Tweet
Statements Indicating That No State Has Passed Public Accommodation Protections After Passing Employment & Housing Protections Are False
Update: Jenna Fischetti provided the text of her statement at the hearing. What I heard second hand about her testimony wasn’t true — she didn’t mention the false assertion in her testimony.
I’m waiting to hear back from her regarding the Metro Weekly quote — whether or not she was quoted accurately in the story. If she didn’t make the statement she’s quoted as making, I’ll retract this story in entirety.
This afternoon, Maryland’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee held a hearing on the gender identity bill — HB 235. Metro Weekly covered the hearing, and reported on it in their article Maryland Senate Prez Tells Advocates He Will Expedite Gender Identity Bill If It Passes Committee.
There was something that troubled me a great deal in reading the piece that I feel needs addressing immediately — it’s a false statement about passage of transgender specific antidiscrimination laws in other states than Maryland. From the Metro Weekly article previously mentioned (emphasis added):
“It’s difficult being put in the same waiting area as people who oppose the bill for different reasons than I am,” Ashley Love, an intersex advocate from New York, told Metro Weekly before the hearing.“They’re opposing it for fear and hate and ignorant reasons, and I’m opposing it out of principle, meaning that this bill passing in its compromised form will imply that transexual and transgender Marylanders are second class citizens and it can lead to a domino affect around the country.”
Jenna Fischetti from Laurel, Md., who is the media director of Trans Maryland, agrees with that assessment.
“Never in the history of transgender-specific legislation has any state gone back and added a public accommodation only provision when there is already an existing law,” she said, adding that public accommodations go beyond bathrooms to include hospitals and hotels.
“We believe that it needs to be a part of a comprehensive strategy in order to be able to get it, just like other states have done in the past.“
Before the highlighted statement above becomes a meme is repeated to the point it’s accepted as truth, it needs to be pointed out that it’s verifiably false.
In California, AB 196 (The Gender Nondiscrimination Act) was passed into law in 2003, and that antidiscrimination bill provided employment and housing protections for transgender Californians (Status reported by Equality California here). Then in 2005, California passed into law AB 1400 (The Civil Rights Act Of 2005) — that antidiscrimination bill being the one that provided public accommodation protections for Transgender Californians (Status reported by Equality California here).
I believe Colorado has a similar story, although I don’t know the bill numbers and dates of passage for their two bills.
In other words, there has been at least one state (my home state of California) that first had an transgender specific antidiscrimination bill for employment and housing, and later (in California’s case, two years later) had a transgender specific antidiscrimination bill that addressed public accommodation — and there may even be two states. Given what happened in California, therefore, Jenna Fischetti’s statements in the Metro Weekly article are verifiably false.
And, apparently not only did Fischetti make that verifiably false statement to the reporter for Metro Weekly, I’m told by someone who attended the hearing that she also made the similar statement to the Maryland Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee. I’ll have to listen to the audio of the hearing to verify whether that is true on not — which I haven’t checked as yet to see if the audio is posted on the official government website.
Transgender people of good faith and good conscience can disagree on whether or not passing HB 235 into law is a good idea or a bad idea, and people on both sides of the issue have valid points to make.
However, valid points shouldn’t be made with bad facts. When transgender community members talk to state legislators or media, we need to do our homework and have our facts correct.
That California passed its state’s transgender antidiscrimination bill regarding public accommodation two years after passing the antidiscrimination bill regarding employment and housing is, and has been knowable. Let’s as a community not repeat the statement “Never in the history of transgender-specific legislation has any state gone back and added a public accommodation only provision when there is already an existing law” and create a factoid — something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact. If we do, it will be a fictitious statement that we in community have turned into a false meme.
70 Comments
Wow…Whining and nashing of teeth happening in 5. 4. 3. 2. 1……
Hawaii alsoAccording to NGLTF:
The Hawaii Legislature is currently considering a bill to prohibit GI/E discrimination in employment.
The Colorado Laws are…Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (SB 25)- Covered employment.
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act of 2008 (SB 200) – Covered housing and public accommodation.
They are not exactly the same, since housing and public accommodation were in the same bill and they covered sexual orientation (which as defined to include transgender status. Not necessarily accurate, but necessary to get an inclusive bill). I recall the Bathroom meme was in full force. It took 10 years, but in all be the first year they were inclusive bills I believe.
It is easier to add to laws than go from zeroGetting the Phrase gender identity/gender presentation or perceived gender identity/presentation into a non-discrimination bill is a major step in the right direction.
There is a lot of pressure from the religious right in opposition to passing anything. They have a whole victimology thing going about the evil persecution of Christians and they have allegedly been bribing the African American Churches to back them.
Something is better than nothing and even more importantly refraining from a serious bout of cannibalism over not getting exactly what some people felt they should get.
Pops popcornpulls up chair…
I’d agree.As Dallas Denny said about trans community, we have a propensity to eat our own.
Vet your factsShould you have actually read and listened to my testimony you would know why I chose my words specifically. I vet my facts before I make statements.
The California laws were not a transgender specific laws. They sought protections for more than one class and redefined sex to provide protections for gender.
That actual testimony is available as an audio film where. Go to 1h 22minutes in to hear it. Click on play at the Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing line for April 7th
http://mlis.state.md.us/mgaweb…
.
You obviously pulled this from the Metroweekly story. I suggest you listen to the testimony.
HB235 only specifies protections for gender identity and no other class. No inclusion for sexual orientation. No redefinition of sex to include gender, nor do they follow the Colorado model of redefining sexual orientation to include transsexualism.
HB235 is a transgender specific bill. California’s was not.
Here is my entire written testimony
You may remove your falsehood lest your error point to your bias…..
Retraction accepted…..
So you didn’t say……to Metro Weekly what you’re quoted as saying?
InterestingWhile Jenna may have been wrong with her blanket assertion, I’m not sure that the examples being put forth necessarily make Autumn and the HB235 supporters right with their blanket principle, or at least not 100% right with their own specifics.
California’s legal morass includes the 2003 law which added trans rights by changing the definition of sex. But weren’t there celebrations even a few years before that when the definition of disability was changed away from the federal ADA’s version? And wasn’t the overall act that was being amended in both instances called the “Fair Employment and Housing Act”? I don’t know its overall history, but did that deal with public accommodations for anyone? And are fence-sitting, moderate-to-conservative legislators in states other than California going to like being asked to go along with California?
If the comments about Colorado and Hawaii are accurate, it would appear that Colorado first enacted an ENDA – which did not provide public accommodations for anyone – and Hawaii enacted public accommodations before successfully getting to employment.
I will add a correction to the story above……based on the text of your testimony. I heard what I heard about your testimony second hand, and planned to listen to your testimony this morning to verify what someone told me you stated there. Thank you for the opportunity to correct the record.
As for the Metro Weekly comment, if you were quoted accurately,then you gave a demonstratably false statement to the reporter.
Having looked into the eyes of the opponents…I got to the hearing early.
I looked into the eyes of those signing up against us and while others were lobbying Senators, I was speaking truth into the hearts of others.
Whether they “heard” the truth of gender or not is not important that day. What the experience reminded me of was the old SNL skit of Dana Carver as Bush and John Lovits as Dukakis. After Bush’s weak and should reply to Diane Sawyer, they turned to Dukakis and asked for a rebuttal and he said ” I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy”
I can’t believe we fear these people. These people all have fear, the lack of faith in the order of society as they have come to know it and are seeking to hold on to something which has passed them by. The woman who runs Citizens For a Responsible Government is Ruth Jacobs. Has anyone on this blog( besides the good Dr Dana as we have discussed her) talked with her?
We, and I say we, because I was with three others who spent time to seek their positions and civilly discuss ours.
I can say I was the first person to sign up in opposition. That the next two ladies to sign up in opposition never testified. Why? I do not know. But they heard the testimony (available online) Did anything they hear change their heart. Did my revelation that everyday when I awake I ask God to direct my thinking and to place me in a position to be of maximum service to Him? Did they respect my faith as much as I theirs? I can not answer.
But the fact remains, these people are not the opposition to our fight for full equality.
We run from the public accommodations issue not at their demands, but from the ignorance of the legislators.
And the point to be taken here isthat there really is no significant history from which to draw any conclusions. There are too few data points for trans specific legislation, not that many more for inclusive legislation. Times change, each jurisdiction is different in itself and in the externalities at the moment when our legislation is introduced. Each legislature, from local to federal, changes from election cycle to election cycle. There was no bathroom terrorism theme before 2008. We’ve won a few of those battles, lost a few since.
There was no organized trans political lobbying in Maryland until this year, and that is still minimal.
We’re still dealing with the mental illness meme as well, though that’s beginning to change as the formal adoption of GI in place of GID will occur sometime during the next year.
There are many moving parts, there is no way to predict the implications of anything.
I understand the desire for comprehensive legislation, on the federal as well as state level. I co-authored The Dallas Principles, and I want full civil rights now, with no delays or excuses. So I ask for that. And will keep asking for that.
Something is better than nothing, and success breeds success, momentum builds, morale improves and we move on.
So your admit you do not vet your stories?Come on Autumn, I thought you said you were a new media reporter?
Besides which, give me enough credit to know if I made that statement, and I made it forcefully and convincingly, I researched it.
Thats the process of gathering facts, analyzing it, attempting to poke holes in it and then reanalyzing it. Research.
You fail to read the statement, nor are you demonstrating the capacity to understand what a transgender specific law is.
Its a laws covering only gender identity and no other class.
You fail to understand what public accommodations only protections are. They are laws seeking protections only in public accommodations.
HB 235 is such a law, California and Colorado are not. I know proponents who work for national organization have the “luxury’ of testifying yesterday with the words, and I will quote because they are in the public record, ” just like” and “similar”. But I hold myself up to words of truth, and every word in my statement is 100% factual.
Clarification
speaks to the transgender specific. Any attempt to add public accommodations will be a public accommodations only bill.
We can agreebut the argument that we will never get full protections is equally as fallible as we will never get public accommodations on its own, provided we extend the timeline long enough.
The real question is what timeline are we realistically talking about? (rhetorical for pondering)
We know who the road blocks are.
Politicians are like people.
They don’t care what you know, until they know that you care.
I certainly hope MassEquality is not so stupid as to use an incremental processOn our Transgender Rights Bill. It would be enlightening to know if the Washington State Ref 71 strategy was used as a template for Maryland. If is was, it certainly will NOT be tolerated in MA. I already have commitments from GLAD and the Caucus that they are not ever open to taking Public Accommodations out of are bill. If for some reason they are influenced otherwise, there will be MAJOR hell to pay here, and I will gladly volunteer to be it’s book keeper.
Actually, there is no legal morass in California.To quote from the fact sheet for AB 196, which is linked to in the text of the post above:
AB 14 (The Civil Rights Act of 2007), changed California’s law on protected classes. From the fact sheet for AB 14:
That bill was signed into law in September of 2007.
There are several other laws that changed the landscape for transgender Californians, including 2005′s AB 1586, 2006′s AB 1160, AB 2800, and AB 2920, 2007′s SB 777, AB 394, and SB 518, 2008′s AB 2654, SB 1729, and AB 3015, 2009′s AB 1003, and 2010′s SB 543.
I stated the following in my piece……(emphasis added):
I had already planned on updating the piece based on what I heard in the audio. You’ve now provided the information in text format, so I updated the piece prior to listening to the audio this morning. You don’t have to believe me on that, but I know what I was planning to do this morning — the result would have been the same. I have retracted the insinuation of my piece, and linked to your statement as documentation that my insinuation was incorrect.
Yet, since you’re not refuting the Metro Weekly comment, I’m assuming that the Metro Weekly quote is an accurate quote. And, the quote attributed to you in the article is a false statement. Again, I will correct the record if that’s an inaccurate quote.
So, will you acknowledge that you made a false statement if you were accurately quoted? Will you tell your peers it’s a false statement so your peers won’t repeat the statement as a meme?
And let me add this: I’ve offered you the front page of PHB to make your case on HB 235 on more than one occasion. That offer is still open. As I stated in my piece above:
I make the assumption that you are a good person of good faith and conscience who disagrees with me on HB 235.
HawaiiThe 1991 Hawaii law is sexual orientation only law.
The 2005 is a multi-class law. In 2006 again a multi-class law.
My statement was perfectly clear.
Transgender-specific (covering gender identity only and not covering any other class)
But I would like to thank everyone for allowing this forum to openly discuss what laws have been enacted in the past and what law Maryland is attempting to pass this year.
Different strokes.You need to know your people, on all sides.
Jenna makes a good point when she mentions fear. It’s a maxim in politics that it is better to be feared than loved.
Democrats in Annapolis fear the fundamentalists far more than they fear the progressives. In Maryland they are more likely to be Catholic than Protestant, but no matter, they fear being inundated with voice mail and email and being harangued about killing children and getting 3 am robo-calls.
They don’t fear progressives (there is still no progressive caucus in the Senate because Miller won’t allow it, not because the numbers aren’t there), they don’t fear gays enough, and they certainly don’t fear trans persons. Or, at least, they didn’t – maybe that’s changing.
But the way to make sure it continues is to build a coalition of people who can more easily engender that fear of political power and retribution. We cannot tolerate transphobic gay persons, nor can we accept homophobic trans persons. We have to get over and through that to move forward.
SureWe disagree on HB 235 and I completely take you as a person of good faith, irrespective of what you may take me as.
But as a “new media reporter” I find your attack, admittedly on second hand information, and without vetting the story, appalling.
I expect more from anyone who choses to represent themselves as a journalist, yet does not adherer to the higher standards of journalism.
If you admit that you are only a blogger, therefore an Opinionist, an Editorialist, offering a commentary of the world we live in, then what you state ( and not report) is protected language.
My testimony and your second hand slander of it, especially the extensive arguments made in attempt to support ( again without every going right to the source and you have my phone number) speak to a disturbing motive. I pray I am mistaken in my perception of this.
However, the retraction of the title will be evidence enough of your status as a person of good faith. Unless of course, your title is in fact referring to your entire blog post…. in which case, please continue…
I don’t fail to understand what public accommodations protections are, nor do I……fail to understand what public accommodation only protections are.
Each state creates their own civil rights laws in different ways, and with differing protected classes. And, the laws in the states aren’t uniform in how the protections for individual protected classes are added.
I very much understand HB 235 doesn’t cover public accommodation, and that in Maryland the history of civil rights laws there has in the past included housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for a single protected class wrapped up in a single bill. I understand that the laws in Maryland aren’t written in the same manner these are in California.
But I have faith, Jenna, that we can change the conversations on civil rights laws in Maryland and across the nation. Just because public accommodation isn’t included in HB 235 doesn’t mean that trans people can’t work and sacrifice in the near future to add public accommodation protections based on gender identity to Maryland law in the near future.
I am aware that housing and employment antidiscrimination protections based on gender identity are civil rights protections despite your assertions to the contrary in your statement to the Senate committee. I believe we need housing and employment protections now as much as we need public accommodation protections now, but we aren’t going to get all of these now, and rejecting two protections because it isn’t three protections seems a fail to me. I don’t believe we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good — and I believe HB 235 is a good bill that could be a much, much better bill.
But at the same time I believe we should never give up on working to make more perfect civil rights law in future years. We shouldn’t ever give up on obtaining public accommodation protections based on gender identity for Marylanders until those protections become law, and we need to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes — in a steady, sustained manner with an arsenal of tools that include insider and outsider strategies — to get that public accommodation law we want and need as close to now as possible. To do less is to accept the failure to achieve public accommodation protections this year as a permanent failure. And, we shouldn’t accept this year’s failure as a permanent failure under any circumstances.
What struck me..was your statement to me yesterday about lack of fear, except if someone attacks a loved one.
I have nothing to lose at this point in my life. I have completely(as have you and countless others for and against HB235) opened myself up to the most insane commentaries of people like Ruth Jacobs or that father – son crime fight team of “Patriots” (I can till see them in tights and capes!)
But in doing so, I know there is nothing to fear and they cannot touch me. The emptiness of Fear must be replaced with the Faith in the cause.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never passed if it was based on the popular vote. That’s the intent of such protections. When a governmental body recognized an injustice and steps in to resolve it.
It’s not a perfect comparison, to be sureBut you’re not likely to find many perfect comparisons since there are only a dozen states to compare to and different states frequently go about things differently.
“these people are not the opposition to our fight for full equality”i can’t believe anyone working for T rights would say that. you’re right that legislators are the ultimate key, but an army of angry, well-organized and well-funded anti-T voters are preventing you from turning some of those keys. ignore the power of the religious right and you’ll be without rights for a very long time.
I’m laughing out loud at your naïveté With all due respect.
I really look forward to TransMaryland becoming a force in Annapolis.
Still waiting on your retraction of this blog post’s title…I don’t care what you call it, but ”A False Statement Regarding Trans Civil Rights Legislation” only speaks to those who use “just like” and “similar” when speaking of HB235.
Maryland is not Massachusetts(sadly, I might add)
But a comparison nonethelessAnd by comparison it is something to be held up to, to express similarities.
My public testimony dealt with facts. There is no comparison to the truth.
Name one state which enacted public accommodations only protections for gender identity only, once a prior gender identity only bill was passed.
No one can not because it has never happened.
The proponents of HB 235 want us to believe it has and can happen again. Lisa Mottet stated this narrative when a discussion broke out in the Gender Identity Group of Baltimore Yahoo listserv. A member offered it in rebuttal to a point asserted.
I stand behind my statement. It is part of the public record and I even posted the link.
However, I believe what you are referring to Laurel is hope in a workable pathway. That is the goal of all transgender Marylanders and I thank you for thinking of such things. We need this discussion now , more than ever.
Referendum 71 was about a domestic partnership law.The discussion here is about an anti-discrimination law. Apples and oranges. When the Washington state Legislature passed the Anderson-Murray Anti-Discrimination Law in 2006, it passed a comprehensive law covering both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in housing, employment and pubic accommodations. However, it took THIRTY YEARS of trying to get that law passed, so the conclusion should never be that just because comprehensive, fully-inclusive laws get passed in some states that it should be a snap to pass them in other states.
Cal Anderson, the first openly-gay Washington state legislator, spent 10 years championing the legislation in the 80s and 90s but died of AIDS before it passed (a fact that the opposition still mentions with glee). In other words, depending on the conditions in certain states, some people will dedicate their entire careers to laying the foundation to get legislation passed without enjoying the benefits personally. Civil rights legislation should be a no-brainer, but in too many places it isn’t. The sooner we all recognize that fact, the more effective we will be in settling in for the long haul and getting the work done.
I’m glad you’re keeping tabs on the situation in MA by having personal conversations. The more people that the legislature sees paying positive attention, the better the chances are of moving the legislation sooner rather than later.
Absolutely!And you should know that the committee was impressed with your testimony, as well as that of your allies. It was useful, it was helpful, it was good.
It won’t derail this bill, because these people are politicians and they work much more comfortably with increments. But it staked out the future, and they will not be able to honestly say next year that this is all new to them (though some will say that anyway, you can count on it). They must be reminded year after year, because until they really comprehend it, they will find it all new and confusing.
Issues campaigns have many moving parts, and it not only takes a village to get the job done, it takes an organized village with leadership and courage and integrity to get it done.
We need to work together, and I suggest some form of truth and reconciliation discussions moving forward because we will not succeed if we remain disunited.
Personally, I would really rather not have to spend even a few hours every year in the same room with Ruth Jacobs, so the sooner it gets done the better.
I’m still curiousabout the Metro Weekly quote. Did they misquote you, or did you go off message?
Well, please tell your peers on your side of HB 235 about that that “good person of good faith” thing……Seriously, those on your side of HB 235 have called me a Sandeenista, a shill for Gay Inc., a pimp, a token trans tom, and a perpetual quisling of the gay establishment — all specifically with regards to HB 235. We can be trans, of good conscience and good faith, both care deeply about our community, but at the same time be on different sides of divide on HB 235. Your peers on your side of HB 235 appear not to agree, given their propensity for name-calling.
I kinda like “Sandeenista” though.
Anywho, I believe I was acting in the blogger/commentator role in my post above. It dawns on me though that I didn’t apologize to you for getting what was said in your statement wrong.
Well, I am sorry I got the facts wrong. And I do, without reservation, apologize to you for getting what you said at the hearing — or actually attributing something to you in your testimony that you didn’t actually say — wrong. You deserved better than that…I have your number, and I should have called to verify what you said first. That was a fail on my part, and I have no excuse for doing that to you.
At the same time, I make no apology for the headline for the piece. You did make a false statement about the short history of trans legislation in the U.S. to Metro Weekly — I don’t want that kind of statement you made to Metro Weekly repeated as fact when it isn’t fact.
And by the way, even if it were a factual statement you made to Metro Weekly, it wouldn’t have to remain true. We can empower ourselves to change the world in ways that it hasn’t been changed before if we set our minds to it. We, as a community, have more power than we’ve allowed ourselves to believe we have. We aren’t as limited as we’ve acted like we are.
Worth repeating
Dana makes an excellent point here. We needed to be mobilized in a way that would defuse the washroom argument, in 2007. It was “Bathroom Bill” rhetoric that made people feel that the public accommodations move was necessary, in the first place.
So it seems to me that we have two choices: turn on each other, or do catch-up and address washroom fearmongering. My thought is that the latter would be far more productive and effective.
To me, the point… … is not about whether it can be added later so much as the precedent that visibly dropping it creates. It’s a concession to “Bathroom Bill” rhetoric, and in that sense, it creates an impression of validation over an argument that is entirely without substance.
And to legislators looking for “safe” ways to pass legislation, the next one in the next state then considers leaving that out in the first place, or worse, putting in a written exclusion. And to legislators after that, it becomes “The Way” to pass trans protections.
We can’t run from potty panic. We need to rethink how we respond to it. The fact that this persists and is seen as a valid reason for exempting trans people from human rights demonstrates exactly why explicit inclusion is necessary. Our opponents are actually handing to us the strongest argument we could possibly have for trans protections.
If we’re willing to start seeing it that way and fighting it that way.
I’m not sure if you were thinking truth & reconciliation among the Ts or among Ts and their LGB allies,but part of the T community needs to repair some bridges with the LGB allies too. A lot of hurtful things have been said to LGB allies and some irreversible and endangering actions were purposefully taken against some LGB allies who disagreed with some Ts over tactics. It’ll be hard to move forward together if some of us keep getting shot in the back.
Ok, I am ready to elaborateI don’t know if you noticed this, but the real opponents of this legislation talked a whole lot about homosexuality and immorality. To them, they don’t see the distinction between transgender and gay. To them, transgender and gay are the same, and that same is deviant.
I told Dana Beyer this and I’ll tell you – gay folx don’t want to work on these issues because of the strident and ridiculous rhetoric of some trans activists who brand anyone who disagrees with them a bigot.
I think this a true statement – I was the only gay person in that hearing room yesterday that wasn’t with an organization. I’m not a paid advocate, and I don’t have to do any of this. I do it because I care about these issues, even more than marriage. I do this for my friends, and I do this for myself. I often disagree with strategy, and I’ve said this before HB 235, but I support HB 235 because people I respect support the calculated risk HB 235 represents.
You might think you have common ground with the religious wing nuts that testified in that room yesterday. Maybe you do – but if you think they view you as a fellow sister in Christ, you are sadly misguided. Those folks think you’re a deviant pervert. And, by the way, they think the same thing of me. If TransMaryland is going to be a force in Annapolis, know who your enemies are. You can keep listening to out of state bloggers and blame white gay folx, or you can take a look at the world around you.
Finally, if you know someone who was discriminated against based on ender identity, call me – there are plenty of lawyers who will help. I’m bugbrennan on gmail.
I apologized……here, but it probably won’t satisfy you because I stand by the headline.
If you want to say that the exact details of what will have to happen with regards to gender identity related legislation in Maryland hasn’t happened in any other state, well no other state will 100% align up to how Maryland will have to do it. That doesn’t make your statement actually or substantially true — others and I understood that what you were stating was no state has ever come back for public accommodation protections for trans people when they first passed employment and housing protections, and at least one state has.
If it only happened once that public accommodation protection bill specific to trans people occured in separate legislation from previously a passed employment and housing protection bill, then your statement is false. I believe I’ve showed that it did happen that way in California — AB 1400 was passed to make sure that public accommodation protections were provided for transgender people — although sexual orientation and marital status were included in the bill to strengthen previous court rulings. Prior to AB 1400, the California Supreme Court had ruled that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were protected by the Unruh Act, but that hadn’t as yet happened with transgender people. Sexual orientation and marital status were added to that bill make make what the court had previously ruled regarding sexual orientation put into an explicit statute, but the main thrust of the bill was for transgender people.
I was around in California back then, and talked to Chris Daley of the Transgender Law Center about that bill.
And again, AB 196 was stand alone, and AB 1400 would have been stand alone for transgender people if sexual orientation and marital status had already been explicitly included in the Unruh Act’s protected classes. I’m absolutely sure Equality California and the Transgender Law Center would have fought for it and got it passed into law even if it were a transgender only bill. I’m sure of that because AB 1586 was a transgender only bill regarding healthcare antidiscrimination protections, and it was passed into law during the same year AB 1400 was passed into law. Both EQCA and TLC sponsored AB 1400 and AB 1586.
So, I continue to believe your statement to Metro Weekly was substantially and actually false. So, I’m sticking to my statement.
I saw your piece on that….…entitled Flushing the “Bathroom Bill” Fear Once and For All, and I definitely agree with the thrust of your piece.
Frankly, we weren’t prepared to fight the bathroom bill meme this year, but we can be ready in the future.
And I’m with you.I’ve nothing to lose either.
If you and Trans Maryland organize and lead on a Public Accommodations bill in a future, I’ll follow your organization’s lead.
We all have the same goal here — ordinary equality for our entire trans community. Strategy, tactics, and lines in the sand…we may disagree on details of how to obtain full equality, but we all can and should work together in the future towards our full equality under the law. We can achieve more together than we can apart.
Best popcornIf you are watching a train wreck?
Excuse me, Laurel?And the Gay Community and its activists needs to come clean on the BS they have repeatedly pulled on transpeople since Stonewall that has stoked much of our distrust of you.
Contrary to Public OpinionI’m about passing trans legislation with teeth that will fix the problems we have in the trans community.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It isn’t reasonable to expect an appology from me for what others may have done before I was even sentient.I can only account for myself and be accountable for my own words and actions. You seem to be using past community history as an excuse to verbally attack individuals who had nothing to do with that history. I don’t see how that is reasonable or constructive. Anger can be used to destroy, or to propel the effort forward. Do you think you’re being constructive?
Yep.
Get off the track Peanuts or you’ll become peanut butter.
Dear MonicaROn behalf of the Gay Community and its activists, I apologize for the BS we have repeatedly pulled on transpeople since Stonewall.
Let us know when we can move forward.
Cathy
Disturbing tactic, AutumnIn one post, you’ve gone from discussing and disputing what you believe Jenna has said about legislation, to complaining about what some amorphous identity you call “your peers on your side of HB 235″ have said about you.
This bums me outPHB has been generally a good place to find under-reported stories about life as an LGBT American. For that reason, this makes me a little sad. Whether a columnist calls themselves a journalist or a pundit is irrelevant. If she’s producing a piece presented as news, it is journalism and for that piece she’s ACTING as a journalist. That being the case, she has the obligation, if not to her publication at least to her own integrity, to follow basic journalistic standards in so far as vetting the facts of the story before running to press. Missteps like this bring down the overall integrity of the publication she’s writing for.
tl;dr
Bad journalism is bad.
Well……Some of what I’ve seen that goes to this point…
…are as follows:
Yeah, some transpeople are jerks Just like some gay people are jerks.
And I included what folk from trans community who are against HB 235……have said about those who favor HB 235 here.
My point was a personal one. I personally respect Jenna — Dana Beyer has also spoken highly of her in this comment thread. One of the reasons I respect Jenna is because she doesn’t sink into the name-calling that others about her have.
I thought I was as light-heartedly as possible making the point that we can converse civilly, but those on her side of HB 235 have not been discussing issues very civilly. If it didn’t come across that way, my apologies.
I used myself as an example because we were talking about how we’ve each assumed the other person was a good person of good faith on the other side of an issue of import to trans community. But that said, I haven’t been on the receiving end much of the “good person of good faith” thing from her trans peers who are against HB 235.
And if you look at what I write, by the way, I haven’t called any of the ones who have called me names, or called my peers names, on the pro-HB 235 side of the argument any names. I won’t call them names — especially ones that imply bigotry.
I treat others as I want to be treated. If I’m tolerating bigotry and name-calling on the pro-HB 235 side of the argument, I want to be called out on it because the behavior is wrongheaded. If I see bigotry and/or name-calling being tolerated by others on the other side of an issue, I will on occasion point that out.
This time I thought I did it light-heartedly. My apologies again if it didn’t come across that way.
How about “misleading statement” instead of “false”Misleading is your point it seems.
There is NOTHING misleading about MY statement.
I’m still curiousLaurel, I listed my testimony and I posted a link. I was interviewed by the MetroWeekly after the hearing.
Anyone can verify what I said. But that’s not what you and Autumn want is it?
What I’m curious about is whether you believe my statement is in fact a false statement, and if so, would you please disclose why.
We have already covered 3 states you and Autumn have proposed as states in which my statement was false, and I’ve disproved each. That leaves just 10 more. We can go down the list one by one if you like.
These people are weak in argument and unsubstantiated by fact..The enemy is the lack of understanding, or willingness to understand in the Halls of the General Assembly.
Those will only use the kooks as cover.
Again,
” I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy”
However,You will prepare an complete ” hit piece” with visuals and the sort, based on, is everyone ready?
Second hand information and you published it too! Without vetting it or more importantly verifying your own assertion that the feat I claim has in fact been done before.
So Autumn, we all read your notion on California, and the assertions about Colorado. Laurel chimed in with Hawaii. none of the three achieved PA only on a gender identity only law after an existing law was in place.
There are only 10 more, so it will get easier for you.
If you like I can give you a hint..
It starts with NONE….
and sadly the title applies to the story, not my statement,But the positive part is the discussion of position politics, the length ones will go to obfuscate the truth, and the real challenge in transgender legal protections in Maryland and beyond.
So the title fits Autumn false allegation, but my statement is accurate.
None one’s proved it wrong yet
Maybe it comes down to the meaning of “specific.”
You might have meant “transgender-only” when you said “transgender-specific.”
While Autumn and Laurel read “specific” meaning that transgender was “specified” in the law, using the dictionary definition of “specific” as: “Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing.”
I think most people read it with the second interpretation, if indeed they even tried to parse it.
“having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one’s specific purpose.”
Ok ok I was trying to get away from the “false” which is a factual thing where “misleading” is more of an opinion.
Strawmen arguments from…Cathy and Laurel.
The statement is a generalization (which inherently includes exceptions, and is intentionally depersonalized), and reflects not individual attacks on you two as individuals, but rather the general historical trend of the community and the activists on behalf.
To treat it as an individual indictment is a derailing tactic meant to shift the discussion away from the factual concept (the cultural habit of trans erasure among the gay community, which is reinforced by the stereotypes in the het community that promote the idea of gender variance as linked to sexual orientation and, therefore “gay”) and towards your feeling particularly hurt by that inclusiveness.
The parallel here is for someone who is white saying “well I’m not prejudiced against black people” as a defense against someone saying “Well, white people are historically prejudiced against black people”.
It may be true that an individual isn’t particularly prejudiced, but that doesn’t change the facts of history.
None of which is meant necessarily as a defense of Moni (she’s quite competent there), but more to the point of what she’s saying is an issue that needs to be talked about a great deal and openly, as it lies behind a lot of the continuing unresolved anger and the tendency for backlash by trans people when it comes to ally efforts that don’t meet the general approval of the community (such as the underlying topic).
So your comments serve not to advance the dialog towards any thing positive, merely to derail the conversation away from a subject that might, in fact, be applicable to you in a cultural sense, since the culture that all of us inhabit (and, in Cathy’s case, even the legal culture there) is inherently transphobic, which leads to many of the same unseen tendencies in us all towards such issues as the historic erasure and secondary persecution of trans people.
Now, personally, I’d note that the effective start of the bullshit goes back to the early 1900′s, but that’s quibbling, which is one of my habits that can be derailing.
I didn’t bring this upMonicaR did – but thanks for the lecture. Again.
Statement Indicating That No State Has Passed Transgender Specific Public Accommodation Only Protections After An Existing Law Was in Place, Are Absolutely True and Can Not Be Disproved.Still waiting on that state…
I’ll give you another hint, its not California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Minesota, Iowa, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine or The District of Columbia ( I’ll include as a state in respect for Elenor Holmes Norton.)
Still clueless?
This whole thread is dumbJenna, happy to work with you. But this thread is tiresome! Nice to see you the other day.
Yes it is, but the point was made…If you want to come after anyone because you disagree with the facts they are using, you’d better have your own in order, and sadly Autumn didn’t.
Thank you, as a kid I still remember the Chuck Jones cartoons
http://www.220.ro/desene-anima…
Don’t Give Up the Sheep
Nothing wrong with being Fred and Ralph, the Coyotes are still out there.
Apology acceptedNot that you have any authority to give it, of course.
Well, here’s an apology equally unauthorised:
I apologise in behalf of the TS and IS people who attained marriage rights in some states as early as 1955, partly by distancing themselves from those Icky, Mentally Ill Homosexuals. With not even the pretence that we’d “come back for you later.”
Now that’s out of the way.. you were saying something about “moving forward”? Sounds like a plan. Make it so.
Hahahahahahaha!There, everyone should feel all better now.
Hysterical!Love it.