The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

99° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


    Your views

    In response to “Guest column: Bathroom bill could affect transgender students, sending AZ politics down toilet again” (By Dani Dobrusin, March 20):

    I have not seen the actual language of the bill but based on other news reports, it requires someone to use the toilet appropriate to the sex on the person’s birth certificate.

    A number of states refuse to change the sex on birth certificates. Does that condemn transsexual women to using the men’s room for the rest of their lives due to having been born in Ohio (to name one)?

    I made the male to female transition in the 1980s and have been post-genital surgery for over 25 years. For that time I have lived and worked as myself, have traveled extensively in the US and abroad as myself, and been in a committed relationship. And some moron in the Arizona Legislature thinks I should use the men’s room?

    — Patty in Portland

    The problem with asking for papers to show proof of gender is that it is a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. That being said, I understand why a parent wouldn’t want a person that was born as a man, but identifies as a woman in the girls locker room with them. As a parent it is your responsibility to protect your children and you need to be aware of potential dangers for your child. I know that all transgender persons are not sex offenders. I do know that when there is a law that allows someone to use any restroom that they want, dangerous people can potentially abuse that law. I wouldn’t want my wife to take my little girl to the pool and walk into the changing room to see a man disrobe because he identifies as a woman. That is not something that a child should have to deal with. I think that it would be perfectly acceptable for a transgender person to use the single occupant multi-sex bathroom until they get a sex change and can use the appropriate restroom. I don’t see this as discriminatory but transitory.

    — Brian

    In response to “Immigration reform does not mean ending deportation” (By David Weissman, March 20):

    This article is well written and I support the push for a conversation about immigration reform. However, the comments on this article show why we can never have a debate about immigration reform. Opposing illegal immigration means that you are a racist and we are all immigrants because we stole the land from the Native Americans, so on and so on. Where there things done to Native Americans and immigrants that were wrong? Yes. Are we all immigrants or descendants of immigrants? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a debate about immigration. You do not fall directly into the political category of conservative because you oppose illegal immigration and you aren’t a liberal if you support illegal immigration. Let’s focus on the real issues. Why do people immigrate? For a better life. If the rest of the world was similar to the U.S., would people die trying to come here? I don’t think so. So let’s talk about the issues and stop throwing around the word “racist” when we disagree with someone.

    — Brian

    More to Discover
    Activate Search