Let's say a child predator male is willing to put on a dress in order to get into the ladies room and do whatever it is they do, under the wording in the ordinance, the businesses would be powerless to prevent them from going in. Even more concerning was a clause in the paragraph saying businesses could deny the transgendered access to their preferred bathroom if they had a "good faith belief" that the subject's transgender (um...ing) was not "genuine". I'm sorry, but the only real way to tell if a transgendering is "genuine" is to either do a public check of the fun-factory, or request a demonstration. I don't know about you but that's not a job I think would be in high demand.I thought, upon writing this piece, that it was fairly clear I was not singling out the transgender community as sexual predators. What concerns me was the wording of the law and how high a bar was set to prove malfeasance on the part of those who were NOT transgendered, but who could use the law as an enabler. In other words, what concerned me was the law of unintended consequences, which never is, but always should, be a discussion point when passing ANY law.
As is their wont, Mrs. White responded today with a carefully constructed straw-man.
Pass the NDO. Mrs. White, Chron.com
They also should feel ashamed that many of their movement's leaders have resorted to lies and hatred in an attempt to promote their cause - baselessly accusing Houston's transgender community of being a refuge for sexual predators who prey on women and children. Harris County Republican Party Chairman Jared Woodfill, whom Republican voters wisely booted in this year's primary election, has even taken to calling the ordinance the "Sexual Predator Protection Act."
Except that, the problems that these conservative groups are voicing are not about transgender residents picking and choosing the restrooms of their choice, it's about sexual predators posing as transgender to gain access. It very well could be that this issue is a solution looking for a problem. But to prove that point reasoned debate and statistics are needed, not logical fallacies and preaching from an editorial board who is desperately out of touch with it's customer base. It is also highly probable that some are voicing opposition to this ordinance out of a genuine dislike for the GLBT community. However, just because some are forwarding an argument for spurious reasons does not necessarily mean that the argument is invalid.
Secondarily, I had major concerns with the amount of latitude that the proposed ordinance allowed businesses in determining whether or not one's transgender identity was legitimate or no. Were I a member of the transgender community I would have screamed long and hard about that as well.
Now that the clause has been removed by Mayor Parker in an attempt to silence critics, the issue hasn't gone away, in fact, it's been made worse. Now instead of providing guidelines for protections provided to transgender citizens the new bill is opaque and will spur several calls to HPD who will then be put in the impossible position of determining thought.
IF a business truly believes that the transgender identity of a certain person is not legitimate, they may refuse service without discrimination. However, if they refuse service without these beliefs then they are discriminating. We are going to leave it up to HPD to determine this?
I believe that in the culture wars, the GLBT community has won their case and that the argument is over. I see no reason to deny them marriage rights, benefits or divorce rights for that matter. However, I also don't think the attitude of "inclusion" is aided by a bill that basically makes it easier for the winning side to comb the city picking off the defeated survivors. That is, in effect, all this ordinance is designed to do. As much as I am firmly in support of equal treatment for the GLBT community, I am ardently against vilifying those who are still opposed due to legitimate reasons of faith and/or morality. That is not inclusion, it's an attempt to ostracize.
A true leader would understand the difference, would call for open and honest debate about the best way to prevent it from happening. Because neither of them have opted to engage in this debate, but have decided to treat the other side's issues as having zero merit. I'm convinced that Mayor Parker and Mrs. White are not the leaders they imagine themselves to be.
