If
one happens to be a father – particularly one who is raising daughters – then
surely this inquiry rings familiar: “Dad, where can I go to the bathroom?”
Now,
at home or at grandmas or even in, say, a state park, this would not
necessarily present a problem. But when that father/daughter combination is out
and about and using public accommodations – especially when the child happens
to be too young to do so on her own – it becomes a complicated test of
parenting skills.
Does
dad subject her to the men’s room? Does he accompany his daughter into the
ladies’ room? Or, does he send her into the women’s facility on her own and
wait nervously for her to emerge?
In
today’s politically-correct-run-amok climate none-of-the-above seems the safest
choice (specifically in regard to the second option), although if the Baltimore County Council has its way the line between gender-specific restrooms is about
to become unbelievably blurry.
Currently
before the council is Bill 3-12, an act “concerning human relations” that, if
passed, would prohibit “discrimination against a person in certain matters on
the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression;
defining terms; and generally relating
to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or
expression.”
In
plain English: those who engage in discriminating against any person who assumes a “gender identity”
other than the one assigned to said person at birth will be prosecuted under
the county’s human rights laws.
While
such legislation will protect those questioning their sexual identity from being
denied housing, employment, education or financing, it will also allow those
considering a new sexual identity to use a bathroom facility with which they
most identify.
Discrimination
as a result of that person’s “appearance” will also be a violation of the human
rights laws, thereby opening the door for anyone dressed as a woman (crossdressers,
transvestites, pre-op transsexuals, etc) to use a public facility currently designated
for a female whose sexual identity was ‘assigned (and agreed upon) at birth.’
Translated:
as currently written, Bill 3-12 would allow someone dressed as Dustin Hoffman’s
“Tootsie” character to enter the female locker room in your neighborhood
fitness club and do so with the full protection of the law.
There
are now more than 140 jurisdictions in the United States that have transgender
discrimination laws in place, yet many of them do not address the issue of
public accommodations – the matter of allowing males who have yet to undergo
the surgery that would make them a female access to private areas currently
frequented by our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters (or in the case of a
female-to-male transgender our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons).
Why?
Because if there’s one feature elected officials from all across the country
have in common it’s their collective ability to avoid difficult decisions and
settle for a knee-jerk (re: easy) resolution to the problem.
In
this instance it was the hasty reaction of county councilman Tom Quirk
(Catonsville) who introduced this legislation as a result of a 2011 attack on a
transgendered woman – Chrissy Lee Polis – in a Baltimore County McDonald’s.
But
just as the laws against murder do not prevent killings; or the laws against
robbery do not prevent car theft; or the laws against public officials taking
bribes from grocery stores do not prevent state senators from taking bribes from grocery stores,
having hate crime legislation on the books would not have prevented Ms. Polis
from suffering the beating she received at the hands of the animals that
attacked her last April.
Some
may argue that this type of legislation may result in even more violence
against transgenders, especially in such instances where one’s “appearance”
leaves little doubt as to the “sexual identity” disguised beneath the clothing.
Think
Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire… with five o’clock shadow.
Regardless
of what public accommodation supporters argue, not addressing this aspect of
any transgender discrimination law will allow any man (or woman) who is so
inclined to enter a restroom, locker room, dressing room, etc that is patronized
by members of the opposite sex.
And
while the transgendered (or those transitioning to a different sex) ask that
they not be stereotyped as sexual predators, those satisfied with their current
sexual identity ask that they not be branded bigots or hateful just because
they are uncomfortable with the prospect of being forced by law to inhabit the
toilet stall next to a man in woman’s clothing.
No,
this is not an effort to lump all transgender men with transvestites, and
neither should the transgendered see it as an opportunity to pretend that
sexual predators do not come in all shapes, sizes, appearances and gender
identities.
Which begs the question: If sexual predators are already stalking victims in public areas then why would a county council vote to give them protection?
In
the end we can all count on government to get this issue – like so many that have
preceded it – spectacularly wrong.
Transgender
people have been using public restrooms since, well, the advent of public restrooms,
and until lawmakers nationwide brought the focus to the forefront (only to ignore it) shared
accommodations has been the Spot-a-Pot version of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’
Bill 3-12 does little
more than put both sides of this argument at a higher risk of victimization, but
it should at least make those dad/daughter restroom decisions much easier –
especially if papa starts packing around a Bouffant wig and a pair of Prada
Slingbacks.
You can contact the Baltimore County Council by clicking this link or by calling 410.887.3196
More below the fold.
