Sydney Moody
Dr.
Stephanie Brown
ENG
306
2
May 2016
A Modern
Protest Against Transgender Discrimination
Political and social chaos have rightfully
erupted in response to North Carolina’s new legal mandate requiring “single-sex
multiple occupancy and changing facilities” (HB2). In essence, this law requires that anyone
wishing to use a public bathroom or locker room must choose a room based on the
“physical condition of being male or female” (HB2). This law has understandably created a
large amount of strife amongst the members of the transgender population who claim a gender that is not
associated with their sex (GLAAD). Consequently, this requirement forces
transgender individuals to choose their sex over their gender identity in many
aspects of their lives. If we legally require transgender individuals to use
the restroom of their biological sex, we ask them to do one of two things:
reject their gender identity and conform to the gender of their sex or make
themselves a target of discrimination.
While this law does not explicitly use the
word “transgender”, the language of the bill implies that transgender
individuals are the targets. North Carolina legislatures are asking transgender
men and women to use a restroom where they may feel disconnected and unsafe.
The image below illustrates the consequences of the state’s new legislation and points out
how gender bias has created a confounding dilemma for something as mundane as
using the restroom.
Image Credit: Walkley, A.J. “Arizona’s
‘Bathroom Bill.’” bi Magazine.
Today, this issue is only in a “period of
inception” (Griffin, 11). I expect that variations of the protest I suggest will push this
issue into “a period of rhetorical crisis” (Griffin, 11) that will leave the
North Carolina legislature with no choice but to repeal House Bill 2. With approximately
“700,000 transgender individuals in the US” (timesunion), we cannot allow a law
to exist that marginalizes so many people.
I propose that the general public protest
to repeal this law using an argument of semantics distinguishing gender from
sex. According to the American Psychological Association, sex, gender, and
gender identity are not synonymous (APA). I would construct the protest by
appropriately distinguishing between these three terms. Sex, as we all know, is
determined at birth based on the genotypic and phenotypic factors that create
the division between male and female. To put it simply, females have an XX
genotype, and breasts, ovaries, and a vagina distinguish their physical
appearance, or phenotype. In contrast, males have an XY genotype, testes, and a
penis. As you can see, sex is scientific. It is chemically determined, and only
privately observed. Gender, however, is publicly observed.
Medical doctors determine our sex, but our
society defines gender based on “the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors” that
are affiliated with the male or female sex (APA). Gender identity, in comparison, is the gender association an individual chooses (APA). I
would argue that one’s gender identity is just as significant as their gender.
While our society may mold the female gender to encompass women with long hair,
dresses, and high heels, not all women fit the stereotype. As it currently
stands, male and female bathrooms are differentiated only by the presence of a
defined dress on the female stick figure. Despite being misrepresented
on the sign, all women are permitted entrance into the female restroom despite
their degree of femininity. Similarly, a man does not need to prove his
masculinity to enter the male restroom. The image below is evidence that our
society has chosen to distinguish men and women by their appearance, not by
their genitalia or genotype. Why then, would North Carolina institute a law
that regulates restroom attendance based on sex, a factor that is not displayed
on most restroom signs? We cannot legally ask an individual to prove their sex,
so why create a law that is essentially unenforceable?
Image credit: “Restroom: Illustration of
male and female restroom symbol.” Integration and Application Network.
I propose an anti-discrimination protest to persuade the public
and North Carolina lawmakers that HB2 is a completely nonsensical law that
should be repealed. This law legally restricts the identities of American
citizens to their sex, something that can only be truly determined in the nude.
If we allow something as commonplace as the restroom to be a location of gender
identity discrimination,
where can we expect the discrimination
to stop? My protest on semantics would evoke a discussion to answer this question. I would use the
following image to promote this discussion and ask the American society about the legitimacy of
the false gender dichotomy.
Image Credit: Sridhar,
Suman. “Gender-inclusive restroom signs fight for transgener citizen’s rights.”
My Door Sign.
I suggest that this protest be constructed
in a way that ensures it is completely legible to the public. With “front stage”
(Treré, 902) propaganda on all social media cites, we will market our anti-discrimination message to
young audiences through the “public screen” (Deluca and Peeples, 188). This
online portion of the protest would encourage individuals to make the above
image their Facebook profile picture, post it on Instagram, or to write
“#AllGenderRestroom” (McEvoy) on Twitter. These subtle acts of protest on the Internet will ignite a
physical reaction by “community
activists” (Heaney and Rojas, 249) in North Carolina and across the United
States.
By initiating[1]
this protest online, protestors will prompt more serious, in-person acts of
protest clearly advocating for the repeal of North Carolina’s new house bill. I
believe the most effective way for protesters in this movement to take this
stance is through “body rhetoric” (Haiman, 23). For this climactic portion of
the protest, I suggest transgender individuals in North Carolina continue to
use the bathroom of their gender identity and post images of their peaceful
acts of “civil disobedience”
(Haiman, 17). With transgender men and women in North Carolina taking
photographs of themselves entering what they believe to be the appropriate bathroom,
I foresee the movement spreading across the country. By engaging in this type
of protest, these individuals must willingly break the law and accept the legal consequences
(Haiman, 17). However, the significance
of these arrests will only strengthen the protest. Imagine the public outcry when transgender
individuals are arrested for something as harmless as using the restroom. We
must realize that, in essence, House Bill 2 would allow an officer to arrest a
transgender individual for using the restroom of their choice and actively
being transgender.
As mentioned previously, House Bill 2 does
not include any reference to transgender individuals in its diction. The bill’s authors deliberately excluded
the word to avoid acquisitions of discrimination. However, the vague nature of the bill’s language
is also its biggest weakness. My protest would target this weakness directly by
referencing an instance when “single-sex
multiple occupancy” (HB2) is not required. For example, when a sister walks into
the women’s restroom carrying her infant brother or a father carries his
toddler daughter into the men’s restroom, we do not expect legal consequences.
In North Carolina, these individuals may face legal consequences even though
they were not the primary targets of House Bill 2. The North Carolina
legislatures may not realize this, but their new law would directly affect the
parents of young children if it were interpreted word for word. I, therefore,
suggest that concerned parents join this protest as anti-discrimination protestors. They may add to
the montage of protest photos by taking pictures of themselves entering a
restroom with their opposite sex infant and using the hashtag
“#AllGenderRestroom” (McEvoy). We don’t expect parents to leave their children
unattended while they use the restroom, but the law may lead to this behavior.
If we don’t ask parents to leave their children at the door, we shouldn’t be
able to ask transgender individuals to leave their gender identity at the door
either.
My protest would attempt to “persuade a
significant number of people that the generally accepted view of reality –
past, present, and future – is erroneous” (Stewart, 494). Our vision of the nuclear
family is dissipating and laws like House Bill 2 are futile attempts to stop
our society from progressing. The protest I suggest would oppose
this law by encouraging social progression
and awareness of everyday discrimination
through the rhetorical strategies: ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. The
movement will gain ethos when transgender celebrities, like Caitlin Jenner and
Laverne Cox, join the protest after hearing about it on social media. Pathos
will also be heavily relied upon to gain the sympathy of the public. The image shown
above of a perplexed transgender individual choosing between being humiliated
and physical harm, will persuade the public stand by the defenseless
transgender population
whose liberties are being imposed upon. Logos will be incorporated into the movement
to reveal the size of the transgender population in America and the number of transgender related hate
crimes that happen each year. The online photo collection created by protestors is intended to
persuade the public to join the protest using kairos. As transgender
individuals like Caitlin Jenner have already brought attention to transgender
issues, the public is alert and ready for this protest.
Some may argue that the protest I suggest encourages illegal and
unethical activity. While I
agree that the protest will be largely based on acts of peaceful law breaking,
I believe it is the law
itself that is unethical. House
Bill 2 inherently trespasses upon American values such as freedom of
self-expression. While advocates
of House Bill 2 may openly criticize my protest, I encourage their
comments. The more people
who criticize the protest, the more publicity it is given and I want
this protest to be highly legible to the public. If my protest is successful, I expect North
Carolina to repeal their new law and other states to revoke any consideration of such
discriminatory legislation.
I hope the protest
spreads from the east coast to Arizona, where House Representative John
Kavanagh tried to pass such a law just three short years ago (NY Daily News). This
is a national issue
that needs to be addressed throughout the country to preserve the rights of
transgender American citizens. [2]
Conclusion
Explanation: This conclusion was intended to point out that the controversy
over transgender bathroom rights is a national issue fueled by disagreement. I
chose to discuss why the protest is ethical and intentionally illegal to more
distinctly define the boundaries of my protest. I ended the paragraph with a
reference to Arizona to make the issue more relatable to Arizona readers who
may not be aware that this issue is related to our state as well.
“Definition of Terms: Sex,
Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation.” American Psychological Association.
DeLuca, Michael and Jennifer
Peeples. "From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and
the "Violence" of Seattle." Readings on the Rhetoric of
Social Protest. By Charles E. Morris III and Stephen H. Brown. 3rd ed. pgs.
183-203.
“GLAAD Media Reference Guide –
Transgender Issues.” Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
Griffin, Leland M. “The Rhetoric of
Historical Movements.” Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Chlares
E. Morris III and Stephen H. Brown. 3rd ed. pgs. 10-14.
Haiman, Franklyn S. “The
Rhetoric of the Streets: Some Legal and Ethical Considerations.” Readings on
the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Charles E. Morris III and Stephen H.
Brown. 3rd ed. pgs. 14-26.
Heaney, Michael T. and Fabio
Rojas. “The Place of Framing: Multiple Audiences and Antiwar Protests near Fort
Bragg.” Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Charles E. Morris
III and Stephen H. Brown. 3rd ed. pgs. 243-260.
"House Bill 2." General
Assembly of North Carolina Second Extra Session 2016. North Carolina General
Assembly.
McEvoy, Mayor Kevin T. (kevintmcevoy)
“#PascackValleyRegional school board set to vote on new #transgender restroom
policy: s.nj.com/u5xf6cm #AllGenderRestroom.” 11 April 2016, 3:51 a.m. Tweet.
Stewart, Charles J. “The
Evolution of a Revolution: Stokely Carmichael and the Rhetoric of Black Power.”
Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest. By Charles E. Morris III and
Stephen H. Brown. 3rd ed. pgs. 488-502.
The Associated Press. “Arizona panel Oks
transgender bathroom bill that lets businesses bar transgendered customers from
using the bathroom of their choice.” NY
Daily News. 28 march 2013.
“Transgender: By the numbers.” timesunion. 5 December 2011.
Treré, Emiliano. “Reclaiming,
proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in
Mexico: an examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through
social media and instant messaging platforms.” Information Communication & Society. 18 May 2015.
[1] Denominalized. Henceforth, all underlined
words represent have been denominalized.
[2] “Paragraph structure” paragraph: The
purpose of this paragraph is to assess the possible implications of the protest
I have suggested. The main characters in this paragraph are as follows: some,
I, House Bill 2, advocates of House Bill 2, people who criticize, my protest,
and national issue. They are highlighted in light blue, light purple, gray,
turquoise, and plum. I used a combination of chained and focused strings
throughout the paragraph. For example, the transition between sentences 2 and 3
represents a chained topic string because “the law” was in the stress position
of sentence 2 and was included in the topic position of sentence 3. An example
of a focused topic string is found between sentences 6 and 7 where I transition
from a discussion of “discriminatory legislation” to “the protest.”
No comments:
Post a Comment