If you browse the Web for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) or other legislation or laws mirroring it, it doesn’t take long at all to discover that politically and socially conservative opponents have come to regard pretty much any such measure — from local to state to federal — as a “bathroom bill, ” due to the protections offered for those who are socially victimized because of their gender identity and the leeway they would be granted in using bathrooms that don’t match their birth sex.

Hence, the fodder for opponents’ leading argument, which states such laws would pose a danger because they allow “men” access to women’s restrooms and other such gender-designated spaces. As a side note that anyone with half a brain surely already realizes, the word “men” in this instance is used very loosely, disrespectfully and inaccurately by opponents, because to them, it applies to male-to-female trans individuals as much as it does to biological males who in fact identify as their birth sex.

Either way, I can’t help but notice how flawed their position is: it seems to be largely based on the idea that the law would present an open invitation to sexual predators. But given that such an argument hinges on predators’ presumed sexual attraction to women, doesn’t that call into question lesbians’ use of women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and other such spaces, as well?

Lesbian women are attracted to other women. No? So who’s to say for a fact that they also won’t take advantage of their access at any given point? Should lesbians be made to use men’s restrooms instead because of their sexual orientation? Because that’s what the principle behind the predator argument is proffering.

Some may argue that many men can physically overpower women, thereby posing more of a threat. But the problem with that is that it disregards the reality that some lesbian women also can potentially physically overpower their “prey.” Or is that so impossible and unthinkable? Also, there are many male-to-female trans individuals who are not attracted to women. So how would they be sexual predators?

Lastly, if a guy goes into a women’s restroom and harasses or otherwise victimizes someone, what judge in her or his right mind would rule in favor of the perpetrator just because his legal defense argued on the grounds of a law offering anti-discrimination protection based on gender identity? I don’t understand it.

I’m sure I missed other flaws. Feel free to point ‘em out.