Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Montgomery Considers Transgender Protections

Montgomery County Council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large) yesterday introduced legislation intended to protect members of the transgender community from discrimination. If approved by the council, Trachtenberg said Montgomery would join more than 100 other jurisdictions, including the District and Baltimore, in prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in areas such as employment and housing.

"This is not radical legislation. It's very much a part of what I'd call moral legislation," Trachtenberg said before the council's meeting. "It is my belief that they deserve to live and work with equality."

The measure was inspired in part by Trachtenberg's friendship with her council aide Dana Beyer, who is transgender.

Beyer, a retired eye surgeon, ran unsuccessfully last fall for a Montgomery County seat in the House of Delegates.
Beyer said yesterday the legislation would "send a message to the community. When you see you are protected, that changes your perception of what you can accomplish."

By Phyllis Jordan  |  September 12, 2007; 7:01 AM ET
Categories:  Ann Marimow  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Leggett Urges Quick Action On State Budget
Next: Montgomery Dems Nominate Two New Delegates

Comments

"It's very much a part of what I'd call moral legislation."

Gee, it seems that the Left has gotten over their alleged aversion to legislating morality, particularly when it is onto others who dare hold different morals. Seriously though, they've been doing exactly that (although what they embrace is more correctly called amorality) for decades, it's just surprising to see one of them actually be honest about it.

Or be honest about anything, really.

Montgomery County must have solved all of their other pressing issues if something such as this now has priority.

Posted by: Rufus | September 12, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, if it's part of your "morality" to fire or evict someone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation rather than their behavior as an employee/tenant, then I hope we legislate your "morality" back into the 19th century.

Posted by: The Cosmic Avenger | September 12, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Anyone have an estimate how many trans-gendered people live in MoCo?

Doesn't the law there already bar discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation? If so, it doesn't matter if a transgendered person is pre-op or post-op, they are already covered under existing law. I am assuming this law would therefore only apply to the small portion of the transgendered community that is hemaphrodite - and if that's the case, I'm wondering where in the conversation of employment or housing that question arises?

Posted by: XX-XY | September 12, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

XX-XY

Are you serious? ALL the time I see employers say, "Look, if you're a gay man, we're fine with that. If you're a woman who used to be a man, we're cool. If you're a woman who used to be a man who now likes women (Mr. Garrison) then the job is your's. BUT, if you've got ovaries to go with your penis and a bad case of man-boobs because of your horomone treatments, sorry, you're out of luck."

Happens here at the lumber mill all the time.

Posted by: Priscilla. Queen of the desert | September 12, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

How many complaints has the Human Relations Commission had about this in the past 5 years?

Posted by: Human Relations Commission | September 12, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cosmic Avenger, explain to me why someone's "gender identity or sexual" preference should be used to protect them from being removed for poor "behavior as an employee/tenant," because that's the way the game gets played in real life, as we all know.

Your thinking belongs back in the Soviet Union of the 1920's!

Posted by: Rufus | September 14, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company