An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Brown - President of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina, director of the Coalition of Conscience, and host of the nationally syndicated daily talk radio show, “the Line of Fire”

This is an open letter to Michael Brown, who recently published a poorly argued open letter to Bruce Springsteen after Bruce cancelled his Greensboro concert in response to HB2. I have decided to respond to his letter section by section, as that will be easiest for the reader to follow. Everything in italicized quotes are Brown's own words, I have not edited for format or anything else.

Dear Bruce,
As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.  

Since residency status matters (for whatever reason), I would like to point out that I was a resident of North Carolina from 1994 to 2010, and a product of the North Carolina education system, as I attended the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, While I was not born there, having spent half my life in North Carolina, I consider myself Tar Heel bred.

In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.” 

You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.” 

I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation. 

These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.” 

Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?

This all seems well and reasonable enough - commending someone for taking a position on morality over money. I do however, wonder how Dr. Brown feels about preachers like Joel Osteen or the Christian music industry, neither of whom have problems collecting millions selling morality messages. But let's table that for now, because the rest of the letter is nothing more than an example of poorly executed logic.

I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)

I actually have read HB2 and I understand what it means. Several of my friends, who are all lawyers, have also read HB2. They agree with my criticisms of HB2, which is also backed up by non-partisan organizations like Politifact. However, simply reading something does not mean someone understands it. Depending on the source, anywhere from 32 million to 45 million American adults are considered functionally illiterate. These variations are due in part because of different definitions of 'functional illiteracy' - but the basic idea is that while someone can read and understand the vocabulary in a chunk of text, they can't necessarily identify or apply the meaning/implications of that chunk of text.

So while Dr. Brown and others have 'read' HB2, that doesn't necessarily mean they understood it. For example, many supporters of the bill argued it would make all bathrooms unisex - which Politifact rated as false. So perhaps Bruce actually reads at a higher level than North Carolina lawmakers - or is just more honest. Either way, let's move on:

So, please allow me to ask you some questions. 

First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?

Medical professionals can help people figure out if someone is transgender, so this is fairly easily answered. The American Psychological Association has provided multiple resources on transgender issues. Regarding laws about how people feel - many of these already exist. Threats can make someone feel unsafe, and so many forms are illegal. Sexual harassment laws often include hostile workplace provisions precisely because victims feel threatened, intimidated, or offended. So to answer Dr. Brown's question - yes it's possible to make laws about how people feel - and many people, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have contemplated that very question. 

Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?

There's a reason the DSM changed from "gender identity disorder" to "gender dysphoria" - mostly because they do not view gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. So the comparisons to schizophrenia and other psychological conditions are inaccurate - yet Brown is using them to suggest trans people are crazy. Since he's not a medical doctor, maybe it's best he leave those questions to people more familiar with the subject.

If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term? 

If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males? 

I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.

The APA describes a psychological state as mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Since not all trans people experience distress or disability, it is therefore inaccurate to describe being transgender as a psychological disorder. If that is not "definitive scientific literature" by Brown's standards - then he needs to kindly point us to the credentials that prove how he is remotely qualified to make such an assessment.

Regarding "celebrating" trans people - I'm not exactly sure when/where this has happened, unless he's referring to the expanded coverage of recent trans celebrities like Laverne Cox and Caitlyn Jenner. When has the cisgender ('non-trans') mainstream really ever celebrated trans people? By targeting them for hate crimes? By discriminating against them in just about every aspect of their lives? Moving on:

But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman. 

Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?

How does that little girl feel when a 6'4 cis woman built like a WWE wrestler enters the bathroom? How does that little girl feel when a tattooed woman and an angry scowl on her face enters the bathroom? How does that little girl feel when a woman carrying a handgun on her hip enters the bathroom? What determines what is/isn't threatening to a little girl's feelings? Also, it seems we've caught some hypocrisy in Dr. Brown's argument, because just a few paragraphs ago he was questioning how we can make laws dealing with feelings! Did he ever stop to think about that?

So moving past feelings, if he wants to talk about "practical" ideas, let's hear some! Does he have a single suggestion? Here's a thought: maybe that little girl's parent(s) could explain that people come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, including women? Why should we promote the idea that all women are the same? How is that healthy? 

I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?

Ah, it's a choice that the "gentlemen" is making to live her life as a woman. The "it's a choice" argument was used against gays and lesbians not too long ago, and it's just as invalid now as it was then. No one would choose to subject themselves to this kind of ignorant bullshit from society if they could, which is part of the reason why suicide attempt rates are higher among the LGBT population than the general population.

Meanwhile, people are forced to deal with other people's choices all the time. A cis man doesn't have to "choose" to rape a woman, pay her less than her male peers, call her a slut, etc. - but a lot of them do. A police officer doesn't have to "choose" to shoot an unarmed black man in the back - but sometimes they do. A drunk driver doesn't have to "choose" to drive himself home - but a lot of them do. So why is a trans person's so-called "choice" (which again, isn't a choice) the most important "choice" we need to address right now? Oh. because it's the one Dr. Brown chooses to care about. And how is it fair for him to impose his struggles on innocent trans people? 

And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?

Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't realize that women with children have never seen penises before. But on the subject of unwanted exposure to penises, why do so many cis men share pictures of their dicks with women who don't want to see them? Why do so many cis men pull down their pants and expose themselves to women who don't want to see them? Why is revenge porn even a thing? How is any of that fair to women? Why isn't he concerned about that?

Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms. 

Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?

Spotlight is a movie that people should watch instead of the one Brown cites. While the church (Catholic or otherwise) is not unique in having sexual predators among its population, if the question is what do to we do to keep sexual predators away from women and children - this is a conversation that goes far beyond bathrooms (and churches). If 82% of rapists know their victims, keeping strangers out of bathrooms doesn't seem like the best opportunity to keep the ladies and children safe. But instead Dr. Brown asks what Bruce's plan is. Why does Bruce Springsteen and the rest of the world have to do Dr. Brown's thinking for him? Does Dr. Brown even have a plan, other than trying to keep transgender people from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity? Wouldn't it make more sense to address rape culture's prevalence in America? 

And one final question. 

When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place?  

Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?
Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

Ah, he ends with a logical fallacy (tu quoque, or accusing Bruce of being a hypocrite). Strong way to finish to a poorly argued letter. Especially since it's preceded with a lie. You see, North Carolina law previously never required people to use the bathroom that corresponded to their "biological sex" - because if that statement were true, the Charlotte ordinance could not have passed because it would have violated state law. Or it could have been challenged in court and easily overturned. But it wasn't, because that wasn't the case.

So in in conclusion, Dr. Brown is a self-righteous sanctimonious anti-trans bigot who can't even come up with a single valid point that he himself has any thoughts on. Maybe he'd have less questions if he bothered to read more. But instead I'm fairly certain he'll write something about being "attacked" and "called a bigot."