I’ve had a ‘well, maybe’ moment.
The graphic above is part of a publicity campaign from the city government. While I’ve been railing against the notion of equal access to restrooms, it has, in fact, been the law in New York City since 2002. It hasn’t been a problem: in fact, it’s been such a total absence of a problem that I didn’t even know that we had such a law until this graphic crossed my desk.
So I must withdraw my objection that allowing equal access to restrooms is a license for perverts. It hasn’t happened, at least not to an extent that would suggest a problem. I stand corrected.
Being able to go to the bathroom should not be a civil rights issue.
And yet, I wonder about the animus against the binary notion of male and female. ‘Look past pink and blue,’ the ad says. But for more than 99% of us, our reality is that we are pink or blue, female or male, one or the other, not both, and not neither. And even for the transgendered, the notion of ‘pink or blue’ persists: a person is transgendered if his perception of himself as male or female does not match his equipment. ‘Charlie,’ in the graphic above, seeks to present himself as male, whatever his origins. If I met him on the street or at work, and didn’t know the back story, I ’d think of him as a dude, and not consider the matter further.
What is so horrible about pink and blue?