Originally published: . Volume 12, No. 8. Source pages: 2.
by Julie Nelson Usually I'm horrified by the legislative group process. However, the recent conflict over women's athletics leaves me with an unfamiliar feeling–– that the checks and balances actually worked.
I was thankful to see a very complex and difficult topic discussed thoughtfully in most cases. The transgender issues are very delicate matters for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the vulnerability and fragility of this group of people.
Despite this and other challenges to open discussion, I was impressed with many of the legislators who seemed to handle the matter with consideration, respect for both world views, and a regard for fairness of the law.
The process of checks and balances appears to have worked. The original bill was passed by both chambers with a supermajority, then vetoed by the Governor. An historic veto session was called where the Senate overcame the veto, barely. But in the end, the House failed to override by two votes. Basically a cliffhanger, with the outcome of no new law. It was not wasted effort. People are thinking, paying attention. Both sides were heard even though the talk was extremely careful around the issue of biological sexuality, discrimination, and reverse discrimination.
Hope lies in the process. We are a little more desensitized to openly discussing the different perspectives. We are a little closer to developing a consensus—a shared view of reality. We are a little more patient with one another, with the time and energy needed for the therapeutic process of resolving conflicts.
But I was struck by one other thing in particular. In a committee meeting on transgender therapy issues a letter from a professional counselor was read. The author pointed to concerns about the mental health profession's culture:
“As it pertains to gender related issues, many mental health professionals feel stifled when it comes to advocating for the health and welfare of children and adolescents for fear of retribution from their employers, third-party payers, professional organizations, state licensing boards and colleagues.
“I’ve had many conversations over the course of two decades with mental health providers for an agreement of this type of legislation but do not express it for fear of retribution.
"Organizations like the ACA and the LCA have drafted letters that target your bill. These organizations do not necessarily represent all counselors regarding this issue., But only one side of the discussion. As a matter of fact, discussion regarding this issue isn’t even entertained."
I couldn't agree more.
"Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech." –– Albert Einstein.
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertising. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.