17 thoughts on “Pilot Letter: Embarrassment for all”

  1. The original article showed a picture of the young man in question. If he walked into a ladies room, he would look VERY out of place despite being a “biological female.” He would look right at home in the men’s room. It would cause significantly more “embarrassment” for this poor kid to have to explain that while he had every outward appearance of a man, he needed to relieve himself there because what is actually the defining factor for bathroom mores is a particular X chromosome.

    It is amazing how much these prudes seem to care about who goes to the bathroom where.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. The original picture showed a girl. That is the problem. Why do you people call a square a circle and expect others to say….errr…ok if you say so.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Two questions:

        Would you say traditional bathroom assignments are based on sex or gender?
        If you saw the person in the picture walking the street, would you assume them to me male or female?

        Like

        Reply

    2. In addition, SHE was offered a very reasonable solution but SHE wanted to push HER fantasy on others. Not playing that foolish game no matter how many names you care to throw at me.

      Like

      Reply

  3. Well, not to put too fine an edge on it, As a youngster I spent 3 years in Paris (France not Texas, 1960, although not clear if that would make a difference in this case) and in Paris they had pissoirs on the corners for men, and a curb & gutter for women. In three years, I watch many a woman hike up her skirts and use the gutter.
    Maybe we just put too much emphasis on bodily functions — one way or t’other.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. You have no idea how prudish I am not. But that’s not the point,

        The school provided a unisex bathroom for the student and any others that preferred that choice, but that wasn’t enough. The student demanded to use the bathroom with the natural boys, and that is an invasion of their privacy, whether you or I value that privacy or not.

        Like

        Reply

          1. It isn’t, but the accusation is made in previous comments that opposition to unrestricted choice of bathrooms is based on prudery.

            I pointed out that while I am not a prude I am opposed out of respect for the privacy rights of others.

            Respect for rights of others that are not important to the commenter seems oddly rare around here.

            Like

          2. However, you said, “You have no idea how prudish I am not.” You made it about you when Mr. Chandler was obviously talking about the prudish nature of our society. It was brought here by early arrivals and has remained.

            Whereas, European societies, including where the “prudes” came from, have evolved (there are still pockets of prudishness) but mainly European communities are much more advanced in their acceptance of people and who they are.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Apparently, I can only thread but so deep…
            Access to restrooms has always been by force of crowd. Again calling upon my youthful experiences, this time in the nightclubs, I can recall waiting outside the “men’s room” for an occupation by ladies to come to an end (due to extremely long lines at the “lady’s loo”) or being inside when such occupation occurred.
            Eliminate wall-hangings, improve stall wall and door joinery, and what then becomes the difference?

            Like

        2. Doesn’t giving him a special bathroom to use reinforce the stigma he’s trying to avoid?

          “Invasion of [the other boys’] privacy?” It almost sounds as if you’re suggesting the rights of one person should be subjugated to the will of the masses who may be uncomfortable. But, as a proud Libertarian, I know that can’t be the case, right?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. A persons rights end where they violate the equal rights of others.

            Whether you approve or not, those other boys are entitled to their privacy, it’s not just a matter of majority rules, it’s that each individual has their right to not be forced to participate in her cause by giving up their privacy rights.

            Like

          2. Okay, but that’s based on the premise that he is using the wrong bathroom. Is that what’s giving you pause? To me, again, this seems like a cause Libertarians would be supporting–a person’s right to define the terms of their interactions with society. What am I missing here?

            Like

          3. What you are missing is the equal rights of the others using the bathroom to define the terms of their interaction with society, including their rights to privacy.

            Libertarianism isn’t just about doing anything you want, it is also respecting the rights of others.

            Like

          4. It just seems like whenever someone tries to use that reasoning with you regarding guns, your position is always that the rights of the individual [gun owner] are sacrosanct, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes others. In fact, I specifically recall you saying that a majority voting to impose their rules on you, personally, were why you needed your guns and that you were considering buying “another thousand rounds.”

            It just seems very ideologically inconsistent. You are militantly in favor of the rights of the individual when it comes to something you like (guns), but then favor the will of the people when the individual rights in question are something different (gender identity).

            Like

Leave a comment