Current Events: Bathroom Laws (Warning slightly adult content)

Of all the current events I imagined myself covering on this blog I would have never guessed restrooms would be one of them. Many are talking about trans people and which restrooms they should enter. What I thought was a simple inquiry into @NYapologetics position on twitter turned into (I assume) mutually disappointing conversation. I am using that conversation as a jumping off point for this post.

First, I should explain why I am even covering this, because it is not obviously about religion.

The first answer is that the impetus for this post was a twitter interaction with the aforementioned @NYapologetics. Their website is www.newyorkapologetics.com 

The second is that a strict binary of restrooms is disproportionately supported by evangelicals; thus, this issue is divided along religious lines. The reason: many evangelicals believe that God distinctly created us to be male or female and have different moral obligations, while many mainline Christians and non-church goes do not believe that gender is NOT strictly binary. 

Look at what Ken Ham the president of the Answers in Genesis, a creationist organization has to say about Target's restroom policy.

Also, there have been evangelicals protesting Target's policy.

Now compare these positions to one promoted by Rachel Held Evans an ex-evangelical. 

Twitter exchange with @NYapologetics

In my very long twitter exchange with @NYapologetics, they thought I never answered their main question and I never felt that I was never given a concrete policy. I originally engaged in this conversation because I was genuinely curious about alternatives to allowing people to use the restroom of the gender that they identify with.

Their main question boiled down to: how do we protect the rights of 99.7% who would suffer potential abuse/feel uncomfortable due to policies that allow people to go to the restroom of the gender they identify with. I maintained (and still maintain) that forcing the choice of restroom on a person in transition would actually decrease safety and increase discomfort.

One of the first things I did was survey some people I knew. Granted this is not a representative nor a very large sample, but I do want to share two anonymous sentiments that I received from women:

If they were going to build another restroom, I would prefer they just spend the money on making women's restrooms larger. 

These people [like @NYapologetics] are making me uncomfortable by sexualizing restrooms.

I received no sentiments that they were worried about increased abuse. Though, I want to emphasize that I did not even attempt to do a comprehensive survey. However, someone else did do a survey. It found that women and young people are more comfortable with trans people in the restroom of their choice than older men.

I think it would enlightening for someone to conduct different survey. The survey would ask: how comfortable would you be if someone who is obviously dressed and presents themselves as a woman enters the men's restroom and vice versa.

Here are a couple of examples:



Would you be comfortable with this person in the men's restroom?

Or this person in the woman's restroom?

In case it is not obvious, the person in the top image is a transwoman (born with a penis, for those not in the loop) and the bottom image is of a transman. 

I suspect that these individuals using the restroom of the their birth-sex would make just about everyone uncomfortable.

But what about abuse?

In every locale that has regulations allowing trans people to go to the restroom of their choice there has been no statistical increase in abuse. 

There really isn't much more to say. Trans people in restrooms makes (mostly) older men uncomfortable and they claim to be defending women and children from predators, when there just isn't any evidence that Target-like non-discriminatory policies increase sexual abuse. 

And to be clear I would be very concerned if there was any evidence that it did increase sexual abuse. To reiterate, I would be very very concerned.

Other proposals:

NYapologetics maintained a third restroom would be an acceptable solution. However, they also produced one other option, simply making the rule standard that you must use the restroom of your birth sex. 

Policy 1: A Third Restroom

A third restroom is not a practical solution for two reasons. 

First, outside of large areas like stadiums and airports there is just not space. And these places typically already have family restrooms that would likely suffice. But this is not just possible in a standard restaurant, bar, or shopping center.

Second, you are putting people who identify as different genders into the same restroom. Trans people are NOT all the same in their gender identity, most trans people would not appreciate this. You might be able to avoid this to some degree if you make it a locked room, but again, in places that are large enough already have family restrooms. Thus to make this feasible at all, you would likely need four restrooms: one for those born male, one for those born female, one for those transitioning into male, and one for those transitioning into female. 

Policy 2: Back to the Golden Age

Their second suggestion was to only allow those born male use the men's restroom and those born women use the women's restroom. They maintained that this was the original policy; and, things got mucked up when we started trying to make more complicated rules about restrooms. I was not able to get an answer as to how they would enforce this policy. 

Even so, I emphatically disagree that this was the original policy. The original (unstated) policy was that if you looked like a man you walked into the men's restroom and if you looked female you walked into the women's restroom. No one really checked. There was little if any dichotomy between birth sex and gender expression. 

If birth sex is/was the policy as opposed to appearance we would have developed a way to check the birth sex. The fact is that people who don't look enough like their gender (usually women who are dressed masculine) sometimes get harassed going into the restroom of their birth sex. (Note: I am only using this link as evidence that someone was harassed, it was not actually in relation to HB2).

Bottom line: 

These policies proposed by @NYapologetics don't work and the initial question assumes that non-discriminatory policies make people are uncomfortable (which admittedly SOME are, but mostly older men) and that these policies also lead to abuse (which they don't). 

I am open ears to new policies would help more people be more comfortable, in fact this is my main question on this issue. Please comment with any concrete proposal. 

Book Review: A Beginner's Guide to the Study of Religion

In his book, A Beginners Guide to the Study of religion, Bradley Herling correctly states that along with fact based religious literacy, we also need theoretical religious literacy. We need tools to think about what 'religion' means.

Beginners Guide is primarily designed for use in an introduction to religion course and secondly for use by the self taught individual who is interested in religion. It serves both populations very well.

Summary:

• In general, religious literacy is important because we are living in a global world where many are motivated by their religion. 
• Specifically, theoretical literacy of religion is important so that we recognize that religions don't necessarily fit our preformed judgments. 
• The definition of religion is contested among theorists of religion. 
• There are several theories/definitions that offer meaningful ways to look at religious phenomena. 
• A theory is good in so far as it can suggest different lens by which to assess and discover important practical aspects of religion.

Analysis:

Many people think studying religion is simply learning facts about the various religions. To these people studying religions is nothing more that memorizing beliefs and rituals, like one might memorize the elements of the periodic table. 

However, there is so much religious diversity not just between religions, but also within particular religions that a full catalog is impossible.

A better way to think about the study of religion is thinking about its nature. If you want to make an inquiry into the nature of hats it would be detrimental if you had a definition that was too wide (you might end up discussing clothing) and equally detrimental if it was too narrow (you might end up only discussing sombreros).

Of course, you could make a detailed study of sombreros (i.e. Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, or etc...), a worthwhile pursuit in its own right. But you still need a conception or definition of sombreros, which would likely include a discussion about hats in general.

A fuller understanding of the nature of religion (or at least the problems with identifying its nature) will lead to better fact gathering and more thought provoking analysis.

For instance, if you accept the very common conception of religion that it is focused on belief and worship of God, gods, or other supernatural powers, you would likely miss the Native American emphasis on religion being tied to the sacredness of places.

Thankfully there are many alternatives.

For instance, perhaps you are preparing to interview a Hindu mystic, then you might want to recall William James' conception of religion:

Religion shall mean for us, the feelings acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. 


He includes examples of what to look for:

1) The individual, non-rational experience at the core of myths, scriptures, rituals, institutions, etc.

2) The feeling of an objective but unseen presence, "something there."

3) Extraordinary states of consciousness marked by ineffability, deep insight or knowledge, transiency, and passivity, leading to a feeling of oneness and to a breakdown of distinctions between "self" and "the world".

4) The means of obtaining transformation: an interior feeling of bliss, freedom, and resolution (especially after considerable melancholy and suffering).

Or when you see a lively Christian worship service with everyone singing and praying together, you might want to recall Emile Durkheim's conception of religion:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. 

And we should look for the following according to his conception:

1) The significance of "primitive" religions; i.e. folk or indigenous traditions that do not fit into one of the major "religions of the world.

2) The demarcation between the sacred and the profane, as expressed through rituals and beliefs. Practices that keep the sacred and profane separate or attempt to "manage" the power of the sacred: protecting against it and also inviting its aid or celebrating it. 

3) Rituals that cultivate a feeling of belonging; symbols or emblems that have a similar effect.

4) The appearance of power in religious phenomenon, especially when it suggest the existence of an impersonal energy or force: religious object that are treated as powerful by devotees.

These are just two examples of the various conceptions of religion covered in this book and when they might be relevant. There is no theory that has unanimous support. Though a theory is deemed useful when it incorporates new ideas and facts..

Bottom Line:

My favorite part of this book are the sections that explain what you can look for using various theories. I plan to have this book readily accessible for my various religious visits in the future. At least when I am writing these posts.

I will likely always favor Durkheim, but this book will help me incorporate theories that I am less familiar with. As well as find further resources about them.

A Star Trek Sermon

Boldly Go Where You Have Not Gone Before: A Star Trek Sermon

                

In Star Trek, members of different species speak with members of other species from other planets. Imagine! We have enough problems talking to our neighbors here on earth. This idealistic view of communication is obvious even in the most pessimistic Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine. 

                

Deep Space Nine is the only Star Trek series not based on exploration; instead, it primarily takes place on a stationary space station that was taken over from the Cardassians as part of a peace treaty. The crew has to fight with the alien technology and keep the peace between Bajorans and Cardassians. 

Nevertheless, Deep Space Nine still maintains a specific type of idealism, that it is worthwhile to learn about other cultures. 

Here are a few examples: 

Dr. Bashir, a human, and Garak, a former Cardassian spy, share novels from their respective cultures. Garak attempts to explain why a novel that tells the same story over several generations is a classic piece of Cardassian literature. Bashir has trouble understanding as he complains that there is a lack of development in either plot or character. 

Garak and Nog, a Ferengi, play a Cardassian game where Nog could not easily understand the strategy as it dealt with war not finance, the specialty of the Ferengi. 

Lastly and on a larger scale it is a constant theme throughout the series of the miscommunications and communications between Bajorans and the Federation, about the nature of religion, fairness, and understanding between these two political entities. 

Lets not forget the original intent of the Foundation and its (very eventual) successful resolution of learning about other (solid) sentient beings. 

Even though in all of these examples there were challenges in communication, the attempts were made.  

                

Rarely do major characters, even Garak, outright reject the possibility of learning about other cultures, even in arguably the least idealist iteration of Star Trek. (Though its never clear when Garak is actually telling the truth and he may just be participating for information; however, the Federation crew still engage him)

                

This idealism is even stronger in The Next Generation. The Enterprise’s mission in this series was to explore new worlds and meet new civilizations. They went out specifically to meet people and learn. They did sometimes offer critiques of cultures (or our culture via analogy). 

For instance, Wesley Crusher was once sentenced to death for violating a local law that he was not even aware of. Their legal system was enforced by a God-like person or race, so there was also explicitly a religious component to the episode.

                

A very good example of the motivation for learning about others is an episode where a very advanced civilization hijacks the Enterprise by essentially possessing Barclay through the use of technology so that the alien race could meet them. 

One might expect Picard to be upset with the hijacking of his ship, but once he found out the alien’s motivation he proceeded to share information with them.

For those in the know: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. (If not use it as practice to go out to understand)                

Imagine this for a second. Two sentient species with completely different evolutionary histories talking to each other, on the surface this is absurd. However, as an analogy, it is a lesson that we should communicate with our neighbor about what makes us different.

                

It is not new knowledge that people favor talking to people who agree with us. However, imagine being able to peacefully have a discussion about your different beliefs with your religiously different neighbor. 


Imagine just once going into a strange neighborhood and talking to new people. 

Imagine just once, a Christian lay person, an atheist, or etc... going to a Mosque, a synagogue, or etc… and asking them polite questions about what they believe.

Let's take a lesson from Star Trek and boldly go where you have not gone.