I respectfully disagree with Jonah Wheeler’s position on HR148. First, “safety” is used as an argument for having bathroom use restricted to the gender assigned at birth. I strongly suspect that transgender women forced to use a male bathroom face a far greater risk of physical and emotional violence from anti-trans males than do cis women encountering transgender women in a women’s bathroom. People may feel uncomfortable, yes, but this is not the same as risk.
And though the bill dismisses this, almost all bathrooms have stalls for privacy. If organizations require people to use the bathroom based on “biological sex,” transgender males will be required to use women’s bathrooms. I know a female who successfully transitioned to a male, and who now appears male, including a full beard. Will women supporting this new law feel comfortable when he uses their bathroom?
I was the ConVal Nordic skiing coach for 15 years and recently helped develop a policy for transgender skiers competing in New England. Our group found that perspectives fell into two broad concerns — inclusion versus fairness. Our final policy, supported unanimously, was to allow athletes to compete in the gender with which they identified until a certain level of competition was reached (eg. qualifying for national competitions). At this point, it was felt that the biological advantages of individuals born male who transitioned to female was unfair to cis women competitors. We felt that this policy supported youth who wanted to enjoy the sport as themselves, and at the same time protected the integrity of competition at the highest levels. I understand that sports differ, but here is an example of a win-win solution.
I am happy to discuss this topic with anyone who wishes to share perspectives.
M. Scott McGovern
Peterborough