Maryland's 'Transvestite Protection Act' Sent Back To Committee

Members of the Maryland state Senate voted to return a "Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination" proposal that originally could have created coed showers in public facilities across the state to a committee, a legislative maneuver on the last day of the 2011 legislature that ended its chances for this year.

The 27-20 vote in the legislative body was on H.B. 235, which had been approved days earlier by committee on the judiciary on a 7-4 vote.

The decision was the second recent victory for traditional morality in the state, with the earlier vote by lawmakers against approval of same-sex "marriages."

Officials with the National Gay and Lesbian Task force lamented the decision.

Executive Director Rea Cary accused the members of the Senate of turning their backs "on an opportunity to recognize and affirm our common humanity." Activists for the gender bill already had reduced its impact by making it apply only to credit, housing and jobs.

Originally, the strategy would have included gender identity nondiscrimination in "public facilities," which would have included locker rooms, restrooms, bath houses, club houses and dressing rooms.

The state's HB 235 would prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" with regard to housing, leasing property and in credit.
Officials with the NotMyShower.com website, who organized when Montgomery County was considering its own plan in 2007 and 2008, said there were a number of problems with the idea.
The proposal also would have taken away "the freedom of Marylanders to disagree with those who cannot accept their gender, mandates acceptance of ideology" and other complications, the coalition worried.

While the legislation would ban "discrimination" against cross-dressers and others, employers would have no way of knowing what they could do.

"'Appearance' could even change from hour to hour during the work day. Gender Identity can change at will. Gender Identity is not an immutable class like other protected classes such as race or sex. … With HB 235, your employee can be Molly in the morning and Mark in the evening. The bill gives no restriction," it warned.

Companies originally even could be banned from asking questions of an employee if there are worries about men and women sharing dressing areas or "if a customer has privacy concerns, for example, about male employees dressed as females monitoring female dressing rooms."

Read more