No Man is Man: Thoughts on Privacy and Sexual Segregation in Sports Participation and Restroom Access

      Like most other issues in politics and society, the transgender sports and bathroom issues are being framed in a false dichotomy: "Should sports be sexually segregated everywhere, or nowhere?"
     In this article, I would like to ask: "Why can't sports be sexually segregated in some places, but not in others?"
     I believe that this strategy will provide balance, achieve compromise, and offer something to everybody who wishes to be accommodated.

     The idea that all sports should be sexually segregated, whether in private or public contexts, is too extreme, because it doesn't let women voluntarily choose to expose themselves to the great challenge of competing against men and trans people who are (on average) much stronger than they are.

     (This is the same principle that Mary Wollstonecraft communicated, in A Vindication of the Rights of Women, when she explained that girls were considered stupid because nobody had bothered to teach them to read. We should be asking ourselves whether the average woman would be larger if psychotic cave males had beaten and killed fewer of the larger cave women.)
     Women do not lag behind men in all activities. But for those activities (reading, specific sports, etc.) in which women do lag behind men, women who expose themselves to the challenge of competing against men, do it because they want to get better at it, compete against the best, and win solely by merit (not because certain people or types of people were excluded).

     But the idea that no sports should be sexually segregated, is also too extreme, because it places unreasonable demands on individuals who don't want to shower, change, or relieve themselves in the same rooms as people who have different gametes and reproductive function than they do, or were born with different organs, or whatever the criteria of the person who feels that their privacy has been intruded upon.

     Sexual orientation could be part of that criteria, just as well. There is no reason why a building shouldn't or can't have multiple bathrooms - one for gays, one for lesbians, one for cis hetero men, one for cis hetero women, one for trans people, one non-gender-specific stall - if that is what the most frequent users of the building (or the company's customers) demand, based on the needs and demographics of the people who use it. There is no reason why gay men shouldn't be able to keep lesbian women out of their bathrooms, in neighborhoods where gay men are threatened by lesbian women (and you can repeat this idea with any other combination of people you can think of).
     If that is reasonable, then shouldn't heterosexual men, too, have the right to access safe, secure, and private bathroom facilities - which are for heterosexual men only - in neighborhoods which are heavily populated by homosexual men?

     It should be up to an individual athlete, whether that person wants to participate in sexually segregated sports, or whether that person would rather participate in sexually integrated sports.
     Public schools should permit both to exist, side-by-side, while also ensuring the privacy and safety of each individual athlete, to access restroom and changing and shower facilities, with the expectation of privacy, however each person defines it (within reason).
     If a school cannot promise safety and privacy - and achieve them, de facto - then that school should stop expanding its athletic program until proper security is hired and all bathrooms and locker rooms are safe.

     At the same time that we should honor the rights of people who want to shower and change in groups, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that this would achieve actual, full privacy.

     Privacy means being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.
     Unless you are using a very loose definition of privacy, “privacy” does not refer to a group of people changing clothes or showering in the same room. They have privacy from some people, but not from all people. One does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when that person chooses to get naked in a room full of naked people.

     In a single-person shower stall, or a single-person bathroom stall, however, that is different; one does have an expectation of privacy there.

     Policies, regarding sexual orientation and identification, as they relate to participation in sports and access to locker room facilities, should not be based on self-identification, but based on how to achieve the total equality and total freedom of each individual involved, at the same time. Neither freedom nor equality can be compromised, nor should they.

     Sexual segregation in sports (and sports accommodations) should be legal in private contexts, and non-sexually-segregated sports should also exist and be legal. But, just as nobody should be prohibited from participating in sexually segregated sports, nobody should be compelled to integrate with people they don’t feel comfortable around in close quarters.

     But also, a person should not be compelled to change and shower in the same room as other people, simply because they are of the exact same combination of biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender role as the other people are. Some people, such as survivors of sexual abuse, do not feel comfortable showering or using the bathroom or changing around anybody. Not enjoying being naked near complete strangers is not a crime, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that accommodations can and should be made for such people, and that doing so would not be an undue burden upon anybody.

     Same-sex bathroom stalls can and should solve most or all of the bathroom access issue, because it achieves equality of accommodations, through separation. There's nothing wrong with being separate but equal, as long as you're actually equal, and there's no slavery. The only way to have no slavery, and be totally equal, is to be completely free, and thus equal in our freedom.

     Belonging to a group isn’t what makes us unique, or special, or deserving of freedom or rights. Being individuals is what makes each of us unique, special, and deserving of freedom and rights.

     No man is Man.

Written and published on May 9th, 2023.

Why Libertarian Socialists Belong in the Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party

     Libertarianism and the left, far from being irreconciliable, are one and the same; libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron.

     Libertarian socialism hearkens back to the traditions of 19^th century European liberalism; back in the days of Joseph deJacque, the anarchist of the 1848 Paris Commune. Back when classical liberalism and calls for revolutionary socialism were all lumped together as part of “the left”, and back when classical liberal Frederic Bastiat and mutualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon served together on the left of the French National Assembly.

     Libertarian socialists aim for the dissolution of the state, as well as all hierarchical and exploitative economic structures which the enforcement of the state's power supports. Libertarian socialists support mutually beneficial voluntary exchange; and as free, direct, open, and egalitarian negotiation (on employment and contracts and other forms of decision-making), as possible. Libertarian socialists support the achievement of socialism through peaceful means, but also recognize that achieving justice against an intrinsically self-serving and violent government, often requires acting without the support of the law.

     Libertarian socialists believe in abolishing the state, organized and legalized violence, monopoly, and relationships of domination and hierarchy in the economy. These relationships of domination include landowner over land and nature, polluting business over community, landlords over tenants, bosses over employees, lenders over borrowers, and elected representative over voter. Libertarian socialists aim to create a society which is absolutely free, but also as equal as possible (without sacrificing liberty), just as voluntaryists and libertarians of the right do.

     Liberty from the state, and equality within that liberty, make libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists want to see people so absolutely free, that they are equal in that total liberty, and thus have equality of opportunity. Guaranteeing equality of outcome, however, would take the “libertarian” out of “libertarian socialism”, and that would be against our values; libertarian socialism is thus not inconsistent with the traditional entrepreneurial libertarian value of freedom of opportunity (and equality within that opportunity).

     That is what I and other libertarian socialists believe, and that is why we feel that there is a place for libertarian socialists within the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. We are in the movement to help make sure that voters (and non-voting lovers of freedom) understand that libertarians do not want to fetishize, or over-prioritize, capitalism, private property, competition, markets, trade, or money. If the Libertarian Party regards its economic ideology as capitalist, rather than supporting free markets, it is making a choice for potential voters, which they should and must have the right to make for themselves when we have a free society. That choice is the choice of which economic system (or systems) one will live under.

     A stateless society will feature a multitude of economic systems, because the structures which keep the current system enforced, cannot continue to be supported without resorting to legalized violence (i.e., state action). That's why, when the state is gone, we will see not only free markets in defense and security (because the power to make large-scale military contracts with legally stolen taxpayer money will be gone), we will also have a free market in economic systems. We will also have a free market in "self-governance", i.e., freedom of choice over who resolves our disputes. and ensures that we abide by voluntary contracts.

     That is why I and other libertarian socialists believe that the Libertarian Party should not designate an economic system. I would prefer that the L.P. cease supporting “capitalism” in name, and instead declare that we support free markets. Alternatives which I would accept, include: 1) a declaration that we are neutral on economic issues not having to do with the state; 2) a declaration that we are open to all so-called “heterodox” (or non-traditional) schools of economics; or 3) a declaration that we support either classical liberalism, laissez-faire economics, or entrepreneurialism.
     Whatever we choose, it must be abundantly clear that we do not oppose cooperative enterprise. Anyone who believes that a private, for-profit business can be self-governing, should be able to admit that a cooperative enterprise can be self-governing too. And when all enterprises become self-governing - and are directed by a free, open, and direct as possible negotiation between their workers and clients/customers - external government of economic affairs will no longer be necessary.

     Only when we are free to improve land and keep whatever we build and grow on it, will we all be fully free to enjoy the benefits of liberty and property. We cannot simply resolve to support “property rights”, by supporting the existing set of property claims (many of which are unfounded, undeserved, and supported by the violent enforcement of outdated government laws). The libertarian socialists are in the movement because libertarians should want everyone to have property, and own businesses (if that's what they want in life), if the movement is to be taken seriously as having realistic solutions to poverty.

     If the federal government did not own or manage any land outside of the District of Columbia, then the third of Western American lands which it owns and manages, would fall to the states and/or private owners. If assurances can be made that vulnerable lands won't be exploited, then the amount of area suitable for development will increase. With more land available, the price of land will decrease. And since all labor and capital which you can mix together, has to be mixed together on land, with the price of land low, the costs of developing that land, including by hiring people to work on it, will also decrease.
     This is how abolishing the state, and undeserved claims over wide swaths of land, will eventually lead to low prices on everything, and potentially even zero cost for land. The same effects, in terms of price decreases, will also be felt when and if our market systems are used as they were intended; our markets need an injection of price competition and the clearing of markets, so that prices can naturally fall, without governmental economic intervention being necessary to achieve those price decreases.

     The last hundred and fifty years of discourse in political economy has been consumed with petty squabbles between the representatives of the interests of labor and capital. But neither capital nor labor will be free - nor will they be able to deal with one another on fair or free terms - until the land beneath them is respected. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere; none of us will be free as long as the majority of the people with whom we are interacting, are unfree. Each of us ought to be free to join any union (and as many unions) as we please (on a voluntary basis). Also, we must each be free to become independent contractors, which maximizes our power to negotiate in a direct manner.

     The more people who are independent contractors, and the more people who own their own home - and the less restrictive zoning laws we have – the more people there are who can work at home. When people can work without leaving home, they can protect their own house and family (instead of somebody else's), and teach the next generation how to inherit their skills. And the more people who work at home and own their own home, the more people can build and grow whatever they want on their own property, and keep all the products of it (without paying taxes or rent). And the more people can depend on themselves, the less likely it will be that they will have to resort to leaving their own property, selling their labor, selling their products, participating in markets, or trading, or using money or currency, or participating in economic activity at all. Post-scarcity economics is possible now, because we have abundance, and most if not all economic activities could easily be made unnecessary.

     Only once we can build and grow what we please on our own property, and once competition is fully optional, will competition be fully free. A free market, in a stateless society, will feature total freedom to compete, as well as to cooperate, and cooperatively own. Total freedom to compete, includes the right to compete against the established predator multinationals which exist today, and which thrive off of taxpayer-funded subsidies, favors, grants of monopoly status (such as patents), and other privileges and protections (such as contractual and legal protections from economic competition and responsibility for their crimes and frauds).
     Corrupt, monopolistic, and rent-seeking firms will likely never be held responsible through the law, and so they must be held responsible through the market; through both competition by all producers against monopolies, and cooperation with other producers with the intent of driving the corrupt monopolists out of business.

     When large numbers of families do not own the homes they live in, and can have their shelter or warmth taken away through a landlord's selfishness or negligence – or through a boss's corruption - humanity is threatened, and the system is condoning child abuse. We must never allow ourselves to become dependent upon anyone whom we would not trust to take care of our families as we would. And that is why nobody who works should be dependent upon a boss (or a machine he doesn't at least partially own, or land in which he doesn't have stake and interest) for survival.

     And once it is no longer necessary for anyone to rent or borrow means of production (i.e., farms, factories, workplaces, and large difficult to move machines), then all economic rents (including rent, interest, profit, and usury) will disappear. We can have a stateless economy which is “privatized” in its statelessness, but that does not have to mean that the economy must be oriented towards extracting as much surplus profit as possible. Expecting each person to be independent, can only work with enough voluntary association and coordination, to make sure that the purchasing power of the poor and needy are maximized, so that the poor can afford what they need to live.

     We can and must achieve a free market system that is so radically and totally free, that the potential of the poor to build and grow and receive what they need, is not predicated on their ability to beg for scraps while their work is deliberately undervalued so as to keep them in dependence forever. A vision of society which allows that is unfree, and thus cannot rightfully be described as featuring a free market or a free economy.

Written on November 6th and 7th, 2019

Published on November 7th, 2019