Shower-Nuts Win One in New Hampshire

New Hampshire legislators voted this week on a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Republicans framed the bill in terms of men going into ladies' locker-rooms, and that was enough to beat it. From the Concord Monitor:

House lawmakers yesterday rejected a bill that would extend protection to transgender individuals under the state's anti-discrimination and hate-crimes laws. The bill failed by a 15-vote margin, largely along party lines.

Opponents dubbed the measure the "bathroom bill"; they painted a picture of men and women walking into bathrooms and saunas as they pleased.

"I don't want a man coming, sitting next to me in the sauna. Do you?" said Rep. Nancy Elliott, a Merrimack Republican. "How many male prisoners would suddenly become a female to get into the girls' prison?" Transgender rights defeated: It sought protections in workplace, rentals

This is a new twist, prisoners claiming to be female so they can get into the women's prison. Like, first of all, we are so concerned about women prisoners. And, sure, like some perverted guy is going to put on a dress and makeup so he can take the abuse that women prisoners get.

I lived in New Hampshire for a summer, back in the day. I loved it. Took my family back up there a few years back to retrace my steps, see if my old friends were still there (they weren't). People up there have a way, two guys can stand together leaning on a fence for hours without saying a word. They don't blab a lot, they don't waste their breath, they are down to earth and straightforward. Look, their license plates say "Live free or die," they're not messing around!

Now I am wondering why the New Hampshire legislature has enough shower-nuts to beat a law like this.

Turns out there are stupid people everywhere.

Sponsoring Rep. Ed Butler called it something else: "a simple little nondiscrimination bill." He told stories of New Hampshire residents losing their jobs after they go public as identifying with the other gender.

"They're asking for our help and the basic protections this bill will provide," said Butler, a Hart's Location Democrat.

The bill would have banned landlords, employers and others from discriminating against individuals who are born into one sex but identify as the other, some of whom undergo sex-change operations. Such individuals could take discrimination complaints to the state Human Rights Commission, which now handles complaints on discrimination based on sex, race and religion among other factors.

The bill fell by a 15-vote margin of 172-157, with five Republicans joining Democrats on the pro side and 19 Democrats joining Republicans to vote against it. House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, a Concord Democrat, made the final plea for the bill; Minority Leader Sherm Packard, a Londonderry Republican, made the final case against it.

In New Hampshire it sounds like the shower-nuts were able to frame the issue totally in their terms. I guess our little corner of the world, Montgomery County, Maryland, might have been the first place they tried this distortion of the issue, and it seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions. Though the bill was about discrimination on the basis of gender identity, I myself heard them standing outside the Giant saying, "Would you like to sign a petition to keep men out of women's bathrooms?" Our law, like the one in New Hampshire, had nothing to do with bathrooms, but if they can scare people then it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

Supporters described themselves as shocked and taken aback by the opposition campaign to the bill. Rep. Lucy Weber said she was mystified when she got an e-mail about the "bathroom bill," an e-mail that urged her not to back a bill to protect sexual predators.

"I was horrified to find out that this e-mail was about our bill. I just can't believe it," said Weber, a Walpole Democrat.

She said that opponents' claims about the bill were "just not true" and that the bill would give no protection to criminals.

See, this is the thing. This Democrat is standing there, jaw dropping, saying it's "just not true," but it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Our side can't win by making a reasonable argument, this isn't about reason.

Transgender nondiscrimination is a test-tube case for understanding how to move voters. The Republicans have found that there are enough people who will vote without thinking, they call them their "base" and they are learning to manipulate those voters. Our side can't be "horrified" when we find out that people are walking in their sleep, we have to know people are walking in their sleep. Even in New Hampshire, people are willing to believe that legislators would pass a law to allow men to use the ladies room. And of course they're against that.

Logic is one tool for persuasion, but it is not the only tool or the most powerful one, in the short run. In this case, the image of a perverted man waving his festering penis around the ladies room is enough to overrule any logic about the effects of discrimination and the necessity for fairness. It does not matter that the law does nothing to encourage pedophiles and predators, it really doesn't matter at all. Republicans attached that image to the bill and people were willing to oppose it on that basis.

It is reasonable to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity. Some women wear pants, some guys carry a handbag, whatever, there are all kinds of people out there and it just. does. not. matter how masculine or feminine somebody is, or if they call themselves a man or a woman. The revolution was fifty years ago, women and men are equal in every way now, it does. not. matter. But in a battle between the amygdala and the frontal cortex, amygdala wins.

Our side has the reasonable argument, but we can't win public opinion with reason alone. The other side found a vivid image that beat us. There are equally vivid images that could be used to support fairness and objectivity, and I hate to tell you but we need to use those images. The law in New Hampshire would support women, for instance, who wear their hair short, or women who wear pants, guys with high voices, men without facial hair, skinny men. It's not just one or two percent of the population that would benefit here, it's good for everyone if gender identity ceases to be grounds for discrimination. But our side thinks being reasonable is enough, like a vote is an algebraic variable that can be calculated from the values of the other variables in an equation, like if you just make sense you'll win public support.

Oh, and this is so cute.

Opponent Rep. Fran Wendelboe offered a tongue-in-cheek amendment, trying to add a clause that would make the third-floor women's restroom in the State House unisex. That bathroom, she said, recently underwent a $72,000 upgrade and is nicer than anything available to men.

Wendelboe, a New Hampton Republican, called the amendment a demonstration of the House's "commitment to putting our money where our mouth is."

Her amendment failed 79-251.

The Republicans in New Hampshire were utterly successful in framing the nondiscrimination bill as "the bathroom bill." Take two topics, discrimination and peeing. Tell me, which one do people think about more? Which one is more personal to them? Which one is easier to think about? By defining the law in terms of peeing, the Republicans were able to make their position popular. In the meantime, real people are discriminated against because they do not meet stereotypical expectations.