S.C. anti-transgender bill is another ‘solution’ in need of a problem

Five years ago, North Carolina had a discriminatory law restricting use of restrooms by transgender people – the infamous “bathroom bill” that was an economic disaster for the state and was repealed the next year.

That unfortunate experience is ignored by South Carolina supporters of a ban on transgender young women participating in high school or middle school sports. The House Judiciary Committee tabled the proposal, but it was refiled and has initial approval by a panel of Judiciary Committee members.

LGBTQ+ advocates note the obvious discriminatory impact on young transgender people, who are at higher risk of physical violence ‑ and suicide – than their cisgender peers. Supporters claim the legislation is about fair competition, that transgender females have a biological athletic advantage over birth gender athletes.

BAN PROBLEMATIC

As was the case with a proposed – not passed ‑ bathroom bill for South Carolina, where is there a problem? In what competition has a transgender woman had a competitive advantage? The sports ban looks like a solution looking for a problem.

Supporters of a ban are listening to the wrong voices, similar to those of the “constitutional carry” claim of a Second Amendment right to strap on a sidearm any place, any time, for any purpose.

South Carolina could create a real problem with the transgender ban. The NCAA, the governing body of collegiate athletics, announced it might not have championship events in states with anti-transgender laws. Several state legislatures, from New Hampshire to Utah and Virginia to Texas, are considering or have approved the measures.

The NCAA Board of Governors said championship events should be in “locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination.”

S.C. MORATORIUM

S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster told reporters: “I think the NCAA ought to mind [its] own business. If you want to pass laws you need to run for office.” Surely he does not intend to suggest that organizations or corporations have no right to determine where its events are held, no right to respond?

Perhaps the governor has forgotten that for 14 years the NCAA had a moratorium on S.C. championship events, until the Confederate battle flag was removed from the State House grounds. That happened in a time of clarity about social justice after a white supremacist shot and killed nine churchgoers in Charleston.

McMaster seemed to echo U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who told corporations they should stay out of policy matters such as voting rights. McMaster is up for re-election next year, so his comments on the NCAA directive perhaps are more about his upcoming campaign than concern about a discriminatory law causing an economic backlash.

DIGNITY, RESPECT

The S.C. legislative calendar may work against passage of the transgender bill before the General Assembly adjourns. If it does advance to floor votes in the House and Senate, it should be rejected.

Christy Mallory of the Williams Institute at UCLA, points out that efforts for anti-transgender measures, even if they don’t become laws, can be hurtful to young transgender people. Attempts to limit rights, and erase their gender identities can be quite harmful.

In some state legislatures, limiting rights has extended to health care for transgender people. The fundamental issue is equal treatment under the rule of law.

The NCAA Board of Governors policy should apply to every person, regardless of gender identity, or other factors including age and race: “Our clear expectation … is that all student-athletes will be treated with dignity and respect.”

Dignity and respect precludes discrimination, any and all.