Real Endgame of Curt Schilling’s Persecutors: Unisex Public Restrooms, Limits on Speech

Jared Wickerham/Getty Images

LGBT advocates cannot have it both ways, claiming that anyone who worries about a man following a girl into a public restroom should be ridiculed or fired but but also claiming no man should be stopped from entering a public restroom because there should be no women’s rooms.

It’s not merely the comfort of the man dressed publicly as a woman that they seek to protect by allowing him into the bathroom of his choice. It’s their own comfort. The whole idea of sex-segregated public bathrooms bothers them as though it represented gender apartheid rather than common sense.

The headline in the Daily Beast Tuesday was to the point and honest: “Why All Public Bathrooms Should Be Gender Neutral – It’s time for lawmakers and business owners to realize that gendered restrooms just don’t work.”

The first question for those who wanted pastors sermons subpoenaed, Christian daycare workers fired, Curt Schilling fired, and Lance Berkman “persecuted” for daring to oppose them owe it to the public to start by answering if they disagree with the Daily Beast headline.

In an era during which one in 25 children has been approached online by a sexual predator, with almost half of those being asked to then engage in an offline encounter, laughing off a threat from any of the 747,000 registered sexual offenders — particularly when someone on the sexual offender list led the effort in North Carolina to allow men in the women’s room — looks like giving cover to predators.

It is convenient that the Daily Beast ran a photo of a bathroom for one — rather than a more common public women’s room accessible to many people at once. If the real goal is to not allow businesses or the government to still have “women’s bathrooms,” then they cannot continue to make fun of those who are concerned about them getting what they want.

Even as their viewers disappear, The Daily Show can continue to ridicule anyone who expresses concern about girls’ safety in bathrooms, but it sounds like those who they mock were onto the ultimate goal before the Daily Beast laid it out.

Many readers of these pages and libertarians in general were happy to support the LGBT in the marriage equality vs. traditional marriage argument because of the basic argument, “It doesn’t affect you anyway — let them do what they want.” Taking that victory as a mandate to eliminate anyone who would question them on the bathroom issue is a dramatic misreading of public sentiment.

Let’s call it what it is – an attempt by many on the left to further chill the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them.