OF THE
TIMES


Bathrooms are not specified in terms of mental states; there's no reason for respective bathroom access to depend on one's mental state; and there's no viable way to regulate admission to separate bathrooms on the grounds of mental states. Why, then, do transgenderism policy proponents counter-intuitively announce their constituents' deep need for cross-sex facility access, rather than merely campaign against the error of binary sex-separation in the first place? Because their demands are not about those facilities, as such.
Cross-sex bathroom access serves two roles, one for each category of participant in the transgenderism policy project. First, for the dysphoria-sufferer, bathroom access presents (as explained above) a social signaling opportunity. A female's invisible "male" gender identity is powerfully broadcast upon her authorized use of the male restroom. (Gavin thus objected to her school district's merely practical offer that she avail herself of the unisex single-user restrooms. That defeats the whole point.) Second, for the transgender advocacy industry, cross-sex restroom access disrupts and destabilizes the otherwise still-stable public practices and institutions that reflect the sex binary that gender theory marks for ultimate annihilation. In neither case is the demand for cross-sex restroom access related to the justification or function of that sex-specific facility.
Comment: There are some really good points in this article about the role women play in their over-sexualization in society, but it does seem that she has swung a little too far the other way on the pendulum by calling all the women involved in the Weinstein scandal who were put through a terrible experience "hos". Are they naive and innocent? Most are not, and some, who knows how many, probably had no issue with giving Harvey what he wanted to further their careers. That was probably why he continued to behave as he did - it worked on some women (by all accounts, many women). Some of those young women new to the Hollywood world probably are "naive and innocent". They have not sold their body for fame and fortune yet, so we shouldn't shrug off Weinstein's behavior and essentially say all the women had it coming.
The author makes a fair point that the actions of women in today's society will prompt reactions from men that are to be expected. Creeps like Weinstein have always existed, and always will. In that sense, the feigned shock and outrage has been just a tad over-the-top. At the very least, post-Weinstein, those "naive, innocent young things" will have a better idea of what to watch out for in the industry. It may come down to a choice: your career or your dignity.