Thursday, March 24, 2016

Toilet Identity Politics

The Bathroom Wars rage on as the North Carolina Republicans have decreed that public rest rooms and locker rooms are for sex, not what is now called “gender identity”, and the Enlightenistas are all up in arms as if the N.C. Legislature had just brought back burning witches at the stake.

The rationale of sexual segregation in rest rooms and locker rooms, I thought, was to curb promiscuity, but apparently that is as neanderthal and barbaric a notion as racial segregation. But the transgender advocates still want segregation. They just want it based upon gender identity and not biological sex. If I am understanding current gender theory correctly, then gender identity attaches to nothing except a completely subjective feeling. It cannot attach to anatomy because that’s invidious gender stereotyping, and it cannot attach to anything else such as dress, behaviour, etc., for the very same reason. The only touchstone, then, left for gender identity is private feeling, and that’s not a touchstone at all because it can only be verified by the person who has it. If that’s the case, gender identity has as much meaning as the imaginary friends of toddlers have to adults.

It seems to me, then, that the transgender activists want the purpose of segregation in public facilities to affirm private identities, all other reasons being irrational, troglodytic, atavistic gender stereotyping. But if that’s the rationale for what is now gender, not sexual, segregation, then the same rationale can be applied for those who wish to identify as black, white, hispanic, German, Catholic, Protestant, etc. If public facilities exist only to validate private identities, then the dictates of equality demand that all other identities be so accommodated as well. We should have restrooms for all identities, racial, ethnic, religious, and so on. Not only would that make Jim Crow Laws look positively enlightened, we would have nothing but rest rooms in our public spaces! The Bathroom Wars are really quite silly.

No comments: