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)
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
and
Commission
on
Human
Rights
apparently
heeded
requests
by
the
Department
of
Correction
to
propose
rolling
back
non-discrimination
protections
for
transgender
prisoners.
Among
the
Commission’s
members
are
Christopher
Dyer,
director
of
the
Mayor’s
Office
of
Lesbian,
Gay,
Bisexual
&
Transgender
Affairs;
and
gay
D.C.
residents
Michael
Ward
and
Thomas
Fulton.
Mario
Acosta-Velez,
president
of
the
Gertrude
Stein
Democratic
Club,
the
city’s
largest
gay
political
group,
served
as
acting
chair
of
the
commission
until
his
term
expired
in
early
July.
Although
Acosta-Velez
no
longer
serves
on
the
commission,
he
was
a
member
at
the
time
that
Alexis
Taylor,
general
counsel
of
the
...
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
symonds on 7/26/082:37 AM:
I gathered lot of information. I am very happy to post my comment in this blog. Very nice blog.
-----------
symonds
Addiction Recovery Washington
jeri . on 7/25/0812:27 PM:
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?
ZoeB on 7/25/0811:10 AM:
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.
jeri . on 7/25/0810:11 AM:
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?
bob20008 on 7/25/088:44 AM:
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.
