In what may be the most convoluted politically correct argument of the decade, a Slate intern grubs for traffic with a gay rights argument condemning separate bathrooms for men and women to protect women from being raped for discriminating against the victims of gay rape.
Convoluted doesn’t even begin to sum this up.
Choosing not to rid society of the bathroom divide because of an assumption that sexual assault survivors are all women who have been assaulted by men perpetuates a culture that embraces this as inevitable. This opposition also minimizes the existence of sexual assault that is not male-on-female.
The horrors of bathroom apartheid apparently minimizes gay rape. And while I agree that gay rape is a valid issue, I don’t think anyone is going to allow mandatory separate bathrooms for gay men.
That one just seems like a non-starter.
The core issue seems to be that trannies want to be able to use any bathroom they like and if they can’t, then they want to pile everyone into one bathroom because gendered bathrooms are the new racism.
Why is the bathroom seen as an untouchable, unchangeable safe space? Naturally, everyone wants to be comfortable when taking care of bathroom business, but how is a restroom different than other public spaces in which people want to be left alone? Is it simply a social construction? If comfort is the main concern, why is the comfort of some people privileged over that of others? And are we comfortable with that?
That’s actually a good question. Not the part about “how is a restroom different than other public spaces”. It would take a liberal to ask that particular question.
But if we’re going to privilege some people’s comfort, then why not privilege the vast majority that wants separate bathrooms over a tiny minority of mentally ill men who wear dresses?
Should the vast majority be threatened for the comfort of a tiny aberrant and disturbed minority?
Should women have to worry about being raped so a few trannies can be comfortable in non-gendered bathrooms?
The question has larger implications. Should Christian bakers and photographers lose their religious freedom so that a tiny minority of homosexuals can enjoy the privilege of forcing anyone they like to service them? Should society be turned upside down for the benefit of a tiny wealthy minority and its privileged sexual lifestyle?