Michigan Lawmaker Introduces Ban on Transgender Bathroom Use

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Michigan state Senator Tom Casperson (R) has introduced a bill similar to those in other states that would prohibit transgender girls and boys from using the girls and boys restrooms.

Senator Casperson says he's concerned about all children, but that is belied by his complete ignorance on gender identity.

The legislation, SB 993, is framed as providing “accommodations,” but it actually only provides restrictions. Like countless bills before it, it defines students according to their “biological sex,” the “physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth.” Under the bill, and only permits students to access facilities that match their “biological sex.”

I’m concerned about all the kids, and everybody has the right to some type of privacy,” Casperson told MLive.

Casperson said something else to MLive which I find to be especially grotesque considering his supposed reverence for "privacy."

Casperson said the new legislation isn't about bathrooms, but the important issue to him is parental rights. The Board of Education guidance would have allowed students to change restroom use without parental notification.

"The fact that they would allow a child to say 'I don't want my mom and dad to know' that they're taking such a big leap in life... is unacceptable," Casperson said.

Senator Caspserson says he wants to protect children and their right to privacy, but he apparently believes vulnerable children should be forced to out themselves to their parents. He apparently believes parents should be given a chance to veto the gender identity of their children.

This is an ignorant, heinous viewpoint for a number of reasons. Not all children live in homes where coming out is even an option. Not all children live in safe homes. Forcing children to clearly out themselves at home in no way protects their right to privacy. Transgender children may expose themselves to abuse and violence if they ask for parental permission to use restrooms that correspond with their new identity.

Caspserson's bill, if it ever became law, would alienate transgender children and expose them to possible child abuse.

We don't force gay children to out themselves to their parents before they're allowed to participate in society or just use the restroom. This should be no different.

  • These people have no concept of the diversity of the American family. I think they honestly view all families as essentially like theirs, father-dominated, submissive wife, and x obedient children. And in their eyes, this law wouldn’t hurt their family, so they can’t imagine that there are other families or children that would be hurt.

  • Badgerite

    Yeah. Because that is the biggest thing Michigan has to worry about right now. Obviously.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Let’s not forget, all this was “started by the left” and by the LGBT community. We wouldn’t have any of these problems if the gays and the trannies would just shut up, act normal, not ask for special treatment, and allow themselves to be treated like sh**.

    • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

      Or better yet, just die off!

  • muselet

    I’m going to guess Tom Casperson is a middle-aged, white cis-male.

    Wikipedia says he’s 56 (he’ll be 57 in July), so that’s a big yes on “middle-aged,” and the photo shows someone who’s even paler than I am. As far as his sex at birth, the article says “He is married to Diane Casperson. They have four children.” That’s not dispositive, mind, but strongly suggestive.

    What he knows about being a sexual minority—any kind of minority—could fit in a thimble with room left over for your finger. Which finger would be most appropriate is a separate discussion.


    • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

      I know the term “cis” is a logical and neutral term, but for some reason, I can’t help but cringe when it’s applied. It just feels… Tublr-ish and vaguely derogatory in a you-don’t-know-our-struggle sort of way. (maybe I’ve just heard “cis-scum” one too many times).

      I definitely understand that it’s better than “straight” with all the connotations that implies. But still.. is there something wrong with “heterosexual”? Is it just me? Is it just too many syllables?

      • muselet

        “Cis” refers to gender, not sexual orientation.

        If a person identifies as the gender s/he was assigned at birth, that person is cis-gender; if that person does not identify as his/her assigned gender, the person is transgender. More or less.

        As for sexual orientation—to whom one is sexually attracted—I actually (no foolin’) prefer the scale Alfred Kinsey devised, which is about as non-judgemental as such a thing can be: 0 is exclusively heterosexual (“straight”), 6 is exclusively homosexual (“gay” or “lesbian”), and everything in between represents gradations of bisexuality.

        Humans are terribly complicated.

        We’re also really good at turning perfectly good, neutral terms into nasty insults. Personally, I’ve never heard “cis” used as a slur, but maybe I just don’t get out enough. (And I didn’t set out to write a lecture. Apologies.)


        • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

          No apology necessary – I appreciate the “lecture” as I am struggling to keep up with the changing times (queue Bob Dylan).

          Perhaps you can indulge me a bit further:

          I think – for my preference – we abolish “male” and “female” entirely. Boom, done. There’s no gay, no straight, no cis, no trans, nothing. We are just people who are (or are not) attracted to other people.

          What is the value of “gender” within this context?

          We can all wear what we want, dress how we want, wear makeup if we want, use whatever bathrooms we want (although, please don’t use the urinal unless you are properly equipped). Girls can be engineers and boys can be [insert stereotypically female profession]. Girls can like comic books and boys can play with Barbies. Girls can be “tough” and boys can cry. Eliminate the double-standards of “slut shaming,” etc. If you take away the baggage that society imposes on “genders,” then what is the meaning of the construct?

          And then, within this, a preference for anatomical features (eg, I like leggy redheads in possession of breasts and a vagina) are just that: anatomical preferences that have nothing to do with the mentality of the individual. It’s meaningless whether that person is a “male” or “female” as those terms are a distinction without a difference.

          • The upside to that is that conservatives’ heads would definitely explode.

          • muselet

            In an ideal universe, that would be a fine solution. In this one, though, it probably wouldn’t work. Sex, sexuality and gender are all jumbled up with everything else that makes up our identities, and we’d just find new ways of dividing ourselves into smaller groups. Plus, society would pop a collective aneurism (with an obvious upside, as Ipecac already pointed out).

            In a couple of generations, if things continue as they’re going, sex, sexuality and gender might well become characteristics as irrelevant as eye color, at least in a social context.


          • Christopher Foxx

            and we’d just find new ways of dividing ourselves into smaller groups

            It’s what we do. If everyone woke up one morning to find themselves sex-neutral, gray-skinned and equally wealthy we’d find a reason to hate our neighbors by lunchtime.

      • Christopher Foxx

        I can’t help but cringe when it’s applied

        Gods, yes. For something that supposedly comes from a more accepting, less apply-labels-to-people mindset, 99% of the time I see it used it’s by someone applying it to someone else.

        “I’ll declare my own sexual identity. Oh, and by the way, you’re cis now.”

  • Victor the Crab

    Nope! Nothing to distract the people’s attention away from his governing party’s criminal misconduct about the water crisis in Flint.