Ignorance.

"Perhaps it’s not the state’s place to tell employers, teachers and other people in society they must be blind to an individual’s personal decision."

This article is beyond ridiculous. Salama's discourse, which argues against a law that prohibits discrimination against transgenders, is full of logical fallacies and entrenched in prejudice. She proposes that today there are many people who are uncomfortable working with transgenders, and thus, "we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender."

While she is correct that there are many people who are uncomfortable with working with transgenders, her conclusion is ludicrous. In fact, because of the truth of the former statement, there is an absolute need for such laws that will force people to realize that it is time to change their backward mindsets. For example, laws have been passed prohibiting discrimination against colored people, fomenting the more accepting mindset we have today, leading to our nation's first Black president (nevertheless, there is much work to be done to change mindsets regarding racism). Would Salama (in the 1960s) have written an article declaring that laws should be understanding of racist employers instead of passing civil rights amendments?

Change generally comes by working within the system. As our system runs on legislation, reformers generally aim to pass legislation that is in keeping with their ideologies. The writer is correct, people today are still very prejudiced and often uncomfortable about individuals who do not conform to heteronormativity. But it is for that very reasons that such anti-discrimination laws are so necessary.