Transgender rights stand spurs uproar
UC Berkeley student rep did not back measure
A student senator at UC Berkeley abstained from a vote supporting transgender rights last week, then took a moment to explain her thinking. Now, more than 1,000 people have signed a petition demanding that she resign from student government or face a recall.
Hundreds packed a Senate meeting Wednesday night to insist that she go. On social media, students labeled her a “horrible person” and a “mental imbecile.” Her campus political party severed ties with her. And the Daily Californian, UC Berkeley’s storied student newspaper, ran an editorial critical of her statements and refused to publish her written defense.
The uproar began Oct. 31, when the Queer Alliance Resource Center asked the student Senate to pass a bill condemning the Trump administration for considering a legal definition of gender that would require it to match a person’s sex at birth. The proposal would change the federal Title IX civil rights law and potentially remove its protections from 1.4 million transgender people, according to a New York Times story last month, based on a leaked memo. At UC Berkeley, the students’ resolution also urged the university to step up support of “transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming students” and
the campus groups that help them. Isabella Chow, 20, abstained. Reading a five-paragraph statement explaining her decision, Chow told her 18 fellow senators, who all voted for the bill (another was absent), that discrimination “is never, ever OK.” She condemned bullies and bigots. She said she abhorred stereotypes. And she called the LGBT community valid and loved.
“That said,” Chow continued, voting for the bill would compromise her values and force her to promote groups and identities she disagrees with.
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right and true,” she said. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman. For me, to love another person does not mean that I silently concur when, at the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that your choices are right or the best for you as an individual.”
Chow’s politely worded explanation has set in motion something different from the ideological debate over free speech that engulfed UC Berkeley last year, as left and right battled over whose speech was more worthy of protection.
This is more personal, raising questions of whether judging one’s gender identity is the same as judging someone’s race or ethnicity. And there is no more likely epicenter for that sort of debate than UC Berkeley, where student action on civil rights — from free speech to sexual assault and harassment — is part of the campus culture.
The episode is part of a larger conflict on campuses nationwide between liberal students pushing against what they see as entrenched discrimination and conservatives who say their voices are being stifled.
Now, the debate centers on the Associated Students of the University of California — an autonomous, 131-year-old governing board that manages a $1.5 million budget and meets weekly to set student policies. The 20 senators each represent a large swath of the student body. Chow, who has a staff of 28, was elected with support from Christian students and the “publications and media” community involved with journals, magazines and CalTV.
“She could have merely abstained,” said Regan Putnam, president of the Queer Alliance Resource Center. “But she took it upon herself to go into this long dialogue, talking about marriage between a man and a woman, and shrouding hate in ‘love.’ Nobody asked her to explain her vote. Nobody who voted ‘yes’ had to explain their vote.”
Within hours, Chow’s political party, Student Action, cut ties with her. So did CalTV and her publications constituents. A Daily Cal editorial called her statements offensive and declared: “UC Berkeley students cannot allow and accept leaders like Chow to make decisions on their behalf.”
The paper also rebuffed Chow’s attempt to further explain her views in its pages. In her rejection letter, opinion editor Shayann Hendricks said the paper wouldn’t run Chow’s comments because her submission reflected her earlier statements, “which utilized rhetoric that is homophobic and transphobic by the Daily Cal’s standards.”
Chow, a junior majoring in business administration and music, said she feels “frustrated and sad that Berkeley students are forced to live in a bubble, and we have to protect ourselves from anything that a vocal population deems to be offensive.”
She said she’s been surprised by the onslaught. “I go to classes, and people are looking at me. I’ve been painted in such a negative light. Everybody’s talking about it. No matter how much I tried to say, ‘I can love you and still disagree with you,’ people still interpret my disagreement with being a bigot and a hater.”
At Wednesday night’s jampacked Senate meeting, where all non-Chow business was set aside, students made clear that “disagreeing” with a person’s essence is the definition of bigotry. And for three hours, until shortly before midnight, they took the microphone one by one to tell her so, as Chow sat stonyfaced beneath a huge banner reading “Senator Chow Resign Now.”
Some, like Romario Conrado, who wore a rainbow headband, read off the names of transgender people murdered by others who disagreed with who they were. Some told personal stories.
“My grandmother is my best friend. She’s a sympathetic and patient listener,” began a student in a white sweatshirt. “And when I came out to her this summer, the loving grandmother I came to rely on wasn’t there — much like you, Senator Chow, because of her religion.” The student began to cry. “I want to explain to her my milestones, and I want to hear how proud she is. But the warmth has been revoked.”
Several students, including Christians and a Muslim, said religion doesn’t require adherents to disapprove of people any more than it requires “stoning,” a punishment advocated in portions of religious texts. And many turned Chow’s words back on her.
“I am Christian. I am queer. And I am ‘good, right and true,’ ” a student named Miranda said. “And I demand Senator Chow to resign!”
Three students spoke up for Chow, including Matt Ronnau, who said the “mob that has descended upon Senator Chow ... is a disgrace to UC, which should be a place of debate.”
The crowd responded with laughter, and groaned when Ronnau asked if they didn’t think conservatives and Christians were marginalized groups at UC Berkeley.
Another supporter, Daniel Frise, criticized the student Senate for imposing a “religious litmus test” and said: “Senator Chow’s statement never implied any harm to the LGBT community. I support Senator Chow and ask her to remain strong and not resign.”
Chow, who credits a wave of support from fellow Christians across the country with helping her endure the pressure, said she has no intention of doing so.
“No, I’m not planning to resign,” Chow told The Chronicle the morning after the marathon criticism session. “Because if I do, there will be no one else to represent the voices that are ignored and misunderstood on campus.”