Michigan Lawmaker: Transgender Protections ‘Violate The Privacy Rights Of Women And Children’
The city of Royal Oak, Michigan was on track to become the 22nd city in the state to establish LGBT nondiscrimination protections, but that measure is now being challenged at the ballot through a citywide referendum. State House Rep. Tom McMillin (R) issued a news release explaining why he thinks the protections would “violate the privacy rights of women and children”:
MCMILLIN: Why the city would want to force places like schools, businesses and fitness centers to allow men to use a women’s restroom or locker room – and allow boys to access girl’s restrooms and locker rooms in schools, is beyond me.
It certainly violates the privacy rights of women and children. At the very least, the council should have also included a requirement for warning signs on women’s and girl’s public restroom and locker room doors saying that women and girls may be confronted there by men who think they are women.
Like Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R), McMillin seems to be afraid that women and children might see a transgender woman’s penis. But transgender women are not “men who think they are women,” they are women. They are not predators, nor does anybody need to be warned that they might be in the same space. Indeed, McMillin seems to have little concern for transgender people’s same right to privacy or for their basic dignity and safety to use a gender-appropriate facility.
McMillin’s statement also claimed that requiring Christians not to discriminate against LGBT people is tantamount to “bullying”:
MCMILLIN: The discrimination and coercion this ordinance supports — that a Christian photographer or baker must, if asked, offer their services to a so-called ‘gay wedding’ or face a $500 per day fine is wrong… Bullying Christians is wrong, too.
Tom McMillin has previously said that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and a “choice” that people have “come out of.” In 2011, he proposed a bill to ban any Michigan municipality from extending LGBT nondiscrimination protections.
Hello My Friends;
I have never been Transgendered, so I am speaking out of ignorance. Unlike that pompous fool above, I realize that I may not have all the answers. But, as mentioned in the article, a person who is transgendered is not someone just dressing up for fun. These are people who are caught in the nightmare of not living in the right body. They are men who identify as a woman, and women who identify as a man. In all liklihood, these folks would be dressing gender identity appropriate. So, the only way a person would know the difference, the only way one would know a person is not physically (ie: has a penis or vagina) a man or woman is to engage in considerable ogling.
So, here is my question Mr. McMillian: Are you simply protecting the right to stare and intrude into another's personal space without risk of "surprise"?
In regard to Mr. McMillian's statement that expecting businesses to NOT discriminate against LGBT people is, in fact, "discrimination and coercion"; I am guessing that this person is also saying that if it is against one's religion to serve "whites", "blacks", Latino, Italian, Polish, Irish, Native American, Slavic, etc... that that's ok, too. I'm sure there are people in extreme groups that would love that. Why, I remember reading a series of historical records in which Christians were hunted, killed, treated as second class citizens. It was not only a religious question, you see, but a cultural allowance to kill Christians. How about we go back to that Biblical Historical Tradition Mr. McMillian? Would that be good with you?
