Miranda Writes... by Miranda Stevens-Miller That Left-Out Feeling Again?

I've been trying to think of how to write this article for a while now, and it doesn't get any easier. So I am just going to jump into it, and see where it goes.

In the first week of October, the city of Normal passed a gay rights ordinance. Sexual orientation was defined in the ordinance as real or perceived "heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality." When I heard about the passage of the latest gay rights ordinance in Illinois, I was very happy. After all, here was one more city that believed in fairness to all, and one of the very few cities outside Cook County to provide any protection to the gay community.

I immediately contacted the local gay rights group in the Bloomington/Normal area to give them my congratulations, and also to offer my assistance in making the ordinance inclusive of the rest of the LGBT community. Also, since there was a similar bill pending in Bloomington, I suggested that a gender identity-inclusive definition of sexual orientation be used, since it is a much more difficult task to go back and fix things later.

Well, I received a note back stating something to the effect that adding gender identity would be certain to bring about a defeat, and after all isn't it better to get part of the community covered than to try to ask for too much.

That's where I am stuck. Is it better to get part of the community covered and to leave others out in the cold with absolutely no protection? Are we asking too much? And the big question... are we really so despised that we would be sure to bring defeat, or is that just further stereotyping of the transgender community?

So I am going to tell you a story. Earlier this year, my friend, Mara Keisling, who is co-chair of the Statewide Pennsylvania Rights Coalition, along with Steve Glassman, contacted me. SPARC is an advocacy group like Equality Illinois, working for the rights of all LGBT people within their state. The organization at the time was working on hate crimes legislation that would protect people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The state senator who was sponsoring the bill was quite frank with Mara and Steve. "It's not you Steve, but it's Mara. I can guarantee that we can pass the hate crimes bill through the Senate with sexual orientation. But with gender identity in the bill, we won't get one single vote," he said.

That was quite a bitter pill to swallow for Mara, a leader of the Pennsylvania queer community. The lead sponsor said that if Mara were included in the bill, it would go down to certain defeat. It wouldn't get one single vote, despite the fact that SPARC had done it's homework, and found that 80% of the people in Pennsylvania supported the hate crimes legislation, whether or not it included gender identity. It didn't make a difference to the people... why should it make a difference to the senators?

It was Steve who insisted that they wouldn't accept anything but complete coverage for the entire community. Any less just wouldn't be fair. They would not allow the senator to remove gender identity from the bill.

Well, the Pennsylvania Hate Crimes bill did pass, gender identity and all. It didn't just squeak by... it flew by, passing by a 2-to-1 margin. According to SPARC, the bill has the most inclusive language of any hate crimes bill in the country. SPARC didn't back down because they were told that they wouldn't get "one single vote."

A non-inclusive civil rights law that covers sexual orientation but not gender identity is a flawed law.

Here in Illinois, we have an inclusive civil rights bill pending in the state senate. It includes gender identity along with sexual orientation, although you don't hear people talking about the gender identity part. It was quietly introduced into the bill back in 1997, and it didn't even raise an eyebrow. Those who supported the bill did so regardless of the inclusion of gender identity. It didn't make any difference

I am tired of being told that we can't include gender identity because it will screw up the chance that a bill has to pass. It just isn't so! We've been told that for years. That's the reason why we're not included in national bills like ENDA. And that's the reason why we won't be included in Bloomington. There is no evidence that inclusion of gender identity makes any difference in a bill's chances to pass. But those who exclude us will never learn the truth if they don't even try to include us.

A non-inclusive civil rights law that covers sexual orientation but not gender identity is a flawed law. It is a law that allows an employer to keep Bruce in the secretarial pool because they like him despite the fact that he's gay, but are free to fire Marge in accounting because she is too aggressive and masculine, and makes all the men uncomfortable. You get a law that discriminates within a community that is striving for solidarity. You get a law that perpetuates and accentuates stereotypes.

Tomorrow morning, I am going out with the group from Equality Illinois to canvas for LGBT rights in Illinois. I've been doing this since September, and haven't missed one canvassing yet. We typically have a sizable representation from the transgender community at these canvassing. We go door-to-door, in conservative suburban districts, talking to residents about gay rights, and asking them to sign a letter to their state senator to support the civil rights bill.

We do this for the whole community. I would never think of going out there and canvassing for transgender rights to the exclusion of gay rights. We are family, and family does not turn its back on its siblings, even if we are the awkward stepchildren of the LGBT family.