In July 2011, after the biennial of the Christian church (Disciples of Christ), an LGBTQ-affirming Protestant denomination where I grew up, a participant made a written proposal in the online forum: the following convention should be designated as gender neutral. toilets, even if only one marked ‘family’ or ‘unisex’.

It “would help immensely with people like myself who are different who are (sic) the inside doesn’t match the outside,” wrote the participant, an obstetrician living as a transgender.

It seemed perfectly reasonable to me, as it did to everyone else who peeked into the discussion.

But in 2024, asking a person whose “inside doesn’t match the outside” to use a gender-neutral restroom is fundamentally a bigoted act — and, in many jurisdictions, illegal.

That leaves two options for use in public restrooms: Prioritize the concerns of a majority of Americans and require everyone to use bathrooms that match their gender, infuriating the trans advocacy machine and its allies; or prioritize the wishes of transgender people – less than half of 1 percent of the population – by allowing them to use bathrooms that correspond to their perceived gender, which upsets a lot of other people.

The latest iteration of the bathroom debate comes from the US Capitol, after Congresswoman Nancy Mace, RS.C., filed a resolution to demandurges members, officers and employees to use single-sex facilities including bathrooms corresponding to the individual’s “biological sex”.

Mace confirmed that the resolution was a reaction to the election of Sarah McBride, a male-to-female trans woman and the first trans person elected to the House.

Shortly thereafter, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that a similar policy will be implemented under his authority as Speaker.

Despite my own opposition to men in women’s spaces, I do not condone the tone Mace has taken, which, while not to the same degree as many pro-transgender activists, has been less than graceful at times.

Regardless of the timing, the problem was bound to arise at some point. The media would certainly see to it, as evidenced by a reporter’s question to Speaker Johnson on Tuesday: “Mr. Speaker, is newly elected Sarah McBride a man or a woman?”

It was, of course, a pointed question, not to mention a leading one, which the Speaker initially avoided.

I would have responded – with a pointed, leading question of my own:

“Do you want the right answer, or do you want the true answer?”

Although often used interchangeably, “true” and “correct” are different terms.

“Correct” can mean acceptable or expected within established standards. “True” means based on fact or reality.

Most transgender advocates demand nothing more than the correct answer, which by their standards is whatever the person feels they are – male, female, both, or neither.

The true answer is that, like all trans people, Sarah McBride was born male and believes herself to be female and identifies as such in name, dress and disposition.

I’m sorry to ramble on about Rep.-Elect McBride’s gender or gender identity – or anyone’s, for that matter. Real.

But that door was opened by the trans defense machine via its demand for total and complete affirmation—without conditions, and regardless of legitimate concerns.

It is one of several aspects where those behind the movement for societal acceptance and inclusion of transgender people have made a significant mistake – to the detriment of everyone, including and especially transgender people.

Of all the protected classes protected from unfair treatment based on a particular characteristic, gender identity is the only one where protection from discrimination requires that everyone else constantly and consistently affirm something that is not factual.

Millions in the US and around the world choose to do so voluntarily, which is and must remain the right of mutual consent. If the confirmation was voluntary, those who have some misgivings might not feel compelled to push back.

But the trans advocacy machine demands consent, through character attacks and formal punishment for anyone who has the courage to disagree.

Some even support coercion. A 2023 Newsweek poll suggested that roughly one in five Americans believe that “misgendering,” the failure or refusal to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns and honorifics, should be illegal. 44% of younger millennials aged 25-34 support criminal penalties for misgendering — a shocking figure in a country where freedom of expression ranks near the top of the list of fundamental rights, second only to freedom of religion.

It didn’t shock me. The local(ish) trans influence machine has already tried to go after my job – and my company for hiring me.

(Just in case it’s not obvious, I’m still employed.)

It’s no wonder that millions of others in the United States and around the world are choosing to draw a line. A broader study indicates that the American population overall accepts being governed by policies that put the needs and wants of transgender people ahead of the needs and wants of … well, everyone else.

Some draw a line at school board policies that allow a child to change their gender identity and use a different name and pronoun while at school, kept from their parents by the school — effectively equating the parents’ supposed hesitation with child abuse.

Some draw the line at policies that punish both children and adults for “misgendering,” policies that courts have mostly struck down.

Many draw a line at trans-identifying men who have been scientifically proven to have superior physical attributes that unfairly compete in women’s sports categories. A United Nations report last month found that more than 600 female athletes have lost almost 900 medals in competition to male-born athletes. Opposition to men competing in women’s sports is only growing.

Many draw the line at puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and invasive surgery for smaller children, all of which carry the risk of long-term side effects and/or complications that are nothing short of dire.

And yes, many draw a line at policies that allow people with male bodies to enter women’s intimate spaces — another area where transgender promotion has stupidly overstepped.

In a 2024 Yougov survey, half of the respondents stated that they oppose allowing transgender people to “use bathrooms that match their gender identity, rather than their gender assigned at birth.” A majority supported requirements that transgender people “use bathrooms that match their sex assigned at birth, rather than their gender identity.”

Notably, that poll, after measuring 2020 turnout, sampled a higher number of Democrats and independents than Republicans, as well as a higher number of Biden voters than Trump voters.

Given the significant shift in support for President-elect Donald Trump since then, it’s possible the poll actually underestimates Americans’ preference for reasonable bathroom policies.

Not averse to considering transgender housing, several also indicated support for requiring gender-neutral bathrooms in all new construction.

Trans activists and allies have lost the moral and empathic high ground and have chosen to gaslight, through questions like “Have you ever actually been hurt by a trans person in a bathroom?”

This means that a woman’s feelings, comfort and sense of personal safety should only be taken seriously if and after she has endured such an experience.

No. It doesn’t work that way.

If it does, the question must apply equally to the trans community, especially men who identify as women: Have you ever had a bad experience with a man in the men’s room?

It is a question that many people may not want to answer. To answer “no” is to imply that access to women’s bathrooms and other intimate spaces is not as necessary or urgent as they insist.

However, to answer “yes” is to admit that men tend to be seen as more terrifying creatures than women.

But it illustrates exactly why it is necessary for men and women to have separate spaces for functions such as toileting, bathing and dressing in the first place. And why so many of us—indeed, including your friendly neighborhood columnist—support continued separate spaces.

As women, our reasons for wanting men out of our intimate spaces are, ironically, similar to those of trans-identifying men who want in. We want to be in a space where we feel safe.

But the trans advocacy machine fails to consider these concerns and instead continues its strategy of seeking total consent.

It is not a movement for equal rights. It is a demand for superior treatment – from a small slice of the population, at the expense of half the rest.

We are not afraid of trans people. “Transphobia” has become a meaningless buzzword, a consequence of its thoughtless overuse.

We fear predators – for whom vulnerability is an opportunity.

It bothers me that LGBTQ+ advocates don’t seem interested in distancing their communities from policies that blur the line between the two.

It doesn’t have to be that way – especially in the US Capitol, where in addition to single-sex toilets, there are individual toilets and private toilets in every office. To say that single-sex bathroom policies would “ban transgender people from bathrooms in federal buildings,” as some in the media have shamefully distorted it, is patently false.

But if there’s one thing we learn from all of this, it’s that some people will embrace what’s false if it’s deemed correct by the loudest voices.

Those voices cannot shout down anyone who dares to stand firm against them. If they think they can, that’s their biggest mistake of all.

Comments: Call or text 319-398-8266; [email protected]

Opinion content represents the point of view of the author or The Gazette editorial staff. You can join the conversation by send a letter to the editor or guest columnist or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to [email protected]