The 'conservative' case for gender-free bathrooms

At National Review Online, Josh Gelernter has made a strong libertarian case for inviting transgendered men into women's restrooms, but curiously not for showers.  Why not, if one trusts the libertarian case and the neutrality of transgendered males?

He writes that predators already have access to private spaces.

Unfortunately, the door is already open to child predators. So long as there are public bathrooms, bad people will use them (if for no other reason than evacuation). If child predators using your kids’ bathroom is your concern, you should be worrying about the male predators in the boys’ bathroom right now, not the male predators who might claim to be transgendered to get into the girls’ bathroom. (Or vice versa.)

It is true that male homosexual child predators already have access to boys in the men's rooms, and therefore...what?  We should grant heterosexual child predators easy access to girls in the women's rooms?  Many teenage boys, especially ones that play football, can fight off a husky predator, while girls simply don't have the strength (that's why we separate or should separate boys from girls in high school sports). 

Mr. Gelernter goes on to says that "it is a fundamental position of American conservatism that you don’t penalize innocent people in anticipation of criminal activity." I'm not sure which brand of conservatism Mr. Gelernter is familiar with, but we have rules like separate showers to protect women's privacy and safety, in part to prevent a crime from happening, like a rape.  Once again, males are stronger than females, which is why the Olympic Committee keeps them separate in top-level competition.  How many times have we heard that it's better to be safe than sorry?  That's simple common sense, on which conservatism should be based.

The final point is that Mr. Gelernter's brand of conservatism would alienate millions of social values conservatives, especially Evangelicals.  And though winning elections isn't everything, it surely is important in implementing a party's policies. Without Evangelicals, Trump would never have won. 

It's best to keep the sexes separate, even the ones who have switched somehow, though it is a sad prediction that over the decades Mr. Gelernter's brand of care-free, anything-goes conservatism and the left will probably win – another sign of culture rot.

James Arlandson's website is Live as Free People, where he has posted The battle between gender ideology and fact, Mississippi's non-discrimination law, and The GOP is on a national losing streak.

At National Review Online, Josh Gelernter has made a strong libertarian case for inviting transgendered men into women's restrooms, but curiously not for showers.  Why not, if one trusts the libertarian case and the neutrality of transgendered males?

He writes that predators already have access to private spaces.

Unfortunately, the door is already open to child predators. So long as there are public bathrooms, bad people will use them (if for no other reason than evacuation). If child predators using your kids’ bathroom is your concern, you should be worrying about the male predators in the boys’ bathroom right now, not the male predators who might claim to be transgendered to get into the girls’ bathroom. (Or vice versa.)

It is true that male homosexual child predators already have access to boys in the men's rooms, and therefore...what?  We should grant heterosexual child predators easy access to girls in the women's rooms?  Many teenage boys, especially ones that play football, can fight off a husky predator, while girls simply don't have the strength (that's why we separate or should separate boys from girls in high school sports). 

Mr. Gelernter goes on to says that "it is a fundamental position of American conservatism that you don’t penalize innocent people in anticipation of criminal activity." I'm not sure which brand of conservatism Mr. Gelernter is familiar with, but we have rules like separate showers to protect women's privacy and safety, in part to prevent a crime from happening, like a rape.  Once again, males are stronger than females, which is why the Olympic Committee keeps them separate in top-level competition.  How many times have we heard that it's better to be safe than sorry?  That's simple common sense, on which conservatism should be based.

The final point is that Mr. Gelernter's brand of conservatism would alienate millions of social values conservatives, especially Evangelicals.  And though winning elections isn't everything, it surely is important in implementing a party's policies. Without Evangelicals, Trump would never have won. 

It's best to keep the sexes separate, even the ones who have switched somehow, though it is a sad prediction that over the decades Mr. Gelernter's brand of care-free, anything-goes conservatism and the left will probably win – another sign of culture rot.

James Arlandson's website is Live as Free People, where he has posted The battle between gender ideology and fact, Mississippi's non-discrimination law, and The GOP is on a national losing streak.