Deep in the forest the wolves have gathered, they have picked up the scent of the bill, the succulent scent of a vulnerable bill with deliciously vague language. This year’s definition of gender identity is the vaguest we have seen yet.
“Gender identity” means a persistent, bona fide gender-related identity and the consistent, public manifestation of that identity in the gender-related appearance of an individual regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.”
This is “feel good” language, it doesn’t leave anyone out.
Part of the definition we can toss out, the part that goes on between the ears, nobody can discriminate against you because of how you identify inside your brain. The “assigned sex at birth” part is unimportant too. Nobody knows what your mom’s obstetrician called you the day you were born.
So let’s take out the meaningless words and see what we have left.
“Gender identity” means the consistent, public manifestation of that identity in the gender-related appearance of an individual; in other words, it’s all based on your looks.
The definition is based on appearance only, since “identity” is internal, it cannot be proved or disproved. Opponents, and even supporters, are likely to amend this vague definition, and that process takes time. The more time that is spent with amending and voting on the amendments, the more likely the bill will fail.
The language requires a “consistent public manifestation” of a sex-role stereotype, “Gender-related appearance,” is just that, a sex-role stereotype. Back in the day, when I worked with project Head Start, one of our goals was to end sex-role stereotyping so that children could grow up to be exactly who they wanted to be. In those days people still referred to “lady doctor” and “lady lawyer” as pejoratives for females who stepped out of their “place.”
Those children are all grown up now, and some of them are creating laws to codify those old timed stereotypes into Maryland law. Ahh, the rebelliousness of youth! Maybe next year the liberal democrats will propose a “stay at home mom” law, requiring women who show a “consistent, public manifestation” as mothers to stay at home until the children reach the age of majority.
I hope that liberal democrats will think twice about enacting a law that codifies sex-role stereotypes. Conservatives will continue the complaint that this leaves the door open to places that are distinctly private and personal. The LGBT press will quote their most outlandish claims as preposterous; and they are. However, this vague definition makes those claims easier for legislators to consider.
A more specific definition would lower the controversy and give the bill a better chance. This language works right into the hands of our opponents. It is an open invitation for amendments, and that means we will be allowing the people who like trans people the least to define gender identity. After they offer those amendments, some of our “allies” in the legislature will go along to get along. They always do.
The amendment process is tedious, and once that process results in a small “win” for the other side our position weakens, if even just symbolically. Then they will go after public accommodations, and some proponents of this bill have been willing to sacrifice public accommodations in the past. If we end up following the example set by Massachusetts it will start a pattern for other states to follow.
This bill is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of a small group of people. The missing element was the open public discussion of the language. Had that discussion taken place we might have crafted airtight language that would be hard for the opponents to attack. For instance, we could have addressed the issue of intentional fraud, which is really what most opponents are most concerned about. Or, we could have been more radical, and moved the discussion toward a broader discussion of sex discrimination. However, that would be too old school, almost as bad as trying to eliminate sex-role stereotypes.
A more specific definition would have a better chance of passing. It doesn’t matter if “we” like the definition. What matters is what definition “they” will vote “yay” on.
That said, it is delightful flowery language with a dose of Latin thrown in to make it sound legalistic. But is it passable?
It’s all about being passable, isn’t it?
