Archive for Thursday, November 19, 2009
Commission votes against including gender identity in Lawrence’s anti-discrimination policy
November 19, 2009, 1:11 p.m. Updated November 20, 2009, 12:00 a.m.
Advertisement
The Lawrence Human Relations Commission is recommending against adding gender identity as a protected status to the city’s anti-discrimination policy.
Following about an hour of discussion and public comment at Thursday’s meeting, a motion to recommend adding gender identity to the policy failed with three votes in favor and six against.
The Lawrence City Commission in May asked the Human Relations Commission to make a recommendation after a request by the Kansas Equality Coalition. The commission discussed the issue for several months and hosted a public forum in August.
Adding gender identity to the policy would have provided protections against discrimination for people who identify or express themselves as a gender other than the one assigned at birth. Examples include transsexuals or someone who has male biological traits, but presents himself as a woman, and vice versa.
Of the 13 community members who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting Thursday, 10 stated opposition to adding gender identity to the policy.
The concerns mentioned included the expense of adding and enforcing changes in the policy, ambiguity in the language of the term gender identity, and concerns about how the policy would affect public facilities such as public restrooms and shower facilities.
Local attorney Tim Riling argued that a policy change could create a situation where a man, dressed as a woman, could enter a women’s restroom to assault a woman or child.
“If passed, the city would be facilitating people with criminal intent,” Riling said.
Maggie Childs, from the Kansas Equality Coalition, was involved in the original request to the city, and said she expected the commission to vote for a change to the policy.
“I’m very surprised by the vote,” she said following the meeting. “I’m speechless, really.”
Childs said the opposition at Thursday’s meeting was in contrast to the support voiced for adding gender identity to the policy at the public forum on the issue in August.
Commission Chair Lori Tapahonso said that in the next few months the commission will present a report to the city about its decision, and she expects the city to follow the commission’s recommendation not to make changes to the policy.
Top ads RSS
- Web/Usability Design Engineer This position is responsible for creating engaging, ...
- SENIOR SUPERVISORS (2 Openings) Both openings performs daily food service ...
- SALES ASSOCIATES We are looking for the best Sales Associates ...
- IT Director Newcomer Group, a privately owned, forward thinking company ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Concealed Carry: What Is The Best Concealed Carry Weapon? February 7, 2010 · 88 comments
- Kansans rally for statewide smoking ban, point to health benefits February 9, 2010 · 23 comments
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 235 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 90 comments
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 50 comments
- Blog: Marion - Disappeareded 1-23-2010 January 23, 2010 · 806 comments
- Tehran moves closer to warhead capacity February 9, 2010 · 43 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 73 comments
- Consolidation no cure-all February 10, 2010 · 2 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 55 comments
- Tour of Lawrence offers events for all ages, interests February 9, 2010
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Historic KU building to get $1.1 million exterior renovation February 9, 2010
- Love bonds February 8, 2010
- Peoples Bank ordered by federal regulators to improve financial condition February 1, 2010
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
- Inspection questions arise after teen injured by medical gas accident at dentist's office April 17, 2009
- Robinson lifts Cowboys, 49-33 January 1, 2008
- Gary Bedore’s KU basketball notebook February 9, 2010
19 November 2009
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) says…
What a sad day.
19 November 2009
at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
johnconn (Anonymous) says…
Agreed. This very sad.
19 November 2009
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
4chewnut (Anonymous) says…
Could the reporter actually tell us who voted for and the idiots who voted against? And did they say why?
19 November 2009
at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
A very good day for Lawrence. A very good day. Now watch all the heterophobes start calling me names.
19 November 2009
at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…
Heterophobes???? Sad.
19 November 2009
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
consumer1 - I won't! I agree with you. It is a good day for Lawrence.
19 November 2009
at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cdc (Anonymous) says…
Is there anyone in the world who is a heterophobe? Being heterophobic would mean that you hate/are frightened of 90-98% of humanity, including your own parents (at least most of the time). Who has the energy/time for all that hate? No one except maybe the Phelps Family…and obviously they aren't focused on the heteros out there.
19 November 2009
at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shaunepec (Shaun Hittle) says…
4chewnut,
Sorry I'm just getting to this. But, this was the quick, breaking version of this story. A longer one will be in tomorrow's paper, and will provide more detail. However, how people voted is not available. They simply do it by number, not name, in a verbal vote. They do not record the names, and I was unable to determine who voted for what , other than a few of the commissioners.
When voting, they did not specify reasons.
Shaun Hittle
LJW Reporter
19 November 2009
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
4chewnut (Anonymous) says…
Shaun, Thanks for the reply. I do think it would be good to contact the commission and get who voted for and against and try to get a reason from them. thnks
19 November 2009
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Perhaps it would be better not to publish the names of those who voted no. You know how that retribution thing goes …
19 November 2009
at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
cdc - I don't think that 90-98% statistic applies to Lawrence. Or for that matter, San Francisco.
(Just kidding. Save the hate mail)
19 November 2009
at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cdc (Anonymous) says…
No one in Lawrence would “retaliate” against anyone who voted against this! Except maybe with their vote. Elected officials should be able to stand up for their point of view, no matter their stance. If you're a coward or unable to stand by your vote, you shouldn't be voting on issues such as this!
19 November 2009
at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty275 (Anonymous) says…
Gender discrimination is sometimes justified. You probably wouldn't want your eagle scout going on jamboree with an older woman that likes wearing men's uniforms and teenage boys.
On the other hand, your son might like it. He might even get another badge.
19 November 2009
at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
parrothead8 (Anonymous) says…
The anti-discrimination law pertains to employment relations, free and public accommodations, and housing. So, basically, the Lawrence City Commission just said it's okay to not hire people or rent them a place to live solely based on their gender identity.
It's always a banner day when we decide it's okay to discriminate against people who aren't doing anything illegal. Man, I love the smell of discrimination in the morning. It smells like…moral high ground.
Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing who voted which way, so I know which way to vote.
20 November 2009
at 2:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
benanhalt (Anonymous) says…
«Local attorney Tim Riling argued that a policy change could create a situation where a man, dressed as a woman, could enter a women’s restroom to assault a woman or child.»
Shouldn't that be _local_comedian_ Tom Riling? Surely no one could make an argument like that in all seriousness.
We should have a ban on people dressing their dogs up in sweaters. A wolf could dress himself up in an old granny sweater and sneak into granny's cottage in the forest. The better to fool little Red Riding Hood, my dear!
20 November 2009
at 4:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Divide and Conquer. Does this mean that someone like Palin can be made fun of in Lawrence? C.L.a P. your hands progressive articulates.
Stimulus and Posercare lives
Darwin bless you all
20 November 2009
at 4:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rando1965 (Anonymous) says…
awesome awesome your either a male or a female not both bert nash offers therapy go get some help…..k.u. psyc clinic as well
20 November 2009
at 6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tanzer (Anonymous) says…
exactly benenhalt - men can already dress up as women and enter the ladies room to assault children. Unless the dsiguise is wretchedly poor - we wouldn't know. So are we to stop all women entering public restrooms to verify thier gender? And do all women really just only use the restroom once they do enter? remind me to never ask this guy for legal counsel.
20 November 2009
at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Riling's comment was indeed idiotic. Does he really think that someone who is going to assault a woman or a child in a women's restroom will check to see if there is an anti-discrimination ordinance before doing so?
20 November 2009
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scriqui (Anonymous) says…
4chewnut,
Voting records are always open to the public.
Voting for:
Tapahonso
Criqui
Diaz Moore
Voting against:
Hodison
Krug
Leonard
Dunn
Johnson
Barnhill
Note: None of these individuals are elected. They are appointed by the mayor, nor are they paid. They volunteer there time and services to the city.
20 November 2009
at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shaunepec (Shaun Hittle) says…
Scriqui,
Thanks for getting the voting information. I was planning on following up considering the interest expressed here.
Shaun Hittle
Reporter
LJW
20 November 2009
at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
parrothead8 (Anonymous) says…
Thanks for posting this, scriqui. The original story, which has since been drastically modified, stated that the Lawrence City Commission had voted on this issue. Now it reads that the Lawrence Human Rights Commission voted on the issue. Big difference.
Riling's comment is moronic. As a lawyer, he should know that you don't legislate rights away from people based on what they MIGHT do with them. He has no good evidence to show that what he said might happen would actually happen, he's just trying to put his fear into others.
I propose we rename the LHRC to the Lawrence Some Human Rights Commission.
20 November 2009
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overthemoon (Anonymous) says…
Ridiculous. It seems that if ANYONE commits a crime, it is a crime no matter what their sexual preferences are. The point here is not to protect criminals, but to protect victims and give them equal footing in court.
The bathroom argument is typical of the nonsensical hysteria gripping our country today. We really need to work together, from and for all sides, to snuff the baseless fearmongering that is dividing us for no good reason and is creating a very hostile public screaming match.
20 November 2009
at 9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A little narrow in your interpretation, Dresden. In a democracy, the primary enemy is ignorance, which this commission exhibits in spades.
20 November 2009
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimmyjms (Anonymous) says…
“Local attorney Tim Riling argued that a policy change could create a situation where a man, dressed as a woman, could enter a women’s restroom to assault a woman or child.
“If passed, the city would be facilitating people with criminal intent,” Riling said.”
Uh, what? Get your head out of your ass, Riling.
20 November 2009
at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LawrenceFAQ (Anonymous) says…
For those few of you who identify yourself in this or any LJW blog your comments are greatly welcomed and appreciated. Your views, whether for or against this issue, stand out amidst the otherwise basic slew of rants and name calling. This is a very important issue; one that caused a lot of heated discussion from both sides. In the end however it was probably those who attended the meetings and spoke up in person that decided the issue. So many people there were against the issue yet so many people here are for it. I wonder why that is?
21 November 2009
at 12:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
Due to the proportion of speakers, for vs. against, I get the impression that this meeting was intentionally under-publicized, making sure a select group of reactionaries knew about it, but the broader interested community kept in the dark.
Open meetings violation? Not technically, but something smells!
21 November 2009
at 2:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chicklet (Anonymous) says…
i honestly do not want to go into a women's restroom and have a d&^k next to me just because he feels like a woman.
21 November 2009
at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RobertJones (Anonymous) says…
If you have the time (& the stomach) to watch this, the southpark guys have a funny take on the issue.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episo…
21 November 2009
at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
postfactumproductions (Anonymous) says…
How many of my transgendered friends or friends that look a little more feminine were beaten, some almost to death, while I lived in Lawrence? Almost all of them.
there are too many people in this world for us to all look, act, and identify with each other.
Diversity is a beautiful thing.
3 December 2009
at 6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
StephanieMott (Anonymous) says…
Learn more about what it is like to be transgender.
https://publiclytransgender.pbworks.c…