{shortcode-2a84aaf49025f76578b0a2d90d3a3d299176d0f4}

On Nov. 6, voters will flock to the polls to determine the future of transgender rights in Massachusetts. Ballot Question 3 asks voters whether they are in favor of state-level anti-discrimination legislation that allows transgender people to exist freely in public spaces. Should this law be repealed with a “No” vote, transgender and gender nonconforming individuals will return to living in a greater state of limbo. The repeal of this legislation will trigger cascading effects including transgender people’s abilities to safely access gendered facilities.

Simply put, this is a civil rights issue. That this question even will appear on the ballot speaks volumes about the extent to which we are willing to forego the rights of our community members to protect our misinformed sense of comfort. The initiative to vote no on 3 is another example of leveraging scare tactics to deny the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. As Massachusetts will likely set precedent other states will look to, the onus is on Massachusetts voters to uphold the civil liberties of transgender individuals.

Opponents to the legislation cite the ability for cisgender men to abuse the law’s protections to enter women’s restrooms and sexually harass women. No on 3 advocacy group Keep MA Safe’s rhetoric and ad campaign prey on this type of fear-mongering in hopes of advancing its agenda. This narrative, however, is based on lies. In cities and states that have implemented nondiscrimination laws, police departments have reported no increase in public safety altercations. Therefore, we must not conflate transgender protections to endangering cisgender women; the two are not correlated. We should not vote as if they are.

Further, legislation that protects the lives of transgender and gender nonconforming individuals is a necessity. Violence against transgender people is on the rise, especially for transgender women of color. Repealing this legislation only perpetuates this violence by denying the humanity of transgender individuals. The transgender community should not to justify its existence to the voters. True allyship exists in stepping up and fighting for the rights of communities that are underrepresented and under scrutiny for merely living. The fight for BGLTQ equality is far from over — we call on everyone, and particularly cisgender queer people and people who adopt the title of “feminist.” to stand up against hate towards the transgender community. Liberation for one is inherently linked to liberation for all.

Due to how Massachusetts conducts referenda, a yes vote will maintain the current legislation that ensures protections for transgender individuals, while a No vote will strip it away. We urge voters to select the former. The stakes for Question 3 could not be higher, and voters must take a stand for transgender rights.

Ultimately, we, the people, have the opportunity to support the existing legislation. President Donald Trump’s administration’s attempt to forego science and redefine gender as immutable underscores the importance of voicing our support for the transgender community. Transgender identities should not be a matter of debate. Question 3 attempts to politicize their experiences, and we must unequivocally condemn this behavior.

This staff editorial is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.