We want to make clear as citizens of Louisiana that we believe that transgender people deserve the same rights as everyone else and don't deserve the irrational, unjustified reactions of our politicians who are using fear and ignorance to further their political agendas. As signatories on the May 13, 2016 letter regarding a Louisiana State Attorney General Opinion on both the Obama Directive and Executive Order JBE 11-16, 32 Louisiana State Legislators have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding as to the rationale for and support of access to public restrooms on the basis of a person's gender identity alongside reservations of including equal rights protections for transgender Louisianans in our state laws. While the letter seeks greater clarification as to how the Federal Directive may or may not interfere with states' rights, the greater issue is that regardless of whether the Directive is lawful or not, Louisiana's elected officials should be supportive of the extension of equal rights to all Louisiana's citizens, not only those whose gender identity "match[es] the sex listed on their birth certificates." In the letter, these legislators proclaim their commitment to advocacy for fair and equal treatment of all persons, regardless of their "race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability." Yet the legislators also indicate that allowing for restroom access based on gender identity has the potential to violate the "privacy and safety of the children and adults of our state." Furthermore, the legislators specifically oppose the request of Executive Order JBE 11-16, on the grounds that the inclusion of "gender identity" as a "protected categor[y]" results in a violation of "religious liberty," continually referring to the "sincere religious beliefs" of various parties who may be opposed to such protections. While no data has been provided to support the "privacy and safety" concerns of these legislators, there is ample data to demonstrate that the contrary is true. 13 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have already adopted legislation that protects students based on "sexual orientation and gender identity." Although the signatories claim that "both federal and state courts around the country have already rejected arguments that Title IX and related federal regulations require schools to provide student access to opposite-sex changing areas and restrooms," recent rulings have shown this to be inaccurate. While it is true that the guidance initially provided by the 2014 US Department of Education Guidelines Urging Schools to Protect Transgender Students from Discrimination has been challenged in multiple legal forums, the fact remains that these guidelines are consistent with both state and federal policy, as demonstrated most recently in May of 2016, where the Fourth Circuit issued a ruling that upholds the existing guidance (G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, Case No. 15-2056). In addition, data compiled across 12 of the largest school districts already providing such access and protections on the basis of gender identity demonstrates that the fears around "privacy and safety" are unfounded. Of the 600,000 students represented by these districts, a Media Matters study was unable to identify even a single instance where these protections resulted in a threat to the safety or well-being of any student. This data has been corroborated by countless other organizations, including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, “a coalition of over 200 national, state and local organizations across the U.S. that work with sexual assault and domestic violence survivors." These organizations "are objecting to the justifications given by lawmakers to forbid transgender people from using the bathroom of their choosing (ABCNews, 2016/04/22, S. Borrello)." Indeed, there are no documented cases of a transgender individual violating the “privacy and safety” of an individual using a restroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificate. There is, however, data chronicling the very real risks facing those who are forced to use a facility that conforms to their sex at birth rather than their current gender identity. A 2011 National Transgender Discrimination survey collected data from 6,450 transgender and gender non-conforming participants, indicating that “53% of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation,” with “[o]ne fifth (22%)” being “denied equal treatment by a government agency or official,” 29% reporting “police harassment or disrespect,” and 12% having been “denied equal treatment or harassed by judges or court officials.” In a 2013 study published in the Journal of Public Management & Social Policy by Jody L. Herman of the UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, 18% of respondents were denied access to a public restroom, 68% experienced at least one instance of verbal harassment, and 9% experienced at least one incident of physical assault in conjunction with the attempted use of a gender-segregated public restroom. It is clear that access to restrooms is both pertinent and critical in order to protect all of Louisiana’s residents from undue violence and harassment, but what of the extension of gender identity to Louisiana’s definition of “protected categories” as referenced in the Governor’s Executive Order? The aforementioned 2011 survey evaluated areas of discrimination far beyond those associated with public accommodation use. Findings included staggeringly high rates of discrimination across numerous categories, including  increased rates of suicide attempts among the transgender population (41% to 1.6%), educational discrimination, economic and employment discrimination, housing discrimination and homelessness, abuse by police and in prison, poor health outcomes and discriminatory healthcare practices, and even barriers to receiving government-issued identification documents. If this is not demonstrative of a clear need for legal protections under our great state’s anti-discrimination clause, it seems that no amount of data would have bearing on the decisions of our elected officials. Thus, in the interest of supporting equality and fairness for all Louisianians, as you claim in the letter, I implore you to consider enacting these protections regardless of the legality of any orders compelling action by the Legislature.