My thoughts about restrooms…

There are more pressing issues than who uses what bathroom. Let t he free market sort it out.

I get the feeling that many people are worked up about this restroom issue…*sighs*.  It’s become a huge issue for many people.  It really is a war that the Government started and doesn’t belong in.

North Carolina awoke a sleeping bear that has been around for decades.  I hear many transgendered individuals have been using the public restroom of their sexual identity for decades now…mostly without concern or controversy.  Why is there suddenly attention to this issue?  Ask North Carolina.

My take?  This isn’t an issue that concerns government.  It concerns private property owners and their rights — and the rights of consumers to freely associate/shop where they wish, for any reason they wish.

So, Target allows people to use the restroom of the gender they identify with.  If you aren’t comfortable shopping at Target because of that, that’s fine.  Go shop elsewhere.  You can even tell Target why you will no longer shop there, if you wish.  Want to start a boycott of places like Target?  I support your right to do that as well (note: supporting one’s right to do something is different than supporting them doing it — there is a distinction).

What if you want to boycott businesses that have segregated restroom policies?  I support your right to do that as well.

What I cannot condone or abide is you using the guns of government to force your will onto other private people and businesses.  Any time you pass a law, you are sending out a man with a gun who is willing to steal and/or kill (if necessary) to enforce it.

What about public schools and other publicly owned institutions?  I submit to you the problem isn’t the restrooms, but the public ownership f these institutions.  Bring an end to the practice of publicly owned institutions (schools, libraries, parks, etc.) and you will solve this problem of restrooms on publicly owned property.  If there is a need for these services, the free market will provide for it (either through customer/provider relationships or donations/charity/patron relationships).

Logically, most restrooms have stalls as well as urinals (men’s rooms).  When you’re in an opaque stall, what does it matter to you what’s between the legs of the person in the private next to you?  Can they see you while you’re doing you business?  No, not unless they are peaking under the which case the store management might want to remove that person (regardless of gender identity).

Some people say, “I don’t want to share a bathroom with some sexual pervert.”  Just because a person has a different gender identity than the one they were born with, does that make them a pervert?  If it does make the person a pervert, would you rather this person go to the restroom of the gender they were born with and be around your sons, daughters or other loved ones?

Food for thought, I just wish people would focus time having debates that matter more like: the debt of the US Government, the Quantitative Easing policies (read: printing funny money) of the US Federal Reserve, endless world policing and war mongering…or any of a number of other issues that will drive our country to certain financial ruins.

You Betcha! (9)Nuh Uh.(1)

  7 comments for “My thoughts about restrooms…

  1. JD
    May 23, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    "..My take? This isn’t an issue that concerns government. It concerns private property owners and their rights.."

    It is bad enough that the vast majority of grassroots conservatives are refusing to tackle the toughest of issues or publicly debate them head on in an election year (see Flint, Common Core or any other issue requiring a movement to publicly 'butt heads' with the leaders of local political parties or school officials).

    Let's not further compound that shame by insisting that our MDE isn't trial ballooning this very same historic change at this very moment or that this ISN'T an issue which we should have been marching in the streets over all year long (already)

    This is an issue which concerns government because it concerns our kids NOW...period.
    If this issue had been brought forward when WE were all in school?
    The parents and grandparents immediately grinding it to a halt wouldn't have cared whether it was an election year or not or who was out there attempting to 'label' them for nothing but political gain.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Jason
    May 24, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    There is a Libertarian take, and then there is reality.

    In a fantasy world, government is so small that it has no effect except to keep the peace when one party becomes a victim of another.

    In the real world, government creates the victims. Imposing a set of twisted mental health abnormalities on the children would not be a problem, but for the monopoly that the same government uses to keep the same children in their schools.

    As for Target? In such a public place, unless otherwise presented, the standard social contract expects folks entering a business to find a safe environment. If there is a problem of men accosting little girls, then Target has best prepare to lose a lot in civil court for failing to provide such an environment. The remedy of course would be a disclaimer posted clearly that states they "will not be responsible for the raping or molestation that may occur inside their restrooms."

    A libertarian view should find that morally appropriate.

    And YES, people could say "You don't have to shop there." Of course. However, that cannot be a reason to absolve a business of actual crimes which happen on their premise, and presumably under their control.

    Unfortunately, Libertarians cannot divorce reality from the ideal circumstances which they would operate. We all pay a price when someone wrecks their lives and becomes an anchor on the safety net; so tell me again why I don't have the right to consider drug use worthy of regulation?

    'Gay marriage' is none of my business right? Why certainly, until some bizarre interpretation of civil rights is used to force me to serve and capitulate. Mental illness (yes I insist, there is an element of mental illness in those who believe jungle jim and the monkeys does not confer 'maleness') has a cost to society, and breeding it forward will not advance true liberty one whit.

    Real conservatism is balance. It is a balance of rights and freedoms that provides maximum liberty for ALL.

    To the point of the restrooms.
    Most people who feel the need to pretend they are another sex are probably not the ones folks have ever worried about. But a policy of imposition by government that suggests we can all decide on a whim whether we are an innie or an outie on the inside provides real criminal defense for stalking and peepery. This stuff has real consequence.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
  3. Granny55
    May 24, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Next up for the grievance monsters - pedophilia is a right. Once the USSC approved of the whole gay marriage thing - I said then, give them and inch and they will take a mile. And here we go.....

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(1)
  4. Sue Schwartz
    May 25, 2016 at 9:25 am

    My take--a government agency's only duty is to assure that public facilities are available--that means any public building must have a handicapped accessible water closet. This is the law under the ADA and is reasonable. The law states shall not discriminate towards Race, Creed, Sex. Sex cannot be redefined--you either have a penis or you don't. It's self-explanatory and public bathroom graphics--so there's no misunderstanding--should have a picture of a penis or a negative penis to help one decide what bathroom to use. Empowering .0001 percent of the population on this non-issue remains that--a non-issue. If it would make this .0001 percent of the population happy, they are invited to use a handicapped accessible water closet with the appropriate graphic on the door. There should be absolutely no more discussion on this.

    You Betcha! (4)Nuh Uh.(2)
  5. rdww
    May 26, 2016 at 9:56 am

    We're really fighting a battle that conservatives surrendered on half a century ago. Circa 1964, the federal government was able to sell us on the idea that "civil rights" was more than just assuring people's right to vote and access government services, but extended to the mystical concept that private property owners were not free to buy, sell, rent to, hire or allow use of their property based on any qualifier they darn well pleased. We essentially nationalized the private into "public accommodations," and most conservatives of the time (with the notable exception of Barry Goldwater) let it happen. Once this bizarre concept was hatched, it was inevitable that every group imaginable would then want its own piece of the mandated "equality" pie.

    You Betcha! (3)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Phillip Hofmeister
      May 26, 2016 at 12:33 pm

      I agree. Making the pie was wrong. Making it bigger is still wrong. LGBT shouldn't force their will (via the Government) on private property owners and neither should the "moral majority".

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Phillip Hofmeister
      May 26, 2016 at 12:35 pm

      It seems the moral majority made the opening volly of this battle in North Carolina. Shame on them.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *