As Daily Kos has covered, the novel coronavirus pandemic has not slowed down Republican efforts to exclude and discriminate against trans folks. It’s quite clear that many in the GOP have been eager to distract from Republican pandemic failures and decided to latch onto anti-trans hysteria about youth sports as a means of keeping people’s rage occupied. While conservatives are quick to spew hateful rhetoric both online and in-person, real trans people—including children and teenagers—are struggling to find safe, accessible spaces to survive.

Over the summer, the Biden administration issued federal guidance meant to protect openly LGBTQ+ workers, which is a significant step forward. For example, the guidance specifies that the misuse of a worker’s pronouns and name can be considered harassment in some instances and that workers should be allowed to use the bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. That’s great. What isn’t great? As of Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, is suing the administration over it, as covered by the Texas Tribune. And he isn’t alone.

First, let’s look at a bit of the guidance that has Republicans so riled up. “If an employer has separate bathrooms,” the guidance states in part. “Locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the men’s facilities, and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities.” Seems reasonable. 

So, on what grounds is Paxton suing? It’s pretty technical but not unusual for Republicans at this point. For context, 20 Republican-led states joined a lawsuit challenging the same guidance in the past few months alone. More than 20 Republican state attorneys general also signed a letter against the EEOC guidance, claiming it will only cause unnecessary confusion. 

According to the Texas lawsuit, Paxton is arguing that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex.

How so? The lawsuit argues that the EEOC lacks authority to issue this guidance, claiming that the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County was too narrow to apply. Paxton describes the guidance as “unacceptable” as well as “illegal.” In a statement, Paxton insisted that: “If the Biden Administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change.” Ah yes, the old political agenda of… giving people basic rights, protections, and respect. This shouldn’t be “radical,” but in this country, it certainly is. 

Unsurprisingly, Paxton also went the old, disingenuous “women and children” route, adding, “States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk.” What about trans women and girls who are at risk for harassment and abuse? Not a peep, of course.