Bathroom Bill No Big Deal, Except It Is

May 18, 2018

by Rob Roper

Come July 1st, single occupancy bathrooms in Vermont will have to be labeled in a “gender free” manner thanks to Act 127 (H.333), an act relating to identification of gender-free restrooms in public buildings and places of public accommodation. Proponents of this bill say it’s no big deal. Lots of restaurants, service stations, etc. already label one-person-at-a-time bathrooms as “restroom” or “toilet” and nobody cares. Nor should we. In this sense, yes, the Act 127 is not a big deal.

However, looking at it from another perspective, the Big Government, Nanny State perspective, it is a big deal. Consider

Illegal in Vermont after July 1

the fact that our legislature and governor just made it a crime – yes, a crime – for a shop owner to offer designated men’s and women’s rooms to their customers, (unless they are large enough to have multiple person facilities). Shouldn’t this decision, in a free society, be between business owners and their patrons?

The Department of Public Safety (public safety?!) has now been officially deputized as the Vermont bathroom police with the power to inspect toilet signs, punish businesses that are not in compliance, and even revoke someone’s business license for the outrageous act of tacking a silhouette of a guy in pants and a woman in a dress to the door of their loo. Is this really a desirous exercise of the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence

What does this say to Vermont entrepreneurs  about the “friendliness” of the state business climate when politicians are willing and eager to micromanage from Montpelier details of your operation as minute as this one, not to mention open you up to bureaucratic and legal jeopardy if you intentionally or inadvertently fail to comply?

 

And what problem did this solve that it would justify this level of state intrusion? Wa

No longer just a crime against the English language.

s there even one incident of a transgender or gend

er fluid person being denied access to a public, single-person-occupancy restroom? No. Nobody’s civil rights were violated, no citizen was denied basic services. If the law was passed because some pe

ople felt uncomfortable using a facility with a specific gender association, well, what do we do now for all the people (transgender or otherwise) who do identify with A gender, and not NO gender, as “gender free” implies? Pass another law?

This is not an appropriate role for government. And, for those who do not care because they like the outcome, remember: a government that has assumed the power to mandate all bathrooms be “gender free” also has the power to mandate that NONE be gender free. These things should not be decided by the outcome of elections, and we really should not want them to be.

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Steve Hearne May 19, 2018 at 12:56 am

In recent times I was denied use of the rest room at three different locations after fueling my truck with $100.00 of diesel fuel. No public restrooms they said. I wonder if they were getting ahead of this ridiculous medaling of our Kabuki thearter legislature. I will make certain my truck never returns to those locations but I am afraid more small businesses will follow suit. We need a legislature that can say the word no. No more taxes and yes to more freedom. I hope every seat is challenged this year and most of these clowns are kicked to the curb.

Reply

Bill May 19, 2018 at 1:19 am

I feel sorry for the women who will have to share their public toilet use with men. I have been in the janitorial service industry since the early 80’s. If women have a choice, they will go to a lockable bathroom reserved for them one person at a time. Why? I think it’s because don’t want to sit on a toilet seat that men have peed all over. Do you blame them? Now they won’t have that choice.

What these phony social justice warriors hate most of all is real freedom.

Reply

Evelyn Lopez May 19, 2018 at 12:54 pm

Women are just as nasty as men lol. Especially when they try to hover.

Reply

William Hays May 21, 2018 at 3:08 pm

When I was a (male) kiddie, I peed on the toilet seat at home. I quit that practice when my mother threatened to rub my nose in the mis-directed urine. The threat worked! Maybe VT needs civil service ‘Pee Practice’ monitors in all uni-gender bathrooms. Only Progressives may apply…

Reply

Deanne May 19, 2018 at 2:13 am

Sure is crazy. I’m awfully glad I live in New Hampshire where we “live free.” Right…. That’s why, years ago, when our selectmen were trying to micromanage us, we decided we should call them every time we needed to use the bathroom – to ask their permission. We thought if they wanted so much control, we should go the extra mile and get their okay on all our activities.

Now, the town is giving us a runaround about putting a driveway in. What is happening would be humorous except that it’s true, and it’s happening to us right now. Live free or try. We’re trying…

Reply

Jeffrey Smith May 19, 2018 at 2:29 am

I personally like the plan – but most women won’t be happy when they find that men have pissed all over their toilet seat AGAIN 😳

Reply

Bradford Broyles May 19, 2018 at 4:16 am

All these “little” things add up big bad things. This endless social engineering in Vermont is exhausting.

Reply

Jeanne V May 19, 2018 at 2:19 pm

As I woman, I am totally disgusted with the thought of sharing a bathroom with anyone other than another real woman. I have been in that situation at a place of employment. We ALL had to use the same bathroom!!! Of course, even some women are slobs and don’t clean up their own messes. I also think micromanaging public bathrooms is not for the state government. Why are ‘we’ so sensitive about this? Everything these days is getting just too touchy. If you’re a man or boy, you go in the men’s room, and if you’re a woman or girl – the lady’s room. If you are a transgender, just go in the bathroom that matches your identity and we’ll never know the difference – right? Geesh!! Aren’t there more important things to worry about?

Reply

Paul Dame May 19, 2018 at 4:58 pm

What’s odd is this could actually end up being the most sexist piece of language ever passed. Very few men’s restrooms I’ve been in have just one single toilet. Most have a toilet and a urinal. These restrooms could remain labelled as “Men’s Room” but the ladies room (despite having the same square footage )having only one toilet and obviously no urnial would mean that despite having a legal men’s room it would illegal to label the second bathroom a “Ladies Room”
So much for equality

Reply

Jither May 20, 2018 at 3:03 pm

How about we return to the quaint idea of a …. democracy? You know, where the will of the majority prevails, not the will of the minorities. If the majority if not allowed to steer the culture’s values, then what have we got? A mess, that’s what. And that may be intentional (see Fox Piven).
Hey! Majority matters.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

A Modest Proposal on the Budget Impasse

June 20, 2018 by Rob Roper Yesterday 51 legislators voted to uphold Governor Scott’s veto of H.13, a tax/budget bill that would have raised property taxes on Vermonters....

Your Taxes, Game Theory and the Shutdown

June 12, 2018 By David Flemming Will your taxes increase or won’t they? As EAI has written on previously, there aren’t any mainstream proposals from the Governor or...

End of “Net Neutrality” Already Benefiting Vermonters

June 12, 2018 by Rob Roper The 2015 “net neutrality” rules passed by the FCC in 2015 are now officially dead. When the Trump administration announced that it...

Vermont: The Hapless Blue State

June 11, 2018 by Chris Campion Vermont, fresh off the news that the state’s idea of fixing its legacy of opposition to business and economic growth is to pay...

Trade, Tariffs, Trump

June 8, 2018 By John J. Metzler UNITED NATIONS—In the midst of an expanding American economy, record low unemployment rates, and buoyant consumer confidence, the Trump Administration has...

Video