Bill Seeking to Expand Transgender Rights Could Be Harmful to the State

While the state grappled with a multibillion-dollar budget crisis, some state legislators, including Sen. Beth Bye of West Harford, Reps. Holder-Winfield of New Haven and Geoff Luxenberg of Manchester want to allow men to use women’s restrooms. Their bill, intends to extend the current protections for housing, workplace and other facets of life to those who are confused on whether they are male or female. The bill is misguided and I think most legislators are just as confused as the public is on this topic.

Transgendered people suffer from Sexual Identity Disorder, a problem recognized by the American Psychological Association and listed in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM-IV (4th Edition) is the medical authority on brain and behavior disorders. The manual lists the symptoms and suggested treatment for problems ranging from sleep walking, ADD, Alzheimer’s and bulimia to severe depression, PTSD, and schizophrenia. Twenty-two sexual disorders alone are listed, however, only one is targeted for the treatment by legislators in Connecticut.  Having some of these sexual disorders would disqualify one from obtaining a job involving children or in public safety, such as a prison guard. This begs the question, why prohibit ‘discrimination’ against only this one classification and not other people with mental health problems?

Sufferers of Sexual Identity Disorder are described as ‘having discontent with the biological sex they were born with.’ A person who is transgendered actively wishes to be accepted as and live as a member of the opposite sex.  It should be made clear that the definition is not given to someone with questionable or mixed biological anatomy. Hence, it is strictly a disorder of the mental state of the brain.

First of all, the General Assembly should avoid considering this bill because it is a medical condition. Transgendered people go through great lengths to ‘correct’ the biology they were born with so it conforms to their mental state. This means hormonal therapy and often surgery and years of psychological counseling. When something is wrong with your body, you don’t declare it ‘normal’. And you don’t seek surgery for something that is normal either. So then why do elected leaders like Mrs. Luxenberg, Holder-Winfield and Ms. Bye want to pass this bill to normalize these abnormal behaviors?

If passed, the ramifications would be felt throughout society. In a compassionate way, the General Assembly needs to reject this law. If we normalized the abnormal psychology of transgendered people, there is no incentive for them to get help. Advocates for the law who spoke at a March public hearing say that sexual identity disorder begins around age 10 or 12. If the law were passed, we would need to accommodate them from high school onward. Let’s say you are the parent of a female field hockey player. Would you accept the fact that a 16-year-old adolescent boy wants to join the team AND insist on changing and showering with your daughter because he believes he is a girl?

Or if you are in a public place and see a man from walking into a female restroom at a mall. Today, a security officer would be expected to stop and investigate the man and his motivation for walking into the restroom. If this bill passes, however the security guard and mall could be sued for discrimination. Police would have disincentives to investigate such a complaint. Transgendered prison workers with this problem could not be weeded out even if they were helping other sexual offenders. Speaking of prisons, would a transgendered person go to a male or female prison? Does this all sound backwards?

Schizophrenics often feel most ‘normal’ when they don’t take their medications. Yet, they realize they should when their behavior becomes anti-social. People with other disorders are often provided with help when necessary. Yet, if this bill were passed – essentially normalizing sexual disorders as race or religion – there would be no incentive for them to get help.  This puts society at risk, and diminishes the need for sufferers to seek treatment, ultimately harming the sufferers themselves.

Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of CT was one of only three people to oppose this bill at a daytime public hearing in Hartford because almost no one knew about it.  While dozens of trans-gendered people testified about how adolescent behavior should be accommodated instead of corrected, Peter Wolfgang saw the harm to our state: “This would be a direct assault on the right to privacy,” he told the Judiciary Committee. I would add that it would harm those who most need help. Sometimes the best way to love someone is to say no. Contact your legislator and urge them to vote “no” on HB 6599.