Heroes, Villains, and Toilets

The old cartoons with the heroes in white hats and villains in black hats were pretty much right on the money. Heroes and villains can dress alike, look alike, and even act alike and if not careful, the hero can be lumped in together with the villain. 

The ridiculous bathroom debate is one example of confusing villains and heroes. The first level of absurdity is fairly obvious: all men are not predators and it is misandrist to treat all men as if they were. The second level of absurdity is less obvious: not all women are defenseless victims-in-waiting and to cast women in that light is misogynistic. Beyond this, however, is the least recognized fault in logic: bathroom legislation is hollow and dangerous. A villain bent on predation will not be deterred in his unlawful intent but the hero will respect the laws. In this way, bathroom legislation operates only upon the law-abiding and does nothing to thwart the villain.

In general, heroes and villains share a very specific mental processes. Whereas a villain perceives an opportunity, the hero perceives a danger; where the villain seizes upon circumstance, the hero crusades against victimization. The villain and the hero see the same blind alley as a lair ripe for mugging. And where the villain sees a vulnerable female whom he can attack, the hero sees a vulnerable female whom he can escort. If a law were passed saying that certain streets and sidewalks were restricted exclusively for females, predators would lurk nearby in defiance of the law but heroes would stay clear in obedience to the law. While it is true that such a law would make it easier to spot a male villain among the sea of females, it is also true that predators do not attack groups but instead seek prey that is alone. So while prohibiting men from using those streets and sidewalks does make the predator easier to spot, such a prohibition also isolates the would-be victim from a would-be defender.

Sex-based facility legislation will not keep predators out of women’s facilities because criminals, after all, care nothing for the laws that exist. And sex-based facility legislation ignores the reality of same-sex predators. There are male pedophiles who prey upon boys. There are also females who secretly film other females in bathrooms and locker rooms and sell their videos to pornographers. Sex-based facility legislation does nothing to prevent any of these scenarios.

It must also be recognized that different is not dangerous. An anatomical male who identifies as a female probably just wants to use the toilet and that person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant. Even if that transfemale is attracted to females, so are lesbians, and no one proposes to exclude lesbians from women’s facilities. Similarly, humans are neither more vulnerable nor less vulnerable just because they are using the toilet. The time spent using the toilet accounts for only a very small fraction of the day and females probably spend much more time in other, more vulnerable situations on any given day than they realize.

In summary, regulating facility usage based on sex does nothing to deter predators, but it does cut the innocent off from would-be heroes, and probably makes everyone (especially children) more vulnerable and less safe.

Leave a Reply