Massachusetts has long been seen as a vanguard in the advancement of equality for our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) friends and neighbors. We beam with pride that we were the first state in the nation to afford same-sex couples the right to marry, but our efforts can’t stop there in our pursuit to ensure all residents of our state are treated fairly and equally under the law. Currently Massachusetts law does not explicitly protect transgender people from discrimination in public places. By adopting legislation currently pending on Beacon Hill, Massachusetts would send a loud and clear message to transgender people from Boston to Stockbridge that they are accepted and safe in their home state. As a legislator I know this is the right thing to do. But this fight is also personal for me: My daughter is married to a transgender man.
When my daughter, her husband, and their two young sons go to dinner at a restaurant here in Massachusetts they are not afforded the same basic protections the rest of us are. At any moment they could be refused service with no explanation needed. When they go to the park they could be told to leave because others feel uncomfortable. When my son-in-law uses the public restroom at the mall he could be escorted out. This is not how we should expect our family, friends and neighbors to be treated in Massachusetts. We are better than this.
My colleagues and I have an opportunity now to make this right. Last month I joined with a group of legislators in supporting HB.1577/SB.735, “An Act Relative to Transgender Anti-Discrimination” before the joint judiciary committee. The legislation would add “gender identity” to existing Massachusetts civil rights law for public accommodations, which currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, religion and marital status.
Opponents say that this law would put women and children at risk allowing men to momentarily identify as women in order to perpetrate a crime in a public restroom or locker room. This is nothing but fear mongering. Attorney General Maura Healey, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans and Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley were among those who testified last month at the committee hearing. Attorney General Healey and Commissioner Evans both testified that there have been no such cases ever reported in other states with these protections (yes, there are 18 ahead of Massachusetts) or in the 13 cities or towns in Massachusetts that have ordinances. DA Conley testified that if a scenario such as that did occur, law enforcement is already able to, and would, prosecute aggressively.
It’s also worth noting that guidance issued two years ago by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education already covers this topic. The implementation of the guidance, allowing transgender students to access the restroom or locker room to which they identify, has gone forward with few – if any – problems. Because of that, several schools testified in support at the hearing, and the Massachusetts Parent Teacher Association has publicly backed the bill.
The business community is also behind this. More than 170 companies, from the largest in the state to the smallest, many of them public accommodations, have all signed on in support.
The common belief is that if this legislation is not voted on before we break for Thanksgiving, it will be even harder to pass until after the 2016 elections. We were sent to Beacon Hill to lead on behalf of ALL of the Commonwealth’s residents, not to avoid issues when the topic was uncomfortable. These protections have been before the legislature since 2007. As a Commonwealth, we have had a long and full debate. It is now time to act and if we don’t we should be held accountable. There is no good reason why our transgender neighbors should have to wait any longer to be assured the same basic rights as everyone else under Massachusetts law. You can help push the legislature to take action by calling your representative or state senator TODAY and telling them to act without any further delay.
My daughter and her family are not that different than yours. They don’t want anything more than what everyone else has – the peace of mind knowing that they will be treated as fairly as their neighbors and that the laws will protect them if they aren’t. As a legislator that is something I can get behind. As a mother and grandmother, I expect nothing less.
kate says
Cory, Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your advocacy with this and other issues. Kate
fredrichlariccia says
as a proud activist member of the LGBTQ community for the past 35 years I am ashamed of my Democratic Party for dropping the ball and dragging its feet on transgender rights. We have kicked this can down the road long enough. It’s time for action, NOW!
Please call your State Rep. @ 617-722-1600 AND
your State Senator @ 617-722-1455 and ask them to vote
for ” An Act Relative to Transgender Anti – Discrimination” : HB. 1577 / SB. 735.
And thank you, friend, Cory Atkins, for once again championing the civil rights of those living in the shadows of life. You are a true profile in courage!
Fred Rich LaRiccia
fredrichlariccia says
number is 617-722-2000. Sorry for the mistake.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Christopher says
On the one hand I want to say law or no law, transgender persons have and will continue to use public restrooms without incident, and if there were just more unisex facilities anyway this would be moot. On the other hand I can understand people’s discomfort encountering someone with the “wrong” anatomy in a public restroom. Since the literal facilities are the same (yes, urinals are available in men’s rooms, but both have toilets in stalls) it sounds like this comes down to being comfortable in your surroundings. So my devil’s advocate question (mostly for help with explaining this to others) is why is the comfort of a transgender person more important than the comfort of others?
jconway says
I used to think similar thoughts as well, and I honestly think you are asking the BMG community for guidance, so I hope nobody jumps on you too harshly.
I would say first and foremost that this needs to happen more:
I noticed that Pret a Manger does this quietly, and more and more places in Chicago that have only two restrooms are making them gender neutral. I heard Starbucks will phase them in. It’s also pretty easy to mandate that there be gender neutral restrooms for trans sensitivity purposes as well as convenience for those of us in a hurry. It really doesn’t make sense to ‘gender’ single use restrooms in the first place.
So the law can definitely mandate that switch, it won’t cost businesses that much and will automatically make most facilities compliant.
It is this comment that probably will come across as insensitive and lead to people jumping on you, and I want to try and educate you away from this frame as best I can:
The idea is how we choose to determine gender identity and who has the rights in this scenario. I would argue, that it is up to the individual to choose their identity and determine where they should go, and the rest of us just have to accept them.
In the long run, this may lead to gender neutral bathrooms even for multi use facilities, which may even be a good thing. I once laughed at this article from U Chicago Law professor Mary Ann Case when I read it as an undergrad, but have been reconsidering it in recent years. I suspect, her solution may just be the natural course of action. According to Reason magazine, the gender neutral bathrooms were the norm over a century ago, and segregation is a more recent phenomenon, first put into law right here in Massachusetts.
fredrichlariccia says
it’s about respecting Constitutional rights.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform clearly states that : ” Massachusetts Democrats believe in equal justice under the law for all. We believe that discrimination based on … gender identity… has no place in our communities.”
It’s time for all of us to start thinking, speaking and acting outside our comfort zone.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Christopher says
…that the Democratic State Committee a few months back passed a resolution explicitly endorsing this bill. I am a member of the DSC and yes, I voted for it. In fact, I don’t recall any discussion beyond the movers introducing the resolution or any dissent. I just wanted to hear others’ thoughts on how to respond to a woman who says, “I don’t want to see an anatomically male person in my restroom,” with something more intelligent and compassionate than “tough luck”.
Thank you and jconway for your own compassionate and intelligent responses. I was very apprehensive about writing the previous comment.
jconway says
In Houston the primary argument against bathroom equity relied on fear mongering linking the transgendered with pedophiles, echoing the Schaffly campaigns against gays in California over a quarter century ago. So I strongly denounce any attempt to say ‘think of the children’ when we debate similar legislation here. Transgendered individuals are not a threat to children, and I think we have to make that point crystal clear as we go forward with this.
whoaitsjoe says
Is this accurate? If we were in Texas, I wouldn’t doubt it. I feel like the laws in Mass are already at a level where people can’t just be refused services for no reason at a restaurant.
fredrichlariccia says
not restaurant dining service.
“When my son-in-law uses the public restroom in the mall he could be escorted out.” REP.CORY ATKINS
Fred Rich LaRiccia