In 2020, LGB Alliance USA partnered with Feminists in Struggle and the Coalition for Feminist Amendments to propose a set of amendments to the Equality Act that would ensure the protection of women’s sex-based rights as well as the rights of same-sex oriented and gender-nonconforming people, including those who identify as transgender. The reasoning for these proposed amendments is described here.
However, the unsourced claims presented as “facts” in this article entitled “Mythbuster: The Equality Act” necessitate further expansion on the importance of these amendments. Below are excerpts of the so-called “Myths” and “Facts” from the piece:
Examples 1 and 2:
MYTH: This bill infringes on women’s rights by allowing transgender people to use facilities that match who they are.
FACT: The Equality Act explicitly ensures that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination in their daily lives.
MYTH: This bill would cause harm in schools by allowing transgender students to use facilities that match who they are.
FACT: 21 states and hundreds of school districts across the country have prohibited discrimination against transgender students for decades.
First, neither of these “facts” disproves the “myths.” The myth/fact language does not correlate nor address the “myth” concerns. The bill absolutely does infringe on women’s rights by eliminating sex as a distinct protected class, and harm is already occurring in schools due to the adoption of gender ideology: many girls have been attacked and harassed in their school restrooms to the point of skipping school while on their periods or avoiding using the restroom entirely. Further, the “fact” response to this first “myth” does not mention women or girls at all, only “LGBTQ” (an incoherent acronym that is discussed further in this piece).
Second, a class of “transgender people” does not exist because the definition of “transgender” is inconsistent and incoherent even among its proponents and relies on the following false premises: that sex is “assigned” at birth (sex, of course, is determined at conception and observable in utero); that one can be “born in the wrong body” (an anti-scientific concept that relies on the religious notion of a soul); that brains can somehow be differently sexed from the rest of the body; and the failure to define “gender” as distinct from biological sex. Thus, “discrimination against transgender students” is an incoherent statement because a) as stated, “transgender” has no clear definition, and b) discrimination cannot occur on the basis of one’s subjective self-perception (i.e. “being trans”); rather, discrimination against trans-identifying people occurs on the basis of gender-nonconformity, and this discrimination occurs regardless of whether or not a gender-nonconforming person identifies as trans. Males and females exist, to varying degrees of gender-nonconformity, and with various self-declared labels; some may experience sex dysphoria, but not all dysphoric people choose to adopt a “trans” label or a “gender identity.”
The “facilities” in question above are separated by sex, not gender identity; here’s why and here’s why some more. Evidence shows that trans-identified males retain a male-pattern rate of criminality and almost half of all trans-identified male prisoners are sex offenders, a much higher rate than the average population. Additional crime stats of trans-identified males can be found here and here. This is why single-sex spaces matter for women.
To correct the disingenuous language in the “myth/fact” excerpt above, trans-identifying people are demanding to use the facilities that match not who they are but who they want to be. If we begin to enact laws and policies not on the basis of reality but of who each individual declares themselves to be, where is the line drawn? Can white people identify as black and serve as president of the NAACP? Can an adult identify as a child and be exempt from adult laws? Legislation based on individual subjectivity that directly conflicts with reality is impossible to define or enforce with any degree of integrity, fairness, or justice.
Eliminating discrimination against gender-nonconforming people and working to ensure empathic care for sex-dysphoric individuals do not require us to deny reality, especially at the cost of sex-based and same-sex rights. While some trans-identified males may indeed be at greater risk of discrimination of assault in male facilities, the solution is not to make female spaces unsafe by opening them up to males who declares themselves female.
Please see a few examples below of the consequences of allowing males into female facilities:
- Transgender inmates have carried out seven sex attacks on women in jail
- ‘Transgender’ Inmates Sexually Assault, Rape Female Inmates at a Shocking Rate, Ministry of Justice Reveals
- Male Student Filmed Women in “All Gender” Washroom
- Domestic abuser allowed into women’s refuge after identifying as a female
- Transgender woman, 18, sexually assaulted girl, 10, in Morrisons toilet
- Male Sex Offender Placed in Women’s Prison Already Plagued by Sexual Abuse Scandal – Women Are Human
- Outrage as male bank director who sometimes wears dresses is given place on ‘top 100 women in business’ list
- Male Wins “Female Leadership” Position in New York Democratic Council
- This Never Happens
Further, terms like “LGBTQ” rights or “the LGBTQ community” are misnomers because same-sex orientation is incompatible with the “T,” i.e. gender ideology (additionally, “queer,” once a homophobic slur, has become a meaningless word frequently appropriated by heterosexuals to describe their personality traits or sexual practices). Gender ideology denies the material reality and significance of biological sex, yet sex is the sole basis for women’s rights and same-sex rights. Grouping LGB (same-sex orientation) with other groups loosely related to sex/gender is detrimental to same-sex rights and same-sex community. Diluting the same-sex rights movement to “LGBTQ” or other expanded permutations effectively erases the class of same-sex oriented people. Indeed, homophobia within the gender identity movement has become ubiquitous. Additionally, the ambiguous “+” typically added to the acronym makes it impossible to define the community at all—it might as well include an “S” for straight people, especially considering most trans-identified males are, in fact, heterosexual.
MYTH: This legislation will allow boys to compete on girls’ sports teams.
FACT: Schools across the country, including in twenty-five states that have formal guidelines, have for years been successfully ensuring a level playing field for all while being inclusive of transgender youth.
Again, the “fact” does not actually address the “myth,” and in reality the “myth” is true and already occurring.
This is not an issue of “inclusivity,” considering male athletes are fully entitled to pursue competition on male teams. They are not being excluded from sports; they are being excluded from a category to which they do not belong. Should heavyweight boxers be allowed to “identify” into a lighter weight class? Should an MLB star be entitled to play in Little League if he “identifies” as a different age?
What constitutes a “level playing field” in the excerpt above is not defined and thus is meaningless. Lia (née Will) Thomas ranked #462 in men’s swimming and now ranks #1 in women’s. Is this a “level playing field”? No, because it is not possible to ensure fairness while “including” males in women’s sports. Changes in hormone levels do not change one’s sex and do not eliminate the male physical advantage caused by numerous other differences between the sexes. Here are three well-sourced explanations of this:
- Biological sex differences: bones & muscles
- On Transgender athletes and performance advantages
- Foul Play: The Colonization of Women’s Sports