Washington state officials announce opposition to transgender rights

by Sara Ritsch
Staff Writer

Since the Washington State Human Rights Commission (HRC) announced that transgender people in Washington will be able to use restrooms and locker rooms based on identity rather than anatomy, the rule has been met with resentment and extreme opposition.

Washington Rep. Graham Hunt, Republican, said on social media, “For the [HRC] to unilaterally make a [code] change…they’re making decisions that widely affect the public although they’re not elected and held accountable to the public in the same fashion.”

The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Emily Chiang, has a contrasting thought. “What they [the HRC] have done is basically clarify existing Washington state law, which already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“So, it wouldn’t really make sense for the legislature to be involved, the HRC action is designed to give additional guidance to people looking to understand the state law.”

The Commission’s rule explains that those who are uncomfortable with a transgender person using their restroom may be directed to a separate, gender-neutral facility. No one should be removed from a restroom based on their gender identity.

In an interview with The News Tribune, Hunt implied that transgender women are the real “security concern,” suggesting that an inclusive bathroom or locker room policy will create open opportunities for male sexual predators. He made no mention of transgender men.

In an attempt to sound like the hero of the female kind, Hunt inadvertently expressed his misunderstanding of gender identity.

But, he is not alone in this perspective. Joseph Backholm, of the conservative Family Policy Institute of Washington, says that “This is the next step in this war on gender.”

According to Think Progress, Backholm’s organization “attacked the new rules, describing transgender people as people ‘confused about their gender’ and misgendering them. ‘Sexual predators look for opportunity,’ he [Backholm] wrote. ‘This provides it.’”

On Facebook, Hunt specified his reasoning to go beyond his disquiet over transgender individuals. “I am concerned by the language used by the Human Rights Commission that says if you are uncomfortable with somebody who is of opposite gender using the facility with you then YOU should leave and find somewhere else to change, use the restroom, shower, etc. I don’t like the thought that one groups [sic] rights trump the rights of another.”

Hunt is making every effort to ban entry to any person who has not yet had their gender reassignment surgery.

“I’ve tried to make this about genitalia. If you don’t have the parts…then you don’t go in,” Hunt says about the rule.

If any individual is using their bathroom break as an excuse to sexually assault or harass anyone else, the police or facility operator should be immediately notified. There is already a rule for that.

So for someone to hypothetically suggest that allowing a transgender woman with no prior predatory incidents into the women’s restroom exposes countless other girls and women to that risk, Hunt and Backholm are implying that alternative gender identity is sexual predation in itself.

Others imply that maybe they should use a different restroom.

The Gayly – 1/19/2016 @ 4:05 p.m. CST