Thursday, December 22, 2016

Dear Glenn Stanton: Human sexuality is no less complicated than plasma physics

Glenn T. Stanton
The annoying obsession with where transgender people can pee continues.

Thursday, Focus on the Family's Glenn T. Stanton writes: “There Is No Conservative Case For Genderless Bathrooms.” The subtitle of his polemic reads: “These new bathroom policies, besides increasing government regulations, also require that every woman and girl get used to having men invade.” Stanton presumes to be a sexuality prodigy.

Shall we also enumerate the logical fallacies?  The problem with Stanton is that he thinks that he is a great deal smarter than he really is. No one is advocating for genderless bathrooms. I take that back. Conservative Christians want school kids to use a unisex staff bathroom. A transgender woman is a woman, not a man and she isn't invading anything. She would undoubtedly create more controversy were she to use the men's room. Has Stanton ever taken the time to speak with a trans person? Stanton doesn't accept the fact that there even are trans folks.
Our good friends over at NRO presented what they say is a conservative case for opening up public restrooms and locker rooms to either sex. Although written by an incredibly smart man—Josh Gelernter—the article seems to miss the nature of the issue itself, and by some margin.
The conservative case is a simple one. Mind your own business and don't ask the government to police restrooms.  Stanton's problem is really that the conservative case requires the recognition that there are transgender people and that they just want to pee in peace.

According to Stanton a conservative must be a Christian conservative:
Let’s address the “mind-your-own-business” part first. That is not conservatism. It’s a muscular libertarianism. Good conservatives are more than comfortable telling people they shouldn’t do certain things, and have been for quite some time.
He further defines his idea of a conservative:
The faithful conservative resists all kinds of behaviors: being a communist, sexual libertinism <sic>, creating broken families, not carrying one’s weight, not taking personal responsibility, etc. It’s not conservatives who sport “Don’t Like Abortion? Don’t Have One” bumper stickers on their cars. Conservatism is more like “Work Hard, Be Responsible, and the Newest Ideas Are Not Usually the Best Ideas.”
Actually the newest ideas are usually the best if they are supported by scientific investigation. Over just the last ten years, for example, cancer mortality has decreased by close to 2%. Some of that is because of behavioral changes. One of my pet peeves as an executive occurred when people favored a means of doing something because, they would argue, “that's how we've always done it.”
Next, the “we don’t need more government rules” line fails to understand the politics and genesis of this issue. It assumes gender-free restrooms and lockers have always been the rule, and some people now want to come along and put regulations on it. This is not the case, of course. Creating gender-free facilities requires new government rules.
This is unadulterated BS. Stanton is begging the question — again. Rules in this regard should be unnecessary. Enforcement of those rules is only required because the self-righteous set insists that the world is entirely cisgender. The issue for conservatives isn't rules, it is government intrusion and government intervention. That occurs when the government is put in the position of policing restrooms.

Furthermore, trans people have gone largely unnoticed for decades using facilities consistent with their gender. It only became an issue when it became a religious matter. 
This Is about Men Seeing Naked Women Without Consent

This brings us to the last point: Gelernter’s simplistic dismissal of those who have concerns about gender-free facilities. To him, the possibility of predators is anyone’s only concern here.
First of all conservative Christian activists have focused on (nonexistent) predators claiming that men will pretend to be transgender to gain access to women's facilities. It is a claim that is as ridiculous as it sounds but it has been effective in thwarting trans accommodations. Those Christians are responsible for the perception that this is at least the primary concern. As for nakedness, people are not naked in restrooms. Men are slightly exposed at urinals but women do their business in the privacy of a stall.
He fails to appreciate that according to the rules of transgender politics, these policies mean any person could enter any bathroom, changing room, or locker room and freely do and observe what is done in such places. Anyone.
There he goes doing precisely what I just said. Stanton assumes — or wants readers to assume — that people other than trans women (perverts is the intended inference) will gain access to locker rooms. He is falsely claiming that changing rooms expose people just as he is falsely claiming that bathrooms expose people.
There is no criteria—medical, legal, physical, or psychological—anyone must meet to be accepted as officially transgender. It is solely up to the person making the claim, and no one can question him or her about it.
Legions of men pretending to be transgender. Give me a fucking break.
Well, many assume, don’t they have to look like the other sex, or at least be trying to do so? Gender orthodoxy demands that no one should have to live by someone else’s assumption of what a man, woman, or any of the other supposed genders looks like or does. They are merely restrictive social constructions enforced by male power that must be cast off.
More bullshit. People want to access restrooms consistent with their gender and gender presentation. Stanton is intentionally over-complicating the issue. Trans men want to use the men's room; trans women want to use the women's room. The remarkable thing is just how confused Stanton appears to be. Yet, I bet that he refers to trans people as “confused.” The bible tells him so.
Thus, the central concern here is that these new policies require that every woman and girl get used to having men invade their male-free sanctuary and violate their naturally strong sense of modesty by simply being present there.

Ask the typical male if he would mind a woman using the men’s locker room. Ask a woman if she would mind a man doing so. It is precisely here that the issue lies. No one has the liberty to violate the modesty of a woman. A good society conserves this important and fundamental human value at all costs. This is the work of the conservative.
As I said, Stanton is ineducable (uneducable if you prefer). He needs to meet with some trans people but probably would not do so because, in his mind, they are illegitimate due to confusion. Stanton's degrees in history and philosophy provide no insight into the science of human sexuality. I don't know anything about plasma physics but I do not write pieces about creating more efficient nuclear reactors. Human sexuality is no less complicated than plasma physics. Yet Glenn T. Stanton and other conservative Christians assert that they possess a high level of expertise. Does this prowess come from Bronze Age chronicles or from God himself?

related content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.