Bathroom battle reveals transgender advocates’ mistakes

In July 2011, after the biannual convention of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ,) an LGBTQ-affirming mainline protestant denomination in which I grew up, an attendee made a written suggestion in the online forum: the following convention should designate gender-neutral restrooms, even if just one marked “family” or “unisex.”

It “would help immensely with people like myself who are different who's (sic) insides don't match the outside,” wrote the participant, a natal male who lived as a transgender female.

It seemed perfectly reasonable to me, as it did to everyone else who chimed into the discussion.

But in 2024, asking a person whose “insides don’t match the outside” to use a gender-neutral restroom is essentially an act of bigotry — and, in many jurisdictions, illegal.

That leaves two options for public restroom use: Prioritize the concerns of a plurality of Americans and require everyone use to bathrooms that match their sex, which enrages the trans advocacy machine and its allies; or prioritize the desires of transgender individuals — less than one-half of 1 percent of the population — by allowing them to use bathrooms corresponding with their perceived gender, which upsets a whole lot of other people.

The latest iteration of the bathroom debate comes out of the U.S. Capitol, after Congresswoman Nancy Mace, R-S.C., filed a resolution to require Members, officers and employees to use single-sex facilities including bathrooms that correspond with the individual’s “biological sex.”

Mace confirmed the resolution was a reaction toward the election of Sarah McBride, a male-to-female transgender woman and the first transgender person elected to the House.

Shortly thereafter, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson announced that a similar policy will be implemented under his authority as Speaker.

Despite my own opposition to males in female-only spaces, I don’t condone the tone that Mace has taken, which, though not nearly to the same degree as that of many pro-transgender activists, has been less than decorous at times.

Regardless of timing, the issue was bound to arise at some point. The media would surely see to it, as evidenced by a reporter’s question to Speaker Johnson on Tuesday: "Mr. Speaker, is freshman-elect Sarah McBride a man or a woman?"

That, of course, was a pointed question, not to mention a leading one, which the Speaker initially dodged.

I would have answered — with a pointed, leading question of my own:

“Do you want the correct answer, or do you want the true answer?”

Though often used interchangeably, “true” and “correct” are different terms.

“Correct” can mean acceptable or expected within established standards. “True” means based on fact or reality.

Most transgender advocates demand nothing short of the correct answer, which according to their standards is whatever the person feels they are — male, female, both or neither.

The true answer is that like all transgender women, Sarah McBride was born male and believes oneself to be a woman and identifies as such in name, dress and disposition.

I’m sorry to nitpick over Rep.-Elect McBride’s sex or gender identity — or anyone’s, for that matter. Truly.

But that door was opened by the trans advocacy machine via its demands for total and complete affirmation — without condition, and regardless of legitimate misgivings.

It’s one of several aspects in which those behind the movement for society’s acceptance and inclusion of transgender people has made a significant mistake — to the detriment of everyone, including and especially transgender people.

Of all of the protected classes shielded from unfair treatment based on a certain characteristic, gender identity is the only one for which protection from discrimination requires everyone else to constantly and consistently affirm something that is not factual.

Millions in the United States and worldwide choose to do so voluntarily, which is and must remain the right of mutually consenting adults. If affirmation were voluntary, those who have certain misgivings might not feel impelled to push back.

But the trans advocacy machine demands acquiescence, through character attacks and formal punishment for anyone who has the nerve to disagree.

Some even endorse coercion. A 2023 Newsweek poll suggested that approximately one in five Americans believes “misgendering,” the failure or refusal to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns and honorifics, should be illegal. 44% of younger millennials aged 25-34 support criminal penalties for misgendering — a shocking number in a country where freedom of speech is near the top of the list of fundamental rights, below only that of freedom of religion.

It didn’t shock me. The local (ish) trans advocacy machine has already tried to go after my job — and my company for employing me.

(Just in case it’s not obvious, I’m still employed.)

It’s no wonder that millions of others in the U.S. and worldwide are opting to draw a line. A broader study indicates that overall, the U.S. population is agreeable to reigning in policies that place the needs and desires of transgender people over the needs and desires of … well, everyone else.

Some are drawing a line at school board policies that allow a child to change their gender identity and use a different name and pronouns while at school, kept secret from their parents by the school — effectively equating the parents’ presumed hesitation with child abuse.

Some draw the line at policies that punish kids and adults alike for “misgendering,” policies which courts have mostly shot down.

Many draw a line at trans-identifying males scientifically proven to possess superior physical attributes unfairly competing in women’s sporting categories. A U.N. report last month stated that over 600 women athletes have lost nearly 900 medals in competition to athletes who were born male. The opposition to males competing in women’s sports is only growing.

A great many draw the line at puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy and invasive surgery for minor kids, all of which carry the risk of long-term side effects and/or complications that are nothing short of ghastly.

And yes, many are drawing a line at policies allowing people with male bodies to enter women’s intimate spaces — another area in which transgender advocacy has foolishly overstepped.

In a 2024 Yougov poll, half of respondents indicated they oppose allowing transgender people to “use bathrooms that match their gender identity, rather than their sex assigned at birth.” A plurality supported requiring transgender people to “use bathrooms that match their sex assigned at birth, rather than their gender identity.”

Notably, that poll, following metrics of election turnout in 2020, sampled a higher number of Democrats and Independents than Republicans, as well as a higher number of Biden voters than Trump voters.

Given the momentous shift in support toward President-Elect Donald Trump since then, it’s possible the poll actually underestimates Americans’ preference for reasonable bathroom policies.

Not unwilling to consider transgender accommodations, however, a plurality also indicated support for requiring gender-neutral bathrooms in all new builds.

Losing the moral and empathetic high ground, trans activists and allies have opted to gaslight, through questions such as, “Have you ever actually been harmed by a trans person in a bathroom?”

That implies that a woman’s feelings, comfort and sense of personal security should only be taken seriously if and after she has endured such an experience.

No. It doesn’t work that way.

If it does, then the question must apply equally to the trans community, particularly males who identify as women: Have you ever had a bad experience with a man in the men’s restroom?

It’s a question many might not wish to answer. To answer “no” is to suggest that access to women’s bathrooms and other intimate spaces is not as necessary or urgent as they insist.

To answer “yes,” however, is to admit that males tend to be viewed as more intimidating creatures than females.

But that illustrates exactly why in the first place it is necessary for men and women to have separate spaces for functions like toileting, bathing and dressing. And why so many of us — indeed, your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist included — support continued separate spaces.

As women, our reasons for wanting males out of our intimate spaces are, ironically, similar to those of trans-identifying males who want in. We want to be in a space where we feel safe.

But the trans advocacy machine fails to consider those concerns and instead continues its strategy seeking total acquiescence.

It isn’t a movement for equal rights. It is a demand for superior treatment — from a tiny shred of the population, at the expense of half the rest.

We aren’t fearful of transgender people. “Transphobia” has become a meaningless buzzword, a consequence of its mindless overuse.

We are fearful of predators — to whom vulnerability is an opportunity.

It floors me that LGBTQ+ advocates don’t seem concerned with distancing their communities from policies that enable the line between the two to blur.

It doesn’t have to be this way — especially in the U.S. Capitol, where in addition to single-sex restrooms, there are individual restrooms and private restrooms in every office. To say that single-sex bathroom policy would “ban trans people from bathrooms in federal buildings,” as some in the media have shamefully misrepresented it, is patently false.

But if there’s one thing we’re learning from all of this, it’s that some people will embrace what is false if it is deemed correct by the loudest voices.

Those voices can’t shout down everyone who dares to stand firm against them. If they think they can, that’s their biggest mistake of all.

Comments: Call or text 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com