Because I’m worried about the future of the nation, I want a national discussion and debate about big issues such as the entitlement crisis and our insane tax code.
No such luck. The crowd in Washington and the media have been focusing on sideshow topics such as which side has the most fake news, the purported sloppiness of executive orders, and the Trump-Putin “bromance.”
And we now have a culture-war fight in DC thanks to Trump’s new policy on transgender bathroom usage.
The Justice and Education departments said Wednesday that public schools no longer need to abide by the Obama-era directive instructing them to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their chosen gender. …The agencies said they withdrew the guidance to “in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved.” Anti-bullying safeguards for students will not be affected by the change, according to the letter. …There won’t be any immediate impact on schools, because the Obama guidance had been temporarily blocked since August by a federal judge in Texas, one of 13 states that sued over the directive.
Though, to be fair, Trump didn’t start this culture war. He’s simply responding to a battle that Obama triggered.
Moreover, even though I prefer that we focus attention of big-picture fiscal and economic issues, I’m not asserting that this issue should be swept under the rug.
That being said, I think the issue would largely disappear if we simply recognized boundaries. Not everything should be decided in Washington. Yes, it’s the federal government’s job to guarantee and protect universally applicable constitutional rights, but some decisions belong at the state and local level. And most decisions should take place in the private sector and civil society.
Here’s some of what I wrote in late 2015.
One of the great things about being a libertarian is that you have no desire for government sanctions against peaceful people who are different than you are, and that should be a very popular stance. You can be a libertarian who is also a serious fundamentalist, yet you have no desire to use the
coercive power of government to oppress or harass people who are (in your view) pervasive sinners. For instance, you may think gay sex is sinful sodomy, but you don’t want it to be illegal. Likewise, you can be a libertarian with a very libertine lifestyle, yet you have no desire to use the coercive power of government to oppress and harass religious people. It’s wrong (in your view) to not cater a gay wedding, but you don’t want the government to bully bakers and florists. In other words, very different people can choose to be libertarian, yet we’re all united is support of the principle that politicians shouldn’t pester people so long as those folks aren’t trying to violate the life, liberty, or property of others. …And when you’re motivated by these peaceful principles, which imply a very small public sector and a very big private sector and civil society, it’s amazing how many controversies have easy solutions.
Let’s look at some more recent sensible commentary on this topic.
Roy Cordato wrote about the controversy in his state of North Carolina.
…lost in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is the truth about both the original Charlotte law and the state’s response to it. …the Charlotte, North Carolina, city council passed an “antidiscrimination” law… The centerpiece of this law was a provision that prohibits businesses providing bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers from segregating usage of those facilities by gender, biologically defined. Biological males or females must be allowed to use the facilities of the opposite sex if they claim that that is the sex they identify with psychologically. …This ordinance was an assault on the rights of private property owners and economic freedom, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. …In a free society based on property rights and free markets, as all free societies must be, a privately owned business would have the right to decide whether or not it wants separate bathrooms strictly for men and women biologically defined, bathrooms for men and women subjectively or psychologically defined, completely gender neutral bathrooms with no labels on the doors, or no bathrooms at all.
And Roy says that the state law (which overturned the Charlotte ordinance) was reasonable in that regard.
The law in North Carolina that so many progressives are up in arms about does not prohibit businesses from having bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc., that allow use by people of all genders defined biologically, psychologically, or whatever. …the state of North Carolina codified a basic libertarian principle: the separation of bathroom and state.
Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner has a similar perspective.
Government needs to get out of culture war issues as much as possible, the question of transgendered people in bathrooms included. …In North Carolina, Charlotte’s City Council made the first mistake. …the city passed a non-discrimination ordinance…that…basically legislated bathroom admission. …Charlotte passed this law, exposing private business owners to lawsuits and legal punishments. …The ordinance also stirred up fears of predators — men getting into a ladies’ room thanks to this law, and then assaulting or leering at vulnerable women. Nobody showed that this was a real threat, but the same mindset behind the Charlotte law — we need a law to ban a possible bad thing — drove the state legislature to pass HB 2. HB 2 blocked Charlotte and other cities from implementing their antidiscrimination laws. …both the liberal legislation and the conservative reaction were out of place. Charlotte shouldn’t have stuck itself into private restrooms, and the state shouldn’t have stuck itself into the city’s sticking itself into restrooms.
By the way, Tim’s column also makes the key point that people should be decent human beings. A bit of civilized consideration and politeness goes a long way when dealing with potentially uncomfortable situations.
Writing for Reason, Scott Shackford opines on the topic, beginning with an appropriate defense of transgender people.
Transgender citizens have the same right as everybody else to live their lives as they please without unnecessary government interference. …As a legal and ethical matter, …it generally shouldn’t matter why somebody identifies as transgender. It’s their right. In the event that somebody decides to pose as transgender in order to engage in some sort of fraud or criminal behavior, there are already laws to punish such actions. …so it would be appropriate that in any situation where the government treats a transgender person on the basis of his or her identity it respects their form of gender expression. That means the government should allow for any official documentation—such as a driver’s license—that requires the listing of a person’s sex to match the identity by which a person lives, as much as it’s feasibly possible. …Transgender citizens are seeing some big inroads both culturally and legally, and we should all see these generally as positive developments. …Transgender citizens have the right to demand the government treat them fairly and with dignity.
But Scott correctly observes that the government should not have the power to use coercion to mandate specific choices by private individuals or private businesses.
In the private sector, it’s all a matter of cultural negotiation and voluntary agreements. The law should not be used to mandate private recognition of transgender needs, whether it’s requiring insurance companies cover gender reassignment surgeries or requiring private businesses to accommodate their bathroom choices. The reverse is also true: It would be inappropriate for the government to forbid insurance coverage or to require private businesses to police their own bathrooms to keep transgender folks out.
Last but not least, my colleague Neal McCluskey explains that federalism is part of the solution.
Much of this debate has been framed as conservatives versus liberals, or traditionalists versus social change. But the root problem is not differing views. It is government — especially federal — imposition. …Single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms have long been the norm, and privacy about our bodies — especially from the opposite sex — has long been coveted. …Of course, transgendered students should — must — be treated equally by public institutions, and their desire to use the facilities in which they feel comfortable is utterly understandable. By fair reckoning, we do not have a competition between good and evil, but what should be equally protected values and rights. How do we resolve this? …not with a federal mandate. …So how, in public schools, do we treat people equally who have mutually exclusive values and desires? We cannot. Open the bathrooms to all, and those who want single-sex facilities lose. Keep them closed, and transgender students lose. The immediate ramification of this is that decisions should be made at state, and preferably local, levels. At least let differing communities have their own rules.
But the real answer, Neal explains, is school choice.
…the long-term — and only true — solution is school choice. Attach money to students, give educators freedom to establish schools with their own rules and values, and let like-minded people freely associate. Impose on no one. …We live in a pluralist society, and for that we should be eternally grateful. To keep that, and also be a free and equal society, people of different genders, values, etc., must be allowed to live as they see fit as long as they do not impose themselves on others. That is impossible if government imposes uniformity on all.
But I’ll admit that these libertarian principles don’t solve every problem. States will need to have some sort of policy. Not because of private businesses, which should get to choose their own policies. And not because of schools, which will be privately operated in my libertarian fantasy world and therefore also able to set their own policies.
But how should states handle bathrooms in public buildings? Even if there are less of them in a libertarian society, the issue will exist. And what about prisons in a libertarian world?
I don’t pretend to know exactly how these issues should be resolved. Conservatives argue that you should be defined by the gender on your birth certificate and leftists say you should be to choose your identify.
My gut instinct is to cut the baby in half (I’m such a moderate). Maybe the rule for prisons is not how you identify or what’s on your birth certificate, but what sort of…um…equipment you have. If you were born a man but had surgery (which is your right so long as you’re not asking me to pay for it), then you’re eligible for a women’s prison. Likewise, if you were born a woman and surgery gave you male genitalia (I confess I don’t know if that’s even possible), then you get assigned to a men’s prison.
Government bathrooms are an easier problem. From a practical perspective, I’m guessing the net result of this fight – at least for schools and public buildings – will be a shift to single-use bathrooms. In other words, multi-person facilities for men and women will be replaced by a bunch of private bathrooms.
This will be bad news for taxpayers, because it is more expensive to build and operate such bathrooms.
And it will be bad news for women because that means they will be forced to use bathrooms that are less pleasant because men…um…tend to be less fastidious about…um…personal habits such as lifting toilet seats before…well…you know.
Men only have to deal with the messes made by other men when we have to sit down in a bathroom. And even then, the problem is minimized since other men generally will use urinals when they…um…don’t need to sit down.
But if we have a world of one-person-at-a-time bathrooms, women’s lives will be less pleasant.
P.S. Speaking of bathrooms, my only goal is simply knowing how to operate the various controls. I’ve been totally stumped by the design of foreign showers and, if you check out the postscript of this column, very impressed by the sophistication of foreign toilets.
[…] written before about overseas bathroom adventures and I now have another episode to add to the mix from my recent trip to India. I like modern facilities, including ones that have energy-saving […]
“Chris Cuomo: If a 12-Year-Old Doesn’t Want to See a Penis, She’s Not Tolerant Enough”
by M.J. Randolph
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/chris-cuomo-if-12-year-old-doesnt-want-see-penis-shes-not-tolerant-enough
If we want to be left alone, we are going to have to find a way to neutralize those who refuse to leave us alone. Those who refuse to leave us alone are what I call “liberals.” If someone is willing to leave me alone, I don’t consider them a liberal and I don’t see any need to neutralize them.
Mr Mitchell, I do not know if you are becoming more liberal, less investigative, or simply ignoring truth in recent columns. This time, you begin your column with the premise that President Trump’s E.O. is somehow misguided and then proceed to tell us that instead he should have done exactly what he actually did. Which was to state that this is NOT an issue for the Federal government but rather one for local and/or state governments to decide, so his E.O. simply takes back the federal directive. You also continue to miss-characterize conservative ideology. It is impossible to legislate morality at all, no intelligent person believes that destroying another persons nation will make them love the American system more, as for drugs… that’s a morality issue.. enough said, why would a conservative want the government to pry into everything they do anymore that a liberal? These things along with the rest on your list are things the elite ruling class have been trying to stuff down the throats of conservatives for years and liberals love to blame the resulting mess on the “right” or the right to blame the “left” either way the real culprits get away unscathed. The vast majority of the right do not want nor intend to tell others how to live their lives, we simply do not want to be forced to either pay for nor be forced to condone behavior that is against our religious beliefs. We want to be free from aggression both foreign and domestic, free from the ravages (or savages) of drugs and alcohol on our streets, free from a tyrannical government while maintaining enough of our own money to support the charities of our choosing rather than support those unwilling to help themselves, and to be free from socialistic and fascist tenancies whether government or government fed corporate. I was raised that all of our rights end where another’s begin. That is not an agreeable position for the liberals and the perverts of today. My greatest concern is not the restroom (that typically has individual stalls) although I do believe that all should have the right to privacy even there. My concern is for my 15 and 16 year old daughters in their high school locker rooms. Why is it such a tough concept to grasp that the equipment that shows is what matters in a situation where there are opportunities for others to catch a glimpse of another person in their nudities. It doesn’t matter what your birthday suit was. If you’ve had it tailored you should no longer have the equipment to either shock, scare, or threaten anyone of that same apparent gender. If the issue really were one of acceptance or not being oppressed then your feelings of sexuality are not apparent in your physical person nor your presence… unless you really are just trying to get a free show and then you’re just a pervert that needs to be kept separate from my little girls or separated from your equipment if I catch you with them. I have read your columns for years and have seen the concern for your own daughter while enjoying the educational information you provide. I do not understand why you continue to equate conservatives with extreme right puritan views. A little more honesty please, both for our new president and for ideological viewpoints.
Believe me when I tell you that the bodies littering Chicago and other cities in America serve the purposes of the “Revolution,” which is to destroy and prevent any chance of rebuilding. Promoting gender confusion and sexual perversity also serves the purposes of the “Revolution,” which is no revolution at all, but merely a criminal operation conducted by psychopaths intent on murder and mayhem. Since you’re a normal person, you think addressing the murder problem is of great importance. If you were a sick twisted demon infested freak, you would understand that promoting more murder was the goal, and driving everyone crazy was the objective, and destroying society is the mission.
biologically… persons with XX chromosomes are female… individuals with XY chromosomes are male… it’s settled science… gender identity and gender role play are social phenomenons related to an individual’s mental state… most of us really don’t care what gender a person considers themselves… what practices they engage in for gratification… or where they relieve themselves… it’s irrelevant… but the hijacking of government resources to enhance or re-enforce gender identity is a disservice to taxpayers… and a cause that diverts attention from matters of much greater importance… it’s ironic that the advocates of transgender bathrooms claim this is a key civil rights issue… when the south and west side of Chicago is littered with the bodies of black Americans…
So, you would agree with me that these lefty promoters of transgender “rights” are complaining in bad faith? I’m convinced that the lefty transgender “rights” people don’t give a damn about transgenders as human beings, but only wish to use them to hammer away at the foundations of not just civilization, but sanity itself. I think that the Left knows they will lose every logical rational fact based argument, so, their plan is to destroy logic and reason and rationality and the whole idea of “facts.” Then, voilà, they win, hooray!
The term “rights” have been badly abused by leftists. The government has expanded its role to the point the founding fathers would be urging not only revolt but holy war against the denizens that infest the DC swamp.
There is no right to be transgender nor is there one to be a catwoman or batman. If you wish to have a tail attached or batwings attached you’re free to do so. I am not obliged to respect you or provide special batperson facilities for you.
The government is not here to promote the agenda of a bunch of deviants, unfortunately it has for decades. One suspects this is because so many of the government are not normal (see Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Marion Barry, Denny Hastard).
We also see these same judges and officials telling us the firearms are weapons of war and therefore denied us. I realize that law school removes and launders your mind, but this is the stuff of the 9th Circus.
Let’s face it, its time to burn down the entire rotten edifice and start over. As for those that support these corrupt polices, divide the country and wall off the section they inhabit. In 20 years it will be on a par with the worst of the 3rd world, because a good part of the 3rd world has laws or civilization which the left doesn’t believe in.
“Likewise, if you were born a woman and surgery gave you male genitalia (I confess I don’t know if that’s even possible)”
Yes it is, see Chaz Bono (formerly the cute kid Chastity Bono, seen a couple of times on the Sonny & Cher show.)
Look, if Caitlyn Jenner or RuPaul is all dressed up and uses the women’s room, I don’t see anyone really raising an eyebrow, nor is a cop going to get involved, making an arrest, filing a report, etc. only to have such a case dismissed. There are no genitalia bouncers standing outside checking people.
But if Roman Polanski follows a 13 year old girl into the women’s room, then yes, I want the cops involved.
On the plus side, you might be able to substitute one transgender bathroom for traditional male and female.
The space we occupy is large and divided in half, which means we are required to have four bathrooms. That’s a little excessive, since we only have four employees at any one time.
I just watched Mr. Trump interact with the executives of some of the largest companies in the world… the atmosphere was cordial… cooperative and focused on conducting business… and creating jobs… the number of lives that could be touched by that interaction alone is in well into the tens of thousands… Mr. Trump is working to minimize the adversarial relationship between government and the private sector… if he is successful… it will serve our nation well for years to come…
and a transgender bathroom will do what exactly?
Dan, you’re a swell guy and I love you, but, you’re missing the point about the transgenders. The fascist left is trying to destroy the possibility of civilization by imposing chaos and insanity at bayonet point. Male and female is a basic fact of biological science. Male and female are defined with enough precision for scientists to say that it is the “male” sea horse who “gives birth” to the sea horse babies. A comedian once asked, “Well, why don’t they just call that one the female sea horse, if it has the babies?” It’s a funny saying, but the reason is because male and female are a matter of science, not social convention. And the filthy fascist leftist wackos are trying to drive the human race crazy with their blithering nonsense. When you propose “libertarian” solutions, you are showing that you fail to understand they they don’t want any solutions that are not sick and twisted and destructive. We are up against wicked demon infested monsters, Mr. Mitchell, you must begin to realize it.