The idea of needing to “protect the women and children” has been around for quite some time now. It’s been around for so long that it has been universally normalized and understood to be the “morally right thing to do”. It stems from the idea that men have a nature that is inherently different from those of women and children. It the men who are stronger and able to either protect or attack the women and children. It puts women and children in a position where they are expected to both need and fear men. This abusive codependent relationship is the unhealthy dynamic that leads to strong sets of beliefs regarding both men and women(and children). Women are expected to be; as Schilt et al. put it, less likely a sexual threat than men are. ‘Bathroom bills’ are legislated to allow transgenders choose which restroom they prefer to use based on their gender identity. This bill is to relieve those who suffer from gender dysphoria by allowing them the option to use whichever gender restroom that is coherent with their gender identity. If one identifies as a man, he would simply want to use the men’s room and vice versa. However, those who oppose the bill seem to completely disregard the whole notion of gender dysphoria as they focus on their fears of these bills allowing it to be easier for pedophiles and sex predators to have access to attacking women in public bathrooms. This slippery slope argument can be seen to argue for which discomfort should we prioritize in relieving. However, I believe that it is unfair to leave the discussion at that. There is much to be said about segregating genders in public restrooms. Since, “the segregation of public bathrooms on the basis of gender is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States.” (Schilt et al., pg. 28), I believe we can take measures to undo this segregation and destigmatize non-binary public restrooms.

Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2015). Bathroom battlegrounds and penis panics. Contexts, 14(3), 26-31.

Using a public bathroom is a big challenge for trans gender or gender variant people. There is a big chance of harassment for transgender while they use a public bathroom. Schilt demonstrated about the bathroom bill and presented different examples and point of views about it. I strongly support the bathroom bill legislation because it is against gender inequality or gender discrimination. Like cisgender people, Trans or gender variant people should have the right to use a public bathroom without any fear. If there is a restriction for using a public bathroom, it is very uncomfortable and dangerous for transgender people. Very often they have faced harassment and shameful situations about their gender identity. The most important thing is, there was no satisfactory reason against that legislation. Some opponents brought the safety and privacy reason as the issue against bathroom bill, but there was no evidence to support their reasons. Also, anti-supporters presented their opinions more violently. In addition, some media presented their views very unfair and disrespectful way. For instance, A Maryland Group used, “do you want men going into the ladies room”. Using “men” for trans-women is unfair. They also used an image where it was showing that a trans-woman was looking at the woman by the top of the bathroom door. In this case, they compared trans-women as a sexual predator, which was a misleading message and very unhealthy presentation. The funny thing was, everyone was worrying about trans gender female, nobody was thinking about transgender male. In this case, it is very clear that having a penis is a real problem or pain. Which means the existence of male part refers to the existence of danger. In my thinking, it seems like there was another discrimination going on. They were trying to say, the people with male organ are the universal sexual predator or universal rapist.

The new ordinance passed by Gainesville would be a huge step forward for the LGBTQ community because it advocates equality, fairness, and the rights of transgender and gender variant people. The idea behind this law is that it provides more security and acceptance of them. Schilt provided an example of a commercial where a young girl enters a bathroom, and an old man follows her in. It is unfair for the media to portray transgenders as a raggedy and creepy old man trying to harass a child as an argument to oppose this law because this type of exploitation is why the mistreatment of transgender men and women continues to exist. With each new policy created to support transgenders, come with protest because people often associate transgender rights with sexual predators, seen in examples such as the commercial used in this article. This policy was created to provide transgenders with a space that everyone has the right to have, without being abused and looked at as an anomaly. However, people are viewing this as a policy that allows those who are perceived as men to be able to legally enter a women-only space. This sort of argument not only further supports the discrimination against transgenders, but also reinforces the inequality.

I believe creating these policies is beneficial to transgender people, and I also agree with the idea that this reinforces gender inequality. However, instead of focusing on the rights of transgender people, it is transitioning the focus to women being taken advantage of, that they are weak, and that men are aggressive and rapists. There is already a stigma with being a transgender person, and arguments like these accompany them with more misconceptions and generate fear. It seems as though those who oppose transgender-support policies do not have any proper argument as to why they are opposing because it mainly leads back to bathroom access. What about other sex-segregated settings such as housing, military, sports teams, social fraternities and sororities? Now the same argument can only be loosely applied to those, or not at all.

In this project, professor Valdes focus is to look into and change the manipulations in conflation of sex, gender and sexual orientation. Historically people have mixed the three classes together, have miss used them by changing their meanings and as a consequence there has been a negative impact.

For professor Valdes conflation’s meaning in this project includes the historic and contemporary confusion and distortion of sex, gender and sexual orientation as social  and legal construct. Because theres room for interpretation in conflation, often it has been misused and legally cannot help gender discriminating cases. Not to long ago in our Euro-American society same sex marriage was illegal. Traveling a little further back in time the same society automatically assumed that once one is born with a type of sex, that was their gender as well. Thus the accepted normal marriage was between a male and female. Anything outside of this social norm was illegal.  This is just a simple example to understand the deep mistakes that are done while writting laws to protect human rights, specifically the ones addressing gender discrimination.

Valdes makes a great point to how conflation is socially constructed and the best way to initiate writing laws that support Queer Theory is the non-conflationary way.

Nelson starts this book off with the idea that the meaning of a phrase or sentence depends on the person that says it. She explains this idea with the example of the Argo, and how it’s different because it has been reconstructed over time, but it is still the Argo. One passage Nelson made that struck me was when she mentioned that it is not enough to just introduce new words and define its meaning, but also be attentive in the many ways those words can be used in different contexts. If those words can be used in different context, each with a different meaning, it would be ridiculous to contain sexuality and gender to a binary system. These hetero-normative aspects of a relationship and how it should be has been imposed on our society for too long. It is difficult to understand why so many have fought for their freedom, and yet they are still limited. People should be able to choose to be seen or act a certain way, without having to conform to any traditional roles. The idea of feeling real is associated with aliveness, a sensation that makes one want to live. I think that if a person finds pleasure in aligning themselves with an identity that does not fall under the norm, that identity should still be accepted and not ridiculed or rejected because it provides that person with a sense of aliveness and stability.