To the Nevada State Senate:
Though Senate Bill 225 may have been introduced with the best of intentions, I must urge the Senate not to pass it, for three significant reasons.
- It could lead to an unsafe environment where predators may operate.
The mother of a transgender student (and a major proponent of this bill) was recently interviewed by the Las Vegas Sun about the “bullying” her child had been subjected to at school. It boiled down to not being allowed in the opposite gender’s locker room (https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/mar/22/parents-lawmakers-want-anti-bullying-law-at-privat/). It appears, then, that this is the kind of situation SB 225 is meant to rectify (Section 6.3 of the bill, for example, can be read this way).
In March 2017, Kristen Quintrall, who describes herself as “pretty progressive and tolerant,” was at Disneyland with her young son and reported seeing an aggressive man in the women’s restroom, ogling them. This was not a transgender person—it was a man taking advantage of the current policies there about transgender people to create a hostile and dangerous situation for women. (http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom)
There have been many recent incidents of women being assaulted in public restrooms, particularly at Target, which has promoted itself as a bastion of “non-discrimination” regarding gender and its bathrooms (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF16F27.pdf).
Surely, Nevada does not want to create unsafe spaces for women and girls, much less open itself to the legal liability which will ensue from policies that set up the circumstances under which such tragedies could occur in the first place.
Please note that this objection has nothing to do with transgender people themselves. In the interest of serving their wants, we would also be creating a serious problem for many others. If this bill passes and leads to universally open locker rooms and bathrooms, heterosexual predators will abuse this policy and innocent women will suffer. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and ignore that.
- It could restrict freedoms of speech and conscience.