Patrick says he would support a statewide bathroom bill. Mike Ward, HoustonChronicle (not behind the paywall [for now])
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, weighing into a national controversy over transgender restrooms, said Tuesday he supports keeping men out of women's restrooms, even if it takes legislation to do so.Since the issue erupted into controversy nationally, some Texas lawmakers have said they will support a state law for single-sex restrooms, and the endorsement of that position by Senate-leader Patrick is likely to give that movement momentum.
No, No, No, No, No.
One more time: No.
It's a far different thing to allow for sincerely held Religious objections (which, incidentally, are why I think so-called "equal rights ordinances" are silly) and another thing altogether to try and dictate to everyone the rights that YOU feel are important.
I was opposed to Parker's Folly because it was a diktat, backed by the power of the State, that everyone, everywhere act and believe in a manner that was currently backed by the prevailing minority. I am opposed to Patrick's Folly for the same reason but substitute "prevailing minority" with "current majority".
And let's be very clear. Neither of the proposed bills protect rights. What they both do (or did, or attempt to do) are apply a special accommodation to groups favored by the bill's authors. Parker's folly attempted to grant upon the Transgender population a right not afforded to any other group, the right to pick and choose, in a fluid manner, how they wished to be identified. Patrick's bill offers to Christians the special accommodation of having to never be offended, or threatened, by the sexual identity of others.
A statewide "ban" on transgender restroom choice is a horrible idea, as is a requirement that all bathrooms be gender neutral.
While there has to be reasonable accommodation in public places (and yes, if you serve the public your private business is a public place) for all groups there also has to be a respect for the beliefs of others. Bills REQUIRING restroom usage (one way or the other) ignore the fact that there are a wide range of beliefs on this, not all of them transphobic.
It is not transphobic to believe that there are material differences between the genders, and that segregation of the two when nature calls is something to be desired. Neither, for that matter, is such an idea inherently sexist. It should also be noted that many of the reservations people have regarding the expansion of gender neutral restrooms don't really center around fears regarding the transgendered, but fears surrounding bad-actors (pedophiles) who would potentially take advantage of the law.
In other words, while the one side is screaming and crying about how the other "lied" in their arguments against, they would need to admit that they, themselves are arguing from a point of dishonesty.
Unfortunately, this will never really happen because there is currently no debate being conducted. All we have right now are two sides, led by demagogues, screaming over each other. In the matter of Parker vs. Patrick, we're all of us losers.
I, for one, would like to see some flexibility, in the same manner as we have it in the matter of open carry. You may scoff at this comparison but I don't think it's all that far out of line. Both issues invoke strong feelings on either side, and both issues produce a not insignificant amount of fear in everyone at some level.
In the debate over open carry a private business has the right to ban weapons from their property, they also have the right to allow them. Some businesses have made the decision to ban while some have openly encouraged guns to be worn.
It should be the same in regards to restrooms. Some businesses might feel that it is in their best interest to allow unfettered access to all restrooms based on gender identification while others may not. Private citizens, not being ruled but governed, will then have the right to choose to frequent said establishments or not, with no undue accommodation being given by the government to any one group.
A Statewide law confirming a men's restroom as being for people born as biological males ONLY and the female bathroom being for people born as biological females ONLY makes as little sense as does requiring everyone open up their potties to all comers. It's a broadsword of a fix to a problem that requires some room for nuance and personal belief.
Put another way, it's just as morally wrong to require a Christian-based business to accommodate the transgendered in a manner contrary to their religious beliefs as it is to require a GLBTQ nightclub to police their bathroom usage under the norms of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Government, whose only God is increased power and control, need not apply.
I realize, of course, that such a solution will never work because the goal of both sides is to always be right, all of the time and that the only feasible solution is to have the other side ground into the dirt with their belief system in tatters. We tried to cover up racism in the past in the same manner. All we accomplished is to drive racism underground which has led us to the increasingly ugly spot in which we find ourselves today. I worry that we're heading down the same road in our attitudes toward the GLBTQ community and we're doing it at the pleasure of politicians who are looking not to ensure equality, but a future constituency.
Most importantly, we need to remember that it's OK if everyone doesn't agree with you or accept you. As a matter of fact, if I ever get to the point on an issue where everyone does that's when I start to really worry that I'm missing something. That being said, I have no plans to boycott Target for their pro-GLBTQ stance than I do to boycott Chick-Fil-A for their pro-Judeo Christian stance.
Neither should you.
