With President Obama’s recent directive dictating all public schools to allow students to use the bathrooms which correspond to their gender identities, the raging debate over transgender bathroom use has become even more intense. The aspect of this debate that I find most interesting, however, is that it clearly shows the conceptual and practical limitations of statist and democratic theory when they are applied to areas they have no business being in.
It’s not too important to me which bathroom anyone uses and I personally think that today’s widespread conservative and tabooish attitudes towards sex and gender are relics of an outdated past. As far as children catching a glimpse of genitalia different from their own (though I seem to be able to go to the bathroom without ever seeing penises), I don’t really care.
As far as abuse or inappropriate behavior, I don’t see how transgender people using the bathroom for which their genitals may not be suited changes anything. Sexual abuse and harassment is still horrible and illegal and unaccepted. Similar to the logic behind a violent criminal obeying a “gun-free zone” sign, is a person looking to rape or harass someone really going to wait until the law allows them to fake their gender identity and use a bathroom they’re not supposed to? I have my doubts.
But the point is, my doubts, opinions, beliefs, etc. should have no bearing on your life or what you do—unless I’m a customer you are trying to please in which case you are choosing to let my beliefs affect your life. In other words, I should not be allowed to force my convictions, prejudices, or paranoia on anyone else. That means I cannot morally use government to dictate how you act or how you operate your bathroom, even if I know I’m right and think I’m helping people.
A business or any individual or private institution has total control over their property. This means they can do business with whomever they want however they want. But the same goes for the person on the other end. In terms of this debate, that means that a business can let anyone they want use any bathroom they wish, but if their actions bother me I can choose to not use their bathroom or to no longer give them my money. I can also try to convince others to boycott the business, start a petition, make a website—whatever I feel like doing.
That’s my power as a consumer and as someone whose business a store or company probably wants. What I cannot morally do is damage their property, physically prevent others from patronizing them, or use government force to mandate that this store or company conform their policy to what I think is right.
The more thoughtful of you may realize that my criteria for “moral behavior” in terms of your relationship to private individuals and businesses would exclude any type of government civil rights act. Simply put, it is immoral for a government or people or majority to determine who other people do business with or how they act so long as those individuals or businesses are not aggressing against another’s person or property.
This is where this debate becomes so interesting. Government, particularly democratic government, through its claimed mandate, asserts that it represents “the people.” It is also funded to a certain degree by everyone who lives in the geographical area it claims power over. For these reasons, and by virtue of its own self-described creed, it must treat all of its citizens equally. A democratic government can’t in good conscience take money from and claim to represent people who it doesn’t allow to vote, or allow some people to get a marriage license but some not. Everyone must be equal before the law if democracy is to have any semblance of legitimacy or sense. This means government policy and institutions must be consistent and the same for all.
So while the Civil Rights Act is immoral because it tries to make people equal outside the scope of people’s dealings with the government, the Voting Rights Act of the same time period is both ethical and necessary. This is because it deals with inequality with respect to the government itself. Voting is easy though. It’s quite simple to see that allowing some to vote and others not is inequality, while allowing all to vote is equality before the law. But in the transgender bathroom debate, which side makes people more equal before the law? This is much more complicated.
When it comes to government buildings and institutions like schools what are they to do? Do they force people to share bathrooms with people of opposite genitals, or do they force people to share bathrooms with people who they feel are the opposite gender? Which one is equality before the law? Which one is the moral choice? Can anyone really know? To me it seems to be wholly subjective and subjectiveness is where government logic fails. As so often occurs with government, one decision must directly violate the convictions and perceived equality of one group in favor of another.
Herein lies the very problem with applying the state to areas other than maintaining property rights. It has to make the decision for everyone. It forces us to be part of institutions whose policies we may disagree with, and forces us to fund it at that. Who you choose to associate or disassociate with is the strongest signal you have. If Obama were a head of a private school in a free society then those who disagree with his policies could simply leave. They could teach their kids at home, send them to a different school, send them to work, or do anything they wanted to get away from this policy they feel is so damaging.
This is why the market harmonizes seemingly impossible differences of opinion so much better than government. Because it allows you to fund those who you agree with and deny your money to those who you don’t agree with. It lets everyone to live out their subjective convictions as best they can without forcing them on others. And as the private sector shows us today, most desires that are held by more than just a few people are fulfilled in some way. So if everything were organized along free market lines you would have everyone being better able to fulfill their needs and wants in the way they want to, and you would have a lot less people being a part of something they disagree with.
Government is one size fits all. It robs you of the right to choose on some of the most important things in life like education, utilities, transportation, and which bathroom you use. In doing this it creates chaos, conflict, resentment, and hate. People care a lot less about other people doing things they disagree with if they don’t have to fund it, live by it, or even see it. The real fight, then, shouldn’t be over “bathroom rights”, but over removing this one-size-fits-all mentality from as many areas of life as possible. In other words, get the government out and let individuals each decide what is best for themselves.