Ops. I read the headline and I thought that they were talking about non-discrimination laws, but they are talking about bills attacking us.
Reading the headline I thought that they were complaining about the fact that the non-discrimination laws do not mention the word “transgender” anywhere in the laws and there are very good reasons why the word transgender is not not mentioned. The Connecticut law is…
Why? Did we want to deny trans people existence?
No, for us we wanted the most broad language we could use. We didn’t want to limit just to people who transitioned. We wanted to make sure that it included non-binary people, crossdressers, drag queens and kings, and everyone who crosses the gender norms, it even covers cis-gender people who are thought to be trans.
The second reason is that there is no legal definition of the word “transgender” and the word morphs over time. When I transitioned fifteen years ago the word was an umbrella term that meant anyone who crossed the gender norms, now people are trying to change it to mean only those who have transitioned.
I remember that we were ready to pull the bill if an amendment limiting the bill to just those who have had surgery or sought medical treatment. Because there were some terrible talk of amendments, they were poison pills that they knew that we would never accept. One amendment wanted us to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles if we were trans so that the police would know that it was okay to be crossdressed. Another wanted to raise the level of a crime if it occurred while we were crossdressed. Sen. Beth Bye asked the senator who proposed the amendment if women were protesting an all men golf club by dressing as men to get inside the club to protest would that now be considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor? Yes.
It was a very intense time as the bill moved through legislature fighting off poison pill amendments designed to kill the bill. We want the law to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
The Word Missing From the Majority of Anti-Trans Legislation? “Transgender.”My answer to that is “well of course” what did you expect, they hate our guts, we are their Lord Voldemort, the one who shall not be named. Giving us a name empowers us and that is the first thing that do not want to do.
In 102 anti-trans bills in seven states, the word “transgender” appears just eight times—part of an effort to deny trans kids’ existence even as the legislation affects what they can and cannot do.
Ms
By Orion Rummler, THE 19TH and Kate Sosin, THE 19TH
November 15, 2021
Over three special legislative sessions this year, Texas legislators introduced 47 proposed bills that aimed to restrict transgender kids’ access to sports or gender-affirming care, plus three bills that would block birth certificate updates for minors. The word “transgender” didn’t appear in any of them.
Proponents of the bills in Texas—which brought triple the number of anti-trans bills this year of any other state—also rarely reference trans people during debate, even though the legislation is about what trans kids can and cannot do. Instead, they use language that categorizes trans girls as boys by using sex assigned at birth to define gender identity.
~~~~~~~~
Reading the headline I thought that they were complaining about the fact that the non-discrimination laws do not mention the word “transgender” anywhere in the laws and there are very good reasons why the word transgender is not not mentioned. The Connecticut law is…
(21) "Gender identity or expression" means a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.Notice that nowhere is the word “transgender” is used in the law.
Why? Did we want to deny trans people existence?
No, for us we wanted the most broad language we could use. We didn’t want to limit just to people who transitioned. We wanted to make sure that it included non-binary people, crossdressers, drag queens and kings, and everyone who crosses the gender norms, it even covers cis-gender people who are thought to be trans.
The second reason is that there is no legal definition of the word “transgender” and the word morphs over time. When I transitioned fifteen years ago the word was an umbrella term that meant anyone who crossed the gender norms, now people are trying to change it to mean only those who have transitioned.
I remember that we were ready to pull the bill if an amendment limiting the bill to just those who have had surgery or sought medical treatment. Because there were some terrible talk of amendments, they were poison pills that they knew that we would never accept. One amendment wanted us to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles if we were trans so that the police would know that it was okay to be crossdressed. Another wanted to raise the level of a crime if it occurred while we were crossdressed. Sen. Beth Bye asked the senator who proposed the amendment if women were protesting an all men golf club by dressing as men to get inside the club to protest would that now be considered a felony instead of a misdemeanor? Yes.
It was a very intense time as the bill moved through legislature fighting off poison pill amendments designed to kill the bill. We want the law to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment