Post by Ayla on Mar 3, 2016 8:40:44 GMT 8
South Dakota’s governor vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have made the state the first in the US to approve a law requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their sex at birth.
South Dakota would have been the first state to take such a step. But Republican governor Dennis Daugaard rejected the bill after the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and transgender students and adults called the legislation discriminatory.
In his veto message, Daugaard wrote that the bill “does not address any pressing issue” and that such decisions were best left to local school officials. The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the proposal last month, with supporters saying it was meant to protect student privacy.
Some advocates have called the South Dakota bill the first “genital check bill” because it raised questions about how schools would determine a student’s genital characteristics. Daugaard vetoed the legislation at the 11th hour, after it was hotly debated in the legislature, in the business community and among South Dakota residents.
Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender activist and former Olympic decathlon gold medalist, had called on Daugaard to veto the bill.
On social media, a hashtag developed by the state’s tourism board, “#hifromSD”, was used by many who opposed the law, many vowing not to travel to the state.
The South Dakota bill was just one piece of a raft of anti-transgender legislation being introduced in conservative state houses. In Tennessee, advocates are already looking toward a bill that will require students to use bathrooms consistent with the gender on their birth certificates. Notably, Tennessee is the only state to ban people from changing the gender on their birth certificate.
Other high-profile cases include last week’s vote in North Carolina by the Charlotte City Council to allow transgender people to choose a bathroom. The vote was immediately criticized by Governor Pat McCrory, who said it denied privacy rights for those who expect to share restrooms or locker rooms only with people born with the same anatomy.
Advertisement
In Texas, Houston voters soundly defeated an ordinance that would have banned discrimination against transgender people after opponents alleged it would allow sexual predators to go into women’s bathrooms.
Daugaard vetoed the measure a week after hearing the personal stories of three opponents of the bill who are transgender in what was his first knowing interaction with transgender people. The governor initially offered a positive reaction to the proposal, but said he needed to research the issue and listen to testimony before making a final decision.
HR 1008 had only two provisions. The first dictated bathroom assignments. The second promised to pay for local school districts’ litigation costs for enforcing the law which some say could run up against federal gender equality in education laws, known as Title IX.
Opponents called the legislation an attack on vulnerable transgender students that would further marginalize them at school. They also criticized comments made by some lawmakers, including Republican Senator David Omdahl. When asked about the bill in February, he said: “I’m sorry if you’re so twisted you don’t know who you are. I’m telling you right now, it’s about protecting the kids, and I don’t even understand where our society is these days.”
Under the plan, schools would have been required to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the “controlled use” of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.
Supporters said the proposal was a response to changes in the Obama administration’s interpretation of the federal Title IX. Federal officials have said barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under Title IX.
Republican Representative Fred Deutsch, the proposal’s main sponsor in the South Dakota House, has said the plan “pushes back against federal overreach and intrusion into our lives”.
Heather Smith, executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota, said Tuesday that schools would have been forced into the tough position of having to choose whether to follow federal Title IX or state law if the governor signed the legislation.
She also said that had the governor signed the bill, her organization would have encouraged any student harmed by the new law to file a federal civil rights complaint.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/01/south-dakota-genital-check-bill-vetoed-trangender-bathrooms
South Dakota would have been the first state to take such a step. But Republican governor Dennis Daugaard rejected the bill after the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign and transgender students and adults called the legislation discriminatory.
In his veto message, Daugaard wrote that the bill “does not address any pressing issue” and that such decisions were best left to local school officials. The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the proposal last month, with supporters saying it was meant to protect student privacy.
Some advocates have called the South Dakota bill the first “genital check bill” because it raised questions about how schools would determine a student’s genital characteristics. Daugaard vetoed the legislation at the 11th hour, after it was hotly debated in the legislature, in the business community and among South Dakota residents.
Caitlyn Jenner, the transgender activist and former Olympic decathlon gold medalist, had called on Daugaard to veto the bill.
On social media, a hashtag developed by the state’s tourism board, “#hifromSD”, was used by many who opposed the law, many vowing not to travel to the state.
The South Dakota bill was just one piece of a raft of anti-transgender legislation being introduced in conservative state houses. In Tennessee, advocates are already looking toward a bill that will require students to use bathrooms consistent with the gender on their birth certificates. Notably, Tennessee is the only state to ban people from changing the gender on their birth certificate.
Other high-profile cases include last week’s vote in North Carolina by the Charlotte City Council to allow transgender people to choose a bathroom. The vote was immediately criticized by Governor Pat McCrory, who said it denied privacy rights for those who expect to share restrooms or locker rooms only with people born with the same anatomy.
Advertisement
In Texas, Houston voters soundly defeated an ordinance that would have banned discrimination against transgender people after opponents alleged it would allow sexual predators to go into women’s bathrooms.
Daugaard vetoed the measure a week after hearing the personal stories of three opponents of the bill who are transgender in what was his first knowing interaction with transgender people. The governor initially offered a positive reaction to the proposal, but said he needed to research the issue and listen to testimony before making a final decision.
HR 1008 had only two provisions. The first dictated bathroom assignments. The second promised to pay for local school districts’ litigation costs for enforcing the law which some say could run up against federal gender equality in education laws, known as Title IX.
Opponents called the legislation an attack on vulnerable transgender students that would further marginalize them at school. They also criticized comments made by some lawmakers, including Republican Senator David Omdahl. When asked about the bill in February, he said: “I’m sorry if you’re so twisted you don’t know who you are. I’m telling you right now, it’s about protecting the kids, and I don’t even understand where our society is these days.”
Under the plan, schools would have been required to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the “controlled use” of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.
Supporters said the proposal was a response to changes in the Obama administration’s interpretation of the federal Title IX. Federal officials have said barring students from restrooms that match their gender identity is prohibited under Title IX.
Republican Representative Fred Deutsch, the proposal’s main sponsor in the South Dakota House, has said the plan “pushes back against federal overreach and intrusion into our lives”.
Heather Smith, executive director of the ACLU of South Dakota, said Tuesday that schools would have been forced into the tough position of having to choose whether to follow federal Title IX or state law if the governor signed the legislation.
She also said that had the governor signed the bill, her organization would have encouraged any student harmed by the new law to file a federal civil rights complaint.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/01/south-dakota-genital-check-bill-vetoed-trangender-bathrooms