Last week, a Technician article referred to the ongoing bathroom controversy. At first glance, I thought, “Have we been reduced to arguing about bathrooms?” However, I’ve concluded that it’s actually a very valuable subject of debate.
The article discusses how the law outright prohibits trans people from using certain bathrooms. A bill, ironically named House Bill 2, is said to strike down local discrimination laws and replace them with its own version which actually discriminates against trans people. It is, however, important to note that discrimination laws are attempts by government to force social change with threats of imprisonment, like how Charlotte forces businesses to serve LGBT events. With that said, I condemn positive laws in general because of their propensity to initiate the use of violence against otherwise-peaceful people.
But this sword cuts both ways. House Bill 2 restricts the decisions of a certain group of people by the coercive power of the state. If I argue that business owners should be allowed to deny service to any person they wish for any reason at any time because they are individuals exercising their capacity for self-determination, self-ownership and moral agency, I must also argue that it should be legally permissible for any person to use any bathroom for the same reason. Personal liberty must be preserved for all people as long as they are not harming others.
There are issues of privacy and potential perverts of all genders; however, I generally trust individuals to handle these on a case-by-case basis. We can leave law and government out of the bathroom. Just let societal norms take care of it, and if you don’t like societal norms, work to change them without using laws.
Trans people aren’t hurting anyone by using any particular bathroom. Applying this sentiment to other issues is relatively simple: property owners aren’t hurting anyone by denying use of their property, a smoker isn’t hurting anyone by smoking marijuana, dancers aren’t hurting anyone by dancing in the Jefferson Memorial and a gun owner isn’t hurting anyone by carrying a firearm for self-defense.
Ideological consistency when defending individual liberty means standing up for everyone who wants to act peacefully but is prohibited from doing so by law. All the actions listed above should be legal (though perhaps socially frowned upon) because they are peaceful, non-fraudulent actions without victims. If we wish to protect the free choice of trans people to use the bathroom of the designated sex with which they identify on the grounds that their ability to choose how to live their lives must be preserved, we must apply this same principle to all people for the sakes of impartiality, universality and equality of liberty.
The potty politics of bathroom access are surprisingly important because they are the result of government coercion in the private lives of individuals. However, it is also important that we realize the common ground. If you support the free choice of people to use bathrooms at their discretion despite intrusive laws, you may be a defender of self-determination. If you support the free choice of people to use drugs even if you think it’s a poor life decision, you may care about self-ownership. If you support the free choice of people to work freely, express themselves or speak their minds, you may be a lover of liberty.
Advocating for the decisions of one group on the grounds of preserving their freedom of choice and individual liberty pushes us to recognize the similarities between this issue and others. The threats of violence and imprisonment provided by the laws of the state naturally infringe upon the abilities of people to exercise their own moral agency and self-ownership. I think this is something with which people on all sides can agree and find common ground. Try asking yourself if you value your ability to peacefully, act as you wish over the state’s ability to restrict your actions. If you do, you may then ask yourself if you are willing to extend your value of personal liberty to the peaceful actions of others. If you are, we can agree that both House Bill 2 and the Charlotte ordinance are immoral for similar reasons, and we can work together to denounce other attacks on individual freedoms.
