The city’s mayor has proposed an ordinance that prohibits transgender women from using bathrooms that deal with gender identity, showing the latest efforts to limit transgender rights.
Mayor Gregmeister of Porterville, about 60,000 cities on a base in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Tulea County, presented the proposal at a city council meeting on Wednesday.
The “Protecting Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance prohibits transgender women from accessing toilets and locker rooms that close with the expressed gender identity. The ordinance also seeks to remove transgender women and girls from women’s sports, Meister said at a city council meeting.
“Gender discomfort does not overturn women’s rights,” Meister said in an interview with the Times. “Women have fought for equality, but it’s not fair that biological men put their rights at risk.”
Local ordinances are part of efforts at governments at various levels, from local school boards to the federal government under President Trump, to ban transgender women’s access to women’s facilities.
“This is part of a coordinated attack on transgender people,” said Amanda Gord, director of the LGBTQ, Gender and Reproductive Justice Project at ACLU in Southern California. “This is part of a broader project to exercise more state control over people’s bodies and lives.”
Meister agreed that his ordinance is part of a national trend that is not based on local issues.
He said no one, including women’s rights groups, approached him about the ordinance he had come up with. He also said there was no instance of trans women Porterville using their preferred toilets. He said he didn’t know if trans people lived in Porterville and whether he had no trans friends.
Despite the fact that this issue hasn’t happened in Porterville, Meister said he wants to stand up to it before it becomes an issue.
The council voted unanimously from five to zero to approve the Meister claims to be sent to city counsel and mayor for review. Language can still change, Meister said, and the city will follow California law and only do legal things.
“They are going to look at the language, see what is plausible and legal from their perspective, then they’re going to bring it back to the council and make a decision. I’m sure it’s going to be cut up.” He said.
Goad said many legal issues could be banned, including constitutional issues under the Equality Protection Clause and the possibility of violations of California law.
“If it actually was enacted, it’s very likely to be challenged,” God said.
Source link
