Maryland Gender Identity Bill Endangers Women and Kids
ANNAPOLIS, Md. ---
Women and children will face one of the greatest threats to privacy, safety and
security that Maryland residents have ever known with the passage of a "Gender
Identity" bill now before
The proposed law adds a broadly defined category of "gender identity" to the
state's existing anti-discrimination law. Because the bill's broad definition of
"gender identity" includes "expression and behavior," men are not required to
have undergone a sex change operation. The Maryland Retailers Association has
purportedly agreed to allow men to enter women's bathrooms.
"The effect of this bill is to give special rights to men who want to dress
like women, but completely disregards the safety of vulnerable women and
children," notes
"We believe that the bill should be dropped," says Dr. Jacobs. "Even the
senator sponsoring the bill admits that he does not understand gender identity
issues."
"If it is not dropped, then exemptions similar to the
Gender Identity Bill HB474/SB566 imposes fines for public accommodations and
allows imprisonment and fines for housing violations. The bill includes a
"private cause of action" giving any cross dressing employee the right to sue
employers in state court. Awards can include back pay and up to
To stop passage of HB474/SB566, call, write or email your legislators and
urge them to vote "NO" to this dangerous piece of legislation. Visit Maryland
Citizens for a Responsible Government website at www.notmyshower.com for the
contact information for Maryland legislators. Contact the Maryland Retailers
Association at 410-269-1440 and ask them to withdraw any show of support for
HB474/SB566.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Maryland Gender Identity Bill Endangers Women and Kids
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intermediate Scrutiny
So much for discernible biological differences...
It appears that separate-sex bathrooms happened for a reason, and that reason was to shield one person from the viewing of foreign genitals, or from sexual harassment. However, I'm not sure that the former really furthers an "important governmental objective," because the viewing of opposite-sex genitals alone does not "corrupt minds" or whatever the reason is people throw around these days.
The state would have to show that there would be a substantial increase in sexual harassment in order to combat claims from a quasi-suspect classification, though that's from a courtroom perspective.
- QuinceyQuick
March 10, 2009 6:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rediculous drivel
There is absolutely no, none, notta evidence that a transperson has ever harmed a woman or child in a bathroom. This is a clear example of stretching a minor issue to the greatest extent possible to allow discrimination. The "good" doctor should be ashamed of herself.
- AudreyH
March 11, 2009 1:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is not about so-called "transpersons."
I am a survivor of Harry Benjamin Syndrome, but I have to oppose this sort of absurd law. Lately, there has been a tendency to write laws that are so vague that they literally allow anyone to enter a bathroom designated for the opposite sex without fear of consequences. A man, who looks like a man, dresses like a man, and quite frankly is a man, can enter a women's restroom and simply state "I feel like a woman. Unless restrictions are written into the law, there is nothing to stop such from happening, and yes, there are people who would take advantage of such a loophole. Sorry, but I don't wish to share the restroom with men. Unless the law includes restrictions, like that someone using the bathroom that is not appropriate for their physical sex must be undergoing treatment leading to sex reassignment surgery, I would have to oppose such laws as well. And in situations where inevitable nudity is an issue then even more restrictions are needed.
- Just Jennifer
March 11, 2009 9:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Could you clarify this real quick?
"And in situations where inevitable nudity is an issue then even more restrictions are needed."
Why?
- QuinceyQuick
March 11, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It is really very simple...
If you have a situation where nudity is inevitable, say a shower or a changing area, then there needs to either be a provision for privacy that removes that inevitability, or there needs to be a provision that separate facilities for those who are in transition be provided. Otherwise, women (or men) will be subjected to seeing members of the opposite sex in the nude, and to being viewed by members of the opposite sex while nude. Now, such provisions should not be a problem for those who are truly transsexual, or as is increasingly preferred, suffering from Harry Benjamin Syndrome. They would have no desire to be seen without clothing until they have had corrective surgery. Of course, there are some kooks who wish to force others to accept them as "women with penises," or "men without penises."
- Just Jennifer
March 11, 2009 11:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Opposite Sex Nudity
"Otherwise, women (or men) will be subjected to seeing members of the opposite sex in the nude, and to being viewed by members of the opposite sex while nude."
Why is this a problem?
- QuinceyQuick
March 12, 2009 12:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have you ever heard of an expectation of privacy?
People have a right to expect a certain degree of privacy in such places. If they wish to see such things, I am sure they could find a place that would allow this. But our society understands that most people don't wish to be subjected to this. It is basically the same reason that stores are not allowed to place cameras in fitting rooms to catch shoplifters. That could arguably be seen as a legitimate purpose, but the right to privacy trumps the store's right to prevent shoplifting.
- Just Jennifer
March 12, 2009 10:23AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course I've heard of an expectation of privacy.
I don't understand how a uni-sex bathroom would be an invasion of it, though. Presumably, everyone would still have separate stalls to do their business, wouldn't they?
- QuinceyQuick
March 12, 2009 11:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
deliberately misleading
1) The focus on the restroom issue is a deception. These laws are really about protection concerning employment, housing, access to credit (mortgages, home loans, car payments), and public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, etc.
2) These laws protect everyone (not just transgender people) from being discriminated against or harassed because they don't appear to be as masculine or as feminine as someone else thinks they should be. For example, it means that a boss can't fire a woman who chooses not to wear makeup, or not to wear skirts.
3) Many, if not most states, do not currently prohibit someone from entering a restroom designated for people of the other sex. This is appropriate and necessary for people with children, people who need attendants, etc.
4) Laws that protect against discrimination based on gender identity have exclusions for places where nudity is unavoidable, such as locker rooms.
5) These laws have exceptions for religious organizations.
6) Most sex crimes, including voyeurism, are committed by conventionally-gendered heterosexual men who are dressed as men.
7) Allowing discrimination based on gender identity and expression still won't prevent anyone from entering any restroom, regardless of their gender or grooming.
8) Transgender people and others who don't look as masculine or feminine as someone else thinks they should are often harassed, threatened, hurt, or killed, just because of their appearance. This has included a man who was holding his wife's purse while she used the restroom, two Latino brothers walking home after an evening of drinking, with their arms over each other's shoulders for support (one was beaten to death), countless women with short hair (including heterosexual women) being tossed out of women's restrooms (sometimes they send in a male employee, policeman, or security guard to get them out).
- abc
March 12, 2009 1:04AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, actually it is not...
The bathroom issue is a very real one. It is quite separate from the other issues, such as employment, housing, etc. Why would simply imposing some reasonable limitations on the use of bathrooms interfere with granting those other rights? Why is that every time this issue comes up, transgender activists start trying to avoid that aspect of the issue? Could it be that there really is a larger, hidden agenda here, which involves the deconstruction of gender differences? Well, of course that is part of it.
And no, not all laws include exclusions. The more recent laws are so vague that such exclusions are a part of the law. In fact, I have seen few transgender activsts even address this issue.
And an even bigger question is, why should we protect behavior? These laws are, again, so vague that they extend protection far beyond that which is intrinsic (i.e. people who are transsexual, or better, those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome) but instead would include people where "gender identity" is not really the issue, but gender expression is.
No one should be attacked, period. That goes without saying. Attacking someone because you think they are gay is wrong, and should be dealt with appropriately. But, extending protections to areas that are defined only by behavior is absurd.
- Just Jennifer
March 12, 2009 11:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Great post, ABC
Personally, I have shared restrooms with trans-women (with and without male appendages) and have never ONCE been harrassed or mistreated by any of them. They have not displayed their genitalia to me or behaved inappropriately towards me. The worst thing any of them has ever done to me is offered me a make-up tip or two.
This is really SUCH a non-issue. The trans-person who uses ANY public restroom is FAR more vulnerable than the people who share that restroom with them. The whole "restroom question" is, as ABC pointed out, a diversion technique, meant to arouse people's reflexive "ick response," and keep them from thinking about matters of basic fairness.
- Babaroni
March 13, 2009 2:14AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.