The Best States For Transgender Student-Athletes

It's actually easier to be a transgender student-athlete in Nebraska than it is in New Hampshire--or New York.

Yes, you read that right.  At least, in Nebraska, a trans girl who wants to play on her school's volleyball team--or a trans boy who wants to play basketball--has more legal rights and protections than his or her peers in my home state or the one whose motto is "Live Free Or Die."

What makes this all even weirder is that New York and New Hampshire have both legalized gay marriage, while very few people expect Nebraska to do the same any time soon.

Or would it?

Rhonda Blanford-Green, the executive director of Nebraska School Activities Association, had previously worked in neighboring Colorado, which has had a policy trans-inclusive non-discrimination policy for five years.  She decided to introduce something similar in the Cornhusker State.  It passed the NSAA board unanimously during the winter.  However, as it is a school policy and not a state law, it attracted little attention.  So far, nobody has invoked it.

On the other hand, the Empire State, which was among the first states to include language to protect sexual orientation in its human rights laws, and the fifth state to legalize same-sex marriage, has been behind the curve in helping transgenders.  There is still no language in the State's anti-discrimination laws to protect gender identity or expression.  Former Governor David Patterson issued an executive order banning discrimination against State workers.  As I understand, there is no time limit on it; however, it could be rescinded by Andrew Cuomo's successor.  

New York City passed its own laws banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in April of 2002, but 74 other cities--including, interestingly, upstate Rochester--beat them to it.

When one considers this history, perhaps it's less surprising that New York is less progressive than Nebraska when it comes to trans student-athletes. Then again, some might argue that Nebraska's policy is the work of one particular person (even if it did pass unanimously). Others might say that it passed just because people pay more attention to school sports in the Cornhusker State than in New York.  

Here is a map showing which states have specific policies for student-athletes (in dark blue), which ones have overarching athletic or educational  policies that cover trans people , and which ones have no protections (lighest shade) at all:

Stacie Laughton Resigns

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the election of Stacie Laughton, New Hampshire's first transgender legislator.

Now she has resigned.  It seems that she didn't disclose some criminal activity in her recent past.

Probably the most serious of her transgressions is the attempt to commit credit card fraud, though her and her ex-wife's feigning illnesses to get an ambulance ride when they were stranded isn't something to be proud of, either.

On one hand, I find myself thinking, "Well, at least she isn't a murderer or child abuser.  And other elected officials have done worse things, before entering and while serving in office.  On the other hand, I fault her for not having disclosed her legal troubles while she was campaigning.  Perhaps she would not have won the election, but that would have been better than the public embarrassment she's caused herself and many other people.

Aside from her lack of honesty, what concerns me is the impression this leaves on some people.  They might see trans people as inherently deceptive, and that acts such as Staci's are par for the course for people who are distancing themselves from their pasts.

Then again, there are other trans officials, elected and appointed.  Perhaps they can help to overcome whatever damage Ms. Laughton might have done.

The Yankees Get It

Disclaimer:  In spite of its title, this post has nothing to do with baseball.   (By the way, I'm a Mets fan!)

I am referring to natives of New England.   They always seem to be ahead of the rest of the country (save, perhaps, for San Francisco) when it comes to legislation and policies that help to bring about equality for LGBT people.

Massachusetts, of course, was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.  Now that voters in Maine have approved such unions, the only New England state in which same-sex couples can't get married is Rhode Island.  However, the Ocean State recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Last year, Massachusetts Governor Patrick Deval signed a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in employment, education, housing, credit and lending.  It also makes violence against transgender individuals a hate crime. Now similar laws are on the books in all New England states, with one exception:  New Hampshire.

However, the situation in the Granite State may change.  As voters in Maine were voting in favor of same-sex marriage, New Hampshire's voters elected their first transgender lawmaker.

Stacie Laughton beat out two Republican challengers for one of three seats in the Granite State's House of Representatives in Ward 4.  She says she hopes that her victory will inspire others in the community "to get into politics, or into any other position, for that matter".  On the other hand, she says, "I don't want being transgender to be a focal point," and that she can "work between party lines and not let political partisanship hold us up when it comes to the important matters before us in the Statehouse."

She seems to understand that, aside from discrimination, those matters are the same for transgender people as they are for everyone else:  jobs, the economy, healthcare, education and such.   Would that others understood!

Carved In Granite?

Two years ago, New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Now state Representatives David Bates and Leo Pepino are sponsoring a bill that would repeal the same-sex marriage law.  According to surveys, voters in New Hampshire oppose a repeal by a nearly two to one margin.

Now, I must say that I got a chuckle out of something in this story. When I went to Catholic school, the nuns used to refer to the boys as "Master" followed by their last names.  So, as an example, I was Master Valinotti.

Because the neighborhood surrounding the school was mainly Italian and Jewish (though not many of the latter went to our school), there weren't many kids named Bates.  I can't recall any.  So what would the nuns have called David Bates?

I'm sure someone must have asked this question.

Anyway...You know how some things and people don't go down without a fight.  (If you read a sexual connotation into the previous sentence, it's on you!)  Well, it seems like any laws that protect LGBT people or give us the same rights as everyone else don't come up or pass without a fight.  The moment any such law is passed, the opposition is ready to do battle.

You might think this is paradoxical, but I think that it's important to have laws that allow gay marriage for exactly the same reasons why I oppose them in principle.

I believe that the government should not be involved in any way with marriage, and that no one should get tax or any other benefits for being married.  If the government is to be involved in deciding whose marriages are legitimate, it should simply give the equivalent of a Domestic Partnership Agreement to any two people over the age of 18 who want to hook up.  Then, if they want to legitimize their relationship as a marriage, they should go to their church, synagogue, mosque or whatever so unites people in their communities.

However, I am enough of a realist to know that probably won't happen, at least not in my lifetime.  So I think that the best we can do in terms of equality is to make same-sex marriages legal.

The funny thing about New Hampshire is that it was always considered a "conservative" state.  Yet there has always been a very strong tradition of minding one's own business--which, by the way,  isn't the same as "live and let live."  While it was one of the most reliably Republican states (even as it was surrounded by some of the "bluest" states in the nation), it has never completely embraced some of the most reactionary notions espoused by the Far Right.  That may be because Christian Fundamentalism wasn't part of the mix, or at least wasn't as much a part of the mix, as it has been in some of the Southern states.

I don't know much about Bates and Pepino.  So I can only wonder on what, exactly, are they basing their opposition to the same-sex marriage law.  If they not motivated by religious beliefs (which, I'm discovering, actually plays less into anti-gay legislation than I'd previously assumed), what else motivates them but pure and simple bigotry?  From what I know about New Hampshire natives from the few I've known and the little time I've spent there, I don't think such prejudice will move them:  If nothing else, how much can they hate (or, for that matter, love) someone whose business they're ignoring?  Plus, a lot of Bostonians have moved to the state, at least along its coast and in its southern part.  Combine the tolerance they have developed simply by living in a metropolis with the native propensity for not interfering in other people's lives, and it's hard to see how the law is going to be repealed.