The Danger of Labeling HERO Opponents as Haters

[suzifrommd]

The Danger of Labeling HERO Opponents as Haters

By Suzi Chase, 11/22/15

https://www.susans.org/2015/11/22/the-danger-of-labeling-hero-opponents-as-haters/

The recent defeat of the HERO ordinance that would outlaw anti-LGBT discrimination in the city of Houston, Texas has been characterized as a triumph of hate over reason. That's true to an extent. No one disputes that hate motivated those who were willing to spend large sums on a campaign against the bill that played on people's fears of predators in restrooms.

However, labeling the wide majority of voters who opposed the bill as "haters" is not just inaccurate, it's dangerous.

[ActionLiz]

Wonderful article -- thanks so much for writing it, Suzi.  This really needed to be said. 

[cindianna_jones]

Yes, thanks Suzi. A gut reaction is hard to deal with from any angle. And that is what we are dealing with on both sides of this issue. This is going to be a difficult road to navigate, especially in the upcoming elections where this will be a ballot initiative everywhere to get the "gut reactionists" to the polls. We need to calm down, think positive, and get active in defeating these measures. If you do nothing else, vote!

Cindi

[kira21 ♡♡♡]

I am surprised at this article and I am worried that any trans support site is seen to label such concerns as valid.

Why are  we validating the fear that men will just suddenly start using women's restrooms? It hasn't happened here and we have the same rights.

In fact the exact same arguments that are used to argue against the protections that were removed in Houston that are in this article,  are the ones that should mean they aren't valid.

Imagine that a man goes into a women's bathroom, there are rape survivors in there and the place loses customers. That man is the ftm that was forced into there by such laws.

Any lack of understanding of this is through ignorance, and sometime this is brought about from hatred.

I think this kind of reasoning in the article is very dangerous to agree with on a trans site and quite wrong.

[Peep]

I am surprised at this article and I am worried that any trans support site is seen to label such concerns as valid.

Why are  we validating the fear that men will just suddenly start using women's restrooms? It hasn't happened here and we have the same rights.

In fact the exact same arguments that are used to argue against the protections that were removed in Houston that are in this article,  are the ones that should mean they aren't valid.

Imagine that a man goes into a women's bathroom, there are rape survivors in there and the place loses customers. That man is the ftm that was forced into there by such laws.

Any lack of understanding of this is through ignorance, and sometime this is brought about from hatred.

I think this kind of reasoning in the article is very dangerous to agree with on a trans site and quite wrong.

I thought the point of the article was to try to explain such situations rather than simply labeling people as haters. Some people who would oppose the laws might not even have thought of the ftm thing. I think the idea is to explain why the oppressive rules don't make sense before jumping to call people bigots.

I mean if people don't listen to logic the first or second time, then let's call them bigots, but there are voters who think they're voting in the best interests of everyone but may not realise that they aren't.

People must have had concerns about the 'being put out of business' thing mentioned in the article when the anti-segregation laws went into place in the US - I hate comparing race and gender as if racism doesn't exist anymore, but it is strange how people don't connect that their attitudes towards gender are similar to race ideas that they themselves consider outdated.

[kira21 ♡♡♡]

I think the idea is to explain why the oppressive rules don't make sense before jumping to call people bigots.

No the article explicitly says that those fears are valid.  Then it uses the example of going out of business and rape victims as support for that. 

To quote from the article...

"Yes, you read that right. The concerns about bathroom safety that prevented wholehearted support of the bill, are valid"

They are not valid. They are invalid and erroneous.

[Oliviah]

No the article explicitly says that those fears are valid.  Then it uses the example of going out of business and rape victims as support for that. 

To quote from the article...

"Yes, you read that right. The concerns about bathroom safety that prevented wholehearted support of the bill, are valid"

They are not valid. They are invalid and erroneous.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Peep]

Yeah I forgot that part - read the article yesterday and commented toady