Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
Opponents say [Washington state] voters were persuaded at least partly because the initiative and its boosters exploited deep-seated prejudices and misunderstandings about transgender people to erode their rights.
I wasn’t eligible to vote for 638, but this nuanced take does a good job of describing around where I am. I’d prefer trans people are validated and can exist in society without fear or issue. Affirming care should be accessible and stigma-less
I also think natural testosterone production is a crazy-good steroid that improves muscular development. I’m not on board at all with the “checking under skirts” requirements of the bill but just feel uneasy with the nominal advantage of male puberty and it’s impact on women’s sports. This may get called ignorant, but until I’m asked for it, my opinion doesn’t matter at all, so I have some time. And I’m only chiming in here to add credence to rentlar’s take.
It’s an effective wedge issue, I’m glad that it mostly didn’t work as such, and it sucks that WA folks are going to be subject to the 638
I might agree if trans atheletes dominated the sports, but they are not.
A good point. I certainly think if we start legislating people’s rights away it’s reasonable to ask “Is this actually a problem?” before proceeding.