Susan's Place Transgender Resources

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."

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

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.

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

Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 14, 2014, 10:41:18 PM
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.

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

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.

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. 

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:


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.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 20, 2014, 07:35:56 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 21, 2014, 07:09:58 AM
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.

This bill will probably pass the General Assembly this year.

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 . . . .

ThePhoenix, I agree that this amendment is troubling.

QuoteGENDER 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?

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.

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.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 27, 2014, 04:28:15 PM
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

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

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 27, 2014, 04:28:15 PM
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.

I see no problem with the new wording.

My understanding is that crossdressers do not differ in their gender identity from cispeople.  They do differ in their gender expression because they like to wear women's clothing.  The new language protects gender identity, but not gender expression. 

The original definition of "gender identity" was as follows:  (E) "GENDER IDENTITY" MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY, APPEARANCE, EXPRESSION, OR BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.  This definition is more or less standardized in laws of this type around the country.  Some add language dealing with how the gender identity can be proven.  There are minor variations (and bigger ones in older laws on the subject).  But not that gender identity includes both identity and expression.  Thus crossdressers would be protected.  But not if we are only talking about identity without expression.

I am concerned about this bill setting a precedent elsewhere that leaves crossdressers in the cold. 

As one of the lawyers who is likely be get asked to represent trans* people in Maryland under this statute, I am also a little concerned about Maryland adopting its own, unique definition.  If they followed along with everyone else, then explaining the statute to a court would be a lot easier.  If just pointed at what courts elsewhere have done with similar language.  But with this language being different, it means I have to deal with explaining to a court what the differences mean.  But that gets technical and it's basically my problem.  I don't see it as a reason to oppose the bill.  And I'm already thinking about how to argue that expression really does fit in anyway.

Quote from: peky on February 27, 2014, 05:08:17 PM
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

This bill is not a locker room/bathroom bill.  I assume that crossdressers would like to not get fired from their jobs if they are found out.  I also assume that they would like to not get thrown out of restaurants and shops if, for example, they are out and about while dressed.  Those typed of issues are what this bill is about. 

I agree that crossdressers don't meet the definition of gender identity.  That's my point.

I am confused, are crossdressers crossdressing, at work?

Perhaps I am a bit ignorant of the issue, but wouldn't that be like saying people who vacation in Ocean City shouldn't be fired because of it? Like what would it have any impact on the workplace where someone went to vacation or more to the point, what they wear when they aren't there.

I was under the impression gender expression protections were to prevent employers from requiring for example, female employees to wear skirts, as they would be free to express their gender with pants if they saw fit.

Not saying they shouldn't have protections for expression as that would be good (and doesn't impact me in any way since I have a gender identity issue), but I am just a bit wondering how much it would really effect crossdressers.

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 11:12:33 AM
I am confused, are crossdressers crossdressing, at work?

Usually not.  There are (very rare) cases where an employer allows that.  But generally not. 

The bigger issue would be that a person crossdresses outside of work, the employer finds out, and takes action against them.  This happened to an acquaintance of mine who was publicly crossdressed while out with friends over the weekend, during non work hours, but got spotted by coworkers who spread around what they saw, and was promptly called in and fired when the work week resumed. 

Here is a useful link to give kind of a very basic explanation of how the issue works: 

http://www.tgender.net/taw/cd.html

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 11:12:33 AM
I was under the impression gender expression protections were to prevent employers from requiring for example, female employees to wear skirts, as they would be free to express their gender with pants if they saw fit.

Nope.  Think of it this way, if an mtf trans* person was seen dressed in women's clothing, then an employer might not know she had a gender identity issue going on.  Under this definition, the employer might fire the trans* person and then defend on the ground that they thought the person was a crossdresser and did not know she was trans*.  For trans* people (not crossdressers), having protections for gender expression as well as gender identity prevents that scenario because it doesn't matter whether the person was fired because of their gender identity or their gender expression.   

And we are on to third reading.  Third reading is the final vote in the senate. 

The amendment offered yesterday has been withdrawn.  A new amendment to the definition has been adopted, which is available here:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014rs/amds/bil_0002/SB0212_90372102.pdf

This means that the definition of "gender identity" will be:
THE GENDER-RELATED IDENTITY, APPEARANCE, EXPRESSION, OR BEHAVIOR OF A PERSON, REGARDLESS OF THE PERSON'S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH, WHICH MAY BE DEMONSTRATED BY:
(1) CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM ASSERTION OF THE PERSON'S GENDER-IDENTITY; OR
(2) ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE GENDER IDENTITY IS SINCERELY HELD AS PART OF THE PERSON'S CORE IDENTITY".

This seems like a good thing in that it gets us back to gender expression being protected again.  It also gets us more consistent with other bills in the country.  Crossdressers, for example, would be protected.  This type of language about how a person's identity is to be proven is something that opposition legislators have been successful in putting into gender identity bills lately.  This is actually less onerous than some.  In Delaware's bill, adopted last year, for example, the definition of gender identity reads:

"(10) "Gender identity" means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth. Gender identity may be demonstrated by consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a person's core identity; provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose."

Note the lack of an improper purpose prong in the Maryland language. 

I know where Im moving too.

Quote from: Tic Est Ipse on February 28, 2014, 05:30:24 PM
I know where Im moving too.

DC is winning out over MD for me right now, due to healthcare policy, but MD isn't a bad place... I did see a great apartment in Silver Spring a while back that was quite cost competitive (for a Studio apt)

Thank you again ThePhoenix. I really appreciate your keeping us aware of developments.

Quote from: Tic Est Ipse on February 28, 2014, 05:30:24 PM
I know where Im moving too.

Please allow me to be the first to roll out the welcome mat  :)

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 05:47:35 PM
DC is winning out over MD for me right now, due to healthcare policy, but MD isn't a bad place... I did see a great apartment in Silver Spring a while back that was quite cost competitive (for a Studio apt)

DC has some of the best law around on trans* issues.  But the enforcement has been weak.  The discrimination stats are some of the worst in the country as a result.  So I'm not sure I would recommend it necessarily.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 28, 2014, 05:47:53 PM
Thank you again ThePhoenix. I really appreciate your keeping us aware of developments.

You're welcome.  I can't really do much right now as I am quite sick.  So I don't have much to do besides sleeping, reading (and posting on) message boards, and listening in on the Senate online.  :)  Other typical things like conversation, walking around, and so on are pretty much off the table.  But it occurred to me today that not everyone else is in that same position, so maybe I was boring people, especially with the technical legal explanations of how this all works.  I'm glad to know someone is interested. :)

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 28, 2014, 06:00:35 PM
DC has some of the best law around on trans* issues.  But the enforcement has been weak.  The discrimination stats are some of the worst in the country as a result.  So I'm not sure I would recommend it necessarily.

I find, sadly that if you are in an affluent neighborhood in DC, the police go out of their way at least to ensure homosexuals are not discriminated against. I haven't really seen other people I knew were trans in Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan, etc but I do know for a fact that in places like Benning Road or Congress Heights the cops believe all trans people are prostitutes (but to be fair there are actually quite a few prostitutes out there). The way I see it I would much rather pay $1500 for a Studio in an alright area of DC than live in the parts that are unsafe. Though, I saw a great studio not far at all from the Metro in Sliver Spring, which was only $1200 a month.

The way I see it the best thing Maryland has going for it are relatively low rents, much more bang for your buck than Arlington or Alexandria at least. I do find it doubtful that places like the eastern shore of Maryland will be able to really enforce any laws like this though, so I don't know just how much cheaper it would be safe to go in Maryland either though.

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 06:25:23 PM
The way I see it the best thing Maryland has going for it are relatively low rents, much more bang for your buck than Arlington or Alexandria at least. I do find it doubtful that places like the eastern shore of Maryland will be able to really enforce any laws like this though, so I don't know just how much cheaper it would be safe to go in Maryland either though.

I hope you'll let me disagree. The area where I live is incredibly TG-friendly - as evidenced by the fact that my transition as a classroom teacher has basically been a non-event. My employer was VERY SERIOUS about the anti-discrimination laws in our county.

As for the rents - well unfortunately they're less than you'll find in DC suburbs, but not a whole lot less.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 28, 2014, 06:10:38 PM
You're welcome.  I can't really do much right now as I am quite sick.  So I don't have much to do besides sleeping, reading (and posting on) message boards, and listening in on the Senate online.  :)  Other typical things like conversation, walking around, and so on are pretty much off the table.  But it occurred to me today that not everyone else is in that same position, so maybe I was boring people, especially with the technical legal explanations of how this all works.  I'm glad to know someone is interested. :)

There are quite a few of us that appreciate your posts Phoenix. They always seem very informative especially for us Marylanders. Especially the ones that get super lost when legal terms and information starts to roll out. I've listened to the state Senate the past two days and it just sounds to me like a bunch of older people congratulating each other and their old high school sports teams.

Quote from: Hayley on February 28, 2014, 06:53:51 PM
There are quite a few of us that appreciate your posts Phoenix. They always seem very informative  especially for us Marylanders. Especially the ones that get super lost when legal terms and information starts to roll out. I've listened to the state Senate the past two days and it just sounds to me like a bunch of older people congratulating each other and their old high school sports teams.

Now can I get y'all involved in my org? :)

<insert Maryland Trans*Unity commercial here>

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 28, 2014, 07:07:47 PM
Now can I get y'all involved in my org? :)

<insert Maryland Trans*Unity commercial here>

I'm more than willing to get involved.

Quote from: Hayley on February 28, 2014, 07:25:58 PM
I'm more than willing to get involved.

On a more serious note, we would be happy to provide support for anyone who would like us to do so.  Right now the member we have who is furthest away actually lives in New York, but frequently comes down to our support group meetings.  We have others via our online presence who are further away. 

If people want to get involved in the work we are doing, then we welcome that as well.  But the first order of business is always to make sure that people have what they need to make it through this journey.  So please do come visit our support group (next meeting is the day after tomorrow).  Please do come to the big picnic we hold in the summer.  Please do join us and find whatever role works best for you. 

Everyone is welcome (and we really do mean everyone).  The only thing we ask in exchange is that everyone protect the safety of the space. 

Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 06:25:23 PM
I find, sadly that if you are in an affluent neighborhood in DC, the police go out of their way at leastsi to ensure homosexuals are not discriminated against. I haven't really seen other people I knew were trans in Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan, etc but I do know for a fact that in places like Benning Road or Congress Heights the cops believe all trans people are prostitutes (but to be fair there are actually quite a few prostitutes out there). The way I see it I would much rather pay $1500 for a Studio in an alright area of DC than live in the parts that are unsafe. Though, I saw a great studio not far at all from the Metro in Sliver Spring, which was only $1200 a month.

Just three days ago, a report was issued criticizing the D.C. police for their poor treatment of trans* people.  The latest problem with D.C. police occurred last night near Columbia Heights.  Police stopped a car full of people, became aggressive and abusive upon discovering the driver was trans*, and at least one arrest was made.  Details are still coming out and I'm not sure how much I will be at liberty to share.  But suffice to say that D.C. is not nirvana for trans* people.  The law may be great, but it's the people who enforce it that scare me.

The bill passed the senate by a vote of 32-15 just a few minutes ago.  There was only one senator who rose to speak against it and two others who did not. 

Tomorrow at 1 pm there will be a hearing on the House of Delegates version of this bill in the House Health & Government Operations Committee.  So if you are in Maryland and wish to come see some history in the making, come on down.  I'm going and would love the chance to say hi to people before or (more likely due to a doctors appointment) after the hearing.