Saturday, April 16, 2016

Shows Cancelled

Okay, I've got to wonder about this.

Bruce Springsteen has cancelled a show in North Carolina over their new bathroom law.

Ringo Starr has cancelled a show in North Carolina over the new bathroom law.

I understand a host of other folks are cancelling shows over the bathroom law. Google it yourself.

Call me simple, call me stupid, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to know which bathroom you're supposed to use.  If you have a penis, for example, use the men's room.  It's really pretty simple.  We've been using this procedure for lots of years and it's fine.  Really it is.  Many places have unisex facilites, normally what we used to call a one-holer.  A small room with a single toilet and wash basin.  That works great too.  Go in, lock the door, they all work the same way.

The LGBT crowd is all up in outrage because they feel that the law discriminates, but I fail to see the discrimination.  I can't use the ladies room, because I'm not a female.  It's that penis thing again.  The law applies equally.

I understand that Mississippi is also working on a law, that if passed, will take the state "back to the stone age".  Not my words, their words.  Bryan Adams has cancelled a show at one of the Tunica casinos and I'm sure that both of his fans are disappointed.  The casino involved will probably not suffer a loss on the show, because now they don't have to comp any tickets.  The slot machines will not be affected.

For the record, I am not anti-LGBT.  Quite the contrary.  I'm also not easily outraged.  These laws seem to be balanced on the face, not discriminatory, and actually fairly reasonable.  If you have a penis, use the men's room.

Am I missing something here?

7 comments:

Judy said...

No, you are not missing anything! I personally do not want males wondering around the ladies room because I don't know what their intent is. And I'm pretty sure the average male doesn't want females wondering around in the men's room either.

If it's that big a deal, to people of that persuasion, they can finance the remedy to their problem and have built private spaces for them to relieve themselves. Springsteen and the rest of Hollyweird have the financial resources for this pet-project of theirs. I, the lowly tax-payer, am tired of financing their PC ideas.

Ed Jones said...

If passing said law keeps Bruce, Ringo and Michel More out of your state, what is the down side?

Anonymous said...

You are missing their arguments. I don't subscribe to these but this is what a SJW would say...

A feminist would say that separate bathrooms are male privilege because men can use the bathroom faster and have more facilities (urinals) then women's bathrooms.

A transgender activist would say that when a person who is transgender and dressed contrary to their gender uses the wrong bathroom for their current apparel and appearance, they are revealed to be cross-gender and potentially humiliated, accused of a crime, or even attacked. These concerns are not entirely without foundation, and for someone attempting to pass as the other gender, there's not really a right answer. Right genitalia and wrong clothing will offend people just as much as wrong genitalia and right clothing, at least if anyone notices.

The "bathroom" situation is the weak argument; the strong form is the "changing room" or "locker room".

I tend to think this sort of thing is entirely self-inflicted by people trying to pass as something they aren't. But if you take them wanting to do so as a given -- and what's the alternative, passing a law that enforces gender-based dress codes? -- then there is an awkward situation with no good resolution.

I don't think it's reasonable for a tiny fraction of the population to impose upon everyone to change their social expectations for bathroom usage, but those are the arguments.

Joe Mama said...

Let's just skip to the next step. Privacy is dead. Let's just urinate in public. Urine is sterile. It poses no health risk.

Ergo, we should be able to pee on Bryan Adams' driveway, Springsteen's left, front tire and Starr's luggage in the airport.

It is just these intermediate steps that are awkward...like trying to sit on two bar stools at the same time or trying to keep one foot in the jonboat and the other on the dock.

Joe Huffman said...

There are significant number of trans people who have undergone hormone therapy and are presenting as their desired gender rather than sex at birth. So the simple test for presence of penis ends up with probably undesirable results. Examples include: 1) Male to female trans with breasts and penis going into the men's room--which probably puts her at higher risk of physical and/or verbal attack. 2) Female to male trans with facial hair going into the women's room with young girls. 3) How do you enforce this test? Penis checkers at the bathroom entrances would appear to be one of the worst solutions. If enforcement is nearly impossible then it would appear you might as well not have the test.

I think I see, understand, and can articulate the problem well. I have no good solutions.

Ruth said...

I have female friends, who have female plumbing, and are female mentally, but who also, for various reasons have a masculine appearance, and who get hassled for using the bathroom that matches their plumbing. So unfortunately it's not that simple.

Anonymous said...

I see two possible rational solutions.

1) Make all bathrooms individual rooms and labeled unisex (or, at minimum, provide at least one such facility). This is expensive, especially as a government mandate, but does seem to solve the problem ... IF everyone cooperates and no one complains about the stigma of using the unisex bathroom. But of course there will still be misunderstandings, concerns, etc, because people are people.

2) Let businesses choose to provide whatever facilities they want according to their own preferences and market demand. Let people with unusual gender presentation use whichever facilities they think are appropriate. Everyone try not to freak out at the mere presence of someone who doesn't look quite right. On the other hand, feel free to freak out if there is someone sticking a camera under the stall or attacking you.

I tend to favor option 2. The agitators seem to favor option 1. Judging by past history in this area, if option 1 is selected, everyone is forced to spend a lot of money to make a very small percentage of the population feel more comfortable and a cottage industry of lawsuits will be created for bathroom gender compliance rules, similar to what we have seen for handicapped accessibility rules and wedding cakes.