The city of Eugene’s attempt to add protections for transgender people to its anti-discrimination ordinance is truly admirable, but discussing the finer points of the change has created unnecessary delays. We must stop mincing words, deal with this problem rationally and instate the protections.
Surely, little harm can come simply from adding the classification “gender identity” to a list of identifying features that should not be discriminated against.
Yet opponents to the code fear that if gender identity becomes protected from discrimination, transgender people will be able to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify with rather than the bathroom of the sex that they were born with. If biological men are allowed into women’s restrooms, some worry that sexual assault will become a problem.
However, it is simply illogical to claim that a non-discrimination policy against people of a transgender identity will lead to an increase in sexual offenders sneaking into women’s bathrooms. After all, discrimination code or not, sexual predators are physically able to enter any bathroom they choose as well as many houses, offices and cars. Sexual assault is an issue far removed from non-discrimination codes.
Likewise, asking bathroom users to provide legal documentation proving their status as transgender is an impractical solution. To whom would transgender bathroom users show this identification? More importantly, if there is an officer of the law posted at every restroom entrance in order to verify documentation, doesn’t that eliminate the problem of sexual assault in the first place? Demanding only transgender individuals to prove their identity before using the loo is itself blatantly discriminatory.
Further, there is no reason that the restroom debate should define whether Eugene’s anti-discrimination code needs to be tweaked. Refusing to put “gender identity” into city code has no causal relation to sexual assault rates; therefore, the code should be amended and the sexual assault issue addressed as a topic separate from that of anti-discrimination.
Most rational people can agree that discrimination on the basis of race, religion or other factors is wrong. Despite various questions regarding sexual predators and bathroom access, we should also agree not to discriminate against people because of gender identity. Supporters of the discrimination code revision are realistic in their assertion that it is critical to protect transgender people from employment and housing discrimination. As of now, the restroom debate should be put on hold and resumed once “gender identity” is protected from discrimination by city code, and it is made explicitly clear that Eugene supports the rights of residents of all identities.
 
Outloud
“To everyone’s mind that has been working on this, the important parts of the code revision are the addition of transpeople to the list of those against whom discrimination in employment and housing in Eugene shall be illegal,”
– Risa Bear, member of the Gender Identity Work Group, which is working to change Eugene’s anti-discrimination ordinance to include transgender people.