Kennedy put a man on the moon. Obama wants to put a man in a woman's bathroom.
During a rare bout of insomnia recently, I found this fake little gem of asinine humor on social media, posted not by a boy at the stage of life when scatological humor is to be expected, but by an older college-educated adult at a stage of life when it is not.
Now that the CNN-type of media conflagration, which has fed on this issue like flames on dry leaves, has been tamped down to a low-burning field of yesterday's newspapers by the weight of masses ready to be bathed in the glow of something else, I've decided to address this issue from a viewpoint that is neither conservative nor liberal, but one that is humane as well as religious. I do respect the opinion of others, and readily admit that I have been wrong in the past and and will be wrong in the future; I am convinced, however, that the correct solution to the problem of bathroom rights for transsexuals entails a Kantian moral imperative, allowing no other course of action for an impartial, analytical, and spiritual mind.
First, some background
BACKGROUND
The Charlotte City Council passed a city ordinance in March, 2016, one of the provisions of which is the right of transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice, one that corresponds to their gender identity. The law was limited to public facilities including those in schools. Regarding schools, the new legislation required that "students should be free to use the bathroom...(corresponding to) their (gender) identity, once a parent or guardian calls" and requests a change in the record.
Many have not given thought to the issues that led to the passage of the ordinance; it must have struck them as strange, even perverse. There were protests. The governor of North Carolina, Robert McCrory, probably seeing this as an easily winnable culture-wars-battle that would give him and his party a political advantage, was, well, outraged. On March 23, 2016, the North Carolina general assembly, under the governor's leadership, passed "The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act," which overturned the Charlotte ordinance and replaced it with legislation that requires, under penalty of law, that an individual using public facilities use the one designated for the gender on that individual's birth certificate.
The conflict between a liberal city council and a conservative state assembly soon escalated to a national one, with the usual depressing results. President Obama had his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, take up the issue. According to her, McCrory's "bathroom bill" is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and is, therefore, illegal.
The governor's response was swift and furious: the federal government is changing the courts "into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over common sense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights." His bathroom bill was passed "to protect North Carolina citizens from extremist efforts to undermine civility and normalcy in our everyday lives."
Loretta Lynch stated that the bathroom bill reminded her of the heinous laws of the Jim Crow South.
WHO IS RIGHT?
The answer is not difficult once one has analyzed the conflict logically, morally and impartially. First, let us consider three factors which can help one come to the right decision.
A. Factors to Consider
1. Some of the loudest protests against the attorney general's decision came from evangelical Christians. One of the leaders of that community in North Carolina, Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, dismissed the federal override because "God created two distinct genders." In other words, transsexuals, by their very existence, are a perversion of God's law. Allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice is, therefore, contrary to Scripture.
It is not difficult to point out the fallacy of this position. As one well knows from reading my articles, I believe in evolution, not so-called creation science. But even if one is a fundamentalist--and there are many decent fundamentalists--it is still incumbent on the believer to love one's neighbor as oneself. Grahams's position is not in accord with the greatest moral law of all.
Now let us examine the facts.
Buddhism, as well as science, teaches us that everything is in flux. The Buddhist term for this is anicca, or non-permanence. The fact of constant change can be disconcerting, since we all cling to our identities. Sure, Robert is still called Robert at 75--but is he the same Robert who existed a half century earlier? No.
One of the ways to obscure the fact of anicca is by assuring oneself that one has a "permanent" gender identity.
Studies have also shown that gender identification comes early. I read an article that stated that little children notice gender before race--and color-consciousnesses, unfortunately, is very prevalent in contemporary culture. When one feels there is a mismatch between the gender one was born with and the gender of one's inner reality, the brain's binary system regarding gender can short-circuit. This produces anxiety in the person affected as well as in most others--although the latter often mask anxiety with hostility.
Rigid categorizations, however, exist in the mind and not in nature. Nature allows for exceptions and variety. For instance, the existence of heterosexuality and homosexuality is a continuum. Some people are exclusively heterosexual; some are exclusively homosexual; some are in between. Another is the color of hair. Some people have blond hair; some people have black hair; some people have hair that is neither black nor blond, but somewhere in between.
And so it is with gender identity. Most people are able to fit into gender roles that are consistent with society's norms--with occasional difficulty, perhaps; nevertheless. But there will always be some who are not able to fit into a gender binary system. This is a natural phenomenon; it is not a matter of choice. Could one ever imagine choosing transsexualism? (It is currently estimated that transsexuals compose 1.5% of the general population. This is most likely an underestimate. In any case, transsexuals are not going away.) Transsexuals are much more likely to be abused and bullied; they are much more likely to be unemployed--over 40% have attempted suicide, a truly alarming statistic.
Virtually all psychiatrists and psychologists agree: transsexualism is not a choice.
The false belief that God created two distinct sexes with no gradations in between flouts nature. Franklin Graham is wrong.
2. The argument has been made that without the bathroom bill sexual predators could cross-dress, enter the ladies' room, resulting in stalls full of screaming victims. A reprehensible commercial was made to this effect, showing a man in a dress disappearing into a female facility; the sound of a little girl screaming followed.
There has, to my knowledge, never been such a case. Even if there has been one, would that allow the man to plead non-guilty since he entered the bathroom of his choice? What is preventing a man from engaging in this criminal activity now?
3. The following are two photos of transsexuals, a trans man and a trans woman.
How would most women feel if this trans man entered the ladies' room, as required by the bathroom bill? Conversely, how would men feel if this trans woman entered the men's room? Not to mention the humiliation the transsexuals would feel, who have surely been humiliated enough.
There is no doubt that transsexuals have been using the bathroom of their choice, anyway. The issue that gave rise to the bill had to do with a young person in public school who transitioned sometime during the years of schooling. That child, who was known to be, say, a boy in the fourth grade, is now, say, a trans woman in the tenth grade. She, who would otherwise go unnoticed, is now notorious. (Once that child graduates, she will most likely use the ladies' room without causing any problems.)
With the bathroom bill, the probable widespread phenomenon of transsexuals using the bathroom of their choice would now be against the law. Does it make sense to criminalize behavior that does no harm; is it right to pass legislation that would result in embarrassment for all? Why not let a person transition in high school? Why not indeed.
We will include with the most important factor of all: why allowing transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice is a moral imperative.
The Moral Solution
According to Governor McCrory, if North Carolina permits the "social experimentation" of giving transsexuals the right to choose a facility for the gender opposite to the one they were born with, North Carolinians would be violating the "dignity and privacy" of the majority, especially heterosexual women and girls. What about the majority? Do they have to feel uncomfortable as well?
Well, in certain cases--and this is one of them--yes.
The comfort religion provides is important, but the challenges of religion are important as well. Religion is not there solely to provide the self-satisfaction one gets by taking a warm bath, shielding oneself from the vicissitudes of the weather outside. Sometimes religion and morality demand that we stand up and take a cold shower.
No matter if one is religious, agnostic or an atheist, one must direct one's actions toward living more in accord with the greatest moral law of all: namely, to love one's neighbors as oneself. This does not mean only neighbors who look like you and share the same values. We are required to love our neighbor whom we perceive to be different, as well. We must first ask: is the neighbor doing harm? If not, we must love his or her behavior as well, as Simone Weil taught. We must follow this moral principal even if it takes us out of our comfort zone. The necessary cold shower might cause some discomfort, but after it is over we have the great consolation of living more in accord with the greatest principle of moral life. This line of reasoning is applicable to all situations in which one must examine one's conscience and make what one believes is the right decision, whether this causes discomfort or not.
Transsexuals are not doing anybody any harm by being transsexuals; that's what they are, it is not a choice. Therefore, compassion demands that those who identity as women should be allowed to use the women's restroom. Is the discomfort that heterosexuals might feel in any proportion to the many discomforts society imposes on transsexuals? Shouldn't compassion trump a "dis-ease" that needs to be transcended anyway?
There is an important general lesson here: feeling good about an action does not mean that that action is a moral one. Psychologists have determined that moral responses are located in two areas of the brain. The first is the so-called gut reaction, which involves less evolved sections of the brain. The second entails moral reasoning, centered in the frontal lobes, the most evolved sections of the brain. This does not mean that a gut-reaction is always wrong; the way to determine whether it is or not is to discover whether it passes the test of moral analysis.
Many individuals and organizations realize that McCrory's decision was immoral. Concerts have been canceled. Businesses have threatened to leave the state. McCrory, being a politician, couldn't ignore the loss of income and passed some window-dressing legislation that is unable to hide the idol behind the smoke screen.
President Obama insists that his decision is in accord with the Golden Rule. Governor McCrory thinks otherwise. I hope I have made it clear why the president is right; I trust I have made it clear why Governor McCrory is wrong as well.
If we all decided to pass gut reactions through the alembics of moral analysis and certify as genuine only those that have successfully passed through the higher analysis, the world would be a much better place. It is not a crime to avoid judging someone before walking a mile in his moccasins; it is not a crime to be impartial; it is not a crime to think.
\\\\
During a rare bout of insomnia recently, I found this fake little gem of asinine humor on social media, posted not by a boy at the stage of life when scatological humor is to be expected, but by an older college-educated adult at a stage of life when it is not.
Now that the CNN-type of media conflagration, which has fed on this issue like flames on dry leaves, has been tamped down to a low-burning field of yesterday's newspapers by the weight of masses ready to be bathed in the glow of something else, I've decided to address this issue from a viewpoint that is neither conservative nor liberal, but one that is humane as well as religious. I do respect the opinion of others, and readily admit that I have been wrong in the past and and will be wrong in the future; I am convinced, however, that the correct solution to the problem of bathroom rights for transsexuals entails a Kantian moral imperative, allowing no other course of action for an impartial, analytical, and spiritual mind.
First, some background
BACKGROUND
The Charlotte City Council passed a city ordinance in March, 2016, one of the provisions of which is the right of transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice, one that corresponds to their gender identity. The law was limited to public facilities including those in schools. Regarding schools, the new legislation required that "students should be free to use the bathroom...(corresponding to) their (gender) identity, once a parent or guardian calls" and requests a change in the record.
Many have not given thought to the issues that led to the passage of the ordinance; it must have struck them as strange, even perverse. There were protests. The governor of North Carolina, Robert McCrory, probably seeing this as an easily winnable culture-wars-battle that would give him and his party a political advantage, was, well, outraged. On March 23, 2016, the North Carolina general assembly, under the governor's leadership, passed "The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act," which overturned the Charlotte ordinance and replaced it with legislation that requires, under penalty of law, that an individual using public facilities use the one designated for the gender on that individual's birth certificate.
The conflict between a liberal city council and a conservative state assembly soon escalated to a national one, with the usual depressing results. President Obama had his attorney general, Loretta Lynch, take up the issue. According to her, McCrory's "bathroom bill" is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and is, therefore, illegal.
The governor's response was swift and furious: the federal government is changing the courts "into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over common sense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights." His bathroom bill was passed "to protect North Carolina citizens from extremist efforts to undermine civility and normalcy in our everyday lives."
Loretta Lynch stated that the bathroom bill reminded her of the heinous laws of the Jim Crow South.
WHO IS RIGHT?
The answer is not difficult once one has analyzed the conflict logically, morally and impartially. First, let us consider three factors which can help one come to the right decision.
A. Factors to Consider
1. Some of the loudest protests against the attorney general's decision came from evangelical Christians. One of the leaders of that community in North Carolina, Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, dismissed the federal override because "God created two distinct genders." In other words, transsexuals, by their very existence, are a perversion of God's law. Allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice is, therefore, contrary to Scripture.
It is not difficult to point out the fallacy of this position. As one well knows from reading my articles, I believe in evolution, not so-called creation science. But even if one is a fundamentalist--and there are many decent fundamentalists--it is still incumbent on the believer to love one's neighbor as oneself. Grahams's position is not in accord with the greatest moral law of all.
Now let us examine the facts.
Buddhism, as well as science, teaches us that everything is in flux. The Buddhist term for this is anicca, or non-permanence. The fact of constant change can be disconcerting, since we all cling to our identities. Sure, Robert is still called Robert at 75--but is he the same Robert who existed a half century earlier? No.
One of the ways to obscure the fact of anicca is by assuring oneself that one has a "permanent" gender identity.
Studies have also shown that gender identification comes early. I read an article that stated that little children notice gender before race--and color-consciousnesses, unfortunately, is very prevalent in contemporary culture. When one feels there is a mismatch between the gender one was born with and the gender of one's inner reality, the brain's binary system regarding gender can short-circuit. This produces anxiety in the person affected as well as in most others--although the latter often mask anxiety with hostility.
Rigid categorizations, however, exist in the mind and not in nature. Nature allows for exceptions and variety. For instance, the existence of heterosexuality and homosexuality is a continuum. Some people are exclusively heterosexual; some are exclusively homosexual; some are in between. Another is the color of hair. Some people have blond hair; some people have black hair; some people have hair that is neither black nor blond, but somewhere in between.
And so it is with gender identity. Most people are able to fit into gender roles that are consistent with society's norms--with occasional difficulty, perhaps; nevertheless. But there will always be some who are not able to fit into a gender binary system. This is a natural phenomenon; it is not a matter of choice. Could one ever imagine choosing transsexualism? (It is currently estimated that transsexuals compose 1.5% of the general population. This is most likely an underestimate. In any case, transsexuals are not going away.) Transsexuals are much more likely to be abused and bullied; they are much more likely to be unemployed--over 40% have attempted suicide, a truly alarming statistic.
Virtually all psychiatrists and psychologists agree: transsexualism is not a choice.
The false belief that God created two distinct sexes with no gradations in between flouts nature. Franklin Graham is wrong.
2. The argument has been made that without the bathroom bill sexual predators could cross-dress, enter the ladies' room, resulting in stalls full of screaming victims. A reprehensible commercial was made to this effect, showing a man in a dress disappearing into a female facility; the sound of a little girl screaming followed.
There has, to my knowledge, never been such a case. Even if there has been one, would that allow the man to plead non-guilty since he entered the bathroom of his choice? What is preventing a man from engaging in this criminal activity now?
3. The following are two photos of transsexuals, a trans man and a trans woman.
How would most women feel if this trans man entered the ladies' room, as required by the bathroom bill? Conversely, how would men feel if this trans woman entered the men's room? Not to mention the humiliation the transsexuals would feel, who have surely been humiliated enough.
There is no doubt that transsexuals have been using the bathroom of their choice, anyway. The issue that gave rise to the bill had to do with a young person in public school who transitioned sometime during the years of schooling. That child, who was known to be, say, a boy in the fourth grade, is now, say, a trans woman in the tenth grade. She, who would otherwise go unnoticed, is now notorious. (Once that child graduates, she will most likely use the ladies' room without causing any problems.)
With the bathroom bill, the probable widespread phenomenon of transsexuals using the bathroom of their choice would now be against the law. Does it make sense to criminalize behavior that does no harm; is it right to pass legislation that would result in embarrassment for all? Why not let a person transition in high school? Why not indeed.
We will include with the most important factor of all: why allowing transsexuals to use the bathroom of their choice is a moral imperative.
The Moral Solution
According to Governor McCrory, if North Carolina permits the "social experimentation" of giving transsexuals the right to choose a facility for the gender opposite to the one they were born with, North Carolinians would be violating the "dignity and privacy" of the majority, especially heterosexual women and girls. What about the majority? Do they have to feel uncomfortable as well?
Well, in certain cases--and this is one of them--yes.
The comfort religion provides is important, but the challenges of religion are important as well. Religion is not there solely to provide the self-satisfaction one gets by taking a warm bath, shielding oneself from the vicissitudes of the weather outside. Sometimes religion and morality demand that we stand up and take a cold shower.
No matter if one is religious, agnostic or an atheist, one must direct one's actions toward living more in accord with the greatest moral law of all: namely, to love one's neighbors as oneself. This does not mean only neighbors who look like you and share the same values. We are required to love our neighbor whom we perceive to be different, as well. We must first ask: is the neighbor doing harm? If not, we must love his or her behavior as well, as Simone Weil taught. We must follow this moral principal even if it takes us out of our comfort zone. The necessary cold shower might cause some discomfort, but after it is over we have the great consolation of living more in accord with the greatest principle of moral life. This line of reasoning is applicable to all situations in which one must examine one's conscience and make what one believes is the right decision, whether this causes discomfort or not.
Transsexuals are not doing anybody any harm by being transsexuals; that's what they are, it is not a choice. Therefore, compassion demands that those who identity as women should be allowed to use the women's restroom. Is the discomfort that heterosexuals might feel in any proportion to the many discomforts society imposes on transsexuals? Shouldn't compassion trump a "dis-ease" that needs to be transcended anyway?
There is an important general lesson here: feeling good about an action does not mean that that action is a moral one. Psychologists have determined that moral responses are located in two areas of the brain. The first is the so-called gut reaction, which involves less evolved sections of the brain. The second entails moral reasoning, centered in the frontal lobes, the most evolved sections of the brain. This does not mean that a gut-reaction is always wrong; the way to determine whether it is or not is to discover whether it passes the test of moral analysis.
Many individuals and organizations realize that McCrory's decision was immoral. Concerts have been canceled. Businesses have threatened to leave the state. McCrory, being a politician, couldn't ignore the loss of income and passed some window-dressing legislation that is unable to hide the idol behind the smoke screen.
President Obama insists that his decision is in accord with the Golden Rule. Governor McCrory thinks otherwise. I hope I have made it clear why the president is right; I trust I have made it clear why Governor McCrory is wrong as well.
If we all decided to pass gut reactions through the alembics of moral analysis and certify as genuine only those that have successfully passed through the higher analysis, the world would be a much better place. It is not a crime to avoid judging someone before walking a mile in his moccasins; it is not a crime to be impartial; it is not a crime to think.
\\\\
No comments:
Post a Comment