Today’s Hartford Courant Editorial – Transgender Rights

State Must Extend Legal Protections To Transgender Residents
May 30, 2009

Connecticut has done a good job of protecting its residents from discrimination in employment, education, housing, public accommodations and credit. But one small group of people has been left out of specific statutory protection. The legislature should rectify the omission by adding the phrase "gender identity or expression" to anti-discrimination laws.

About half of the comments on the Hartford Courant’s web-site have been negative. They make the same old arguments about teachers and “special rights.”

One person writes, “Do you want then teaching Elementary School children? Do you want them running Daycare Centers? Do you want your young childs sexual identity influenced by these folks? Just a thought.” Another wrote, “What exactly does "legal protection" mean for cross dressers? Does that mean that a cross dressing male can show up at his job at an elementary, junior high or high school wearing a dress and make-up?”

As I have mentioned before, this is the same old argument that they said about gays in the seventies when Anita Bryant running around the country sell her hate. And they said it in the 90’s when Connecticut passed a non-discrimination law protecting sexual orientation. It wasn’t true then and it not true now. In addition, if you ban teachers from transitioning, you are teaching the children that it is OK to discriminate and as I mentioned in an earlier post about school bullying of LGBT students, this will only increase the bullying by sending the wrong message.

Then you have the “special rights” crowd… “What laws protect the normal, middle class, white, working man? We always hear about laws to protect certain"groups", what is there to protect me?” and “Wait one minute here. I belong to the rather large group of disenfrancheised voters. Can we get statutory protection too?” or “Until the State adds a Council on the Equal Legal Protection of White Males, I will not endorse further additional rights being given others.”

What is so special about wanting a job so that you can take care of your family?

The editorial then goes on to say,

This could be done yet this session by amendment. A bill to add that language received a public hearing but was not voted out of committee.

I won’t be holding my breath. Since there are, only three more days left in the legislative session and the budget hasn’t been passed yet. In 2007, they introduced the bill to the House at the end of the day, the day before the session ended and it got filibuster. I would imagine the samething would happen this year if they introduced the amendment.