There are two reasons to vote No on Question 3 in Massachusetts. The first reason has to do with common sense; the second with your worldview. First, common sense. If you have a wife, daughter, or a granddaughter and she is using a public restroom, do you want a man who at that moment “identifies” as a woman to come into that bathroom and share the bathroom with her? Isn’t the safety and privacy of your wife, daughter, or granddaughter more important than the politically correct mantra of respect for transgenderism? Of course it is. Now voting No on 3 does not mean that one should disrespect transgender individuals. It is vital to treat individuals with gender dysphoria (the current clinical term for transgenderism) with dignity and respect. Those who advocate for voting Yes on 3 spread the canard that those of us seeking safety and privacy for women and girls in public accommodations want to treat transgender individuals badly.

That is nonsense. Voting No on 3 simply means that only women and girls who are biologically female should be allowed to use women’s public facilities. We want to avoid the possibility that our loved ones might be exposed to a biological man who exploits this radical law, especially a man who is a convicted sex offender, which is currently allowed by the law.

Another piece of common sense: If someone complains about a man acting suspiciously in a women’s public facility or even attempts to prevent his entry, the law may subject the person who complains to a fines — $10,000 for the first offense and up to $50,000 and a sentence of up to one year in jail for a three-time-plus offender. This part of the law belongs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Rather than punishing the offender, the law punishes the victim.

Opponents of repeal say it defies common sense that anyone would be subjected to these penalties. But it actually defies common sense that state law would set forth such penalties. And if they aren’t realistic, then what are these penalties doing in the law?

Here’s a hint: Draconian penalties like these all but ensure that few untoward incidents will be reported to the police.

The second reason for voting No on 3 has to do with one’s worldview. The majority of Americans still draw their belief in what is right or wrong from their faith. Some 40 percent of Americans still go to church several times a month. And the Judeo-Christian worldview of human sexuality stems from the second chapter of Genesis: “And God created them male and female, and he blessed them and called them ‘human’.”

The worldview that gender is merely a social construct is not only at odds with the Judeo-Christian understanding of gender, but also contradicts biology, anatomy, genetics, and the understanding of all great civilizations until recently. As Ryan Anderson expresses in his brilliant book When Harry Became Sally, gender dysphoria (the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex) was defined by psychiatrists, as recently as fifteen years ago, as a psychological problem that needed attention and therapy.

But now gender dysphoria has become a civil right. The American longing for self-actualization — supported by university-spawned ideology, generous funding by left-wing foundations, and wealthy progressives, and the well-intentioned desire to show toleration and respect for almost any behavior – is transforming both American culture and law.

Well, enough is enough. A man “identifying” as a woman for a day or a week is still a man and has no place in a public facility threatening the privacy, if not the safety, of our wives, daughters, or granddaughters.

The safety threat is real. This law sets up a look-but-don’t-touch scenario, making it impossible for women and girls to speak up effectively for themselves until after they have been assaulted or otherwise harmed.

The privacy threat is undeniable. This law expects women and girls to give up their dignity in the name of transgender ideology – or else, as Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey once famously said, “hold it.”

Polling on Question 3 has been unusually volatile. How people understand what is being asked of them has a huge impact on how they plan to vote on it. When they understand it to be about women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, a large portion of voters want to repeal the current gender-identity law by voting No.

How large? We won’t know until Election Day. But your vote matters. Your vote – and what you say about it to friends and neighbors – could help restore sanity to this part of Massachusetts law.

Vote No on Question 3. Finished reading