By Your Trans Friend
Watching the capitol of the United States devolve into a fervor of anti trans sentiment is harrowing to say the least. For those not following American politics, Sarah McBride, a newly elected member of the House of Representatives, has been targeted for being trans with a ban on use of the women’s public bathrooms in the capitol building (Annie Grayer “Republican’s effort to block first transgender House member from using women’s bathrooms brings campaign issue to the Capitol”, 20 November 2024, CNN). The ban was proposed by Representative Nancy Mace, who not but a year ago voiced support for trans rights within the United States, although apparently within limits (Andrew Kaczynski “Nancy Mace, now targeting transgender lawmaker, called herself ‘pro-transgender rights’ in 2023” 25 November 2024, CNN). With regards to bathrooms, Mace finds herself seemingly at odds with a leader in her own party who himself has said that, at least in one instance, a person should use the bathroom they feel most comfortable with (Deena Zaru “Caitlyn Jenner takes Trump up on bathroom offer” 16 August 2017, CNN).
Mace has, seemingly contrary to her earlier support for trans rights, chosen to refer to McBride as a “biological man”, saying, “This is a biological man trying to force himself into women’s spaces, and I’m not going to tolerate it.” She has also been quoted in the same statement as saying “I’m not going to allow men to erase women or women’s rights.” (Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju and Haley Talbot “Republican introduces anti-transgender bathroom resolution at Capitol after first transgender woman elected to Congress” 19 November 2024, CNN) While not explicitly saying that McBride, by her presence, is a threat to women’s rights and “erasing women”, Mace nonetheless seems to see it as imperative that McBride be denied accommodations as a woman.
This sort of thing has been seen in the past in the United States surrounding issues of bathroom usage. It was seen repeatedly during the Civil Rights protest era. The specter of black men invading and assaulting white women in bathrooms, and indeed the mere discomfort white people expressed at having to share bathrooms with black people at all, was used as a means to protest desegregation. When the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed, a campaign was launched claiming that it would mean the elimination of the separation between men’s and women’s facilities and lead to a rise in assaults. From the early days of the gay rights movement, people protested the presence of gays and lesbians in bathrooms. Public bathrooms, one place most of us have little desire to be for any length of time, seem to constantly become a battleground. (For a more detailed look on the subject, I refer you to Neil J. Young’s Politico piece “How the Bathroom Wars Shaped America” from 2016.)
Mace has not even so much as implied that McBride or other trans people pose a physical threat to others, and that, at least, is a point of difference with the past. But what is most certainly a continuation of it is the desire to work to manufacture and enforce means of exclusion aimed at a specific minority group, one that just happened to finally win a tiny amount of direct representation in the halls of Congress.
It needs to be emphasized that this is not in fact a battle over bathrooms or facilities, just as it was never about them in any of the other bygone eras. It is about exclusion, and the power wielded in order to implement and maintain that exclusion. I would like to remind the people who are in a position to do something of this: just like in those bygone eras, hoping that a problem will vanish if you simply smile and nod has rarely ever worked. You need to speak out against exclusion if and when you can, and for inclusion wherever possible.
Nevertheless, if you are an elected representative and worried that speaking up as a non-trans individual will be overstepping your bounds, I have a very simple solution for you, and one that you are no doubt already quite familiar with: listen to your constituents, especially your trans constituents. If they are not reaching out to you, use your connections to reach out to them. You should not simply assume you know what they want or need, of course, but they are there to tell you what those things are, as with any other group among your constituency. The othering we are seeing first hand in the US Congress is something we have seen over and over again in the past. At an extreme, the effect produced is to give the appearance that trans citizens are not even citizens at all. But they are, and they do vote, and they are a part of your constituency – the one you are duty-bound to represent.
By the same measure, trans people and allies being represented by their government should speak to their elected officials, no matter their party affiliation, and make their voices heard. Angry social media posts and videos are less likely to find their way into the view of a member of a government body than clear, concise, respectful messages directly sent to them. Find out how to contact their offices and deliver messages that tell them what your stance is and what stance you would like them to take. Then watch to see if they follow through.
If you are someone who lives or votes in the US, you can get in touch with your representatives in congress using this searchable directory at congress.gov. However, issues like this are hardly limited to the US. For UK readers, you can use a similar searchable directory here. For those in other countries facing similar issues, you no doubt have the means to do the same.
Call them, write them, e-mail them and let them know that LGBTQ+ people are not going back.
