Men. And Women. And Restrooms.

 IMPORTANT NOTES:

·         First, I’ve said before in this forum that I try to stay out of political arguments, and that’s still true. Sometimes, though, I feel compelled to weigh in on an issue, and this is one of those times. I see this topic as not mainly political, however, but societal.

·         Second, parental discretion is advised. The comments below are intended for an adult audience.

·         Third, I would love to hear thoughtful responses on this posting. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Am I oversimplifying? Am I missing something? I’m very interested in respectful responses that allow us to continue this discussion in a mature way.

·         Fourth, this is not a debate regarding the morality of “gender-affirming” (i.e., transitional, cross-dressing) actions and procedures. Such conversations are certainly worth having, but not here.

Men. And Women. And Restrooms.

South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace has introduced to the US House a bill designed “to prohibit individuals from accessing or using single-sex facilities on Federal property other than those corresponding to their biological sex, and for other purposes.” (I have no idea what “and for other purposes” means.) She says she has done so to “safeguard the privacy and safety of women and girls.” Everyone knows, though, that the bill has been introduced specifically to target Representative-Elect Sarah McBride, who is to be Congress’s first openly trans member.

So do you agree with Rep. Mace or not? Should we “[prohibit] individuals from accessing or using single-sex facilities … other than those corresponding to their biological sex”? It’s easy to come to a snap decision based on the bald facts above and on your political and religious stances—as well as the emotions that grow out of those stances. But I’ve been trying to see beyond the smoke generated by hyped-up knee-jerk reactions on both sides of this issue. Often in such potentially explosive conversations, grandstanding politicians are interested in stirring up emotional smoke rather than stoking the fire of reason. And they keep the smoke roiling until someone can declare himself the winner, whether or not anything of value has been achieved.

Let’s work through this controversy together, keeping emotion, as much as we can, out of the discussion. And let’s land wherever reason leads us.*

Two Sides

On one side of the issue, we have those who say we must implement such a law to “safeguard the privacy and safety of women and girls”—i.e., we must keep men out of women’s restrooms.

Protecting the privacy and safety of girls and women is certainly an admiral goal regardless of your political leanings. I am 100% behind it, being old-fashioned enough to believe that defending women is every man’s duty. Who could oppose that?

Well, on the other side, we have at least one Representative insisting that people who propose such legislation just “want to be able to inspect [people’s] genitals” before they can use a public restroom.

Wow, look at all that billowing emotional smoke! The very idea that anyone wants to implement a required “genital check” before allowing people to use a public restroom is ludicrous, unfeasible, and illegal. (By the way, a simple blood test—not “inspecting genitals”—is a straightforward way to determine one’s biological sex. You either got a Y chromosome or you don’t! But now I’m straying from the point….)

Let’s fan away the smoke of hyperbole and look at the intent of such a statement. At its root, the real question is, How could such a law be enforced?

Emotions on the other side of the issue may respond, “Well, if we don’t have legislation banning biological men from women’s restrooms (and vice versa), lots of depraved men will dress as women just to enter women’s restrooms and assault them!”

Wait.

Wait.

Generally speaking, the lack of such laws is the status quo. (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah are the only states as of this writing that have laws regulating bathroom access.) Depraved men can dress as women just to enter women’s restrooms for perverse purposes now. No doubt, some do. But as far as I’m aware, it’s not a widespread problem. If any man assaults a woman anywhere—in a restroom, car, home, bar, anywhere—laws exist to punish him for his execrable act.

Six Scenarios

Have I ever shared a men’s restroom with a transgender man? Well, how in the world would I know that?

Has my wife ever shared a women’s restroom with a transgender woman? Again, how could she possibly know that?

Rather than thinking in generalities, let’s look at several different potentially real situations.

·         Scenario 1: A cisgender man (biological male who identifies as a biological male; aka “cis”) enters a men’s restroom. As he’s washing his hands, three other men enter. Each one enters a stall and shuts and locks the door. Which one of them is trans? Is any one of them trans? Are all three trans? There is no way for the first man to know. And why would he want to know?

·         Scenario 2: A cis man enters a men’s restroom. As he is washing his hands, three other men enter. Two use the urinals while the third enters a stall and shuts and locks the door. Is the man in the stall trans? How would anyone know? Why would anyone want to know?

·         Scenario 3: A cis woman enters a women’s restroom. As she’s washing her hands, three other women enter. There are no urinals in women’s restrooms, of course, so all three enter stalls and shut and lock the doors. Is one of them trans? Are all three trans? Who can tell? Why does it matter? Everyone has as much privacy as is possible in a public restroom.

·         Scenario 4: A woman enters a women’s restroom. One of the stall doors opens and a man (dressed as a man or dressed as a woman) assaults her. In the best outcome of such a dreadful scenario, the victim calls the police and the man is arrested, just as any such perpetrator would be, regardless of the location. Would a law saying he couldn’t be in a women’s restroom have kept him from hiding there? It’s unlikely, since laws against assault didn’t keep him from assaulting her.

·         Scenario 5: To comply with a policy, act, or law requiring people to use the restroom that matches their chromosomes, a physical man who is dressed like a woman and, were you to meet the person on the street, looks like a woman, proceeds into the men’s room and uses the facilities. How comfortable are the other men in the restroom with this situation (“Hey Tom, did you see that woman just walk in here? What’s the deal?!”)?

·         Scenario 6: To comply with a policy, act, or law requiring people to use the restroom that matches their chromosomes, a physical woman who is dressed like a man and looks like a man sails into the women’s restroom and uses the facilities. How comfortable are the other women with this situation? How are they to know whether this is a trans woman or a cis man intentionally invading women’s space for some sort of sexual gratification? Haven’t we now made it easier for such a man to do so? How has this requirement fixed the perceived problem? (“Linda, a guy just walked through here and went into that stall! Let’s get out of here—I don’t feel safe!”) Isn’t this exactly the opposite of the outcome Rep. Mace wants?

Whether another person is trans or not is something we cannot invariably determine just by seeing him or her. For example, I was donating plasma yesterday, and a young man came in and also began donating. My first impression, when he walked past, was to wonder whether he was trans. He dressed like a man and had a man’s voice—but he was small of stature, and his facial features seemed rather feminine to me. Was he trans? Answer: I have no idea, and it’s none of my business.

So.

·         If we want people who look like men using women’s restrooms and people who look like women using men’s restrooms, we should (somehow) “prohibit individuals from accessing or using single-sex facilities … other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

·         If we do not want people who look like men using women’s restrooms nor people who look like women using men’s restrooms, we should be satisfied with the status quo.

I choose the status quo.

* In my opinion, each school or business is going to have to work out its own solution on this matter based on its own circumstances. Such entities will have to decide what to do, for example, when a student or employee begins to transition and wants to “switch restrooms.” I offer no solution in such situations. This essay concerns American society as a whole.

Copyright 2024, Steven Nyle Skaggs