Transgender Rights and Gay "Marriage" Bills Drown Under Pressure
http://knowthyfactsnotthyneighbors.blogspot.com/2008/03/transgender-rights-and-gay-marriage.html (http://knowthyfactsnotthyneighbors.blogspot.com/2008/03/transgender-rights-and-gay-marriage.html)
Bill H1722, the Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill, was stopped in the Judiciary Committee today as massive amounts of pressure from Pro-Family organizations took the legs right out from under this sub-human piece of legislation.
Also, Bills: H1710, S918, which would officially legalize same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts was also stopped in the Judiciary Committee today.
I think what we need to do is come up with a better definition for:
"gender identity or expression"
We already follow a sort of self imposed process called the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care. Perhaps we should provide a mechanism to show that we are following these standards during transition. As much as I hate it, it would mean that you would carry a card or letter to establish yourself as a transgender person. It would show that you are following well established standards and that you are not just a "man in a dress" because you decided you wanted to go into a women's restroom on that day.
This seems to be their greatest argument against much of the legislation such as the hate crimes bills. If we are following well established standards, that will be an argument they can no longer use. I'm sure that they'll find something else, but it will be a small step forward in achieving equal rights.
Cindi
These laws tend to go far beyond transsexual issues.
Sorry Cindi, but I agree with Tekla on this one. If we go that route, eventually transsexual people will be included at the cost of genderqueer, androgynes, and all the other forms of gender variance. We can't just keep on moving the goalposts of equality. Time to tear them down and truly fight for equality for ALL.
Well its a numbers game too, most people who would have issues under 'gender id or expression' are NOT TS.
You have a point, Lady. I would not want to exclude anyone when it comes to equal rights under the law. I'll need to change my thinking on that one.
Perhaps we need to fight for unisex toilet facilities. That would solve the "potty problem", the one that they always bring to the forefront.
If we could learn to deal with the "potty problem", they might be forced to argue the real issues of equality.
Cindi
The unisex facility is a winner. Its just hard to get a retrofit. But its easy to do in new buildings.
If unisex bathrooms are the answer then I think they should all be made unisex. Having three rooms: Men, Women and Unisex (which is what I see nowadays), seems a bad compromise to me. There's still segregation going on in these circumstances.
As I've noted before, the whole "restroom" issue that the bigots are dredging up to deny us our basic rights is based on the assumption that gender variant people are dangerous, perverted "men in dresses" and that "normal" people will be placed in compromising situations by the anti-discrimination law. That's the assumption that needs to be debunked. I believe that activists who are fighting smear tactics like that need to be very vocal about how the behaviors the bigots are scaring people with are illegal before and will still be illegal after a nondiscrimination law is passed. We need to confront the hateful stereotypes with facts and provable truth. Their lies need to be called out and named as such.
Emelye
I tend to see the three as men, woman, anyone.
There is an issue here of 'rights in conflict' that at least takes some sensitivity to address. Giving into one group at the cost of forcing another is not going to make many friends. If possible a middle course should be taken if possible. In SF all this was no big deal, passed without debate or comment. But such is not true everywhere.
I refuse to agree that people have a right to unfairly discriminate. If they did, then racial segregation would be acceptable.
Emelye