Considering activist requests carefully

I posted this to the FUSN list on March 14th of this year.

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

It is on the whole a good thing that the liberal sections of our society are paying more attention than ever before to historically oppressed groups. Yet my sense is that in a hurry to redress past wrongs we listen to what some activists request and sometimes do what they ask without thinking it through adequately.

I believe that when members of some group tell their story with “I” statements, we should listen with total acceptance to their experience of the world. If they go on to describe things such as what situations are objectively speaking oppressive, we should listen very carefully to an issue they have likely thought about more than we have. However, there is always room for debate. The majority might accept all of their recommendations, but they have a right and in fact an obligation to consider all sides of each issue. Hostile parties could of course use this debate process as a way to halt any progress, but that has to be dealt with directly, not by eliminating debate.

My issue of the day has to do with gender-neutral bathrooms. Here are my starting assumptions:

There should be no legal liability for anyone’s use of a bathroom regardless of sex or gender. We have laws against harassment and assault that do not need to refer to sex or gender or bathrooms.

Some bathrooms are occupied by only one person at a time, and making these gender-neutral increases flexibility for everyone. Also, when there are (say) six multi-person restrooms in a large building, three each for men and women, it would be reasonable to make two of them gender-neutral. But a lot of the time history has left us with just two multi-person restrooms. What then?

We humans are dramatically bimodal as a species regarding gender and biological sex. We have a custom of segregating bathrooms by sex/gender, and 99% of us know which room feels like “ours”. So custom suggests that cis-gendered people should use “your” room – unless you have a reason not to. There are many reasons not to. One common one is when there is a long line in the women’s room at a concert and men’s room stalls are unused. Another pertains to parents with opposite-gender small children, who should use whatever room best suits their needs. The gay boy “Ricky” from “My So-Called Life” had an excellent reason for using the girls’ room – to avoid harassment from boys in the boys’ room. Perhaps someone you dislike just preceded you into “your” room.
Some people might choose the other room now and then to just to reinforce that it is a valid choice.

Transgendered or non-binary individuals should use whichever room they wish, for whatever reason they wish. All people should be prepared to see users of “their” bathroom who are not typical, and to accept that they have a reason for it and no cause to inquire as to that reason.

My vision for labeling these rooms is a large woman figure (you know, the one with the dress) on one room with a much smaller male figure and trans (half-dress, half pants) figure, and of course the large male figure on the other room with the other two much smaller. This signals that no one is unwelcome in either room. But the vast majority of the time, almost all of the occupants of each room will be cis people corresponding to the gender of the large figure.

A more radical position is that gendered bathrooms should cease to exist. It seems even many trans activists don’t favor such a step at this time, but the proposal has been made.

The complaint is that a non-binary person is forced to choose a gendered bathroom. Even if they would be safe and accepted in either room, the choice is still not consistent with their non-binary identity. This can cause them psychological distress.

I would counter that many cis people could be uncomfortable and suffer psychological distress going into a multi-person restroom without an expectation that the occupants will with high likelihood be their gender. Trans people with a single gender identity might well feel the same.

I also think the custom of primarily single-gendered bathrooms is one that society can elect to keep for its own sake (if most people want it) – provided that trans people and others can be accommodated safely.

Others might have counterarguments to make. To me, the key point is that this whole discussion can be had without anxiety and fear of being labeled a bigot. People of good will can tell the non-binary person that as the situation stands, we cannot think of a way of accommodating their discomfort that is not worse for more people. Until someone has a better idea, it is the right decision. It’s unfortunate, but there is no need for guilt or anxiety.

We should be able to debate any request from activists of a historically oppressed group with the same calm frame of mind, considering costs and benefits.

(FUUSN recently updated its bathroom designations after much debate, and I am fine with a decision made after a lengthy process in complicated circumstances. I figure the considerations I raise above don’t even fully apply, as FUUSN’s multi-person bathrooms never comfortably accommodate more than two or three people at a time, if I recall correctly.)