Great News,  More steps forward.  Thank you for posting this.    

Marvelous newsand good timing…

Yes it is

This goes to show that the supposed trans rights v. marriage equality dichotomy isn’t necessarily real.

Exceptions only prove the rule – the rule that is Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and New Hampshire (and that was Vermont.)
Moreover, this isn’t even the exception.  
The right that actually matters to trans people – the right to redress against exclusion from employment – came into existence in Washington a few years back (along with the same for sexual orientation), which was indeed before this marriage debate. However, hate crime laws are symbolic at best and no hate crime law has ever prevented a crime of any sort that wasn’t already ‘prevented’ by underlying substantive criminal law (murder, etc.) – while categories spelled out by anti-discrimination laws, when posted in places of employment, do not prevent all discrimination but are known to prevent some…
which is more than trans people in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and New Hampshire can hope for under those states’ current ‘we’ll come back ‘n git ya, trust us’ law.
BTW – using your yardstick, I could lump Iowa in with ‘the rule.’  It now has gay marriage, which came a few years after a legit anti-discrimination law – which came over a decade after a gay-only hate crime law.

damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

I’m just painting an accurate picture of legal history

It’s odd though.This is great news, don’t get me wrong.  But this …

At present, the hate-crime definition of sexual orientation covers gay, straight or bisexual people. The bill approved Wednesday adds “gender expression or identity” to that definition, making the law apply to attacks on transgender people.

… struck me as odd.
Why not just add “gender expression or identity” to the bill?  As much as I believe that the LGBT community share many of the same struggles and should absolutely stand together for civil rights for all of us … “sexual orientation” and “gender expression or identity” mean two different things.
Does anyone else find that strange?

the same thing was doneat the county level here (king county).  i’m not sure for sure, but maybe it was just deemed easier by the lawmakers to do it this way.  and really if you think about it, atypical gender expression is a huge reason many (thought to be) gay people are noticed and attacked, so it makes sense to me that gender expression & identity may be made part of the definition of sexual orientation even though we know that gender identity per se is not the same as sexual orientation.

So Damn it, we will,  I tried to avoid the little stick tossed in there, I wish we could leave it be and move forward, Arguing about inclusion or exclusion doesn’t truly solve anything.  
 True, the go back and get us Ts doesn’t work very well, but I hope that from now on where no protections exist, the legislation is inclusive, That’s All.

Thanks for Washington report…Lurleen.

I think maybeIt was for consistency. If I recall correctly, “sexual orientation” is defined to include gender identity or expression in our anti-discrimination law.

This really is great newsI honestly will sleep better tonight. The hate crimes at WSU that spurred the legislation happened about a mile from our house. Will this make my wife any safer every time she walks out the door? Probably not. But at least if any more hate crimes happen here after the legislation goes into effect, they can be prosecuted as such.

It is that way here in Colorado,

Re: Definition of “Sexual Orientation”I believe the reason for adding “gender identity and gender expression” to the definition of sexual orientation is because this particular definition is referenced by a variety of other state laws related to hate crimes and non-discrimination.  
By making this single change, it has the additional effect of expanding protections in other areas — in other words, it’s a twofer.

You and Susan_F probably have it right.According to HRC, the definition of sexual orientation in the state’s non-discrimination law includes gender identity and expression.  

Perceived gender and SO were in the original law, right?The bill as passed references another section of WA state law.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documen…
But it seems to be pretty broad in definition either way.
Using the word “perceived” before the categories which include gender and sexual orientation cast a pretty wide net.
Also, the WA law has a provision specifically outlining that mistaken assumptions about a victim’s membership in a category (including gender and SO) are not defenses.
Anybody out there know of other states that have this last provision?

I am with Happy Cat on this oneHere in Washington, we have had anti-discrimination on the books for a few years and anti-trans hate often seems to be due to perceived sexual orientation (see the National Car Rental thread), but this will make it easier for cops and prosecutors to prove anti-trans hate crimes–and get official statistics generated.
On the other hand, while we have expanding DP rights, my trans wife and I are totally caught in limbo as far as having our marriage recognized goes. We got married in IDAHO (where they do not recognize change of gender), and I have already been advised that we should file for DP, even though we are legally married and we got married before my wife transitioned, because”You don’t have time to call your lawyer in the midst of an emergency”.
It seems that since we were married in another state, after my wife’s surgery, we are a same sex couple and due to Washington State DOMA, state agencies, hospitals, etc. in Washington may not have to recognize our marriage (so far, thankfully, they all have accepted it without question). Nobody seems to really know how exactly the law applies to us. Precedent from before WA State DOMA was passed is in our favor, but so far as we can tell, the validity of a marriage performed prior to one partner having SRS has not been tested in court in Washington State since the passage of Washington DOMA– and we further muddied the waters by getting married in another state. We thought it would be easier to get married in Idaho, since my wife would not have to prove that she was pre-op, but it only made our situation more iffy.

Forward TogetherI think in Washington State there can be no question but that the marriage equality movement is creating capacity to move transgender equality forward.
Most of the transgender rights advocates I know from Massachusetts would also say that the progress being made on the addition of gender identity and exprerssion to MA’s anti-discrimination law psssed way back in 1989 has been fueled by the capacity created by the marriage equality movement and help from MassEquality.
Let’s remember that Equality Day in Washington State, which was started by the Religious Coalition for Equality, now a program of ERW, was expanded from marriage to include other issues most importantly back in 05/06 the trans inclusive anti-discrimination law. This year Equality Day lobbying included, as a top priority, the inclusion of gender identity and expression to the hate crimes law. ERW put significant effort into identifying the best people to testify at hearings on the bill. (Great credit must be given to the student lobbyists from Washington state Universities and Colleges who made passage of this bill a priority)
And let us not forget King County Charter Change Amendment 2 passed in Nov 08 that added gender identity and expression to the anti-discrimination section of the King Cunty Charter. This campaign was funded by the list built around the marriage equality issue.
My point in writing this is that I really do believe we are at our best when we see how building capacity around an issue can be helpful on other issues. Our focus should be more on capacity building so we can achieve a large number of victories in many issue areas.