Unjust Trans Rights Bill Advancing In Massachusetts?

The trans rights bill that has been languishing in Massachusetts for six years is advancing toward a critical debate, and unfortunately I'm not happy about that.

Because like the unjust Maryland civil rights abomination that thankfully died earlier this year, the Massachusetts trans rights bill doesn't cover public accommodations.

So why am I calling it an unjust bill?   Time for me to call on a gentleman that earned his doctorate in the Bay State.  Take it away Dr. King

"A just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself."

"To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 'Letter From Birmingham City Jail, 1963

The redrafted unjust bill includes transgender persons as a "protected class" in the state’s hate crime laws, prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in jobs, housing, insurance, mortgage loans, and credit.

So where's the 'public accommodations' language? 
Gunner Scott and MTPC, seriously?   No public accommodations language in light of the Maryland McBeatdown that Chrissy Lee Polis took and Teonna Brown is doing jail time for that painfully points out why public accommodations language in any trans rights bills is essential?   That's civil rights malpractice.

Massachusetts transpeople, ask your legislators two questions: 

Would they be willing to live with a civil rights bill that didn't cover public accommodations?  
Would they amend civil rights bills that cover them to take public accommodations language out of them? 

If their answer is no to both questions, then ask them why if those laws are not appropriate for them, why should transpeople, who have already been waiting six years too damn long for human rights coverage, should be satisfied with a law they as cispeople wouldn't accept or want to live by?

When will you white trans activists get it through your thick fracking heads that taking public accommodations out of a civil rights bill or settling so you can get a legislative win is NEVER a fracking option? 

I know it's a pain in the rear to get comprehensive trans rights laws passed in the first place.  That's why it's even more important you get it right the first time and don't do it half assed.  

And once again who will pay for your lack of civil rights vision?   The people who will pay for your caving to the MassReistance bigots and their 'Bathroom Bill propaganda to create an unjust law for transpeople will be the POC and low income transpeople in Massachusetts.

Mass AG Martha Coakley's Letter Supporting Trans Rights Bill

She may have famously flamed out in her campaign to keep the late Teddy Kennedy's US Senate seat in Democratic hands, but Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is a supporter of trans rights.

According to a Hannah Clay Wareham article in Bay Windows, AG Coakley authored a July 20 letter to Massachusetts Legislature House Chairman Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea) and Senate Judiciary Chairwoman Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), seeking a favorable recommendation from the Judiciary Committee for H. 502/5. 764, "An Act Relative to Transgender Equal Rights," AKA the  "Transgender Equal Rights Bill." 

It's a bill the Massachusetts trans community has long sought after being cut ages ago out of the one the GL community passed for itself in the state.  The proposed legislation would add gender identity and expression to existing Massachusetts civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, and marital status in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and credit.

On June 8 the Transgender Equal Rights Bill had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee.  Governor Deval Patrick (D) is on record as saying he would sign the bill if it it is passed by the legislature and hit his desk.

Here's Attorney General Coakley's letter in favor of the bill.

The legislation currently before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary addresses the inequalities, mistreatment and abuse that transgender individuals regularly face by making it clear that they are protected against discrimination and violence under state law. This legislation will add gender identity or expression to our existing antidiscrimination laws concerning employment, housing, public accommodations, education, lending and credit. In practice, this change will prohibit landlords, employers, educational institutions, businesses, banks and places of public accommodation from discriminating against persons based on their gender identity or expression. And it will prohibit transgender individuals from being singled out and denied the same, basic rights and privileges that non-transgender people have long enjoyed and take for granted. Finally, this legislation will add gender identity or expression to our existing hate crime laws so that those who criminally victimize transgender individuals because of who they are will be properly charged and punished.

Over the past several years, opponents of this legislation have attempted to stoke fears about the public safety implications of this bill. Just last week, opponents began running radio ads that mischaracterize the bill to foster fear and bigotry, specifically by terming it the "bathroom bill" and threatening that its passage will permit men to dress as women for the purpose of entering restrooms to engage in unlawful conduct and claim protection under this law. Given the incorrect and unfortunate misconceptions generated by such statements, I wish to address this issue directly.

First, this bill does nothing to change existing laws in place to prosecute and punish individuals who engage in criminal conduct. As a prosecutor for more than 25 years, I can emphatically state that this bill only increases our ability to prosecute criminal conduct and protect the civil rights of all, and does nothing to restrict our ability to protect victims of any crimes. All people should be able to use restrooms and locker rooms in safety and with privacy, and that would remain the case under this new law. Allowing transgender people to use facilities that comport with their gender identity and how they live their lives is the safest and most workable approach and one that reduces further stigmatization. It is also the policy of the federal government as set forth by the Office of Personal Management which now requires federal employers to allow their employees to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their gender identity.

         

Second, inherent in this harmful commentary is the implication that transgender individuals are sex offenders or sexually deviant persons. Not only is this characterization inaccurate, it is deeply offensive and insulting. I note for the Committee that our office is unaware of a single instance where an individual has attempted to use this type of gender identity or expression protection as a defense to claims of criminal conduct or violation of privacy in any of the jurisdictions that have passed similar laws. Contrary to some of the commentary, it does not extend any new protections to sex offenders.


In short, I believe this legislation is the next step in our forward path of extending equal protections to all citizens and eradicating discrimination in our Commonwealth. I strongly urge you to give 11.502/S.764 a favorable recommendation.

 Thanks AG Coakley.  Now lets see if the peeps at Beacon Hill follow through on your recommendation.


.