Funding for “To the Contrary,” provided by: This week, on “To the Contrary.” First, transgender rights on Capitol Hill.

Then how women are faring in Congress and as governors since the recent election.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to “To the Contrary,” a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first, controversy brewing over bathroom policy on Capitol Hill.

South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to bar transgender women from using women's bathrooms on Capitol Hill.

That because Sarah McBride, a Delaware Democrat, will become the first transgender member of Congress.

The move has sparked significant backlash.

Critics, including Democrats and activists, argue that Maces proposal is discriminatory and diverts attention from pressing issues that impact taxpayers pocketbooks, such as housing and health care.

Defenders of the bill assert it's about protecting women's privacy and safety in single-sex facilities.

This has been called part of a broader culture war on transgender rights.

Joining me on the panel this week are Republican strategist Ann Stone, Fernanda Santos, managing editor of the 19th, May Mailman, director of the Independent Women's Law Center, and feminist activist Erin Matson.

So, Fernanda, starting with you and welcome to the program.

How does the issue of transgender bathroom access reflect broader societal debates about gender identity and rights?

Thanks so much for having me, Bonnie.

It's such an interesting time we're living in because we have this great contrast between Sarah McBride being the first trans member of Congress, and at the same time, her election creating, causing this reaction by Representative Mace with the bill she has proposed and also, at the time of this taping, the Hill had a story saying that Speaker Johnson would be creating a policy in Congress that effectively would force people to use bathrooms to their assigned genders.

So what we have right now is a real contrast that shows the divisiveness that we are, we're living right now, that the election showed with a vote and the differing opinions that people have as far as their the vision of America that they have embraced.

Right.

On one side, we have people who believe in this expansion of gender definitions and norms as an evolution, like a next step in the in the road toward a more equitable society.

And on the other hand, we have folks whose definition of gender, and in many ways the role of men and women, is more traditional or some might say retrograde, right.

And the big question that we're facing is, can we, how will we bridge this gap?

Is it even possible that it's bridged?

All right.

Ann Stone, from your perspective, from the Republican perspective, do you see it as a safety and security concern for women?

Well, Nancy is standing up for biological women, and she's doing it so also because of her personal life experience.

I mean, she's a victim, she was a victim of rape.

So she's very sensitive about this and really feels very strongly biological men should not be in women's space.

You know, they certainly could accommodate by having one unisex.

But rest assured that this member will be able to use the bathroom because each member has their own personal bathroom anyway.

So this obviously is to create and send a message.

And I would say from a Republican perspective, we know that late deciders in this past election broke largely on cultural issues, and this was one of them.

Transgenderism is something that drove a lot of people of color to vote Republican for the first time.

Interesting.

You agree with that, Erin Matson?

You know, we did see that there were a number of attacks on transgender rights and equality that happened in the election.

However, in parsing out the data, I think that the way that Ann is characterizing this may not be quite correct.

As well, lumping in social issues, but I want to just call attention to what Congresswoman Mace has done, which is an attack, a direct act of bullying against an incoming member of Congress.

And in particular, I'm, you know, I work in abortion, and I want to say that for 50 years, we saw the right try to use abortion as a wedge issue to scare people, to use fear.

And that no longer works for them.

And they are starting to pivot more and more to transgender equality and rights.

And I think, you know, that's something that we need to be mindful about that that's actually what's going on here.

These are attempts to divide people and raise fear.

And it's just, it's horrific to see.

May, your thoughts and especially as a Harvard trained lawyer, I'm very impressed.

Bathrooms are funny because I think for a long time, women might have been uncomfortable if a male, a trans-identifying male entered the bathroom, but women are generally nice.

We're not trying to make waves, and so would kind of go along with it.

And now we've seen what going along with that has actually meant.

And it has meant that there have been women who have been unsafe, who are now partially paralyzed because they've been spiked in the head with a volleyball.

That's Payton McNabb.

We've seen men take first, second and third place in some state championships for track meets.

We've seen high school boys break the women's record every single day in track meets.

So women have seen what it has meant to go along with it.

So this isn't really about bathrooms.

It's like, all right, I do know that there is a difference between men and women, and how can I actually make sure that we get back to that, that that is reality.

And so one of those things is reflective in bathrooms, which is not an act of discrimination any more than a men's bathroom is an act of discrimination.

It is an act of differentiation.

And so I would say, why is it never the burden on the men?

Why can't the men just be more inclusive to people who don't identify as men using the male bathroom?

And if that, if we're not willing to put the onus on men, then sure, you can have accommodations the way that you have accommodations for a lot of other things.

Let me ask you this.

Do you think the Supreme Court is currently constituted?

Would, how do you think they would rule on this issue.

Whether it's legal to have men's and women's bathrooms?

I think that it definitely is legal.

So I guess what we're referring to, maybe, is that Title VII forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

But that decision clearly said that, it they're not touching bathrooms.

Right.

This is, that those types of things showers.

And if you were to have a policy that made sure every person in your workplace, whether they are tall, small, male, female, trans identifying, you know, whatever, that they all have access to the bathroom in which they feel comfortable.

I think that absolutely that that would not be discrimination on the basis of anything, if anything, forcing women to not have a private space, to not have a women's private space, that would be discrimination on the basis of sex, and that would be the lawsuit that I would bring.

Fernanda, what about your thoughts on whether this should be a matter of state or federal law?

To be honest with you, Capitol Hill is, of course, in the District of Columbia, which is predominantly a progressive government.

I don't know whether or do you know or what do you think about whether D.C. law differs from what Congress wants to do on this issue?

What would happen?

Well, Congress says its own thing because Speaker Johnson, as speaker of the House, has the authority to impose, or to create rules for the facilities he runs.

So in that case, it's his prerogative in the role that he exercises.

So at the time of this taping, as I said earlier, it's very likely that he will, in fact, pass a policy that creates this separation that exists.

One thing that I keep coming back to is this idea of government for the people, by the people.

Right.

And again, you know, we are in such a divided, we're living in a time when divisions that I think have always existed have just come up to the surface, are very open, out in the open now.

And they have seeped into the world of politics in a way that it has become about defining rules, creating rules, and defining who belongs and doesn't belong based on the belief of one side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle.

Without, I think, the bigger consideration about the way society has evolved, the way our understanding of gender identity has evolved, and the adaptation that every type of evolution and growth and change requires in both private facilities and public facilities.

In the case of Congress, for example, we talked about this in the context of Congresswoman-elect McBride.

But this impacts any transgender identifying person who goes and visits Congress to testify, any federal employee who works in Congress.

So it's not just about her because, yes, she does have a a private bathroom that she can use.

Someone who goes to testify does not, right.

So how do we then create, we are creating a situation that now starts ripple, has all of these ripple effects that will involve a lot of other people.

I'm wondering if there is, you mentioned the private bathroom that Ann Stone brought up as well.

So how is.

if we're looking for some kind of midpoint as a compromise, is the fact that they, at least the members have private bathrooms going to be a way to go on a compromise or not?

And allow me to say, I covered Capitol Hill for nine years and the distances between the office buildings and the Capitol itself, or if they have to go over to the Senate side, which representatives frequently have to do, is quite great.

It's a long walk.

Does that make it, how does that impact trying to find a middle ground on this?

The interesting thing is that there are courthouses across the country that have already come up with this solution.

We had a story in the 19th a couple of months ago about Massachusetts being the first state where courthouses in the interest of creating a space that is inviting to a more diverse jury pool started opening up gender-neutral bathrooms, which in this way, people are able to use that bathroom without any concern about what gender identity they have.

It's a bathroom that's essentially open for all, right.

And when I talked about earlier, the idea of the changes that are required once we evolve in our understanding of gender and we embrace the entire gender spectrum, it's one of these changes that are necessary.

So rather than focus so much on banning people access to certain spaces, perhaps the focus should be on creating spaces that are accessible to all.

Most places around the country now have what are called family restrooms.

And they can certainly be turned into and they should have them on Capitol Hill too.

Thats to accommodate people that actually are coming with their children and all that.

There's no reason why those couldn't be turned into unisex.

I have to tell you, the first one I was ever in a unisex bathroom was back in the ‘60s in France, and it totally freaked me out.

I mean, I was very young, but it totally freaked me out.

So, just interesting historical perspective there.

But I think creating a unisex out of family bathroom makes sense.

And since transgender is like one tenth of one tenth of one tenth of a percent is so, such a tiny number if you're able to accommodate that way, I think it should take care of anybody coming in to testify.

You know, I want to reflect on something that Fernanda was pointing out.

And really, what we have here is an attack on the ability of transgender people to participate in public life.

And when that happens in our institutions, like Congress, that's very serious.

I mean, we need to think about people who are coming to testify.

We also need to think about the members themselves.

It's unrealistic to expect people to run back to their offices.

Back when I was an officer at Now, I remember us working on the issue of so-called potty parity, which is an issue that comes up periodically in the Capitol.

There are far fewer women's restrooms than men's restrooms, and it creates real problems.

And so I think, you know, we need to think broadly and make sure that everyone is able to access critical health needs so that we can participate in a functioning democracy.

And I also just want to note, again, because this originated with Congresswoman Mace, I also want to note, you know, frankly, for myself and I think a number of women would be right to be fearful to be in a restroom with her.

This is a woman who has co-sponsored legislation that would enact fetal personhood, that would ban birth control, would ban IVF.

I mean, you don't want someone looking at the contents of your purse, whether you're taking pills or maybe you're giving yourself a hormone injection because you're doing IVF, someone who would criminalize that behavior.

And so I just think this bullying needs to be called out for what it is.

And we need to remember that everyone should have a right to participate in public life.

I think women should have an opportunity to participate in public life.

And the question is, are you gonna have women's bathrooms or not?

And, if you are, then have them, right.

So then men can't come in.

And let's not pretend that.

Should they, should Congress start building a third bathroom for transgender people or.

Heres the thing, we use this phrase transgender people as though that there is a third gender, something like that, right, there is not.

There, Sexe is binary.

You're either male or you are female.

That is it.

That's how you and I exist on this planet.

That's how mammals reproduce and perpetuate the species.

Right?

So sex is binary.

That is a fact.

And so now there, you know, is a question of people who do not identify as their sex.

But it, the limits to which employers must accommodate that is not, is not enshrined in law.

And so if I were to call my employer and say I identify as hippopotamus, I need hippopotamus accommodations, the employer is not required to accommodate that.

They can, if they would like to.

Fernanda, your response to what May just said and then we have to go to the next topic.

I just think that putting hippopotamus and transgender people on the same conversation is really unfortunate.

Gender identity and sex are two different things.

You could be born a male and feel and believe that you are female.

It's not something new.

It's something that has existed for a very long time.

Perhaps since the beginning of time.

However, society always repressed those expressions.

Well, there was a time way back when sexual identity and gender identity was never repressed.

But then we got to a point where it became repressed.

And what we're experiencing now is, or not now, but in recent times is an openness in which people who have, who believe they, who identify through a gender that's different than the one they were born, identify with the gender that's different from the one they were born, have felt more comfortable to come out and to face all the backlash, all the discrimination, all the comments that essentially invalidate their existence and the belief of they are who they are.

And we need to, we need to adapt.

Society needs to figure out a way to adapt that is amenable to all.

Exclusion is never a good way to go.

Thank you so much.

Thank you to all of you for this conversation and to our audience.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter or X @bonnieerbe.

From transgender rights to women in leadership.

The number of women in elected office has remained relatively steady despite hopes of progress and fears of backsliding.

There will be three new female members of the Senate, two of whom are African American.

They are all Democrats.

The overall number of women in the Senate did not change, as three women also left.

That number, 25, is one short of the record set in 2020.

The number of women in the U.S. House will remain relatively unchanged.

The previous number was 126, and there will be at least 123 female members in 2025, with five races yet to be called.

The record high in the U.S. House was also 126.

There will be a historic number of female governors in 2025, albeit with an increase of one.

Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire.

So, Ann Stone, what do you think about, you know, I grew up politically in an era where women, you know, started out very, in very small numbers in the House and Senate and grew pretty exponentially for a while.

And now it seems to be at least growth is slowing down.

Why is that?

And what can be done to change it?

Well, I'm going to say something I know Erin will totally disagree with, but Erin, we know that will happen.

And that is you need more women to run as Republicans if you want more women elected.

Traditionally, and this comes from past executive directors, the DNC as well.

Traditionally, in polling, women are seen as compassionate.

Men are seen as competent.

That's their saying, not mine.

And Republicans, the label Republican is seen as competent.

The label Democrat is seen as compassionate.

So when women run as Republicans, they overcome this, you know, feeling that maybe they won't be competent to run it.

Maybe they're just too nice and too compassionate.

That's one part.

So I think you need more women to run as Republicans if you want to elect women.

The second part is women don't like politics.

And with the tenor of what it's been in the last eight years, they really hate politics.

So getting more women to run, they probably could be elected is tougher.

If things even out and we have a great celebration 250th anniversary of the country and all that.

Maybe then we can inspire more women to run as Republicans.

Erin, your reaction, please.

Ann, call up the Guinness Book of World Records because we just agreed on something.

Actually, I think it would be wonderful if we had, the Republican Party also had women running for office within them.

We should be seeing parity in all parties in this country.

I think that's very important.

And I also want to say, you know, we are in a moment of threats to democracy and it is very important to have robust parties that are committed to the principles of democracy and not just one person.

And I think that, you know, it would be delightful to have more women running across the board.

That said, there may be an issue with candidate pool just simply because women may be fed up with what the Republican Party has been doing to their rights.

So that's another issue.

But in terms of should we have more women running for office and more women getting into office from all parties?

Absolutely.

All right.

And May, your thoughts about how to do that, please.

On how to get more women to run.

So women tend to like to wait for an invitation, right?

They want to, this is the old like men will speak in class if they're 20% confident.

And women need to be 120% confident in order to speak.

And I think as a society, we've told women, well, why don't you be more like the man you know, speak up.

Well, you know, I'd prefer to say, well, men, why don't you be more like the women and just, you know, quiet until you know what you're talking about.

But so, you know, there's a question of, should we just pull women in or, you know, wait and say, no, no one's going to invite you.

You have to come.

You got to do it yourself.

You've got to motivate yourself.

You've got to think about it.

And.

You know, quite frankly, there are plenty of groups that have existed over the last several decades that do just that, that train women and groom women for running for national office or state office.

Why haven't they been more effective?

Yeah, it's awful.

I mean, if you were to ask me, do I want to run for Congress?

If I want to go have people investigate my family life?

If they want to, if I want to get criticized wherever I go, for all of a sudden every position to be black and white, you know, you're Republican, you hate women.

You, you're trying to take away people's rights.

You're Nancy Mace.

You know, people should be scared to be in a bathroom with you.

These types of things, like people don't like that.

We want, women want to have friends, you know, and we want to be treated as people of nuance.

And something about the two-party system prevents you from being a person of nuance.

I think instead of focusing on whether, you know, what the sex is of the person who's running, it should be are, do women have choices in our country?

And so do I feel supported in my choice to stay home, to work, to run.

And if I feel supported and I have access to choice, then that's great.

If I feel like I don't, then that's great.

So it's not the number.

It's are women able to do the thing that they want to do?

All right.

And your thoughts to close us out, Fernanda, on this topic.

Why, there are so many groups, I'm sure you know all of them, that have had the National Women's Political Caucus and it goes and they're not as big as they used to be.

But, you know, other groups She Should Run.

Why haven't they been able to raise the number of women running for office?

Well, let's first remember that women only gained the right to vote with the 19th amendment in 1920, I believe, and that was for white women, right.

Because the rights for women of color came later.

So we're first of all, we're still catching up to history here.

So there is that to contend with.

There is also the fact that when you talk about women of color, they don't come from generational money.

So funding those campaigns and having part of networks that can help them raise the money required to run a campaign for office is very challenging.

And generally speaking, I think people are prejudiced against women leaders, both men and women.

I think the presidential election, part of the challenge that Vice President Harris faced as a presidential candidate was exactly that.

The fact that people did not trust a woman to run the country, especially a woman of color.

So I think it's a matter of time.

And I think that sometimes when we are living these, a time like this, when, as Erin said, you know, the Republican Party has done so much to reduce a woman's access to abortion rights.

Then it serves in some ways to light a fire under people and get a younger generation or generation of people interested in running for public office to change things.

Or at least that's what I hope.

I have a 15 year old at home.

So I tell her, you want to change things, think about running for office one day.

That's great advice for moms, too.

That's it for this edition of “To the Contrary,” keep the conversation going on our social media platforms Instagram, Facebook X, formerly known as Twitter, and TikTok, reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, address on the screen.

And whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for “To the contrary,” provided by: