(Massachusetts) Legislature Approves Transgender Rights Bill

[Ian David]

Source: A.P. via NPR

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Senate has joined the House in passing a bill that would prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals.

The measure was approved by the Senate Wednesday morning on a voice vote. No senator spoke against it.

The House passed the bill Tuesday night but only after Democratic leaders moved to limit debate to one hour, cutting off many of the 50 or so amendments that had been filed by opponents.

<snip>

The bill still needs routine final approval votes in both branches.


Read more: http://www.wbur.org/2011/11/16/massachusetts-transgender

---

EVERY Republican in the MA House of Representatives EXCEPT Dan Winslow voted AGAINST the MA Transgender Rights Bill even though their "Oh My God, straight men will put on wigs and hide in ladies rooms, ie Bathroom Bill argument" was removed with public accommodations in the passed bill.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/journal/RollCallPdfs/187/00163.pdf?Session=187&RollCall=00163
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=147678931998544&id=585770143



Why Doesn’t MA’s Trans Rights Bill Protect Trans People From Public Discrimination?

On Tuesday, a Joint Judiciary Committee in the Massachusetts legislature advanced a six-year-old bill that would include trans people 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—that’s good, right?

Well… the bill also shares a big flaw with a similar trans rights measure that died in Maryland just this last April—it doesn’t guarantee trans people the right to recieve proper “public accommodations” in hospitals, bathrooms gyms, restaurants, hotels or public transit.

The bill’s sponsors dropped public accommodation protections to garner Republican support for the bill—because letting trans people use public restroom will endanger daughters and wives, naturally. Jennifer Levi, director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Transgender Rights Project says that the bill is at least a good start that takes political reality into account while laying the groundwork for public accommodation inclusion later on. But trans blogger Monica Roberts has called the bill an “unjust… civil rights malpractice”:

<snip>

Roberts at least raises one particularly powerful point: if cisgendered Massachusetts politicians wouldn’t accept a civil rights bill that denied them public access to bathrooms, transportation and hospitals, why should trans citizens?

More:
http://www.queerty.com/why-wont-mas-trans-rights-bill-protect-trans-people-from-public-discrimination-20111115

Also:

HRC 'applauds Massachusetts Legislature for passing Transgender Equal Rights Bill'
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2011/11/hrc-applauds-massachusetts-legislature-for-passing-transgender-equal-rights-bill.html

Senate approves transgendered civil rights bill; measure sent to Patrick for signature
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/11/senate-approves-transgendered-civil-rights-bill-measure-sent-patrick-for-signature/3DvbyiKOWEoQs4tsXkzMXP/index.html



See prior threads:

Why Doesn’t MA’s Trans Rights Bill Protect Trans People From Public Discrimination?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x190137

Kerry: Fighting for MA Transgender Equal Rights Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x689647

Poll: 76 Percent of Mass. Voters Support Transgender Rights Bill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x179851

[hughee99]

1. I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on one aspect of this...

Several times it's suggested that this bill has serious flaws because issues were given up in order to get repuke votes.

In Massachusetts, the Senate is 36-4 Democratic, and the House is 127-33 Democratic. They didn't need a single repuke vote to pass this (or anything else for that matter).

[Ian David]

2. The Republicans said they would not vote for it because of the supposed "bathroom issue."

The Democrats removed the "bathroom issue."

The Republicans voted against it anyway.

"We removed the 'bathroom issue,' and our Republican colleagues voted against it anyway, because this was never really about bathrooms for them. They're all just bigots."

If this was the actual strategy, the question then becomes, was it worth it to play this game to score political points?

[hughee99]

3. So the things they gave up didn't get repuke votes ANYWAY

and when you have a statehouse so overwhelmingly Democratic, it's not worth it giving up anything like this just to score political points. The likely scenario I see is that they had problems in their own caucus getting the votes and are attempting to spin this as appeasing the repukes.

Massachusetts is a one party state. The upside is that you can do a lot of things legislatively if you are so inclined. The downside is that if your not happy with the legislation, it's really hard to blame anyone else.

[Ian David]

4. I am inclined to agree. n/t