Transgender People Aren’t a Threat to You

nc-rally-168-1160x768

By Chase Strangio

Over the course of the past few weeks, we have witnessed an escalation of anti-trans rhetoric, which is saying a lot for state legislative season that has fixated on where trans people go to the bathroom.

Amidst the vitriol and lies being thrown around about trans people, I worry that a few basic principles have been lost.

Here are five things to remember when talking, writing, or thinking about trans people:

  1. The existence of trans people does not threaten the privacy of anyone else. We exist, and you may be uncomfortable with us but discomfort with difference is not the same as infringement of privacy.
  2.  Trans women and girls are women and girls. Full stop. They are not “biological males” or “men pretending to be women” or some other hateful qualification. Same is true for trans men and boys being men and boys.
  3. Extending legal protections to transgender people, including when it comes to using restrooms and locker rooms, does not threaten the safety of anyone else. This has been proven time and time again despite the ongoing rhetoric to the contrary.
  4. Policing of gender or genitals in restrooms is bad for everyone. There is no way to enforce anti-trans bathroom laws except by exposing us all to intrusive questioning about our bodies, our gender, and our government documents.
  5. Anti-trans laws are not about restrooms, locker rooms, safety, or privacy but about expelling trans people from public life. Those most impacted by these laws have been and will always be trans people who are already subject to the most policing and violence – particularly trans women of color.

Unfortunately, conversations about trans people often end up repeating harmful lies put forth by groups that have long worked to destabilize support and protections for LGBT people. When we repeat and reinforce these lies, we contribute to the social and political context where trans people face harassment, arrest, and violence for simply existing in the world.

We must look behind the rhetoric that claims that protecting vulnerable trans young people is somehow threatening the safety and privacy of non-transgender women and girls.

As a coalition of every major sexual assault and domestic violence organization in the United States explained in statement opposing anti-transgender laws:

“These initiatives utilize and perpetuate the myth that protecting transgender people’s access to restrooms and locker rooms endangers the safety or privacy of others. As organizations that care about reducing assault and violence, we favor laws and policies that protect transgender people from discrimination, including in accessing facilities that match the gender they live every day.”

In defense of North Carolina’s anti-transgender law — HB2 — and in opposition to the Obama administration’s claim that the law clearly violates federal anti-discrimination law, the lieutenant governor of North Carolina issued the following statement:

“To use our children and their educational futures as pawns to advance an agenda that will ultimately open those same children up to exploitation at the hands of sexual predators is by far, the sickest example of the depths the Obama Administration will stoop to ‘fundamentally transform our nation.’”

There is no agenda being advanced here except the movement to ensure that no group of kids is needlessly the target of bullying and harassment by lawmakers or others in their communities. By allowing young people to have access to the full educational opportunities available to their peers, we do not open children up to “exploitation at the hands of sexual predators.” That is precisely the lie that organizations working to end sexual violence have dispelled.

If we are concerned about predation in bathrooms, we should worry about young people of all genders and take steps to understand why and how adults in power — like former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to choose just one example — exploit their power to hurt young people in their care.

But sadly, none of this is really about protecting children. This is about demonizing difference. And we should call it out as such, instead of pretending this is a reasoned debate between two sides about where people should go to the bathroom.

Chase Strangio is a Staff Attorney for ACLU LGBT & HIV Project

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

61 Comments

  1. sisterhood

    In 1962 I met my first transgender person. Her name was Lou. She ordered her green pumps all the way from New York City. The folks in our small town giggled a lot, but mostly granted her her dignity, which she of course already had granted herself. Our town wasn’t perfect. My big Irish cop dad wasn’t perfect, either. But he was always nice to Lou.

    1. sisterhood

      P.S. I would like to add that I do not know with certainty if Lou was a cross dresser or someone who needed surgery. Back in those days. I’m not certain about the expense or success of sx and to be honest I’m really busy today and cannot read all the info about sexual correction sx in the early 60’s. If someone would like to enlighten me, great, if not I’ll read more about it. I’ve only known one person personally who has had the sx that has shared that info with me. Thank you.

  2. zaqzaq

    Just imagine a 43 year old male who claims to identify as a female going into the woman’s bathroom/locker room at a DART swim meet at Arroyo pool in Davis and decides to urinate standing up in a stall or take a shower.  Young woman ranging in age from 8-18 are showering and changing in the locker room.  What about the sense of safety of the females there when the 43 year old male decides to take a shower or go to the bathroom?  What if he (she) has his (her) phone out and is “texting” (maybe taking pictures)?  The police arrive and she (he) states she (he) is trans and the police are infringing on her (his) constitutional rights.  How do you handle that one?  Maybe he (she) is just starting hormone therapy, is a sex registrant or a sex registrant starting hormone therapy.  How is the police officer supposed to handle that?  Do we have all trans register as trans and get a trans ID so they can use the bathroom/locker room of their choice?  Then what about the asexuals? What about the sense of safety for those young women and their parents?

      1. South of Davis

        Michelle wrote:

        > In general I don’t find the act of someone going to the bathroom

        > or taking a shower something that threatens my safety.

        I’m wondering if Michelle would be OK if some of the “people” in the High School locker room showering and walking around naked when her daughter was showering and changing had a penis?

        P.S. Would you care if this guy was in the bathroom with your kids?

        http://www.kcra.com/news/local-news/news-sacramento/man-accused-of-sexual-assaults-at-davis-library-restroom/39302720

         

        1. Michelle Millet

          Thank you, I was hoping someone was going to ask me this. There is a big difference between being uncomfortable with something and being scared of it.

          I was raised to be very modest about my body and the bodies of others. I’m not comfortable being around naked people at all regardless of gender, but that is my issue, not theirs. I think this is an important distinction and one everyone should think about when engaging in this conversation.

          Why in the world should I be afraid of my daughter seeing a penis?

        2. hpierce

          Let’s see… the fact that it appears to be a male perp, with a male victim, in the men’s room… yeah, real logical argument on the topic of a, for example, male, who identifies as a woman, going into a women’s bathroom to relieve themself.

          Am thinking a male, who identifies as a woman (unless he also identified with predatory lesbian bent) would be no threat (safety) in a women’s restroom.  And vice versa…

        3. South of Davis

          A look in to the future:

          “A man twice entered the changing room of a swimming pool and began disrobing, once in front of a young girls’ swim team, saying transgender policies gave him the right to do so.”

          https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-strips-in-front-of-girls-in-swimming-pool-locker-says-transgender-law-a

          Next year (to keep us all busy as BOTH the Republicans and Democrats work to get rich) I predict this will be the next big “civil rights” issue:

          “Sociology researchers are now insisting that we as a society start accepting people who choose to “identify as real vampires” — so that they can be open about the fact that they’re vampires without having to worry about facing discrimination from people who might think that that’s weird.”

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421108/university-researchers-we-have-accept-people-who-identify-real-vampires-katherine

        4. hpierce

          Well, for those who would ban transgendered folk from certain bathrooms, locker rooms, we should ban gay males from male locker rooms, particularly in HS…  made me uncomfortable sharing a locker room and showering 5 feet away from  guy (gay, as it turned out) who was sporting a pretty “proud” erection.  True story.  Not hypothetical.

          BTW, South of Davis (9:08 post)… pretty sure that was a poor-use-use-of-irony/sarcasm incident with the ‘guy in the girls locker room’ thing… doubt if he was ‘transgender’, based on any of the accounts I saw.

        5. Michelle Millet

          You are comparing transgender people with vampires?

          I’m baffled that this is considered acceptable.

          David these are the kind of comments that I really think should be removed if we are going to have a conversation that shows respect to our fellow human beings.

        6. Barack Palin

          You are comparing transgender people with vampires?

          Get real.  SOD wasn’t, he/she was making a point that forcing people to have to accept things that they feel are wrong is getting out of hand.  Asking for his comment to be removed is silly.

        7. South of Davis

          Michelle wrote:

          > David these are the kind of comments that I really think

          > should be removed if we are going to have a conversation

          > that shows respect to our fellow human beings.

          I respect everyone and I support gay rights (I had an openly gay friend as a roommate when I lived in SF) and gay marriage and support the right of anyone to “identify” as anything (and I don’t care if trans-women or any other women want to use the bathroom with me)

          When I was dating I met quite a few women in their 30’s that “identified” as a woman in their 20’s.  I’m sure they “felt” like they were in their 20’s since they dressed like they were in their 20’s they talked like they were in their 20’s and they told guys they were in their 20’s.  I’m OK with this, but feel that the “government” needs to base laws on what “is” not what people “feel” (or “identify” as).

          Since I have been working 30+ hours a week since I was 14 and 40+ hours a week since I was 18 (paying all my own college expenses) I sometimes “feel” old enough to get Social Security.  Should the government give Social Security to everyone who “feels” like (or “identifies as”) a senior citizen?

        8. zaqzaq

          Michelle,

          I think you need to reread my comments because you have become fixated on actual safety.  My comments addressed 1. feeling uncomfortable, 2. privacy, 3. sense or perception of safety and 4. actual safety.  Take actual safety out of it and a biological male/trans woman is using the locker room at Arroyo pool.  I would feel uncomfortable, feel that my privacy was being invaded and my sense/perception of safety at risk as would the majority of the woman in that facility.  Then how would the children and teenagers feel?  All to accommodate the comfort level of a transgender woman.  That trans woman gets to make all of the people in the locker room uncomfortable under your approach.  You are taking the position that the trans woman’s right to privacy, to feel comfortable, and to feel safe  are more important than those of the biological females in that locker room.  I disagree.

      2. zaqzaq

        Michelle,

        The author claims, ”

        The existence of trans people does not threaten the privacy of anyone else. We exist, and you may be uncomfortable with us but discomfort with difference is not the same as infringement of privacy.”

        The author is wrong and I will take this one step further.  Having a biological male using facilities designed for women infringes upon my and my daughter’s perception of our safety, our privacy and makes us uncomfortable.  The trans are arguing that being forced to use the bathrooms or locker rooms that correlates to their biological sex violates their privacy and sense of comfort.  Someone get to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or that their privacy is being violated.  I take the common sense approach that you use the facility that matches your physical gender.  This is not discrimination in my opinion.  I suspect at some point the supreme court will get to make this determination from a legal standpoint.  I simply take the position that the trans person’s sense of comfort using the facility that they identify with does not trump the comfort, privacy and safety concerns of the majority.

        You may not be uncomfortable around naked people regardless of gender or that you daughter will see a penis.  You may be unconcerned that your daughter seeing a penis makes her uncomfortable or that it invades her privacy.  Your lifestyle choices are not mine nor is your comfort level mine.  Next it sounds like you will be advocating for gender neutral facilities and that a person does not have the right to feel comfortable using a facility assigned to their biological gender.

        My position is that the trans community’s sense of acceptance is not more important than the sense of safety, comfort and privacy of those who expect same sex facilities to mean same biological sex.

         

        1. Barack Palin

           I simply take the position that the trans person’s sense of comfort using the facility that they identify with does not trump the comfort, privacy and safety concerns of the majority.

          Exactly.  So we as a society are going to say that possibly 99.7% should be open to being uncomfortable using public restrooms so that .03% won’t?

          1. Don Shor

            Because that is not that person’s gender. You all don’t seem to understand this. Perhaps you simply don’t accept the concept of being transgender.

        2. Don Shor

          I take the common sense approach that you use the facility that matches your physical gender. This is not discrimination in my opinion.

          Your position is not common sense. It would result in fully transitioned individuals using bathrooms opposite to their genders.
          A transgender individual transitions from the birth gender to the actual gender. At some point during that transition, the individual is no longer the birth gender. That is pretty much a decision of the individual and his/her doctor. It’s not your decision. It’s not the birth gender. At that point it is inappropriate for that individual to use the facilities of his/her birth gender. It is then appropriate for that individual to use the facilities of his/her gender.

          1. David Greenwald

            That’s the key problem. The person who is in most ways female, but has a penis, doesn’t have an easy answer from zaqzaq’s common sense approach.

        3. Michelle Millet

          zaqzaq-I think you need to re-read my posts. If you want to make this an issue about people being comfortable make that argument. But don’t make it about safety. There is nothing inherently dangerous about changing in a room next to someone with different  genitalia.

      3. zaqzaq

        Michelle,

         

        I think you need to reread my comments because you have become fixated on actual safety.  My comments addressed 1. feeling uncomfortable, 2. privacy, 3. sense or perception of safety and 4. actual safety.  Take actual safety out of it and a biological male/trans woman is using the locker room at Arroyo pool.  I would feel uncomfortable, feel that my privacy was being invaded and my sense/perception of safety at risk as would the majority of the woman in that facility.  Then how would the children and teenagers feel?  All to accommodate the comfort level of a transgender woman.  That trans woman gets to make all of the people in the locker room uncomfortable under your approach.  You are taking the position that the trans woman’s right to privacy, to feel comfortable, and to feel safe  are more important than those of the biological females in that locker room.  I disagree.

          1. David Greenwald

            So a person with a penis who otherwise looks and dresses like a woman is supposed to change in the men’s locker room? Talk about safety issues.

          2. Don Shor

            She is not a he. She is supposed to change in the men’s locker room. That’s your position? Don’t you think that might make her and them uncomfortable?

    1. Tia Will

      zaqzaq

      You consistently use the example of a man who still has a penis but self identifies as a female using the female designated spaces. This conveniently avoids another scenario. What about the woman who self identifies as male, is bearded, deep voiced with male musculature but still has breasts and a vagina ?  Are you or your daughter going to feel comfortable with this individual in “your” restroom or dressing room. Gender identity is about much more than just the presence absence of male or female genitalia.

      A simple solution has been provided by others in previous posts. Simply having enclosed areas for showering, changing and waste disposal in every facility so that those with more modest sensibilities can use them should take care of the, “I don’t want to see someone’s body” problem. Safety, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is a completely different issue.

      1. zaqzaq

        Tia,

        I really do not see refurbishing all of these facilities to create individual private showers and/or changing rooms.  Where is the money coming from with all of the budget challenges.  It sounds nice but is not fiscally realistic.

      2. zaqzaq

        Sticking with one fact pattern is easier to follow than bouncing back and forth between two.  The concerns about feeling uncomfortable, privacy, perception of safety and actual safety remain the same.  In the biological male scenario I believe there is more potential for actual safety issues.

        Take your proposal for creating for closed areas for showering and changing.  Viewing the naked male in the showers as a female walks to the enclosed area creates the discomfort, invasion of privacy for the female because she does not want to see him naked along with her perception of safety.  Take a high school scenario where the school remodels the locker room to provide two individual enclosed showers and changing areas and there is limited time after PE to either shower or change.   What if all of the girls line up to use the enclosed areas and refuse to use the common area when the trans girl is in the locker room or they even refuse to enter the locker room until trans girl leaves making them consistently late for the next class.  Or the ACLU sues the school because those private enclosed shower/changing areas were created in response to the trans girl using the locker room and that makes the trans girl uncomfortable when all the girls line up to use them only when the trans girl is in the locker room.  Or the girls that wait to enter the locker room until the trans girl is done makes the trans girl uncomfortable.  Will the school be ordered to by a judge to  force those girls to use the locker room or remove the enclosed showers/changing areas because these modifications make the trans girl feel uncomfortable.

        What you end up with is the tyranny  of the minority if you take the position that the trans person’s right to privacy, feel comfortable, and to feel safe is more important than the majority of biological girls/women who feel their right to privacy, to feel comfortable and to feel safe. And then what do you do with the asexuals who feel they can use either facility and forcing them into one violates their right to privacy, feel comfortable and safe?

  3. The Pugilist

    I have asked this question before and still don’t have a good answer: you have a person who has a penis, dresses like a woman, looks like a woman, identifies as a woman, which bathroom would you have that individual use?

      1. Barack Palin

        Exactly, just leave it the way it is.  I don’t think it’s been a huge deal, what we have now is activist groups trying to make it into to more of a problem than it really is.

        1. Tia Will

          BP

          Exactly, just leave it the way it is.  I don’t think it’s been a huge deal, what we have now is activist groups trying to make it into to more of a problem than it really is.”

          Have you considered the possibility that you feel this way because “the way it is” suits you and that you don’t see it “as “a huge deal” because you are not personally affected by it ? And, if it is not a huge deal, then why stand in opposition to a “minor” change ?

        2. Barack Palin

          What I’m saying is all this time transgender people have been able to take care of their personal restroom duties up to now and I’ve never heard of it being an issue until recently.  Why is it a huge issue now?

        3. hpierce

          Like Ryan, am not seeing a problem… if someone is using a stall with a door, who knows, who cares? I’ll admit it would be a tad weird, in the men’s room to be next to someone hiking up a skirt and using a urinal, be they biologically male or female, but suspect the equivalent happens in Scotland or at Scottish games events all the time…

          Am just not getting the fuss… the North Carolina law is stupid. The bodily function part of this should not be regulated by law… any other ‘threatening behaviors’ either already is covered by law, or would be fair game…

        4. David Greenwald

          BP: You’re making a lot of assumptions with your comment  citing no evidence to back it up. Just because they may have tolerated an awkward situation doesn’t make it ideal. Or may be they didn’t.  Researches shown that transgender individuals suffer from very high rates of depression and suicide, perhaps the lack of accommodations his part of that.

          Why now? Perhaps because they felt powered that the world is changed enough to address their concerns.

        5. hpierce

          David… I truly believe “why now”, was, at least locally, in Mrak, an “in-your-face” move by posting the sign… I suspect that if someone needed to use any restroom, was discreet, and behaved themselves, there would have been no serious reaction… I believe that the posting of the sign was deliberately ‘provocative’… intended to get a reaction, successfully… note how well “documented” the removal of the signs was…  much like that guy who entered the swimming pool dressing room…

          Something about tempest and teapot…

          1. David Greenwald

            Part of the reason I have kept following this issue is that I wanted to show that it actually had a far broader linkage. At the HRC, we had a discussion about a proposal for gender neutral restrooms at UCD and that preceded the protest.

    1. South of Davis

      The Pugilist wrote:

      > I have asked this question before and still don’t have a good answer:

      It has been answered many times (try doing a search of the Vanguard)

      > you have a person who has a penis, dresses like a woman, looks like a

      > woman, identifies as a woman, which bathroom would you have that

      > individual use?

      The woman’s bathroom (the same bathroom that people who “dresses like a woman, looks like woman, and identifies as a woman” have been using for 100+ years).

      My problem is when the government makes laws based on “feelings” and/or steps in and gives the person a new drivers license based on how they “feel”.  What’s next giving a drivers license to a 39 year old woman that “feels” 29 that says she is 29 or lets a guy pass on registering for the draft because he “feels like a woman” at times (like when he thinks about getting shot at in the middle east)…

  4. Michelle Millet

    SOD: If you want to argue that transgender people can’t use the bathroom they identify with because it makes people “feel” uncomfortable then do that. But don’t make it about “fear” or base it on “safety concerns”.

    Try and remember we are talking about human beings when you are making comparisons to fictional monsters.

    I’m far more scared of my daughter dealing with the consequences of these types of  prejudices that exist in people like you than I am of her seeing a penis in a locker room.

    1. South of Davis

      Michelle wrote:

      > I’m far more scared of my daughter dealing with the consequences of

      > these types of  prejudices that exist in people like you

      I personally would like to get rid off all racial and gender preferences and treat ALL people EXACTLY the same (everyone applies to college with a SS# only, no name or checking any boxes and one locker room in all high schools and public pools).  As someone that often went dancing at the Endup in SF I’m not the kind of guy that feels uncomfortable around trans people.  Unlike most woman with young girls I know I’m surprised that Michelle does not care if naked guys are hanging out a locker room with her daughter.  I find that most women with daughters who are pro “gender neutral bathrooms” won’t come out and say that they are cool with naked guys hanging out around “their” daughters (nice to hear that Michelle is in the minority of people who are not hypocrites on this issue).

       

      1. Michelle Millet

        Again, why should I be “scared” about my daughter seeing a penis? Your link implies that I should be more concerned about my son hanging out in restrooms with non-trans men. Maybe I should start bringing him into the women’s restroom with me, oh wait he has one of those scary penisis that everyone seems so afraid of.

        1. KSmith

          ^^^^^Bingo!

          If this country had a more healthy attitude toward nudity, this would probably be less of a concern and wouldn’t have morphed into such hysteria.

          Also, if a man (who identifies as male) is so determined to get into a women’s bathroom for malicious purposes, he’s going to do so regardless of whatever laws are in place–and will probably not go to the trouble of putting on a dress to do so.

          Finally, the whole Stranger Danger thing is unfortunately widespread even though a victim is much more likely to be attacked/molested/raped by someone they know (and usually a family member, friend, acquaintance, etc.) than some straight-up stranger.

          Don’t get me wrong. Stranger attacks do, of course, happen, but not to the extent to warrant such hysteria. This all boils down to: “Yuck! We don’t like this and find it weird and new and strange and distasteful to us, so we’re going to dig in our heels and start a widespread panic!”

  5. davisite4

    Having only members of the same sex in the bathroom doesn’t seem to have helped here:

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/davis-police-investigate-allegations-of-sexual-assault-at-library-2/

    Look, someone who is inclined toward sexual assault – or other kinds of assault – will always be a threat.  But there is no more reason to think that a person who is transgender is more likely to want to commit assault than a person who is not transgender.

    I don’t get it.  Is the imagined scenario that a self-identified man dresses up as a woman just to gain access to the women’s room?  Guess what.  It’s not that hard to gain access to the women’s room.  Push open the door and regardless of what you’re wearing, you’re in the room – able to commit assault if you are physically able and mentally inclined.  In most assault situations the bathroom is quiet with no one else around.

    So can we just let people pee in peace in the bathroom that they are the most comfortable in?

  6. hpierce

    As I recall, ~ 1980, up in Washington state, a circumcision was “botched”, infection occurred, and it was decided that it would be better to turn the infant into a “she”… checked Snopes, and could find neither confirmation nor a “false”…

    OK, for the sake of argument, an infant becomes ‘trans-gendered’…  the birth certificate says “male”… what restroom does that child use when they become an adult?

    Or consider…  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    1. Don Shor

      what restroom does that child use when they become an adult?

      Whatever gender identity he or she has. The birth certificate is not the arbiter of gender.

      1. hpierce

        Well, right now, it will be in North Carolina… which, as I previously said, is a stupid law.

        “Bottom line”… if one is discreet, and behaves themself, I see no reason to legislate where someone goes to take care of bodily functions.

  7. wdf1

    Meanwhile, in Salisbury, NC:

    SALISBURY — High school students will be allowed to carry mace in the 2016-2017 school year after the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education agreed to remove prohibitive language and amend its policy.

    The board spent some time at its Monday work session in the Wallace Education Forum debating whether pepper spray and other defensive sprays, as well as personal shaving razors, should be allowed on school campuses.
    ….
    Board member Chuck Hughes was in favor of the sprays on campuses, saying that in his mind, they were purely defensive. He also referenced HB2, saying that the sprays might be useful. 

    “Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in,” he said.

    But members were still concerned that the sprays could be used for purposes other than defense. The board’s lawyer, Ken Soo, said that there have been few cases of a student using Mace against a teacher.

    source

  8. hpierce

    I don’t know about others, but I remember the “potty parity” controversy ~ 25 years ago, and am thinking that a lot of this is either a “pi%%ing match”, or a “load of s&*t”.

    Any inappropriate behavior can pretty much be already dealt with, with existing law.  I hope bodily functions don’t become legislated.

    As it is, someone who is walking on a greenbelt, has medical urinary issues, leaving them with a choice of ‘wetting their pants’ or relieving themself, could wind up as a “sex offender”…

  9. hpierce

    BTW… think it a bit amusing where folk keep talking “penis”… the end of the urinary tract for women, can, in some cases, due to genetics/etc.  be “external”… very rare, but not unheard of… so, some women may appear to have a penis.  For someone with that anomaly, which restroom/changing area/shower do they use?

    Maybe at least from the safety issue,does a person have a “scrotum”, with functioning testicles intact?  Eunuchs were allowed in the harem areas… sounds like the ‘litmus test’ would be a scrotum instead of a penis.

    So, if a transgendered person, who identifies as a woman, takes at least a step toward that identity, wouldn’t that alleviate the perceived “safety” issue?  Perhaps more of the issues?  Castration is less invasive of a procedure than rebuilding the lower end of the urinary tract, as I understand it.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for