In a Ladies' restroom, all the relevant activity takes place in seclusion (at least in any restroom I've had the privilege of inspecting). If a male, or former male, or person of indeterminate sex were to venture there, there would be nothing of interest visible. If the "intruder" were to appear to be male, it would almost invariably (in 2016) cause a degree of consternation, for no objective reason, except cultural ones. A male could use the facilities with no trouble, and the other occupants might be left wondering whether the time they spend repairing their make-up at the mirror was being observed by unlicensed guys wearing skirts, figuratively speaking.
In a Gentlemen's restroom, only half the relevant activity takes place in seclusion; there are special installations that guys use for passing water, with great satisfaction (because these are not usually present in private homes). Nobody is supposed to be looking at their neighbors, but one occasionally gets a glimpse of anatomical equipment if it varies more than a couple of standard deviations from the mean, despite all attempts to pay no attention. If a female (anatomical, or gender identity-wise) were to stray inside such a restroom to actually use the facilities, assuming she wanted proceed with the greatest privacy, she could easily use the booths, and no one would be any the wiser, unless she was aggressively female, in which case she ought not to be there. It would probably cause a degree of embarrassment (2016), and more annoyance than horror. Men, too, preen at the mirror, but they're not too sensitive about been caught at it. On the other hand, if the "intruder" were to be so brash as to want to try the urinals, without being equipped to do so, then there would be an uproar.
Guys
in a Boys’ Restroom, trying to pee:
|
Not a problem |
| Guys in a Girls’ Restroom, trying to pee: | Not much of a problem |
| Guys in a Boys’ Restroom, trying to poop: | Not a problem |
| Guys in a Girls’ Restroom, trying to poop: | Not much of a problem, really. |
| Girls in a Boys’ Restroom, trying to pee: | Not much of a problem, unless they want to use the Urinals, or they're dressed like a girl. |
| Girls in a Girls’ Restroom, trying to pee: | Not a problem |
| Girls in a Boys’ Restroom, trying to poop: | Not much of a problem |
| Girls in a Girl’s Restroom, trying to poop: | Not a problem. |
The ones who would be most suspicious of Transgender people using a particular restroom would be males, of a person who has female anatomy. Guys probably would not care about this sort of thing, unless the person was dressed as a female, and used the Men's Room. Note that the North Carolina law forces this to take place. It encourages harassment of a former male at the hands of fellow-males.
The men in North Carolina seem to be making their case based on matters of principle. But the majority of those responding to this law on social media seem to be women. The problem seems to be that it is easy for a former boy, who now identifies as a girl, to remain undetected in the Girls' Room, which makes the users of the Girls' Room uneasy. While, practically, the girls are hardly ever exposed inside the Girls' Room (and what do I know; guys have heretofore not been allowed there) they are simply queasy about the mere possibility that one of their fellow-occupants might just be a (former) boy. And, you know what? I don't think this is crazy at all; if I were a girl, I might be queasy, too.
Some (progressive) women take the view that, hey, you can't see nothing in the Girls' Room, so what's the diff? And the guys don't care anyway (by and large), so it's all a plot to make Trans kids uncomfortable. No, it's not, and I think Obama is wrong to disregard the sensibilities of those who are uncomfortable having people of the wrong sex share the restroom with them. It is sad that progressives, who typically tend to be people of great sensitivity, are blind to the sensibilities of those on the other side of this question.
However, I think N.C. law is wrong in the way they have addressed the situation. Forcing a kid to use the restroom on their birth certificate is harsh. If it is a (former) boy, either anatomically, or in gender identification, she will be subject to the notorious viciousness of young guys. If it is a former girl, it is an imposition on the other girls, who will see him as an intruder. If this is the intention of the N.C. state House, it is heartless and cruel. If it is a feeble attempt to solve the problem practically, it is ineffective.
Private unisex restrooms are certainly one possible answer, which has only a minor disadvantage in terms of social dynamics: one wonders whether a child using this single-user restroom will be subject to some sort of humiliating psychological pressure. Remember that School is where you learn to deal with your fellow-students, and it is a delicate business when there are no complications. With complicated gender issues are part of the mix, it can be a very delicate business.
Someday, we might find ourselves in a Utopia in which all the kids are perfectly fine doing their physical education completely in the nude. But one suspects that, in such an environment, gender identity might not be a major issue.
Another Blogger focuses on another aspect of this issue: restrooms and perverts. Despite the anger of victims of rape and perversion, these incidents are blessedly few. But it does not mean that we shouldn't guard against them, and educate kids to address and respond to a potential incidence of perversion or rape. The legislation under discussion is both paranoid and ineffective, as that article points out.
In Illinois, it appears that a group of girls have been encouraged to push back against the school's decision to retreat from offering a private changing room for a student who was born with a gender ambiguity (and is still in incomplete transition to female), and allow the transitioning girl to change in a curtained-off area in the girls' locker room. The girls pointed out that while the privacy needs of the transgender girl have been addressed, the needs of the other girls have not been. They still regard the transitioning girl as male, because (as far as the girls know) she is still anatomically male.
This is an openly conservative site; there is at least one line that says "Arrest Obama", and there is a strong possibility that those who posted the blog describing the confrontation between the girls and the school and the Department of Education (which was clearly not hostile) are, at least philosophically, hostile to the Federal Government. But, before progressive women rush to line up to dismiss the objections of the girls as foolishness, I want to say that this is not intrinsically a political issue. What the girls in this neighborhood of Illinois find uncomfortable, young women in Maine might find laughably irrelevant. It is amazing how quickly people in one locality dismiss the discomfort in another for a particular situation. Just because people who live inside the Arctic Circle can run about naked in zero degree weather doesn't mean that people who live in Florida should jolly well learn to do the same. Someday, as I said before, we might be OK just changing out on the playing field, but that day is not here yet. The world is divided between those who think separate locker rooms for girls and boys are a luxury, and those who think that they hardly go far enough. I can't be the only one who hates to get naked in front of other guys. But in front of other ordinary guys and transgender guys: that is pushing my fortitude to its limits.
I do think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to blackmail local school districts into extending privileges. But not into extending privileges to transgender children at the cost of the discomfort of the other children, if there is any possibility at all of accommodating them. We all know that, in the not-too-distant past, whites were uncomfortable riding the same public transport with blacks. This was discomfort that we stopped tolerating a long time ago, because we began to recognize that we were all of the same species. Are we at the same point as far as accepting the needs of transgender individuals? In the case of the Illinois girls, it appears that forcing the transgender Girl to change in a private room was hurtful to her, because it singled her out. It seems suspicious to me that the Girl (or her spokespersons) considered it less objectionable for her to change in public, with the other girls. Girls are notoriously unhappy about changing into gym clothes even with other girls. But this Girl was still anatomically male. I can see only one reasonable way out of this: every student must change in a private room. It is convenient to conflate the security of a locker room, with the privacy of a changing booth, but sometimes progress is inconvenient. If we would like to allow this gender-transitioning girl to consider herself a girl already, we can tolerate the awkwardness of an array of twenty or so changing booths on the edge of a playing field, or on the perimeter of the gym, so that every kid can change in privacy. This Spartan tradition of all the girls changing in the same locker room simply has to go, and the same for boys.
Some day in the future, our descendants might not have genitals at all, or even hang them up on the peg, or surrender them at the door. But various degrees of prudishness is a common human trait, and we cannot legislate it away.
Arch
The men in North Carolina seem to be making their case based on matters of principle. But the majority of those responding to this law on social media seem to be women. The problem seems to be that it is easy for a former boy, who now identifies as a girl, to remain undetected in the Girls' Room, which makes the users of the Girls' Room uneasy. While, practically, the girls are hardly ever exposed inside the Girls' Room (and what do I know; guys have heretofore not been allowed there) they are simply queasy about the mere possibility that one of their fellow-occupants might just be a (former) boy. And, you know what? I don't think this is crazy at all; if I were a girl, I might be queasy, too.
Some (progressive) women take the view that, hey, you can't see nothing in the Girls' Room, so what's the diff? And the guys don't care anyway (by and large), so it's all a plot to make Trans kids uncomfortable. No, it's not, and I think Obama is wrong to disregard the sensibilities of those who are uncomfortable having people of the wrong sex share the restroom with them. It is sad that progressives, who typically tend to be people of great sensitivity, are blind to the sensibilities of those on the other side of this question.
However, I think N.C. law is wrong in the way they have addressed the situation. Forcing a kid to use the restroom on their birth certificate is harsh. If it is a (former) boy, either anatomically, or in gender identification, she will be subject to the notorious viciousness of young guys. If it is a former girl, it is an imposition on the other girls, who will see him as an intruder. If this is the intention of the N.C. state House, it is heartless and cruel. If it is a feeble attempt to solve the problem practically, it is ineffective.
Private unisex restrooms are certainly one possible answer, which has only a minor disadvantage in terms of social dynamics: one wonders whether a child using this single-user restroom will be subject to some sort of humiliating psychological pressure. Remember that School is where you learn to deal with your fellow-students, and it is a delicate business when there are no complications. With complicated gender issues are part of the mix, it can be a very delicate business.
Someday, we might find ourselves in a Utopia in which all the kids are perfectly fine doing their physical education completely in the nude. But one suspects that, in such an environment, gender identity might not be a major issue.
Another Blogger focuses on another aspect of this issue: restrooms and perverts. Despite the anger of victims of rape and perversion, these incidents are blessedly few. But it does not mean that we shouldn't guard against them, and educate kids to address and respond to a potential incidence of perversion or rape. The legislation under discussion is both paranoid and ineffective, as that article points out.In Illinois, it appears that a group of girls have been encouraged to push back against the school's decision to retreat from offering a private changing room for a student who was born with a gender ambiguity (and is still in incomplete transition to female), and allow the transitioning girl to change in a curtained-off area in the girls' locker room. The girls pointed out that while the privacy needs of the transgender girl have been addressed, the needs of the other girls have not been. They still regard the transitioning girl as male, because (as far as the girls know) she is still anatomically male.
This is an openly conservative site; there is at least one line that says "Arrest Obama", and there is a strong possibility that those who posted the blog describing the confrontation between the girls and the school and the Department of Education (which was clearly not hostile) are, at least philosophically, hostile to the Federal Government. But, before progressive women rush to line up to dismiss the objections of the girls as foolishness, I want to say that this is not intrinsically a political issue. What the girls in this neighborhood of Illinois find uncomfortable, young women in Maine might find laughably irrelevant. It is amazing how quickly people in one locality dismiss the discomfort in another for a particular situation. Just because people who live inside the Arctic Circle can run about naked in zero degree weather doesn't mean that people who live in Florida should jolly well learn to do the same. Someday, as I said before, we might be OK just changing out on the playing field, but that day is not here yet. The world is divided between those who think separate locker rooms for girls and boys are a luxury, and those who think that they hardly go far enough. I can't be the only one who hates to get naked in front of other guys. But in front of other ordinary guys and transgender guys: that is pushing my fortitude to its limits.
I do think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to blackmail local school districts into extending privileges. But not into extending privileges to transgender children at the cost of the discomfort of the other children, if there is any possibility at all of accommodating them. We all know that, in the not-too-distant past, whites were uncomfortable riding the same public transport with blacks. This was discomfort that we stopped tolerating a long time ago, because we began to recognize that we were all of the same species. Are we at the same point as far as accepting the needs of transgender individuals? In the case of the Illinois girls, it appears that forcing the transgender Girl to change in a private room was hurtful to her, because it singled her out. It seems suspicious to me that the Girl (or her spokespersons) considered it less objectionable for her to change in public, with the other girls. Girls are notoriously unhappy about changing into gym clothes even with other girls. But this Girl was still anatomically male. I can see only one reasonable way out of this: every student must change in a private room. It is convenient to conflate the security of a locker room, with the privacy of a changing booth, but sometimes progress is inconvenient. If we would like to allow this gender-transitioning girl to consider herself a girl already, we can tolerate the awkwardness of an array of twenty or so changing booths on the edge of a playing field, or on the perimeter of the gym, so that every kid can change in privacy. This Spartan tradition of all the girls changing in the same locker room simply has to go, and the same for boys.
Some day in the future, our descendants might not have genitals at all, or even hang them up on the peg, or surrender them at the door. But various degrees of prudishness is a common human trait, and we cannot legislate it away.
Arch
No comments:
Post a Comment