Outing people: good or bad?

'Outrage': Kirby Dick kicks open Washington's closet door
Trailer

Is it ever okay to out someone?

The obvious response is: No, never. We as people have individual rights to privacy that extend to everyone; just because you're a politician and have accepted that de facto your life is not as private as it once was does not mean that the de facto situation takes on any sort of de jure facet. You SHOULD expect the same level of privacy that everyone else gets and you SHOULD receive it. Unfortunately you probably won't expect or receive it, but that doesn't mean such deprivatizing of private matters is acceptable.

The more honest one: It's complicated.

You should never out someone for the sake of outing them (in order to, for example, discredit them or shame them). In an ideal world, like I said, everyone has their right to privacy. However, consider this: In court, a witness's own criminal record is inadmissible information, UNLESS THE CONVICTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO DISHONESTY (i.e. fraud, perjury, etc.). So you can't bring up a criminal record unless it calls into question the value of the individual's testimony.

If someone's history is seriously relevant to the debate then maybe it is admissible, even if it's related to something usually private (like sexuality or a criminal record). Maybe. I still think it's a douche move--there are legit ways to attack anti-gay legislation that don't amount to ad hominem attacks against politicians, after all--but I suppose if the debate devolves into mudslinging and you don't feel mature enough to rise above it, it's fair ammunition.

We couldn't get ONE person out of two dozen? REALLY?

You've probably heard about the "bathroom bill" that came up for a vote (and was shot down) in the New Hampshire senate this past week. I honestly can't help but take this personally. It would be one thing if the bill just lost--a vote split almost 50-50 (or 11-13 as the case may be, whatever) would at least be a sign of progress. I'd be absolutely ecstatic if 50% of the members of any group were defending me and my gender identity.

But the fact is, it was shot down unanimously. Twenty-four reasonable, intelligent people ALL voted that as long as I'm in New Hampshire, my rights to housing, job security, and safe urination were all essentially nil, because I was born with a penis.

This wasn't even a radical proposition: the law would have only affected housing, job security, etc. because the toilet issue which made such a stir was resolved already. Laws already prevent discrimination based on sex, and the men's room/ladies' room dichotomy smacks of separate-but-equal to me; essentially sex-specific restrooms are already enforced by courtesy, not law.

People stated that they were worried about predators using this statute to legally prowl in women's restrooms. In the hundred-or-so locales with similar laws that has never been reported to be a problem. People say they want to protect their daughters, their wives--then lobby about an important (and real) issue like the rape kits that go untested for years or clearing the wage gap. Don't take an opportunity like this to point out how you think I'm sub-human--I know you think that. And now I know your legislative body thinks that, too.

I'm not sure what you can do about this as an individual. I even understand if you're not up-in-arms about it--I'm not from New Hampshire and it took me a while to get well and truly pissed about this, too. But here's something small: any time you hear someone call this the "bathroom bill" correct them and inform that (a) I can already use any bathroom I want and (b) this decision had the more significant effect of essentially letting me know that I couldn't necessarily rent an apartment (which would have a bathroom in it and solve this whole problem).