In a recent OpEd titled, “Pass the NDO,” the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board criticizes me and others for opposing an Ordinance pushed by Mayor Parker that would allow, among other things, men who identify as women to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Specifically, the Board states, “Perhaps Woodfill and his ilk would like Parker to institute citywide restroom monitors to assuage their fears.” This is preceded by a subtitle that states, “There is little value in spreading hatred about the transgender community.”
Whenever and wherever sexual politics is involved, labels are employed to shoot down valid questions about the impact of legitimizing certain activities in the public sphere. The latest in this long string of debates involves Mayor Parker’s proposed city ordinance that would allow, among other things, men who claim to identify as women to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms and other gender-specific facilities.
I, like tens of thousands of other Houstonians, oppose the Ordinance. This coalition is very diverse, including Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Party activists, pastors, priests, fathers, mothers, daughters and just about any group you can think of that takes issue with, among other things, gender confused men using women’s bathrooms. Unfortunately, the Chronicle Editorial board has decided to describe me and anyone else who opposes allowing men into women’s restrooms as “hateful.” The discussion is then shifted away from the merits of the proposition and turned into a mudslinging contest where the best ad hominem attack wins. Name calling is no replacement for facts.
And the fact is, passing an ordinance that allows men claiming to be gender-confused to enter women’s restrooms is dangerous. What about the rights of the affected women to not be exposed to men while in restrooms, locker rooms, or other gender specific facilities? Indecent exposure and assault in restrooms are already very real and quantifiable problems, but in the case of the proposed ordinance, it is the chicken or the egg: wrong is wrong and right is right, and women should not have to contend with male genitalia in their restrooms or private space.
The current discourse is not about “hate” or “intolerance,” but about common sense, a quality not in large supply these days. Do we really want our daughters and wives to be forced to contend with men in their personal space? Semantics and hypotheticals about what these men may “feel” about themselves are irrelevant. What about the very real problem of the risk inherent in declaring open season on women’s restrooms for any and all men who can put on a dress?
After Mayor Parker’s latest change to the proposed ordinance, men can now enter women’s facilities even without female attire. Various editorials by transgender activists are now painting those opposed to the Ordinance as “non-discrimination opponents,” essentially accusing those who oppose men using women’s restrooms of “discrimination.” We are not opposed to stopping discrimination or promoting equality. But that is not what the so-called, “Equal Rights Ordinance” accomplishes. Far from it: this ordinance imposes another form of very real discrimination on businesses and people of faith, and puts innocent civilians in the path of sexual predators.
From one “ilk” to another, well said Jared. Anyone that doesn’t think perverts will take advantage of this ordinance to enter women’s locker rooms is naive and should remember that perverts are very sick people. And as my wife asked me last night, what happened to my rights as a woman? She’s right. For centuries men’s rights came before women’s and only in the last century or so have we made progress in that area. Not protecting women is going backward. Shameful.