Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Trans Bathrooms and Blind Justice

America has changed a lot in the 20 months that I've been gone, and the biggest change is the social view of transgenderism. Now, I've written before about my view on transgenderism: in short, I have to respect the great physical and social cost borne by these people as evidence of a massive imperative to undergo this transformation, and who am I to question or resist such a massive imperative? But there's a big difference between someone who undergoes gender reassignment surgery, someone who doesn't undergo surgery but transforms his or her social persona, someone who keeps everything the same except which personal pronouns he or she uses, and someone whose only change is in his or her "heart of hearts." Basically, the less-public (and the less-reversible) the change, the more-likely the insincerity.

"How DARE you, A Random Stranger?!" I'm not saying every trans-gender person is a sexual predatory who is lying for increased access to his or her intended victims. I'm not saying every trans-gender person is a highly-suggestible reed blowing in the wind of public opinion. But I'm saying those possibilities increase as the costs of transgenderism decline.

This is tricky, because for those with the massive imperative, the costs are tragic and should be lessened. But as the costs approach zero (on net--of course it will never be embraced by all your peers, but the awards for "bravery" might balance out the criticisms for "unnaturalness"), we'll see more people self-identify as trans-gender for reasons of personal gain (attention, favoritism, opportunity). I'm not accusing any particular trans-gender person of doing this. I'm merely saying marginal analysis would indicate this is true: when you lower the cost, more transactions occur.

When I'm out with my daughter, we coordinate our trips to the restroom. She goes in the women's room while I'm in the men's room, and whoever is done first is to return to a designated spot and wait for the other. Of course, sexual abuse by a cis-gendered woman is a possibility, but it's a low possibility and I feel that the combination of the presence of other women and the expected time required to use the restroom would make abuse unlikely and allow me to get help in a timely manner when needed. But when you introduce the possibility that a for-all-appearances man is hanging out in the women's restroom, waiting for conditions to be right for abusing women and girls, I am not excited about returning to America and having my wife and daughter face this situation.

Again, I'm not saying any trans-gender person is a sexual predator. But I'm saying that sexual predators will pose as trans-gender people, especially when the only "posing" necessary is telling concerned parties, "I self-identify as a lady, you BIGOT!" If you doubt that sexual deviants take strange actions to satisfy their sexual perversions, I'd like to remind you of this man who entered the tank of a portable toilet so he could receive sexual gratification while watching the users (and being covered in their detritus).

Yesterday morning when I woke up, my brain was thinking, "If it's legal for a man to be in the women's restroom, then I can protect my wife and daughter by accompanying them inside the women's restroom." Instead of using the facilities coincidentally, we will use them sequentially. And that thought set my mind at ease. But after a little more thought later in the day, I wasn't so sure that would work. I suspect that it is legal for a man who identifies as a woman to be in the women's restroom, but that it's still illegal for a man who identifies as a man to be there. So any potential sexual predatory can enter the women's restroom, but a protective father cannot. The one is a beautiful expression of individuality, and the other is the act of a paranoid bigot.

This is insane. In the literal sense of the word. Last night my wife and I watched this video where American college students struggle to explain why a 5'9" white man is not a 6'5" Chinese woman. Many of them eventually decide they can definitely say 5'9" is not 6'5". But on what basis? Even this federal judge referred to "so-called 'biological sex,'" as if the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is a matter of opinion. If we can call a missing Y chromosome a difference of opinion, why can't we say the same for a missing eight inches?

No comments: