Recently,
the topics of gender and restrooms came up where I work during some required
“diversity training” sponsored by our Human Resources department and the
companies’ legal team—I was inclined to call some parts of it the “comply or be
punished training”.
There
are currently no transgender employees in the building I work in (that I know of), but as a
policy our company will allow any such individuals to use whatever restroom they
best identify with. One of the presenters said something to the effect of “Just
deal with it. You’ll have your own private stall anyway”. I thought, “Why can't
the transgender individual just deal with it (“it” being the restroom that best
matches their body)? They’ll have their own private stall anyway.”
The
situation reminded me of a book called Ten Universal Principals; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues by Fr. Robert
Spitzer and how the first three principals can be used on just about any topic.
Regardless of the situation, some things can be universal to any thinking
process and can proceed without invoking any specific belief system. The first
three principals are the “Principles of Reason,” and they underscore the
universality of rational thought.
The Principle of Non-Contradiction (Plato &
Aristotle)
Valid opinions or
theories have no internal contradictions.1
If
I said I was a married bachelor and we were clear on the meaning of “married”
and “bachelor”, then a married bachelor is an internal contradiction. There
would be no need for you to investigate my life to see if my claim was true or
false. It would be the same situation if I said I could draw a square-shaped
circle. If we are clear on the definition of these shapes, then we know that
drawing a square-shaped circle is not possible. No further probing required.
So
if I’m a man, saying I’m a woman and using the ladies room
would enter into the realm of contradiction, right? Not really; if we simply change
the definition of gender to exclude (or make subordinate) any physical aspect
of the human body, we can avoid this embarrassing conundrum. But don’t
definitions need to make sense to be accepted as true? No; consider pro-choice
thinking. If we can accept that a person in his or her first stage of life
ought to be lawfully referred to as a “non-person”, we’ll accept any incoherency
about the human condition.
The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato &
Aristotle)
Non-arbitrary
opinions or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence.2
Data
accessible only to you is subjective. Data accessible to everyone is objective.
If I say I’m a man, what objective and publicly verifiable evidence can I show
to support my theory? There is genetic data, hormone data, size/shape and also
physical body parts that can be publicly verified…hopefully in a way that will
not violate public nudity laws. But here again, it comes down to “definitions”.
Words are important! Revenant data cannot be sorted from irrelevant data
without first defining categories clearly. If gender is defined as primarily existing
“between the ears”, then a note from my psychologist saying that I truly
believe I’m a woman may suffice to comply with this second principle of reason.
The Principle of Complete Explanation (Socrates,
Plato & Aristotle)
The best opinion or
theory is the one that explains the most data.3
Are all opinions equally valid? No, some are more valid
than others. If my explanation is better than your explanation, it is more
valid. Simply put, “better” means being able to explain the most facts using
the fewest and simplest assumptions. I would argue that a restroom is a physical place in which we do physical acts, ergo the restroom we choose
should best match our physical bodies.
If this is coherent, then there should be a certain universality about it. If I
go to the gym (physical place) for a workout (physical acts) the equipment I
choose should match, or be adjusted to match, my physical body.
Of course, if not for the urinals all the restrooms would
be physically the same, but such is not the case where I work and in most
places. Even if they were the same or if a person had a full sex-change operation, reflect upon explaining who we are based on
whatever we self-identify with in terms of public policy.
The philosophy that says “I think, therefore I am” makes
the reality of our being dependent upon our mind. If my mind determines my
being, then the old saying follows that “perception is reality”. If this is true,
then there should be a certain universality about it. If I think I am a cat,
then I am a cat. But who thinks that?
Let’s be practical; if a Caucasian man was raised by African Americans in an
African American community and he also self-identifies as an African America,
then this is the reality. He is an African
American and should have access to any and all affirmative action benefits. Agreed?
Always remember that perception is not reality; it only informs our response to reality.
In God we
trust…all others bring “data”.
1. Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), p. 11.
2. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 14.
3. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 9.