Glass in hand, Noah is holding forth. Much of what he is saying is accurate – in vino veritas, and all that – but his tone is bombastic and, I fear, the message is bombing. Our friends join us for dinner more for our wine collection than the whine connection.
The topic is lavatorial.
“The segregation of public facilities,” he declaims, “is the result of a policy to protect women from the unwanted sexual overtures of lustful, predatory, and potentially violent men. The object is not, or at least not primarily, to preserve the dignity of the weaker sex; quite the contrary, women actually like men to leer at them, which is why they parade up and down our beaches wearing next to nothing.
“What they don’t want is to be accosted by men verbally, molested by them digitally, attacked by them physically, and (God forbid!) raped by them forcibly. Prudishness is not why our Tinkle Belles want the Ladies to themselves – it is self-preservation.”
This is obvious, even banal, and we loudly say as much. Especially vociferous are the female guests, who believe that men should not be telling us what women want. Their objection, I should explain, originates in the battle of the sexes, not in the fact that men have enough trouble telling each other what they want.
“We do not segregate,” Noah continues, “to preserve the safety of men. Men can comfortably protect themselves whenever the need arises; they are strong enough to repel the advances of men and, supposing they are unwanted, rebuff the overtures of women.
“If a woman happens to use the Gentlemen’s, as sometimes happens when their own toilets are hors de combat, the rightful occupants feel no threat whatsoever. If they react at all, it is normally only to give a playful laugh – ha! ha! – or to utter a ribald remark such as ‘check this one out!’” (Regrettably, I am forced to remark, good taste is not going down in the Gentleman’s loo.)
“One-way only”
“In short,” says Noah cheerfully (our cheers, not his), “the prohibition need be one-way only. We will still need to ban men from using women’s facilities, but we’ll have no corresponding need of a ban on women, who will be able to use either facility at will. What this will mean in practice is that we will still reserve a Ladies’ for women, but next to it will be a facility open to all, which can be renamed the Open (golfers, suck it up) but, optics aside, need not be provided by law as we deem the Gents to be generic.”
To ordinary women, Noah explains, this change will matter scarcely a whit. They will continue to use the Ladies when they can, and use the Open only when they must. But to those who are gender-fluid, i.e. men who have transitioned into women, it will be an innovation they should surely embrace. Now they can trip into the Open loo in their high heels, gaze about them with a pout, and, with a sweep of their skirts, use the cubicle as though a Poobah or, if rather more daring, the urinal in an effort to be up the spout. Whatever their agenda, fluid or not, they will now have been accommodated with facility and ease.
“What about the safety of these poor Transing Queens?” a guest asks. Noah has thought about this. “Is there any reason to believe that they are at any greater risk than when parading down the street, wandering around in a public park, or going to a restaurant? Are they at significantly greater risk than a heterosexual man who happens to use a public toilet frequented by gay cottagers?
“As pervy as hell…”
“Supposing the answer to either is yes, should the extra risk created by the choices they make not yield to the risk women run when people born male, who may be as pervy as hell, force their way into a facility to which they claim admission for no better reason than the way they have chosen to dress or the mutilation to which they have chosen to submit.”
Touché.
At this point, I shut dear Noah down (or, perhaps, up) and, with such grace as I could muster, ushered our somnolent guests out into the dark and into their cars. My prayers went with them. The risks they would run in driving home were considerably greater than anything we had been discussing.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend