The Curmudgeon’s Bathroom Bill

The subject of bathrooms is once again in the news. This is relevant to the concerns of this humble blog because legal battles over bathrooms are almost always an obsession of creationists.

A good example comes to us from Texas. In the Washington Times we read: Texas Republicans propose bathroom bill deemed discriminatory by trans activists. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Legislation proposed Thursday in the Texas Senate would trump local anti-discrimination ordinances by giving private business the right to prohibit transgender customers from using the restroom of their choice. A so-called “bathroom bill” floated by Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst would prohibit local municipalities from establishing restroom and locker room policies for private businesses, effectively nullifying trans-inclusive nondiscrimination laws already on the books in several of its largest cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio.

What else does the bill provide? We’re told:

Additionally the law would require the state’s school districts and political subdivisions to adopt new policies that would regulate access to those same facilities based on an individual’s biological sex instead of their preferred gender.

The bill has powerful support:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a conservative Republican and president of the Texas Senate, previously said he’d make it a “top priority” to work such a bill through the state legislature once lawmakers begin meeting Jan. 10. Praising Ms. Kolkhorst’s proposal Thursday, Mr. Patrick said her offering was anything but an attempt to discriminate against transgender persons, contrary to claims raised by the bill’s critics. “This issue is not about discrimination — it’s about public safety, protecting businesses and common sense,” he said in a statement.

Okay, enough of that. What we want to do is offer the Curmudgeon’s solution to these vexing bathroom problems. Our approach to the issue is revolutionary, and it should solve all problems This is what we propose:

First, we need bathrooms to be separated by function. What is being done in a bathroom is far more important than one’s gender. Those who need to do only one simple thing should not be herded into the presence of those who are doing more.

To be specific, there should be a bathroom for Number One. A separate bathroom should be provided for those needing to perform Number Two. And a third bathroom must be provided for — shall we say — activities related to menses.

That’s three bathrooms based on clearly defined function, instead of the traditional two based on what some claim to be arbitrary gender categories. Additionally, in each of the three, there should be a separate section accessible by those who consent to voyeurism — the “Voyeur Okay” zone.

Our plan should satisfy everyone and offend no one. We recommend it to all legislators who have nothing better to do than worry about such matters. Once again, your Curmudgeon has solved one of society’s most urgent problems.

[*We humbly acknowledge your applause.*]

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

30 responses to “The Curmudgeon’s Bathroom Bill

  1. I can hardly wait until a child born a biological girl (sort kinda) but identifies as a male and dresses like one goes into a girl’s bathroom in Texas. We should be able to hear the conservative’s heads exploding from here.

  2. Our Curmudgeon includes in his brilliant solution provision for

    a separate section accessible by those who consent to voyeurism — the “Voyeur Okay” zone.

    But surely the Creationists, who have all of our best interests at heart, don’t install hidden cameras because they are weird and twisted voyeurs, but only to ensure that no transgender folk are violating local legislation!

  3. It’s not a bad proposal, except that there are people identified as male on their driver’s license who go through menses every month – they’d still be a problem for people who think it’s their business to make them a problem.

  4. michaelfugate

    What one needs are separate small rooms each with only a toilet – I have seen these at many parks – and a communal hand washing area. This would easily solve the problem. If one wants to put a waterless urinal in each room too – so be it – saves water. This also solves the problem of closing the whole place for cleaning.

  5. I think all businesses should put Port-a-Johns in the parking lot and arrange for them to be pumped onto the lawn of the nearest politician. Not only will this eliminate the need for these laws, but the lawns of those politicos will be the greenest in the area.

  6. Dear SC, you clearly have never been to a public toilet in Belgium, where urinals, toilets and bidets are all, well, in the same room

  7. Now if only we could flush the Siscovery Institute and all its hacks and quacks down the toilet . . . !

  8. Great idea, Curmy, but let’s make it even simpler — do away with restrooms altogether, and just squat or find a tree as needed. Tried and true for over 50,000 years. (Make that 6,000 years if you’re Ken Ham reading this — wouldn’t want to offend anyone’s sensibilities.) Our maybe we could just hang a “Universal Restroom” sign above the doors to the Texas State Legislature Hall.

    Seriously, though — how do these clowns think these laws can be enforced? Will we have to carry our birth certificates wherever we go, so we can go?

    Steve Ruis nailed it. Even better — do an “age progression” on that little girl so that now we’re looking at a person who by all outward appearances is a 25-year-old man — full beard, deep voice, hormone-enhanced muscles — but is, in reality, a person with XX chromosomes instead of XY. Imagine the chaos that ensues when she (now he) saunters into a crowded women’s restroom.

    I really don’t think these legislators have thought this through.

  9. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says…

    “This issue is not about discrimination — it’s about public safety, protecting businesses and common sense,”

    Of course not. This explains why there are several anti-transgender bills regarding bathroom use being considered, written, or offered for legislative action aimed at people who have committed no crimes, and why there are exactly zero bills being considered, written, or offered for legislative action that concern the public bathroom use of actual convicted sex offenders. None. Nada. Zip.

    But this is all about safety and protection.

  10. Too bad. I was hoping to get The Silent Curmudgeon’s brilliant take on ENV’s interview with the Israeli scientist. Instead we’re treated to his version of the Bathroom Bill. Oh well.

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    Whatever happened to the “Truth in Packaging” lobby? There is surely something sinister going on with these Republicans fomenting their Public Bathroom Bill Legislation. They assuredly have absolutely no intention to provide a “bathroom” in which an honest citizen can partake of an actual bath.

  12. Like a bad penny, KevinC is back–and sounding even more like a broken record than ever:

    I was hoping to get The Silent Curmudgeon’s brilliant take on ENV’s interview with the Israeli scientist.

    And to think I had given up ‘hope’ of your reappearing after you ran away from the last thread on which you posted — for the understandable reason that you had merely repeated DI falsehoods that were readily exposed.

    Give up it, mate: all you ever manage to do is demonstrate what an obnoxious and close-minded jerk you are. We got that. No need to underline the point further, least of all by attempting to highlight a bit of fluff from the Disco’Tute from a supposed ‘scientist; who “asked that his identity be kept in confidence” and gives such a paradigm-busting responses such as

    Q: How did a designer do it [design lipids]?

    A: Let me be very clear. I have no idea. Okay? I honestly don’t know. And I don’t lose sleep at night because I don’t know how the designer designed it.

    There’s as little there as there is between your ears, methinks…

  13. Megalonyx, I apologize for leaving your special needs out of my Bathroom Bill. You’ll have to continue using that portable tree branch you carry around with you, suspend it above the partitions of a stall in the Number Two chamber, and swing from it as you do what you do.

  14. michaelfugate

    What specifically about the anonymous individual’s personal incredulity about lipids and cell membranes made you wet your pants in excitement, KevinC?

    Was it that the person didn’t understand something and automatically attributed that something to God – something any 5 year old can do?

  15. A: Let me be very clear. I have no idea. Okay? I honestly don’t know. And I don’t lose sleep at night because I don’t know how the designer designed it.

    Pretty close to what Seth Shostak would say if he were asked how the narrow-band whistle was broadcast once it was acquired. Yeah, I’m loving SETI.

    If you want to believe I ran away then you go right ahead, mate. I just didn’t think your last tirade required a response. I’m more than happy to continue the conversation. In fact, I have quite a bit to say about this lame response of yours.

  16. Oh yeah, I’d also be happy to school you on the finer points of irreducible complexity if you’d like since you obviously haven’t a clue.

  17. Please school us on the finer points of “No Darwin, No Hitler” while you’re at it.

  18. Hey, KevinC, can you give us an update on Anne Gauger’s research on if we’re all really descended from Adam and Eve, too? I’m sure everyone would love to hear it.

  19. Are all living things irreducibly complex, or just some things?

    Are there things that intelligent design proponents agree definitely aren’t irreducibly complex? How was that figured out?

    Are there non-living things found in nature that are irreducibly complex?

  20. KevinC continues to wriggle:

    I just didn’t think your last tirade required a response.

    What was required is very simple: citations to back up your as yet unevidenced assertion:

    The Darwinist narrative has always been: T3SS first and then the flagellum evolved from that.

    Until you can substantiate that claim, there is no “conversation” to continue on the grounds you’re just blowing smoke out of your rear end

  21. Our Curmudgeon advises me:

    You’ll have to continue using that portable tree branch you carry around with you

    That’s not a ‘portable tree branch’, it’s a sacred θύρσος which Olivia and I employ in our private bacchanalian rites of oogity-boogity…

  22. Ceteris Paribus

    Um, right about here might be a good place for a blockquote interlude. Consider for example this from Mark Twain:

    “We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it and stop there lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.”

  23. Hours after KevinC complains about no response to a recent ENV post, he says “I just didn’t think your last tirade required a response.”

    LOL. Hypocrisy, thy name is KevinC.

  24. Speaking of “look who returned like a bad penny,” I was reminded to suggest to SC that the Bathroom Bill include a clause to have the toilets fitted with backflow preventer valves to keep the smaller more obnoxious bits from flouncing back.

  25. Hey, KevinC —

    If the Grand Old Designer actually did design everything, are you saying He/She/It did it all in one fell swoop, or nearly all at the same time, like say, over six days?

    If so, that just doesn’t jibe with the fossil record, which clearly shows life forms changing from simple to more complex forms over a vast period of time. No rational person can argue otherwise.

    So, The One Fell Swoop argument doesn’t hold. Thus, your argument would have to be that the G.O.D. did all the designing in little bits and pieces, making it look exactly as if it were caused instead by natural selection. But why should the G.O.D. waste all that time? Why not just go ahead and put it all together on Earth at the same time?

    Random genetic mutation, then fine-tuned by natural selection, seems to answer all the questions without having to resort to “…and then a miracle occurs.”

  26. @retiredsciguy
    I am not a scientist, but I think that the history of evolution does not show a uniform direction of change, such as from simple to more complex. And I don’t think that all questions can be answered with random genetic mutation with natural selection. There are other mechanisms involved.

  27. michaelfugate

    How is saying something is irreducibly complex any different from saying God did it?

  28. @michaelfugate
    If something is not irreducibly complex does that mean that God did not do it?

  29. michaelfugate

    Who knows? I can’t make heads nor tails of what the DI thinks.

  30. Intelligent Design theorists would first have to identify a “certain feature” that is not irreducibly complex.