By Madeleine Kearns
Wednesday, November 06, 2019
I was out for lunch at a Manhattan restaurant with my
friend’s daughter, an exceptionally classy seven-year-old.
“Please, may I go to the bathroom by myself?” she asked.
“Yes, but no dilly-dallying!” I replied. And off she went. Striding briskly,
blonde curls a-bouncing — straight into an “all-gender” restroom.
Oh dear.
As she entered this unlocked (lockable) room, three
little boys were — now in full view — urinating round one toilet. Perturbed, if
not alarmed, my young friend immediately burst back out, gave me a big wave, as
if to say “oops” and “don’t worry!” She turned on her heel, disappearing around
the corner. A moment passed. One by one, the heads of three naughty little boys
popped out. Scheming and snickering, with catlike tread, they traced my wee
pal’s route.
Terrifying and immediate was my arrival on the scene,
scattering the would-be tormentors.
“Those boys were trying to peek on me!” she said. “I only
peeked on them by accident!” Little boys are little savages, I told her gently,
adding that very few improve with age. More importantly, I explained that
gender-neutral bathrooms were only recently invented. And, evidently, by some
very careless and wasteful people who don’t mind sacrificing the privacy,
hygiene, and camaraderie of the female toilet experience.
There are three good reasons to be against gender-neutral
bathrooms. 1) They are pointless. 2) They are wasteful. 3) They are sexist.
Pointless. Polling consistently shows that most
Americans care most about bread and peace. They do not generally give much
thought to potty policies. And so, making such a policy a priority in a
political campaign is likely to come across as out of touch and self-regarding
— a fact the Democrats learned a little too late in 2016.
Nevertheless, many in the metropolitan elites like to
accuse the Trump administration of having targeted transgender people. By
reversing Obama-era policies, they say, Trump & Co. have robbed trans
people of safe and pleasant bathroom experiences. But isn’t anyone curious how
it all worked before Obama? And why is no one complaining about the various
presidents before Trump who held the same approach to sex-segregated bathrooms?
What’s more, it’s not like presenting as the opposite sex
is particularly new human behavior. Since the 1960s, a tiny number of
individuals have even made a serious surgical commitment in more closely
resembling the opposite sex. Life was, and no doubt is, difficult for such
people. But how might this ideally play out? That is context-dependent,
naturally. But if, for argument’s sake, we presume such a person to be sincere
and well-meaning — as opposed to, say, a predator — then a natural relationship
of trust might ensue. One where a woman washing her hands at the bathroom sink
might do a double-take, realizing that she is in the presence of a man, but
after carrying out an instinctual and internal risk assessment, decide all is
fine. She might even smile and say hello.
But that is her prerogative, surely. The man in
this rare hypothetical ought not to have a legal right to be there.
Moreover, if his legal right to be there trumps her right
to privacy, then no allowance is made for the fact that, while some men
presenting as women are benign and sincere, others are malign and predatorial.
Wouldn’t the woman, then, be justified in feeling unsafe?
Many accept that she would. Which is why “gender-neutral”
restrooms were introduced as an attempt at a compromise. Instead of people
using whichever restroom they felt corresponded with their “gender identity,”
it seemed more reasonable to have all gender-neutral bathrooms for everyone
(including “non-binary” people). But is this reasonable?
Wasteful. How much do these (pointless)
gender-neutral restrooms cost? On the smaller end of the scale, some schools,
for instance Grant High School, have simply converted a handful of unisex or
family bathrooms into gender-neutral restrooms. “The conversion cost less than
$500, most coming from changing interior locks,” the Oregonian reports.
This year, Yale law-school students successfully sued the
state of Connecticut for single-occupant all-gender restrooms. In their suit,
the school writes: “The proposed shift in designation to gender neutral . . .
would facilitate quick access to a bathroom within the building for persons of
all gender identities.” Though Yale has not made public how much this cost,
according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, another campus in
California spent $150,000 on a new gender-inclusive, single-occupancy restroom.
Target, meanwhile, decided to spend $20 million on
single-stall gender-neutral bathrooms in all of its stores. This is an
attempted compromise after customers threatened to boycott the company for
allowing staff and customers to use whichever restroom matches their
self-declared “gender identity.”
Sexist. To be clear, single stalls are still
miserable for women (who make up, lest we forget, half the world’s population).
First, women are cleaner than men. Women do not stand and
aim at the toilet but sit on a seat. They rarely misfire. They rarely get pee on
the floor. They almost always flush and almost always wash their hands.
Second, women take longer to go to the bathroom than men.
This is in part because of the whole ordeal of half undressing and sitting
down. But it is also because some women are on their periods, while others are
pregnant or have been pregnant at some point (and so have weaker bladders).
Women also have a higher occurrence of UTIs.
Third, women — partly for safety and partly in honoring
an age-old ritual — often go to the bathroom in numbers. Some will touch on
make-up. Others will, if the line isn’t too long, have a chinwag while there.
This is important to women. Don’t ask me why. But it is.
In an essay originally published on the Stage website,
then unpublished following “strong responses” online (and republished by The
Spectator), Sarah Ditum explained how the all-gender bathrooms in the Old
Vic, a famous London theater, were working out. (A lot of the points she makes
are more broadly applicable.)
Now the Old Vic has completed the
refurbishment, it’s clear that something has gone very wrong. Yes, there are
more toilets, with 44 where there were once 22 — but not more toilets for
women. Instead, there are 26 toilets and 18 urinals, and all new toilets have
been turned “gender neutral”. Patrons are, in theory, free to “self-select”
from blocks labelled stalls-only and blocks containing urinals. The problem is
obvious: women cannot use urinals. That means there are 44 toilets for men, but
only 26 for women, and only that many for women who are willing to run the
gauntlet of penis to get to the stalls alongside the urinals.
Pointless! Wasteful! Sexist!
So why are colleges and businesses now spending millions
of dollars in accommodating the demands of activists supposedly speaking on
behalf of a minority? Who knows. But what is clear is that they are doing so at
the expense of the privacy, hygiene, and camaraderie of an established and
objective majority — females, especially those little ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment