Virtue Signaling and Restroom Signs

 

Let’s say, for a moment, you’re one of the small fraction of a percentage of the population who self-identifies as a gender other than what your biological bits indicate. You don’t want to go into the men’s room because you think you’re actually a woman. But if you go into the women’s restroom, your best-case scenario is scorn and your worst-case scenario is a trip in the back of a cop car.

So you’re worried you can’t go into the restroom without people thinking you might be a child molester? That’s nice. I can’t even enter the building in the first place because people are worried I might be a mass murderer. How’s that for discrimination?

It’s a discrimination, though, that I’m willing to tolerate because it stems from another ideal I hold dear, namely, the right of private property owners to set the rules for their property. While that means I take a temporary hit to my civil rights, it also means that I can use those same laws to protect my property.

Did child molesters go into bathrooms before Obama’s new regulations? Of course they did. Do people tolerate the presence of “No Guns Allowed” signs and carry a gun into those buildings anyway? Of course they do. There is, however, a big difference between behavior that is discouraged, behavior that is tolerated, behavior that is permitted, and behavior that is encouraged.

For example, it’s been legal for years for Arizona gun owners to have a firearm in their vehicle while on school property. I had taken advantage of this law every time I picked up my sons from grade school. But while that law has been on the books for quite some time, a few school districts flouted it by banning guns in private cars on their property. This necessitated further legislation to remind people that the laws mean what they say, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action celebrated another victory.

Does such legislation indicate that Arizona is friendly to firearms owners? I’d say so. Indeed, it’s ranked number one in the country for good gun laws.

In the same way, does removing restrictions on men entering women’s restrooms say something about what is and is not permissible inside those restrooms? I’d say so. Bad people did bad things to innocent people inside public restrooms before these new rules were passed, and they’ll continue to do so in the future now that these rules are a reality.

However, the signal from the Obama administration is clear: Legitimate concerns about privacy and safety are to be ignored in the name of “inclusion.” Did the threat of sexual assault in a public bathroom exist before these new rules? Of course it did. Does the threat go away with the new rules? No, it doesn’t. What goes away, however, is our ability to acknowledge that the threat might exist, because if we complain about a 6’2″ hirsute beast in a stall next to our female companions, we are labelled “transphobic” or worse. The Obama administration has made it clear that concerns about the safety of public restrooms are not to be tolerated in the name of encouraging “inclusion” for a minuscule amount of the American population.

What I fear is that, as a society, we will learn once again that walls, fences, and bathroom doors are usually built with a purpose in mind, and that we’ll learn that lesson too late.

Published in Culture, Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 26 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    This line

    I didn’t believe in rape culture until a 6’3”, 250-pound grown man stared angrily into my eyes and proclaimed to me how hurtful it was that I did not want to see his penis. And people agreed with him.

    • #1
  2. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    Must be all the fault of climate change, everything else is blamed on it nowadays.

    • #2
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Kevin Creighton: What I fear is that, as a society, we will learn once again that walls, fences, and bathroom doors are usually built with a purpose in mind, and that we’ll learn that lesson too late.

    There’s an old saying, “You never tear down a fence without knowing why it was put up in the first place.”

    Obama’s actions are designed to destroy the wisdom of the ages . . .

    • #3
  4. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    This is Prez Omega’s desperate push to prove he can invade every possible corner, every tiny tender interstice, of our lives.

    I forsee pants-wetting incidents increasing as elementary school children find the non-problematic bladder-relieving function transformed into a fraught chioce between one sex and another–and another.

    That edict, about elementary schools, is the worst of it.  It is designed to remove from parents the intimate, delicate time-honored duty, and pleasure, of teaching children the special, sacred cultural meaning of their particular biological sex.

    In exactly the same way,mandating recognition of  same-sex wedding ceremonies desecrates the ancient, unique, biologically-based ritual by forcing people–all of us–to celebrate profanation if the sacred.

    The policy of this adminstration, the “fundamental change” it strives for, is destruction of the family, in the sense humans have always understood that term.  Because a family home   is a tiny sphere where the writ of the sovereign does not run.

    I’m not afraid of molestation in ladies’ rooms. ( Concerning men’s rooms, one did hear that they have traditionally been the rendezvous spot for male trysts.). That, as the bathroom bullies point out, is an unrealistic fear opponents are just “using as an excuse ” to keep things the way they are.

    Yes, exactly–and why do they need this excuse?  Because most people can’t articulate the venerable  human reasons why we seek privacy at certain moments, why the vast majority of us know that our particular  biological sex is a factor of paramount importance  in our lives.  They can’t articulate it because it comes naturally to us, we hadn’t had to give it much thought, till now!  So they fall back on the (“pathetic”, “phobic”) plea:”…  but we’ve always done it this way!  It’s just common sense!”

    We shouldn’t even have to be in the position of trying to defend the practice of sex segregated bathrooms.  And wouldn’t be, if Omega &Co hadn’t decided to elevate the alleged “comfort” of less than three-tenths of one percent  of the population above ours.

    • #4
  5. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    As soon as it becomes legal for men to go into womyn’s restrooms I hope that every man goes into every public womyn’s room, find a stall and make masturbatory sounds.  Maybe go up to the wash basins and reposition your genitals.  It would be preferable if you did this around public officials wives and children just to make the point.  Only when this horror is fully embraced will the Left understand its mistake.

    • #5
  6. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    The King Prawn:This line

    I didn’t believe in rape culture until a 6’3”, 250-pound grown man stared angrily into my eyes and proclaimed to me how hurtful it was that I did not want to see his penis. And people agreed with him.

    If it’s not reported by the New York Times, it didn’t happen.  And the NYT will not report any such incidents, no matter how bad or how frequent they get.

    • #6
  7. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Something good might come out of this: women might become better armed.

    • #7
  8. Richard Finlay Inactive
    Richard Finlay
    @RichardFinlay

    It was always a non-problem.  True transgender (wo)men acting like women could enter the ladies room, go into a stall, do what they came for, and leave without anyone knowing for sure.  True transgender women acting like men could do the same.  It became a problem when individuals wanted to flaunt it and the SJWiC wrote rules to encourage the flaunting.  How else would everyone know how tolerant they are?

    • #8
  9. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Richard Finlay:It was always a non-problem. True transgender (wo)men acting like women could enter the ladies room, go into a stall, do what they came for, and leave without anyone knowing for sure. True transgender women acting like men could do the same. It became a problem when individuals wanted to flaunt it and the SJWiC wrote rules to encourage the flaunting. How else would everyone know how tolerant they are?

    Drop the mic . . . .

    • #9
  10. a Gifted Righter Member
    a Gifted Righter
    @
    • #10
  11. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    I have no issue with transgendered folk. I don’t know if they are more or less likely to be perverts than anyone else. My problem is with the anyone else.

    Even the best men I know can be dogs, and there are plenty of men that aren’t the best. I’m sure that there are pervy women, too, so don’t think I’m forgetting them, but the porn industry is almost entirely built on catering to the demands of men.

    There are more than just child molesters and rapists out there (though those, of course, are the worst). There are gawkers who want to leer, and profiteers who would love to sneak cameras into locker rooms and bathrooms. They exist now, but why make it easier for them?

    Bathrooms are not about gender. They are about sex. You have an innie or an outie, and take care of their needs regardless of how you self identify.

    • #11
  12. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Excellent post, Kevin.

    • #12
  13. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    First, what percentage of men are perverts?  Compare that number to the percentage of the population that is transgender.  I’ll wager that pervs outnumber trannies.

    Second (and I haven’t been able to find this), what is the number of transgendered people arrested solely for using the wrong bathroom?  I’ll wager it’s pretty darn close to zero.

    So, there must be another agenda.  Wonder what it could be?

    • #13
  14. Liz Member
    Liz
    @Liz

    Mister D: I’m sure that there are pervy women, too, so don’t think I’m forgetting them, but the porn industry is almost entirely built on catering to the demands of men.

    Oh, there are. A friend told me the story of her son, aged 8, who went into the single-person but unisex restroom at his school and neglected to lock the door. He was followed by a female classmate who entered and asked him what was “in his pants.” When he told her to leave, she threatened to tell the teacher if he didn’t show her. The poor kid was so confused by this expert bit of malicious manipulation that he complied.

    At least he told his mom about it, but the whole episode was, as you can imagine, disturbing and distressing to the whole family.

    • #14
  15. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Fake John/Jane Galt:As soon as it becomes legal for men to go into womyn’s restrooms I hope that every man goes into every public womyn’s room, find a stall and make masturbatory sounds. Maybe go up to the wash basins and reposition your genitals. It would be preferable if you did this around public officials wives and children just to make the point. Only when this horror is fully embraced will the Left understand its mistake.

    Yeah. Went to dinner a couple of weeks ago in Durham NC, and the restaurant had big signs ” We don’t discriminate, no on HB2″ signs.  After dinner as a joke, I said ” I’m going to the ladies room, I’m feeling feminine tonight”.  My son answered ” don’t bother. I went earlier, they have 2 single stall unisex bathrooms”.

    Nothing like Virtue Signaling with no risk.

    • #15
  16. Kevin Creighton Contributor
    Kevin Creighton
    @KevinCreighton

    Kozak: Nothing like Virtue Signaling with no risk.

    To a progressive, that is the best kind of virtue signaling. As long as their intentions were good, they can allow themselves to be excused from being responsible for any damage their crackpot ideas may have caused.

    • #16
  17. Addiction Is A Choice Member
    Addiction Is A Choice
    @AddictionIsAChoice

    Kevin Creighton:

    Kozak: Nothing like Virtue Signaling with no risk.

    To a progressive, that is the best kind of virtue signaling. As long as their intentions were good, they can allow themselves to be excused from being responsible for any damage their crackpot ideas may have caused.

    Great post! And great post-post commentary! Thanks, Kevin!

    • #17
  18. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    Boss Mongo: I’ll wager that pervs outnumber trannies.

    I won’t take that wager.

    Richard Finlay’s response is the first, last, and only commonsense way to view this whole controversy.

    • #18
  19. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Hypatia: Because most people can’t articulate the venerable human reasons why we seek privacy at certain moments, why the vast majority of us know that our particular biological sex is a factor of paramount importance in our lives. They can’t articulate it because it comes naturally to us, we hadn’t had to give it much thought, till now! So they fall back on the (“pathetic”, “phobic”) plea:”… but we’ve always done it this way! It’s just common sense!”

    Agree.

    And—good post, Kevin!

    • #19
  20. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Boss Mongo: Second (and I haven’t been able to find this), what is the number of transgendered people arrested solely for using the wrong bathroom? I’ll wager it’s pretty darn close to zero.

    Agree.

    • #20
  21. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    Kate Braestrup:

    Hypatia: Because most people can’t articulate the venerable human reasons why we seek privacy at certain moments, why the vast majority of us know that our particular biological sex is a factor of paramount importance in our lives. They can’t articulate it because it comes naturally to us, we hadn’t had to give it much thought, till now! So they fall back on the (“pathetic”, “phobic”) plea:”… but we’ve always done it this way! It’s just common sense!”

    Agree.

    And—good post, Kevin!

    Thank you , Reverend!

    Actually, as you know, we could articulate it, if we dared:

    “And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked…”

    That  shame, that essential modesty is the price we paid for our transformation from animals:

    “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”

    Gen 3:7,22.

    • #21
  22. Paul DeRocco Member
    Paul DeRocco
    @PaulDeRocco

    While we conservatives discuss how we should accommodate people with gender dysphasia, the Left has other ideas. They’re trying to establish, in law as well as in culture, that these people have no mental disorder, that they’re perfectly normal people of the sex they claim to be, whose only disability is that they have a body that is defective because it sprouted the wrong sex organs.

    The trouble is, if we’re willing to accommodate such people, even while insisting they’ve got a mental problem, we’ve already lost the farm whether we realize it or not. There is no way to accept transgenderism without letting the Left redefine “male” and “female”—and redefine people with normal ideas about gender as bigots, if not criminals. That’s how Leftism works. People should understand that by now, after observing it for the last fifty years.

    Next up: California and Massachusetts banning therapy for gender dysphasia.

    • #22
  23. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    I read Milo Y’s piece on transgenderism.  He points out that there is a syndrome where people think they are dead, too–Cotard’s Delusion–but doctors don’t kill them.

    I used to think transableism — people who believe they are a disabled person trapped in a capable body– would be the firewall.    But it isn’t.  Soon, those people will find surgeons willing to paralyze, blind, maim, deafen  them.  And the rest of us will have to bear the cost of their lifelong, self-imposed disability.

    So: is there anybody who is “sick”, who should be “treated”, rather than accommodated?

    On a Ricochet, I’ve found one category: pregnant women who want, or get,  an abortion.  I can’t figure out why, if you think abortion should be a crime, you don’t think the perpetrator is a criminal. But whenever this topic comes up, the response is overwhelmingly that the woman, somehow, isn’t responsible; she is mentally defective.

    On the Left, anyone who doesn’t agree with the orthodoxy is “sick”, but when the Left says “sick”, they mean sick like a leper.  The course of action isn’t “treatment” (at least not yet) but ostracism. For them, political opinions are considered diseases, and diseases are considered  a matter of civil rights.

    I hear the antibiotic resistant infection has arrived.  That’ll set us straight soon enough.  We’ll be forcibly reminded that “sickness” isn’t just a metaphor for a worldview.

    • #23
  24. oleneo65 Inactive
    oleneo65
    @oleneo65

    Richard Finlay:…… It became a problem when individuals wanted to flaunt it and the SJWiC wrote rules to encourage the flaunting. How else would everyone know how tolerant they are?

    Great comment Richard. Please help me understand ‘SJWiC’.

    • #24
  25. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Z in MT:

    Boss Mongo: I’ll wager that pervs outnumber trannies.

    I won’t take that wager.

    Richard Finlay’s response is the first, last, and only commonsense way to view this whole controversy.

    Sorry, I don’t see where Richard and I are in any way in discord.  It’s a non-issue.  And that goes to my point.  Opening this particular can of boogers is far more likely to endanger women than to make transgender “not feel uncomfortable,” or what ever.

    • #25
  26. Richard Finlay Inactive
    Richard Finlay
    @RichardFinlay

    oleneo65:

    Richard Finlay:…… It became a problem when individuals wanted to flaunt it and the SJWiC wrote rules to encourage the flaunting. How else would everyone know how tolerant they are?

    Great comment Richard. Please help me understand ‘SJWiC’.

    Social Justice Warrior(s) in Chief (Charge)

    • #26
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.