Again, it’s important to remember that when on the losing side of the argument, delivering distraction and non sequiturs becomes the order of the day, as recent squawking about a proposed ordinance in Bossier Parish illustrates.

Last month, the Bossier Parish Police Jury advanced a measure that creates a framework to ensure and enforce that, in parish-owned or parish-operated buildings, those of a biological sex use only restrooms and dressing rooms designated for that biological sex, unless the facility is designated for family or single occupancy. Essentially, a parish employee, upon discovering or being alerted to a violation, may issue two warnings (first, to exit the facility, then to exit the building, which could be the same). If those warnings are not heeded, the employee may make the person subject to arrest and criminal penalties. Essentially, it adds criminal enforcement to existing state law.

The ordinance bends over backwards in other ways. It exempts actions pertaining to a parent assisting a minor child, assistance provided to a disabled person, emergency medical care, law enforcement activities, custodial or maintenance services, and emergency evacuations or disasters.

Perhaps predictably, this elicited a howl from a special interest group that backs privileging transgender individuals, or individuals of one biological sex who wish to take on behavioral patterns typically associated with the other biological sex. Individuals who choose to identify this way often contend that they should be treated by society, if not under law, as being of the sex opposite their own, including using these facilities in a manner congruent with their choice, not their biological sex. The ACLU of Louisiana also objected to it.

A spokes(wo)man from the group Louisiana Trans Advocates argued that the ordinance, at the very least, duplicates existing law, which seeks to prevent people from being subject to “bad things” and being “truly harmed.” Note the sidestepping going on here: while the ordinance covers that aspect of safety, it also explicitly details a consideration for the “privacy” of individuals that would include the reasonable expectation that, especially in the case of females, they not have someone of the opposite sex on the premises except when pertaining to one of the exceptions. Some won’t mind, but some will, and they far outnumber the males who wish to invade this space.

Perhaps the only helpful argument advocates of this invasion can draw upon is that crossdressers, when using restrooms of their actual sex, are hassled in 10 percent or fewer of cases (data seem absent on dressing rooms). However, it’s quite possible that crossdressers using the restroom of the sex they aren’t would be hassled even more, particularly in the case of crossdressing men (women encountering a crossdressing man in a female-designated restroom might feel too intimidated to complain) – another omission in advocacy against the ordinance. From an instrumental standpoint, transgender identifiers are better off using restrooms designated for their biological sex.

Yet it shouldn’t come down to such calculations when the principle is understood. The indisputable fact is that, if somebody wants to appear in the manner typically associated with a sex that is not his own, that is his choice. There’s nothing genetic driving people to appear one way or another, and when you make choices, you accept consequences.

In a perfect world, nobody would hassle anybody over his appearance (with the exception of when it’s unambiguously threatening). It’s not Christian (ironically, some may resort to professing Christian beliefs as to why they oppose such appearances) and, religious belief aside, is just plain boorishly bad form. Unfortunately, some people are going to do it. But far more people (especially women) likely are going to feel violated, if not actually threatened (and while very small in number, crossdressing males do threaten, if not inflict violence upon, women in restrooms) when someone of the opposite sex enters a restroom or dressing room designated for their sex without good reason.

Thus, we have pitted the rights of a tiny sliver of the population not to face increased hassling (if you can apply that term to an employee asking for that person’s exit) as a consequence of a choice they made (which distinguishes them from the exceptions under which opposite-sex individuals are allowed to be present, because those are nonvoluntary situations) against the rights of a segment many magnitudes larger that, according to its members’ sex, legally must use the facility and finds the behavior unsettling. Since neither group has a greater moral claim than the other, it makes sense to give primacy to the involuntary large group over the voluntary tiny group.

The public hearing and final passage is scheduled for Sept. 2. The Jury has every reason to adopt the measure as an ordinance.