Advocates, opponents of trans rights bill to have their say on Beacon Hill

Ethan Jacobs, Feb 28, 2008

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=70904

Brace yourselves. If opponents of transgender rights have their way, the discussion at a March 4 hearing on the transgender rights bill, House Bill 1722, will be derailed in favor of dredging up age-old arguments about who gets to use which bathroom. The landmark hearing will take place before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and will mark the first time that any committee of the state legislature has heard testimony exclusively related to trans rights. The bathroom argument - essentially, that women will be harassed by men in the ladies room, an argument that was successfully employed to torpedo the Equal Rights Amendment - is an old one.

Already the anti-gay Coalition for Marriage and Family has sent an action alert to its members, warning them of the alleged dangers posed by the bill to bathroom safety. The alert called on supporters to call legislators and parrot that same argument. Meanwhile, on the fringier end of the anti-LGBT movement Amy Contrada of the group MassResistance has been slowly releasing pieces of what she purports to be a 75-page report warning against "the coming nightmare of H.B. 1722." (see"Contrada warns of trans apocalypse.")

But the advocates who drafted the bill and the lawmakers who are pushing for it say the arguments of groups like the Coalition and MassResistance are a red herring, distracting from the bill’s true purpose: to extend the state’s non-discrimination and hate crimes protections to a population that desperately needs them. In the run-up to the hearing the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) and its allies are mobilizing members of the transgender community and their supporters to testify to the discrimination the trans community faces and the impact that passing H.B. 1722 would have on addressing it.

H.B. 1722: The breakdown
Opponents of the bill have accused it of doing some outlandish things. Contrada, for instance, alleges that it would force hotels to host BDSM conferences against their will. But Laura Langley, one of the drafters of the legislation and chair of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association’s committee on transgender inclusion, gave Bay Windows a breakdown on what the language of the bill actually does. H.B. 1722 will add "gender identity and expression" to the state’s hate crimes laws. It will also add protections based on gender identity and expression to state non-discrimination laws covering education, employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations. The bill requires the inclusion of "people of diverse gender identities or expressions" on the advisory boards of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), the state’s lead civil rights agency. Finally, the bill expands the name and mission of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth to include transgender and bisexual youth.

The legislation defines the terms "gender identity and expression" to mean, "a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth."

Langley said the bill’s language intentionally casts a wide net, covering anyone who may be discriminated against because of either their gender identity or the way they express their gender.

"As with any non-discrimination statute the term that’s put in really encompasses everyone. ... By drafting it as gender identity or expression we’re including all people, whether their gender identities and expressions are stereotypically gender conforming or gender non-conforming," said Langley.

Jennifer Levi, an attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and another of the drafters of the legislation, said the language was designed to ensure that the bill would protect the wide range of members of the transgender community.

"It is intended to protect transsexual people. It is intended to protect transgender individuals who don’t take medical steps to align their gender identity with their physical expression of their gender," said Levi.
She said the bill would also protect non-transgender-identified people who do not conform to society’s gender norms, including many gay and lesbian people.

"It’s not new language. It exists in a number of states that have passed trans-inclusive laws," said Levi. Currently thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have banned discrimination based on gender identity or expression, as have the cities of Boston, Cambridge and Northampton.

According to a report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on transgender-inclusive non-discrimination laws, the scope of those laws varies state by state. Like H.B. 1722, the laws passed in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia all include protections around employment, public accommodations, housing, and education. But some of those laws go even further than the proposed Massachusetts legislation. In an interview with Bay Windows last month, MTPC steering committee chair Holly Ryan singled out the New Jersey law as the gold standard of transgender-related legislation, noting that the law contained strong provisions that addressed bullying of transgender students in schools and outlawed the use of the so-called transgender panic defense in criminal trials. "We consider that the best law," said Ryan.

On the other end of the spectrum, many of the states that have passed transgender-inclusive non-discrimination laws have not provided all the protections proposed in H.B. 1722. In Hawaii advocates pressed in 2005 for a non-discrimination bill, but Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. In her veto statement Lingle described the bill’s definition of gender identity or expression as "objectionable because it contains no limiting terms or interpretational guidelines," and contended it would likely lead to "controversy and unwarranted lawsuits." That bill’s definition of gender identity and expression was similar but somewhat broader than the definition in H.B. 1722, encompassing, "a person’s actual or perceived gender, as well as a person’s gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth."

Advocates came back in 2006 and passed a much more limited bill, focused only on public accommodations. The bill passed into law without the governor’s signature. And even without the passage of non-discrimination legislation around employment, the state’s Civil Rights Commission already interprets the state’s prohibition on sex discrimination in the workplace as providing some protection to transgender people. MCAD has issued similar rulings in Massachusetts, but advocates say legislation is needed to ensure clarity and consistency in enforcing non-discrimination protections.

Opponents conjure terror in the toilet
In its January action alert, the Coalition for Marriage and Family, which led the charge against same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in its previous incarnation as VoteOnMarriage.org, claimed that passing H.B. 1722 would threaten the safety of women and children. The alert said the bill "threatens bathroom and locker room safety" by "creating the potential for a wave of access by those claiming to be transgender into gender-specific areas like public bathrooms." The alert urged supporters to contact the legislature and make that same argument.

That same month MFI released a statement explaining its opposition to H.B. 1722 using the same rationale, saying, "Women and children have a right to feel safe in their person when they access public rest rooms, locker rooms and bath houses at parks, recreational areas and other venues. This legislation potentially compromises that safety by, among other things, blurring the distinction of who may enter a ’women’s room.’"

Gunner Scott, chair of MTPC, said the claim that H.B. 1722 would put women and children at risk for harm is unfounded.

"Clearly this law is not going to allow anyone to harass someone in a bathroom. If someone harasses someone in a bathroom they still have to face criminal charges," said Scott. He said transgender people themselves often face threats to their safety when using public bathrooms and other facilities and this law is meant to help protect them.

To neutralize the Coalition’s argument MTPC has secured support from some high-profile allies. Jane Doe, Inc., the state’s coalition of organizations working against sexual assault and domestic violence, and the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) released a joint statement to lawmakers announcing their support for H.B. 1722 and arguing that the legislation poses no danger to women. The statement accuses the Coalition of using scare tactics to try to derail transgender rights legislation. (See "Jane Doe and Mass. NOW tackle the bathroom argument.")

"For [the Coalition] to deliberately create an unfounded fear about women’s safety, while simultaneously ignoring the serious threats to safety experienced by many transgender and gender non-conforming people in the Commonwealth, is disgraceful," reads the statement, in part.

Levi said beyond safety the objections by the Coalition also seem to be rooted in the discomfort people may feel sharing bathroom and locker room facilities with transgender people.

"Discomfort has often been the reason why people oppose non-discrimination laws. ... It’s never been a justification for not prohibiting discrimination," said Levi.

Langley said that the law would not threaten the establishment of separate bathrooms or locker room facilities for men and women, or the establishment of men-only or women-only gyms. But under H.B. 1722 those facilities would have to open their doors to anyone who identifies as and lives as the gender that they serve. A transgender person who identifies as a particular gender would be entitled to use bathroom, locker room and other single-sex facilities for that gender, regardless of whether or not they have had surgery or are taking hormones.

"It would be an incredible invasion of privacy to say we require that we check people’s hormone levels or their genitals before they enter a bathroom," said Langley.

Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville), one of the bill’s two lead sponsors, said in his conversations with other lawmakers they have not been swayed by the bathroom argument, particularly once they learn that the bill will not lessen the criminal penalties for harassment and assault in restrooms.

"Some of our opponents have put out what I would say are red herring issues, and legislators are smarter than that," said Sciortino. "The bill adds to the protection of all citizens and it doesn’t protect anyone from engaging in criminal behavior. ... Once we make that point to our colleagues, to other legislators, they understand that, and this really is a red herring issue."

Garrity: Thirty-five years in the women's movement

Cheryl Garrity, Jan 22, 2008

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/x415746570

1973 was not solely the year women gained control of their bodies.

Billy Jean King publicly beat Bobby Riggs, scoring an enormous victory for female athletes and encouraging young women to pursue sports with equal funding under Title IX. The first battered women's shelters opened in the U.S. as women continued to support each other while working to change the laws that sanctioned violence against women.

Women were finally gaining entrance to medical schools, law schools, and the construction trades. Women were given opportunities that had been denied them for hundreds of years by pushing open the doors previously sealed shut. The landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and its progeny reflect the course of women's rights in the last 35 years and our struggle for equality.

Opportunities were not handed to women - nor can we trust they will continue to be available to women. Whether reproductive health, economic opportunities, or educational pursuits, women continually need to organize, maintain a strong grassroots effort and pursue equality by bringing lawsuits, advocating for legislative change, and educating the public.

Change takes tremendous time and effort, often requiring a monumental shift of public opinion on the role of women in society and their abilities. It often feels that we take two steps forward only to take one step back due to the backlash of those who do not want women to be equal or to have opportunities.

Almost immediately following Roe, laws were passed denying some women their reproductive rights. Funding was denied low income women and women working in the military or government, young women were denied access, and rural women were forced to wait. As if the legal restrictions were not sufficient, anti-choice zealots terrorized women entering clinics, killed abortion providers, and continued to erect obstacles for women seeking access. By 2003, the first federal ban on an abortion procedure was signed by George Bush surrounded by a group of smiling men.

Just as we have continued to fight for our reproductive freedom, we have also had to continue to fight for our economic freedoms. While progress has been made, we have had to remain vigilant to ensure that women are even considered for government appointments, that anti-discrimination laws remain effective, and that female athletes are funded equally. We have had to fight severe restrictions on public support for low income women and their families when anti-welfare reform laws swept the country.

While our work appears incrementally slow at times, when given the time to reflect, it is clear that public opinion has tremendously changed over the past 35 years.

In 2007, we have a viable woman candidate for President leading in the public opinion polls. And while Hillary Clinton deserves praise in her own right, she was given this opportunity through the work of millions of women in the last three decades and the support of thousands of more women today. Across generations, women will continue to pursue equality in all spheres of our lives. We will not go back!

Cheryl Garrity was president of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women (Mass NOW) from 1995 to 1999. She is a practicing attorney in Burlington, MA.

The Selling and Selling Out of Women

Victoria Steinberg, Jan 20, 2008

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/
2008/01/20/the_selling_and_selling_out_of_women/

To the Editor:

There is so much one can say about prostitution. It is a vulnerable and dangerous way of life for women, sometimes leading to physical violence and even death. It disproportionately draws in women who are downtrodden - drug-addicted, poor, or desperate. It holds a mirror up to our society, where many women cannot obtain or sustain jobs with decent wages, and instead choose to sell their bodies to the highest bidder.

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, most prostitutes have been victimized at some point in their lives by sexual violence.

"Arresting activity"discuss any of this. Instead, it painted a picture of gullible women chased by police officers. The law-enforcement officials you spotlight seem utterly unapologetic about arresting the people who sell sex while letting the purchasers, who may be just as guilty of engaging in a crime, off the hook. Would Woburn detective Bob Rufo, who feels that "it's embarrassing enough" for the men buying sex, consider letting the prostitute walk in exchange for information about the men who are violating M.G.L. 272, Section 53A?

Whether one agrees with the current state of prostitution laws, surely it is beyond debate that our law enforcement is charged with equally enforcing the law.

VICTORIA STEINBERG
Copresident
Massachusetts chapter National Organization for Women
Boston

Offensive Transgender Article

Victoria Steinberg, Gunner Scott, Jan 19, 2008.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1605807035

To the Editor:

Your article, "'Very Feminine' Man Snared in Prostitution Ring," (Jan. 14) offended the transgender community - and all of us who support that community - from the title to the last word.

A transgender person is someone whose gender identity or expression differs from the sex he or she was assigned at birth. The facts you reported in your story suggest that the correct pronoun to use for DeMoura is "she."

If you are unsure, you should ask her. To that request for a very basic recognition of the right to self-identify, we would add our opinion that despite her alleged crime, your article needlessly and shamelessly sensationalized DeMoura's arrest.

Many newspapers and media services around the country, including the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Washington Post, have adopted guidelines to ensure respectful and accurate reporting about transgender individuals. We suggest that you do the same. Here are a few places to start: www.glaad.org/media/guide/transfocus.php or apstylebook.com.

We hope that you will publish this letter to expose your readers to another perspective on the reporting of issues related to transgender people. More importantly, we ask that you issue a correction to your article and commit to adopting guidelines for future articles in order to assure that your reporting provides inoffensive, accurate facts to your readership.

Lastly, we hope that your publication plans to cover with equal zeal the positive and encouraging steps toward equality that the trans community is taking, through its work on antidiscrimination and hate crimes legislation. We'll keep our eyes out.

GUNNER SCOTT, director, Mass. Transgender Political Coalition

VICKY STEINBERG, co-president, Mass. National Organization for Women

---

Photos

---

2005 Clothes Line Project Exhibit	2005 Clothes Line Project Exhibit
Mass. NOW Activists at a rally in Nashville, TN during the 2005 National NOW Conference	Mass. NOW Executive Board at the 2005 State Conference with Legislator of the Year Representative Elizabeth Malia.
Mass. NOW Activists at a rally in Nashville, TN during the 2005 National NOW Conference	Mass. NOW and Boston NOW gathering.