I'm going to be speaking at a council meeting in favor of a bill to add gender orientation and gender identity to a local community's non-discrimination ordinances.  (Nondiscrimination in housing, finance, education, ...)

I'm a talky sort, so staying down to 3 minutes, rather than frelancing 300 or so minutes, is going to be a challenge.

Any advice on form or content is welcome.

Assuming you are in the US.  I'd personally say:

• It's about freedom.  It's not freedom to restrict other people to things you are comfortable with, but it is freedom to allow full expression of ones' self.  Cite the WHO guidelines, statements from medical professionals, etc, that indicate it is also appropriate medical treatment for many people to live in ways that others might not approve.
• It's about safety.  Cite some of the studies on transgender safety.  Talk about homelessness, problems with police (in other jurisdictions).
• It's about money.  Most major companies have non-discrimination policies and in choosing where to locate staff and offices, they look at these things.  Talk about how people being unable to be hired places a burden on social institutions and the government, when these people have valuable skills to offer.  Talk about turning people living on government funds into taxpayers.

Be prepared to counter the bathroom arguments - "Girls will be molested by guys wearing dresses who go into the women's room.").  If this comes up, talk about safety - use statistics if you can.  Talk about wanting the bathrooms safe for everyone, including trans people.  Talk about existing state laws if they cover bathrooms ("This law won't change bathroom practices.  State law already...").  Talk about the danger a transwoman faces in using the men's room.

Be prepared to counter, "I'm a Christian, and my beliefs don't allow me to rent a room in my house to those kinds of people."  (The law probably won't cover a room, but probably would cover an independent unit with its' own bathroom and kitchen).  Talk about how the law already provides protection to people who might follow other religions and practice their religion in the unit - and ask people to consider how that is different from someone who lives differently than they would like.  Point out federal law already prohibits, under the fair housing act, discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Be prepared to counter, "Your going to make my church ..."  Let them know that you recognize the religious freedom of others and so does the law - that the law recognizes the right of churches to discriminate in the pursuit of their religion.  But that doesn't mean that government can't and shouldn't make laws that apply to businesses and government.  Ask for specific examples of where Churches in other jurisdictions have needed to violate their principles when this type of law was passed (be prepared for "Canada throws pastors in jail for quoting verses about homosexuality" - no, they don't; be prepared for "A church in New Jersey was forced to allow same sex weddings" - no, they weren't, it was quite  a bit more complex than that; be prepared for "A religious bread and breakfast in Hawaii was forced to rent accommodations to a gay couple" - that case is still under review).

There will be lots of "my girl will not be safe", "my little boy will find out gay people exist" (yes, I know you aren't talking about sexual orientation, but these people think trans = gay), "God says homosexuality is sin", and "my Church should have the right to make its' own decisions."

Sorry, I should have said: Yes, it's in the US, Baltimore County.  http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/countycouncil/legislation/07pending.html for the bill itself.  It is both for gays and for transgenders (and my son is both).

You make good points.  The bathroom molestation one has already come up and out publicly.  A nearby county passed a few years ago a measure similar to what Baltimore County introduced.  An opponent said in the initial reading that since the other county passed their bill, 4 girls had been raped this way.  The county police involved promptly answered that, in fact, the number was zero.  Blind hate and paranoia is bad enough, but bearing false witness really peeves me.

The law does cover 'public accommodations'.  But what that means probably varies pretty strongly between and within states.

I'm trying to decide how to balance between addressing the liars and saying something new.  It isn't a back and forth session, which I'd be more comfortable with, much less one without time limits.

You really want to bring up John Stuart Mill and tyranny of the majority.


The point is that people tend to think America is about "democracy"  meaning majority rule.  But it is not.  America is a republic.   Say the pledge I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands."


This country has only been around for about 250 years.  In that time it has become one of the greatest countries in the world.  And this is because when the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights they made sure that they looked out for ways that abuse of power could be used to oppress.  One of the ideas they really looked into was Tyranny of Majority.   If the majority votes on the rights of the minority,  and the minority is discriminated against,  the minority will never be free.   

John Stuart Mill stated

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. (p. 9)




America is one of the greatest countries in the world, because it honors the individual and recognizes the importance of personal liberty.  This country is designed so that if ONE PERSON can prove that they are being discriminated against, or oppressed because of bias,   they can change the law.  They can create a liberty that effects not just one life,  but all of our lives.   We are a beautiful country because we are willing to listen.  We are willing to learn.  We are willing to grow.  We might not always be on the right path in the beginning.  But this country gets there eventually.  We always have and we always will.   And so if we consider the limitations of binary gender identification,  we understand that we are oppressing the minority because of the ways of the majority.   In the past it seemed that it was not that big of a deal.  It wasn't so important.  But as we have begun to discuss this, we see that more and more people are coming forward to voice their own sense of identity and liberty.  They explain for us the many who have passed away alone and adrift in a world in which there was no space for them.  Now this space can begin to be made.  One little check box at a time.   We can honor those in our community who live a reality and an existence that is outside of the majority.  And we can let them know that they are not going to be marginalized nor ignored.   Rather we will create a space where they are free to be who they are meant to be,  without prejudice, without oppression but with liberty.   

Let's talk about technique.  You can have the best message in the world and if you deliver it poorly, it will be largely ignored.

On the other hand, you could recite your laundry list, and if you do it well, you will be listened to.  Case in point: look at the current president.

3 minute talk

First 30 seconds: Tell them who you are and why you are there.
Next 30 seconds: Tell them what your issue is, in outline form.
Next 1 1/2 minutes: Make three important points, with a couple of supporting statements for each one.  About 30 seconds each.
Last 30 seconds: Recap your points and thank them for listening.

1. Tell them what you're going to tell them
2. Tell them
3. Tell them what you told them

Quote from: cisdad on January 30, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
I'm going to be speaking at a council meeting in favor of a bill to add gender orientation and gender identity to a local community's non-discrimination ordinances.  (Nondiscrimination in housing, finance, education, ...)

I'm a talky sort, so staying down to 3 minutes, rather than frelancing 300 or so minutes, is going to be a challenge.

Any advice on form or content is welcome.

I suspect it won't take more than 5 seconds to loose most of the council.... Good luck, try bringing up the ideal that it is not american to Hate each other.

Sorry about the really late response.

My 3 minutes turned in to 2 minutes -- there was a very large crowd signing up to speak.  About 60 my wife and I estimated.  Our guess was about 2:1 in favor of the bill.

One of the better-received comments of mine was observing that employers, particularly in the tech industries, were relatively good about trans rights and the county wanted high tech companies to be locating there.

titsup: We actually held the council pretty well.  The bill had 4-3 support on introduction, and passed 5-2 in the final vote.  (!)
I  decided to go for 'love each other' -- since the opposition was claiming religious purposes, I pointed out what Christ had to say.  And then mentioned that the bill, and I, weren't going nearly that far -- merely not to discriminate against people.

Jamie D: I've used the 'tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you told them' outline before, more frequently in longer talks.  In what turned out to be 2 minutes, not so much chance.  Aside from that, I did pretty much take your line.

mixie: On Liberty is a favorite of mine too.  The thing about tyranny of the majority is that some people, which coincidentally is often the same ones who want to discriminate against gay or transgendered people, are enthusiastically in favor of it.  They're the majority, and they don't _want_ those 'others' to be who they are or live how they choose.  Or at least they think they're the majority.