A couple of days ago I posted (very angrily) about a father who confronted a person dressed as a woman, but who was very visibly male, in a supermarket when the individual tried to use the ladies' restroom while his daughter was inside.
It seems my uncompromising attitude has upset some people. I've received a few accusations that I'm 'bigoted' and/or 'closed-minded' and/or sundry (often less polite) things. To those who feel this way, I can only say: Bite me. I don't care.
Common sense is sorely lacking in this entire situation. For 99%+ of the human population, the chromosomes have it. They, and they alone, determine an individual's gender. For the less than 1% who suffer from sex chromosome abnormality, one can only have the deepest sympathy. It must be a truly ghastly condition with which to have to live. However, in the current high-pressure situation chromosomal issues are seldom, if ever, mentioned. Instead, there are those who argue that one's mental or psychological or (God help us - and I mean that!) spiritual gender identification should be the only criteria in deciding which restroom to use, ignore the fact that there are medical names and diagnostic codes for that.
That's not normal - it's abnormal. That's not healthy - it's unhealthy.
I have real sympathy (and I really mean that) for those who suffer from gender dysphoria. They are, indeed, in need of help - but that help should not be to enable, encourage, legitimize and reinforce their dysfunction. It should rather be to treat it, cure it if possible, and - since a cure is seldom medically possible - provide them with coping mechanisms to help them live a more normal life. Furthermore, such approaches should not involve forcing the rest of us to pander to their dysfunction, particularly not when it puts our children at risk. Pandering to mental dysfunction is itself an aberration, IMHO!
Unfortunately, those who jump to the defense of anyone and everyone they consider (laudably) 'different' don't see it that way. I think Blue summed up their attitudes very nicely in this infographic. Go take a look. It's very apt. (Recce Room has a somewhat less politically correct approach to the problem, not dissimilar to mine. You'll find his here. If I were in his shoes, I daresay I'd feel exactly the same way.)
Furthermore, the involvement of pedophiles and sex offenders in the movement to 'open' restrooms to those not necessarily of the 'correct' physical gender has been demonstrated on more than one occasion. The most recent of which I'm aware was in North Carolina last month. When unmasked, the person concerned stepped down from his pressure group leadership, but was unrepentant.
Before he stepped down as chamber president, Sevearance-Turner said the N.C. Values Coalition’s criticism “did not surprise him.”
He said his conviction had not stopped him from achieving success, such as being chamber president.
There's more at the link.
(Note that his presidency was of an LGBT pressure group. I suppose that, to some, this would qualify as a 'success'. Now, if he'd become president of a mainstream Chamber of Commerce instead of a pressure group version thereof, the rest of us might find that more convincing.)
I believe I'm part of the vast majority of people when I say that I'm simply not prepared, under any circumstances, to accept the very real risks of allowing those with gender dysphoria (real or imagined) to use bathrooms intended for (and therefore restricted to) the use of members of one physical gender. It's too easy for those with criminal intent to take advantage of such leniency. It puts the most vulnerable members of our society - our children - at risk, and that's completely unacceptable. I don't care whether or not laws are passed to permit it. I will not obey such laws, and if anyone tries to use them in my presence as a legal 'fig leaf' to justify and/or get away with such conduct, they will regret it. End of story.
On the other hand, if all bathrooms are made 'unisex', with partitions and doors that fully enclose every toilet cubicle without gaps, and basins and other shared facilities are laid out in such a way that close proximity to another person is never forced upon their users, and such areas provide adequate separation to prevent accidental (or not-so-accidental) touching, intrusion, etc. - I'd have no problem with that. A father could then stand outside the stall in use by his daughter and ensure that she wasn't bothered, and no-one would question his behavior. (Of course, Mother Nature provides just such a solution . . . )
One wonders why the pressure groups haven't bothered to press for this alternative. I can only presume it's because some of them, and some individuals associated with them (see, for example, the incident mentioned above), have ulterior motives. I do know exactly what to do about that. So, I suspect, do most of my readers. Do I hear an "Amen!" ?