Monthly Archives: August 2024

Tampons For Men From a Strapped Public Purse

18 Sunday Aug 2024

Posted by in Gender Differences, Scarcity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I had to laugh when I saw this tweet on X the other day:

I actually think she was fishing for sympathetic comments from … anyone. Or it was intended as a rhetorical question, as the poster seems to regard many cis-men as the meanies in this affair. But let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she really wanted to engage with men who object to tampon dispensers in men’s public restrooms.

Before getting started, I want to be clear that I’m using the term “public restroom” to mean a restroom available to the general public and furnished by the public sector. I distinguish these from restrooms in commercial establishments intended for use by customers only.

Tampon Dispensing Is Not Cost-Free

So I have a question: who will be asked to pay for the dispensers in men’s public restrooms, their installation, servicing, and the tampons themselves? Will the tampons be dispensed at no charge, as some advocates would like? That’s the case in some public schools, so there might be a tendency to think tampons should be free in other men’s public restrooms. Of course, another possibility is to install pay vending machines for tampons, and I will address that in later sections. Here I note that I’d have no objection if they paid for themselves.

Free tampons in men’s public restrooms, or even priced tampons that don’t cover their costs, would represent a use of public resources. Taxpayers would be on the hook. Alternatively, some other public expenditure might be reduced to make room in government budgets for the new amenity. Public budgets are notoriously strapped, and foregoing other budget needs would carry an opportunity cost. Public resources should be put to the most urgent public needs, which might run the gamut from critical services like law enforcement, sanitation, and street repair to the staffing of mental health facilities.

If this strikes you as economic small-ball, remember that demands for public funds are seemingly without end. Whether taxes are increased or the budget is reallocated, “my life” is affected to a degree by every new demand that is met. To pay for tampon dispensers in men’s public restrooms, resources must be diverted from some other valued use.

Beneficiaries

Surely Ms. Fachner believes that tampons in men’s restrooms confer social benefits. Might those benefits exceed the opportunity cost of the necessary resources?

Well, biological males don’t have ovaries, they can’t get pregnant, and they don’t have periods, so we can scratch them off the list of potential beneficiaries. This is about trans- or intersex men who menstruate or perhaps suffer bleeding from hysterectomies. As I’ll discuss below, this is a small minority of users of men’s public restrooms.

But wait, here’s one advocate:

“Our culture does not really acknowledge the diversity of menstruating individuals.“

Statements like that lend absolutely no clarity. In fact, it’s a gross obfuscation made in an effort to redefine reality and exaggerate the prevalence of menstruating males.

Estimates of the Trans-Male Population

The transgender population was estimated at about 0.5% – 0.6% of the total U.S. population in 2022, based on two studies. That’s about one in every 200 individuals. However, male-to-female (MTF) transitions are 2 – 4 times more common than female to male (FTM) transitions. Combining these estimates yields one FTM in every 400 – 800 men. Of course, not all FTMs menstruate (and they don’t menstruate over the entirety of a given month). So men who might need a tampon in a public restroom are a small minority.

Nonbinaries?

Some would insist that any such estimate should account for the nonbinary population of individuals who menstruate. Part of this group is the intersex (hermaphrodite) population who identify as males. A number of these individuals have had gender-affirming care and would already have been counted as FTMs in the studies linked above (and I will continue to use “FTM” as inclusive of this group). However, I’m skeptical of the non-binary classification on surveys because some otherwise “straight” individuals use it to signal their participation in the avant guarde of gender identification, perceiving it as something fashionable or even virtuous.

Nevertheless, one 2022 poll found that the trans plus nonbinary population was about 1.6% of all adults. Combining this with the MTF/FTM estimates above, an implied upper bound on the male tampon “market” would be about 3 out of every 400 distinct visitors to a men’s restroom, or less than one out of every hundred. If the nonbinary classification is taken at face value, it’s still a small minority and probably far less than 1/100.

Woe Is We

A great many of us suffer inconveniences in life, some of them terrible, but it would be extremely costly and irrational for the state to attempt to neutralize every one of them. For example, people with overactive bladders are far more common than the trans population. Should the state accommodate them by doubling the number of public restrooms? At some point it’s worth recognizing that claims on public resources can become preposterous.

The economic argument against outfitting all men’s public restrooms with tampon dispensers falls into a broader category of common-sense resistance to eliminating (or compensating) for every tiny cross borne by anyone: every minor strife, inconvenience, or “micro-aggression” individuals might experience. The cumulative effect of this cavalcade of demands on society and on each other, which cannot all be met, is to breed discontent while stifling social and economic progress. We live in the real world where scarcity matters. We must therefore be sensible about where and how we expend our energy and resources.

Costs

I haven’t yet explored the specific costs associated with adding tampon dispensers to men’s public restrooms. Not surprisingly, it’s difficult to pin them down completely, but a few notes are helpful.

The cost of a free-tampon dispenser ranges from about $90 to $140. A pay tampon vending machine ranges from about $300 – $500. Then the dispensers have to be installed, stocked, and serviced, and there is a potentially greater cost of sanitation within each restroom. This article includes cost data from 2017-2019 for a public school district in Massachusetts. It’s ambiguous as to whether installations of free dispensers occurred in women’s restrooms only or all restrooms, but much of the article is written as if it applies to women and girls. To be clear, I don’t take issue with providing free tampon dispensers in school restrooms for females.

The dispensers and receptacles for the school district totaled $33,000, which presumably included the labor cost of installation. The annual cost of keeping the dispensers stocked was just $2.48 per student annually, but it’s not clear whether that average includes labor, or whether the divisor is the female student population or all students. Certainly all of these costs would be greater today.

Don’t Putsch It

The FTM minority is likely to grow, especially in parts of the country where advocates for the gender dysphoric have won legislative battles over gender-affirming care for youths. This is a huge mistake. It’s highly unethical to encourage unalterable, life-changing medical interventions for what often amount to youthful anxieties that usually pass with age. But these initiatives go hand-in-hand with bills requiring free menstrual products in all school restrooms and in all public restrooms. It would be more reasonable to suggest to any biological female considering a gender transition, who must weigh many considerations, that they’ll sometimes be inconvenienced by the need to pack a precautionary tampon.

Crazy Counter-Arguments

There were some interesting comments on Ms. Fachner’s tweet. One contended that men should have tampons available in the event that a female companion happens to need one. Well, it’s so nice to know that chivalry still has a place among the woke! But if a woman needs a tampon while she’s out, and if she has any sense, she’ll try the womens’ restroom herself before asking a male companion to check the men’s room.

Another commenter felt that the availability of tampons in men’s restrooms is the equivalent of condom dispensers in womens’ restrooms. Not quite! A woman out with a male companion might wish to have protection available if she expects to have intercourse. I’m not sure how many public women’s restrooms have condom dispensers, but you might find paid dispensers at truck stops, dance clubs, or other private venues where the sexes meet and greet. In any event, interest in condoms in women’s restrooms might well be a more common phenomenon than FTMs unprepared for the onset of a period.

Market Test

The mere existence of vending machines for condoms and other products in the restrooms of private establishments proves that these offerings satisfy a sort of market test. The charges for those products, including tampons, pads, and condoms in women’s restrooms, might or might not cover all of the associated costs. However, even if they don’t, the machines are provided as a courtesy to customers and/or because competitors provide them. Either way, as a market proposition, the establishments find the machines to be advantageous.

Would private establishments find it profitable to offer tampons and pads in vending machines in men’s restrooms? It’s possible, and businesses catering to non-traditional lifestyles are more likely to offer menstrual products in men’s restrooms, if only as a courtesy to FTM customers. However, it’s uncommon at best among mainstream businesses. Again, the economic logic is dependent on the volume of menstrual products likely to be dispensed. If they add value, the market is likely to provide them. This might be more plausible for machines that vend multiple products.

Successful pricing of tampons in men’s public restrooms would be easier if the probable volume was greater, but it will be quite low relative to women’s restrooms. Thus, the up-front fixed costs are difficult to justify. In any case, vending machines of any type are less common in public restrooms. Perhaps that’s because the items sold would not cover all of the associated costs. Or perhaps it’s because public administrators lack the incentives that motivate actions in the private sector. Enter the activists!

Market Failure?

One might argue that passing the market test is irrelevant because public facilities are intended to offer a range of services which the market can’t be relied upon to provide. That’s not clear cut in the case of restrooms themselves, and I’ve advocated for more pay toilets in the past. However, tampons are very much a private good. A trans-male with an unmet need for a tampon is in a bad spot, and he might generate external costs. However, I maintain that the situation is fairly uncommon, and those hypothetical external costs are fairly easy to internalize. This is not a true market failure nor a public priority.

Finally, I note again that Ms. Fachner addresses her question only to cis-men. I have news for her: like any other form of common sense, the rudimentary economic logic of costs and benefits is inclusive and available to all, regardless of sexual preference and gender identification.

To End War and Poverty in the Middle East

09 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in Middle East, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The timing of this post might be awkward given the escalation of threats by Iran and its client militia groups toward Israel. But I’m posting it anyway because this blog is a way for me to get things off my chest. Read on…

In the West there is fairly broad agreement that the Palestinian people should have a sovereign state of their own. There is much less agreement over the geographic boundaries of such a state and the sequence of events that must take place in order for it to be established. Among Palestinians there is some support for a two-state solution, but it is far from a majority.

The UN Partition Plan

The following map might be helpful in what follows. It shows the proposed boundaries of an Israeli state and an Arab state under the Partition Plan adopted by UN Resolution in 1947. The Resolution called for replacing a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the region requiring the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Likewise, the Arab state was intended to accommodate Palestinian nationalists. Together the two states were expected to comprise an economic union.

What is striking is the discontinuity of the lands assigned to each state, and this surely contributed to almost immediate border challenges. More on that below.

The Gaza Strip is the region along the shore of the Mediterranean on the lower left, which was designated as Palestinian. The Golan Heights is the Israeli region on the upper right. The West Bank is the Palestinian region in the middle. Jerusalem and its vicinity was designated as an international zone to be administered by the UN.

Border Battles

Today, the geography of a prospective Palestinian state would certainly include the Gaza Strip. There doesn’t seem to be any great dispute there, but the West Bank is another story. In this context, it’s important to remember some key details about the history of this region since 1947. David Post writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that the Palestinian state was obliterated by other Arab states in 1948:

“The State of Palestine was strangled in its infancy, not by the Israelis, who accepted the U.N. partition plan, but by the neighboring Arab States—Egypt, Syria, and Jordan—who did not. The day after the British pulled their forces out, the Arab armies marched in, and the first Arab-Israeli War began.“

The hostilities were formally ended with the signing of three different Armistices in 1949:

“The boundaries fixed in those agreements gave to each of the four countries involved more-or-less the territory that their armies had managed to control as of the date that ceasefires had been declared. The West Bank became part of Jordan; Gaza became part of Egypt; the Golan Heights became part of Syria. Israel got—or kept—the rest. The Palestinians, who had no army of their own, got nothing.“

Here are the boundaries under the 1949 Armistices:

The three Arab states, which refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, attacked again in 1967. In a matter of six days and on three fronts, the Israelis drove them back and took Gaza, the West Bank, and retook the Golan Heights. Post asks:

“Why is it that only starting then, now that Israel was in control of these areas, did the world rouse itself to Palestinian grievances, and demand that ‘Palestinian lands’ be given back to the Palestinians?“

It’s worth noting that these conflicts led to the displacement of a great many Palestinians, but Israel did not provoke the attacks.

Indigenous Populations

Enemies of Israel, including those in the West, go so far as to say the Israelis are not entitled to a homeland in the Levant. Even worse, they chant “from the river to the sea”, often ignorant that it is a thinly veiled call for genocide. But Jews have as great a claim to a homeland in the Levant as the Palestinians. Jacob Sullum wrote of this truth last October, in the wake of the Hamas butchery on October 7, 2023. Israeli Jews are characterized by enemies as “colonizers”. This, as Sullum says:

“… is a ‘simplistic morality tale’, that pits white European oppressors against ‘indigenous’ people, eliding Israel’s demographic roots and the ancient Jewish connection to the land. “

Sullum goes on to discuss research on the genetic origins of modern Jewish populations. For example, one paper found that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews, who account for almost a third of Jews in Israel, likely descended from a “diverse population in the Middle East.” And Sullum points out that Mizrahim Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin represent almost 45% of Israeli Jews. Furthermore, another study found that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East both share high percentages of Y chromosomes with a single gene pool, which suggests a common origin. Therefore, both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have legitimate claims to a homeland in the Levant.

Israel and Gaza

Contrary to claims by Hamas supporters, there was no occupation of Gaza by Israel at the time of the October 7th massacre. Israel’s prior occupation of Gaza ended almost 20 years ago, in 2005. However, Israel has restricted the movement of goods in and out of the Gaza Strip since the 1990s. Israel and Egypt tightened the blockade on Gaza in 2007 after Hamas took control there, though it was eased in steps from 2010 – 2013. Given the uncompromising belligerence of Hamas and its proclivity for diverting resources to support aggression against Israel, it’s fair to say the blockade is, and has been, a legitimate instrument of defense, as long as Gaza is “governed” by Hamas.

Last year, less than a week after the October 7th massacre and hostage taking, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) began ground operations in Gaza in an effort to root out Hamas fighters, destroy their war-making infrastructure, and rescue hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Of course, that fight goes on.

Hamas has fought against Israel’s retaliatory action in ways that have propaganda value, especially given the naïveté of much of the Western press. Its fighters are often embedded among civilians within residential areas and facilities like schools and hospitals. The use of human shields is a war crime for which Hamas bears full responsibility, and Hamas has made it clear that their aim is to kill Israelis, civilian and military alike. Hamas has made a practice of exaggerating Palestinian death counts, a distortion that has been more obvious to statisticians than journalists.

The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip will be tough to end without a complete surrender by Hamas and release of the hastages. Even then, the current IDF occupation is unlikely to end until efforts are well underway to flesh out the details of a new Palestinian government, if not statehood.

The West Bank

Perhaps even more thorny for an eventual two-state solution is that Israel occupies the West Bank and has established settlements that Palestinians strongly oppose. Jordan might also have designs on retaking West Bank territory, which would once again leave Palestinians as the odd people out. Israel took the land in its own defense during the Six-Day War in 1967 and kept it as a security buffer:

“… Israel insisted that it should not, and would not, simply return to the pre-war situation — the dangerous combination of precarious armistice lines and aggressive neighbors that had prevailed for 19 years. …

The idea that Israeli security depended on continued control over parts of the West Bank was held not only by Israeli officials, but also by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. … Referring to the West Bank, they argued that Israel required a new boundary that would ‘widen the narrow portion of Israel’ and help protect Tel Aviv.“

Israel splits aspects of governance with the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank, but most of the security apparatus is run by Israel.

The continued West Bank occupation is as fraught with controversy as ever. Today there is bitter resentment over new Israeli settlements and the construction of the “Separation Wall” just inside the western border of the West Bank. The situation is made all the more intractable by Hamas’ presence there amid ongoing attacks against Israeli interests.

Withdrawing from the West Bank would create a huge vulnerability for Israel, so one can hardly expect it to cede control of the entire territory. Yet it is hard to imagine an economically viable Palestinian state confined to the Gaza Strip. In fact, some feel that more than the West Bank should be in play for creating a contiguous corridor to Gaza, which would help promote a new Palestinian state’s economic viability.

Iran

Obviously Hamas is not the only threat to Israel’s security. To the north in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a well-armed adversary. And like Hamas, it receives considerable support from Iran. It’s difficult to imagine that Iran could maintain this support, not to mention its nuclear ambitions, without the flow of oil revenue made possible by U.S. acquiescence. Reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors will be very difficult without somehow neutralizing the Iranian threat. Regime change there would be key to this effort.

What Must Happen

The obstacles to establishing a peaceful, two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis are so steep that the prospect seems almost unimaginable. A complete defeat of both Hamas and Hezbollah would be critical, and the Palestinian Authority or any other successor regime must be counted on to negotiate in good faith and with the legitimate support of the Palestinian people. Likewise, Israel must be willing to negotiate meaningful concessions, at least in terms of its occupied territories in the West Bank.

For a successful resolution, the role of other Arab states can’t be emphasized enough. These states should apply pressure to Israel’s neighbors like Syria and Jordan to rein-in their own territorial ambitions. In a positive sign, there is now growing pressure on Iran from other Arab states to end its belligerence.

A reconstituted Abraham Accords framework could strengthen diplomatic and economic ties across the region, promoting cross-investment, trade, and cultural exchange. The framework should include a mechanism to encourage aid from the Arab states and Israel to help Palestinians build a new, peaceful, and prosperous state.

Finally, a peaceful two-state solution hinges on continued U.S. support for Israel and a new Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve witnessed a drift toward anti-Zionism (and even anti-Semitism) among Democrats. This sort of foolishness on the far Left knows no bounds. If the anti-Zionist position comes to be accepted by the mainstream of the party, it could severely compromise Israel’s leverage in negotiations.

Summary

A resolution that would ultimately bring peace to the Middle East seems remote in the midst of the current hostilities. It would require a dramatic softening of views among nearly all parties to solve the impasse over nation-state homelands for both Jews and Palestinians. In no particular order, the following are all necessary:

  • Israel’s neighboring states must not covet territory originally intended for the Palestinians, or for that matter the state of Israel.
  • Iran must butt out one way or another (in the language of high diplomacy), which would do much to neutralize militant factions like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • Other Arab states must come to the table along with the Israelis to negotiate economic and political accords, including aid to the Palestinian people.
  • The U.S. must resist internal calls from the Left to withdraw support for Israel.
  • More immediately, Israel must do its best to root out and defeat Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • The Palestinian people must decide they want peace and a prosperous civilization.
  • Israel must show a willingness to negotiate concessions to Palestinians in the West Bank, and to aid in the rebuilding of Gaza.

Taken together that’s a very tall order! The U.S. can and should do its part to support Israel and the Palestinian people, penalize Iran, and help to bring all parties to the negotiating table. A refashioning of the Abraham Accords could contribute to peace in the region, including a stable, prosperous, and well-governed Palestinian homeland.