Is this really the future Idaho wants? Liberty and freedom, but only for him or her? | Opinion

Without having any influence on the matter whatsoever, I was born into a female body complete with functioning parts, genetic code that has my eyes and ears in about the right place, and a remarkably unquestioning acceptance of the socio-cultural norms deemed fitting to most women. But for a few stretch marks, the unrelenting tug of gravity, and the recent relegation of reproductive rights, I’ve happily settled into my personal identity as a woman.

Thus, as I have witnessed my contemporaries, friends, family and community members engage in the evolution of the language of gender and identity and challenge its traditions, I am fascinated by a new scope of understanding (boys wearing mascara, girls donning Old Spice deodorant). I am also keenly aware of how much safer the world is for me — whether in alleys or legislative sessions.

When House Bill 421 was reviewed in the Capitol recently, I was struck by the narrow, if not naive, definitions of gender. The bill proposes to legally bind terms of gender and gender identity to sex-assigned-at-birth. For the purposes of all state laws and identification documents, a person must be male or female and would be referred to with the pronouns “he” or “she” respectively. Existing law also limits all gender-affirming medical intervention for minors, including puberty blockers.

For a state that touts its dedication to freedom and liberty, a state that has successfully and fiercely protected some of those freedoms (see: vaccination mandates), one struggles to reconcile how the representatives responsible for this proposed bill are justifying such a blatant overreach into the privacy, liberty and personal health care of the individual. It is not just un-American, but strikingly un-Idahoan.

And I would argue, inhumane.

Legislative language that excludes some humans does not effectively erase their existence, although it would appear this is the primary intention of HB 421. It only limits their rights as humans and citizens, categorizes them as something-else-altogether. It further perpetuates the diseases of a digressing society: exclusion, discrimination, oppression.

Interestingly, the representatives on the committee hearing testimony this week heard fifteen community members speak in opposition of the bill, while zero community members spoke in favor of it. Still, the committee unanimously decided to send the bill to the house for debate. The lack of discourse suggests disinterest in and disregard for those most impacted by the proposed bill and leaves one questioning: Are they only representing those with shared values, experiences, and limitations of integrated complexity?

We are, and I believe they are, fully capable of addressing the concerns of a nation adjusting to the inevitable and unstoppable cultural shift away from a binary system of gender. Despite the assumptive language of this proposed bill, gender is not indefinitely linked to biological sex. And biological sex itself may be reckoning with medical advancements. Both are also deeply, deeply personal and likely fall within my grandmother’s wise advice of minding one’s own business.

The proposed bill states among its reasons of concern: “Confusion and ambiguities surrounding the definitions of sex, male, female, and related terms can hinder individual efforts to enjoy equal treatment under the law.”

Equal treatment indeed. Then it falls upon us as voting citizens and legislators to create inclusive legislation. It is not the non-binary and intersex people who are confused, but those of us comfortable in an antiquated and defunct system that does not effectively accommodate reality. Whether we are directly exposed to that reality or not, whether we have transgender or non-binary or gender-fluid persons in our life, they do exist. They vote. They have children and love them. They attend church. They are our neighbors. They are deserving of the same rights and freedoms as every other citizen.

Passing a law that mandates a transgender woman flash a driver’s license divulging she was once male is a threat to her safety. Not allowing children to receive care determined as necessary to their health by their parents and medical professionals is an infringement on their rights, their parents’ rights, and the solemn oath of medical professionals to act in their patients’ interest.

It is valid to adjust our terminology and to consider how an expansive experience of gender impacts historical convention and our laws — from camp cabins to bathrooms to athletics. We should do so thoughtfully and in ways that consider the comfort, needs, and rights of all involved. It is our task as citizens, practitioners, and lawmakers to work to improve the circumstances of our society. It has always been and remains the vision of our great nation.

Whether we comprehend the complexity of gender or not, or our religious convictions agree with it or not, whether we’re comfortable with the spectrum of gender or the grammar of a singular “they,” we will only cause grievous harm with legislation limiting the rights of individuals, regardless of their pronouns.

We can do better. We must do better.

Ammi Midstokke is an author and columnist. She lives in North Idaho with her family.