The Transgender Bathroom Bill

One of our government’s primary roles is to protect and defend its people from both foreign and domestic enemies. This “defense” isn’t necessarily of militaristic means or approach, as our government must also defend the rights and freedoms of its citizens from the inherent overreaching nature of central government. 

This is why we have a court system that evaluates and actively monitors legislation and governmental decisions for constitutionality, so that the rights and freedoms of the people are protected.

Understanding this fundamental principle of governance in the United States - and the State of California - we have failed to recognize why our government has the duty of protecting the rights of the people - and specifically - protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

It’s with the passage of Assembly Bill 1266, or the “Transgender Bathroom Bill” that Democrats in the State Legislature show their true ignorance towards our founding document, and the duties it bestowed upon their power in office.

In an attempt to “protect” the rights of the minority by providing discrimination-free bathrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities for students, they have instead violated the rights of the majority.

Allowing male, female, transgender, and gender-neutral students to use the same bathrooms, and more shockingly, use the same locker and shower rooms, is not only a disturbing thought, but a complete departure from the intentions set forth in our founding documents.

While taking down “unnecessary” barriers of “discrimination”, we are blatantly violating the rights of the majority of students who are not transgender. 

Don’t get me wrong, I believe discrimination due to sexual orientation or gender is disgusting, and I will continue to be an advocate for inclusion and non-discrimination policies. I’m a Christian, and in my book of worship, it tells us that only one man can judge, and that man is not of this Earth. 

But this has nothing to do with discrimination. Whether the legislation was created with good intentions must be disregarding, as the effects of such legislation will result in an effect opposite of what was desired by advocates of inclusion. 

A member of State Assembly brought up a very possible scenario during the debate of this piece of legislation: What stop a student from deciding “he” is a girl one day, and is permitted to use the girl’s locker room, and then a boy the next? 

To avoid this, would we give administrators the power to make a judgement call on whether or not somebody was really transgender or really had innocent intentions? Surely this would result in discrimination?

In a perfect society, where predators didn’t exist and animalistic tendencies didn’t exist, this legislation could be very well be implemented. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect society, and people are not pure nor perfect.

The signatures have been submitted to qualify a referendum of AB1266, and I'd ask that our legislators go back to the drawing board and find more sensible ways to make our transgender/gender-neutral students feel safe, secure, and comfortable in our schools. No student should ever be discriminated against or made uncomfortable for who they are, and that includes those in the majority.