Hey Andrew!
Emma Bukacek
437

Regarding a man putting on a dress to commit assault, let’s think about some things, ok?

First, sexual assault is already a crime and that didn’t stop the person.

Second, voyeurism of that type is also a crime, and that didn’t stop the person, did it?

Third, almost every major city has an ordinance against entering a restroom under any pretense to engage in disruptive behavior. And that didn’t stop the person either.

So here’s my question — if you legally bar transgender people from the bathroom because you think it’s going to make them safe, then why didn’t those other laws make them safe?

As often gets said about other topics — criminals don’t obey laws in the first place. And the purpose of laws is not to prevent behavior, but to punish it when it occurs. All of the negative outcomes of a man in the bathroom are already crimes and therefore would be punishable under law for that reason anyway.

So what does legally barring transgender people from the bathroom actually do? Nothing, except make the lives of INNOCENT transgender people much harder.

That’s not how America is supposed to work — punishing innocents because someone else might do something wrong. Should all men be required to wear steel chastity belts because 1 in 8 men is a rapist (statistically)? Hardly!

Let’s be reasonable. All the criminal acts that a “man in a dress” might commit are already crimes under the law. Laws are supposed to address actual criminal actions, not punish innocent people because someone else might break the law. And transgender people don’t need to be a scapegoat for someone else’s fears.

Like what you read? Give Cara Ramsey a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.