{"id":6110,"date":"2016-04-30T23:13:36","date_gmt":"2016-05-01T04:13:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6110"},"modified":"2017-01-04T21:37:54","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T02:37:54","slug":"6110","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/?p=6110","title":{"rendered":"Integrative Complexity In The Public Restroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Philip Tetlock<\/a> is a professor and researcher at the at the University of Pennsylvania, and his specialty is a combination of psychology and political science. One of Tetlock’s noted concepts is called “integrative complexity<\/a>“, which is the degree to which a person’s thinking and reasoning integrates and acknowledges a wide variety of perspectives and possibilities regarding an important issue. Tetlock’s research shows that American politicians whose positions and speeches demonstrate a LOW level of integrative complexity tend to be more successful. I doubt if Donald Trump is included in the research behind Tetlock’s conclusion, but Trump sure does nail the point home!! The fine art of looking for the complex truth and the middle ground in an increasingly complex world is increasingly being disregarded in the way that we now choose our leaders and make our societal decisions.<\/p>\n

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the recent controversy about tran-gender rights especially with regard to use of public rest facilities. I’m going to assume that the reader is familiar with the current situation whereby certain local governments have triggered a political dust-up by responding to demands from LGBT activists that public bathrooms which are designated by sex (i.e., the great majority of restrooms, given that unisex restrooms are a fairly recent social development) be available for use on the basis of psychological identification of sex, and not exclusively upon the user’s biological sex. The recent case in point was in Charlotte NC, which enacted ordinances<\/a> saying that all sexually-designated restrooms in town that are available to the public (whether in a government facility or in a private establishment like a store or restaurant) can be used based on “identity” and not on the biological sex at birth. This would assure that a trans-gendered person would not get into trouble by using the rest room of the sex that they identify with, as opposed to the sex of their birth (and usually the sex of their bodies, barring a sex-reassignment operation, which around 25 to 30 percent<\/a> of transgendered people obtain). <\/p>\n

That move triggered the State of North Carolina to enact a law blocking <\/a>such local actions, and specifying that all sexually assigned public facilities will be used based on sex of birth. Other states<\/a> and towns are now trying to enact similar laws. <\/p>\n

So it looks like the LGBT activists have poked at a political hornets nest. In Houston, a trans-friendly bathroom ordinance was passed by the City Counsel, but negative reaction caused them to put it up on a public referendum<\/a>, and the “gender identity and not sex at birth” bathroom rule thus got flushed (sorry, I couldn’t resist at least one bit of puerile bathroom humor). A lot of people on both sides of this issue have been riled up about it. I see a lot of opinion articles about it on my favorite web sources, and the one thing that they all appear to agree on is that the issue is very simple and there is a clear answer to it. Unfortunately, there is a lot of disagreement over what that simple answer is. <\/p>\n

To liberals, this is a simple matter of human rights, of sweeping away regressive attitudes from the past to redress the wrongs and hurts that society has unfairly and needlessly inflicted on one of it its minority groups. To the more conservative traditionalists, this seems totally absurd — there are darn good social reasons why public restrooms are the way that they are, and if some small minority of people wish to express their sexual identity in a manner that runs counter to what their body says about them, well, they had better make arrangements ahead of time regarding the need to go when out in public (such as adult diapers<\/a> like Depends? Which I will probably be using before too long . . .). Because the potential harm to the general public from eliminating the “sex of the body” rule for public restrooms outweighs the hurt and inconvenience that is experienced by trans-genders when they can’t go into the rest room where they would be more comfortable.<\/p>\n

Hmmmmm. It appears to me that there is a clear lack of integrative complexity on both sides of this controversy. <\/p>\n

In my own search for “IC”, I’m now going to ponder the matters of trans-sexuality and public restrooms. Let’s start with trans-gender people. I must admit that I have just about no experience with anyone who is trans-gender. Many years ago I was a member of a liberal Episcopal church parish, and for a little while there was a middle-aged trans-woman who showed up at the eucharists now and then. She and I never had any occasion to talk, although I recall hearing her say something a few times at a discussion session. To me, she basically looked like a man with longer hair who wore pastel coats and had long painted fingernails. <\/p>\n

There was one other time that a trans-person was “on my radar”, but way at the edge. In my earlier days, I had a listing on a dating web site, and I was listed as a male looking for female companionship (ah yes, looking for love in all the wrong places). One of my respondents (and there weren’t very many) over the handful of years when I used this site (without any luck, as it turned out) seemed a little “funny”. She had a feminine name, but something about her pictures . . . not quite right. She didn’t say much in her note to me, and included sort-of a warning, along that lines of “I’m a lot to put up with”. I decided to Google her identity name (you know, something like “eyesoflove909”), and I found a hit with the same name on a chat site for trans-gendered individuals . . . I decided not to respond.<\/p>\n

Thus, it appeared to me on first blush that trans-genderism is mainly a matter of middle-aged guys dealing with mid-life crises, that it’s mostly a matter of psychology. And the celebrated Bruce to Catlyn Jenner affair didn’t do much to make me see it differently. From that perspective, it seemed difficult for me to develop much empathy and sympathy for the “gender identity” bathroom rule, given that it would allow uncomfortable bathroom situations to occur in the real world of people who sometimes behave poorly or inappropriately or downright nasty (e.g. voyeuristic men who lurk in female restrooms and who can’t be removed once they say that they possess female gender identity; OR a gang of tough young women who want to hang out next to the men’s urinals — the new bathroom ordinances provide no way to determine gender identity outside of what the person says it is, there is no “look the part” rule). Sexually assigned restrooms became a social custom in the past for good reasons, somewhat akin to the modern demands for “safe spaces<\/a>” on college campuses. Men’s and women’s rooms are “safe spaces” for both women AND MEN, physically AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY. Why take the risks of violating that custom and eliminating that “safety” in order to accommodate the wishes of a very small segment of the population who are acting in a way that might be a questionable response to an inner psychological conflict? <\/p>\n

But, in the name of integrative complexity, I decided to dig a bit further. Maybe I’m just not up to speed on trans-genderism. So, I did some research, and I will now share it. An academic demographer estimates that transgender people make up about 0.2 to 0.3 percent<\/a> of the American population. A recent survey of about 3,500 transgender people indicates that about 75% of them were male<\/a> at birth. The median age of survey respondents was about 35 to 37, which is roughly equal to the overall US median age<\/a> of 37.6.<\/p>\n

The prevailing theory among experts regarding the cause of transgender identity used to be psychological and social, but that viewpoint is now rejected<\/a>. Experts now focus on biological causes, given recent studies showing indicating that gender identity is largely set before birth. These causes may involve a mix of genetic factors and the conditions<\/a> in the womb. I.e., while the fetus is developing, gender is influenced at two major stages by hormones from the mother, which are triggered by the genes of the fetus. If the fetus has the XY gene set up, male-oriented hormones trigger the development of a male body; the XX set up triggers hormones that sculpt a female frame. <\/p>\n

At a later stage, another surge of hormones influences the brain’s development; this process is also sexually oriented, male vs female. Usually, the male-oriented brain hormones follow the XY-triggered hormones that set up the male body. But it is possible that something in the mother will occasionally affect this process such that the fetus gains a more typically female brain structure despite having a male body (and vice-versa for female bodies with male brain development). Another possibility is that the fetus will have a condition that makes it less sensitive to developmental hormones, which can also throw the body \/ brain hormone combo out of whack. Some recent brain scanning studies indicate that many transgendered people have a brain structure that is more typical of their identified gender than of their biological birth gender, supporting the natal hormone theory<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Some experts also feel that defects in post-partum bonding and early child rearing<\/a> may be contributing factor to gender identity disorders. However, on-going hormonal balances in the body are not different for transgender people versus normal people<\/a>, and thus a hormone therapy could not be used to reverse the transgender identity in childhood or adulthood. Transgender people are known to have a very high suicide rate. A suicide survey indicates that 41% of transgender people make an attempt at suicide<\/a> at some point, versus about 4.5% for the general population. <\/p>\n

Many experts feel that the high suicide rate stems from confusion, social isolation and frequent expressions of disapproval<\/a> or discomfort from family members and other peers, as well as the prejudice that is experienced in the workplace and in other public settings. A survey of 6,450 transgender people said that 53% reported being harassed or disrespected<\/a> in a place of public accommodation (including bathrooms). <\/p>\n

OK, so I was wrong in thinking that transgender expression is mostly an aging male phenomenon in response to unhappiness with life (although Catlyn Jenner is still not off the hook — there could still be goats among the sheep, and Jenner may be one of those goats; to paraphrase John 1:46, “The Kardashians! Can anything good come from there?”). It certainly is arguable that most transgender people did not “choose” in any way to have a mental affinity for a sex different from what they were born with, and that society in its lack of understanding makes their life quite unpleasant, sometimes even unbearable. Would allowing them to use the bathroom in which they feel more comfortable help them? Would it significantly reduce their suicide rate? One study indicates that having<\/a> a supportive parent and experiencing low levels of trans-gender hate cuts the suicide rate by around 2\/3. <\/p>\n

If that is the case, then the problem is really more of a human understanding and social behavior problem than a bathroom problem. I can accept the argument made by LGBT activists that when tran-gender people are forced to use their biological-sex bathroom, they are often in danger of harassment by other users given that they may be expressing their gender preference via their clothing, hairstyle, jewelry, etc. But once again, this is more of a human problem than a bathroom problem; even with a pro-trans bathroom law, they can still experience harassment outside the bathroom (and might get some bad vibes from others using their identity-sex bathroom, given that tran-gender folk still retain their old bodies, which sometimes give them away; e.g. large shoulders, big hands, square facial features and facial hair on a man). <\/p>\n

I have expressed my suspicions that if governments go along with the gender-identity rule for public restrooms which are presently sexually assigned (i.e., not unisex), there will be occasional trouble that otherwise might be avoidable. E.g., men claiming to be transgender can gain access to women’s rooms for unhealthy or even dangerous reasons. LGBT activists claim that this will not happen (even though they acknowledge that there are many bad apples out there, as evidenced by the harassment that they experience). They cite the fact that at least 17 major school districts<\/a> have adopted the gender identity rule but maintain separate boys and girls rooms, and yet report no problems from this.<\/p>\n

This is certainly significant, especially since the 17 districts include some major urban areas, i.e. Seattle, Spokane, Portland, Denver, Boston, Minneapolis, St. Paul, DesMoines, Bridgeport CT, Paterson NJ, and Elgin IL. And yet — is a junior high or high school bathroom during a school day the same situation as a restroom in an urban fast food restaurant or bus station at 10PM at night? If there were to be any abuses of the gender ID rule in a school, it could easily be reported to a vice principal who would immediately find and reprimand the offenders, and report their transgressions to their parents. It is not as easy to discourage abuses in a bus station. So I’m not entirely relieved by the optimism generated amidst the bathroom progressives because of the school experience.<\/p>\n

Let’s ask another question about the bathroom freedom movement — what has the public opinion response been? Who seems to be doing better in convincing the masses about how restrooms should be used? A 2014 survey by CBS News<\/a> said that 59 percent of Americans believed that transgender individuals should use the restroom of their birth sex, while 26 percent were OK with self-determination of restroom use. <\/p>\n

Has this changed in the past two years? An on-going poll on the debate.org website<\/a> currently indicates a 60% agreement that transgendered individuals should be forced to use the restroom of their birth sex, while 40% disagree. Hmmm, not too much different from the CBS survey. A late March 2016 YouGov poll<\/a> showed a bit more ambivalence: 39% agreed that the law should require usage by birth sex, while 37% disagreed. Beginning in March and going on throughout April, Reuters has run a similar poll<\/a> repeated on a daily basis. Their results are quite interesting. The rolling average of the past 5 days was first reported on April 13; it said that 35% of respondents supported the biological birth sex rule for bathroom use, while 46% agreed with the chosen identity rule. However, a few days later the results flipped and by April 19, the bio-sex rule came in at 46.6% and the chosen identity rule was down to 37.7%. As of April 29, the bio-sex was at 46.5% and chosen identity was back at 37.6%. <\/p>\n

It’s hard to say what caused this flip, although interestingly the starting numbers were close to the late-March YouGov results. Some commentators claim that<\/a> the activist push for pro-transgender bathroom laws have backfired by hardening public opinion, although the 2014 CBS poll indicates that public opinion wasn’t very favorable even before the Charlotte and North Carolina state laws hit the front page. Reuters still optimistically notes that young people are much more favorable<\/a> to pro-transgender bathroom laws . . . although younger people for much of recorded history have been quite liberal and generally become more conservative as they age. I myself don’t yet see why it will be terribly different for today’s Millennials. The Reuters article also notes that women in general favor pro-identity bathroom laws by 44 to 39 percent. To highlight this point, the article quotes a women who is a proclaimed Donald Trump supporter from New Jersey. She feels that transgendered people should have “equal rights” so long as they “are dressed as male or female according to the bathroom where they are going”. Hmmm, so far, the pro-transgender bathroom laws have not included such a requirement. It would probably be thrown out in court for being too ambiguous and impractical to enforce.<\/p>\n

I fully agree with the notion that public awareness and acceptance needs to be raised relative to transgendered individuals, despite their relatively small numbers. But I can’t help but wonder if the activists have started in the wrong place with the bathroom laws. It really seems like they’ve opened a Pandora’s box. From an integrative complexity point of view, the transgender bathroom use question is a real toughie, with legitimate concerns on both sides. It’s not a clear moral issue as with the racially segregated schools and buses and bathrooms of the 1950’s and early 60’s. It might do more good to get normal men to accept the presence of transgendered biological males in men’s bathrooms than to force laws on the public that allow those transgendered males to avoid such normal men.<\/p>\n

About the only possible compromise to this bathroom quandary would be to outlaw or phase out sexually assigned bathrooms and go to all unisex bathrooms. That would cost millions of dollars (which could otherwise be spent on schools, roads, medical research, global warming mitigation measures, etc.), and could discourage many private businesses such as gas stations and shopping malls, and cash-strapped transit agencies, from providing bathrooms at all. So in sum, the trans-gender bathroom issue is terribly complex and awfully hard to integrate. And one final note on how confounding the whole trans-gender question is. I noted above the growing evidence that trans-genders are like gays in that their conditions are shown to be biologically induced at a very early age and not psychologically induced thereafter. But even that is not without its contradictions. I.e., you would think that if trans-sexuality is imprinted by some combination of genetics and conditions in the womb, then a large percentage of identical twins should both be trans-gender. And yet. . . . a recent study put that number<\/a> at 33 percent for male twins and 23% for female twins. <\/p>\n

Is there any chance that we can call a cease fire on the bathroom wars for now? Perhaps this is not a situation where a new law is the best remedy. I am against any law restricting public restrooms to biological sex, and also against laws requiring bathrooms to be open to identified gender. NOT that the latter type of law does not have noble motives. It’s just that sometimes, law is too strong a medicine, it has too many undesired side-effects. I’d say that we need to bring the public along in terms of understanding trans-genderism, and encouraging voluntary accommodation for such individuals. Either a gender identity bathroom law OR a sex-of-birth restriction law will likely have negative side-effects that set back this cause, and will ultimately delay full social acceptance and recognition for trans-gendered individuals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Philip Tetlock is a professor and researcher at the at the University of Pennsylvania, and his specialty is a combination of psychology and political science. One of Tetlock’s noted concepts is called “integrative complexity“, which is the degree to which a person’s thinking and reasoning integrates and acknowledges a wide variety of perspectives and possibilities […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,7,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6110"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6110"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6566,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6110\/revisions\/6566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimgworld.com\/blog1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}