Libertarians and gender neutral locker rooms

In doing some research this weekend I came to the realization/understanding that the Libertarian party supports gender neutral bathrooms and locker rooms for public/government operated bathrooms. Obviously there is a lot of room in the Libertarian party for people to disagree with on issues so I've been trying to get feedback from the polite, intelligent Libertarians that I know.



For our Libertarian users here how do you feel about that?

I have a hard time affiliating wholly with any political party at the exclusion of all others, but I am pretty Libertarian...



On the gender neutral locker room issue, I don't know where the Libertarian party stands. I haven't delved into that and likely won't, because I have my own moral position on it, regardless of what any party says.



I will say that the LDS church took a hard line on the ERA and one of the key talking points was that it would eliminate the very ability of organizations to separate men and women on the basis of gender (in living quarters, restrooms, locker rooms, etc.)



I see this latest move as anti-liberty, because it proscribes behavior, rather than letting individuals determine the best course for themselves.



My prediction is that we'll start seeing more "family-style" restrooms that can be used by anyone and eventually, the days of mass restrooms will be over.



HC's $0.02

My view:



Have Men's bathrooms. Have Women's bathrooms. Allow transgender individuals to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in. The End.

How about giving them the bushes?

Mars wrote:
My view:



Have Men's bathrooms. Have Women's bathrooms. Allow transgender individuals to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in. The End.

Is that the same with locker rooms or no?

I don't get the bathroom hubbub. Your son is more likely to be molested by another male in the men's restroom than your daughter is to be molested by a male in the women's restroom.



You accompany your kids to the restroom until they are old enough to watch out for themselves. Don't rely on corporations and government to keep your kids safe in public restrooms--if you do, you're an idiot.



Nothing in recent months in this transgender restroom debate changes any of that. It's a bunch of moral crusaders on both sides of a non-issue making a tempest in a teapot.

The libertarian argument (as with anything else) would be that this is a property issue and any private individual or group may exclude anyone they want from their property. Problem solved.



Libertarians don't believe in government owned lands. Problem solved.

snoscythe wrote:
I don't get the bathroom hubbub. Your son is more likely to be molested by another male in the men's restroom than your daughter is to be molested by a male in the women's restroom.



You accompany your kids to the restroom until they are old enough to watch out for themselves. Don't rely on corporations and government to keep your kids safe in public restrooms--if you do, you're an idiot.



Nothing in recent months in this transgender restroom debate changes any of that. It's a bunch of moral crusaders on both sides of a non-issue making a tempest in a teapot.

You actually intend to accompany your daughter into the restroom and LOCKER ROOM (which if you'll notice this thread is about, not restrooms) every day at school? You must have a great job to allow yourself that flexibility.

jvquarterback wrote:
The libertarian argument (as with anything else) would be that this is a property issue and any private individual or group may exclude anyone they want from their property. Problem solved.



Libertarians don't believe in government owned lands. Problem solved.

Not entirely true. At least not according to the mainstream Libertarian party platform which states that they believe in all federal programs and institutions as defined in the Constitution which requires having government owned property. As well as many say that things like Education and schools should be left to the States along with voucher programs to provide for public and private schooling (at the state level) which still means state owned and operated schools.



Now clearly some people are obviously even more "Libertarian" than the Libertarian party, more on the anarchy spectrum.

hawkwing wrote:

I don't get the bathroom hubbub. Your son is more likely to be molested by another male in the men's restroom than your daughter is to be molested by a male in the women's restroom.



You accompany your kids to the restroom until they are old enough to watch out for themselves. Don't rely on corporations and government to keep your kids safe in public restrooms--if you do, you're an idiot.



Nothing in recent months in this transgender restroom debate changes any of that. It's a bunch of moral crusaders on both sides of a non-issue making a tempest in a teapot.

You actually intend to accompany your daughter into the restroom and LOCKER ROOM (which if you'll notice this thread is about, not restrooms) every day at school? You must have a great job to allow yourself that flexibility.

Ummm....nearly every post including the OP mentions restrooms as well. Sorry to offend you by talking about restrooms. Maybe we can make this thread a safe-space for people who only want to talk about locker rooms?



I think you also missed the part about how we accompany our kids "until they are old enough to watch out for themselves." By the time my kids start kindergarten, they know that they use a stall with a door (that works) no matter what, and if there is someone in there that makes them uncomfortable, they ask the teacher if they can use another restroom or ask to see the nurse. This issue of vulnerability in restrooms didn't suddenly appear in the last year--it's been around since the first public restroom, and I say shame on parents who are just now starting to worry about it.



By the time my kids are in middle school where they actually have locker rooms, they'll know what to do there as well--if anyone is in the locker room that makes you uncomfortable, you change in the bathroom stall with a door, and if there is no other option, come straight home to shower and change. It's the same thing my parents taught me and my siblings, and it's what we'll teach our kids.

Mars wrote:
My view:



Have Men's bathrooms. Have Women's bathrooms. Allow transgender individuals to use whichever bathroom they are more comfortable in. The End.

How about three bathrooms? Male, Female, and Other/It/Unsure/Perverts or you can call them "Family" bathrooms. But per Hawkwing's reply, the real issue comes with locker rooms and schools and kids under 18 and you can't be there to protect your kids 100% of the time.

The problem is that many are trying to shrug this off by only talking about bathrooms, forgetting things like locker rooms/showering & changing facilities. If you're a private business like Target, feel free to make your own policy and lose business because of it, but for king obama to send out an edict to schools threatening them is downright tyrannical. Use the bathroom and restroom that you biologically should use -- if you feel uncomfortable because of what you're wearing, that's on you.



When my daughters a teenager, I certainly won't be accompanying her to the restroom, but there's no way that some man should be allowed by law to just hang out there.

I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

My children have had a trans kid at their school since the 1st grade… He (meaning biologic he, not the “she” that he dresses up as) has always used the boys bathroom, and good for him and the school for having it happen that way I have always felt sorry for the little girls who are uncomfortable to have an uncovered penis in the bathroom with them at other schools. It really is too bad that we as a society have decided that we want to cater to these folks’ mental issues and not offer them the help that they need.

jvquarterback wrote:
I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

Schools should offer many many sports, and vibrant music and drama departments as well. Any parent that is not requiring their high school student to participate in one (or more) of those programs is doing their child a great disservice.

Schmoe wrote:
The problem is that many are trying to shrug this off by only talking about bathrooms, forgetting things like locker rooms/showering & changing facilities. If you're a private business like Target, feel free to make your own policy and lose business because of it, but for king obama to send out an edict to schools threatening them is downright tyrannical. Use the bathroom and restroom that you biologically should use -- if you feel uncomfortable because of what you're wearing, that's on you.



When my daughters a teenager, I certainly won't be accompanying her to the restroom, but there's no way that some man should be allowed by law to just hang out there.

We have fought the urge to homeschool for some time. We have been firm believers that we teach our children what is right at home, create a refuge from the world that does not reinforce the bad things they see and hear outside the home, and equip them with the tools to deal with what they will confront when they are outside the home. However, I told my wife that if this edict is carried out, we will have bring our kids home. My kids go to a public magnet school, K-8. I cannot, in good conscience, allow them to go to a school where the school can do nothing about boys going into my daughter's locker room, or boy-crazy girls following my sons into the restroom/locker room. We have already been disappointed by some of the books and curriculum that are floating out there, but none of the garbage has been required of our children yet. If Obama's edict is implemented, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for us.

jvquarterback wrote:
I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

And phys ed? No, not important?

Cougarfan87 wrote:

The problem is that many are trying to shrug this off by only talking about bathrooms, forgetting things like locker rooms/showering & changing facilities. If you're a private business like Target, feel free to make your own policy and lose business because of it, but for king obama to send out an edict to schools threatening them is downright tyrannical. Use the bathroom and restroom that you biologically should use -- if you feel uncomfortable because of what you're wearing, that's on you.



When my daughters a teenager, I certainly won't be accompanying her to the restroom, but there's no way that some man should be allowed by law to just hang out there.

We have fought the urge to homeschool for some time. We have been firm believers that we teach our children what is right at home, create a refuge from the world that does not reinforce the bad things they see and hear outside the home, and equip them with the tools to deal with what they will confront when they are outside the home. However, I told my wife that if this edict is carried out, we will have bring our kids home. My kids go to a public magnet school, K-8. I cannot, in good conscience, allow them to go to a school where the school can do nothing about boys going into my daughter's locker room, or boy-crazy girls following my sons into the restroom/locker room. We have already been disappointed by some of the books and curriculum that are floating out there, but none of the garbage has been required of our children yet. If Obama's edict is implemented, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for us.

I'm proud of my school district and state for fighting against this ridiculousness, but if it is somehow strongarmed through, I think it will be the death of public education as we know it. You'll see less-expensive private schools pop up everywhere and citizens push back against the amount of taxes that go to these schools that have to allow this nonsense. I personally would quit my job as a public educator.

Schmoe wrote:

I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

And phys ed? No, not important?

Completely unnecessary. And even if you think it is the cost is outrageous. It costs, what $50 a month at the Y for a whole family? And you want to pay a union PE teacher 80k + benefits and finance a gym, locker rooms, fields and stadium?



Parents need to tell their kids to get off their fat backsides and go outside and play or go get a job.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I've always thought it is stupid for schools to have sport's teams and locker rooms. If you want your kid in sports pay for it yourself.

And phys ed? No, not important?

Completely unnecessary. And even if you think it is the cost is outrageous. It costs, what $50 a month at the Y for a whole family? And you want to pay a union PE teacher 80k + benefits and finance a gym, locker rooms, fields and stadium?



Parents need to tell their kids to get off their fat backsides and go outside and play or go get a job.

I pay , through my taxes, not only for my kids to play sports, but all of the other kids to play their sports as well; and I'm happy to do it. The greater sin is when these kids have no options for sports, music or other preforming arts. We are, after all, a society. It will be a shame when we lose focus on the purpose of education, which is not just to sustain life, but to live it well.