Maryland transgender rights bill introduced

[DriftingCrow]

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/01/14/maryland-transgender-rights-bill-introduced-monday/
Michael K. Lavers; Washington Blade

State Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would ban discrimination against transgender Marylanders.

Governor Martin O'Malley and the three Democrats who are running to succeed him — Lieutenant Gov. Anthony Brown, Attorney General Doug Gansler and state Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County) — are expected to testify in support of the bill. Brown's running mate, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, has also pledged to speak for the measure in Annapolis.

"No one should face discrimination on the basis of gender identity," Mizeur told the Washington Blade last week. "Equality in Maryland shouldn't have to wait this long."

[suzifrommd]

Come on y'all. Don't break my heart again.

[ThePhoenix]

If the folks doing it can cooperate, then I would bet the bill will pass.  If they keep fighting among themselves and canceling out each other's efforts, then I don't know.

[ThePhoenix]

By the way, does anyone happen to know the bill number?  It would save me some time in finding it!

[suzifrommd]

By the way, does anyone happen to know the bill number?  It would save me some time in finding it!

I don't think it's been officially introduced yet. Post on the TransMaryland facebook group says he's still lining up co-sponsors (can't vouch for its accuracy). It certainly doesn't appear on the official list of bills yet.

[ThePhoenix]

It got a number today.  Senate Bill 212.  We're awaiting introduction of a corresponding House bill as well. 

[ThePhoenix]

I guess I should add this bit of info:

I attended an open meeting of the Maryland Coalition for Trans Equality this evening.  I asked them what safeguards were in place to prevent a recurrence of last year when they offered an amendment that had been requested by no one that would have expressly authorized business owners to demand that any trans* person using sex segregated facilities produce proof that they were not committing a crime.  (This amendment is why I am no longer on the Coalition's steering committee--I resigned in protest).  They told me that this year, there would be NO amendments offere by them. 

Assuming that the bill is a good bill, as advertised, this should be good news.  I am cautiously optimistic.  My organization is discussing whether to issue a statement on the bill at some point.

[ThePhoenix]

FYI, by a vote of 8-3 the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings committee reported the bill favorably to the Senate today.  Given the number of co-sponsors and other "yes" votes pledged, this means that more than likely, the bill will pass this year.

Reportedly there are amendments to the bill, but I have not yet seen them, so I do not know what affect, if any, they have on the substantive discrimination protections the bill is meant to provide. 

[ThePhoenix]

Here is the Washington Blade article about the committee vote:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/02/20/maryland-senate-committee-kills-transgender-rights-bill/

Of particle interest and serious concern to me is this paragraph:

The committee by a 7-4 vote margin also approved Raskin's proposed amendment to SB 212 that would allow for "private and functionally equivalent" spaces, such as locker rooms, for people of different gender identities.

This sounds like it expressly authorizes segregation where trans* people are concerned.  I.e., you can create a separate restroom/locker room designated for trans* people and require them to use that instead of the ones provided for the general public. 

I have not yet seen the amendment language, so it may not be as bad as this article makes it sound.  But this raises fears about whether this bill may enshrine discrimination into law rather than outlawing it.

[suzifrommd]

Of particle interest and serious concern to me is this paragraph:

The committee by a 7-4 vote margin also approved Raskin's proposed amendment to SB 212 that would allow for "private and functionally equivalent" spaces, such as locker rooms, for people of different gender identities.

This sounds like it expressly authorizes segregation where trans* people are concerned.

I understand the concern, but it really doesn't take any of the pep out of my victory dance.

First, segregated locker spaces are kind of a "first world problem", right? I mean our main concerns are transgender people who can't find a place to live or who are terminated from their jobs for transition, harassed in stores, restaurants, etc. This bill has the potential to dramatically improve their lives. Does the fact some may chafe at having to use a separate changing space elevate to that level of urgency?

Second, isn't it reality that the sight of my hairy, obviously male-in-origin, body will profoundly upset females and contribute to their feeling less safe? (Not to mention visual evidence of my pre-op surgical status?) Ladies' rooms are one thing - we all go into a stall and do our stuff with no one the wiser - but women's locker rooms are places where people routinely strip to underwear (and occasionally further). I find the sight of my own body in the bathroom mirror jarring and threatening, and I actually LIKE my body. I can't generate the certainty that forcing businesses that operate changing facilities to admit transgender women during all phases of their transition won't do us more harm than good.

[ThePhoenix]

Now I've actually read two of the three amendments, including the one described by the Blade and I feel much better.  It is narrowly limited to places where people are actually disrobed in view of others.  This is still not ideal, but it seems a lot less damaging than I thought from the Blade's description. 

I should be able to get a copy of amendment 3 today too.  The copy I was sent overnight wasn't readable.

[Hikari]

Now I've actually read two of the three amendments, including the one described by the Blade and I feel much better.  It is narrowly limited to places where people are actually disrobed in view of others.  This is still not ideal, but it seems a lot less damaging than I thought from the Blade's description. 

I should be able to get a copy of amendment 3 today too.  The copy I was sent overnight wasn't readable.

Well that I can live with, still feels a bit "separate and equal" but, I understand the culture probably isn't ready yet to deal with absolute equality, after all we are quite used to gender segregation in general.

Now can you convince the General Assembly to take up the measure as well :p it would be nice to be able to have some rights throughout the metro area. Sadly despite likely support from our Senators, governor, lt.governor, and state senate our house in VA would never let something like this pass.

[ThePhoenix]

This bill will probably pass the General Assembly this year.

[ThePhoenix]

Problem.

The bill contains a new definition of gender identity that means many trans* people are probably excluded from the bill's protection.  It would also be the worst such language in any bill in the country.  The new definition is here:

http://equalitymaryland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Amendment-3-–-SB-212-.pdf

Under this definition, if you are not presenting yet, then you don't have any protection because you have no "public manifestation" of your gender identity.  If you are part time in your preferred gender role, then you are not protected because your gender presentation is not "public." 

Figuring out what to do about it now . . . .

[suzifrommd]

ThePhoenix, I agree that this amendment is troubling.

GENDER IDENTITY MEANS A PERSISTENT BONA FIDE GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY AND THE CONSISTENT PUBLIC MANIFESTATION OF THAT IDENTITY IN THE GENDER-RELATED APPEARANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.

The term "consistent" is ambiguous. Does it refer over time (I.e. I present as a woman all the time?) or does it refer to my appearance (All my clothes are feminine?) If I wear a frilly blouse and men's jeans, does it mean that the manifestation of my identity in my gender-related appearance is inconsistent? If I go to my job as a male and live as a female outside of work (I know several people that do this), does that mean my manifestation is not consistent over time?

[ThePhoenix]

I see problems with the words "and," "consistent," and "public manifestation."

The word "and" is problematic because it means you may have a transgender identity, but if you're not showing it then you probably are not protected.  For example, if you have sought counseling because of gender identity problems, but you are not yet altering your presentation to show that identity, then you likely are not protected.  The word "and" means you have to have both the identity and some public showing of it.

"Consistent" could be ambiguous as you suggest, but I think it most likely refers to presenting the same way.  So your example of a person who is a man at work and a woman outside work (or vice versa) is also not protected. 

From a compliance perspective, this is also problematic.  If a business owner, for example, is trying to comply with the law, how are they to know whether the person consistently presents that way?  As Senstor Raskin put it when I raised the point last year, "this language is not even fair to discriminators."

"Public manifestation" is also problematic.  It means our just-starting-out person is not covered.  But it also means that a crossdresser in the privacy of their own home is not covered if they are found out, for example.

So I think this amendment is very bad news.  This is the same language that was pushed by Gender Rights Maryland in 2012 and it caused a big fight in the community. 

BUT I've been in touch with my former colleagues at the Coalition who understand the problem and are working to fix it.  I think we should give them a chance to do so.  I'm going to sit down and wait to see what happens before I do anything drastic.  And I'm going to make sure to be in Annapolis for the floor debate both to see that something does happen and just for the fun of it.

[ThePhoenix]

Senate floor debate was opened today.  An amendment has been offered that would change the definition of gender identity to read "GENDER IDENTITY MEANS A PERSISTENT BONA FIDE GENDER-RELATED IDENTITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH."

This language still doesn't seem ideal.  As I understand it, crossdressers would still be unprotected (though my thinking so may have more to do with my ignorance about crossdressers).  But it seems like an improvement.

The bill has been laid over until tomorrow to allow the senate to insert the proposal into the bill so they can look at it in context.

[peky]

Senate floor debate was opened today.  An amendment has been offered that would change the definition of gender identity to read "GENDER IDENTITY MEANS A PERSISTENT BONA FIDE GENDER-RELATED IDENTITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH."

This language still doesn't seem ideal.  As I understand it, crossdressers would still be unprotected (though my thinking so may have more to do with my ignorance about crossdressers).  But it seems like an improvement.

The bill has been laid over until tomorrow to allow the senate to insert the proposal into the bill so they can look at it in context.

Angie

Why would a cross-dresser want to go in a women's locker room?

Beside they do not fulfill the ^^ definition. Most cross dresser do not have a problem with their gender identity or sexual orientation, Most are cis heterosexual males who like -for whatever reason_ dress as women every once a while

[mrs izzy]

I have seen this trying to get passed for years. One new benifit is that if it does not pass some of the community could always move to Washington DC. They now stopped insurance companies from excluding transgender coverage.

The tides are turning. Maybe someday we will be seen as real people. Someday.

Isabell

[suzifrommd]

Senate floor debate was opened today.  An amendment has been offered that would change the definition of gender identity to read "GENDER IDENTITY MEANS A PERSISTENT BONA FIDE GENDER-RELATED IDENTITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH."

This language still doesn't seem ideal.  As I understand it, crossdressers would still be unprotected (though my thinking so may have more to do with my ignorance about crossdressers).  But it seems like an improvement.

The bill has been laid over until tomorrow to allow the senate to insert the proposal into the bill so they can look at it in context.

Angie

Yes, not ideal perhaps. I consider myself adept with language and yet I can't think of an excellent alternative. It's a major, major improvement.

Thanks for posting this. It does set me at ease a bit.