Those who would repeal part of Springfield’s anti-discrimination policy have made a move to which I have the following response - “Brilliant.”
I am sincere. I think the latest part of this effort is actually brilliant.
The “Yes on Question 1” group has included “bathroom privacy” in the title of their kickoff rally, according to this article in the localpaper. This is a genius move.
My first thought was, Surely they don’t actually believe Springfield’s anti-discrimination policies have anything to do with bathroom privacy. (I’m almost positive they don’t.)
My second thought was, There’s no way this idea will convince people to vote for repeal. (A few may be swayed by this tactic, but not many.)
Then came my third thought, and the light bulb clicked – This idea seems to be completely disconnected from reality, and as such it will be dismissed. And if this idea is dismissed, the yes campaign will be dismissed altogether. And if the campaign is dismissed, people won't come out to vote, and the repeal will pass. And so, brilliant!
I’m afraid that including “bathroom privacy” in the campaign is so irrational that it will convince rational people that there’s nothing to worry about, so they won’t come out and vote. The thinking will be that the effort to repeal the SOGI protections is so disconnected from reality that there is no chance in the world that this proposed repeal will actually pass. I think this move is strategically designed to keep people home from the polls on April 7, and I’m afraid that it might work.
Anyone who has actually read the city policies at question here knows that there is absolutely zero implication for bathroom privacy. That’s not the point. I’m not going to engage that argument. It is the reddest of red herrings.
And so if that’s not the point, what is? The point must be to keep people from voting. The point must be to increase voter apathy.
For so many people in Springfield, the need for equal opportunity in employment and housing is assumed. Many cannot even believe that this would be an issue any more. “Of course our city should have anti-discrimination policies,” we think. And so for many, this question is seen as really no big deal.
And now added into the mix is an idea that is as far-fetched as they come, intentionally included to make the rational voter stay home on April 7, thinking all is well and there’s nothing to worry about.
Well, I’m not going to stay home on April 7. I’ve written before about the reasons why I’ve decided to vote this way, and those motivations are a lot stronger than any red herrings the pro-repeal group might toss out there. I’m going to vote NO on the proposed repeal. I’m going to vote NO on Question 1.