Republicans are redefining the word 'equal' in an Iowa anti-trans bill
Erin Reed
The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to 'pink triangles'
Thu 8 Feb 2024 11.10 GMT
On Tuesday afternoon, the Iowa house education committee met to debate
House Study Bill 649 , a bill proposed by the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds. The bill, as drafted, would end legal recognition for transgender people anywhere "male" and "female" appear in Iowa code and would require special gender markers for transgender people on birth certificates, measures that were compared to "pink triangles"
once used to identify LGBTQ+ people by Nazis in the 1940s. Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to discriminate against transgender people in the proposed legislation, however, is through redefining the word "equal" in the bill.
The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, "The term 'equal' does not mean 'same' or 'identical'," which raises the question: what does "equal" even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that "equal" no longer means "same" or "identical" within the state of
Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word "equal" means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: "Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context."
If the bill’s own sponsor cannot define the word "equal" due to eliminating the word’s actual definition, how can she claim to have created the perfect definition for "man" or "woman" in Iowa law? In attempting to write transgender people out of all legal protections in Iowa through definitions, the state legislature seems poised to undermine the very concept of equality itself. That should be enough to shake all Iowans, regardless of their political stance on transgender issues.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that "separate" is "not inherently unequal". One opponent to the bill pointed to
the cruel history of the doctrine of "separate but equal" and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target. Though the new definition of the word "equal" and the revival of the "separate but equal doctrine" only applies to transgender people, the precedents that make up the bedrock of equality for all are threatened. Is it so important for Republicans to get a political victory against transgender people in the state that they are willing to go this far?
Equally important is the means by which the bill establishes transgender people as "separate". The bill mandates that transgender people be given unique identifiers on their birth certificates, outing them as transgender. Anyone born in Iowa who wishes to change their birth certificate after obtaining gender-affirming care would be forced to have both gender markers on their birth certificates, making their transgender identity obvious any time they use their birth certificate. This raises the question: why is it so important for the state to readily identify transgender people?
Forced identification has been used to harm LGBTQ+ people in the past. During the 1940s, Nazis required LGBTQ+ people
to wear pink triangles to designate their status, including
transgender people . Many of those who advocated against the Iowa bill showed up wearing such pink triangles to raise awareness of how they would be designated "separate" and denied equal protections.
The Republican representative Brooke Boden did not seem to take complaints about a special gender marker and forced identification for transgender people seriously. Instead, she replied disingenuously: "What I hear from the trans community is that they are proud to be trans, and I guess that that would be OK to identify it as that and make sure that your birth certificate represents those things," moving the bill to the full committee for a vote.
Despite heavy opposition with more than a hundred people who showed up against the bill, the house education committee passed it through on a party-line vote. With less than 24 hours’ notice, the bill had a hearing announced, was heard, and passed, leaving little time for the committee or the state to properly vet its staggering implications.
In the coming days, Iowa legislators will grapple with the meaning of words as this bill moves to the full house floor. Some will state that the bill is really merely about defining a "man" or a "woman". What they will not acknowledge, however, is that those definitions are misdirection, a magician’s trick to prevent you from realizing that it is the fundamental definition of equality itself that is at risk.
Erin Reed is a transgender journalist based in Washington DC. She tracks LGBTQ+ legislation around the United States for her subscription newsletter, Erin in the Morning
I find this especially funny because, in every incarnation, Tony has always claimed to have The Answer.
, hero Tony, saving the day.