cently assigned a sub-committee to legislation offered by Rep. Jeff Shipley that would have removed gender identity as a protected class from Iowa code, while identifying gender dysphoria as a disability. While this legislation was not advanced in sub-committee due to questions that require further research, it was important to begin the conversation on the ever-increasing repercussions of having gender identity as a protected class in Iowa code.
As Chair of House Judiciary, I have, in the past, rejected the idea of removing gender identity as a protected class from code. I knew the reaction from some would be that such action would be a green light to hate and discriminate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is not OK to hate, most particularly if the hate results in illegal action, and there are numerous places in Iowa code and in federal law that prohibit discrimination and violence against individuals, regardless of the reason. Removing gender identity as a protected class would in no way make it OK to hate. It is important to note that several dozen states do not have gender identity protections specifically in their code. Yet, in those states, it is still not okay to hate or discriminate against trans people.
Unfortunately, placing gender identity as a protected class in Iowa code years ago has resulted in numerous outcomes that those who supported it may not have envisioned at the time. It would seem that the original goal in the transgender community to “let me be me,” has had an additional goal added by militants within the movement: “Let me be me, and YOU MUST AGREE.” Civil rights protections intended to protect the transgender community are being used as a club to attack societal norms of decency and commonsense, rendering women’s rights invisible and silencing critics.
It is not OK to hate. It is also not OK that a young female community college student in Iowa was forced to feel uncomfortable and unsafe when a biological male, who identifies as female, stripped, and exposed himself in front of her in a women’s changing facility. It is not OK that when she expressed her concerns with this arrangement, she was told by the community college that she would have to find another place to change clothes. This situation was reported to me only a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, there are many other stories like it.
It is not OK to hate. It is also not OK when workers in Iowa are threatened with disciplinary action if they “misgender” someone or use the wrong pronoun, whether intentionally or not. With “gender fluidity” now demanded, this could literally change daily or weekly.
It is also not OK when people with firmly held religious beliefs are forced to use pronouns that do not match with the person’s biological sex. They risk disciplinary action and termination and could have to choose between their job and their religious beliefs.
It is not OK that militants in the transgender movement are going into our schools and recruiting our children, filling young minds with doubts and fears that are likely leading to increased mental health challenges. It is not ok that second grade students in a school district in Iowa were told they could choose to be a boy, a girl, both, neither or something else. This was done without the consent of parents, and is an example of the increasing militancy of some in the transgender movement,
These situations exist in part because gender identity is a protected class in the Iowa civil rights code. In numerous instances, this has been shown to be true as Republican legislators have struggled to protect women from militant transgender activism that tramples on their rights and erases the gains we have made for equality. As countless citizens report challenges in the workplace, unfair advantages in sporting events, and discomfort and fear in changing rooms, they are told that because gender identity is a protected class in Iowa code, their concerns don’t matter. This must change.
The number of stories like these that I hear have been steadily increasing. It is heartbreaking and inexcusable that men who have decided they are women are given preferential treatment over actual women, who are often belittled and bullied into silence. A perfect example of this is the treatment of Riley Gaines by transgender militants. Riley has been assaulted and held against her will by out-of-control militant mobs who seek to destroy anyone who disagrees with their alternate version of reality. This is not ok.
All of these heartbreaking situations have led me to the conclusion that we must have this discussion. The goal should be to ensure that everyone, including the transgender community, have their rights protected, but that we should not be fighting discrimination with more discrimination. Protecting the rights of the transgender community should not include forcing others to participate in their version of reality or displacing biological males or females from their own facilities. The insanity must stop.
We cannot shy away from these difficult discussions any longer. The militants in the transgender movement have relied on forcing dissenters into silence. Iowans who rely on logic and truth risk being called hateful, bigoted, or “transphobic” if they voice their thoughts or concerns out loud and could be threatened with legal action or workplace discipline.
The removal of gender identity as a protected class from Iowa code will not greenlight discrimination on the transgender community, as there are numerous other safeguards in place in both state and federal law. There are complex legal issues involved with removing a group from protected class status once they are already there, and there are federal mandates and challenges as well, but I believe that ultimately, we must overcome these obstacles. It will not be easy, but we must find a solution and take decisive action to protect the rights of those who are now adversely impacted by the transgender agenda. We must stand up for our daughters. We must stand up for truth.
When reading all the asymmetrical public comments against removing Gender Identity from the ICRC, a high percentage were alleging they would lose constitutional rights. How? How could anyone lose their rights to life, liberty or property rights without due process? Those rights remain equally protected regardless of Gender Identity in the ICRC or not. Removing protected class status from the ICRC would not cause an outbreak of hatred or discrimination ether. The natural inferiority complex of fear carried by transgenderism goes with a flawed behavior. Forcing me by threat of legal action to accept and accommodate the delusions associated with Gender Identity is not the solution. The Constitution nor civil rights code is not designed to protect feelings of despair and all I saw at the subcommittee meeting for HF2082 was hurt feelings because the Gender Identity folks felt fear for something perceived to happen that shows no evidence of happening. Even if Gender Identity were removed from the ICRC, it would still be illegal to assault, kill or cause harm to those persons the same as for anyone. I still retain my 1st Amendment right to freely express why I do not agree with transgenderism and to point out all that I believe is wrong with it spiritually, physically, societally and morally. That is not discrimination because I reject the arguments made in favor of retaining Gender Identity in the ICRC. I just happen to favor protecting innocent children from the propagation of Gender Identity indoctrination. I don’t do this because I hate these people as alleged by their display of unfounded fear. I do it because I love innocent children more and see where protecting the special class of Gender Identity is harming the innocent more. Someone has to speak for innocent children even if standing alone. Rep. Jeff Shipley is a hero. Is he the only one? Thank you, Rep. Steven Holt, for continuing this important discussion. Semper Fi!