This page was last updated on June 8, 2016.
Transgender people are not pedophiles; Robyn Miller; Beaver County Times; May 25, 2016.
A previous Miller letter I reviewed was “Let public decide on drilling in parks.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Transgender people are not pedophiles. They are usually not spotted in a restroom. Educate yourself.”
[RWC] Ms. Miller (RM) should take her own advice regarding education. I won’t waste my time doing the research, but I suspect claiming “Transgender people are not pedophiles” is as wrong as claiming the opposite. Unfortunately, there are sexual predators among us regardless of their DNA and/or how they self-identify and/or how they present themselves.
When did it become bigoted, hateful, and so on to recognize sex-specific restrooms make sense and don’t violate a user’s rights? Sex-specific restrooms first appeared in the U.S. during the late-1800s and had nothing to do with “Transgender people.”
Why is it not a “war on women” to assert men have the right to use the same restrooms as women and little girls? What if girls don’t want to share a locker room and showers with boys after gym class and vice versa?
The above notwithstanding, a restroom’s owner has the right to choose the policy for his restrooms absent constitutional regulations. Though the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give the feds the power to set policy for non-fed facilities, the feds unconstitutionally regulate restrooms via HHS and OSHA. Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give the feds the power, I would support state/local legislation to require owners to identify “non-traditional” restrooms, locker rooms, etc. To minimize compliance costs, owners of traditional, sex-specific facilities would not be required to identify them as such. That said, owners of traditional facilities could find labelling them as such would reassure customers, employees, etc. and accrue goodwill for the owner.
What if, from birth to death and without exception, everyone’s view of herself/himself were consistent with her/his physical presentation and the sex determination portion of her/his DNA? Would it be okay to assert males have the right to use the same restrooms as females and vice versa?
“Do you consider yourself a Christian? Then you should be more understanding. To say that children go into the bathrooms, and would be subjected to rapist and pedophiles is ridiculous. You who are judging have to educate yourself and not with the propaganda that has been put out there.”
[RWC] In case you missed it, RM took a shot at the religious beliefs of everyone who doesn’t agree with her. If “you consider yourself a Christian” and you favor sex-specific restrooms, you are not living up to a Christian principle of “more understanding.” If you are not a Christian and you favor sex-specific restrooms, that’s to be expected because you are not as “understanding” as Christians. Wow!
“My daughter is gay and looks more masculine than famine [sic]. Are you going to walk up to her and tell her she shouldn’t be in ‘your’ bathroom? Are you going to ask for her birth certificate? I can not [sic] believe the stupidity that some people display.”
[RWC] RM finally tells readers the reason for her letter, the “more masculine than feminine” looks of her homosexual daughter.
As local lefty KD in early May, RM raised the question of enforcement.
How would we go about allowing legitimate “transgender people” use the appropriate facilities while stopping sex offenders and worse from taking advantage of our “understanding?” In mid-May I posed this question to KD in another forum and he chose not to answer. Based on his comment there, it appears KD’s position is don’t worry about it, it won’t be a problem. That is, all we need to worry about is “rightwing males ‘testing the rules’ and making a ruckus,” not sex offenders. When it comes to laws/rules we’ve been enforcing for a long time, however, KD seems to believe it will become a nightmare. Jokingly, I hope, KD asked, “Are we going to station people at the door peeking in your panties or asking for your birth certificate?” Since sex-specific facilities haven’t been an enforcement nightmare since their appearance, why would they become one now?
With sex-specific facilities, when we see a male enter a females-only restroom and vice versa, we can be fairly certain the guy is up to no good and we can do something, even if it’s only calling attention to the guy. We lose that first line of enforcement with “non-traditional” facilities. Are there false positives? Sure, just as there are false negatives. We require millions of people to present ID when they purchase alcohol and tobacco products, inconveniencing the vast majority of purchasers to keep these products out of the hands of minors. In the rare case of a false positive regarding restroom use, is it an imposition to ask someone for ID that includes their sex?
I’m a guy so I can’t answer the following question. If a locker room, restroom, and so on were full of guys, how would most females react to being the sole female?
The author of another letter wrote, “Going to the bathroom has nothing to do with sex. If you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go. I’m sure molesting someone is not on you [sic] mind. … What I do know, is when I have to go, I don’t care who’s in there with me or who’s watching. I’m there for one reason.” This is true for – I hope – the vast majority of females and males, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, or whatever. Unfortunately, there are sexual predators among us regardless of their DNA and/or how they self-identify and they think differently than the rest of us. What to most people is a place to relieve yourself can be something entirely different to a predator.
As for “If you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go,” so true. What about people who don’t want to use “non-traditional” facilities? What’s a person to do when he’s/she’s “got to go” but can’t find sex-specific facilities nearby? I can envision a smartphone app identifying the closest sex-specific facilities.
It’s also not just about physical assaults. How often do we hear reports of a “peeping Tom” who sets up surveillance of locker rooms, restrooms, and so on? Giving a peeper unlimited access makes her/his job that much easier.
Finally, with all of the real issues on our plate, can anyone believe we’re really talking about who can use which restroom?
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.