Punchline
Legislating comfort rooms
By Ermin Garcia Jr.
BEFORE we start throwing our punches here, we’re happy to share our happy news – your SUNDAY PUNCH is now 58 years old this month! Note: This column was started by my late father Ermin Sr. with the pen name “Carl O Cohan,” get the drift?
I wish to thank – our friends, supporters, believers, advertisers for keeping faith with us, our detractors for debating issues with us. And those who hate our reports and opinions, we thank you for acknowledging what we do best – writing the truth!
Now back to the ring.
* * * * *
ALL ABOUT RESPECT. In our May 4 issue, I discussed what I thought was an absurd proposal that was being mulled by the provincial board. – to require establishments to construct another comfort room, in addition to the usual Men’s, ‘Women’s, and PWDs rooms around the world! Little did I know that the honorable guys were serious!
The third toilet (actually the 4th since a room for PWDs is already required by law) as proposed is exclusively for the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders) sector. I find it preposterous to compel business establishments (and government?) to spend thousands for the re-layouting of existing facilities and construction of new toilets just to accommodate the lifestyle of a very small minority in the community. And nothing can be more blatantly discriminating than to segregate the LGBT community, away from the rest!
In fact, our LGBT community can hardly claim to be victims of rabid discrimination in our country. Many are highly regarded and nobody gives a thought about their being part of the LGBT family. They who are happy and confident about themselves command respect and certainly don’t feel lost inside comfort rooms.
* * * * *
DISCRIMINATION. I have yet to hear anyone in Pinoyland offer sarcastic put-downs to anyone in the LGBT community. It does happen only when the individual moves and talks unusually loud to call attention. Generally, our friends in the LGBT community are already as invisible as the next straight guys and women who color their trendy hair, wear earrings, carry large colorful bags, etc.
To underscore this fact, many bars and restaurants have started providing only one restroom for either sex – male or female – regardless of a claim to be straight or LGBT. No discrimination whatsoever, simply first-come, first-served. Privacy is what it’s all about.
So why highlight the differences in lifestyles now through segregation, and of all things in the use of comfort rooms?
In Brazil, where gay parades are held at the drop of a hat, even the business decision of some restaurants to introduce toilets for the LGBT community as a marketing strategy divided the LGBT community itself. Those who vehemently opposed the idea feared more discrimination, having seen the worst discrimination, the whites vs. the blacks. And now, the straights vs LGBT?
* * * * *
TRIVIAL. I don’t believe that it is the advocacy of the LGBT community to be looked upon as a different specie of human beings. (Or is it?).
On the contrary, I’ve been told that it is simply to be able to enjoy the same rights and conveniences like everyone. Is the right to have their own comfort rooms one of their advocacies? They’d surely be happy to have one but I seriously doubt if they would even consider compelling a public debate about it because they know that it would trivialize their own universal desire to be accepted like everyone.
Has anyone heard of any LGBT community in the world that petitioned a court to demand for their own comfort rooms? I haven’t, have you?
Sure, an exclusive comfort room for the LGBT community will be welcomed by them but they will not cry a river if the government decides against it because it could very well backfire on the LGBT community that is already earning far more respect here than they realize.
* * * * *
BAD PRECEDENT. Further, did it occur to the proponents that legislating comfort rooms here on the basis of lifestyles would set a very bad precedent?
What will stop our straight-looking gays, lesbians and transgenders from asking for their own toilets later if only to avoid being lumped with outrageous and loud cross-dressers in their midst?
Will an exclusive room in a restaurant for LGBT follow next? A public school for LGBT since they are taxpayers? Special lanes for LGBT in supermarkets because they look different?
When that happens, it’d certainly be more fun in Pangasinan, poking fun at Pangasinenses for their silly notion that the imagined problem of sexual discrimination is best addressed by the number of comfort rooms its government can legislate.
* * * * *
JUSTIFICATION. However, for the sake of argument, I submit here three conditions that would help justify the enactment of a provincial ordinance for a separate comfort room for the LGBT community.
1), If there are at least 50 from the LGBT community who can claim and prove they have their own private toilets in their homes and apartments apart from what everyone in their household uses. (If they are not willing to spend for that convenience, why should they expect others to spend for them?).
2). If at least 5 members (a minority will do) of the provincial board say they are willing to construct special toilets in their own homes for the convenience of their LGBT friends and visitors. (The board members should not think of imposing anything they themselves are not prepared to do).
3) If at least half of local government units here say they are willing to construct 4 comfort rooms (male-female-PWD-LGBT) in their municipal/city halls, plazas and public markets. (Why impose it on the private sector only?). What would the board members do if one town violates the ordinance? Jail the mayor?
The three would indicate need for true sensitivity towards the lifestyle of the LGBT community. But failing to produce the numbers, that proposed bill should be promptly archived until the numbers are realized.
But by simply asking various sectors if they are willing to support the proposal smacks of a Catch 22 approach. Nobody wants to quarrel or deprive another sector even knowing that the proposal can hurt other sectors.
* * * * *
COMPROMISE. Nonetheless, here’s a compromise that I hope our honorable legislators will consider supporting to benefit everyone, particularly the lifestyle of the LGBT community. A practical ordinance would be to require all public comfort rooms to have at least two cubicles equipped with mirrors and locks where individuals can have some privacy to do their thing.
What we should not forget is that comfort rooms are intended for two basic human anatomies – male and female, not lifestyles. Lesbians are female and gays are male. Bisexuals and transgender are either male or female. In brief, everyone is still either male of female, including those who had sex-change. Members of the LGBT community, therefore, cannot but observe that natural (not religious) law like everyone else. A lifestyle is only an option that has limitations in society. Being straight or LGBT is a lifestyle. (By the way, I am for the accreditation of Ladlad as a party list!).
As I am sure the LGBT community will agree that any lifestyle will command respect depending on the personal conduct of the individual. A scandalous behavior whether by straights or LGBT is never welcome anywhere, especially inside comfort rooms.
Gee whiz, what a difference a toilet makes in this age!
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
