The Great Bathroom Controversy

There is more than a little oddness in having  a political controversy over restrooms. In a sane world private persons and organizations would be free to make whatever rules they liked for restrooms they owned,  governments would be required to make restrooms – as with other facilities -   on government property available in an unprejudiced manner while taking reasonable  account of prevailing mores, and  that would be it. No non-nutcase would get worked up over the issue.   Since our world is far from sane however, we’ve got such a controversy, most recently about laws either restricting men’s rooms to biological men and women’s rooms to biological women or requiring choice in the matter.  It’s not  a small controversy either. Presidential candidates and the President of the United States have jumped into it, and there are boycotts and all sorts of things going on.

The first thing  to do in considering this fight, if a person wants to consider it at all,  is to limit the political discussion  to  restrooms owned by the government -  leaving private persons and entities to make the decisions they like and their customers and others to react as they like. It seems to me the next thing would be to  take the real transsexuals - the people who have been surgically and hormonally altered into the opposite sex -  off the board. They should be treated just as other men and women are treated  which would mean leaving them free to use restrooms designated for people of their present gender and  restricted from using those designated for people of their former one.

That leaves the delusional people who biologically fully of one sex but think they are members of the other (as opposed to potential transsexuals who realize accurately that they are still of one sex  but may want to change) and the pretenders who, for whatever reasons,  claim falsely to “identify” with the opposite sex. It is hard to see  a justification  for accommodating them at the expense of offending  the sensibilities of so many more other people. 

Twenty Dollar Bill

It is often interesting and informative when people descend into unintentional self-parody. A good recent example is the government’s decision to replace Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill with Harriet Tubman. The essence of affirmative action is the act of rewarding individuals from favored groups solely on the basis of their membership in those groups and equating their modest abilities and accomplishments to the greater abilities and accomplishments of individuals not in the groups. (People of real ability and accomplishment from favored groups do not need affirmative action and are often unfairly tarred by assumptions that they owe their success to it.)

Tubman was one of many brave people who worked with the underground railroad to rescue slaves in the south and transport them to safety in the north. That is commendable, but she was only one of many and, in fact, did far less to end slavery than her contemporary who shared her first name Harriet Beecher Stowe.

Now consider the other people pictured on American currency.  George Washington was literally the father of the nation. He commanded American forces during the revolution, chaired the convention which created the constitution, declined an opportunity to become king, and as the first president set  the nation firmly on course as a constitutional republic.

Thomas Jefferson wrote  the Declaration of Independence, worked for a bill of rights in the constitution, supported laws protecting religious freedom, attempted to end slavery, was an important inventor, scientist, author, and architect, and secured the nation and doubled its size by making the Louisiana Purchase.

Abraham Lincoln saved the Union, guided the nation to victory in the Civil War, and ended slavery.

Alexander Hamilton was a leader of the revolution and a skilled administrator who is credited with putting the new American government’s finances on sound footing and preventing it from financial collapse.

Ulysses S. Grant as a military commander won the Civil War for the Union army by first defeating the Confederacy in the west and then overcoming the formerly unbeatable army of Robert E. Lee in the east. Later as president his was the only administration for almost a hundred years to try to protect the rights of black Americans in the south.

Benjamin Franklin was perhaps the most famous scientist of the late 18^th Century, an accomplished author, a talented inventor, a successful diplomat and  a leader of the revolution and a founder of the nation.

Equating Tubman to these men in historical importance is  an example of affirmative action in action  which easily reaches the level of self-parody.

None of this is intended to defend Andrew Jackson. He is a mixed figure. He did some very good things such as defeating the British at New Orleans. He also did some very bad things such as creating the modern Democratic party.