Thanks largely to the mainstream media’s biased reporting, most people are unaware that the controversial bathroom bills in South Dakota and North Carolina actually approved a generous accommodation to transgendered students. According to Peter Sprigg of CNSNews, “The South Dakota bill regarding school bathrooms, HB 1008 required ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the form of ‘a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a [faculty] restroom, locker room, or shower room.’”
Because tolerant Americans have caved in to the radical LGBT agenda, many women and young girls will now experience anxiety over entering the ladies room or a dressing room in department stores such as Target. The Left doesn’t care about women and girls who will face the possibility of sexual harassment or even assault from biological males who have access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms and showers.
Peter Sprigg fills us in on the details:
Transgender activists demand that society affirm and celebrate the choices of those who identify with a gender different from their actual biological sex at birth. These demands apply to even the youngest of those suffering with gender dysphoria—children as young as three years old. However, such a position may not serve the long-term best interests of the child, either medically or psychologically.
Psychiatrist Susan Bradley and psychologist Kenneth J. Zucker, both of the University of Toronto, have worked extensively with children with gender dysphoria. They report only a tiny percent of those who exhibit cross-gender behavior in childhood become transgendered adults.
Transgender activists see social acceptance as a panacea, but there is no evidence that children permitted to change gender identity will avoid the negative outcomes associated with transgender identification in adulthood, including higher rates of suicide, health problems, and need for psychiatric care. Zucker and Bradley report success in treating children for gender dysphoria, and view failure to offer such treatment as “irresponsible.”
Classifying students as male or female on the basis of their biological sex at birth is logical and objective; classifying them on the basis of a subjective, self-selected gender identity delegates to children a potentially life-changing decision they do not have the maturity to make; and may well be counter to their own best interests.
Therefore, the backlash against recent bills in South Dakota and North Carolina that addressed the issue has been ironic—since both bills actually authorized a generous accommodation to transgendered students.
Although the demands of the transgender movement raise several important public policy issues, the question of sex-separated public facilities (such as restrooms, locker rooms, and showers) looms large in the public consciousness.
When using public facilities devoted to such private activities as using a restroom, and even more when using facilities that involve undressing or appearing nude before others (such as a locker room or shower), people have always been able to count on being separated from the view and presence of people of the opposite biological sex. This policy helps protect individual safety against the threat of sexual harassment or assault and also protects a basic sense of privacy and modesty. Continue reading
Turning American Law Upside Down for the Transgendered by David French