The New Transgendered Battleground: Bathrooms?
The forces of homophobia, bigotry (a.k.a “religious freedom”) lost the war on equal marriage. Not that they know when to admit they’re wrong. Nope. Not when you know god’s on your side. So having lost that battle to common sense, fairness and justice, they’re now turning their attention to attacking young transgender people. The subject of the attack? The great “crisis” to which they call their banners to war?
Where one poops and pees.
Recently, The United States Department of Education warned public schools that Title IX, passed in the 1970’s, makes it illegal to deny transgender students in public schools access to the facilities of their gender identity.
In states with large “conservative” populations – sorry, I meant to say “fools and cowards” – there’s been a new movement to scream over this latest “outrage” and “attack” on “religious freedom.”
Enter stage right, South Dakota, which recently became the first state to pass a law that would require transgendered children and teenagers to use school facilities that correspond to “chromosomes and anatomy” at birth.
I was laughing, too; I always do, when people who rant about mythology suddenly start using “sciency” words to support religious arguments. Like they actually put stock in science (or in common sense, fairness, equality, civil justice, minding your own damned business, etc.).
Of course, South Dakota isn’t the only backwards state where this nonsense is starting to take hold. At last count, 22 other states have introduced similar legislation at odds with the federal government’s interpretation of law. Guess how many are “red?”
Did you say: “all of them?” You win.
The sponsor of the bill in South Dakota, Republican (what a shock) State Representative Fred Deutsch, says that his bill “pushes back against Federal overreach and intrusion into our (who’s “our”?) lives, and is an attempt to regain control of something as basic and common sense as privacy rights for our children while at school.”
Common sense? Privacy rights? What the hell is this lunatic talking about?
Let’s pretend you’re a male gay student. You’re not trans. You are attracted to boys. Would Representative Deutsch suggest that you couldn’t use the men’s bathroom because the boys in that bathroom were afraid that you – the gay student – were “peeping” at them? Nope. Oh, not that he’s a good guy. I’m sure if he thought he could get away with it, he’d offer such a bill in a heartbeat. But that social and legal train has left the station. But trans kids? Still a legit target.
Of course, on the other hand, if the female-to-male trans kid – who isn’t interested in other boys – wants to the use the bathroom, the answer is no? Why?
Because these idiots and the idiots for whom they speak don’t know – or want to acknowledge – the difference between sexuality and gender identity. For people who feel their personal mythologies have to run everyone else’s lives, there is no difference. And that’s why trans people are just another kind of gay person to people like Mr. Deutsch.
He’s clearly speaking for all the maniac parents who don’t want their children in the same bathroom as “weirdos god doesn’t love.” Well, parents and students are going to have to grow up. Do we really have to get worked up over who’s around when we poop and pee? Really? Can’t we be more mature than that? Can’t we teach our children to be more mature than that?
On the other hand, in Charlotte, North Carolina, the State’s largest city passed a law allowing transgender people to use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity, which the very ignorant (and cowardly) Governor suggested was a “threat to public safety.” The Charlotte City Council voted 7 to 4 on Monday the 22nd to expand protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Of course, Governor McCrory, cow-towing to the religious right, calls the measure a “major public safety issue.” Really? How? Are “they” planning some attack which will begin in the bathrooms of Charlotte? Eeek!
Of course, we know where opposition to this measure came from, just as we know where it came from in South Dakota, because one of the opponents of the measure, passing out “no” stickers, asked people to “stand with religious values.”
Ah, there it is: “religious values” interfering with common sense and fairness once again.
Well, the religious right lost the battle against common sense and fairness on the marriage front, and it’s going to lose this battle, too. It’s only a matter of time before the right case comes before the most powerful court in the country and the issue is resolved.
Guess I’m getting intolerant as I get older. If you strongly feel that your religious beliefs ought to guide public policy and affirmatively affect the rights of others that have nothing to do with you, perhaps you should move to a country more suited to that point of view. I recommend Sudan, Libya or Saudi Arabia.
