April 26, 2008
Halted anti-discrimination bill must be pushed forward
They live their lives just like anyone else. They work, go to school and pay their bills. Yet many of them live in misery - either shunned and hated for who they are or forced to keep their lives secret for fear of being hated - because they are transvestites and transgenders.
The Gender Identity Bill, 23-07, passed by the Montgomery County Council last November, seemed to promise to ease the troubles of those with gender identity disorder. The bill adds gender identity, or an individual's self-conception as male or female, to the county's many categories of non-discrimination laws, preventing discrimination against transgenders or cross dressers in housing, employment and public accommodations. This legislation is neither new nor shocking, and the passage of the Gender Identity Bill added Montgomery County to the list of over 100 jurisdictions that include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws.
Dana Beyer, senior policy analyst for Maryland Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, understands firsthand the torments that come with being transgender. Beyer made her formal transition in January 2003, but says that she knew she did not identify with her physical gender at age seven. She feels "relatively blessed," but still, she says she has lived in "psychological misery." According to Beyer, many of her friends' and colleagues' lives have also been plagued with disorder; some of her acquaintances have been thrown out of their homes, unable to find jobs or fired simply because they were transgenders. "The lives [of the transgender] are always at risk for hate crime," she said. According to Hate Crimes Bill, an organization dedicated to supporting bills against hate crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgenders (LGBT), 16 percent of hate crimes committed in the United States are against LGBTs.
Transgenders and cross dressers are people just like anyone else, and the Gender Identity Bill, if implemented, would outlaw discrimination and alleviate some of the pains and difficulties in their lives. Unfortunately, the bill's proposal last September, inflamed opponents have fought long and hard to keep it from being passed. After the County Council and County Executive Ike Leggett (D) approved the law, one of the bill's opponents, the conservative group Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG), collected enough signatures on a referendum petition to put the bill on hold. On March 7, the Board of Elections (BOE) certified 32,000 signatures, with only 25,001 required to pass a referendum petition, on the CRG's petition.
The major opponents of the legislation argue that it is immoral for the bill to allow "biological men" into women's locker rooms and bathrooms. The proposed bill originally contained a clause that allowed persons equal use of locker rooms and similar facilities based on their perceived gender identity. However, this section was removed before Leggett approved the bill, and the current legislation now contains no language that deals specifically with these types of public facilities. According to Beyer, no laws – in any states, districts or localities – exist that deal with which biological gender enters which bathroom. Opponents of the bill only use the now outdated locker room clause as a way to whip up controversy, when really their problems lie in other sections.
Being a "biological" man or woman goes beyond just having the corresponding body parts. A person's mindset, or idea of what gender they are, influences their preferred lifestyle. This mindset is the dominant factor affecting the way they live their life, not what their physical appearances demand. Anyone should be able to live the life they want to have; being a transgender or transvestite is simply a lifestyle decision. Discrimination against the transgender because of this decision is baseless – no one has the ability to dictate how someone else should live his or her life.
After the Board of Elections approved the CRG's petition, proponents of the bill sued, and a trial has been set for June 11 and 12, where a Maryland Circuit Court judge will determine whether the signatures will be thrown out. Should the judge reject the signatures, the bill will not make its way to referendum this November. Beyer said that historically, it has been very difficult to get bills on referendum, and the transgender bill will likely be no exception. "There are high standards to be met," she said, citing the strict rules in the states of the law that make repealing especially difficult.
The entirety of the bill has no clause and no section that should be objectionable. The legislation simply adds gender identity to the categories in the existing non-discrimination laws, some of which include race, gender and disabilities. People with gender identity disorder are entitled to the basic rights - equal opportunity hiring, housing and public services - that this bill protects. They should have the freedom to live their lives without fear of harassment and hate crimes.
The bill's standstill due to the CRG's petition and the back-and-forth court action need to end, allowing the bill to finally be enacted. Discrimination against transgenders is just as unethical, egregious and baseless as discrimination based on race, gender or disability, and these practices must be stopped.
The Gender Identity Bill, 23-07, passed by the Montgomery County Council last November, seemed to promise to ease the troubles of those with gender identity disorder. The bill adds gender identity, or an individual's self-conception as male or female, to the county's many categories of non-discrimination laws, preventing discrimination against transgenders or cross dressers in housing, employment and public accommodations. This legislation is neither new nor shocking, and the passage of the Gender Identity Bill added Montgomery County to the list of over 100 jurisdictions that include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws.
Dana Beyer, senior policy analyst for Maryland Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, understands firsthand the torments that come with being transgender. Beyer made her formal transition in January 2003, but says that she knew she did not identify with her physical gender at age seven. She feels "relatively blessed," but still, she says she has lived in "psychological misery." According to Beyer, many of her friends' and colleagues' lives have also been plagued with disorder; some of her acquaintances have been thrown out of their homes, unable to find jobs or fired simply because they were transgenders. "The lives [of the transgender] are always at risk for hate crime," she said. According to Hate Crimes Bill, an organization dedicated to supporting bills against hate crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgenders (LGBT), 16 percent of hate crimes committed in the United States are against LGBTs.
Transgenders and cross dressers are people just like anyone else, and the Gender Identity Bill, if implemented, would outlaw discrimination and alleviate some of the pains and difficulties in their lives. Unfortunately, the bill's proposal last September, inflamed opponents have fought long and hard to keep it from being passed. After the County Council and County Executive Ike Leggett (D) approved the law, one of the bill's opponents, the conservative group Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG), collected enough signatures on a referendum petition to put the bill on hold. On March 7, the Board of Elections (BOE) certified 32,000 signatures, with only 25,001 required to pass a referendum petition, on the CRG's petition.
The major opponents of the legislation argue that it is immoral for the bill to allow "biological men" into women's locker rooms and bathrooms. The proposed bill originally contained a clause that allowed persons equal use of locker rooms and similar facilities based on their perceived gender identity. However, this section was removed before Leggett approved the bill, and the current legislation now contains no language that deals specifically with these types of public facilities. According to Beyer, no laws – in any states, districts or localities – exist that deal with which biological gender enters which bathroom. Opponents of the bill only use the now outdated locker room clause as a way to whip up controversy, when really their problems lie in other sections.
Being a "biological" man or woman goes beyond just having the corresponding body parts. A person's mindset, or idea of what gender they are, influences their preferred lifestyle. This mindset is the dominant factor affecting the way they live their life, not what their physical appearances demand. Anyone should be able to live the life they want to have; being a transgender or transvestite is simply a lifestyle decision. Discrimination against the transgender because of this decision is baseless – no one has the ability to dictate how someone else should live his or her life.
After the Board of Elections approved the CRG's petition, proponents of the bill sued, and a trial has been set for June 11 and 12, where a Maryland Circuit Court judge will determine whether the signatures will be thrown out. Should the judge reject the signatures, the bill will not make its way to referendum this November. Beyer said that historically, it has been very difficult to get bills on referendum, and the transgender bill will likely be no exception. "There are high standards to be met," she said, citing the strict rules in the states of the law that make repealing especially difficult.
The entirety of the bill has no clause and no section that should be objectionable. The legislation simply adds gender identity to the categories in the existing non-discrimination laws, some of which include race, gender and disabilities. People with gender identity disorder are entitled to the basic rights - equal opportunity hiring, housing and public services - that this bill protects. They should have the freedom to live their lives without fear of harassment and hate crimes.
The bill's standstill due to the CRG's petition and the back-and-forth court action need to end, allowing the bill to finally be enacted. Discrimination against transgenders is just as unethical, egregious and baseless as discrimination based on race, gender or disability, and these practices must be stopped.
Discuss this Article
I would like to thank you for your thoughtful essay, and to thank you for your accurate portrayal of the larger issue.
I would like to point out a few basic facts that are often confused by many without the relevant experience.
The word "transvestite" is no longer used, as it is an old German psychopathologic term that has gone through several changes over the past hundred years. It's considered demeaning; the word "cross-dresser" which you later used, is the acceptable, neutral term today.
"Transgender" is not a noun, but an adjective, similar to the common use of the term "gay."
The law really is not targeted at cross-dressers, who do so intermittently and for whom gender expression is not a part of their legal identity. The law, however, does protect those, gay or straight, whose gender expression runs afoul of gender norms, and it turns out that it is the non-transgender population that is more often subject to harassment in bathrooms, for instance.
The right wing uses the term "biological" very narrowly only to refer to genitalia, when in reality it refers to a host of anatomic and physiological factors, including genes, chromosomes, hormones and hormone receptors, reproductive anatomy and physiology, secondary sex characteristics and, most importantly, brain sex. That's why the use of the term "mindset" and the concomitant use of "preferred lifestyle" misses the most important point. This isn't a mindset, which implies opinions which can be subject to change, but to a hard-wired sense of oneself on the most profound level, a sense that is grounded in brain structure. And there is no lifestyle involved here, either, beyond the lifestyle that men and women lead in this and other societies, and choose to overlay on the fundamental sense of self as male or female. Just as being gay is in no sense fundamentally about lifestyle -- a gay man can be a typical suburban guy who is a member of the Republican party -- trans men and women are men and women with unusual gender histories, no doubt, but with the same needs and desires of men and women who are not trans.
Thank you very much for bringing this to the attention of your readership in such a thoughtful and passionate manner.
Why would highlighting gender differences be baseless? Being male or female already have many unchangeable, undeniable differences. And I don't just mean the physical aspects, but the mental, emotional, and psychological ones as well.
Second, you state that people with gender identity issues should not be treated differently from other people. Why? People who smoke must be separated from people who don't smoke, when it really bugs non-smokers to breath in that intoxicating smoke. Don't tell me it's different - people may not like people walking around saying they're the opposite sex, thereby sending the wrong kind of message to possible children nearby.
Times may be changing according to political correctness, but to be honest, seeing two guys kissing each other is disturbing, seeing a guy and girl kissing is natural. To me, this is sending a clear message. We can't force people to change how they live; but we can't allow them to act in public in ways that send the wrong message.
And for those who might find two girls kissing or an effeminate man disturbing, realize that some people from other cultures would find you\it disturbing or strange what society sometimes tells men and women to supposedly act like. All cultures have two sexes (with the few exceptions who are intersex) but in other societies, the men can act like women are supposed to here, the women can act like men are supposed to here, both can act like men, both can act like women, and some cultures have three equal genders.
There is a huge variety when it comes to gender, and a lot of it is a social construct. Therefore, one set of genitals doesn't and shouldn't lock you in to some pre-prescribed way of acting.
Well, people who don't like cross-walkers walking around would just have to deal with it and accept it the same way people eventually in the US accepted African Americans as equal race, because it's not what you decide one morning you want to be. It's not cross-dressers fault they feel this way, while smokers decide they want to smoke.
And on the issue of kissing. I personally wouldn't want anybody kissing near my kids, even a guy and a girl. And also what seems "natural" doesn't mean it's the only way it should be. People are different, you cannot force them to be all the same and do what's "natural", because "natural" is different for everybody.
Common people, it's 21st century, you should get used to be open-minded.