Politically correct, he ain’t . . .

. . . but in this case, I think he’s justified in his views on the grounds of preventing crime, if nothing else.

Commenting on anti-Christian attacks in America and the radical LGBT agenda that says transgender men can use women’s bathrooms,  Lt. Gen. (ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, former chief of U.S. Army Special Operations Command and a top member of Delta Force, said … that the first transgender man that walks into his daughter’s bathroom won’t have to worry about sex-change surgery.

Earlier in his remarks, Boykin said, “Where is the Christian world today? Where are the Christians of America today? They should be flocking to … the city council and say, ‘No, you’re not going to let a man go in my daughter’s bathroom just because he feels like a man today,’ said the lieutenant general.

There’s more at the link.

I don’t agree with Gen. Boykin that transgenderism is necessarily ‘evil’ in and of itself.  It is a recognized and valid medical condition, albeit (I believe) much more rare than proponents care to admit.  Nevertheless, I fully agree with him that the insistence on transgender men being allowed to use women’s bathrooms is wrong, because it opens doors to criminals.  How can one tell whether a biological male in that bathroom is transgender, or just out to get some sort of sexual thrill by exposing himself to women – if not something much worse?  The simple answer is, one can’t tell;  therefore, the only safeguard against the problem is to insist that gender-specific bathrooms must be reserved for that gender alone.

This is a situation where competing ‘rights’ clash head-on.  One can’t insist on granting one person a ‘right’ at the expense of another person’s rights, or expose someone to danger purely to make a politically correct point.  That makes the ‘cure’ worse and more dangerous than the ‘disease’.



  1. Except in very rare cases, you are born male or female and you remain that gender until you die. It doesn't matter what drugs you take or surgery you have, you are still the gender you were born with.
    If you think you are the other gender, then you are mentally ill.

  2. If it's a "one hole" public bathroom with a lock on the door it shouldn't matter, as it's just one person at a time who'll be in there.
    I've used the women's room many-a-time when the men's room was locked and "I couldn't wait", except when the women's room was also locked and I simply had to wait until one or the other was available.

    I assume you to mean the large multi-stool restrooms where one just walks in and finds an empty toilet.

  3. I wonder if the easiest thing to do might not be as Tal recognizes- just make a bunch of single bathrooms. No need to genderize them, no need to worry about who uses them. Just lock the thing when you're in there and it ain't no thing. What's more, they can even label them "family" restrooms and get extra credit from those with young children.

    1. So every sports stadium, shopping center, or other public gathering place ought to be required to have as many private, individual restrooms with locking doors as they now have bathroom stalls and urinals? Just to accommodate a tiny number of lunatics who've hitched their crazy train to an even smaller (impossibly small) number of genuinely medically unfortunate individuals? Imagine the expense, let alone the despicably totalitarian nature of such a requirement. Intersex folks do exist, yes. But they are very uncommon. The folks who want to let perverse men and women strip naked in front of little girl and boys are not intersex. They are monstrous animals who support the mutilation of prepubescent boys and girls *just in case* they might "decide " they are a different sex than they actually are. (Look up "puberty delaying therapy". It's as evil and horrific as it sounds.)

  4. I'm with Sam on this one. The vast majority of us were assigned a gender at conception. Any deviation from the assigned gender is mental illness.

    Doing a little remodeling of some of the large public bathrooms to accommodate families or people with gender-based mental health issues would be a realistic solution to the problem. I truly do not want to use a public bathroom with the opposite gender in there, and most men I know don't want a female in the bathroom with them either. Further, most fathers I know would like a bathroom they could take their young daughters to, so they can help them with their toileting, without embarrassing other men or their daughters.

  5. " (Look up 'puberty delaying therapy'. It's as evil and horrific as it sounds.)"

    I am currently on a drug to suppress testosterone, as part of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Without going into details, it is absolutely no fun at all. If the puberty delay is similar, to inflict it on a healthy child is evil.

    Single user toilets are an obvious thing, but I can see a couple obvious downsides beyond expense. Ex. someone goes in, doesn't come out. Multiple people use, for a quick sexual liaison or other things we might not want to encourage.

    1. I can't attest to the similarity or dissimilarity of the "puberty delaying" "therapies" to your own experience (I'd say something here, but what does one say? I'll say a prayer for you though, if that's okay?) but I know the "therapies" in question do involve hormone – suppressants and other drugs with potential long-term consequences for the health of the children involved. They use these drugs on kids, preteens even. Personally I have difficulty denying the urge to think that death is/would be too good for the perpetrators of such evil. I do try to deny it (the urge) though…that has to count for something, right? As to the second point, huh, that's a good point. I wonder how often that problem crops up for malls and the like that sometimes do have a single-user/family restroom or two? On second thought, no, I probably don't want to know.

  6. OK, for the purpose of argument, let's say that there is a valid, non-mental-illness reason for "transgenderism," defined as "whatever it is that transgender people feel it is."

    What percentage of the population is legitimately affected by this? Remember, we're talking about "non-mental-illness" regarding the condition. I'd wager a substantial sum that it's a very, very very small segment of the population; for those "suffering transgenderism issues" that are in the mental illness group – which I contend is the vast majority of an extremely small sociatal segment – there is a treatment program; it's called "psychiatry" and despite it's close relationship to witchcraft it has achieved some successes.

    The bottom line is this: Are we prepared to expensively – both in the monetary and social senses – modify our long-successful behaviors and societal structure to cater to the whims of a very tiny group which may actually be suffering from a mental aberration?

    If that's what we really want to do, there's perhaps a better solution: Since nearly every public accomodation could benefit from increasing the number of restrooms, start building them in threes – one labeled "XX," one labeled "XY," and one labeled "Whatever." That provides one for genetic males, one for genetic females and one for the confused or those just plain adventuresome.

  7. General Boykin is a hero, he called Islam for the evil ideology that it is and it cost him his career.

    I find sex reassignment surgery to be the wrong answer to a specific form of mental illness, but I support sex ASSIGNMENT surgery for the very small number of hermaphroditic individuals born with two sets of sex organs.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *