By Sophia Schlegelmilch | Observer Contributor
Ballot Question 3, a referendum on Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, passed with almost 68% approval.
Question 3 asked voters if they agreed with the 2016 decision to add gender identity to the list of statuses protected from denial of service or accommodation in public places. The law also controversially included provisions to allow individuals to use spaces that are traditionally divided by gender, such as restrooms and locker rooms, in a manner consistent with their self-identified gender.
With enough “No” votes, the law would have been rolled back to a previous version which would no longer include gender identity in the list of protected statuses.
In speaking before the election, Ayana Brodeur-Edmonds, President of the Student Sexuality and Gender Alliance, said, “It’s been very stressful for a lot of people. It could definitely change a lot and make things harder for people to get the services they want and need.”
The campaign against the law was led by a group called “Keep MA Safe,” who, according to their website at www.keepmasafe.org, oppose the law because it “endangers the privacy and safety of women and children in public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dressing rooms, and other intimate places” and could hold people criminally or financially liable if they try to stop someone from entering one of these spaces on the basis of their gender identity.
A 2016 report by Attorney General Maura Healy’s office concluded that “Misuse of sex-segregated facilities is exceedingly rare,” and that the law did not “protect anyone, regardless of gender identity, who engages in improper or unlawful conduct in a sex-segregated facility or elsewhere.” The report also instructed business owners to remove patrons from their establishments or contact law enforcement in the event of such conduct.
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law published a study in September 2018 comparing crime statistics in Massachusetts to areas that do not have similar public accommodation laws. “Massachusetts’ public accommodations nondiscrimination laws that include gender identity do not affect the number or frequency of criminal incidents in restrooms, locker rooms or changing rooms,” the study found. “In addition, reports of privacy and safety violations in these places are exceedingly rare.”
Brodeur-Edmonds agreed that evidence to suggest these kinds of incidents occur is lacking. She also argued that it would be more disruptive to the student body if transgender students are forced to use facilities that don’t match their gender presentation.
“Whether you’re male, female, non binary, transgender, everybody’s still human, so why can’t we allow everybody to have their basic human rights?” Brodeur-Edmonds added. “As long as nobody’s hurting each other, just let people be.”
Comments are closed.