Does transgender bathroom policy enable predators?

The center of the question here, in my view, is the simple question of whether the nation’s 843000 people on Megan’s List (and a million or so others that should be on it if their deeds were known) would be more likely to go into the ladies’ room if they knew they wouldn’t be thrown out simply for being male/the wrong sex. In my mind, the question is to what degree there will be problems, not whether there will be.

And then you balance that…maybe…with the possibility that transgenders will be less likely to “self-harm” (e.g. take their own lives) if they’re allowed in these places. Given that the data I’ve seen indicates our psychological profession has little clue how to treat them—post-reassignment, they’re about as likely to take their own lives as pre-op—good luck getting decent numbers on this one.

it is unlikely that so-called transgenders are a physical threat, and it is true that sex offenders could pose some risk by lying about their “orientation”, but this isn’t the real issue

the real issue is that so-called transgenders are perverts practicing abominable behaviour. They should not be allowed to parade their perversion in public (or anywhere else, really).

Reducing the debate to public safety concerns is setting the side of right up for defeat. The public safety risk, while somewhat real, is relatively small and very debatable. Arguing from that standpoint will lose the debate, it seems to me.

I agree that that might be the core issue, Don, but I don’t believe it’s a “winning” issue in this debate as far as the general public is concerned. I think the general public has some measure of sympathy for true transgenders which they view as weird but…hey, to each his (her!) own. But even the most liberal-minded person who is a parent of young girls sees the danger involved here (see article below). So I think the public safety angle is actually the winning argument.

http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroo…

I think it is very naive for the Obama administration to issue this type of a mandate for all parties involved. We have moved so fast with this decision that we haven’t really thought about the issues. I agree with the Time article that not all bathrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms are created equal. They have all been built around a certain paradigm. When he abruptly change the paradigm without thinking through the model, we bring up a whole host of issues for both sides of this discussion that should be discussed and thought through, not just swept under the rug. I also think that we need to have more discussion around definitions as well, so that this clear.

[Greg Long]

I agree that that might be the core issue, Don, but I don’t believe it’s a “winning” issue in this debate as far as the general public is concerned. I think the general public has some measure of sympathy for true transgenders which they view as weird but…hey, to each his (her!) own. But even the most liberal-minded person who is a parent of young girls sees the danger involved here (see article below). So I think the public safety angle is actually the winning argument.

http://time.com/4324687/even-in-liberal-communities-transgender-bathroom…

Quite frankly, I think that we will lose this debate, no matter what argument is used. In Canada, our government has introduced legislation for this, I think yesterday, that will be the law of the land in short order.

But my point is that Christians need to start being salt and light and quit trying to be pragmatists. (I say “trying” because even our “pragmatism” isn’t working - it’s only pragmatic if it works.)

Can you imagine Jeremiah or Amos mincing around about what to say about transgenders?

Don said:

the real issue is that so-called transgenders are perverts practicing abominable behaviour. They should not be allowed to parade their perversion in public (or anywhere else, really).

How can we implement this policy? Should we ban perverts (transgenders, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, adulterers, etc.) from revealing their identity?

Did Paul champion this view in Corinth or Athens?

I’m certainly not suggesting we fail to call sin sin, if someone could interpret my comments as such.

[Ron Bean]

.

How can we implement this policy? Should we ban perverts (transgenders, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, adulterers, etc.) from revealing their identity?

Did Paul champion this view in Corinth or Athens?

he didn’t flinch from naming the perversion for what it was: 1 Cor 6.9. Yes, he offered the grace of the gospel, and we should too, but not by mincing words that are unwilling to rebuke wickedness