Washington Blade
JULY 4, 2009
   Login or create a new account  ?
Join Washington Blade on FacebookJoin Washingtonblade on MyspaceJoin Washington Blade on Twitter!
Trans activist Jeri Hughes, seen here in a photo taken at this year’s Pride parade, said proposed changes to Washington’s Human Rights Act will lead to discrimination against transgender residents in jail. (Blade file photo by Henry Linser)
 
 
MOST VIEWED
National News:
Obama cheered at Pride event

National News:
Seven arrested in Texas gay bar

Local:
Va. court rules against dismissed gay employee

National News:
White House protesters rally against ‘Don’t Ask’

Local:
Marriage opponents lose case

 
Trans rule change raises concerns
Local activists say new jail proposal weakens rights act

HOME > NEWS > LOCAL

Jul 25, 2008  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO JR  | COMMENTS      Printer Friendly Version

Two agencies charged with enforcing the city’s anti-discrimination laws issued a proposed rule change earlier this month that would exempt the Department of Corrections from complying with the D.C. Human Rights Act as it applies to transgender prisoners.

In a July 11 notice of proposed rulemaking, the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the city’s Commission on Human Rights called, among other things, for waiving a requirement that city government agencies “classify, house or provide access to gender-specific facilities to transgender individuals according to their gender identity or expression if the transgender individual is incarcerated, institutionalized or otherwise within the District’s custody.”

Department of Corrections officials have said the rule change was needed to address “safety and security” issues that have surfaced in the D.C.

jail in connection with transgender inmates.

But the proposed change drew strong opposition from gay and transgender activists, who describe the proposal as a scheme to weaken the Human Rights Act through regulatory channels less than three years after D.C. City Council voted unanimously to strengthen the act’s non-discrimination protections for transgender persons.

“We have thus far seen no justification for these proposed changes, much less a compelling one,” said Barrett Brick, president of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA), in a statement submitted to the Office of Human Rights.

In an e-mail alert to its members and supporters, GLAA said it was joining a campaign led by the D.C. Trans Coalition to persuade city officials to drop the proposal.

Among the groups joining the D.C. Trans Coalition in opposing the proposed changes are Transgender Health Empowerment, Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive (HIPS), D.C. Prisoners’ Project, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG) and Human Rights Campaign.

“The entire GLBT community is coming together to oppose this,” said D.C. Trans Coalition member Jeri Hughes, who pointed to city prison system policies that treat transgender women as men.

Hughes said the existing policies, among other things, force trans women to strip in the presence of male prisoners and assigns them to isolation cells to ensure their safety rather than provide alternate sleeping facilities.

“This would give them a free pass to discriminate,” she said of the Department of Corrections.

D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At-Large), who chairs the Council committee that oversees the Human Rights Office and Commission, also spoke out against the proposed rule changes.

In a July 23 letter to Mayor Adrian Fenty, Schwartz called the proposal an attempt to “circumvent” provisions in the Human Rights Act that protect transgender citizens from discrimination.

“Regulations are supposed to mirror the law, not change the intent of the law,” she said. “This change would, in effect, turn the intent of the law upside-down.”

Under city rulemaking procedures, all interested persons can submit comments on proposed rules within 30 days from the time the proposed rules are published in the D.C. Register. In the case of the proposed transgender rules, the 30-day comment period ends on Aug. 10. (All comments must be sent to Alexis Taylor, General Counsel, Office of Human Rights, 441 4th St., N.W., Suite 570 North, Washington, D.C. 20001.)

City agencies are required to take public comments into consideration in preparing a final version of proposed rule changes, with the mayor and city attorney general often making the final decision on how a rule should be worded. It could not be determined by press time whether the Commission on Human Rights, a body independent of the mayor, would make the final decision on whether the proposed rules should be accepted or rejected at the conclusion of the public comment period.

The Office of Human Rights and the Commission on Human Rights issued the existing city rules covering transgender persons in 2006, about one year after Council passed the Human Rights Clarification Amendment Act of 2005. The 2005 legislation added the term “gender identity and expression” to all of the Human Rights Act’s non-discrimination provisions. The term is widely used in non-discrimination legislation across the country to cover transgender persons.

Considered one of the nation’s strongest local anti-discrimination laws, the D.C. Human Rights Act — enacted in 1977 — bans discrimination in employment, housing, public acidulations and other areas based on, among other categories, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and, as of 2005, gender identity and expression.

The addition of transgender protections in 2005 drew widespread support and passed Council unanimously. Gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) introduced the legislation.

Gay and transgender activists this week said they were surprised and disappointed that the Human Rights Office ...

Page 1 Page 2 continue reading


Spacer
email       password


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards,terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

symonds
0
I gathered lot of information. I am very happy to post my comment in this blog. Very nice blog. ----------- symonds Addiction Recovery Washington

Posted 7/26/08 - 2:37 AM


jeri .
0
Zoe, The opposition to this amendment has been strongly supported by our gay brothers and sisters. Rick Rosendall of the GLAA, Deb Golden and Phil Fornaci of the DCPP, Lisa Mottet of the Task Force, and so many, many others. Without these individuals, my personal effort would have been - nada. The community has pulled together in opposition -and I cannot stress the importance of that unity enough. Nourish unity, encourage it...unity is key for the entire LGBT community if we want to realize basic equality and human rights. What could be more important?

Posted 7/25/08 - 12:27 PM


ZoeB
0
bob20008 - Why? Because it's not a gay issue, is it? Why should they care? They'll come back for the T's later, or something, maybe. When there aren't more important things to do.

Posted 7/25/08 - 11:10 AM


jeri .
0
The proposed rulemaking would actually PROMOTE discrimination against a minority population that is already marginalized from the discrimination and bigotry that exists within our society. Severe problems in the correctional setting are real - this proposed amendment will serve no purpose to correct those problems. Real concern, dialogue, and mediation will provide the best remedy. I urge you to oppose this amendment in writing to Ms. Taylor, and let the DC City Council know that you oppose any bill that detracts from the Human Rights Protections that we enjoy in the District.......If you don't fight for them, who will?

Posted 7/25/08 - 10:11 AM


bob20008
0
If they knew that it was coming and that there would be controversy, why didn't they contact any of the groups that testified on the rules in 2006? Why did we have to find it in the D.C. Register? All of the gay members of the Commission had ample time to notifiy advocacy groups, but failed to do so. Not even Mario who heads the Stein Club. Shameful.

Posted 7/25/08 - 8:44 AM


Spacer
Spacer
Spacer

Washington Blade Window Media CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions
© 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy
Advertise with us!