Identification Unnecessary

Simply judging by the beginning of the article, "The word 'anti-discrimination' is usually something to celebrate," with Salama's inclusion of "usually" in the sentence, I knew that the author would provide some instances in which anti-discrimation is deemed unworthy, a claim that necessitates much evidence and explanation. Without hesitation, she goes right into expressing pure opinion that even later is poorly supported, and makes a slight contradiction by saying that everyone deserves equal rights...but not really. By questioning if it is really worth creating a law to apparently expedite the transgender-ing process, or putting assumptions aside and interpreting from what the title of the bill mentions, prohibiting discrimination for gender identity, she implies that the law is above the cause; in other words, it is not worth the trouble to create legislation on as insignifant a topic.

Multiple sweeping generalizations appear throughout article, major ones being the idea that all university students support these laws and that the number of people not accepting of transgenderism is large enough that this anti-discrimination law should be stopped for their sake. After reading, I am led to think that the author falls into the category of those not entirely willing to accept the classification because of 1) the lack of data needed to support such a strong claim, like polls or surveys that indicate that the majority is opposed to such classifications, and 2) the strange logic that she uses for support, one of which is the statement about gender change being a choice, which proves insignificant, therefore making her claims stand as strict opinions. By stating that laws shouldn't be made about "personal" issues, I wonder what better subject there is to target than that of gender, one that affects everyone and anyone.