Transgender anti-discrimination bill approved
Employers and housing groups could not discriminate against transgendered people, under a plan that won final passage today in the House of Delegates.
After a floor debate that veered into what some delegates said was offensive territory, the anti-discrimination measure passed by a vote of 86 to 52, a preliminary tally showed. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
Home owners who rent rooms or apartments in their residence are exempted from the bill. Religious groups also are exempted.
Some Republicans who opposed the bill argued that education and child-related groups should have been excluded, too. Del. Nicholaus R. Kipke, an Anne Arundel County Republican, said some parents may not want to explain to their children why a female teacher, for example, decided to dress as a man.
"It's one thing to protect adults who want to be eccentric in front of other adults," said Del. Steven R. Schuh, an Anne Arundel County Republican, as he argued that the bill goes too far.
Del. Ariana B. Kelly, a Montgomery County Democrat, described how a female office colleague had decided to live as a man. She said her office received a memo about the change and that "it was not a big deal to anyone but (him), which is how it should be."
Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk, who sponsored the bill, had earlier removed its most controversial element, which would have required public accommodations for transgendered people. The legislation moving through the General Assembly would not prevent transgender discrimination in places such as restaurants, restrooms and hotels.
Bill supporters acknowledged a better plan would have included public accommodations, but Del. Kirill Reznik, a Montgomery County Democrat, defended it as providing "good, minimal protections."
According to the legislative analysis, 13 states and the District of Columbia have anti-discrimination laws concerning transgendered people. Baltimore and Montgomery County already have local laws similar to the House plan, although those both include public accommodations provisions.
Comments
"good, minimal protections."
I think that I will now offer this up to my students as an example of an oxymoron.
Jumbo shrimp....
Military intelligence....
Good, minimal protections...
In the words of Tom Lang: "now Marylanders get to throw Transgender people OFF the bus...literally"
Posted by: Kat | March 26, 2011 4:50 PM
"Eccentric" ? Way to be nice while being bigoted at the same time....Still, baby steps I suppose.
We don't really want "special" treatment, we just want to be left alone to be ourselves just like the rest of society.
Posted by: Dael | March 27, 2011 4:50 PM
TransMaryland’s position to not support for HB235 is based on the lack of basic human rights protections. An anti-discrimination bill needs to provide real and meaningful deterrents to the sort of real and meaningful discriminations the members of Maryland’s transgender community faces. 13 states and the District of Columbia offer such complete protections, protections which include public accommodations. Not once in the history of transgender specific civil rights has a state enacted protections for public accommodations only, once a prior law was in place.
Because of such a flawed approach and because the provisions were removed by professed allies to the transgender community, it is the stance of TransMaryland to not support our continued discrimination and we reject non transgender persons seeking to act on our behalf.
HB235 creates yet a further inequity in the State of Maryland by setting up Baltimore City and Montgomery County, 25% of the states population base, as the only public area where transgender Marylanders can enjoy complete freedom from oppression and discrimination. In the words of Glendora Hughes Maryland’s General Counsel at the Maryland Commission on Human Relations,
“Yes, Baltimore City and Montgomery County covers gender identity. So now we have an inequity in the State of Maryland. Based on your geography, where you live will determine whether you have protection against being discriminated against.”
HB 235 only perpetuates this inequity.
We continue to urge lawmakers to support Senator’s Rich Madaleno’s public statement on HB235:
“I have been the lead sponsor or lead cosponsor of the Gender Identity Antidiscrimination Act for the past four years. In advance of the 2011 Session, I had a bill drafted that is identical to the bill I had introduced previously. This draft prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, our advocacy coalition asked me to not introduce the bill, preferring a strategy of pursuing a House bill alone. This approach has not diminished my commitment to enacting these much needed protections, and I urge the House of Delegates to pass HB 235, with an amendment that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals regarding public accommodations.
Providing transgender individuals with basic protections against discrimination is long overdue. Although much of the media attention this legislative session has centered on marriage equality, we cannot let that debate overshadow efforts to enact these essential protections. Protection against discrimination, including gender identity discrimination, is a basic human right. Our state laws must reflect the values of equality and equal opportunity – values that are central to who we are as Americans.
Now is the time for Maryland to join thirteen other states, Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, and Baltimore City in protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In 2007, Governor O’Malley signed an executive order adding protections against discrimination to our state personnel policies. We now must pass a statewide law that protects transgender individuals from discrimination when seeking employment, housing, and public accommodations.”
We support nothing less.
Jenna Fischetti
TransMaryland.org
Posted by: Jenna Fischetti | March 27, 2011 9:05 PM
Can you please help us understand what this all means? I have tried to look up the meanings, but am confused. What "public accomodations" do transgender people need/want? I apologize in advance for my ignorance, I am just intrigued here and I want to understand.
Posted by: Debbie | April 5, 2011 9:06 AM