Again, it’s important to remember that when on the losing side of the argument, delivering distraction and non sequiturs becomes the order of the day, as recent squawking about a proposed ordinance in Bossier Parish illustrates.
Last month, the Bossier Parish Police Jury passed along a measure that creates a framework to ensure and enforce that in parish-owned or run buildings those of a biological sex only use restrooms and dressing rooms designated for that biological sex, unless the facility were designated family/single occupancy. Essentially, a parish employee if discovering or alerted to a violation may issue two warnings (first, exiting the facility, then exiting the building, which could be the same) if not heeded then makes the person subject to arrest and criminal penalties. Essentially, it adds criminal enforcement to existing state law.
The ordinance bends over backwards in other ways. It exempts actions pertaining to a parent assisting a minor child., assistance provided to a disabled person, emergency medical care, law enforcement activities, custodial or maintenance services, and emergency evacuations or disasters.
Perhaps predictably, this elicited a howl from a special interest group that backs privileging transgender individuals, or individuals of one biological sex who wish to take on behavioral patterns typically associated with the other biological sex. Individuals who choose to identify this way often contend that they should be treated by society, if not under law, as being of the sex opposite of theirs, including using these facilities in a manner congruent to their choice, not their biological sex. The ACLU of Louisiana also objected to it.
A spokes(wo)man from the group Louisiana Trans Advocates argued that the ordinance at the very least duplicates existing law which seeks to prevent people from being subject to “bad things” and “truly harmed.” Note the sidestepping going on here: while the ordinance covers that aspect of safety, it also explicitly details a consideration for “privacy” of individuals that would include the reasonable expectation that, especially in the case of females, they not have a someone of the opposite sex on the premises except if appertaining to one of the exceptions. Some won’t mind, but some will, and they far outnumber the males who wish to invade this space.
Perhaps the only helpful argument advocates of this invasion can draw upon is that crossdressers when using restrooms (data seem absent on dressing rooms) of their actual sex in 10 percent or fewer cases are hassled. However, it’s quite possible that crossdressers using the restroom of the sex they aren’t would be hassled even more, particularly in the case of crossdressing men (women encountering a crossdressing man in a female-designated restroom might feel too intimidated to complain) – another omission in advocacy against the ordinance. From an instrumental standpoint, transgender identifiers are better off using restrooms of their biological sex.
Yet it shouldn’t come to the calculations when understanding the principle. The indisputable fact is if somebody wants to appear in the manner of how typically one sex does which is not their own sex, that is their choice. There’s nothing genetic driving people to appear one way or another, and when you make choices, you accept consequences.
In a perfect world, nobody would hassle anybody over their appearances (with the exception of when it’s unambiguously threatening). It’s not Christian (ironically, some may resort to professing Christian beliefs as to why they oppose such appearances) and, religious belief aside, just plain boorishly bad form. Unfortunately, some people are going to do it. But far more people (especially women) likely are going to feel violated, if not actually threatened (and while very small in number, crossdressing males do threaten, if not visit violence upon, women in restrooms) when having someone of the opposite sex in a restroom or dressing room designated for their sex without good reason.
Thus, we have pitted the rights of a tiny sliver of the population to not have greater hassling (if you can apply that term to an employee asking for that person’s exit) as a consequence of a choice they made (which distinguishes them from the exceptions when opposite-sex individuals are allowed to be present, because those are nonvoluntary situations) against the rights of a segment magnitudes larger who legally according to their sex must use that facility that finds the behavior unsettling. Since neither group has a greater moral claim than the other, it makes sense to give primacy to the involuntary large group than the voluntary tiny group.
The public hearing and final passage is scheduled for Sep. 2. The Jury has every reason to pass it into ordinance.
No comments:
Post a Comment