Transphobia in New Hampshire?
Just when we thought we were making progress bringing the LGBT community together, working together, another prominent gay politician, State Senator David Pierce of New Hampshire, allows his apparent transphobia to rear its ugly head and drive the T further away from the LGB, leaving trans people who still lack basic rights in New Hampshire, further to the back of the bus of equality.
This past week the AP reported on a proposed amendment to New Hampshire’s constitution that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation divided gay activists Wednesday April 2 because it does not cover transgender individuals.
It appears that it was ramrodded through the Senate unanimously, but got it clearly got mixed support from witnesses testifying at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Most argued there is no clear definition of sexual orientation and said the proposal needs to be studied before being put before voters.
The New Hampshire constitution currently prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex and national origin. This amendment would add “sexual orientation” and make New Hampshire the first state to single out gays for constitutional protection.
David Pierce, the measure’s prime sponsor, argued that the amendment would not grant special rights to gays as some critics contend. ‘‘Equal means what is common to everyone. No one is raised above anyone else,’’ said Pierce, D-Hanover.
Ironically New Hampshire is only state in New England that does not have a simple law banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity/expression. Yet, for David Pierce, it is more important to further enshrine sexual orientation protections than work for trans people to even have basic rights. I love the way some cisgender men once again honor the heroes of the Stonewall revolution to the memories of Sylvia Riveria and Marsha P. Johnson … “Go to Hell!”
There is reason for hope, for common sense, for bringing LGBT people together. House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Chairman Ed Butler, who also is gay, testified against the proposal because it did not have the full support of the gay and transgender community.
Butler is a longtime activist for LGBT rights and a co-sponsor of New Hampshire’s gay marriage law, and a prime sponsor of the ill fated transgender rights legislation that should have passed a few years ago when Democrats had control. It appears that New Hampshire Democrats and the local and state trans advocates were woefully unprepared for the right wing “potty police attacks” and their caucus would not hold. They could not learn from neighboring Massachetts?
Now in 2014, Butler stated that he could not support an amendment that referred to sexual orientation since that definition does not commonly include transgender individuals. “He said New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination law does not protect transgender individuals either and more work needed to be done to protect them statutorily.”
Former state Rep. Mo Baxley, another gay rights activist, agreed with Butler that the proposed amendment was too narrow. ‘‘The term sexual orientation alone without the inclusion of gender identity and expression is not acceptable,’’ she said.
Perhaps intelligence, common sense and a sense of fairness is still alive in New Hampshire?
Now, for more troubling news in that state:
According to HRC , transpeople are protected in New Hampshire!
Gender identity protected? Yes
While gender identity is not explicitly included in the state’s anti-discrimination law, the New Hampshire Superior Court ruled that transgender individuals can pursue an anti-discrimination claim under the law’s disability discrimination category. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 354-A:1 (2002); Jane Doe v. Electro-Craft Corp., No. 87-E-132, 1988 WL 1091932 (N.H. Super. Ct. Apr. 8, 1988).
Sexual orientation protected? Yes
New Hampshire law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations, housing and private and public employment. Relevant statutes include N.H. R.S.A. §§ 21-I:42 (2002); 354-A:2 (2002); 354-A:6 (2002). Sexual orientation is defined as “having or being perceived as having an orientation for heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality.” R.S.A. §§ 21:49 (2002).”
This is actually infuriating, because it stigmatizes transpeople as being “disabled.” Indeed we do “have” a disability, but only because of the widespread societal ignorance and bias against us, and as in New Hampshire, we face a continuous loop, a treadmill to feed and maintain that stigma. We need a clear statement that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is morally wrong, is unacceptable in the 21st Century and that transpeople are fully able to succeed and thrive if and when those societal barriers are broken.
We will not allow that decreasingly small yet influential elitist cadre of cis gay white men and women who wilfully ignore the people who risked all to assert all LGBT peoples’ basic civil rights whether at a lunch counter in Philadelphia, Compton’s Cafeteria in San Francisco or at the Stonewall Inn in NYC. Hell no, we will not forget, and you will not keep our gate closed!
Category: Transgender Community News, Transgender Politics
About the Author (Author Profile)
Babs at 76 passed away in 2019. She was a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, Deputy Vice Chair of the NJ Democratic State Committee and Political Director of the Gender Rights Advocacy Association of NJ. She served on the Executive Committee of Trans United 4 Obama. She has served as Vice Chair of the DNC Eastern Caucus, was President of NJ Stonewall Democrats, Co-Chair of National Stonewall Democrats Federal PAC Board, Vice-Chair of Garden State Equality, Executive Board member of National Stonewall Democrats as Chair of the DNC Relations Committee and a member of the NJ Civil Unions Review Commission.Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
