Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony about senate bill 212, the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014, outlawing discrimination based on gender identity.
The bill's details can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb0212&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb0212&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS).
I was there to testify, so I can provide a firsthand account. Some observations:
* It was really important to have a sponsor of the bill on the committee. Sen. James Raskin made sure that inaccurate statements by the opponents didn't go unchallenged. When a supporter was asked a tough question, Raskin would ask a follow-up that allowed the supporter again to paint the bill in a positive light.
* Supporters clearly outnumbered opponents in a big way. A lot of religious leaders, civil rights leaders, and LGBT community leaders spoke. A handful of transgender people also spoke (including yours truly), though I was surprised there was not better turnout.
* The issue of bathrooms came up early and often. It was handled in a surprisingly thorough manner. Most of the predictable points from the opponents came out (we're putting women in danger, they're being harassed, men are pretended to be transgender to get access, we need unisex facilities not access, etc.) But the response was surprisingly thorough also. The point was made that jurisdictions that have protections in place have not seen such problems, as well as that we need someplace to go, that we are more likely to be harassed than anyone else, that men who want to invade female spaces can do it now, and that there currently is no law in Maryland against using the opposite sex bathroom, so this law will offer predators no protections that aren't already there.
* General statistics about discrimination were presented, but very few individual cases of discrimination came to light. A couple women talked about being fired, but other than that, most discussions of discrimination were second hand. No instances of denial of public accommodation or housing came up at all. Actually, the point of the existence of anti-trans hate was made more effectively by the opposition who said such hateful stuff that even some of the die-hard opponents felt compelled to question their conclusions.
* In my opinion, the most glaring omission on our part was a failure to educate about the biological nature of our condition. One of the senators asked what was gender identity, and much was made of it being "a feeling", which skeptics equated with something changeable.
* The most peculiar outcome was a senator who last year had come out strongly against public accommodation protections, hammering opponents on the bathroom issue and basically single-handedly dismantling their arguments. Even people who had been involved for a long time were at a loss to explain it, though no one dared suggest that maybe he'd changed his mind about us.
I am watching this. I hope to move in the next year or two and I thinking about going from Northern VA to DC, but MD could work out too thinking about it. Seems like the MD side of the beltway is better than the VA side too, but laws, jobs, and rents will really make the determination for me.
This will make now 6 years they have been trying to get this done. Maybe now that Delaware passed it last year it will get passed in Maryland.
Will have to see i guess.
Isabell
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony about senate bill 212, the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014, outlawing discrimination based on gender identity.
The bill's details can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb0212&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=sb0212&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS).
I was there to testify, so I can provide a firsthand account. Some observations:
As the person who was sitting beside you through the hearing ;D, I generally agree with your observations. Only a couple of quick observations:
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
* Supporters clearly outnumbered opponents in a big way. A lot of religious leaders, civil rights leaders, and LGBT community leaders spoke. A handful of transgender people also spoke (including yours truly), though I was surprised there was not better turnout.
I am also a little disappointed at the lack of trans* participation. Some of that just reflects reality that getting trans* people to show up for this is like pulling teeth. No comment on why that is. But it is also true that there is a shortage of trans* speakers who are really articulate and persuasive in a setting like that. To quote something that Kylar Broadus (director of the transgender civil rights project at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) once told me: "we don't have a very deep bench." But we need to do better. And since this is about trans* lives, trans* people really need to take a much more active role.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
* The issue of bathrooms came up early and often. It was handled in a surprisingly thorough manner. Most of the predictable points from the opponents came out (we're putting women in danger, they're being harassed, men are pretended to be transgender to get access, we need unisex facilities not access, etc.) But the response was surprisingly thorough also. The point was made that jurisdictions that have protections in place have not seen such problems, as well as that we need someplace to go, that we are more likely to be harassed than anyone else, that men who want to invade female spaces can do it now, and that there currently is no law in Maryland against using the opposite sex bathroom, so this law will offer predators no protections that aren't already there.
I was happy that the bills supporters seemed better prepared on bathrooms than in years past.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
* In my opinion, the most glaring omission on our part was a failure to educate about the biological nature of our condition. One of the senators asked what was gender identity, and much was made of it being "a feeling", which skeptics equated with something changeable.
This is a tough one to deal with. First of all, is it really relevant to why trans* people should be protected? I don't think so. Secondly, despite the opinions of some trans* people, those biological origins are really not well understood. Not even well enough to definitively say that it is biological in origin. So there are people who feel that it's a birth defect, an intersex condition, a matter of neuro-anatomy, or other theories. But others disagree. And the science has not reached a conclusion.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 04, 2014, 07:14:59 PM
* The most peculiar outcome was a senator who last year had come out strongly against public accommodation protections, hammering opponents on the bathroom issue and basically single-handedly dismantling their arguments. Even people who had been involved for a long time were at a loss to explain it, though no one dared suggest that maybe he'd changed his mind about us.
Senator Brochin seemed to waver in his opposition a little bit last year, but he ultimately came back to voting against the bill. This year at the beginning of the hearing, I thought he seemed even more strongly opposed and even more preoccupied with bathrooms. But by the end, he was asking questions that I'd expect from a supporter. I've had my hopes dashed enough times that I don't want to get them up again. But who knows?
In case anyone is interested, I posted my testimony before the committee:
https://soundcloud.com/suzifrommd/vlc-record-02-05-09h54m35s (https://soundcloud.com/suzifrommd/vlc-record-02-05-09h54m35s)