There's an opportunity cost. I expanded on that a few days ago, and rather than rehearse it again, I'll link the answer I gave to "What do anti-gay-marriage people gain?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12933668
>Homosexual partnerships, which are incapable of producing children, thus are of no benefit to the state, and can only be an unproductive diversion of funds which otherwise would be allocated to the benefit of heterosexual marriages which can and often do produce children.
i think you're completely wrong here. Homosexual couples do adopt children and given the number of children in the foster care one can see how a homosexual couple adopting an existing child may be of even bigger benefit to the state/society/planet than a heterosexual couple producing a brand new child.
Like with most of the "liberal/progressive" agenda - ecology/climate, marijuana legalization, education, healthcare, social safety net, death penalty abolishment, equal gay and others rights, etc... - i wish to think that this is we, humans, becoming morally better, yet it is also very easy to notice that when the wide society accepts those ideas it is almost always correlates ("correlation is no causation"?) with the fact that at the time of accepting of the given idea that acceptance is economically more beneficial than the not-acceptance. Well, better carrot than the stick...
A commonly cited argument, to be sure. Let's look at the magnitude of its impact in practice. Per federal statistics, roughly five hundred thousand US children are in foster care, which is roughly two-thirds of a percent of children in the US, or six per thousand. Figures on the number of children adopted by homosexual couples are somewhat harder to come by, but the highest number I found cited by a pro- group calls it about 22,000, which works out to about 4.4 percent of children in care, or 26 per hundred thousand of all children in the US.
Does this benefit seem likely to outweigh the cost to the other 99,974 children and their families? Does it justify a federal transfer of wealth from those families - who, given the fashion by which the tax benefits we discuss are distributed, will tend toward the lower end of the income scale - to those homosexual couples already wealthy enough to consider adoption and be likely to gain approval?
There's an argument to be made that these figures aren't representative because homosexual marriage is so new, and will increase over time, and that's fair. Let's look at the best possible case. Roughly 1.5 percent of the US population identifies as homosexual. (We disregard self-identified bisexuals in this analysis; when they make up their minds, they all but unanimously settle on heterosexualism.) Out of call it 240 hundred million Americans, if every two homosexuals equate to one marriage, we have 1.8 million couples. With half a million children in care, to reach full coverage, the overall adoption rate among those couples needs to be a bit more than one in four.
Does this seem likely? That's four orders of magnitude, and roughly a factor of three thousand, over the general adoption rate - and if we disregard intercountry adoptions, as we have throughout this discussion and properly should here, it becomes more like a factor of five thousand.
I do not dispute that homosexual couples, unable themselves to produce children absent extensive scientific and medical intervention, are more likely than others to adopt. But five thousand times more likely?
The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. That, I argue, is what makes it worthwhile for the state to support the former and not the latter.
To go into individual personal detail, as you seem to think I advocate, might in theory be a natural corollary of what I describe - but to do so in practice not only massively increases the bureaucracy and cost involved and brings in creepy edge cases, but requires a panopticon state in order to work.
so, according to that principle you declared, the state clearly shouldn't support marriage (no new marriage licenses and no tax benefits to the childless couples with already existing licenses. Shouldn't the state just automatically annul the existing licenses of such couples?) after the age of 50 or 55 - i.e when that likelihood fells below whatever threshold you consider "worthwhile".
Yeah I feel like you're post-rationalizing a gut feeling, because you didn't think too hard about alternative solutions to the incentives/tax burden problem.
That's actually closer to what I'd consider preferable, which would be no changes to existing marriage rights, but a federal civil union statute with marriage-level financial benefits contingent upon child-rearing. But such a thing would never be taken seriously on either side of the political crevasse - far too much for conservatives, far too little for progressives, thus decried from both sides. Is it too soon to bemoan the equation of nuance with assault in the modern American political environment?
> deny one of humanity's oldest and most important rituals [...] to an entire group of people
An entire group of people who have never in Western history, perhaps not even in human history overall, had access to that ritual, until the Supreme Court last year discovered in the Constitution a right heretofore unknown. It is very hard to overstate the extent to which this represents an upheaval of tradition, and such things don't happen in a vacuum - or, utopianism notwithstanding, without consequence. Being myself a member of that roughly one percent of the population which has been led to believe it may enforce its will upon the whole without fear of backlash, I don't think it is too hard to imagine what kind of "gut feeling" there might be somewhere in the back of my mind as I speak on this subject, as I've so often done over the last few years.
It's possible my analysis lacks accuracy, although that's yet to be demonstrated, and falling back on insinuations of bigotry doesn't really indicate confidence in one's arguments. But if you want to know what motivates me to concern myself with the subject in the first place, you need look no further than fear. I don't want to find myself in a war, and I really don't want to find myself in a war my side is all but guaranteed to lose - and one in a hundred isn't the kind of proportion that's conducive to a win. But some people seem to want to start one, and to put me and mine in it. They say it's for our benefit, but I've been observing and comparing their claims and their actions for some decades now, and I think they are lying. I also see no reason to expect that, when all the heavy things they've so blithely flung into the air start coming down on people's heads, they'll feel any need to stick around and share the horror they've let us in for. That seems to me like an outcome toward which it's eminently reasonable to look with trepidation.
We'd got by this long without being able to marry. We could've been satisfied with Lawrence v. Texas, which is an amazing accomplishment in its own right, and given it another generation or two before we told the rest of America again that it could take its morality and shove it even further this time. No, that's not ideal, but what is? Nobody ever promised us, or anyone else, an easy life. Nobody ever promised us a just world, by our lights or anyone else's. And the whole concept of progressivism revolves around gradualism, or so I'd been given to understand - the idea, I gather, being that of modifying morality over successive generations by a process mainly centered on education and subtle social pressure, rather than forcible reengineering of whole swaths of society at a time. Quibble though I may with the nature of such a process and the purposes to which it might be put, I at least have to admit that it has a reasonable chance of working. Trying to do everything in the space of half a generation like this is liable to get a hell of a lot of us killed, and to leave those who aren't worse off than they were at the start. I guess that's easy to contemplate for people who don't stand to suffer as a result of it. Here on what's liable to be the pointy end, maybe not so much.
I don't know about gradualism. You seem to have a better eye on the strategy than me, so I'll take your word for it -- though I'm struck by your cynicism about allies fleeing you when things get hard... but I can understand where it comes from. The number of people who would put themselves in harms way for someone else's fight is pretty low, so your numbers indeed look bad. Damn. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope for all our sake america isn't as dogmatic and lazy as you think it is..
Okay, but why guess? We already register children and parents, so only issue marriage licenses when a couple has a child. That takes the guessing out of it.
> but to do so in practice not only massively increases the bureaucracy and cost involved and brings in creepy edge cases, but requires a panopticon state in order to work.
I don't see how, the state already knows who a child's parents are.
As I've just mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think a lot of this has origin in my failure to make clear that I'm not arguing one vast change in the status quo versus another, but rather arguing one vast change in the status quo versus no such change. (Status quo ante at this point, of course, but let's not get hung up on that point, when we've spent the entire conversation to date assuming that this is still a question meriting discussion.) Making marriage contingent on procreative capacity would be a vast change to the status quo. Permitting homosexual couples to marry, exactly as heterosexual couples do, is also a vast change to the status quo. There are cases in which vast changes to the status quo are not merely justifiable but utterly necessary. This does not seem to me to be such a case.
What about them? By your logic, won't be able to get married, unless they adopt, since they can't have kids, it's clear-cut.
> What about men and women who simply aren't fertile, for whatever reason?
Same, no marriage, unless they adopt.
> What about families in places where births aren't registered? Such places still exist.
Can't get married unless they register their kids. We can't have them benefitting from the institution of marriage if they aren't willing to do the legwork.
> What about the death of a couple's only child?
Could go either way, they gave it a shot. I'd be for letting them stay married.
> What effect has all this on divorce?
I don't know, what effect does not letting homosexuals get married have on divorce? Same deal.
> "Creepy edge cases."
Not really, though, they have pretty easy answers.
> And I can't see how maintaining all this additional information on which married status is now contingent (unless it's not!) could be achieved without a massive increase of bureaucracy, with its concomitant cost.
What's the additional information? It's literally "do you have any children? yes/no", which the state already has. You're literally advocating guesswork instead of using one simple and readily available piece of information.
I don't know, these arguments are so bad that I feel like you're trying to avoid recognizing that my solution is clearly superior. It makes me wonder what the real reason for you being against homosexual marriage is.
Civil discourse usually ends by presenting your clearly superior points and letting the weight of their clear superiority carry the day.
Questioning what the real reason for [him] being against homosexual marriage is an "Ad hominem fallacy".
This should sate the religious (they can have their marriage rules and do whatever they want they just wont have legal standing, we aren't calling the legal union a marriage anymore). It should also fix your issues.
In any case, the legal advantages are things that make it easier to live together permanently. As far as I'm concerned, if we moved to my proposal you should be able to get a civil union just for that reason.
So, if two best friends or roommates want to have a civil union because it makes their life easier have at it. If irreconcilable difficulties occur, then they can sever the union in court much like today's divorces.
If it helps any, I hardly more often find myself in agreement with conservatives on most issues than with progressives...
As I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out, this isn't the same as arguing that permission to marry should be contingent upon procreative capacity. I can see how it might come across that way, from a starting perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. another such vast change, and I think I've failed adequately to clarify that I'm approaching the question instead from a perspective of weighing one vast change to the status quo vs. no such vast change. It's a different question.
You're also characterizing this as a "vast" change. What is the vast change here? From a logistical perspective, it doesn't exist: you pass a law allowing same-sex couples to do the exact same thing that opposite-sex couples can...and now they can go do so using exactly the same procedures as opposite-sex couples could before, and obtain thereby exactly the same benefits (tax advantages of joint filing status, visitation rights, and a host of other small preferential treatments given to married couples).
Speaking of those benefits: while they exist, it is categorically impossible to uphold equality of rights and opportunities while opposing same-sex marriage. The only to reconcile these two positions is to either a) pick one or b) redefine marriage such that it confers no civil benefits (which would indeed be a vast change).
> You're also characterizing this as a "vast" change. What is the vast change here?
That marriage should now be an institution open to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual. Taken in isolation, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, either. But nothing in society exists in isolation, and quite aside from the historical novelty of it, many millions of people regard this particular change as a very big, and very undesirable, deal indeed.
The impression I have is that those with whom I've argued the point here today see no reason to doubt that they know better than those many millions who share this opinion - so much better, in fact, that there's no point taking very seriously any argument, opinion, or belief, other than that which they themselves advance, espouse, or profess - or at least already agree with on all substantial points.
I was that confident once, too. Sometimes I miss it. But nothing is ever simple, and pretending otherwise can make fools of us all.
And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where I want this conversation to go. My sexuality is not a medical disorder.
As I've argued at length in this thread and the comments I've linked therein, I don't think it's reasonable to consider that standard met here.
Why is that a legitimate interest of the state?
Cynically you could argue that the state benefits far more from dysfunctional families who are more likely to become dependant. I would rather the government spend money on sex education and contraception for teens than supporting married couples.
Your cynical argument has value as well. The trouble is that the only even temporarily stable state thus produced is a single-party state, and you can't really kick everyone off the dole once you've finished using it to get where you want to go. It's an ongoing cost whose magnitude is only ever likely to grow over time, and the probable economic result is frightening.
Also you quoted me in your response, but your comments made no argument against my quote. Care to shed light on why people you don't know getting married deprives you of something?
1: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compa...
There are really not that many fighting on the internet about who said what about who's sexual identity.
Liberals care about someone who has to work 12 hours a day for minimum wage, has no meaningful time with their children, has to go to work even when sick or risk being fired, is possibly just a broken bone away from homelessness, and is preyed on by the financial industry with fraudulent credits etc. Oh – and when they get home, there's Mit Romney on FOX saying poor people are lazy.
As a liberal I know that these people may have made poor choices. Where's the father? Shoulda finished school! Why do you need a cell phone? I just don't care. I see the willingness to spend money on anything /but/ the basic needs of people: the military, tax cuts to levels last seen in the 1920, etc. Indeed, conservatives seem to enjoy the suffering of others to such a degree that they're willing to spend more on people when they get to throw them in jail, with a bonus if it's a 20-year wait for the electric chair.
There are all sorts of questions about incentivizing people, motivating them and punishing them at the core of all this. The problem is that these questions are discussed only in terms of morality, not practicality. Every single industrialized country can serve as a laboratory, and time and again we see policies that improve lives.
Ridiculous. I can't tell you how many times I've heard those sentiments expressed when they're tapping away on their iPhones. Liberals care about whatever they currently feel the most strongly about. And they see no issues with using the fruits of Chinese laborers working in slave-like conditions while simultaneously agitating for the increase of minimum wages.
I see plenty of issues with Chinese laborers working in slave-like conditions. I'm happy to discuss breaking trade treaties and dealing with the consequences to give these people better lives. I'd say their condition is worse than the American poor - so if anything, we should bias towards them.
But, we have power to fix these things within the bounds of our nation and refuse to do it. We have more influence over our country than any other.
We do not. Increase minimum wages, and we increase inflation and the unemployment rate. You cannot legislate prosperity. You can legislate poverty though, as Venezuela found out.
> We have more influence over our country than any other.
We are the consumers of the world. If we suddenly stopped buying consumer electronics/clothing unless it was responsibly sourced and three times (at minimum) the price they were today, don't you think labor conditions would become suddenly far better?
You cannot legislate morality. You can coerce it through economic pressures and incentives, but just legislating that people have to be nice to each other doesn't work. Hasn't worked throughout history, won't be starting now.
And yet, there are enough to create a terrifying chilling effect for anyone whose beliefs don't fit in to the narrative, especially in hard-left milieus like college campuses or major tech companies, and the rest don't speak up against them.
> if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty
This requires definitions of what "life" and "liberty" mean. Once you choose these definitions you must ensure they are consistently applied to all your arguments.
> Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything.
What does "deprive" mean?
If we continued this discussion debating the definitions, the key would be ensuring they are applied consistently to all other claims by both parties. This is practically endless.
Maybe we need a new dictionary that is more specific and uses examples. Just like Stack Overflow Documentation - they realised that the key to good documentation is examples.
How would such a compromise look like?
> In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places.
Right, but this is already your personal judgement. For example I personally feel that the conservative stance on abortion is cruel and creates more suffering.
Stop legal abortions at the age of viability as arrived at through scientific consensus.
>I personally feel that the conservative stance on abortion is cruel...
In some cases, it is. I'm not agreeing with all the anti-abortion arguments. I have also talked with "progressive" family members that have a cold/cruel absolutist view of it. In their mind, 8 months was fair game, because choice. When it comes to abortion, the assholery cuts both ways.
The age of viability could be arbitrarily early as technology progresses so I don't see how that is a good criterion.
Instead I would argue for several different criteria. One is consciousness. This probably only occurs half a year after the child is born. Another one would be the ability to feel pain.
Regardless of all other concerns, as a practical matter, I would argue that once a baby has some sort of independent existence from it's parents (once it came out as a matter of fact, no matter when) then it ought to be protected.
> In their mind, 8 months was fair game, because choice.
Is this really a practical problem? Abortions after 3 months (sometimes after 6 months) are somewhat controversial, but also very rare. For example, the numbers in Germany seem to be that 97% of abortions occur early.
The late abortions are almost always related to very serious disabilities and this is a completely different topic. For those rare cases I would again argue that sometimes good arguments can be made for the abortion. It is not a clear cut case.
Related: "I wager that the fetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-conscio...
Abortion ban as political issue and abortion as moral issue are a different matter. The latter is an interesting thing to debate in light of various ethical principles. The former should be straightforward (if it wasn't for desire to impose your morality on others and control their lives). Once you admit both sides have a point the only option left is being pro-choice. Pro-life argument is based on "I am right, you are wrong and I am willing to legislate against you even though your decisions have 0 influence on my life". It's very similar to legislating against gay sex in this respect (no influence on you but as you find it disgusting you are willing to legislate against it).
Abortion is the biggest issue I disagree with conservatives and even though I lean more right as I am getting older and as the left (in my view) is collectively losing their mind this one I really can't get over.
This is kind of tied in with the Judaeo-Christian worldview, which says that sex is only designed to be done within the context of an unbreakable covenant (marriage), because it bonds you together in a deep way. Sex isn't just an act, which is why divorce is so traumatic. Children are supposed to be conceived out of an act of love into a safe, loving environment. (Everyone is aware that this is often not the reality, but this is what the design is.)
All that is hard to explain, though, so it's easier for people say "it's morally wrong because God says so," which really isn't a helpful or even appropriate way of interacting with non-Christians. An appeal to authority doesn't work if the other person doesn't accept the authority...
Obviously, you are free to reject this view. You can even reject the moral part, but I think that fundamentally the conservative stance is taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. We take a dim view of people who get drunk, drive, and kill someone, because driving carries a responsibility. So why are we okay with people who have sex and then kill someone to get out of their responsibility?
Hopefully this makes the pro-life position more understandable, even if you don't agree.
No-questions-asked contraception.
edit: A more radical idea would be to ban abortions but allow the parents to give up the baby at birth as a ward of the state. The expenses would be covered by a new tax.
No contraception is even less reliable.
Really? I don't. It's a weird thing to care so much about.
> In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places
Do they? I guess you could argue that cruel laws like the one Pence signed in Illinois are the only recourse they have for what they consider a moral battle.
I'm not sure how you can explain away fighting abortion while simultaneously fighting sexual education, contraceptive use, and welfare for those people who choose to keep the baby when they have no real hope of raising it well without help.
I agree with you. It wasn't something any thought about before. But once it made its way into the public discussion, I understand how some people would be uncomfortable with it: especially people who don't know any trans people.
>'m not sure how you can explain away...
I can't and I don't. I think people like Mike Pence are assholes. My personal stance is we should use the age of viability (as arrived at by scientific consensus) as a legal cut off.
How? Requiring trans people carry papers just so they can use the restroom doesn't strike you as just as little bit terrible? Trans people already use whichever bathroom they feel more safe and comfortable in: All these bathroom laws do is make life harder for members of what is already a very marginalized group. There's literally no positive aspect to them whatsoever.
I've had discussions with psychologists and trans people.
This illustrates the disconnect we're seeing between the left and the public.
Trans people are a vanishingly small proportion of the population, compared to the people who have lost jobs when their manufacturing jobs moved overseas.
Worrying about their desires (a tiny percentage of the population) and de-prioritizing the desires of a far larger group of people is insulting to the people who have lost jobs and can't find new ones. Talk about skewed priorities.
Also, if you thought you were Napoleon or black (and happened not to be black), you'd be roundly laughed at and diagnosed with a mental illness, and sent to therapy, resources permitting. Similarly, you can argue that Trans people have a mental illness - they think they're something they're not. It's just that the therapy to disabuse them of the notion is more trouble than it's worth.
I don't really have the stomach to dissect your Napoleon analogy, but instead I will simply note that you have made a false equivalence and suggest that laughing at or trivializing peoples' mental illnesses is not particularly helpful. I think that a comparison to phantom limb syndrome or alien hand syndrome would be more accurate. Most people can rely on their brain telling them accurate information about their bodies. Some of us are not so lucky. I can't begin to describe how difficult it is to have your brain constantly at war with itself. I can promise that therapy isn't going to fix that sort of brain malfunction, any more than "pray away the gay". With rare (and controversial exceptions), the majority of studies agree that HRT/GRS + therapy produces better quality of life than therapy alone. The suicide rate is pretty high for both groups though.
Manufacturing jobs and my body may both make Republicans feel uncomfortable, but are not otherwise linked. You are displaying emotional reasoning, not logic. There is no reason to compare these two things, and the worrying implication of your reasoning is that any injury to a minority can be absolved if the majority can be shown to have suffered some other harm.
There are a number of issues where conservatives have taken a stance against empirical reality (with its well-known liberal bias). It's tough to build a coherent worldview if it's not founded on empiricism. Trump epitomizes this problem. One hopes that the same may not be said of you.
You are missing the main thrust of my argument.
Transgender issues are such a vanishingly small portion of the population of course people who speak about the economy will get more traction. And people who fixate on transgender issues will rightfully be seen as fringe elements who are completely out of touch with most of the country.
Complaining about not being able to use the bathroom you want to use instead of worrying about towns and communities getting hollowed out because of manufacturing jobs leaving and never coming back does not get you votes and does not portray your side of the argument in a flattering light.
It'd be like complaining about grizzly bear attacks while getting drunk and driving home. One is a much more pressing concern.
> There are a number of issues where conservatives have taken a stance against empirical reality (with its well-known liberal bias).
Which are?
The main thrust of your argument was that we must either talk about jobs or trans issues. This is a false dichotomy. I'd say it's a pretty clever way to control public opinion, but we've seen these same rhetorical tactics being used against gay rights for some decades now. It seems to be very effective with the more emotionally driven populace.
This is most certainly not a false dichotomy. Everybody has a certain amount of mind share that they command. If you're talking about Subject A you're not talking about Subject B.
That goes a long way to explaining again why liberals seem so out of touch with most working class folks living in middle america.
They don't care about what rights a tiny portion of Americans have, or what bathrooms they can and cannot use. They care about getting jobs and food and making rent, which are the concerns of a much greater proportion of the populations.
When they hear about politicians ramble on about things that only affect a tiny minority of people, while ignoring things that affect much more people in a larger way, then you have an out-of-touch political party.
Mindshare may or may not be a finite resource but there is nothing suggesting that we are over-budget on that. But if that is a problem, again, your team created it. You are the party of legislating bathrooms and bedrooms. Own it.
Also, you may want to consider different news sources, as you seem to have a problem with repeating talking points instead of supporting your arguments with facts. This "out of touch" rhetoric is being heavily pushed by the right-wing apparatchik, and I am sure that you would rather be able to have your own opinions rather than the ones that the Party thinks you should have.
That is ridiculous. We've had gender separated restrooms for the longest time. It's only until now that social mores weren't enough to enforce the fact that you're just not supposed to use a restroom not of your gender, except for children with their parent under a certain age.
A law is a heavy handed way to solve the discomfort of most people, but it was passed in a state by its elected legislature. Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about sexual relations or orientation at all, it devolves to state rights.
> But if that is a problem, again, your team created it. You are the party of legislating bathrooms and bedrooms. Own it.
We are owning it. We're owning it because people aren't respecting long held social norms because of certain ideas of justice they have. Get over yourself. When a majority of people in a political jurisdiction believe a certain thing, either learn to live with it or move.
> This "out of touch" rhetoric is being heavily pushed by the right-wing apparatchik, and I am sure that you would rather be able to have your own opinions rather than the ones that the Party thinks you should have.
Ad hominem much? I have not attacked you personally at all, and you're insulting my ability to have my own opinions on thin evidence. I repeat points in the media because they make sense. Heck, I repeat facts every day. The mere fact that I repeat them so often doesn't make them less true.
Also, the left has been the political leaning that has clamped down heavily on thought crime and dissent. Note that Milo Yiannopoulos is far right, as he found the left far too stifling intellectually.
Actually that's pretty modern, historically. And thanks for telling me what my gender is, I really needed the guidance.
> Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about sexual relations or orientation at all, it devolves to state rights.
State rights and the People. I don't feel the need to make a moral argument about human rights on this issue, but I am sure one could be made. > Get over yourself. When a majority of people in a political jurisdiction believe a certain thing, either learn to live with it or move.
The majority is not always right, and democracy does not mean "majority rules". Also appeal to tradition is a fallacy, not a valid argument.
> I repeat points in the media because they make sense.
The triumph of rationalization over empiricism is nearly complete.
> Ad hominem much? I have not attacked you personally at all
Right, that thing where you said all trans people are insane or faking it was not in any sense a personal reflection. You do seem to be persisting in that belief though, which again does not reflect empirical reality. You are insisting that laws be made on the basis of your feelings -- and then blaming your opponents for it.
I'm not asking you to agree with the other side, just to give it a fair shake before putting it down.
Consider the viewpoint of a parent of a young (10-year-old) child. That parent sends their 10-year-old daughter into the women's restroom. If that restroom can be legally entered by any person who is willing to say out loud "I feel like I am a woman", that restroom is open to any number of adult men who prey on children to enter.
Yes, this is the ever-present, sometimes-alarmist "who will think of the children" argument.
But being a tired argument doesn't make it an inaccurate or illegitimate one. If there is no answer given for it, then it remains valid, if eventually tiring to hear.
That's a conservative talking point, not the reality of the situation. In reality, a trans person will have to go far beyond just feeling like a woman to get away with entering a women's room; they will also have to take substantial steps towards looking like a woman.
You don't even have to feel like a woman to enter a woman's room, you just have to say you identify as a woman.
"Substantial steps towards looking like a woman." What does a woman look like? A woman looks like whatever she chooses to look like. Actually, she sort of looks like me after Taco Tuesdays where I have to use the restroom really badly and all the stalls in the men's bathroom are full.
If you are demanding that a "real woman" make herself subservient to what society thinks a real woman should look like, or maybe even get a note from a doctor diagnosing gender dysmorphia, I would advise you to check your cis privilege. /s
IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly.
IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressives believe state power can/should be used to protects their rights and their feelings. But, depending on the issue, you'll find conservatives taking the same stance.
Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. Conservatives that want they're feeling protected are no different than the "SJW" so many of them rail against.
Like all things there are some grey areas. For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that. Abortion is another I see both sides on and believe compromise is the best way forward.
You'll find "authoritarians" on both sides of the political spectrum. In some cases (like abortion) conservatives have their heart in the right places. So do progressive/liberals (environmental issues, for example). In other cases, both sides can begin to see the state as a tool to unnecessarily curtail the liberty of their countrymen.