Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Single Sex Facilities
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has proposed legislation to limit the use of women’s bathrooms and locker rooms on federal property to women. In other words, to bar men from using those women’s facilities, regardless of whether the men are pretending to be women.
I am not including links to “news” articles on the topic because I have not found any articles that report this matter without using inflammatory language favoring men pretending to be women. This itself is an interesting commentary on how rapidly treating men pretending to be women as actual women has been normalized in the media.
I understand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has suggested expanding the proposed idea to any place that receives federal funding.
I know Rep. Mace and Rep. Greene are controversial figures in many circles. However, I do not understand how this proposal to limit the use of women’s facilities to women is controversial. And yes, I am aware that Rep. Mace’s proposal was prompted by the election of “Sarah” McBride of Delaware, a man who pretends to be a woman and has announced his intention to use women’s facilities.
Rep. Mace is an interesting person to make the proposal to formalize the limitation of women’s facilities to women. She says that she was raped as a teenager. Therefore, I hear opposition to Rep. Mace’s proposal as a demand that a rape victim allow a potential rapist into women’s spaces, increasing her fear of being raped again. It is an interesting position for people who claim to “support women.”
I know two women who were raped as teenagers. At least two that I know of and who have talked with me about it. The rapes greatly affected their lives in many ways, i.e., the rapes were a huge deal in their lives (and for one of them, the rape was fifty years ago). Rape is categorically different from other types of physical assault.
We know of recent instances of males who have raped females in female spaces while the rapist is dressed as a female. Frankly, I’m surprised there haven’t been more, since so many groups invite males to enter female spaces dressed as females. I fail to see how inviting potential rapists and other men with bad intentions into female spaces doesn’t increase the danger to females.
Incoming Rep. McBride (the Delaware man who pretends to be a woman) knows he is the weirdo. His weirdness does not give him the right to demand that hundreds (or thousands) of women be made uncomfortable for the sole purpose of satisfying his unusual sexual fetishes.
We have enough problems with boys and men sneaking into women’s private spaces to cause harm (if not rape, potentially kidnapping, peeping, illicit photography, and other behaviors). We don’t need to increase those problems by encouraging males to enter female spaces by pretending to be female.
I don’t understand why anyone considers it compassionate in any way to invite men to enter into women’s private spaces. It is entirely reasonable for women to object. It is particularly cruel to tell a rape victim she must allow into her female space a man with the tool to rape her again.
The sensible and loving thing to do is to limit the use of female facilities to females.
Published in Culture
AGREE!
That’s why the deviant minority has to keep coming up with even more extreme and ridiculous ideas that we are all supposed to affirm.
No. they can’t. They demand you recognize them as women. They get extremely angry if you refuse. Because they suffer from a particular form of mental illness. Autogynephilia.
If you don’t play the game you are interfering with their sexual pleasure and that is intolerable. Look at the number of them that post threats of violence against anyone who won’t play along with their “pronouns”, or tries to limit their access to female spaces.
When we went through the “Bathroom Wars” here in NC, I predicted the end result would be unisex single person bathrooms. Even in uber liberal Durham places were getting tired of the issue. It just made it easier for businesses and restaurants to deal with. That means longer waits and less bathrooms, but Progress!
The battleground will just shift to locker rooms and any other all female spaces like hair and nail saloons, spas, and gyms.
The far left is busy trying to deconstruct every societal norm, especially family and relationships between the sexes to destroy it to make way for the future. It just happens to mesh perfectly with all the perverts in society.
FIFY
Now why would you say that?
A Critical Theory tactic to defeat us.
He’s still mentally ill. Changing the outside of his body doesn’t make him less ill. It might actually make him more unbalanced.
All the new facilties I have seen in national parks have indivual stalls which anyone can use. This is honesty the best all around. So I would say if there is an exception that if Facilty operators want to move to sex netrual single stall closed rooms. I am all in. And there is an age exception for young kids. Its a great law but it should also apply to women in men rooms.
But completely individual rooms, each with its own toilet and sink, would seem to vastly increase the square footage of building required for the restroom function, the amount of plumbing needed (both greatly increasing construction costs), and somewhat increase cleaning and maintenance efforts required. As I understand women’s restroom usage (second-hand information, since I have not been in one since I was a small boy sixty plus years ago), it’s not just the toilet itself for which they don’t want men present, as they also primp and tidy up (fixing hair, makeup, clothing) at the sink with the mirror. So individual toilet rooms but communal sinks does not solve women’s privacy desires. And individual shower and locker rooms would really skyrocket the required space, plumbing, and maintenance.
Single-sex public bathrooms have worked great for a century or more, for exactly these reasons. Why do we have to destroy yet another thing that works for something that doesn’t and spend a lot of money to do so?
As I think Greg Gutfeld has pointed out, and Jesse Watters has copied – I don’t think Jesse thought of it first – so much of all these things comes down to “Look at ME!”
Now that I think more about it – we’ve had single-sex bathrooms for at least two millennia. Rome had single-sex public toilets (with running water, no less).
According to information I read a while back about the earliest department stores in London (England) in the late 19th century, a key feature was the decision to include restrooms for the women shoppers so that they would stay and shop longer, and not feel the pressure to go home to use the toilet and other facilities. And it was important for the women’s comfort that those restrooms be for women only, for the women to feel safe and to use them.
We have recently heard many complaints from parents of girls who avoid using the restroom during the day at school because they don’t feel safe in part because of the prospect that a boy pretending to be a girl might come in.
You create only a few “family” restrooms that are for handicapped and others to go privately. No other consideration should be offered for restrooms. Shower facilities are a whole new issue. I’m not that sympathetic to requiring places to go through great expense to accommodate someone’s fantasy world.