Nearly three years ago I created a video in
response to a group known as Campaign For
Houston.
My response came as a result of their TV spot
which preyed on common bigoted talking points
about trans rights.
Namely that the trans lobby was either knowingly
or carelessly pushing for legislation that
would allow sex offenders into your child’s
bathroom stall to rape them.
Note, the clip I’m about to play is rather
grim.
“Houston's Proposition 1 Bathroom Ordinance,
what does it mean to you?”
“Any man at any time could enter a woman’s
bathroom simply by claiming to be a woman
that day.”
“No one is exempt. Even registered sex offenders
could follow women or young girls into the
bathroom.”
“And if a business tried to stop them, they’d
be fined.”
“Protect women’s privacy. Prevent danger.
Vote No on the proposition 1 bathroom ordinance.”
“It goes too far.”
So I took this to town over the fact that
1st, the HERO ordinance which added protections
for numerous groups including veterans, disabled
people, and yes trans folk, in no way legalised
stalking or sexual assault.
The idea that said bill would allow a sex
offender to follow and then bust into someone
else’s toilet stall to rape them is fucking
ridiculous.
And note, if they’re going to do that anyway
then they very clearly don’t need said bill
because they could just walk through the outer
door.
What?
You think a shiny piece of blue plastic will
stop them doing what they’re willing to
bust through a stall door to do?
2nd, the campaign was so concerned about sexual
predators that one of the main campaign heads
pushing said no-vote was Reverend Kendall
Baker who was removed from office for sexually
assaulting female members of staff.
A fact that was publicly known at the time
and yet Campaign For Houston chose to ignore
that because let's be honest, said campaign
was never about protecting children or women
but rather harassing and ostracising trans
people.
Which leads me to today’s video which is
titled ‘No On 3, Keep Massachusetts Safe’.
“What does Massachusetts question 3 mean
to you?"
“It means any man who says he is a woman
can enter a woman’s locker room, dressing
room, or bathroom at any time.”
“Even convicted sex offenders.”
“And if you see something suspicious and
say something to authorities, you could be
the one arrested and fined up to $50,000 dollars.”
“Vote No on 3.”
“This bathroom bill puts our privacy and
safety at risk.”
“It goes too far.”
Now clearly this campaign video was taking
direct cues from the first.
The opening lines are near identical before
going on to talk about ‘any man’ and ‘including
registered/convicted sex offenders’.
Both also forward that reporting or challenging
anything suspicious could result in the person
raising the issue being punished.
In the first it was the businesses being fined,
in the latter it was the person making the
complaint.
So first things first, this just isn’t true.
Nothing about the bill which was passed and
became active back in October of 2016 stated
anything close to what is being here claimed
at any level.
For a start, reporting suspicious activity
never had been and hasn’t become a crime
with the passing of said bill.
Active discrimination in unfairly excluding
trans people from their respective changing
and bathrooms in public areas has.
If you target and harass or even assault a
trans person, there will be trouble.
But no such precedent exists for raising concern
if you spot someone doing something suspicious
such as looking under cubicle doors or fiddling
around with what looks like small cameras
in the corner.
And that’s regardless of the person’s
gender.
In starting I’d like to note that this bill
does not affect schools in any way which already
have said discrimination policy following
a 2012 revision of the ‘Access To Equal
Education Opportunity Regulations’ laws
and subsequent policy guidelines which state
clearly that quote;
“In all cases, the principal should be clear
with the student (and parent) that the student
may access the restroom, locker room, and
changing facility that corresponds to the
student's gender identity.” end quote.
And it should be noted that thus far no issues
have been reported.
But the Bill in question here, Bill S.2407
is on about all non-educational public spaces
such as hotels, restaurants, health care facilities
and gyms.
As noted the bill had passed in October of
2016 but it’s now up for public vote on
the 6th of November 2018 following a signature
petition drive by those opposed to the bill.
Those opposed to the bill are defending the
vote ‘No’ corner whilst those in support
of it are upholding the vote ‘Yes’ corner.
Now the No team has resorted to pushing out
all the same misinformation that has become
commonplace in discussion about trans rights
and access to gendered facilities.
Fact is in doing so they’re actually endangering
children and in stating that I mean all children,
both trans and cisgender.
The entire basis for the campaign is that
gender segregated bathrooms are an effective
means to stop sexual predators having access
to your children.
This is deeply flawed for many reasons.
For a start it forgets that only about half
of all children will ever use female changing
rooms with the other half being placed in
the male changing rooms and here’s a fact,
all children should be protected from sex
offenders, not just girls.
Second, some registered sex offenders already
have access to female changing rooms.
They’re called female sex offenders.
And I’m on about cis-women, not trans-women.
Women who identify with the gender they were
assigned at birth can assault children as
well.
Then of course we have child abusing couples,
heterosexual couples who work with one another
to gather materials and abuse children.
Sometimes it’s not a couple however, sometimes
it can be a ring involving numerous individuals
of any gender composition.
This can be as is relevant to this bill, women
placing cameras inside the female changing
rooms to supply their associates with media
displaying sensitive content or it can be
in luring children to somewhere where others
can abuse them.
The latter is often done on the basis that
children are taught that stranger danger comes
in male form allowing child abusers to use
that to their advantage in using women they
know to gain the child’s trust and lure
them into a compromising situation.
Child abusers know societies perceptions and
uses them to their advantage.
Then we have the fact that there are other
ways for men to get access to female changing
rooms.
A lot of people assume most establishments
have members of cleaning staff of both common
genders but this is not always the case.
I don’t know the legality of it, but I’ve
seen cleaning staff of one gender go into
the toilets of another and whilst you may
think it’s odd, you likely won’t challenge
it as we tend to respect authority which comes
with the uniform, even that of a janitor.
But getting such a uniform raises no difficulty,
neither does installing a camera in say a
changing stall lights once you do.
Just a degree of confidence in what you’re
doing is enough to slip past most people.
So how can we overcome this?
Well we can stop living in a fantasy that
tells us that women are all pure people in
need of protection.
We can start teaching our children to look
out for specific signs irrespective of gender.
We can teach people how to understand the
notions of personal boundaries and respecting
those boundaries and calling out and invasion
that crosses them.
We can also improve our infrastructure.
One problem I’ve noticed is that many of
the problems inherent with stalls, both bathroom
and changing, are not inherent.
They’re design flaws which often result
from a desire to cut corners and use less
materials to save on cost at the sacrifice
of security.
Solution.
Don’t allow businesses to get away with
doing that.
Not because this bill changes anything but
because it already allows for said invasion.
A lot of the vote No page on Facebook is taken
up with stories of cis men entering bathrooms
without these laws, no care about the plastic
on the door and looking either under or through
the crack between the door and the frame.
Now of course they select a certain sample
of stories to spin their narrative, ignoring
where women have done the same or assisted
their partners or some abuse ring does so.
They’re not protecting children, they’re
wasting time and resources that could be put
to use doing so to instead harass trans folk.
You could create the most isolated space in
which only women and children were allowed
and that space still would not be safe from
sexual predators.
And I can say that with certainty because
that was my life at one point.
I lived for a while in a women’s refuge
when I was a small child and it was during
my time there that both my brother and myself
were sexually assaulted.
When we pretend that an all women’s space
is a safe zone for children we ultimately
fail a portion of said children since not
only is their safety not been insured but
when they come forward, ideas like these can
and do act to downplay their trauma.
Now I do not think we need to end segregated
spaces, I acknowledge the benefits they have
in very select social contexts such as the
refuge I mentioned earlier.
It allowed women to heal in what for them
was a wonderful place.
All I’m forwarding is increased vigilance
and the doing away of transphobic talking
points which have no basis in reality.
Because that’s all it is, a talking point.
The bill itself noted quote; “The attorney
general’s office shall issue regulations
or guidance for referring to appropriate law
enforcement agency or other appropriate authority
for legal action any person whose assertion
of a gender identity is for an improper purpose,
as provided in clause 59th of section 7 of
chapter 4.” end quote.
So what the campaign video claims is the case
falls apart immediately.
The council acknowledges and is prepared for
instances which could occur if a cis person
were to attempt to abuse said laws.
So the claim that calling out something suspicious
would result in you being punished doesn’t
stack up the moment you read Bill S.2407.
As for the $50,000 civil penalty, yes that’s
five zero, not one five as I thought, and
prison time to anyone who reports anything
suspicious, that’s just not true on both
accounts.
To receive that fine you’d not only have
to be proven of causing substantial discriminatory
grievance against a trans person.
But this would have to be the third discriminatory
incident with at least two prior incidents
having occurred in the past seven years as
is made clear in section 5 of 151B, Massachusetts
general discrimination ordinance which was
passed on 2006 which applies to discrimination
in housing, discrimination in advertisements,
discrimination in admission of people, and
discrimination in admission of guide dogs.
So not only have the Vote No front lied about
said penalty applying to complaints about
suspicious activity since nowhere is that
discussed in Section 4 of 151B or sections
92 A or 98 and 98A of 272, which lays out
said unlawful practices of discrimination,
but they’ve also lied about the amount one
can be charged for a one off incident even
if that were the case.
You’d have to be a proven serial discriminator
to receive said penalty.
So as long as you avoid going out and discriminating
against trans people as well as other protected
demographics, you have nothing to fear from
said law which again, already existed before
Bill S.2407 was added to the board and trans
people are merely being included in said pre-existing
provisions through the revision.
And note, there would have to be a commission
hearing and investigation of said incidents.
In effect revealing the fact that yes, this
could only work if the person discriminated
against was trans.
So why is this appearing in in their campaign
video?
Well because…
They don’t actually give a good reason when
pressed.
They say that the three incidents could simply
be three separate complaints made by the same
cis man, not realising that this would still
call for investigation to substantiate their
complaint which would place them under scrutiny
as well.
Fact is the same situation can be applied
to any protected category in the same fear-mongering
way and it’d be just as valid which is to
say not at all.
Now there are also a couple of other fines
involved.
Section 92A of chapter 272 which details discrimination
in advertisements gives a maximum $100 fine,
up to 30 days in prison, or both.
Section 98 of chapter 272 which details discrimination
in admission gives a maximum $2,500 fine,
up to year in prison, or both.
This is on top of any claims that are made
by anyone aggrieved by said incident as previously
discussed with section 5 of chapter 151B.
So still substantial fines no doubt, but for
active discrimination which does not include
reporting suspicious activity whether the
culprit be black, white, Christian, Muslim,
gay, straight, cis, or trans.
So in all, said claim has no basis.
A fact corroborated in a study published in
Sexuality Research And Social Policy in July
of 2018.
The study which was titled ‘Gender Identity
Nondiscrimination Laws In Public Accommodations:
A Review Of Evidence Regarding Safety And
Privacy In Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms,
And Changing Rooms’ assessed the safety
gender identity inclusive public accommodations
nondiscrimination ordinances or GIPANDOs for
short, by comparing localities such with such
policies to matched localities without such
policies.
The study concluded with quote; “Opponents
of gender identity nondiscrimination laws
in public accommodations have largely cited
fear of safety and privacy violations in public
restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms
if such laws are passed, while proponents
have argued that the laws do not increase
danger or harm in such spaces.”
“To date, no evidence has been gathered
to empirically test the hypothesized effect
of these laws.”
“This is the first study to collect public
records and analytically compare the safety
of public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing
rooms in localities that have gender identity
inclusive nondiscrimination laws that apply
to public restrooms and matched localities
that do not have such laws.”
“The results show that the passage of such
nondiscrimination laws is not related to the
number or frequency of criminal incidents
in such public spaces.”
“Additionally, the results show that reports
of privacy and safety violations in public
restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms
were exceedingly rare and much lower than
statewide rates of reporting violent crimes
more generally.”
“This study provides evidence that fears
of increased safety and privacy violations
as a result of nondiscrimination laws ARE
NOT empirically grounded.” end quote.
Now do I think the science is enough to stop
the bigots being bigots?
Not likely.
The best we can do is try to ensure said information
reaches to those susceptible to both empathy
and reasoning.
And if any of my viewers are in Massachusetts
and can vote in the upcoming Ballot.
Please, as a personal request by me consider
voting Yes on 3.
For more details on how you can help, please
check out Freedom
for 
All Massachusetts.
Take care now.
