Nothing Could Be Finer

Jennifer. Seventeen, and never been kissed. Sounds bizarre doesn't it, in this hypersexual post modern age (substitute whatever cant term you prefer).

Of course that's not precisely accurate. The busses of family members were unavoidable, but a strict set of values inherited from her parents, and an uncompromising religious background, made her avoid circumstances in which romantic involvement might arise. But her time would come.

There was an editorial in today's New York Times, and numerous protests all around the country. Charlotte, North Carolina, had passed a “non-discrimination” law which gave transgender individuals the right to use whatever public rest rooms they preferred. (Presumably others were given the same right since the law demanded no proof of gender identification or sex.) There was resistance which was attributed to a fear of rape, and some local governments imposed their own regulations limiting bathroom use to that corresponding to what was declared on their birth certificates, as did the state.

North Carolina has a history. It has lots of history, but my particular interest relates to 1960, when four young men sat at a lunch counter in Greensboro, seeking to be served in accord with the rights guaranteed them by the American Constitution. No creation of a new minority group was involved, nor was there a right proposed that wasn't obvious – even to those who opposed it. No new law was required, nor was it necessary to hypothesize a justification. Now North Carolina was again in the eye of the law, only this time the issues weren't quite so clear.

Of course the idea that bathroom choice would lead to rape was disingenuous, but it was a good and provocative argument for both opponents and supporters of the state legislation. We live in an age when public safety dominates all our thought, and sometimes it's preferable not to discriminate between real threats and imagined ones, between an actual situation and a straw man. It's much easier to stir up emotion then – easier than when addressing a reality that may not be as vulnerable to propaganda. And an appeal to Americans to support the “rights” of transgender individuals irrespective of the views of others seems to be a long overdue call to all “fair-minded” Americans. The issue, however, is safe space, not safety. It is privacy.

But back to Jennifer. (Full disclosure: she's my creation, a straw girl, but a straw girl probably closer to the reality faced by twenty-first century adolescents than the one proposed by the populists and politicians.) She was overjoyed to receive a letter of acceptance to a local university in Charlotte – one located just far enough away that living at home would not be practical. She loves her family, but the time had come to test out independence.

With two brothers and only one bathroom for the family, her trips had always been hurried. She understood the problem and took her situation in good nature. She was a good scout. But she dreamed of the time when she could shower, wash, toilet herself, and even brush her teeth in a comfortable, unrushed setting. It was a feature of “slow” southern culture that she had never enjoyed. There had been tastes of that liberation in high school, but the luxury and relaxation of a shower or other prolonged activity did not apply there.

Jennifer opened the letter from college with great anticipation. First came the acceptance itself. She had worked hard to make this aspect of independence a reality – partly because of pressure from her parents, but largely based on her own initiative – and she couldn't help but believe that she had earned it. There were a lot of forms and notifications and, at the bottom of the stack, an insertion notifying her that bathrooms were open to whoever felt comfortable in them. How could she feel so in a setting in which people of both sexes (in her view) were free to wander around? However sympathetic she may have felt for emotional needs of those confused about their sexual identities, it was hard for her to understand why the rights of the majority could be legislated away – sacrificed – in the interest of satisfying the ”needs” of a newly named minority that was in the limelight now. Perhaps it was politically advantageous to cater to this group, but absent any actual constitutional right or public demand for an amendment to our governing document it was hard to understand the justification.

However politics rules, and the public had to be convinced that opposition to this “right” constituted bigotry. New York's governor is seeking to prevent any New York officials from traveling to North Carolina in order to pressure the state to restore the rights of this oppressed minority. (And the same tactic is being used by others.) It should be remembered that New York State is the home of New York City, America's largest city – a city that has already decided that public urination is not nearly as offensive as we used to think. Although it used to be a cause for arrest, a summons is all that is warranted nowadays. Perhaps the modern approach is to eliminate bathrooms entirely, allowing anyone to rid him-/her-/it- self of internal evils wherever. Or, at the very least, to eliminate all but unisex public rest rooms.)

Perhaps individual rest rooms are the answer; rooms where anyone can go and stay for as long as he (don't infer any sexual bigotry by my use of the word) wants. It would require much more space than is used now and be much more expensive, but it would respect the rights of everyone – except those who demand that everyone else accept his choice of gender.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[This essay was begun on March 24^th. Today is April 4^th. Unfortunately this screed has taken far longer to write (type) out than is usually the case. Those who know me will understand why; those who don't will, in all likelihood, neither notice nor care. In any event, however, it's the thought that counts.]