thomascwaters.com

Kate asked:

Do you think HB300 would have more support if the “gender identity” portions were excluded?

Thanks for a good question!

I think that the general public understands “sexual orientation” better than “gender identity and expression” and in that sense, yes, it might seem easier to pass without gender identity and expression, but more generally speaking, no I don’t think that would make that much difference here in Pennsylvania. Unlike how the issue has gone in some other states, here, the primary issues with the bill have nothing to do with transgender issues. It seems to me that there are a few main points that come up over and over in discussions with legislators: 1) Religious Exemption from hiring gay or lesbians; 2) Is this bill really needed? Legislators aren’t aware of how many cases of discrimination happen on a yearly basis; BUT, the big issue is gay marriage! People are afraid that this bill is only put forth to open the door for gay marriage. The reality is that discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations is a significant (and in my opinion, more important issue) than gay marriage.

In some other states, where sexual orientation is already covered, transgender protection has been hard for the general public mostly because of the way opponents have stolen the discourse and filled it with misinformation.

I also think that it has to be all or nothing. IF, we really care about equal rights, we can’t accomplish that piece meal, or by sacrificing one group or another. Either we buy into the fact all Pennsylvanians deserve equal protection under the law, or we don’t.

Lastly, “Gender Identity and Expression” is important from the standpoint of protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight people! It isn’t just about transfolk! Consider it this way. A woman goes to work everyday. She has short hair, curt in a somewhat masculine cut. She is never seen in a skirt or dress. She is single, and no details of her personal life are known by her fellow employees. Rumors begin to spread about her. What is the basis of this? Is it her sexual orientation? No!  She is more of a butch woman, but she could be heterosexual, right? When she is passed over for a promotion, or if she experiences any harassment- it is about her gender expression.

Or consider this: A man goes to a job interview. He is quite animated, and talks wit his hands which are a bit flamboyant. He isn’t hired, because the interviewer assumes he is gay. He may be, or he may not, but it is his gender expression, or the perception of it that he is judged by.

OK, one more point, I’d like to make. Gender expression and identity has already been protected in Pittsburgh, and some other locations for quite some time, so in PA, we have a history of these protections. We know that providing these protections state-wide will not have negative impact for the state, but just the opposite. It makes PA more competitive in today’s business world, where companies want to be located in places that value diversity and protect civil rights. Here, opponents can’t use the fear mongering about what horrific things can happen, because, if they were going to happen we would see examples for the many years that transfolk have been protected here in Pittsburgh as well as elsewhere.

Thanks for the question! I wonder what you think? Leave a comment and let me know-