I am a straight, white man, born male. I will never be able to TRULY understand what it is like to live my life as ANY minority.
Most of my writing focuses on federal issues – the executive branch ignoring the judiciary, the legislative branch not responding when their appropriations are slashed, or the impacts of this administration’s cuts to almost all federal agencies. Today, I am going to focus on diversity, particularly LGBTQ+ issues and what seem to be contradictions among state lawmakers’ words and actions.
I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.
In late February, Governor Reynolds signed a bill redefining protected rights in Iowa. Specifically, this bill removed gender identity as a protected class in Iowa, and changed the definitions for male and female.
This bill was pushed through the Iowa legislature expeditiously. Despite numerous demonstrations against the bill, the public comment period was limited, and statements were given by Iowa lawmakers and the Governor in support of the legislation:
- “Because of a court decision citing gender identity in Iowa code, taxpayers have been paying for hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries for Iowans on Medicaid. Additionally, we have recently passed common sense protections regarding girls’ sports, locker rooms, and restrooms and prohibiting sex reassignment surgeries on minors. These are common sense policies Iowans have begged us to take action on and supported in subsequent elections. It has become clear because of that court decision that those popular policies are at risk as long as gender identity remains specified in the civil rights code. It is for that reason, and at the urging of many Iowans, that we have decided it is time to give this bill the full consideration of the Iowa House Republican caucus.” – Speaker Pat Grassley
- “Transgender individuals will be protected, like all Americans, by the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, federal law, the Iowa Constitution and Iowa law,” – Representative Steven Holt
- “Unfortunately, these common-sense protections were at risk because, before I signed this bill, the Civil Rights Code blurred the biological line between the sexes,” Reynolds said in a statement. “It has also forced Iowa taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgeries. That is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to most Iowans.” – Governor Kim Reynolds
Here is my own concise summary of comments above:
- This is to protect girls in sports
- This is to keep men out of women’s bathrooms
- This is not about other trans rights
- This is to stop trans surgeries on minors
- This is not related to any other LGBTQ interests
I am going to examine the above bullet points as rationally and calmly as possible, using logic and sources.
This is to protect girls in sports
Trans women playing in sports has become one of the biggest controversies related to the trans community. It seems much of this push started when a trans NCAA swimmer broke records and started winning, causing questions regarding whether it was an unfair advantage in women’s sports to be born a male. While I am not an expert on this topic, it certainly seems a legitimate case can be made to bar trans women from participating in women’s sports.
However, I have always been a proponent of government not getting involved if it is not necessary. Almost every sport already has a governing body of its own, and they are almost certainly better equipped to address this question – so did we really need the government to intervene? Moreover, the NCAA has stated there are “less than 10” total trans women athletes across all of their sports nationwide. Was this topic really such a significant priority that it had to be expedited through the Iowa legislative process?
This is to keep “men” out of women’s bathrooms
Due to this law, I would like to point out that this will now mean trans men will be required to use women’s bathrooms. Moreover, transgender people are significantly more likely to be abused than cis-gender people yet we don’t seem to be addressing that issue. In fact, due to removing trans people from a protected class, I believe this now means targeting trans people can no longer be considered a hate crime in Iowa.
This is not about other trans rights
It is possible that Iowa politicians believe this will not impact any other rights of Iowa trans citizens. But this modification already means trans people can legally be discriminated against. If this were truly only about the aspects they’ve mentioned, why didn’t the legislature add language to the bill that said all protections afforded to legally protected classes not explicitly mentioned in this bill must be legally provided to trans individuals?
This is to stop trans surgeries on minors
I have seen this argument time and time again. However, all gender-affirming care had already been outlawed in the state of Iowa for minors. For vaccines, school choice, and child-related topics, I hear these same lawmakers tout the importance of parent’s choice and that a child’s parent knows best. If you truly believe parents know what is best for their children, why doesn’t that apply here?
This is not related to any other LGBTQ+ interests
I find this hard to believe, and I will use the rest of this post to explain why.
I remember attending a Rotary Meeting in Muscatine with Bob Vander Plaats as speaker – sometime around 2005. He was strictly opposed to same-sex marriage and repeatedly made the point that children fare better when they are raised with both a mother and father in the home and thus, we should not allow same-sex marriages and adoptions as they would not receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples. After his presentation, I remember thinking we should be cautious in allowing same-sex marriage and adoptions for the sake of our state’s children.
I still believe we should always be cautious for the sake of all Iowans, and I have always believed in having a government which was designed to allow people to live their lives as they see fit, provided they do not infringe on the way others wish to live their lives. If we are going to take away the rights of others, it should only be with strong evidence that exercising that right causes undue harm to others.
There have been numerous studies done on the impacts of same-sex marriage on the children who were raised in such a family. There is ZERO evidence that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children.
A few years after listening to Mr. Vander Plaats speak, he took over as President of the organization the FAMiLY LEADER. His organization has an annual dinner honoring people who exemplify family values. I don’t know how many are honored, but this year I noticed quite a few honorees mentioned online:
- Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Grassley
- Iowa Representative Steve Holt
- Iowa Representative Henry Stone
- Iowa Representative Barb McCulla
- Iowa Senator Jason Schultz
- Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird
I consider “family values” to be extremely important and I think it is imperative that we, our society of Iowans, works hard to help all children benefit from strong families wherever possible. What though, exactly, does it mean to care about “family values”? How do they define a family? Who gets to make that decision?
With THE FAMiLY LEADER, their objectives are published on their website, making it abundantly clear what they consider to be strong family values. I agree with some of their values, namely that every child deserves a strong education regardless of their family’s income level. But along with some policies I can agree with, these are the top priorities of THE FAMiLY LEADER:
- “oppose anything that undermines God’s design for human sexuality, including fornication, pornography, homosexuality, and transgenderism”
- “encourage the election of Christ-like leaders”
With many of Iowa’s political leaders proudly and publicly proclaiming their respect and affiliation for an organization that is dedicated to stripping away the rights of all LGBTQ+ people, I find it exceptionally difficult to believe they are prepared to stop now.
When I was at Iowa State, I read an article in the university newspaper written by a trans woman. She talked about her experiences as a student – this was my first real introduction to the issues of the trans community, and I distinctly remember thinking that the article and these issues were kind of weird.
In addition to thinking that the article was kind of weird, I also clearly remember thinking that it would have exactly ZERO NEGATIVE IMPACT on the life of anyone else, so if the person wanted to transition, WHY ON EARTH would I have any reason to object?
I have since met many more members of the LGBTQ+ community. The main thing I have realized about each and every one of them is that they are just like anyone else, working to do their best for themselves, their families, and their communities.
Sources:
Kim Reynolds signs law removing gender identity from Iowa civil rights
Iowa GOP bill would end civil rights protections for gender identity
Iowa Supreme Court won’t rule on Medicaid ban for transgender surgery
Trump Administration: Penn Violated Title IX with Lia Thomas
A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying Advantages of Lia Thomas
Penn’s Lia Thomas wins 3 events and sets 5 records at Ivies on her way to the NCAA championships
Iowa governor signs restrictive transgender sports bill | PBS News
NCAA president says there are ‘less than 10’ transgender athletes in college sports
Q&A: Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa’s Social Conservative Kingmaker | TIME.com
TFL honors legislators for championing family values – The FAMiLY Leader