The "Suicidal" Equality Act Of 2019

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sure it does. The whole argument is based on the idea that transgenders aren't actually their identified gender. But it really doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion which gender a person "really" is. What matters is which gender they're attracted to. And that's not so easy to deal with, because transgenders aren't all the same. Not letting them in a particular bathroom may actually force them into being with the gender they're attracted to. Or not, as I'll note below.

What also matters is the impact on the overwhelming majority who are expected to put up with situations that they find intensely uncomfortable, knowing that if they complain they are the ones who get branded as -ists and -phobics.

You may be right that in the end we'll do everything in private booths of some sort.

It happens in the UK and it works. Some restaurants have unisex bathrooms where you go into one room, pick an empty cubicle, do what you need to do, wash your hands and leave. Whether you're male or female or some other made up gender you do the same thing. If you identify as a leprechaun you do the same thing. And it just works. Likewise some gyms have two changing areas - a wet area and a dry area. You go in, pick a changing room, do what you need to do, and then leave the changing room. It means families can share a room. It works. Of course in the UK we don't have these ridiculous bathroom stalls that offer virtually no privacy - we have proper walls that reach more or less floor to ceiling.

But I'd like to point out that sexual attraction, which seems to be the issue, is not necessarily associated with gender, either birth gender or gender identity. In fact, gay kids are a lot more common than transgender ones. They ought to create the same issue. Of course in communities that see this as a problem, it's unlikely that most gay kids will say who they are. I think you're stuck with the fact that there are going to be kids undressing in rooms with other kids that are attracted to their gender (although that doesn't mean that they attracted to all the kids in the dressing room). Rejecting transgender identity isn't going to solve it. No law is going to fix it, and it has always been that way. If that's unacceptable, you're going to need individual changing booths of some sort.

My point was that a lot of matters being raised by the transgender issue are arguably also a concern with the gay issue. It seems bizarre to worry about a man supervising teenage girls in the shower but not worrying about a lesbian doing the same, or expecting the girls to be OK with it if the person who appears to be a man apparently identifies as female. It goes to the very reason we segregate men and women in the first place.

It really has very little to do with rejecting transgender identity and very much to do with the rights of the majority rather than expecting the majority to deal with it because of a very small minority. A solution that panders to 1% while telling 99% to deal with it is unlikely to be a good solution. The solution of private rooms for everybody solves the problem for the 1% without imposing on the 99% and solves problems for other groups along the way.

I still think it's a panic for no good reason.

The trouble with a lot of laws is that they appear to work for a time. When considering whether a law is a bad law it's good to consider how it might be abused in the future rather than whether it is causing actual problems right here and right now. A law that allows anyone to unilaterally determine their own gender identity and use bathrooms and changing rooms consistent with that gender identity allows me (an individual with male anatomy and a beard) to declare myself to be female and walk into the female changing room. If the law allows me to do this while offering no protection to the women who don't particularly want to be seen in states of partial or total undress by a man then it is a bad law. The fact the female facilities aren't currently full of men wanting little more than a good look doesn't make a bad law a good law.

People are trying to force other people into a neat pattern where everyone is born male or female and they're always attracted to the other gender. But the world isn't that way, and pretending it is isn't going to accomplish much.

It really has nothing to do with this. A solution should cater for as many as possible, not solve a problem for a tiny minority while telling everyone else to just suck it up.
 
Top Bottom