thus be protected. Therefore, this law endangers women.
Is that a correct analysis of their argument as you see it?
If so, I think it should be noted that male criminals don't have much respect for the law anyway (Thats what makes them criminals!) and if they wanted to enter a women's restroom and commit a crime there, they would regardless of what kind of discrimination laws are in place.
Laws don't stop criminals unfortunately, they just allow us to punish them and the real harm that the male does is not the act of entering the restroom, but of the nefarious activity he engages in while in there. That is why there should be laws against, child molestation, rape and the like. Luckily those laws already exist.
I know many men who have been forced to use a woman's room on occasion because the men's room didn't have working stalls and so they just quietly entered the women's room. Did their business and left. Did they commit a crime according to you?
This law seems more designed to protect people such as the transsexual man who is rather short and perhaps hormones haven't lowered his voice greatly and he attempts to use the men's room of a certain establishment and the owners of said establishment bar him from using that public restroom, because they have say, an irrational hatred of transsexual people. They can be prosecuted.
While I agree that criminals obviously don't let laws stop them from committing crimes, that does not mean we should simply do away with laws because criminals ignore them and they don't fit our personal political agendas.
No, what this law would do would be to make it easier for criminals to engage in behavior that might lead to crimes. It would also strip women of a sense of security that we currently treasure. Of course, those pushing this are not really women, but are instead transgender activists, who are often men who simply enjoy pretending to be women, but who have no to give up their manhood.
Now, if a bathroom is out of order, there are things that can properly be done. Just waltzing into the ladies room is not something that most men are going to do, and to be honest, I have not once heard of that ever happening. Most men would not dream of this.
No, the only thing this law is intended to do is to impose a radical minority's views on people. My suggestion would protect transsexuals who have a legitimate need, and prevent those who simply want to play dress up from imposing their behavior on others at the cost of safety and security for women.
And let's be clear here. The issue is really not women wanting to go in the men's room, but men who feel they have a right to invade women's space.
Post a Comment