Full Circle

What do you think when I say “grown women around little girls in bathrooms?”

What comes into your mind when I say “grown men around little boys in bathrooms?”

What pops into your head when I say “grown women around little boys in bathrooms?”

Keep those thoughts fresh in your mind. Let it simmer. Stop reading for a few minutes if you have to. Now what pops into your head when I say the phrase “grown men around little girls in bathrooms?” If your brain went straight to pedophilia then you have a serious prejudice that you need to get rid of. This introduction is probably assumed, by you, to be an argument against some new SJW argument. How women are just so terrified about how some evil men use their bathrooms accidentally, and it scares them. How they are petitioning someone somewhere to do something about this scourge of indecency.

No, it’s conservatives doing something remarkably similar. There is an argument floating around in conservative mind-spaces about how male to female transgendered people using the women’s restroom is dangerous. The people who say these types of things are indistinguishable to me from modern feminists. First off, they equate being transgendered with being a pedophile. As if there is going to be more danger to little girls in their bathrooms if transgendered people are present. What bothers me about this kind of thing is, no matter which sex you actually call this person the argument still falls flat on its face.

Let’s say you think this male to female transgendered person is male. Well, what you’re saying in this case is that you think that these little girls will experience more danger if they are in their presence. Well, this brings up the obvious fact that grown men are around little boys in the men’s room all the goddamn time. It shows that they either care more about little girls, or they are just using that as political rhetoric.

Let’s say you believe that this female to male transgendered person is female. The argument still falls on its metaphorical face for slightly different reasons. This is just someone actually using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender. What I have seen a rhetorical lack of, in mainstream conservative idea clouds, is female to male trans people. I have seen exactly zero people express a concern for little boys being in the bathroom with grown women. Because clearly, it’s men who do the child rape, never the other way around.

These particular conservatives are supporting laws that would require transgendered people to use bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in public areas. They are not the proponents of freedom in this case. They are the ones arguing that the government should step in and bar people from taking a shit in a particular toilet. Businesses are free to do whatever they like (which was facilitated by the overturning of certain anti-discrimination laws), but in North Carolina, on public sites people are barred from using bathrooms designated for the opposite sex, of course argued for under the guise of “safety.” (Full Law Text Here)

I have no idea what the penalty would be for doing so. I suppose I won’t eat any Mexican or Indian food before going to a public museum of any type. Emergencies do happen, folks and sometimes the only toilet you care about is the closest one.

Even using this pedophile argument is absurd to begin with. Do you think pedophiles look at a “women’s room” or “men’s room” sign and think “Darn it. If only I were allowed in this restroom. But this sign, it says it’s for women so getting into this room is impossible.” No, they’ll walk through the door anyway. If they are deciding to do publicly whatever awful thing they are going to do, do you think a sign is going to stop them? It’s similar to making the argument that a “no pedophiles” sign is going to stop them. They can always just make the excuse that they went in there accidentally. Conservatives could make an argument for an additional “children’s bathroom” if pedophilia truly is their main gripe here (I have a feeling it isn’t). Every thinking person knows signs don’t stop criminals. Not in “gun-free zones” or in “[insert sex here] bathrooms.”

In any case, conservatives are now feeding into the “men are inherently dangerous to little girls” narrative. If you are concerned about your child, go into the bathroom with them. I would rather it not become some sort of state-sanctioned offense for someone to accidentally enter the lady’s room when they aren’t paying attention. It’s stupid. It’s childish, and I honestly don’t get what the big deal is. Go into a bathroom, take your piss like an adult, and leave.

Don’t Be Afraid of the Offense

I’ve gotten into the habit of watching debates on the topic of social justice. I know, I’m a masochist, but what to you expect? My eventual inevitable descent into madness is your entertainment. Putting that off to the side, I discovered a very prominent tactic that is taking place. A tactic that needs to be done away with immediately. The tactic of a good defense. Generally, when one imagines combat one imagines a trading of blows coupled with maneuvers away from attacks and successful blocks and parries. As cringy as that sounds it is exactly what a debate is like. But I’ve noticed a trend that has been occurring across college campuses and I couldn’t simply stay quiet on the matter.

There is a specific video I would like to briefly address. There was a debate that occurred where white life was mentioned and whether or not we should “affirm” it. Which I can only assume means something along the lines of “recognize it as valuable.” This should be a question that has an obvious answer to anyone with a moral compass not skewed by any ideology’s interruptive magnetic field. The answer would be a resounding “yes.” Human life should be affirmed, and regarded as valuable, regardless of the race of the specific human being. This is a basic moral proposition that, personally, I believe any moral person would be hard pressed to disagree with. But those who certain people are debating need to figure this out as soon as they possibly can.

Now, I don’t know the names of anyone in this video, but generally, the question that befalls them is “Is white life worth affirming?” Now, the problem with those confronted with this question on a professional debate stage, is that they think remaining high-minded and grounded in logic will win them the argument. It won’t. Especially with the audience present. Instead of lifting up the metaphorical shield, they need to parry the strike and slash their opponent across the chest. When confronted with the question “Why should we affirm white life?” the response should be “kill yourself.”

While some might write this off as irrelevant reactionary trolling, there is actually a substantial point to be made from this type of response. Telling someone to kill themselves forces them to think about a world in which they have killed themselves. It shoves them into a mental state where they must think about the hardship it would cause their family, friends, and other various loved ones. Hopefully, it will trigger a state of empathy, or at least anger in response to the realization that what they said was an example of some of the most disgusting evil nonsense ever uttered. Ultimately, in the end they will get defensive towards the statement you threw at them unexpectedly. But, if they are on the defensive, that means you at least have the upper hand. As “zen” as it sounds, forcing someone to understand the basic Golden Rule in the midst of a debate, when they are violating it, resonates far more than simply trying to get out of the debate without being called an “-ist” of some type.