A Brief Word About the Incoherence of Transgender Locker Room Policy
My opposition to, for example, a boy in a girls’ locker room is not based on fear that he may rape them—though that, of course, is a possibility.
Rather, my opposition emerges from the fact that physical embodiment per se has meaning. The fact that a gender-rejecting boy IS a boy has meaning for both him and the girls whose privacy he seeks to invade.
Privacy and modesty about one’s body and intimate bodily activities are related to one’s physical embodiment (i.e., one’s maleness and femaleness), which is why we have separate restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms. We separate those areas by objective biological sex—not by subjective wishes about one’s objective biological sex.
When a gender-dysphoric boy demands to use the girls’ facilities, he is at once acknowledging the importance of privacy and modesty, which derive from physical embodiment (i.e., maleness or femaleness), and at the same time and incoherently denying the importance of privacy and modesty for the girls whose privacy he seeks to invade.
Not deep desire; cross-dressing; name-changes; puberty-blockers; cross-sex hormone-doping; universal compulsory misuse of pronouns; or even mutilating surgeries can turn a boy into girl. And both privacy and modesty, which derive from immutable, meaningful differences in physical embodiment, must be respected.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com