Just when you think attempts by liberals to force unisex restrooms and showers on Houstonians couldn’t get stranger, aka the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, along comes Pulitzer prize winning Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg. In her latest screed against conservatives, Anti-ordinance campaign’s scare tactics need to be flushed, she proudly proclaims that conservatives are cleaner.
A personal question today: How do you feel about public restrooms?
Do you see them as useful facilities whose benefits far outweigh the occasional untidiness?
Or, are you so disgusted by public restrooms that you avoid them at all costs, entering only in the case of an emergency, and then, only with pinched nose and value-sized pump of anti-bacterial lotion?
Your answer may reveal something about your politics, according to Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. The more grossed out you are by public restrooms, the more conservative you are likely to be – and vice versa.
(Read Anti-ordinance campaign’s scare tactics need to be flushed on HoustonChronicle.com)
Now, most of us already knew that but it was nice of her to point it out. I mean, just drive through a “red” area and then a “blue” area and it is quite obvious.
But she left out the most important part of that study.
Disgust – it’s an emotion we experience when we encounter things that are dirty, impure, or otherwise contaminated. From an evolutionary standpoint, experiencing the intense, visceral sense of revulsion that comes with disgust presumably helps us to avoid contaminants that can make us sick or even kill us. But new research suggests that disgust not only helps us to avoid impurities, it may also make us better able to see them.
(Read Feeling Disgust May Enhance Our Ability to Detect Impurities on PsychologicalScience.org)
That’s right. Those of us that are disgusted at uncleanliness have a better ability to discern uncleanliness in the first place.
So let’s think this through. If it is true that conservatives have a better ability to discern disgusting things, and Mrs. Falkenberg thinks it is true, then it follows that we should be the ones pointing out the problems with unisex restrooms and showers. Right?
Perhaps the reason that Mrs. Falkenberg and her friends can’t see the problems with the Houston UNequal Rights Ordinance is that wallowing in filth is simply not a problem in their world.
Jim Henley says
I have seen so pretty disgusting political ads in my day. The restroom ad opposing the equal rights ordinance is by far the most disgusting…..appealing to fear and ignorance…….surprised that this blogger seeks to defend it.
Manuel Barrera says
Since when is the desire for privacy, disgusting?
Mr. Henley, if you are a father would you shower with your teenage daughter?
Mr. Henley, if you are in the bathroom at your house and you have guests, do you lock the door?
The only disgusting thing are the fibs that the supporters of the ordinance 2014-530 aka HERO are spreading.
The ordinance as written allows a man (does not have be a transgender) to enter a woman’s facility such as bathroom, locker room, etc. The man just has to claim that he thinks he is a woman.
I don’t believe that homosexuals deserve to be a protected class. Where is all the evidence of discrimination. If I remember correctly they had hearings on that when the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was passed. http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/Civil-Rights/1964-Essay/
Where is the evidence that the City has produced, when did the hearings occur?
Dave says
I would guess that neither Mr. Jennings nor Mr. Barrera know or have ever met a transgendered person. I would encourage them to educate themselves about transgender issues and then reconsider their arguments. Ignorance is a horrible thing, and drives campaigns such as this. They appear to believe transgendered people are weirdos and freaks, incapable of seeing them as individuals deserving of respect rather than ridicule. The “bathroom” argument is so abhorrent because it preys on ignorance.
If either Mr. Jennings or Mr. Barrera profess to be Christians, I would also encourage them to brush up on Luke 10:25-37.
david jennings says
Dave,
You would be wrong.
BTW, I don’t think that the parable of the Good Samaritan has anything whatsoever to do with an expansion of government or giving some people more rights than others.
DJ
Dave says
David, I’m all for that debate, but the post was about bathrooms. The ads to not challenge HERO as an expansion of government or that it might infringe on individuals deeply held religious beliefs. No, these ads tell voters that if they vote in favor of of HERO they will subject their wives and daughters to harassment by perverts. Many other cities have adopted similar ordinances — has this been a problem in those cities? If so, have your “Willie Horton” moment about men professing to be transgendered as an excuse to spy on women in public bathrooms. If not, stick to the issues, keep it dignified and don’t subject the transgendered to more harassment and ridicule.
The Good Samaritan reference was a reminder that Jesus preached that it is most important that we love our neighbors AS OURSELVES, which means that we treat them with the same dignity and respect we think we deserve ourselves, including those LGBT community.
So you know transgendered people?
david jennings says
Dave,
Yes, of course I do. I am a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, Houston chapter. I disagree with them on this issue.
The ads are not misleading, they are factual. I don’t want my wife or daughters to have fewer rights than someone gender confused. Sorry if that isn’t politically correct but it is my position.
You and others like to say that no perverts have been prosecuted in other cities with somewhat similar ordinances. Well, that sorta states the obvious doesn’t it?
And where are the reports of transgendered people getting beaten up for peeing in the restroom that they appear to be eligible for? There are none. This law is about forced acceptance of trans people, not good public policy.
And I suspect that you know that.
DJ
Manuel Barrera says
Where did I say transgender? One does not have to be transgender, one only has be gender confused. Are all gender confused individuals transgender? You seem to be limiting your discussion to one meaning of transgender;
ransgender people experience a mismatch between their gender identity or gender expression and their assigned sex.[1][2][3] Transgender is also an umbrella term,[2] as, in addition to including trans men and trans women whose binary gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (and who are sometimes specifically termed transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition), it may include genderqueer people (whose identities are not exclusively masculine or feminine, but may, for example, be bigender, pangender or agender).[4][5] Other definitions include third-gender people as transgender or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender,[6][7] and infrequently the term is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers.[8] Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
Certainly you are not suggesting that someone may claim to be a woman to enter a woman’s bathroom, locker room, etc.
I agree that ignorance is terrible, let us educate each other. Is a cross dresser, gender confused? Could a voyeur conceive the idea of claiming to be a woman?
Dave do you lock the door when you use the restroom when you have company? If yes, why? It is something called the right to privacy? I do realize that there people that do not act like most persons.
Clyde says
Why are we spending so much time on such a micro minority?. Our City is on the brink od bankruptcy
and our streets are a complete disaster. Most people don’t even know a transgender person and why
should any micro minorty have more rights than the individual?
“the Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those that deny individual rights cannot cliam to be
defenders of minorities” Ayn Rand
Jeff Larson says
There are two separate issues here. Part of why there is so much ill-feeling on this subject is because parties on both sides are deliberately confusing and conflating the two issues.
The first issue is the HERO ordinance and its expansion of government. I oppose the ordinance for that reason. Not only does it infringe on the rights of business owners to free association, but it actually empowers the city of Houston to sue those business owners on behalf of people who wish to do business against the will of those owners. My reading of the ordinance is that as it stands, a baker who refuses to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding can and will be sued by the city. That’s an unnecessary intrusion of government into the private sphere. I sympathize with my same-sex friends, but guys, there are other businesses out there that will serve you. Where you go for goods and services should not be grounds for the city to sue.
The second issue is that of transsexuals and bathrooms. This really, really should be a non-issue. It is currently the policy of the HPD to not ticket any bona-fide transsexual using the “wrong” restroom so long as they are not doing anything to cause a disturbance. This was their policy before the HERO ordinance, and will still be the policy of the HERO ordinance is repealed. They can and still will ticket or arrest if any improper conduct occurs (beyond merely being present and using the facilities for what they were intended). Transsexuals have been using the “wrong” restrooms for years in Houston now, with few problems. And nothing in the ordinance allows a non-bona fide transsexual to pose as a transsexual in order to ogle a person of the other gender using the restrooms.
The stats about transsexuals and improper activity in restrooms indicate that this is very nearly a non-existent problem. Transsexuals in general are rare (there are fewer than 10,000 transsexuals in all of Texas, with a population of 26 million). Moreover, the restroom problem doesn’t occur until a transsexual reaches the point where their mental health practitioner advises them to live full-time as their preferred gender. Full time means full time – they don’t get to “stop being a transsexual” when nature calls.
You are either going to have people who appear to be women but who have Adam’s apples using the women’s restroom, or you are going to have people with breasts and wearing dresses and heels using the men’s restroom. There simply isn’t any middle ground on this, unless you want to require all businesses to install unisex bathrooms, which is something I don’t support. I’d suggest everyone just educate themselves about the reality of this situation before they continue to spew what comes across to many as hateful rhetoric.
And, as someone who opposes the HERO ordinance, I really don’t like being lumped in with people who are indistinguishable from being bigots. I’m not a libertarian and I don’t profess to being one, but when I hear people like Jared Woodfill say things like, “See, even the libertarians agree with us!”, all I can think is that they may be against the Hero ordinance, but no, Mr. Woodfill, they don’t agree with you.
Manuel Barrera says
Mr. Larson are you suggesting that only Transgender person would consider going into a woman’s bathroom? Why do they suggest you lock your car and not leave the keys in the ignition?
There is also a question of a concept called privacy, or the expectation of privacy (not to have person that is of the opposite sex not showering in the same shower).
Paul Kubosh says
Jeff,
My friend. It isn’t the transgender people that I fear in the bathroom. It is the sexual predator that uses the ordinance as a tool to get into the bathroom, shower etc. As far as statistics are concerned I am pretty sure that H.P.D. doesn’t keep statistics on the reasons why these predators were found in the bathroom.
My experience with the criminal crowd leads me to believe that predators will use this ordinance as a tool.
It is not the transexuals or the Caitlyn Jenners of the world that I am worried about.
Hope all is well with you old friend.
Jeff Larson says
Paul, to me, arguing that we should persecute transsexuals because fakers will try to take advantage of laws intended to protect them is about like arguing that we shouldn’t provide programs for the disabled because fakers will try to use them to freeload. How about we treat those who are afflicted as human beings, and throw the fakers and cheats in jail?
Manuel Barrera says
Mr. Larson are you saying, that transsexuals are being persecuted? Where is the proof? So every city and town that does not an ERO is persecuting transsexuals. There is no logic and certainly no proof that it is occurring in Houston, Texas.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3137307/Transsexual-gay-friend-set-Syria-join-ISIS-say-persecuted-family-Russian-village.html
Paul Kubosh says
Jeff,
I am not arguing that we should persecute transexuals. Not at all.