Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, February 12, 2011

Bill would outlaw anti-gender identification bias

February 12, 2011

Advertisement

— Stephanie Mott, a transsexual woman, tried for nearly 50 years to be a man.

It was a journey that she said took her through alcoholism and homelessness.

Now that she has started her transition, backed by her faith in God, she talks about the “life-draining discrimination that is prevalent throughout Kansas against transgender people.”

Last week, Mott asked the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee to approve Senate Bill 53 that would protect Kansans from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

State law now protects Kansans from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on race, religion, color, sex, disability, familial status, national origin and ancestry.

Mott said that discrimination against transgender people sometimes leads to alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty and suicide.

Advocates for gays and lesbians also are pushing for the bill.

Several groups are lobbying against it.

“The bill places sexual orientation and self-perceived gender identity not as a protected class, but as a privileged group,” said Judy Smith, state director of Concerned Women for America of Kansas.

The Kansas Catholic Conference is opposed, too.

And Donna Lippoldt, director of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the group “cannot approve that which we believe to be morally wrong.”

For Mott, the acceptance of herself came in a church that other transgender people attended.

“The attendance book came around and I signed my name, Stephanie Mott, for the first time. I took communion as Stephanie. My communion prayer started out as ‘God, bless your daughter for the faith she has shown you.’”

Comments

ivalueamerica 3 years, 2 months ago

gbulldog,

Wow, if you really are in such a state that you do not understand the difference between a crime against someone and the only accepted medical treatment for a condition...you have so many more problems than understanding how to react to gender identity disorder..

I suggest serious therapy and return to school as soon as possible.

0

gbulldog 3 years, 2 months ago

This person made a PERSONAL DECISION to change from a woman to a mant. A persons makes a PERSONAL DECISION to drop out of school, has a family and expects the State to support the person and their family. A person makes a PERSONAL DECISION to comitts a crime, and expects the State to support their familiy. The Legislators needs to work on legislation encouraging citizens to take personal responsibility for their actions. Instead they introduce legislation to make a person who make a PERSONAL DECISION "politically correct".

0

BigPrune 3 years, 2 months ago

Walking on eggshells and why is that?

0

equalaccessprivacy 3 years, 2 months ago

The first step is to get laws on paper. That doesn't mean equal rights and non-discrimination laws will be honored and respected though. KS, for instance, is still ruled by hateful cowboy concepts of justice. Ignorant jurisdictions like Douglas County can easily subvert the law, if they even know what is with their conflict-of-interest politics and biased policing. Do your best to blame the victim, southern-justice-minded hypocrites ! Kiss to kill with your charming stalker-like lack of boundaries that encourages strangers to get up in business of people they don't know right off the street for discriminatory reasons!The joy of democracy is you get to put up with majority expressions of prejudice and in ignorant backwoods places this can totally repressive and offensive!

0

ksrush 3 years, 2 months ago

I hear there is now discrimination against short tailed gay salamanders going on. Can someone legislate that so the poor salamanders dont start drinking or worse ! If you judge a person from the inside out does it really matter what they look like ?

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 2 months ago

If their business is involved in interstate commerce, then they must abide by federal law. Housing discrimination is against the law if it involves discrimination against certain people. Extending that protection to transgendered persons is the right thing to do. If you are involved in renting property for the purposes of housing and you wish to discriminate against protected classes of people, go into another line of work.

0

Brock Masters 3 years, 2 months ago

I do not understand this notion that we need the government to legislate morality and that is indeed what this bill is about. The bill imposes someone elses morality upon others. As individuals and as propery and business owners not receiving federal or state dollars, we should be able to discriminate as we choose. No one on this thread can tell me that they do not discriminate - we all do to certain degrees.

If you are transgendered landlord can you honestly tell me that you would welcome a person who openly voices their disgust with transgendered people? Would we condemn the Jewish landlord that doesn't select the president of the local skinhead group? Most likely not, but isn't that discrimination?

The difference is that some see it as justified - but that is their moral standard and that is what we are asking the government to do - impose one group's moral standards.

Rand Paul got in trouble for this view point, but I share it and that is that the government should not stop people from discriminating. Now the person that fails to hire a qualified black person because of their skin color is a fool but it is their business and therefor their choice.

The landlord that passes on an excellent transgendered person because of unfounded bias is a fool, but it is their business and their choice.

Bottom line is if you don't want me to legislate my morals on you then don't legislate yours on me. Gay marriage is blocked because people legislate their morality on others. Gays were prevented from serving in the military because of the same thing. People try to ban abortions based on their morals. Is this what we want - to legislate morality?

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 2 months ago

I've been pretty tired of landlord discrimination for a long time. It's stupid. If they pass a credit check, are employed, and have good references, what does it matter what religion, race, sexual orientation they are. Years ago soon after my divorce, in the 70's, I was trying to rent a house with my sister. The landlord turned us down, because I was divorced, and we were 2 young women who would have wild parties and bring strange men home to have sex. This was a small town and everyone knew my sister and I didn't do those kinds of things, but no matter. I was a divorced hussy. Instead she rented to some fine, upstanding young men who attended the local Baptist college. Well, you can guess what happened to that house. It was hilarious.

0

NikkiH 3 years, 2 months ago

This is a link to a survey that gives statistical credence to discrimination Trans people face. It was done at Penn State University and meets academic standards of research studies. This documents the need for Gender Identity/Expression protection in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Anti-discrimination laws are not about protecting a "privileged class". It is a necessity to combat pervasive discrimination against a marginalized segment of the community. Also, we have a separation of church and state in our country. One's religious views of morality do not trump basic civil rights.

http://endtransdiscrimination.org/PDFs/NTDS_Report.pdf

0

Tom Shewmon 3 years, 2 months ago

"Mott said that discrimination against transgender people sometimes leads to alcoholism, drug abuse, poverty and suicide."

Along with every other (fill in the blank cross-section) of the 300 million Americans. But blame is a handy tool for the fringe of society. I'd say that statement could actually be flipped around too to some degree btw.

May God Bless.

0

coderob 3 years, 2 months ago

I don't think this is about creating separate classes. Even if the law has that effect, it's just a drop in the bucket for the adversities trans people face. It is much more about allowing transgender people recourse if they have to sue for discrimination. In any lawsuit, the judge is just going to go off of the checklist of already established groups. As it is now, an employer could not ask a woman if she were pregnant or what her marital plans are. But because gender and sex are different, the employer could write off the person's identity as a personality defect, which in my opinion is the same as requiring a pregnancy test as a condition of employment.

0

coderob 3 years, 2 months ago

I don't think this is about creating separate classes. Even if the law has that effect, it's just a drop in the bucket for the adversities trans people face. It is much more about allowing transgender people recourse if they have to sue for discrimination. In any lawsuit, the judge is just going to go off of the checklist of already established groups. As it is now, an employer could not ask a woman if she were pregnant or what her marital plans are. But because gender and sex are different, the employer could write off the person's identity as a personality defect, which in my opinion is the same as requiring a pregnancy test as a condition of employment.

0

TJ_in_Lawrence 3 years, 2 months ago

Its kind of sad that we need a bill like this. If only we could love others as fellow travelers on this earth like we would like to be loved, such a bill would be unnecessary

0

VTHawk 3 years, 2 months ago

While I sympathize with the Ms. Mott, I do not think that creating another "protected" class is a good thing overall. I live overseas and have been denied housing for my 1) race and 2) nationality before, but I quickly found other housing. My opinion is that the owners of apartments/houses (if they are individuals) should be able to decide who lives there. If my landlord isn't ok with having me in her apartment, I would rather look elsewhere rather than have a miserable ongoing relationship with her.

As for discrimination in non-housing areas, I also disagree with the whole notion of "protected" classes. Whenever a dispute comes up involving a member of a protected class, the burden is on the other party to disprove discrimination (difficult/impossible to do).

0

bobberboy 3 years, 2 months ago

who cares - sex is not the most important thing in most peoples lives.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.