The Transgender Target

Let me start by saying I did not intend for each Monday post to be about conservative attacks on transgender Americans.  

Two weeks ago, I posted about how a speaker at a conservative conclave called for the eradication on transgenders from public life, a call that was greeted by cheers.   

Last week, I wrote about how the U.S. House of Representatives are trying to restrict and curtail Americans who are transgender at the national level, following actions being taken by state legislatures across the country.   

This week, some of those state houses took up certain extreme measures that call out for attention and for more than a little outrage. 

But before I get into that, I want to address why this issue is important to me.  

I could say there are people that Andrea, Randie and I know and care about who are transgender. And that would be a true statement. 

But "I know people who are <fill in the blank>" is the cop out of conservatives who change their minds about some previous opposition to equality for women, racial equality, gay rights and more. 

There was a story recently of a state senator who voted against a measure to help provide free lunches to hungry children because he didn't know any hungry children.   

I suppose it helps to have a personal point of reference to have empathy for others but I do not think it's necessary.  

I'm going to turn part of today's post over to a 1970's sitcom called Maude starring Bea Arthur. Maude was a ground breaking TV show that was not afraid to take on critical socio-political issues of the day.  Below is an exchange between Maude and a conservative ideologue who is trying to shut down a neighborhood gay bar.    

Dr. Arthur Harmon: There are laws that prohibit places like this and this one should be closed down.

Maude Findlay: Oh, come on, you don't care anything about the law. You just want to persecute people whom you thing are different than you are.

Dr. Arthur Harmon: Do you approve of homosexuals?

Maude Findlay:  Arthur, it doesn't matter whether I approve or disapprove. They are human beings; they exist.

On the subject of people who identify as transgender, I am not going to pretend I have anything approaching a complete understanding of what that means. 

But my understanding, even my approval, is irrelevant. They are human beings, they exist. 

And here in the United States, they are also American citizens whose fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under attack. 

For example the sweeping anti-trans bill in Kentucky that  Republicans rushed through approvals in both the state House and Senate.   

The bill sets up the following: 

• allows trans students to be misgendered
• bans gender-affirming care
• requires doctors to begin detransitioning any of their trans patients who are children
• mandates that schools create policies that will not allow trans students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity
•  does not allow educators to discuss sexual orientation or gender identity in any grade
• forbids discussion of human sexuality until sixth grade. After that, parental consent is required.

What makes passage of this particular passage of this bill especially galling is that in open debate with Democrats, the bill appeared to be dead, that the bill went too far.  Instead of further debate, Republicans put the bill on a fast track for a vote before anyone could raise any objections.  

Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear isn’t expected to sign the bill, which passed along party lines but the GOP has enough of a majority to override his veto.

Meanwhile in Montana, Republicans are moving forward with legislation to eliminate the legal existence of trans, nonbinary and intersex people in the state by codifying the definition of sex to be based on a person’s reproductive system.

This is what Dr. Lauren Wilson of the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say about the Montana bill: “I think this bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist, and in doing so, they’re using a really faulty understanding of biology to try to change the legal code in ways that I don’t think they’ve fully thought through." 

The Montana bill would define sex as “the organization of the body and gametes for reproduction in human beings and other organisms” and states that among human beings, “there are exactly two sexes, male and female, with two corresponding gametes.”

What would make you a woman in Montana? "Produce a relatively large, relatively immobile gamete, or egg, during her life cycle and have a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.” 

What would make you a man in Montana? "Produce “small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.”

After some debate, the bill was amended to include some exceptions for intersex individuals, who are born with anatomy or chromosomes that don’t fit into a male or female binary. However, the bill forces these individuals to align with the male or female gender.  

On the intersex part of this bill, here's more from Dr. Wilson: “Some intersex people, they identify themselves as a third category. Having the definitions really be centered around people’s reproductive capacity means that there are certain people who just will never be able to be categorized that way. And this bill appears to give them no legal status whatsoever."  

Which is the whole point, to marginalize a part of the American population, to make them (to borrow a term from the novel 1984) "unpersons".  A handy dandy vulnerable target to gain political power. 

But these are not unpersons to be shunted aside out of fear and a blatant grab for power.

They are, as Maude said nearly 50 years ago, "They are human beings; they exist."