I’m writing this article to discuss the opinion piece “Bathroom Bill Discrimination.” Full disclosure: I came across the article on the Dakota Student Facebook page and was compelled enough to leave a comment. A couple individuals asked me to submit a letter to you so that my thoughts would be more visible to the public. Admittedly, I have very little background on writing something of this nature, but I’ll give it a shot.

The majority of my contention with the article comes from the author stating that it would be an unbiased piece discussing both sides. While I have no doubt he was honest in stating those as his intentions, I felt that by the end of the article one side had been lobbied for, while the other was underrepresented. My intent is not to say one side is right or wrong, but rather to make sure that both sides of this important topic are heard.

My first disagreement comes in the sixth paragraph. The author states, “When you remove the politics, religious ideals and intense opposition, you are left with a simple fact: we are discussing the rights of human beings.” However, politics and/or religion are what determines the rights of human beings, so it’s impossible to leave those out of the equation. But I do like that human rights were brought up, and I will say more on that in a second.

Later, the author writes, “While there are individuals in this world who would attempt to do harm to others, the overwhelming majority of the world does not fall into this category.”

I completely agree! However, a ten second Google search tells me there are roughly 750,000 tried, convicted, and registered sex offenders in the U.S. That same search yielded an estimated 700,000 transgender people in the U.S. If that number is so insignificant that we shouldn’t consider the threat of individuals abusing the system, then why are we having this discussion at all? (Yes, I realize that these numbers are not perfect, but they are close enough to support my point.)

The next paragraph states “If you disagree with the lifestyle of a member of the LGBT community, you need only remind yourself that their lifestyle does not impact you in any way, shape or form.”

This is a gross oversimplification, but for the sake of brevity I will stick to the obvious for this situation. A biological male will be using the bathroom with biological females, and vice versa. Some will say “Who cares!” and that’s what my next paragraph is for.

The author continues, “The only aspect that you should concern yourself with is whether or not they mean to do physical harm to you . . . not what you might perceive as emotional harm.”

This statement is not only insensitive to any person who might develop anxiety over the issue, but also a self-defeating argument. The entire argument for “open bathrooms” is based around the emotional health of an individual whose genitalia doesn’t match what they perceive as their gender.

When was the last time a transgender individual was physically harmed by using the bathroom that their genitalia says they should?

I would say there is likely plenty of potential emotional trauma in being forced to use the “wrong bathroom,” but according to the article that is a non-issue.

I mentioned earlier that I wanted to bring up human rights. Everyone has a right to use a public bathroom, and no one should be forced to “hold it” because the bathroom doesn’t have the right silhouette on the door. However, not everyone has the right to use whatever bathroom they choose.

You could (but the article didn’t) make the argument that emotionally, it is wrong to force a transgender individual to use the same bathroom as a person of the other gender. That would be easily refuted by comparing the potential emotional damage caused by forcing an individual to share a bathroom with someone of the other sex, and in this case the number of potential   victims is much higher. I agree that putting this into law is silly, and any enforcement plans are plain laughable. However, the discussion underlying the issue is an important one.

Like it or not, this is only the tip of the iceberg for issues such as this. There will always be two sides (or more) to an argument; because of this, it is important to keep in mind that the objective of a disagreement is not to come out the victor, but rather to come to the conclusion of truth. I can’t tell you what the truth is, but hopefully I shed some light on the other side of the discussion.

Happy discussing,

Tyrone Berentson