Houston Bathroom Ordinance Analysis Essay Samples

After view the video that Campaign for Houston made about Proposition 1: the Bathroom Ordinance a lot of things came to mind. It is a very emotion video that makes the viewer actually think about the implications of allowing anyone to use whichever bathroom they want. When analyzing the video from an ethos standpoint Campaign for Houston did an excellent job. Ethos correlates directly with the authority and credibility associated with the presenter. The video is made and distributed by Campaign for Houston. This is a well respected political group that claims its core value to be protecting and helping the people of Houston. The voters and citizens of Houston believe this to be a credible source that only has their best interests in mind. This group can influence people to vote no based solely on the idea that the group understands the issues of the people. Secondly, the narrator is a female. The female voice reading all of the scary accusations made really drives home the credible and authoritative stance. A female reading off fears of using a public restroom with the newfound implications makes the audience see that there is a real fear of danger present.
I think the most important view is the pathos view when analyzing the Proposition 1 Bathroom Ordinance advertisement. Pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions. The entire advertisement appeals to the fear of the audience. The original point of the Bathroom Ordinance is to allow transgender people to use the bathroom they identify with. Of course, the Bathroom Ordinance is a slippery slope. Transgender people whom identify with a different gender than which they were born are not the only people that will take advantage of the newfound ability to use the opposite bathroom. The video points out that men, who do not identify as transgender will use the women’s bathroom because they want to invade women’s privacy. It also points out the registered sex offenders can use the women’s bathroom for whatever reason they want to. When it is pointed out that people will begin using the women’s restroom for reasons other than being transgender; it scares women. It scares women because the idea of using a public restroom is now possibly putting oneself in jeopardy for violation. Another way the advertisement offers its claim is via appealing to history and appealing to virtue because of the same principle. It appeals to the common historical idea and virtue that women need to be protected from the bad guy. By bad guy, I mean sex offenders and people using the bathroom to prey on women and young girls. The bad guy effect is illustrated in the video at the end, when the adult man goes into the stall with the young girl.
The logical appeal of the Bathroom Ordinance advertisement is pretty clear. The video asks at the very beginning what the proposition means to you. It then goes on to list the scary reasons why the viewer should vote no. First the video says any man can go into the women’s bathroom at any time for any reason. The video then goes on to explicitly remind the viewers that even registered sex offenders can go in as well. It also says that no one can stop men from going into the bathroom. The argument is presented in a very logical way by listing real reasons in which women’s privacy and safety are in jeopardy. While the video does prey on fear, the argument is sound and makes sense.
Campaign for Houston really picked a rather large target audience for the Proposition 1 Bathroom Ordinance advertisement. First and foremost the target audience is all women of all ages. Women are obviously the target audience because the entire video is set in a women’s restroom and tries to scare all women into voting no because of fear for safety and privacy. The video scares women because of a few trigger words and phrases. For example the video states “Any man at anytime can enter a women’s bathroom simply by claiming to be a woman that day”. That phrase evokes fear because Campaign for Houston is saying that if this ordinance passes men can basically do whatever they want. Another way that women are scared into voting no goes back to bringing up the fact that sex offenders can go into the women’s bathroom whenever they feel like. Another way fear is struck in women is at the end, the video states “Protect women’s privacy. Prevent danger. Vote no on Proposition 1. It goes too far.” The secondary audience is mothers and fathers of daughters of all ages. It targets parents of young girls directly, but it also targets parents of grown-up daughters (because those parents will always see their daughter as a little girl). In the video, it shows a young girl walking into the bathroom. She then walks into a stall. She starts to close and lock the door; however this is interrupted by an adult man catching the door. The man then opens the door and walks into the stall with her and closes the door behind them both. The idea of an adult man going into the stall with one’s daughter is terrifying. This scares mothers and fathers of daughters into voting no on Proposition 1: Bathroom Ordinance even though that really is an unintended side effect to actual point of the ordinance.