The Maryland gender identity bill that would protect trans residents in employment, housing, and credit—but not, notably, in public accommodations— is headed down the last stretch toward law. Movement on the bill has galvanized anti-trans activists in the state, who have responded to the legislation by formulating bizarre speculations on the societal impact of not firing trans people for being trans.

Case in point: "This bill would force you to lie (about gender) in order to not be considered a bigot," Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government wrote about the anti-discrimination protections. OK! And if the idea of forced lying for bigotry accusation avoidance isn't enough to convince you to oppose the bill, MCRG throws this one out: The legislation would also "affect workplace bathrooms, lockers and showers on the basis of 'nondiscrimination.'"

Bathrooms! "Affected!" Here we go again!

In fear that the pee-based argument could derail the anti-discrimination bill, Maryland legislators compromised the legislation by dropping language that would prohibit discrimination in the state's public accommodations (including public restrooms). So how does that toilet thing keep popping up? Let's take a closer look at the major non-restroom-related arguments for denying civil rights to trans people.

Maryland 4 Marriage (and now, decidedly not 4 trans people) has prepared this handy outrage form letter, in which locals can pick and choose from a host of justifications for continuing to discriminate against trans people. Among the available assertions: "Marylanders lose because government will redefine gender!"; "Every cell of our body has the DNA which says we are either male or female"; "The bill is part of a much larger agenda to silence all opposition to an alternative lifestyle agenda"; "Voting against HB235 is voting against Government imposed insanity"; "Legislators are supposed to protect all citizens not enforce viewpoint discrimination."

So, the bill would unfairly discriminate against people who discriminate against other people. It's science.

If your major justification for denying civil rights to other people is "viewpoint discrimination" coupled with armchair cellular DNA analysis, I can see why you might be desperate to locate a more sympathetic line of argument. And so, the outrage letter circles back to the sanctity of the ladies' room. "Women and employers lose when workplace female bathrooms are opened to full bodied males," Maryland 4 Marriage writes, calling the bill a "nightmare for women's privacy rights and a lose-lose situation for business owners." The letter later suggests that stopping discrimination against trans people leads to "bathroom rapes."

Here's the deal with the toilet thing: I understand why people want to make sure that everyone feels safe in vulnerable public spaces like restrooms and showers. And it's absolutely true that when trans people use public restrooms, harassment and violence can and does occur. But trans people are overwhelmingly the victims, not the perpetrators, of these attacks.

"We’re already using public bathrooms, and have been since we have existed," the DC Trans Coalition writes in its campaign for bathroom safety for gender nonconforming people. "We are constantly attacked, threatened, thrown out and even arrested just for trying to pee. We’ve spoken to trans individuals that have nearly lost their jobs, been ejected from public restaurants, forced to drop out of school and harassed by police officers, all for trying to exercise their legal right to use the bathroom where they feel the safest and most comfortable."

In a local survey, 70 percent of D.C. trans people reported experiencing verbal harassment and physical assault in public restrooms. But I've yet to hear any evidence of a trans person actually committing similar acts over bathroom space, ever. (I've reached out to Marlyand 4 Marriage for evidence to back up the "bathroom rapes" assertion). "There have never been any documented problems caused by us," the DCTC writes. "While there are may be some trans individuals with histories of committing sexual assault, there are far more cisgender (non-trans) people who are sexual predators and this is never used as a reason to argue that cisgender people should be banned from bathrooms of a particular gender. The idea that trans people are more likely to commit such crimes is only a harmful, bigoted stereotype."

When the anti-trans set raises the toilet argument, it's really arguing for free reign to keep harassing and assaulting trans people. Personally, I feel a lot safer in public spaces where no one is allowed to be assaulted for any reason.