Democrats in the Colorado state legislature have killed a bill that would allow school officials and business owners to restrict bathroom and locker room access to people of the same biological sex.
The legislation was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Kim Ransom of Littleton. She says the bill was very straightforward.
“The bill was actually very simple. It restricted access to a sex-segregated locker room based on an individual’s actual biological sex,” said Ransom.
Ransom’s legislation died in committee on a mostly party line vote of 7-4. One Republican crossed the aisle to oppose it.
In 2008, Colorado enacted a law to provide equal accommodation to restrooms and locker rooms for individuals based on the gender with which they identify, rather than the gender identified at birth. Ransom says she brought her new bill to committee after parents became uneasy about people of the opposite biological sex using the same restrooms as their children.
“I actually brought it forward at the request of some parents and a group that was trying to help some moms that were dealing with young children that were just being exposed to people of the opposite sex,” she said.
Ransom insists her legislation is not designed to prevent transgenders from using their preferred facilities.
“It’s not necessarily addressing the cross-gender or transgender at all. That really wasn’t the intent. It’s people that are abusing that statute,” said Ransom.
Some critics of Ransom’s bill suggest this problem in restrooms and locker rooms is hypothetical and no documented problems have been reported. Ransom says the concern is very real.
“What has happened, not only in Colorado but in other states as well, is that predators can use that equal accommodation allowance to go into the opposite locker room and the manager or the school principal can do nothing to remove them, even if they’re ogling children or looking at them or exposing themselves if they say those specific words that they self-identify with that sex,” said Ransom, who says there are specific stories on record.
“The most egregious one was in Washington state. I believe it was a YMCA locker room. There was a woman in a locker room with her two small girls and there was literally was a man that was completely undressed walking around in that locker room. Whether or not his specific thought pattern was female, his outward appearance was male,” said Ransom.
Another major criticism from Democrats was that it amounted to a violation of the civil rights of people who identify with the opposite gender of their birth. Lifesite News reported particularly scathing remarks from Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar, who suggested the bill was this generation’s version of Jim Crow.
“The reasons for non-desegregating in the 1950s and ’60s was because Mexicans and blacks somehow were sexual perverts,” Salazar said. “I’m offended by this bill because this is rinse and repeat prejudice.”
Ransom is baffled at such a charge.
“This doesn’t really address civil rights. It doesn’t have anything to do with civil rights,” said Ransom. “I was not trying and the bill was not intending to address the statute that was addressed in 2008. It was trying to empower business owners to just enforce the signs on the door if there were complaints.”
But while she’s not looking to overturn existing laws, Ransom says others need to respect the uncomfortable and unsafe position girls find themselves in when school leaders and business owners have their hands completely tied.
“Locker rooms are a vulnerable place to have your kids, you know shower rooms, locker rooms, changing to go to the pool. You want to have your children protected and make sure there aren’t people of the opposite sex in there with your small children,” said Ransom.
In the end, she says common sense ought to prevail.
“When you look at a locker room, there’s usually a stick person with a dress and a stick person with pants, indicating that it’s meant to be a men’s room and a ladies’ room. We’re just having a lot of crossover due to the current laws. I’m just trying to let parents protect their young children from people that abuse the current statute,” said Ransom.
