Gender neutral toilets, but why?

Gender neutral toilets, but why?

by Otto Inglis
article from Tuesday 21, March, 2017

WE HAVE become so inured to political correctness in the public sector that when Glasgow City Council revealed two weeks ago that the three new primary schools that they were building would have gender-neutral or unisex toilets the news passed with barely a shrug.  This lack of reaction, however, should not be confused with support or agreement for boys and girls sharing toilets in these new schools.  It is simply that there have been so many instances over the years of ‘political correctness gone mad’ that it has lost the ability to shock, or inspire resistance.

The idea of gender-neutral toilets is apparently to reduce stigma and mental torment of children being 'forced' to go to one gender's toilet when they identify with believe the other. The result of this policy is, however, that all children are forced to share a toilet at a time in their lives when they can be especially curious, cruel and open to bullying. 

One could expect that with children mixing in toilets there will be a greater opportunity for tormenting, name calling and intimidation. We are after all talking of children varying in age from 5 to 12 still learning social behaviour, the acceptance of rules and at the very least good manners. The majority of the children will at some stage be passing through a time when they become sexually aware, and in some cases sexually active. Should young girls of nine or ten be put in toilets with boys of eleven or twelve? Is the potential for instances of sexual harassment not increased exponentially by this policy? 

I suspect a big part of why the equalocrats get away with these stunts is that nobody takes the trouble to analyse the thinking behind their policies.

Supposedly, the reason for gender-neutral toilets is to avoid discrimination against transgender children.  The first thing that strikes me about this is that transgender people are a small minority.  Put it another way, how many trans-kids are there likely to be in any primary school at one time?  One, two, may be even three?  And yet we are to turn social norms that have a deep basis in human psychology upside down for them.  This is a classic characteristic of PC policies - generously catering for a small minority at the expense of ignoring the rights and interests of the great majority.

In any event, the whole point of being transsexual is that you identify mentally with the other physical sex.  Thus if a person of one physical sex identifies as the other and starts to transition then they are going to expect to use the facilities of the sex they identify with, not unisex facilities.  So it is not the needs or desires of trans-kids that is the driver behind this.  This is another key feature of PC - using a minority as a bogus reason for a policy.

In reality, PC is a utopian mind set.  Each minority is used as cover for destroying some other part of our social reality.  For example, Muslims are used as a pretext for the war against any manifestation of Christianity in our society.  Ironically, the Holy Quran makes more allowance for ‘the peoples of the book’ than PC ever does.

Another curious characteristic of PC is the total lack of consistency both in policies and in rationalisations advanced for them.  You would think that the war against male ‘sexism’ and the obsession with ‘safe spaces’ for oppressed minorities would rule out gender-neutral toilets, but, of course, that assumes some logical consistency in the equalities discourse.

In actual fact, there is an underlying logic to PC but it is not one that its supporters articulate.  Each politically correct policy can best be understood by asking the simple question, who are they trying to do over?  For example, the obsession with getting more women in to university, where they are already the majority, is not about advancing young women, but about harming young men.

Here unisex toilets are not about the desires, interests or rights of tiny numbers of transsexual children, but about waging war on social and biological reality.  When ‘social justice’ types talk about ‘breaking the binary’, the binary that they are referring to is the unfortunate tendency of men to behave as men and women to behave as women, rather than as idealised unisex new people.  This is another characteristic of PC -  attempting to enforce utopian theories against reality.

How do we deal with this?  Treat the very modest number of transsexuals of all ages with compassion, of course.  At the same time, don’t let the social justice warriors use a bogus concern for them to destroy another part of our social reality.  Instead, we should deliver an emphatic ‘No’ to unisex toilets, and call out the PC utopians both for their bogus concern for trans-kids and as the wreckers and saboteurs that they actually are.

 

ThinkScotland exists thanks to readers' support - please donate in any currency and often


Follow us on Facebook and Twitter & like and share this article