After three hours of heated public discussion the Pinellas County Commission voted on Aug. 20 to change the wording of the county’s human rights ordinance by replacing the word “sex” with “gender” and then defining “gender” to include those who are questioning or transitioning in their identity.
The 6-1 vote effectively extends human rights protections in employment, housing and public accommodations to transgender people on a countywide basis. Sexual orientation was included when the human rights ordinance was passed in 2008, but transgender protections were not included at that time.
Several communities within Pinellas County such as Gulfport, Dunedin and St. Petersburg have already passed municipal protections for all members of the LGBT community, including transgender people. The ordinance will cover all residents of Pinellas, no matter where they live in the county.
“Until [Aug. 20] you needed a GPS to determine what areas of the county where you are protected,” said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida. “It’s time to end that patchwork and extend protections to all residents of Pinellas County.”
Paul Valenti, the director of the county’s human rights office got the evening started with a comprehensive overview of the proposed change and what its implications might be. He addressed specific concerns that had been raised when the issue of including transgender protections back in 2008. He spoke in support of the bill and said that those who opposed it were putting up a prohibition against discrimination. Commissioner Charlie Justice said that Valenti did exactly what the commission had asked him to do.
There were so many people signed up to speak both for and against the change that they were waiting on four different floors. While there were some heavy hitter speakers for the ordinance. including representatives from Equality Florida, TransAction Florida, the National Organization for Women (NOW), the city of St. Petersburg and the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, a large percentage of the time for public hearing was taken up by those speaking against the change.
It appeared that there were several members of a right wing public advocacy group called the “Freedom Coalition” that were present and spoke.
Many of those speaking in opposition had concerns that the proposed changes would lead to privacy issues in public bathrooms. Under the new law, if a person identifies as female, whether or not he has male or female genitalia, she could use a female restroom. There were a number of hypothetical scenarios outlined by speakers that involved impositions on personal privacy and concerns about children in bathrooms where transgender people might be present.
At times it seemed that 10 minutes was too long for each person to state their case. Many of those who spoke in opposition repeated the same themes over and over again. Some got way off course in lecturing the commission on their opinions of a myriad of issues that some felt were leading the country astray from their moral values, including religious freedom, gun laws and same-sex marriage.
Commission Chair Ken Welch even had to remind the audience that same-sex marriage was not the topic of the evening.
One complaint regularly mentioned by those in opposition was that the meeting had not been properly promoted to the public. One even said he had been “blindsided” by learning about the hearing just that day. Commission Welsh reminded the crowd that the body had used its routine meeting announcement procedure in announcing the meeting.
Another complaint mentioned by several speakers was that they had felt unjustly portrayed as a “hateful” people just because they opposed the change. Commissioner Norm Roche even admonished certain members of the crowd that he said would remain nameless for comments he had overheard in the bathroom preceding the hearing that indicated that he or others who were in opposition to the change were being hateful or supporting discrimination.
Welch thanked everyone for what he called “civility” in the lengthy public discourse.
After the public comments, commissioners were asked to make their own short statement about why they were either supporting on opposing the change.
Justice, who made the motion for approval, called upon his faith as his “moral compass” and that it was “the rock upon which he stands upon and the rock upon which he stands when he supports the decision.”
Commissioner Janet Long, who seconded the proposal, agreed that it was her faith that was a driving factor in her determination to support the change.
“It’s never good public policy to do or not do something based upon fear,” she said. “I want to leave the right legacy for my children and my grandchildren and not contribute to further discrimination because we had the fear to act the right way.”
Welch said that he had never met any transgender people before this discussion began, but now that he had he had a much more compassionate view of the issues they face. He mentioned that other counties and municipalities that had implemented similar ordinances had not faced any of the dire consequences that were raised by those in opposition. He also said that even though he was a Pentecostal Christian that his faith led him to support the change as well.
Commissioner Susan Latvala said if she thought that for one moment this change would affect the safety or the comfort of Pinellas County residents she wouldn’t vote for it. But she said she didn’t see the change that way. She said she thought it simply acted to protect a small minority of residents who are not currently protected and because she believes all resident of Pinellas should have equal protections she was supporting it.
Roche was the lone vote in dissention. He felt that the bill when it was originally presented simply sought to add the word “transgender” to the list of those categories protected under the current human rights ordinance. He felt the redefinition of “gender” meant to him that the law had gone too far for his support. He expressed concern that he felt an issue like this should be better dealt with at a state or federal level.
“What if someone get used to having the protections we offer here in Pinellas and then goes to a county were those protections are not offered,” said Roche. “He could potentially be arrested for his actions. What kind of Pandora’s box are we opening?”
Roche said he was saddened that the bill had morphed from its original language that he felt he could have supported to its present for which he could not. Roche admitted he didn’t fully understand the issue of being transgender although he did not support discrimination against such people.
Before the vote on Aug. 20, about 6.4 million Floridians lived in localities with human rights ordinances offering protections to all LGBT residents. The addition of Pinellas County adds another 920,000 residents to that list.
You must be logged in to post a comment.