Transgender rights bill ‘unfairly skewed,’ MCC says

[Zoe_Brain]

From The Pilot, Official Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston:

The proposed Transgender Rights Bill, which is being discussed by lawmakers on Beacon Hill, would add gender identity and expression to the state’s existing anti-discrimination and hate crimes statutes.

Proponents claim the bill is a necessary civil rights legislation due to perceived high rates of discrimination against and a lack of legal protection for the transgender community.

Others, including the state’s Catholic bishops, say the bill is vaguely worded, over-broad and could have far reaching consequences such as prohibiting gender-specific activities at schools – including sport teams – and the elimination of gender-based privacy rules in public accommodations such as restrooms, changing areas or locker rooms.

Other provisions of the bill include increased penalties for assaults deemed to target an individual because of transgender status, forbidding schools from discriminating based on gender identity and expression in admissions and activity participation policies, making it illegal to deny entry to public facilities based on gender expression or identification, and expanding the scope of existing state commissions that prevent discrimination and serve gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth.

 

[Ahimsa]

From The Pilot, Official Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston:

Interesting bill.
How would the bill address this scenario: a genetically male person decides to dress in feminine clothing, and claims to be a female, as well as lesbian; and therefore claims the right to use the women’s facilities; while at the same time, remaining phenotypically male.

 

[adrift]

In Colorado they may not be barred from a women’s bathroom.

 

[DianeGee]

State morality!

 

[Ahimsa]

State morality!

So the state shouldn’t get involved in morality?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

So the state shouldn’t get involved in morality?

By all means. I’m just wondering how they can possibly justify denying Trans and Intersexed people the same rights that Gays already have now.

Or Catholics, for that matter.

The intellectual sommersaults that must be performed to come to the conclusion that those born with ambiguous genitalia are morally corrupt compared to homosexuals must be something to see.

Either that or it’s just rabid xenophobia, using religion as a rationalisation for it.

 

[rlg94086]

By all means. I’m just wondering how they can possibly justify denying Trans and Intersexed people the same rights that Gays already have now.

Or Catholics, for that matter.

The intellectual sommersaults that must be performed to come to the conclusion that those born with ambiguous genitalia are morally corrupt compared to homosexuals must be something to see.

Either that or it’s just rabid xenophobia, using religion as a rationalisation for it.

I think you are being unfair to the statement by the bishops. They are complaining about the wording of the bill and the consequences that would follow. Also, you are talking about a conclusion of those with “ambiguous genitalia.” The bill is not confined to the intersexed:

…the bill’s prohibitions against discrimination are too broadly defined to include all forms of gender expression, which are to be protected even when the identity does not correspond to one’s biological gender.

He also said that the bill raises important policy concerns because it would allow admission to “sex-specific” programs or facilities based on arbitrary gender identification, and would allow anybody to identify with any gender at any moment, broadening the current Supreme Court’s definition of a transgender individual as “one who has ‘[a] rare psychiatric disorder in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex,’ and who typically seeks medical treatment, including hormonal therapy and surgery, to bring about a permanent sex change.”

I think there are valid concerns about the bill.

 

[St_Francis]

The concerns expressed seems similar to the concerns expressed about the AZ bill regarding illegal immigrants.

 

[Ahimsa]

The concerns expressed seems similar to the concerns expressed about the AZ bill regarding illegal immigrants.

What if the illegal immigrant is transgender?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I think there are valid concerns about the bill.

What, exactly?

You see… the bill’s very simple. It adds “gender identity” to the list of characteristics that you’re not permitted to persecute people for.

So instead of

because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation

You’ll have

because of the race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity

That’s it. That’s all there is.

OK, so perhaps there’s some hidden gotcha in this novel and revolutionary piece of legislation. One no other jurisdiction has adopted. Well, no other jurisdiction apart from:

2007 State of Colorado
State of Iowa
Lake Worth, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Palm Beach County, FL
State of Oregon
Saugatuck, MI
State of Vermont
West Palm Beach, FL
2006 Bloomington, IN
Cincinnati, OH
Easton, PA
Ferndale, MI
Hillsboro, OR
Johnson County, IA
King County, WA
Lansdowne, PA
Lansing, MI
State of New Jersey
Swarthmore, PA
State of Washington
West Chester, PA
2005 Gulfport, FL
State of Illinois
Indianapolis, IN
Lincoln City, OR
State of Maine
Northampton, MA
Washington, DC
2004 Albany, NY
Austin, TX
Beaverton, OR
Bend, OR
Burien, WA
Oakland, CA
Miami Beach, FL
Tompkins County, NY
2003 State of California
State of New Mexico
Carbondale, IL
Covington, KY
El Paso, TX
Ithaca, NY
Key West, FL
Lake Oswego, OR
Monroe Co., FL
Oakland, CA
Peoria, IL
San Diego, CA
Scranton, PA
Springfield, IL
University City, MO
2002 Allentown, PA
Baltimore, MD
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Chicago, IL
Cook County, IL
Dallas, TX
Decatur, IL
East Lansing, MI
Erie County, PA
New Hope, PA
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Salem, OR
Tacoma, WA
2001 Denver, CO
Huntington Woods, MI
Multnomah Co., OR
State of Rhode Island
Rochester, NY
Suffolk County, NY
2000 Atlanta, GA
Boulder, CO
DeKalb, IL
Madison, WI
Portland, OR
1999 Ann Arbor, MI
Jefferson County, KY
Lexington-Fayette Co., KY
Louisville, KY
Tucson, AZ
1998 Benton County, OR
Santa Cruz County, CA
New Orleans, LA
Toledo, OH
West Hollywood, CA
York, PA
1997 Cambridge, MA
Evanston, IL
Olympia, WA
Pittsburgh, PA
Ypsilanti, MI
1996 Iowa City, IA
1994 Grand Rapids, MI
San Francisco, CA
1993 State of Minnesota
1992 Santa Cruz, CA
1990 St. Paul, MN
1986 Seattle, WA
1983 Harrisburg, PA
1979 Los Angeles, CA.
Urbana, IL
1977 Champaign, IL
1975 Minneapolis, MN

Note the bit in bold. Yes, the Archdiocese of Boston is objecting to legislation that has been in place for seven years in Boston itself. With no problems. They don’t even appear to be aware of it. Surely if there would have been genuine issues, one would have appeared in the 35 years since the first such legislation was put into practice? Surely they would have said “As we have found here in Boston, with such legislation in place…”?

But they can’t. If ever there was a piece of legislation that had been thoroughly tested to make sure that it worked, this is it. Such legislation already covers over 38% of the US population - including Boston - with none of the problems they’re supposedly concerned about. Quite a few cities and counties have added such legislation in 2008, 2009, and 2010, but I don’t have the data to hand. Last week was Leon County, Florida. Three weeks before, Missoula County, Montana. Logan County Utah is expected to be next. Not exactly hotbeds of radical progressive thinking, are they?

One more thing:

the current Supreme Court’s definition of a transgender individual as “one who has ‘[a] rare psychiatric disorder in which a person feels persistently uncomfortable about his or her anatomical sex,’ and who typically seeks medical treatment, including hormonal therapy and surgery, to bring about a permanent sex change.”

That (obsolete) definition is from the American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine 1066, dated 1989, quoted in Farmer vs Brennan (1994) - and applies to Transsexuals, not the Transgendered. It’s not the one the AMA uses now.

A definition 21 years old, of a different word, by a Supreme Court with a different makeup. Not exactly “current” is it?

Ironically, the SCOTUS finding in Farmer vs Brennan supports this legislation. They sort of forgot to mention that too.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The view of the Episcopal Bishops - compare and contrast:

April 30, 2010

The Hon. Deval L. Patrick Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
State House,
Room 360 Boston, MA 02108

Dear Governor Patrick,

We write to express our strong support for an act to add gender
expression and identity to our Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination and
hate crimes laws, and to ask you to work to ensure its passage.

As bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, our eyes are
open to the realities of transgender people and their families. Many
of them serve faithfully in the congregations and ministries of our
diocese, as lay people, as deacons and as priests. They are dedicated
and loving parents, children, siblings, friends and community leaders.
Again and again, we hear how they have struggled against incredible
odds and pressures to be true to their identity as beloved children of
God, made in the image of God.

It pains us that even as transgender people claim their identities and
step into newness of life, they face discrimination and violence that
undermines their human dignity. A November 2009 survey by the National
Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force found that 97 percent of respondents had been harassed or
mistreated on the job, and 26 percent had been fired for being
transgender. You will recall that in November 1998, an Allston
transgender woman, Rita Hester, was murdered and her killer never
found. This local tragedy led to an annual Nov. 20 international
Transgender Day of Remembrance, for transgender people who have died,
especially those who have been killed or taken their own lives. It is
fitting that our state should model amendment of life and hope for a
future that is better than this sad past.

Adding gender identity and expression to the state’s nondiscrimination
and hate crimes laws is no isolated concern of a special interest
group. The disproportionate suffering of transgender people should
grieve the hearts of all who love justice and liberty. Both the
Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and the General Convention of the
Episcopal Church are on record in support of full equality for
transgender people (resolutions attached).

So many of the arguments against the full inclusion of transgender
people in our society are driven by unfounded fear. Transgender people
are simply seeking the removal of barriers that prevent them from
flourishing as full members of and contributors to society. One need
not fully comprehend what it is like to walk in their shoes to provide
them with the protections every citizen-every person-is due. Please
act to ensure their rights.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE Bishop
The Rt. Rev. Bud Cederholm Bishop Suffragan

Enc.

Resolution D012: Support of Transgender Civil Rights

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General
Convention of The Episcopal Church supports the enactment of laws at
the local, state and federal level that a) prohibit discrimination
based on gender identity or the expression of one’s gender identity,
and b) treat physical violence inflicted on the basis of a victim’s
gender identity or expression as a hate crime; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of Convention convey this resolution to
appropriate congressional leadership to the Chair of the National
Governors Association, the President of the National Conference of
State Legislatures, and to the President of the U. S. Conference of
Mayors.

Voted by the 223rd Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of
Massachusetts, Nov. 7-8, 2008, Hyannis: Resolution in support of
transgender civil rights and inclusion in the ministries of all the
baptized

Resolved, that the 223rd Convention of the Diocese of Massachusetts
supports the enactment of laws at the local, state and federal level
that a) prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or the
expression of one’s gender identity, and b) treat physical violence
inflicted on the basis of a victim’s gender identity or expression as
a hate crime; and be it further

Resolved, that the Secretary of Convention convey this resolution to
the Massachusetts State Legislature, and the Massachusetts
representatives in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives;
and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention submit to the General Convention the
following resolution: Resolved that the words “gender identity and
expression” be inserted into Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 directly
following the words “sexual orientation” and before the words
“disabilities or age.”