American right-wing anti-LGBTQ groupAllianceDefendingFreedom (ADF) is rolling out their strategy to fight back against the EqualityAct.
But to no one’s surprise, their strategy is pointedly anti-trans women.
Congress re-introduced the Equality’s Act yesterday (15 March) for the third time. Seeking to enshrine LGBTI projections to America’s civil rights.
If passed, the bill would extend the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
In a Tweet, a screenshot of an ADF statement sent LGBTI Twitter into overdrive.
What did the ADF say?
In the screenshot, ADF senior vice president of US legal divisions Kristen Waggoner outlined the group’s opposition to the act.
He said: ‘It would undermine women’s equality and force women and girls to share private, obstinate spaces with men who identity as female, in addition to denying women fair competition in sports.’
With court orders barring President Trump from enforcing his transgender military ban out of the way, the Defense Department late Tuesday unveiled its plan to make the policy a reality, announcing it would begin April 12.
A 15-page memo signed by David Norquirst, who’s performing the duties of deputy secretary of defense, spells out the timeline, procedures and potential exemptions for implementing the plan ordered by Trump and created by former Defense Secretary James Mattis.
As stated on the first page of the memo, the new policy “is effective April 12, 2019.” On the date, the policy of open transgender service as implemented June 30, 2016 during the Obama administration will come to an end after nearly three years.
The memo takes great pains to demonstrate the policy isn’t a ban because it allows transgender people to enlist, provided they have no diagnosis of gender dysphoria and are willing to serve in their biological sex.
“When a standard, requirement, or policy depends on whether the individual is a male or a female (e.g., medical fitness for duty; physical fitness and body fat standards; berthing, bathroom, and shower facilities; and uniform and grooming standards), all persons will be subject to the standard, requirement or policy associated with their biological sex,” the memo says.
The memo also includes an exemption to the ban in certain circumstances. These cases include a transgender person with gender dysphoria who enters into a contract to enlist before the new policy takes effect and has remained stable in their gender identity for 18 months.
“A history of gender dysphoria is disqualifying, unless, as certified by a licensed mental health provider, the applicant has been stable without clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning for 18 months,” the memo says.
As outlined in the Mattis plan last year, that provision would suggest transgender people in the military who came out during the current policy would be able to stay in the armed forces.
According to the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles, an estimated 15,500 transgender people are in the armed forces. A 2016 RAND Corp. study came up with a smaller number, estimating between 1,320 to 6,630 are currently on active duty.
Transgender people who obtain an exemption also appear to be eligible for transition-related care, including gender reassignment surgery, through the military health care system.
“Service members who are exempt may continue to receive all medically necessary treatment, as defined in DoDI 1300.28,” which is the policy outlined during the Obama administration when former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter first implemented transgender military service.
Individuals won’t be eligible for an exemption, however, in other situations, such as having “a history of cross-sex hormone therapy or a history of sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery is disqualifying.”
Moreover, a waiver system seems to be part of the policy. These waivers will be granted “in whole or in part, to the requirements in this attachment in individual cases,” the memo says.
Transgender advocates shredded the plan as a discriminatory effort to prohibit qualified individuals from joining the armed forces.
Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said in a statement the policy represents a “looming purge” and “an unprecedented step backward in the social and civil progress of our country and our military.”
“Throughout our nation’s history, we have seen arbitrary barriers in our military replaced with inclusion and equal standards,” Tobin said, “This is the first time in American history such a step forward has been reversed, and it is a severe blow to the military and to the nation’s values.”
Aaron Belkin, director of the San Francisco-based Palm Center, told the Washington Blade the waivers to the ban aren’t significant and the policy as a whole amounts to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“This is a ban that affects all transgender troops in a similar way that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ affected gay and lesbian troops,” Belkin said. “Now we know that during ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ that didn’t mean that every gay and lesbian person was fired and the same phenomenon is going to be true here, where the transgender ban will burden all transgender troops, but that doesn’t mean they’ll all be fired.”
Belkin estimated 10 percent of transgender troops currently in the military have received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and said “those folks are grandfathered in under the new policy.”
“But it’s really important to remember for those people, they are serving under a double standard that applies only to them, and they’re serving at the discretion at the secretary of defense,” Belkin said. “For all other service members, they have basically job protections. For trans troops, if the secretary decides tomorrow, we don’t want grandfather clause to apply anymore, then trans troops are out.”
The Pentagon unveiled the policy on the same day the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals against its implementation, arguing one court injunction remains in place against the Trump policy.
Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s transgender rights project director, said in a statement the implementation of the Pentagon’s policy was unlawful.
“Not only does the Trump-Pence transgender military ban violate the Constitution, but now the administration is also defying a court order,” Levi said, “With brazen disregard for the judicial process, the Pentagon is prematurely and illegally rolling out a plan to implement the ban when a court injunction remains in place prohibiting them from doing so.
Speier in a statement slammed Trump and his administration for moving forward with a policy undermining and disregarding the service of those troops.
“I would like to know what it is that the President is so afraid of? Transgender troops have served for decades and carried out multiple deployments, including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, to protect our country and freedoms,” Speier said. “These tough, brave servicemembers have never used bone spurs as an excuse to dodge their duty and service to our country. We owe them our gratitude, not government-sanctioned discrimination. This policy is malicious, demeaning and destructive and it does not serve our country’s interests. I will fight it with every fiber of my being.”
Pending before the U.S. House is legislation Speier introduced that would block the transgender military ban. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
Tobin called on Congress to take action and reverse the Pentagon in the aftermath of the unveiling of the new policy.
“The Trump Administration is built on demonizing minority groups; reversing the civil rights gains of immigrants, people of color, women, and the LGBTQ movement will forever remain the hallmarks of their time in office,” Tobin said. “That is why Congress must act now and secure the fate of nearly 15,000 transgender troops. We cannot let an incompetent administration guided by a petulant bigot stand as the mascot of our time. History is watching Congress and will judge them harshly for inaction. That is why we must act swiftly to protect transgender troops, our military, and the dignity of our own legacy.”
A federal judge in Maryland lifted on Thursday his order against President Trump’s transgender military ban, bringing the administration one step closer toward enforcing the policy.
In a six-page order, U.S. District Judge George Russell III, an Obama appointee, rules he must lift his order “because the court is bound by the Supreme Court’s decision” that essentially green lighted Trump’s policy.
Russell was one of four district judges to have issued an order against the transgender military ban, which Trump announced in a series of tweets pledging to bar transgender people from the armed forces “in any capacity.”
But in January, the Supreme Court lifted two of these orders issued by judges in Ninth Circuit, essentially allowing the military to enforce Trump’s ban as litigation against it proceeds through the courts.
Weeks earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had sided with Trump on the transgender military ban, issuing an order against the injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
Although courts have now lifted each of the initial injunctions, transgender advocates say the order from Kollar-Kotelly remains in effect, keeping openly transgender service in place for the time being.
The U.S. Circuit of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has yet to issue the mandate on its decision, which gives the legal team supporting transgender plaintiffs the chance to seek “en banc” review before the full court. Transgender advocates say the absence of the mandate keeps the Kollar-Kotelly order intact for now.
But with the Supreme Court lifting the orders in two other cases, it’s hard to see how the D.C. Circuit would change its mind and take up “en banc” review of its case. After all, the Supreme Court is the superior court, and lower courts are bound by its order to allow enforcement of the ban as litigation proceeds.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the case against the transgender ban in Maryland, sought to convince Russell after the Supreme Court to at least keep the injunction for each of the five plaintiffs in the case, known as Stone v. Trump.
But Russell says in his order the Supreme Court made no such exceptions in its decision on the Ninth Circuits orders, which compels him to deny the request.
“The Supreme Court implicitly rejected the option to narrowly tailor its stays so that the preliminary injunctions were still in effect as to the individual plaintiffs,” Russell writes. “Further, the Stockman and Karnoski plaintiffs include transgender individuals who intend to join the military…like certain plaintiffs in this case. The court, therefore, cannot materially distinguish plaintiffs in this case from those for whom the Supreme Court rejected a narrow tailoring of the stays.”
Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU said in a statement “while not surprising, this decision is deeply disappointing for our clients and for transgender service members across the nation.”
“Each and every claim made by President Trump to justify this ban can be easily debunked by the conclusions drawn from the Department of Defense’s own review process,” Block said. “We will continue to fight against this discriminatory policy and the Trump administration’s attacks on transgender people. Our clients are brave men and women who should be able to continue serving their country ably and honorably without being discriminated against by their own commander in chief.”
Jessica Maxwell, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the military will continue to allow openly transgender service for the time being, but that should change soon.
“The department is pleased with the district court’s decision to stay the final injunction against the department’s proposed policy. The 2016 policy will remain in effect until the department issues further guidance, which will be forthcoming in the near future.
The retired police officer from Coffs Harbour in northern New South Wales hid her identity from friends and family for decades, but has finally been able to become her true self at age 82.
“I lived in my own world to because I had to. Most of my life I never had anybody to talk to about ‘the problem’,” Colleen explains.
“When I was younger I asked my mum if I might be a girl but she died when I was five or six. I didn’t dare mention it to my father or I would have got a clip around the head.
“I was scared of anyone finding out… You had to hide your reactions and feelings a lot. Just how I managed to do that, I don’t quite know. There’s such a hatred of transgenderism at my age, my vintage.
“It would mean so much to me to be able to be what I want to be… If I passed away under that surgery, I’d go quite happily because I’d be going the way I want to be, as a total woman.”
Earlier in her life, Colleen married wife Heather and became the father of two sons. It was only years later that Colleen was able to open up about her secret to Heather.
“Even though Colleen only came out as transgender at 82, she told Heather in her early 40s,” the doco’s filmmaker Ian Thomson told News.com.au.
“They would draw the curtains of their suburban bungalow and have this secret life dressing up and going promenading under the cover of darkness.
“Heather was a true insight into human nature, about how we fall in love with a person not a gender.”
After Heather’s death to cancer a few years ago, Colleen found herself back in the depths of secrecy.
But after explaining her situation to her GP and other support services, Colleen was able to begin her transition with their help.
The documentary follows her journey with the help of social worker Rowena and Colleen’s youngest son John as she moves into full-time aged care.
Thomson said he was drawn to this documentary project because while trans visibility in the media is increasing, there are a lack of transgender stories from working-class people in regional Australia.
“[Colleen’s] was such a compelling story that I asked her if she would be interested in sharing and she said yes,” he said.
“I think at this point she was in her eighties and didn’t want to keep secrets anymore.”
After the MGFF screening of Becoming Colleen in Sydney on February 24, a panel discussion on diversity in aged care will be held including trans advocate and author Sandra Pankhurst.
The International Code Council (ICC), which develops standards for safe and sustainable buildings, has approved changes to restroom standards.W
The ICC is a 64,000 member organization focused on building codes and standards worldwide. Their International Building Code standards are the most widely used set of building safety codes. The ICC is also the group that helps establish federal, state, and municipal construction standards.
At the recommendation of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the National Center for Transgender Equality, the ICC is updating their standards to include a requirement for single-stall restrooms and other gender neutral facilities.R
According to LGBTQ Nation, the first proposal was approved this week. It mandates that all single-stall restrooms must be shown to be available to all users, not a particular gender.
The second approved proposal allows for multi-stall gender neutral facilities, with a shared sink area and private stalls for each toilet.
These new provisions will make it so everyone — including trans and nonbinary people, disabled people, and families with small children — will be able to access a restroom.
‘The American Institute of Architects is proud to have taken a proactive public stance to ensure bathroom accessibility for all,’ CEO of the AIA, Robert Ivy, told LGBTQ Nation.
‘As architects, we are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of all citizens in the built environment. With pragmatic solutions, we can better serve and accommodate a variety of community needs. The code proposals are but one step in the right direction to enable access for all.’The problem in building codes
Ivy is not the only architect that found problems with the existing building codes.
‘In my teaching and in my practice, I’ve become increasingly aware that the “default user” of architecture is basically a white, able-bodied, cisgendered male. And we tend to disregard other, non-conforming bodies,’ architect and Yale professor Joel Sanders told Architectural Digest.
Many other architects are working on finding solutions to this restroom dilemma. Stalled! is one example. This project is led by both architects and activists to ensure the creation of ‘safe, sustainable, and inclusive public restrooms.’
Transgender nurse Jesse Vroegh sued the Iowa Department of Corrections (ACLU of Iowa)
A transgender nurse has been awarded $120,000 after the Iowa prison where he worked rejected his requests to use the men’s bathrooms and locker rooms.
A District Court jury in Polk County decided on Wednesday (February 13) that Jesse Vroegh should receive $100,000 for damages for sex discrimination and $20,000 for discrimination in equal access to health care benefits, The New York Timesreported.
The case marks the first transgender rights case in Iowa since 2007, when the state added gender identity protections to the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
Vroegh, 37, sued the Iowa Department of Corrections (DoC) for workplace discrimination and damages related to being denied insurance coverage for a mastectomy and chest reconstruction after he decided to transition in 2014.
Jesse Vroegh has been fighting the transgender rights case for nearly a year (Jesse Vroegh/facebook)
When the DoC denied Vroegh’s requests, it cited the “rights of the male officers,” adding that transgender issues were “too controversial,” according to the lawsuit.
The nurse claimed he was told he could use the unisex bathrooms in a different building, in an area where he did not work.
Speaking to The Times, Vroegh recalled how being denied access to the men’s facilities at the prison “basically made me feel like they had put a roadblock in front of me, trying to stop my social transition.”
He added that it was “like wearing a Halloween costume, being who you are on the inside and knowing you can’t be who you are on the outside” and said he “involuntarily” left the job in 2016.
The jury decided that the DoC’s response to Vroegh’s request broke the Iowa Civil Rights Act requirement that employers allow workers to use “restrooms in accordance with their gender identity, rather than their assigned sex at birth.”
Transgender nurse Jesse Vroegh surprised by jury’s decision
Vroegh said he was “astonished” by the outcome of his lawsuit.
“It was about being in a country where you have rights and you are free and everybody should be treated equally,” he told The Times, adding: “It is worth it for anybody who comes up after me, who doesn’t have the voice to stand up to a big state entity.”
In a statement to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, who supported his case, Vroegh said it made him “happy and proud” that a jury of Iowans had “recognised that I should be treated equally by my employer and provided the health care coverage I needed.”
“I thought it was an important thing to do for the transgender Iowans who come after me.”
— Jesse Vroegh
He continued: “The whole process of has been difficult and emotionally very trying for me. My life has been put under a microscope because of this case.
“But I thought it was an important thing to do for the transgender Iowans who come after me. I hope this decision means that they will be treated fairly in the future.”.
Activists hail victory for transgender rights in Iowa
In the statement, the ACLU of Iowa called the jury’s verdict “historic.”
The organisation stated that Vroegh’s lawsuit was “the first transgender rights case to be filed in Iowa district court since Iowa added gender identity protections to the Iowa Civil Rights Acts in 2007.”
Melissa Hasso, a lawyer who worked with Vroegh and the ACLU, said it was “a really important victory.”
She added: “It is a cutting edge victory nationally, let alone in Iowa.”
A new poll has found a whopping 70 percent of the American public believe transgender people should be able to serve in the U.S. military despite policy from President Trump seeking to bar them from enlisting.
The Qunnipiac University Poll was published Tuesday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court green lighting Trump’s transgender military ban.
Republicans were the only listed group in the poll opposed to transgender people in the military. They oppose transgender service 50-40 percent. Comparatively, Democrats backed transgender service 94-3 and independent voters support it 75-16.
Among racial groups, the greatest support for transgender service came from black Americans, who back it 90-8. White voters support transgender service 66-26 and Hispanics support it 72-13 (although a significant portion of Hispanics, 15 percent, are undecided.)
Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partner Association said in a statement the poll demonstrates Trump anti-trans policy isn’t consistent with American values.
“It’s crystal clear that the far majority of Americans reject Donald Trump’s reckless, discriminatory attack on our nation’s brave transgender service members,” Broadway-Mack said. “Instead of singling out transgender troops for discrimination, Donald Trump should reverse course and honor them for the heroes they are. Transgender service members have proven time and again that what matters is their ability to accomplish the mission — not their gender identity.”
The poll found support overall is similar to where it stood in August 2017, when 68 percent of voters backed transgender service and 27 percent opposed it. That was months after Trump announced on Twitter ban transgender people from the military “in any capacity.”
The poll surveyed U.S. voters on a wide range of issues, finding Trump has a negative 38-57 percent job approval rating — a dip in approval compared to his 41–55 percent earlier in the month.
Quinnipiac also sought input from voters on other transgender issues. For example, the poll found 56 percent of voters think the United States is somewhat accepting of transgender people, compared to 23 percent who say the U.S. is not so accepting, 9 percent who say it is very accepting and 8 percent who say it is not accepting at all.
Asked whether transgender acceptance would be a good thing or bad thing for the country, voters were split 42-42 on saying it would be a good thing or make not much difference, compared to 12 percent who say it would be a bad thing.
The poll was conducted from Jan. 25 to 28 and surveyed 1,004 voters nationwide, according to Qunnipiac University.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers on Thursday introduced bills that would allow openly transgender people to enlist in the military and protect trans servicemembers who are already serving.
U.S. Reps. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Katko (R-N.Y.), Susan Davis (D-Calif.) and Anthony Brown (D-Md.) introduced House Resolution 1032 in the U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) introduced an identical bill in the U.S. Senate.
The lawmakers introduced the bills less than three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court essentially allowed President Trump’s ban on trans servicemembers take effect.
Speier and U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) are among those who invited trans servicemembers to attend Tuesday’s State of the Union Address as their guests. Several lawsuits that challenge the Trump administration’s policy have also been filed.
“Our transgender servicemembers put their lives on the line every day despite an ill-advised edict from the president,” said Speier in a press release. “This bill makes it clear to our brave transgender troops that we see them and that we honor the risks they take and sacrifices that they and their families make for the safety of our country. It’s also solid common sense. The president’s ban is not only hateful and un-American, it harms military readiness and morale and ultimately makes our country less strong.”
Gillibrand, who is among the Democrats who have announced they are running for president in 2020, agreed.
“President Trump’s ban on transgender service members is discrimination, it undermines our military readiness, and it is an insult to the brave and patriotic transgender Americans who choose to serve in our military,” said Gillibrand in a statement, noting the heads of all five military branches have spoken publicly in support of trans servicemembers in the armed forces.
“We should end this discriminatory ban for good and ensure our transgender service members can continue to do their jobs, serve with dignity, and protect our country,” she added. “That’s what our legislation would do, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to fight with me to overturn the president’s cruel and unnecessary ban, respect the transgender troops who are willing to die for our country, and pass this bipartisan bill now.”
Advocates welcomed the bills.
“No qualified service member or recruit should be denied the opportunity to serve their country because of their gender identity,” said Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Sarah McBride. “A bipartisan chorus of members of Congress and an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Donald Trump and Mike Pence’s transgender troop ban. This legislation would help ensure that transgender service members and enlistees are respected and protected under the law.”
“Thousands of qualified, patriotic transgender Americans raised their right hands and pledged an oath to defend the United States by serving in the military,” added American Military Partner Association President Ashley Broadway-Mack in a separate statement. “Instead of being singled out by the Trump-Pence administration for discrimination, these brave, highly trained warriors deserve our nation’s utmost support and thanks. We are grateful for Senator Gillibrand, Congresswoman Speier, and the members of Congress who are standing behind our nation’s trans service members and making clear that any qualified American should be able to serve — regardless of their gender identity.”
The parents of transgender children met on Capitol Hill Wednesday to share stories about hardships their families have encountered, including anti-trans policies of the Trump administration.
The parents gathered for a one-hour meeting at the Cannon House Office Building for a public meeting hosted by Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-Mass.), chair of the Transgender Equality Task Force. The meeting followed a two-day summit of the Parents for Transgender Equality National Council at the Human Rights Campaign building in D.C.
Rachel Gonzales, who lives in the Dallas area and is the mother of three children, told the story of how her transgender daughter “became progressively anxious and depressed and angry” before she transitioned.
“My husband and I were really at odds with how to handle her increasing need to feminize her presence,” Gonzales said. “And, as she became more aware of other people’s perception of her as a boy, she just hit a wall where she expressed to us that she could not go on any longer with anyone thinking she was a boy, that she needed Santa Claus to turn her into a girl.
That changed, Gonzales said, when she allowed her daughter to transition socially by starting to wear girls’ clothing and growing her hair long.
“She became happier and we changed her name and her pronouns, and she started to come back out of that dark cloud,” Gonzales said. “And we really were anxious about living in Texas, what that would be like, telling her classmates in school that her name and pronouns had changed and much to our surprise, her classmates’ responses were almost comical: Of course, she’s wearing a dress? Why wouldn’t she wear a dress?”
Both Gonzalez and her transgender daughter testified before the Texas Legislature two years ago when lawmakers sought to pass an anti-transgender bathroom bill. The legislation ended up being defeated.
Louis Porter II, formerly executive director of the Council for Minnesotans of African Heritage, talked about his experience raising his non-binary gender expansive child named Zeam, saying he was thankful for the support he found from fellow black elders in his Southern Christian tradition.
“I haven’t met a parent yet who doesn’t worry, but when your child is transgender and black, you worry even more so,” Porter said.
Priya Shah, a gender and sexuality studies teacher in Orange County, Calif., recalled crying last year when Kennedy during his response to President Trump’s State of the Union address, mentioned parents raising transgender children.
“Our daughter who was identified male at birth came to me before her seventh birthday, looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘Mom. I’m a girl. This is the situation,’” Shah said. “In a way I think we had known about that for a long time and that it was coming.”
On the first therapy sessions the family had, Shah said her daughter told her, “I’ve known since I was four, but I thought you would hate me, and I thought people wouldn’t love me.”
“She didn’t even know the word transgender, she didn’t know that it was something that you could be, and she was so scared to even tell her family,” Shah said.
At her daughter’s private school in California, Shah said her daughter wasn’t allowed to transition and was forced to wear a male uniform and go by her old name and male pronouns.
“She would come home every after school and rip the uniform,” Shah said. “One day I found a picture of her that was taken at school and she ripped it in half and said I hate myself.”
At that time, Shah said she started teaching her daughter through home schooling and sued the school, which ultimately changed its policies and started training its principals. Shah said her daughter now is a straight A student and in programs for gifted students.
“It’s a constant battle,” Shah said. “We still have parents in Orange County who want to be able to discriminate against transgender children, there’s teachers that ask if they cannot teach our children.”
Keisha Michaels, who’s black and a social worker, became emotional when she recalled the mortality rate for transgender women of color.
“We worry, we know the number, we know the statistics,” Michaels said. “We realize that transgender women of color, black transgender women, are murdered — I’ll just have to say it — at ridiculous rates in this country. And we worry, my husband and I, we worry every day about it.”
A common theme among the parents at the meeting was the need to pass the Equality Act, which would amend federal civil rights law to explicitly include LGBT people and ban anti-trans discrimination in schools.
JR Ford, a D.C.-based cybersecurity expert who lives in D.C., talked about the importance of the legislation to ensure protections for transgender kids.
“The Equality Act would help to provide protections across an entire nation for transgender youth, so they can know that they exist,” Ford said. “We can leverage state-by-state regulations and policies…It’s more beneficial for all children in this country to be protected, and so the Equality Act really is essential for essential human rights.”
Sarah McBride, a transgender advocate and spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said during the meeting the Equality Act would be introduced in the “coming weeks.” Rep, David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has sponsored the legislation in the U.S. House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has sponsored the legislation in the Senate.
Another theme was the anti-transgender polices of the Trump administration. When Obama-era guidance requiring schools to allow transgender students to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity was rescinded in 2017, Ford said he approached the White House from the street and shouted at the leaders inside.
Jessica Girven, the mother of a transgender daughter in the U.S. military stationed in Germany, became angry when she recalled the Trump administration rescinding the policy ensuring non-discrimination for transgender kids in school.
“The assistant secretary of defense under Obama issued an inclusive affirming policy at all Department of Defense schools and MWR facilities around the world,” Girven said. “So, for the first time, families didn’t have to worry what happens when we move?…Will my child not be able to go to school? Will we be able to rent a house? We had this beautiful policy for four months. It was one of the first things that was rescinded under this administration.”
One participant in the meeting who shared an unexpected story was Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who talked about her soon-to-be 21-year-old transgender grandson Isaac and his process of transitioning.
“I asked him, I said, ‘Growing up was this an issue for you because our family’s very close, he always seemed very happy. He said, ‘I just never knew it was an option, and, you know, I felt loved and accepted in the family.’”
Schakowsky said her grandson is preparing to have gender reassignment surgery for a double mastectomy and has had eggs frozen to ensure he can be a biological parent in the future.
Other lawmakers in attendance were Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) as well as Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.).
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law on Friday two LGBT bills, one banning widely discredited “ex-gay” conversion therapy for youth, the banning anti-transgender discrimination.
The governor penned his name to the legislation at a signing ceremony at the New York City LGBT Community Center with a U.S. flag, a New York state flag, a rainbow Pride flag and a transgender flag in the background in the same year as the 50th anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City.
The two pieces of legislation became law thanks to new Democratic control the New York State Senate. Democrats took control of the chamber for the first time in a decade in the 2018 “blue” wave election, which allowed the bills to pass that chamber earlier his month for the first time.
The ban on anti-transgender discrimination, known as the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, or GENDA, amends the New York Human Rights Law to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment, housing, public spaces and education.
The fight to enact GENDA in New York was a 16-year battle. Previously, GENDA was repeatedly passed in the New York Assembly, but never was approved in the Senate. This year, after the Assembly had approved a total of 11 times, the Democratic-controlled Senate finally passed the transgender protections.
New York becomes the 20th state in the country with explicit statewide protections barring discrimination both on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The state previously had the distinction of being one of two states with a law on the books banning sexual-orientation discrimination, but not gender-identity discrimination. Now that GENDA is law, Wisconsin is the only state left with that distinction. (Wisconsin also has the oldest statewide statute against anti-gay discrimination in the country.)
Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, said in statement the signing of GENDA is a “long-awaited victory [that] sends a strong message that transgender people are worthy of every equal protection under the law.
“As we celebrate today in New York, we are also reminded that we have our work cut out for us: Thirty states nationwide still lack comprehensive and explicit protections for LGBTQ people under state law, and we won’t stop until every LGBTQ American is protected by fully comprehensive laws that cannot be trumped by those seeking to erase us,” Davis said.
The ban on conversion therapy for youth also representative an achievement after years of effort. New York becomes the 15th state to enact such a measure. Other jurisdictions that have enacted similar laws are Connecticut, California, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland, Hawaii and New Hampshire.
Although neither GENDA nor the “ex-gay” therapy ban were laws in New York, Cuomo during his tenure sought to enact the goals of those measures through executive order.
In 2015, Cuomo directed New York’s Division of Human Rights to interpret state law barring sex discrimination to apply to cases of anti-trans discrimination. In 2016, Cuomo banned public and private insurers in New York from covering conversion therapy.