Whose Bathroom Is It Anyway?

World War T continues apace, with the latest action being the Battle of the Bathrooms. Once again, the Left is applying its trademark obfuscatory misdirection. The issue of adult transsexuals in public bathrooms is a complete non-issue, but it is being used to give a façade of respectability to something much more subversive.

Consider for a moment the position of the transsexual—the person who wants to change sex and actually goes through the various procedures to make that possible. Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, sex change procedures can transform a person to the point that their original sex is indiscernible. Even for those who do not go all the way, casual inspection will not reveal anything amiss. Furthermore, transsexuals are typically not eager to advertise their distinction—that is, after all, the whole point of going through those quite drastic procedures—and so use discretion, not harassing or disturbing the ordinary users of public facilities. For those in transition, who are caught in an uncomfortable half-way point as far as appearance goes, discretion resolves many issues and their small numbers keep unresolved issues rare. In short, transsexuals use whatever facilities most closely match their appearance and don’t cause any trouble, so virtually no one even knows that they’re there.

The merely transgender—utterly contemptible individuals who insist that everyone else respect their self-image but do nothing to actualize it themselves—are more of a problem, but one which would resolve itself in fairly short order were it not part of a larger agenda. Eventually, a sufficient number of perverts and voyeurs would harass enough women to provoke a backlash, resulting in a restoration of the restroom status quo of three months ago.

As far as adults go, the battle of the bathrooms consists entirely of empty signaling. North Carolina has officially required people to use the facility corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates, but they are not checking birth certificates at the door; Target has announced that they will allow anyone to use to facility corresponding to their gender identity, but they are likewise not checking gender identities at the door. All these organizations have done is plant their standards on one side or the other of WWT: those who consider trans people to be pathological cases vs. those who consider them completely normal.

The true targets in the latest pro-trans offensive are the children. President Obama’s strong suggestion to schools that they make special accommodations for trans students as well as moves by a variety of localities and activist groups specifically seek both to inculcate trans acceptance in the most intellectually vulnerable among us and to undermine parental authority.

Sure, turning all public bathrooms into unisex facilities is a necessary condition of normalizing transgenderism, but a both necessary and sufficient condition, in the long run, is to convince children that trans people are perfectly normal. Young people are already more accepting of gender and sexual deviance than their elders—if children are told by their teachers that there are fifty-seven or more different genders, they will believe it, accept it, and consider it perfectly normal. And when these children grow up, they will teach their kids the same thing, and so on.

Additionally, by using the school system to teach transgenderism to children, the Left is also subverting parents and families. No longer are parents’ beliefs to be considered in the education of their children—only the ideology of the educators matters. This is not exactly news, but if you have children of your own, you should be looking into homeschooling or at least finding an alternative to public schooling.

Promoting trans acceptance among children also undermines the family order, such as it is these days, in the traditional, Leftist fashion: by giving children a voice. When women were given the vote, they were at the same time encouraged to consider their own, individual interests, as opposed to those of their husband, their children, or their family as a whole. If a wife decided she disagreed with her husband on politics, she would break with him and vote her own way. The divorce between husbands and wives on matters of politics sowed the seeds for normalization of more extensive marital divergences later on. In the same way, telling children that they can be trans, that it’s okay to want to change your sex, and to assist them in doing so, with or without their parent’s knowledge or consent, can only serve to divorce children from their parents even more than they already are.

That encouraging transgenderism among children amounts to child abuse will soon become the main line of argument for those opposed to trans normalization, and it’s a powerful argument. After all, young children make all sorts of extravagant claims—boys claim to be knights or dragons; girls claim to be unicorns or princesses—that we don’t take seriously, so why should claims of being trans be given any more consideration? And children are routinely barred from making important decisions, especially ones that could be deemed harmful, such as driving, consuming alcohol, or consenting to sexual relations. It makes little sense that people who are not considered responsible enough to have sex should be given permission to choose their sex.

Indeed, it would be very easy for pro-trans parents to subtly force their child down the trans route based on a few crazy utterances he or she made when merely five-years-old. And considering the drastic physical changes undergone by transsexuals and the psychiatric problems often experienced by trans people in general, such a road should not be tread lightly and the decision should be made only by a person having reached the age of majority. This approach combines compassion for trans people while preserving traditional gender norms, and so it will be very popular in the future.

The Left will not accept this transphobic bigotry, of course, because their goal is precisely to undermine traditional gender norms. If children are not permitted to choose their sex, if changing one’s sex is considered a serious and even dangerous matter, then the basic dichotomy of man and woman will remain largely intact. People who change sex will be looked upon as abnormal, and people who are more “gender fluid” will be considered especially insane. There will still be women, and most intolerably, there will still be men.

More concretely, if sex changes are delayed until after children leave school, then the project of coercing recalcitrant transphobes becomes harder. Schools have great power of children, and nearly every child in the country goes through the public school system. When children leave school and enter either college of the working world, the Left’s control over them diminishes. Adults have both greater freedom than children and greater responsibility. Additionally, adults are more mature and more inclined to dismiss their earlier notions of sex change and focus on working, paying bills, and raising families of their own. The notion that transgenderism might just be a “phase” that some people pass through will be resisted as viciously as the same notion for homosexuality was, however true it may be.

The position that trans people are not normal is one of the most easily defendable positions imaginable, being grounded in obvious facts of biology and psychology. The Left has its work cut out for it undermining this notion. The issue of trans adults on which the Left is presently focused, however, is a pure distraction; the real fight is over children. The line has to be drawn here: this far and no further.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

21 Comments

  1. Laguna Beach Fogey May 23, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Yeah, good luck with that. My hunch is that Americans will bend over and take it, just as they always do.

    1. Same here. I have little hope that Americans over the age of 35 who have kids will fight back. They’re too lazy and they subscribe to ‘as long as you don’t hurt anyone’ mentality alongside ‘of course I’d choose my children over some archiac, bigoted belief.’

  2. I don’t know a single parent willing to say without equivocation to his children that the teacher is lying, that the school is wrong about the so-called gender. Gender is a grammatical term. People are of one of the only two sexes: male or female. There is no such thing as transgender people. Those poor souls willing to mutilate and/or deform their bodies under the belief of the non-existing gender are ill. They deserve compassion and love, not lies.
    Why is so difficult to say that? The parents are teaching their children to fear the state as much as they themselves do when they accept and continue this abuse.

    1. These parents do exist, but they are homeschooling their children.

      1. I’m referring to those parents whose children are not homeschooled for whatever reason, of course. If the parent thinks that belying the teacher, the school, will damage the children, he’s very much mistaken. Asserting his authority, he’s helping his children, not hurting them.

    2. I have two kids in public school, and there have been mind games all along since elementary school. I’ve told him they lie, whenever they do. It’s the only way to maintain his mental health.

      We can’t afford private school and he wants the interaction of going to school. I think he’s learned to disrespect the state but fear what it can do — which is just right.

      1. Changed numbers in the first 2 sentences. The mind games have been applied to the younger child who is academically way out on the right tail. Quite a few of them hate that.

  3. People could look away and pretend it was fine when it was only they themselves who were assailed at every turn: their children, that’s another matter. I definitely agree there’ll be backlash, but I don’t think it’ll be THE backlash. It’s too easy for McDonalds-eaters to rationalise to themselves that the children and their benefactor experts know best.

    Alex “demons!” Jones is right about this one. Along this infinite path of spiritual atomisation is the normalisation of paedophilia. I think that this will be what finally turns the masses against the graven image of progress. The Victorian notion of the purity of childhood spread like a supervirus among the European peoples, and it’s become a part of our “deep culture” so deep that it simply bears no discussion. It’s impossible to imagine a world to where it isn’t a truism; and any culture that doesn’t share in its mystery is seen as profoundly heretical, against not only the cultural norms of any decent civilisation, but against life itself. It’s so unquestionable that to challenge it can be deadly.

    Paedophiles are literally worse than Hitler. They are the go-to big bad. Children are kept indoors not because of road traffic, but paedophiles. Children are monitored on the internet not because of filth and propaganda, but paedophiles. Paedophiles are what kept homosexuality from being normalised: which is why the queers – once staunch allies of NAMBLA et al – threw the paedos under the bus on their way down Progress Street. “Paedophile” is what you call the prophet Muhammad (poobah) when “fascist” just isn’t enough.

    God help the lefties if they make people choose between “fascist” and “paedophile advocate”… and God knows the lefties just can’t help themselves. Put simply, the average man would rather hang nonces from lampposts under the commands of a warlord than live in a world where men bugger his children. Some might be happy that we are rapidly approaching such a day.

    1. “Children are kept indoors not because of road traffic, but paedophiles.”

      I’m trying to use my model of leftie evil calculus to determine whether or not paedophiles are, in fact, worse than Hitler. My intuition is yes, but that is probably not an intuition shared by the more radical types. This will surely be a matter of intense academic debate in the near future.

      I sure hope paedophilia is the line, but all experience thus far indicates that, unfortunately, there is no line.

      Would a leftist throw some children under the proverbial white unmarked van to maintain his own sinecure?

      My gut says he’d pay for the chloroform.

    2. Ole H. Johansen May 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

      “Paedophiles are literally worse than Hitler”
      First,why drag his name into this discussion?
      Second,I beg to differ.
      Hitler has to be one of the most influential persons in history.
      And he just wanted the best for his people.

      1. Because leftists measure everything according to how bad it is in comparison to Hitler. Not that I would use the same measure, but I’m trying to think about how they’d think.

  4. Maybe we should steal their agenda: stop designating bathrooms as “men / women”, and start designating them as “innie / outie” instead. Everybody can claim to “feel to be a woman”, but the ownership of a penis is not a matter of subjective feeling; you either have one, or you don’t. And if you do, you have no business going to innies’ bathroom, no matter how much lipstick you use.

    1. Or maybe they could have one perve-free bathroom with private floor-to-ceiling locked cubicles and a camera at the sinks, and then another one where people can blast each other with poop and gender-fluids

      1. Women’s restrooms are pretty much like that anyway, well not floor to ceiling but pervs have been caught because looking or positioning a camera is pretty unnatural. Women don’t like other women looking either.

        I’m a straight white male who doesn’t think this issue is of religious significance. I’ve seen a number of people saying it violates Christian morality. But I can’t find bathroom policy described anywhere from Genesis to Revelation. So it’s a lousy policy and I hope the next president rescinds it as federal policy, but it’s about number 500 on the list of important issues.

        1. “I can’t find bathroom policy described anywhere from Genesis to Revelation.”

          1. The bible is not the sole source of Christian doctrine.

          2. The bible doesn’t describe the proper handling and use of arsenic either, but it’s still wrong to pump it into an innocent persons veins.

          3. Public restrooms are places people go to expose their private parts. Those parts have other uses than as parts of the excretory system. Those uses can be immoral, scandalous, perverted, even violent. Separate bathrooms are meant to prevent this sort of thing.

          4. The truth is that men are men, and women are women. Letting a man call himself a woman, and use the bathroom intended for women, cooperates with the lie he’s living. Doing so is participation in sin.

          5. Like others have said, this is about narrative control. It’s about forcing people to acknowledge one narrative as superior to another. Forcing them to live with it, abide by it, tolerate it, accept it as part of the moral order of society.

          That last point is the real problem. The law is being used to imply that there are no fixed, absolute, objective sexes, to one of which a human exclusively belongs, to the exclusion of the sole other. Anyone can ‘identify’ as the sex he’s not. It’s the triumph of imagination over reality.

          It’s the social context the law exists in, the narrative it implies, the message it sends, that people are worried about here.

          Using law to change the ways people interact, in order to make a narrative more accepted in the eyes of the masses, is something the left have mastered, which the right have not.

          If we’re going to beat the left, we have to be aware of their ploys, and just how effective they can be at shaping the minds of society.

    2. Fat chance of that happening considering there are activist agitators trying to get “mis-limbed” people designated as a minority group. Yes, mis-limbed: people who believe they are amputees born in a four-limbed person’s body. Google it if you don’t believe me.

      If the mis-limbed ought to be treated as amputees before their intentional amputations, the same logic would apply for pre-op trannies. ‘But I FEEL like a have a vagina and that’s what’s important, shitlord!’

  5. It’s a little terrifying to think that the federal government of the United States is gearing up to involve itself in turning childish costume play into permanent identity.

    At least they could’ve chosen something cooler to champion than being… women, or, as evidence of these gender-fluid tranny people suggests, some kind of androgynous short-haired pale blob of fat and kale: let kids express their true identities as viking warlords, bigot!

    1. I think, for me, in my country, it’s gotten to the point where I would insist on homeschooling.

      PS: I’m trans-cowboy. My mum told me cowboys eat yoghurt. I’ll never forget that betrayal

  6. Yes, this is important issue to us, but notice also that in itself it may not be very important issue to the leftist elite. It is important for them only when it is connected to the power goals of the left. Hence it is important to know who finances their sex war organizations, what organizations are connected to interlocking web in these issues, who governs these organizations, how they function separately and together, what methods they use, how each of these organizations benefits directly from sex war and how other leftist organizations benefit indirectly, etc. Knowing the names of leaders and employees is useful only when that knowledge is used to pressure them personally in all contexts. The other information should be used creatively to throw sticks to the wheels of leftist organizations, building counter organizations and counter methods, and defining own independent goals toward which we strive using our organizations.

  7. The Dissenting Sociologist May 24, 2016 at 10:56 am

    I’m a 19th c. Prussian philosopher trapped in the body of some present-day North American guy- but society won’t recognize this as an ability and the State won’t recognize it as a disability, either. This stupid country…

    I agree that the true bottom line here is about the children and the standard Leftist tactic of attempting to decompile the family unit as part of the overarching Leftist goal of sociolysis. What is it about the Left and destroying society, I often wonder. In any case, the means chosen here are diabolically efficient; it’s hard to think of a more radical gesture of disaffiliation than rejecting one’s sex, especially where the same-sex parent is concerned. Historically, males who sought to become like females were accordingly regarded as petty traitors and punished as such; conversely, in America, a nation founded and subsequently peopled by all sorts of traitors, such a person is considered especially sacred, one of the holiest figures in the national Brahminate, and fittingly so.

    So much for the male sacred traitor. But I wonder what’s really in it in the long run for the FTM from a signaling point of view; how exactly does one Fight the Patriarchy by assuming the identity of a man? It would be like a Hindu Brahmin trying to become holier than the next one by eating steak three times a day and carrying a handgun everywhere he goes.

  8. “The line has to be drawn here: this far and no further.”
    Does it? The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course. Going after our children is too far, but one step short of that is also too far, as is one step short of that, ad infinitum – the line is not as you have described it, not “this far and no further”. Wherever the line is drawn, it is to be accompanied by a different message: “WRONG WAY – GO BACK”

Comments are closed.