I’m reading an apology piece by a certain Josephine Zhao running for the Board of Education in San Francisco in Q3 of 2018. She apologizes for having opposed bathroom access by self identified sex instead of birth sex. She apologizes for comments made 10 years ago.

I feel, hopefully I’m not sorry for feeling this way in 10 years, that the only equal access is unisex bathroom where each user had a private stall.

Come, let’s think back to our teenager years, these people are legally not responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. They can’t drive and they can’t own guns. These kids are not equal citizens of our society as adults. They should absolutely not be allowed to declare a sex and use bathroom based on those prepubescent declarations. Sex is foremost about procreation, that is an evolutionarily important mechanism in our biologies. Growth and maturity is also built into our society. As they grow, they are not completely grown and sexually mature. They should NOT be allowed to make that declaration just as they are not allowed to have sex, to make babies, or even to have sexual contact–on generally agreed-upon principles of our society.

I might be a dumbass not keeping up with progressive movement, but shouldn’t we keep these social experiments out of schools?

Leave our kids alone.

And if you absolutely must, as part of your being, that you must pee and poo with a person of a different birth sex than your own, let us have unisex bathrooms. That way, all are equal.

.

.

.

Expanding upon this, both as support for this concern and as a sanity check protocol for myself. One of the conservative concern is that sexual identification is disallowed. When I went to public school in Pennsylvania I’m the 1990’s, the written policy is that PDA is forbidden on school grounds. PDA meaning personal digital assistant, or rather public display of affection. I didn’t turn out that well socially and dating, possibly as a result of the stringent bible-belt highschool policy. But the concern, as I understand it, is that self-identifying as a non-physical sex, above all else, displays sex in public. The identification and the visitation of a differently sexed bathroom is an act displaying ones sex. The conservative fear is that this act of sexual display has bad effects on young adults–the same way we think public kissing by students, another display of sexuality, may have bad effects on kids.

(Actually, I guess it can be put more plainly, that additionally, kids may perceive LGBTQ status as a desirable and beneficial social status to achieve, seeing that LGBTQ person’s have apparently more freedom that themselves. The fear is that kids may seek LGBTQ status for the perks and not for their nature)

One inconvenience, beyond stirring of thoughts, at sight of oppositely gendered gentalia by non-LGBTQ users of bathroom, is that of arousal. Boys, when they see girl parts, have physical reactions, and possibly vice versa.

At least I hope so.

The oppression of ones physical body is certainly just as great, I believe it may be, that Gay boys may have same rousing reaction to sight of other boys. I guess the progressive idea is that Gay boys being human deserve same level of physical comfort and convenience as other humans.

I do not deny that. I probably would support Gay boys getting immediate special treatment wrt traditional bathroom rules if I’ve observed these problems–but I am not a bat or voyeur. So far, my surroundings have been exceptionally civilized. Especially considering the hoopla everywhere, the bathrooms I’ve been to have been exceptionally peaceful and asexual. And I pray they remain so.

This is obviously not a situation where Vulcanic logic maybe brought to bear. The needs of many does not out weight the needs of the few. In fact precious school resources are devoted to facilitating the few. This is also a case thst leads me to question Rawlsian difference principle. I cannot agree to improvement of the worst off in this case.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that if we do this, let’s do it right. Unisex bathroom is large bathroom containing private stalls. Each person urinating or defacating shall enter one, lock it, use, clean and exit their own stall. Other less sensitive facilities are shared in the bathroom outside of stalls. These include sink, soap, mirror, drying machines or paper or towels, and amenities such as deoderizer, moisturizer, should be shared equally between all sexes. I would add famine napkins may be sold next to athlete’s feet treatment and cloth repair kits, not on equality basis but on convenience basis, for the improvement of bathrooms and society’s total utility derived from visiting bathrooms.

Such a bathroom removes the unintentional sexual display by hiding everyone’s sex organs. It removes the unintentional arousal by others, again by hiding sex organs. I appologize now to all the people who have worked for more open and transparent sexual society that all I can think of is to hide it more. Don’t ask, don’t tell, just close the stall door.

Additionally, one possible intermediate step I’d to make all bathrooms unisex but still display men/women signs. By default, women visit women bathrooms and men visit men bathrooms. But they may ross over as needed. This reduces the opportunity for real heterosexual sexual harrasment, but admittedly it diminishes the obfuscation of sexual preference.

To protect students’ safety, cameras may be installed in the public areas of the bathroom to monitor for any offensive or inappropriate activity. The stalls shall remain private.

I reject all other arrangements, unisex bathroom, to me, today, is the only fair and equitable way to facilitate LBGTQ population.