[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5, THE EQUALITY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-175 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia
Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 2, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Sunu Chandy, Legal Director, National Women's Law Center
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
The Reverend Dr. Dennis Wiley, Pastor Emeritus, Covenant Baptist
United Church of Christ
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Testimony............................................. 33
Carter Brown, Founder and Executive Director, Black Transmen,
Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 36
Prepared Testimony............................................. 38
Julia Beck, Former Law and Policy Co-Chair, Baltimore City's
LGBTQ Commission
Oral Testimony................................................. 41
Prepared Testimony............................................. 43
Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Professor of Law, Duke Law School
Oral Testimony................................................. 48
Prepared Testimony............................................. 50
Jami Contreras, Michigan Resident
Oral Testimony................................................. 55
Prepared Testimony............................................. 57
Tia Silas, Vice President and Global Chief Diversity and
Inclusion Officer, IBM Corporation
Oral Testimony................................................. 60
Prepared Testimony............................................. 62
Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of
Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 74
Prepared Testimony............................................. 77
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Item for the record submitted by The Honorable David Cicilline,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 100
Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Louie Gohmert,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 106
Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 114
Item for the record submitted by The Honorable David Cicilline,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 147
Item for the record submitted by The Honorable Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 153
Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Tom McClintock,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 157
Item for the record submitted by The Honorable Greg Stanton,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 176
Item for the record submitted by The Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-
Powell, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 183
Items for the record submitted by The Honorable Sheila Jackson
Lee, Committee on the Judiciary................................ 188
Items for the record submitted by The Honorable David Cicilline,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 214
APPENDIX
Responses to questions for the record submitted by Doriane
Lambelet Coleman............................................... 219
Responses to questions for the record submitted by Kenji Yoshino. 221
Items for the record submitted by Mr. Nadler, Chairman, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 223
H.R. 5, THE EQUALITY ACT
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, Cicilline, Lieu,
Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath,
Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Collins, Chabot, Gohmert, Buck,
Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock,
Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, and Steube.
Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty,
Senior Adviser; Lisette Morton, Director of Policy, Planning,
and Member Services; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh
Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Adviser; Susan Jensen,
Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional
Staff Member; Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director; Bobby
Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Jon
Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian and General Counsel; Paul
Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel for Constitution Subcommittee;
and Erica Barker, Minority Chief Clerk.
Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on H.R. 5, the
Equality Act. I will now recognize myself for an opening
statement.
Nearly 50 years after the Stonewall uprising, there is
still no Federal law that explicitly prohibits millions of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender Americans from being
denied medical care, being fired from their jobs, or thrown out
of their homes simply because of who they are. It is time
Congress changes that.
Today, the Judiciary considers H.R. 5, the Equality Act.
This is long overdue legislation that will explicitly prohibit
discrimination against LGBT and gender nonconforming Americans
and will strengthen nondiscrimination protections for women and
others. Today's hearing also affords us the opportunity to hear
about the enduring nature and extent of continuing
discrimination faced by LGBT people in various aspects of
American life.
In 2015, as part of its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges,
which recognized the fundamental right of same-sex couples to
marry, the Supreme Court held, ``The Constitution promises
liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes
certain specific rights that allow persons within a lawful
realm to define and express their identity.''
The Equality Act will help protect and defend that liberty
for LGBT individuals, women, and others. At this moment, we
have an opportunity to continue our march towards justice, to
enshrine in our Nation's laws protections from marginalized
communities, to ensure that they can fully participate in key
areas of life, and to provide them recourse in the face of
discrimination.
The act will do so by amending our existing statutes,
namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services
Act, and several laws regarding employment with the Federal
Government by either adding sex, including sexual orientation
and gender identity, as a protected characteristic, or, where
sex is already included as a protected characteristic, by
explicitly clarifying that sex discrimination includes
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity.
It will also expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to clarify
the definition of public accommodations and to ensure that a
broader range of establishments, including retail stores and
services such as banking, are included for all classes. All
forms of discrimination are tied together, and we must address
them together.
If a black lesbian couple is denied housing they are
otherwise qualified for, it is nearly impossible to tell if
they were turned away because of their race, their gender, or
their sexual orientation. It is time we make clear that none of
these are acceptable forms of discrimination.
We have already seen the effectiveness of nondiscrimination
provisions on the Federal level, and we have seen how sexual
orientation and gender identity protections work in the more
than 20 States that have them on the books. There is no reason
discrimination that is explicitly illegal in one part of the
country should not be explicitly illegal in all parts of the
country.
The Equality Act builds on these existing protections and
provides clear recourse for millions of people, no matter where
they live. The Equality Act takes special care to maintain the
careful balance long established between individual liberties
and our compelling interest in promoting nondiscrimination.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value, and we do
not have to choose between nondiscrimination and religious
liberty. We have in our existing civil rights laws a road map
on how to advance both.
Religion is no excuse for discrimination as we have long
recognized when it comes to race, color, religion, sex, and
national origin, and it should not be when it comes to sexual
orientation or gender identity. Many of the arguments against
the Equality Act are belied by the experience of the States and
localities that have protections already.
The scaremongering about potential bathroom predators has
not turned out to be true. Protecting the ability for a
transgender person to use a facility consistent with their
gender identity has not weakened public safety or criminal laws
or undermined their enforcement.
Similarly, protections for sexual orientation and gender
identity will not force religious hospitals or nonprofits to
close. New York has these protections. We have Catholic,
Jewish, and Protestant hospitals and adoption agencies. And
everyone, regardless of who they are or whom they love, is able
to receive medically appropriate care and to be served by
publicly funded organizations.
Many States have sexual orientation and gender identity
nondiscrimination laws, and all of them still have women's
sports. Arguments about transgender athletes participating in
sports in accordance with their gender identity having
competitive advantages have not been borne out.
Sports have positive impacts on physical, social, and
emotional well-being, and we should not be denying transgender
athletes those opportunities simply because sometimes they may
win. Nor should their occasional success be used as a roadblock
to advancing civil rights legislation for LGBT people as a
whole.
While we are examining the specific provisions of this
legislation, the true question before us is much broader and
goes to the heart of the country we want this to be. Much of
the history of the United States has been expanding the
definition of who is understood to be included when the
Declaration of Independence says ``All men are created equal.''
When these words were first written, that phrase did not
include black and Latino men. It did not include Native
Americans. It certainly did not include women, and it did not
include LGBT individuals.
But we have, as a nation, aspired to expand the definition
and ensure that regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, or sex,
everyone is able to participate fully in the American way of
life. Each advance has been hard fought, whether in Congress,
in the courts, or through regulations, or even in a civil war.
And it has happened over the objections of people who argued
that we were taking away their freedom to discriminate.
But as a nation, we have long held that we cannot sit by
and be tolerant of intolerance that is designed to demean and
to exclude communities. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of
the Equality Act.
Before I end, I want to take a moment to directly address
many of those watching today's hearing who are undoubtedly
about to hear their humanity and their right to exist
questioned. To the transgender and nonconforming youth, teens,
and adults who are about to hear their right to participate in
sports and to be themselves in school, work, and in their daily
lives challenged; to the same-sex couples who are about to hear
suggestions that they just take their business elsewhere, that
they adopt children elsewhere, that they exist elsewhere, we
see you. We support you. And we believe in you.
If you are feeling unsafe, afraid, or at risk, please reach
out for help. You are worth fighting for, and we are here to
fight alongside you, which is why we will be passing this bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr.
Cicilline, for introducing this important legislation, and I
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Collins, for his opening statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I look forward today to the really incredibly weighty
issue that we do have here in this hearing today, but I also
want to note because not just from Republican circles or
others, the humanitarian security crisis still at our Southern
border rages on, and we have done nothing to address the danger
to the migrant children and to the American citizens.
This is not just coming from me. This is from the
Washington Post. This is from the New York Times and others. So
I do look forward to us getting to that as we go forward, just
as we are getting to this incredibly, you know, weighty issue
today as we go forward.
Everyone here can agree there is much suffering in our
world. Today, we have the opportunity and obligation to listen
to people with different perspectives on how to address equity.
As we do that, we stand on the shoulders of the civil rights
heroes who fought before like us. Like two of my colleagues
here, I am from the Atlanta area, and I have watched over my
lifetime as our country has recognized and responded to the
disadvantages historically borne by racial minorities and
women.
We are not here today to betray the Civil Rights Act, but
to uphold its ideals. There is no doubt in my mind that men,
women, and children who expand their gender dysphoria suffer
deeply. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering would
harm countless people who understand themselves to be
transgender and would demolish the hard-won rights of women,
putting them once again at the mercy of any biological man who
identifies at that any moment as a woman.
The biological differences between the sexes remain
scientific and certain. Men are physically stronger and faster
than women, which has made it necessary for women to access
clear legal protection. When any man can enter into a protected
space, his status in identifying as a woman, as noted by
Women's Liberation Front leader, R.R. 5 nullifies women and
girls as a coherent legal category worthy of civil rights
protection. The bill privileges the rights of men who identify
as women over biological women and girls.
Consider female sports. Last year, two male athletes won
the top two spots in Connecticut girls Class S indoor track
meet. Female athlete Selina Soule, who finished eighth, missed
an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two
places. In Selina's words, ``We all know the outcome of the
race before it even starts. It is demoralizing.''
Allowing men to compete against women in women's sports
isn't demoralizing because female athletes Selina aren't
talented. It is demoralizing because it makes their talent
irrelevant.
Martina Navratilova explained the threat of H.R. 5 poses to
women's sports. ``Unless you want to completely remake what
women's sports means, there can be no blanket inclusion rule.
There is nothing stereotypical about this. It is about
fairness, and it is about science.''
In fact, H.R. 5 ignores fairness and denies science in
order to codify stereotypes and sexism. If a man who adopts the
mannerisms associated with women can receive every Federal
protection afforded to women, we have reduced womanhood to a
set of stereotypes, the same stereotypes some men chronically
exploited for social, professional, and political advantage.
H.R. 5 plays into these things that hurt women and girls
across every dimension of our society, and it would give these
stereotypes the trump card whenever tensions arise between the
rights of a transgender person and the rights of a biological
woman.
The damage H.R. 5 would inflict on vulnerable Americans
isn't limited to women. Administering chemotherapy to a
healthy, cancer-free patient is malpractice, but H.R. 5 could
compel doctors to prescribe hormones and perform major
surgeries on adolescents based on their gender identity rather
than the biological gender or medical condition.
Under this bill, adolescents who can't decide what major to
pursue in college would be empowered to force doctors bound by
anti-discrimination laws to administer hormones that could
render these children sterile and conduct irreversible
surgeries. Mothers and fathers who have watched their children
deteriorate physically and emotionally as they transition away
from their biological sex are begging Congress to listen before
we leap.
Don't ignore the costs here because they are steep. H.R. 5
erases civil rights protection for biological women. It sets
the stage for children to fall victim in permanent and
unprecedented ways to the confusion that often characterizes
adolescence.
If the Democrats are determined to move this legislation
forward anyway, we must acknowledge it automatically privileges
the rights of biological men over the rights of biological
women. This bill will cause suffering that is far-reaching and,
in many cases, enduring.
Though the women and children have historically been
uniquely vulnerable, Democrats are condemning people who
advocate for their rights and against H.R. 5 as bigoted. The
ideology-driven H.R. 5 is content to see women, lesbians, and
families become the collateral damage of identity politics with
no basis in science.
So I would ask my friends across the aisle not to peddle
that notion under H.R. 5 everybody wins. There will be many
losers because H.R. 5 bows to the political expediency that
silence calls for for fairness, flouts science, and has no
compassion for the women and children it marginalizes.
And as an ending to my chairman's comment, there is nobody
in this world should be mistreated for how they see themselves
or how they portray themselves. I believe that that is a gift
that is inherently from God and is a spark of life that is put
in there not by any man or woman, or anybody created is by the
one that creates.
Understanding that, we can have differences. We can
understand things differently. We can understand when it comes
to the law, how laws affect some and hurt others. That is not
being mean-spirited. That is not being hurtful. That is just
being honest.
And they can have discussions today, and we plan on having
those discussions. And I appreciate everybody's perspective
that is going to be here. But to challenge the motive of what
my disagreement may be as to people that I don't even know and
that I could come to love and care is wrong.
For me, this is about looking at a bill and saying what is
right or wrong about this bill. And when we understand that, we
can have bigger discussions as we go forward. That is where you
have true conversations of love. That is where you have true
conversations of compassion. And we can disagree on that, but
talk about a bill that inherently does have bad effects
intended with it.
As we go forward, I look forward to the discussion. I look
forward to our side and both sides having this discussion, and
I appreciate the chairman's time.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
I will now introduce today's witnesses. Sunu Chandy--I hope
I pronounced that right. Sunu Chandy is the legal director for
the National Women's Law Center. She earned a Bachelor of Arts
degree from Earlham College, a law degree from Northeastern
University School of Law, and a Master of Fine Arts from Queens
College.
The Reverend Doctor Dennis Wiley is pastor emeritus of the
Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ. He earned a Bachelor
of Arts from Harvard, a Master of Divinity from Howard
University, and both a Master of Philosophy and a Ph.D. from
Union Theological Seminary.
Carter Brown is the founder and executive director of Black
Transmen, Inc., a nonprofit organization dedicated to
empowering African-American transgender men. Prior to serving
in this role, he worked in real estate and mortgage banking for
over 10 years.
Julia Beck is a member of the Women's Liberation Front and
the former law and policy co-chair of Baltimore City's LGBTQ
Commission. She earned her Bachelor of Science degree from
Towson University.
Doriane Lambelet Coleman is professor of law at Duke Law
School. She earned a Bachelor of Arts from Cornell and a law
degree from Georgetown University Law Center.
Jami Contreras is a supervisor at an auto finance company
in Michigan. She and her wife encountered difficulty obtaining
medical care for their newborn child because of their sexual
orientation.
Tia Silas--did I pronounce that right? Tia Silas is vice
president and global chief diversity and inclusion officer at
IBM. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell
University and an MBA from NYU Stern School of Business.
Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of
Constitutional Law at NYU, that is New York University, School
of Law. He earned a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard University,
was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, and earned a law
degree from Yale Law School.
We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank
them for participating in today's hearing.
Now if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you
in. Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
[Response.]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Let the record reflect the
witnesses all answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
Please note that each of your written statements will be
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask
that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you
stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table.
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute
to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
signals the 5 minutes have expired.
Ms. Chandy, you may begin.
TESTIMONIES OF SUNU CHANDY, LEGAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WOMEN'S
LAW CENTER; DENNIS WILEY, PASTOR EMERITUS, COVENANT BAPTIST
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST; CARTER BROWN, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, BLACK TRANSMEN, INC.; JULIA BECK, FORMER LAW AND
POLICY CO-CHAIR, BALTIMORE CITY'S LGBTQ COMMISSION; DORIANE
LAMBELET COLEMAN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, DUKE LAW SCHOOL; JAMI
CONTRERAS, MICHIGAN RESIDENT; TIA SILAS, VICE PRESIDENT AND
GLOBAL CHIEF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIONS OFFICER, IBM CORPORATION;
AND KENJI YOSHINO, CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN PROFESSOR OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
TESTIMONY OF SUNU CHANDY
Ms. Chandy. Good morning. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member
Collins, and members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of H.R. 5, the
Equality Act.
My name is Sunu Chandy. I am the legal director of the
National Women's Law Center.
The center has worked for more than 45 years to advance
women's equality and to remove barriers created by sex
discrimination. Before joining the center, I served in senior
leadership roles at Federal and local civil rights agencies.
And for 15 years before that, I was a civil rights litigator. I
have been active with LGBTQ organizations, including currently
as a board member with the Transgender Law Center and in the
past as a leader with South Asian LGBTQ organizations.
A few years ago, when my daughter's first grade classmate
said to her on the playground, ``But wait, you can't have two
moms,'' I am so proud that my daughter went to the principal
and got her from the side to help explain that, yes, in fact,
she can.
We are urging Congress to pass the Equality Act so that all
kids can have legal protections, no matter their family
structure. But as with any bill that seeks to amend existing
civil rights laws, the Equality Act must be enacted in a way
that expands and never retreats from our commitment to existing
civil rights protections.
Support of the Equality Act is key to the National Women's
Law Center's mission and critical for our collective liberation
against sex discrimination, as outlined here. First, the
Equality Act would provide explicit protections for LGBTQ
people in employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces
and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that
discriminating against someone because she does not conform to
gender stereotypes is sex discrimination. The Equality Act
would make these protections for LGBTQ individuals explicit in
Federal statutory law.
Second, the act would ensure that all women, including
LGBTQ individuals, would gain protections against sex
discrimination in public spaces. This means individuals,
including those who are pregnant, who experience sex
discrimination, including sex harassment, while in spaces such
as restaurants or stores would have a legal remedy through the
Equality Act.
Third, the act would ensure that individuals gain new
protections against sex discrimination by entities that take
Federal dollars--schools, community centers, homeless shelters.
The Equality Act would prohibit sex discrimination in these
spaces.
Finally, the act ensures additional protections in public
spaces, that they extend to all relevant entities. People of
color continue to face discrimination regularly in stores or
when seeking taxis. The Equality Act would prohibit this kind
of discrimination.
The act protects freedom of religion also through existing
thoughtful exemptions contained within the Federal civil rights
statutes that protect religious actors from Government
intrusion.
For example, the current laws exempt private entities that
are not open to the public. Churches can hold services,
spaghetti dinners, and limit their entry to their members. The
current law allows religious entities to limit employment to
members of their own faith, and they require religious
accommodations for employees.
The current law also provide that religious entities are
exempt from fair housing laws if they're being--using a
dwelling for a noncommercial purpose or in small buildings
where the owner lives on the premises.
In addition to maintaining all these religious exemptions,
the Equality Act clarifies that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act cannot be misused to allow violations of
Federal civil rights laws. This does not eliminate RFRA but
limits its reach, so it can't be used to defend against civil
rights claims.
The Equality Act represents a significant advancement for
all women and girls, and I want to be clear. The National
Women's Law Center supports the act's requirement that
transgender women and girls be included with other women and
girls in gender-specific spaces, including in sports programs.
Our country has a history of attempting to justify sex
discrimination by asserting that it is protecting women. Just
as this rationale fell short when excluding women from
opportunities, it does not work now. The National Women's Law
Center has represented women and girls seeking athletic
opportunities, equal employment, and protection from sexual
violence for decades, and this includes women and girls who are
transgender. We are firmly committed to advancing the Equality
Act because it will advance opportunities for all women and
girls.
As a woman, a person of color, and a parent in a two mommy
family, I need the Equality Act. And as the daughter of a
Christian minister and school teacher, immigrants from a small
village in Kerala, India, it has been quite a journey towards
family acceptance. Gaining explicit Federal law protections
provides not only legal rights, but an increased measure of
dignity.
Over decades, through the courage of individuals coming
forward with claims of discrimination, we have collectively
expanded the scope of civil rights protections as one tool in
our work for justice. We urge Congress to pass the Equality
Act.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Chandy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Reverend Brown--Reverend Wiley, rather. I am sorry.
TESTIMONY OF REVEREND DOCTOR DENNIS WILEY
Rev. Wiley. Good morning. My name is the Reverend Doctor
Dennis W. Wiley, pastor emeritus of the Covenant Baptist United
Church of Christ in Washington, D.C., which I pastored along
with my wife, the Reverend Doctor Christine Y. Wiley, for 32
years. I am a liberation theologian, a community activist, and
a social justice advocate.
As a religious leader, I am here today to express my full,
unequivocal support of the Equality Act. My support is based on
my religious upbringing, my personal experience, and the
influence of prophetic trailblazers like the Reverend Doctor
Martin Luther King Jr.
In a speech titled ``The American Dream'' delivered at
Lincoln University in 1961, King observed that while morality
cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. In other
words, according to King, ``It may be true that the law can't
make a person love me, but it can keep that person from
lynching me.''
Born and raised in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, until the
age of 14 during the 1950s and '60s, I never witnessed the
horror of lynching, but I did experience the injustice of
racial segregation. Because of the color of my skin, I lived in
a segregated neighborhood, attended segregated schools, shopped
at segregated stores, ate at segregated restaurants, drank from
segregated water fountains, used segregated restrooms, rode
segregated buses, and sat in the balcony of a segregated movie
theater after entering the side door and climbing 14 flights of
stairs.
And while I was constantly surrounded by the love of
family, neighbors, church members, teachers, and friends, I
could not help but notice that there was a sharp line of
division, primarily between the black world in which I lived
and the white world to which I was exposed only through
television and in the movies.
And so to add insult to injury, courts and the public
framed laws enforcing segregation and banning interracial
marriage as morally sound and founded in Christian heritage.
And so it was not until I moved to the Nation's capital in the
same year that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed that I
experienced white teachers, white classmates, and integrated
public facilities for the very first time.
And it was from that vantage point that my soul was able to
look back and find solace in the slow and usually begrudging
American evolution from a country in which systemic racism
permeated our laws to one with comprehensive civil rights
protections in employment, public accommodations, and at the
ballot box.
All too often the racist laws that reinforced racism were
justified and maintained by arguments purportedly rooted in
religion, and the same is true for laws that failed to protect
our LGBTQ brothers and sisters from those who would condemn
them for who they are and who they love.
When my wife and I accepted the challenge to leave Covenant
to become a beloved community that welcomes and affirms all,
including LGBTQ persons, I was reminded that King once said,
``Cowardice asked the question, `Is it safe?' Expediency asked
the question, `Is it politic?' And vanity comes along and asks
the question, `Is it popular? But conscience asked the
question, `Is it right?' ''
Well, we did what we did at Covenant not because it was
safe, politic, or popular, but because we believed it was
right. And I feel the same way today about supporting the
Equality Act. As our LGBTQ brothers and sisters move around
this Nation, they should never have to fear losing a job, being
evicted from a house or apartment, refused service at a
restaurant, denied approval for a loan, or rejected admission
to a school because of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.
And so, in closing, I am reminded that a couple of years
after we agreed to perform union ceremonies at our church, we
went to New York to see our younger daughter act in a play
toward the end of her second year at Julliard. Shortly after we
arrived in the city, she stopped by our hotel room for a visit
because she said she wanted to share something with us.
It was then that she came out to us as a lesbian. We were
shocked because we did not see this coming. However, I
immediately got up, went over to her, gave her a big hug, and
told her how much I love her. My wife was a little slower
responding, not because she was disappointed or upset, but
because being a mother, she was afraid of what danger our
daughter might face.
Well, I am happy to tell you today that my daughter, Samira
Wiley, is doing just fine as a successful, Emmy Award-winning
actress who is happily married to the love of her life, Lauren
Morelli. Not every LGBTQ kid is as lucky as Samira. But when I
told Samira that I would be giving this testimony today, she
wanted me to be sure to tell you that if we, her parents, had
not accepted her for who she is, she would not have the
courage, the confidence, or the self-esteem to be not only a
successful actress, but also a positive role model for other
LGBTQ persons.
So let us make sure that the Equality Act becomes law so
that all of our beautiful, promising, gifted LGBTQ citizens
just like my daughter and daughter-in-law can live their lives
free of fear, free of bigotry, and free of discrimination.
[The statement of Rev. Wiley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown.
TESTIMONY OF CARTER BROWN
Mr. Brown. My name is Carter Brown, and I am honored to
submit this testimony in support of the Equality Act and in
support of the millions of hard-working Americans whose
livelihoods have been threatened by the lack of clear,
permanent workplace protections.
Each day, workers across the country are subject to anti-
LGBTQ discrimination and harassment that denies them the fair
chance to earn a living. I know this because it happened to me.
I once believed that I was the embodiment of the American
dream. My early days were spent in a family that lived paycheck
to paycheck, struggling to keep food on the table. I had even
briefly experienced homelessness at the age of 14 while a
student in high school. Determined to break the cycle of
poverty, I fought hard to earn my diploma and was the first in
my family to go to college.
I learned I had a penchant for real estate and entered the
field determined to be a success story. In the following years,
I married my best friend, and we welcomed our daughter into the
world. I felt a responsibility, as many new husbands and
fathers do, to provide for my family. So I continued to work
hard and established myself in my career. I earned 3 promotions
in only 2 years, enabling me to purchase our first home.
These visual markers of success were proof that the
American dream had not eluded me, but that it was clutched
firmly in my hand. And then one day, I arrived to work and
discovered that a coworker had outed me as a transgender man.
Everything around me shattered.
In the months that followed, I was the subject of cruel
office gossip and forced to endure invasive and defensive
questioning from colleagues on the subject of my identity. When
they weren't asking me to use other bathrooms or questioning me
about my private life, my coworkers excluded me from work
lunches and avoided me in the halls. I was suddenly isolated in
a field where communication and teamwork was essential to doing
my job.
To my coworkers, being transgender eclipsed everything. I
began to dread coming into work and often spent lunch breaks
alone, crying in my car. I was fired shortly after, and despite
my previous achievements and excellent work performance, my
termination from work was lawful.
In my home State of Texas, there are no explicit State
statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity. In fact, 30 States in total--
that is more than half of the country--have no statutory
protections whatsoever for LGBTQ workers who do experience
discrimination in the workplace.
How can the American dream be realized when a majority of
States have failed to extend equal access and equal opportunity
to its citizens? My experience left me embarrassed and
vulnerable. I was overwhelmed trying to cope with the crushing
lack of financial security.
As a result of being fired, I was forced to cash out my
401K and defer auto loans and mortgage payments just to keep my
family afloat. We lost our health insurance and had to depend
on Medicaid to care for my daughter's special health needs. It
would be an understatement to say that the loss of my job
caused my family significant economic and emotional turmoil.
And my experience is not uncommon. LGBTQ Americans
rightfully fear being outed at work will cause them to lose
their jobs, be passed over for promotions, or suffer lost
wages. It should come as no surprise that more than half of
LGBTQ workers hide their LGBTQ identity at work.
The Equality Act is simple. It amends existing civil rights
law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as
protected characteristics to provide consistent and explicit
nondiscrimination--I am sorry, explicit nondiscrimination
protections for LGBTQ people across key areas of life.
In addition to these changes, the Equality Act updates the
Civil Rights Act to more fully reflect the way we live our
lives today. This amendment to the Civil Rights Act simply
modernizes protections that will not only protect me as a
transgender man, but my family and many people who I love.
Texas is one of the only five States in the country that
has no State-level public accommodation statute. This means
that my family can still be denied service at a store or by a
public car service because of my race without any legal
resource, for example.
All Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender
identity, need permanent and explicit nondiscrimination laws to
protect them in the workplace. If the Equality Act had been in
place during my employment, it would have been illegal for my
employer to engage in harassment and fire me because I was
transgender. My family would not have had to shoulder the
burden of my loss of income and worry about my emotional
health.
I understand that not everyone shares my values, and I may
never change their minds. But we can change the law. A person's
sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with
their ability to do their job. But now because there are no
clear Federal protections in place for LGBTQ workers, passing
this historic piece of legislation has everything to do with
our survival.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Beck.
TESTIMONY OF JULIA BECK
Ms. Beck. Thank you to Chair Nadler, Vice Chair Scanlon,
and Ranking Member Collins for welcoming my testimony in
consideration of the Equality Act.
If the act passes in its current form as H.R. 5, then every
right that women have fought for will cease to exist. H.R. 5 is
a human rights violation. Every person in this country will
lose their right to single-sex sports, shelters, grants, and
loans. The law will forbid ever distinguishing between women
and men.
To be clear, I do support the general goal of the Equality
Act, to protect people on the basis of sex, a physical and
immutable biological reality; to protect sexual orientation,
which is based on biological sex. I object to the inclusion of
gender identity. People who call themselves transgender,
nonbinary, and everything in between still deserve the same
basic human rights that we all do, but treating someone as if
they are a member of the opposite sex is not a civil right. In
fact, this violates the rights of others.
People cannot change sex, no matter how many legal
documents they alter. No matter how many dangerous surgeries
they endure. This myth of changing sex has gained considerable
traction not only because of the synonymous use of the words
``sex'' and ``gender,'' but also because trans activism is
extremely well funded, with billionaire donors and a very deep
sea of lobbyists.
Sex is a vital characteristic. Gender and identity are not.
Sex can never be changed, but gender changes all the time. One
hundred years ago, pink was a color for boys. Now pink is a
girl's color. This is an example of gender, social expectations
of appearance, and behavior.
These expectations are based on sex stereotypes that
prevent people from being their authentic selves.
Unfortunately, gender identity forces people back into these
stereotypical sex roles. This bill defines gender identity as
``actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.'' This is
a circular definition, a logical fallacy.
There is no way to protect a person on the basis of their
gender identity without a legitimate definition. Lawmakers
across the country will have to consider which mannerisms, hair
styles, occupations, and clothing choices make up one gender
identity or another. How is this any different from the sex
stereotypes women have been fighting to break free from? How is
this not regressive?
The concept of gender identity suggests that there is an
essentially female personality or feeling that a person can
have, but no such thing as a female body. Making gender
identity the law will, in fact, mandate a belief in a female
penis or female testes.
The concept of--excuse me, deep down, deep down I believe
that you have good intentions, but gender identity only does
harm. Let me tell you what happens if H.R. 5 passes.
Male rapists will go to women's prisons and will likely
assault female inmates, as has already happened in the UK.
Female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male
presence in women's shelters. Men will dominate women's sports.
Girls who would have taken first place will be denied
scholastic opportunity. Women who use male pronouns to talk
about men may be arrested, fined, and banned from social media
platforms.
Girls will stay home from school when they have their
periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed sex toilets. Girls
and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical
staff or intimate care providers, including elderly or disabled
women who are at serious risk of sexual abuse.
Female security officers will no longer have the right to
refuse to perform pat down or intimate searches of males who
say they are female. And women undergoing security checks will
no longer have the right to refuse having those searches
performed by men claiming a feminine identity.
For a good look at how lesbians are impacted by gender
ideology and legislation, please read ``Lesbians at Ground
Zero,'' a survey from the UK about the harassment of lesbians
in clear spaces, which I request to be placed in the hearing
record. Everything I just listed is already happening, and it
is only going to get worse if gender identity is recognized in
Federal law. The authors of this bill have done a lot of work
to make it sound like gender identity is well understood and
has been around for a long time. But it is a new concept that
can only ever refer to stereotypes and unverifiable claims.
The witnesses for the majority will talk about medical
conditions and desperate unhappiness that everyone is surely
sympathetic to, but this bill doesn't reference any medical
condition. And unhappiness isn't a sex class, nor is it a
reasonable category of civil rights protection. Everyone
experiences unhappiness.
So I would ask the Members to strike the gender identity
provisions of this bill and instead consider protecting all
forms of self-expression and loving relationships under
stronger sex stereotype discrimination provisions. Sex
stereotype nondiscrimination could equally cover both Rupaul
and Caitlyn Jenner in their rights to housing and employment,
but only if we accurately recognize everyone's biological sex.
I thank the Republicans who invited me here, and I urge my
fellow Democrats to wake up. Please acknowledge biological
reality.
Thank you for your time.
[The statement of Ms. Beck follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Coleman.
TESTIMONY OF DORIANE LAMBELET COLEMAN
Ms. Coleman. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
My name is Doriane Coleman. I am a professor of law at Duke
Law School, and I support equality.
As Chairman Nadler noted, the legal history of our country
is in part a chronology of efforts designed to give meaning and
effect to the original commitment in 1776, ``All men are
created equal.'' The work is ongoing for those of us who
weren't originally meant to be its beneficiaries.
As the milestones reflect, the lesson is that different
groups experience inequality for different reasons at the hands
of different people and in different ways so that tailoring an
effective remedy requires attention to those differences.
Although the Nation benefits as equality expands, in fact, only
some of us needed the Emancipation Proclamation and Brown v.
Board of Education. Only some of us need Title IX and the
Violence Against Women Act.
Approaches to equality that elide relevant differences are
not only ineffective, they actually serve as cover for ongoing
inequality. I have recently encountered advocacy that
exemplifies this problem. The argument is that because some
males identify as women, some women have testes. From this, it
follows that sex and sex-linked traits can't be the grounds for
distinctions on the basis of sex because this excludes women
with testes. This leaves gender identity as the only legitimate
basis for classifying someone into, for example, girls- and
women-only spaces and opportunities.
I support equality, including for the LGBTQ community, but
I don't support the current version of H.R. 5 because I say
this with--because, and I say this with enormous respect for
everyone who is working on the bill, it elides sex, sexual
orientation, and gender identity. It is all sex discrimination,
and at least impliedly, we are all the same. In opting for what
is in effect a sex-blind approach to sex discrimination law,
the legislation would serve as cover for disparities on the
basis of sex. Sex is not just a concept. Females have and
continue to be treated differently precisely because of our
reproductive biology and stereotypes about that biology. The
legal fiction that females and women with testes are the same
for all purposes will take us backward, not forward.
I was asked to testify today because I have longed worked
in the one area where this is most clear, Title IX and
opportunities for girls and women in sport. Title IX, which
requires schools to invest in male and female athletes equally,
undoubtedly powers invaluable outcomes not only for the many
individuals who are benefitted by its terms, but also for
society in general.
Those of us who are athletes know that separation on the
basis of sex is necessary to achieve equality in this space.
Among scientific experts, it is accepted beyond dispute that
males and females are materially different with respect to the
main physical attributes that contribute to athletic
performance. They agree that the primary reason for sex
differences in these attributes is exposure in gonadal males to
much higher levels of testosterone during growth and
development and throughout the athletic career.
This literally builds the male body in the respects that
matter for sport. The first figure in my statement shows what
we mean by much higher levels of testosterone. The second
demonstrates how sex differences in athletic performance emerge
coinciding with the onset of puberty, and the third illustrates
the effects of those differences, again starting in
adolescence.
The third marks the individual lifetime bests of three
female Olympic champions in the 400 meters, including Team
USA's Sanya Richards-Ross and Allyson Felix in the sea of male
body performances run in a single year, 2017. It shows that the
very best women in the world would lose to literally thousands
of boys and men, including to thousands who would be considered
second tier in the men's category.
And because it only takes three male-bodied athletes to
preclude the best females from the medal stand, it doesn't
matter if only a handful turn out to be gender nonconforming.
If U.S. law changes so that we can no longer distinguish
females from women with testes for any purpose, we risk not
knowing the next Sanya Richards-Ross or the next Allyson Felix.
We risk losing the extraordinary value that comes from having
women like Serena Williams, Aly Raisman, and Ibtihaj Muhammad
in our lives and on the medal stand.
If they bother to compete, they would be relegated to
participants in the game. One prominent trans activist has said
that we shouldn't be concerned that the victories would belong
to trans girls and women going forward because what matters is
their liberty to self-identify and their right to be treated
equally throughout society. Others, including some in the Title
IX advocacy community, have embraced this evolution, arguing
that what we should care about is participation.
These advocates are right to seek avenues for transgender
inclusion. But listen carefully to the particular bargain they
are willing to strike. In effect, it is that we don't need
parity of competitive opportunity. They are wrong about this.
Participation contributes to equality for females, but the
real power of sport isn't in gym class. It is in teams,
competitions, and victories. It is in the same numbers of
athletic scholarships and of spots in finals and on podiums. It
is in the fact that Brandi Chastain can win Worlds, celebrate
like the guys, and get a whole generation of little girls to
play soccer because she did.
It is in the fact that Simone Manuel can win Olympic gold
in the 100-meter free with millions watching on primetime
television and from there can lead a generation of African-
American kids to the pool who didn't believe that swimming was
for them.
I encourage you to consider revisions to H.R. 5 that
provide protections for sexual orientation and gender identity
that don't risk these invaluable goods and that are otherwise
thoughtful about the circumstances in which sex still matters.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Coleman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler.Thank you.
Ms. Contreras.
TESTIMONY OF JAMI CONTRERAS
Ms. Contreras. Thank you for taking the time to hear my
family's story.
Four and a half years ago, my 6-day-old daughter was denied
medical services by our handpicked pediatrician. This was after
we made very strategic and intentional decisions to do
everything in our power to avoid this very act of
discrimination from happening.
You see, about 7 years ago, my wife, Krista, and I were
living in my small hometown located in West Michigan. After
deciding we were ready to start a family, we made the hard
decision to pack up our lives and relocate 230 miles to the
Metro Detroit area, hoping to ensure our future children would
grow up in an accepting community free from discrimination.
We ended up finding the perfect house, located in one of
the most LGBTQ-friendly towns, which has a good school
district, close-knit community, and above all, it is safe. Not
long after we purchased our home, we found out my wife was
pregnant with our first child. We were elated.
Doing what any good parents would do, we started to
research pediatricians. We asked for help on social media
forums and obtained referrals from people we knew. My wife and
I both made sure to attend every interview with potential
pediatricians, making it very clear this was a two helicopter
mom family.
After several interviews, the search was over. We had found
a pediatrician that met all of our requirements. She was
personable, energetic, listened to our concerns, was able to
talk through her medical philosophy and explain things in a way
we could understand, and she didn't seem too concerned we were
two moms.
We left that meeting with her telling us just to call her
office after the baby is born and set the appointment. Well, a
few months later, our amazing baby girl, Bay Windsor Contreras,
was born. We followed the doctor's orders, made our first
appointment, and we were so excited for that appointment.
As new parents, we were craving that reassurance that we
were just doing everything right, and our baby was healthy and
happy. When we arrived at the office, they escorted us in our
room. We waited for our doctor, excited to show her off. But
when a different doctor walked in the room, she introduced
herself and then started in with the appointment.
Krista and I, confused, had to stop the doctor to ask, ``I
am sorry. Where is Dr. Roi?'' She proceeded to tell us Dr. Roi
would not be seeing us, and she would be Bay's doctor today.
When asked why, she stated Dr. Roi had prayed on it, and she
decided she would not be able to take Bay on as a client.
My stomach sank, my eyes filled with water, and the lump in
my throat felt like a rock. I remember staring at my new baby,
who was now being examined by a doctor we had never met, and
all I could think was what have we done? How did we get here?
We did everything within our power to avoid this very
moment. We literally moved across State. We spent endless hours
of research and interviews just to avoid this very situation.
Yet here we were. It was our job to protect her, and there we
were, only 6 days into the most important jobs of our lives,
and we had already failed.
While checking out, the receptionist asked if we wanted to
make another appointment. We declined and stated we would not
be back, to which she told us she understood, showing us full
well she knew exactly what was going on before we even did.
It was a somber ride home from that appointment. Krista
rode in the back seat with Bay as I drove home fighting back
tears. Instead of leaving that appointment with reassurance, we
were left with nothing but fear and more questions. My mind was
racing with a question that still haunts me to this day. What
is next?
Will we be asked to leave a restaurant, not allowed to sign
her up for a soccer team? Will we be denied access to the
school of our choice? Or worse, are we going to be refused help
by an EMT?
The only silver lining in our story is that she was 6 days
old rather than 6 years old. So we luckily didn't have to try
to find the words to explain to her what had just happened in
that moment. However, she is now at an age where she is
starting to ask questions. We have to explain why mommy and
mama are sometimes on TV or have to take trips like this one.
She impresses me with her ability to comprehend the concept
of equality. She often responds with questions, such as ``Why,
mama? It is okay to be different.'' Or what she said when I
asked her if I should come here today. She said, ``You have to
go, mama, because you can help all families, not just ours,
feel safe.''
When people ask us why we keep speaking up with the risk
that comes with putting our family in the public eye, my wife
and I know all too well, no amount of planning can avoid
discrimination. We have to keep sharing our story to let people
know this is happening to people like us and families like ours
every day. And the only protection has to come from our
Government.
We need our Government to send the message that all
Americans are equal. This is where you come in. We are calling
on you to pass the Equality Act. Please help me show my
daughter and my son that our family and all LGBTQ people have
the right to feel safe in the communities they live.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Contreras follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Silas.
TESTIMONY OF TIA SILAS
Ms. Silas. Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member
Collins, and esteemed members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. My
name is Tia Silas, and I am the vice president, global chief
diversity and inclusion officer for IBM. I am responsible for
creating and implementing IBM's diversity and inclusion
strategy in over 170 countries around the world, advocating for
fairness and equality, which we believe to be core to 100 years
of success.
I am honored to speak at today's important hearing on the
Equality Act to discuss IBM's longstanding and strong support
for the legislation, as well as to provide the committee with
an overview of IBM's proud history of inclusive LGBT+ policies.
At the outset, I wish to highlight a March 7, 2019, letter
of support for the Equality Act signed by IBM's chairman,
president, and chief executive officer, Ms. Ginni Rometty, in
her capacity as chairman of the Business Roundtable's Education
and Workforce Committee and on behalf of all Business
Roundtable members' companies and their 15 million employees. A
copy of that letter has been submitted with my testimony.
I would like to provide the committee with several reasons
why the Equality Act's affirmative nondiscrimination
protections for LGBT+ individuals across the areas of housing,
public education, credit, public services and spaces, and jury
service make good business and economic sense. IBM's core
business objectives are to hire the best, most talented
individuals regardless of their gender identity, sexual
orientation, religion, or other personal characteristics .Let
me outline why.
Diversity of talent ensures differentiated innovation. In
order to remain one of the leading companies in the world, we
seek to recruit, hire, retain the best talent anywhere,
irrespective of any singular factor of a person's identity. We
value a workforce that reflects the diversity of society so
that we can create solutions that are both relevant and
revolutionary.
We don't want our employees and their families to be
limited in where they can safely and comfortably live and work.
Employees must live without fear of their personal safety and
security, regardless of where they reside. Without affirmative
protections, employees may feel forced to be on guard so as to
not inadvertently reveal their LGBT+ status. This creates
stress and distracts individuals from being productive.
Like other companies, IBM's business location and
investment decision-making process factors in discrimination-
related legislation and policies. The United States already
faces a shortage of qualified and experienced talent in key
technology growth areas, such as artificial intelligence, block
chain, quantum computing, cybersecurity, healthcare, and so
much more. It is in the best interests of the country to ensure
that all talented individuals have equal opportunity and are
able to pursue careers in these and other critical fields.
The Equality Act tracks State-level statutes that have
already proven successful. But at the same time, we are
extremely concerned about the patchwork of noncomprehensive
protections. The inconsistency and multiplicity of statutes,
both positive and negative, begs for a Federal minimum standard
of basic protections that extend to all LGBT+ individuals
nationwide.
As IBM's chief diversity officer, I am fortunate to design
and implement many inclusive policies, collaboration tools, and
benefits to support IBM's LGBT+ communities, allies, and
families. In my testimony, I articulate many proud moments in
our history. However, in my time here today, I will highlight
some of our current offerings.
IBM offers transgender inclusive healthcare benefits. We
have 52 LGBT+ employee resource and affinity groups around the
world. We require all U.S. contractors to comply with
nondiscrimination standards. We have launched employee and
general public training and certification programs about LGBT+
inclusivity.
We sponsor an LGBT+ executive council, which includes
leadership from a senior vice president who reports directly to
IBM's chairman, signifying IBM's top executive support for
inclusion. IBM believes that fostering inclusive work
environments goes beyond employment practices and protections.
That is why we strongly support the Equality Act and the
extension of protections it proposes across so many critical
areas of society. Our country's future economic success depends
on it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Silas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Yoshino.
TESTIMONY OF KENJI YOSHINO
Mr. Yoshino. Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
with you here today.
My name is Kenji Yoshino, and I am the Chief Justice Earl
Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University
School of Law.
This year marks the 50th year anniversary of the Stonewall
Riots, which inaugurated the modern LGBT rights movement.
Fittingly, the Supreme Court just last term stated, ``Our
society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay
couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in
dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the
Constitution can and in some instances must protect them in the
exercise of their civil rights.''
By passing the Equality Act, Congress will bring the Nation
closer to realizing that promise. I will summarize six points
about the act that I have made in my written testimony.
First, the act is necessary. Despite the extraordinary
strides that society has made in the past few decades, LGBT
individuals continue to face broad forms of social and economic
discrimination. Recent studies have shown that one in five
lesbian, bisexual, and gay individuals and about one in three
transgender individuals reported unfair treatment in employment
decisions.
In some 29 States, no law explicitly prohibits
discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Second, Congress is authorized to pass the Equality Act
under both the commerce clause of the United States
Constitution and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
1964, the Court found that Congress could use the commerce
power to promulgate the landmark Civil Rights Act, which
today's Equality Act both mirrors and extends.
Further, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives
Congress the power to pass legislation to ensure all Americans
the equal protection of our laws, as the Equality Act seeks to
do.
Third, the act represents an exemplary application of the
principles of American federalism. More than 20 States have
explicit laws against discrimination in employment and housing
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As
Justice Brandeis famously said, the States are laboratories of
experimentation.We have seen these experiments succeed as
millions of LGBT Americans have gained dignitary rights in
their home States.
Meanwhile, the risks that detractors threaten have not
materialized. Studies have found no evidence that protecting
transgender people from discrimination leads to any increase in
safety incidents in gender-segregated bathrooms or locker
rooms. Further, trans women athletes have not broadly displaced
nor disadvantaged non-trans women and girls when allowed to
compete in accordance with their gender identity.
Fourth, a majority of Federal circuit courts nationwide
have already interpreted Federal laws prohibiting sex
discrimination to include discrimination based on gender
identity and sexual orientation. By codifying this sound set of
precedents, Congress would ensure that the applicability of
Federal law does not depend on where an American resides.
Fifth, the Equality Act advances civil equality for LGBT
individuals while respecting religious freedom. The claim that
the act compromises religious liberties ignores the existing
exemptions in the civil rights laws that the Equality Act would
amend, such as the exception the Fair Housing Act makes for
religious organizations to prefer people of the same religion
when selling or renting commercial space.
This claim also scants the safeguards instilled in the free
exercise clause of the United States Constitution. As cases
ranging from the Lukumi Babalu Aye case to the Masterpiece
Cakeshop case demonstrate, any misapplication predicated on
religious animus would swiftly falter.
Sixth, the act validly reaches conduct as well as status.
Some have argued that sexual orientation and gender identity
are distinguishable from protected classifications like race or
sex because they are defined partly by conduct rather than by
status alone. This distinction is unavailing.
Civil rights protections in this Nation have never been
limited to status alone. Neither religious conduct nor
pregnancy are immutable characteristics, yet both are protected
under Title VII.
I will close with how I introduced myself as the Chief
Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law. When that
title was offered to me by my then dean, I rejected it. I
reminded him that I was of Japanese descent, and that, as
Attorney General of California, Earl Warren superintended the
internment of people of Japanese ancestry. In his wisdom, my
dean responded that after he became Chief Justice of the United
States Supreme Court, Earl Warren not only expressed regret for
his role in the internment but was the author of our Nation's
most honored civil rights opinion.
What better title could I have than the name of someone who
had traveled so far on issues of civil rights over the course
of a single lifetime. So I now wear this title with pride,
wondering in how many countries a racial minority could move so
quickly from being outside the protection of the Constitution
to holding a place of honor as a scholar and teacher of that
hallowed document.
I consider it a matter of grace that I can tell the same
story in a different register. I am a gay man who was born the
year of the Stonewall Riots. Because of judicial and
legislative decisions like the one you are asked to make today,
I married my husband 10 years ago, and together, we are raising
a son and daughter.
Despite all the forms of privilege we possess as a family,
we still feel unsafe traveling to certain areas of this
country. Even in our home State of New York, we have
experienced acts of exclusion and bias. In those moments, I
worry less about myself and more for my young children. As Dr.
King did for his own 6-year-old daughter when she faced
discrimination in a public accommodation, I fear seeing the
``ominous clouds of inferiority begin to form in their little
mental sky.''
So it is no small matter you consider today. In the last
half century, I have walked two versions of the American dream.
That journey has led me to believe that the experience of
discrimination on the basis of race on the one hand and
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity on the other are not entirely different. And it has
led me to believe the dignity the law can bestow in welcoming
us into the light of the public sphere is entirely the same.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Yoshino follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. I thank the witnesses.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes, and I have
three questions for Ms. Chandy.
Ms. Beck objects to the addition of gender identity as a
protected characteristic in our civil rights laws because she
believes that treating someone as if they are a member of the
opposite sex is not a civil right. What is your response to
that?
Ms. Chandy. Yes. Listening to that testimony, it seems like
that particular witness does not believe that transgender
people exist, and personally I have sort of worked in a
volunteer capacity over the last 25 years with LGBTQ
organizations, and I just want to say that no one up here are
doctors or scientists, so we are talking about our experience
with people and how that fits into the law for today.
And so I have met numerous transgender individuals who are
trans women and girls who are women and girls. In terms of the
biology piece, biology is made up by so many different things,
as I understand it, not just external sex organs. There are
hormones. There are internal things. And so all of these things
make up a person. And so transgender women and girls are women
and girls. Transgender boys and men are boys and men, as we
have heard. So to basically have someone say that does not
exist, and then to say that people will go so far as to make up
an entire identity, change their pronouns, maybe engage in
medical treatment to just simply invade sex-segregated spaces
or participate in sports is so outlandish, it is so far-fetched
when you think about the weight and seriousness that someone
goes through before deciding that they need to be presenting a
gender-affirming gender identity.
So it just sort of--I hear it as offensive because it is
sort of here--it sounds to me like someone is saying that a
particular identity does not exist.
I can also address the point about sex stereotyping. That
is the very theory that the Supreme Court has used to cover
both sexual orientation and gender identity. The Supreme Court
has said how you present yourself, whether you present in a
feminine or masculine way, all of those sorts of things are
protected and you cannot discriminate based on those, and that
is the theory that has led us to saying sexual orientation and
gender identity are all part of sex discrimination, and that is
not allowed to discriminate on any of those characteristics.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
In her written testimony, Ms. Beck lists a number of
potential scenarios that could arise if Congress were to
include protections against gender identity-based
discrimination in the Equality Act, including ``men will
dominate women's sports, and girls will stay home from school
when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in
mixed-sex toilets.'' What is your response?
Ms. Chandy. There is no research to support the claim that
allowing trans athletes to play on teams that fit their gender
identity will create a competitive imbalance. Trans children
display the same variation in size, strength, and athletic
ability as other youth. And there are no reported instances of
a boy pretending to be transgender or presenting as a girl to
fraudulently join a sports team. There is just no example of
this happening. And for this to be raised as the issue today,
we are an organization that cares about women in sports. We can
talk about women in sports: unequal pay; how women coaches are
treated; resources given to women in sports. We can spend a lot
of time talking about women in sports. The ``problem'' of
transgender inclusion in sports is not the issue that is being
raised.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. I have one more question on the
same topic.
Professor Coleman testifies that female athletes ``know
that segregation on the basis of sex, or at least of sex linked
to traits, is necessary to achieve equality in this space.''
And he also testifies--I am sorry, Professor Coleman. She
testifies that because those born male are exposed to much
higher levels of testosterone, they enjoy physical advantages
in athletic performance, and not recognizing this difference
will hinder women's opportunities in sports. Your response to
those two----
Ms. Chandy. I would just say that half of the country, we
have state and local laws that protect on the basis of gender,
sexual orientation, and gender identity. And as the professor
described, this has been going on in half of the country, and
it is not as if sports has been sort of--women's sports has
been overcome with transgender athletes winning every race.
Even in the example that was given in Connecticut, which is
the only one I am hearing, those people went on to the
Nationals, and one did not participate, and one came in like
30th or 31st. So this idea that transgender inclusion is going
to mean that transgender individuals are going to win in all of
the sports is simply not true. We have heard no data to say
that that is true, and these are just fears and myths and
stereotypes, which is not a way that we can make law.
Chairman Nadler. And finally, given that many courts have
interpreted Title 7 and other civil rights statutes to already
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
gender identity, why do we need to amend existing statutes to
provide such protection?
Ms. Chandy. Okay. So, right now, the circuit courts are
sort of deciding, and there has been a growing consensus among
Federal courts that the existing prohibition on sex
discrimination also prohibits discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity. But that depends on the court
that is looking at it. There are also some circuits that have
not gone in that way. So it is not fair that whether or not you
have rights, not to be discriminated against based on sexual
orientation or gender identity cannot depend on the state you
live in, the location, or the circuit. That is not a fair way
to have civil rights protections.
These protections need to be firmly established in the
legislation so that all genders need to follow it, all circuits
need to follow it, and that everyone in the country can have
this protection.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. I take it you mean should not,
not cannot.
My time has expired. The gentleman from Georgia, the
Ranking Member, Mr. Collins, is recognized.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 5 will require under Federal law that all entities
receiving Federal financial assistance, including K-12 schools,
colleges, hospitals, recognize whatever self-professed gender
identity an adolescent might profess. In the audience today are
several parents who are representing the Kelsey Coalition.
These are parents of transgender-identifying children who have
been harmed by gender identity medical practices. Their stories
are not reported in the press. They have been denied meetings
with their representatives, and they are here today to make
sure that this committee will seriously consider the disastrous
impact of including gender identity in the Equality Act, under
which doctors will be required to administer testosterone to
young girls on demand, they will be required to block the--of
young boys based on the feelings of gender confusion, and this
is already happening, including gender identity in the Federal
law will turn these unsound medical practices into Federal
mandate.
The opposition to this bill is both deep and wide in both
Republican and Democrat men and women, mothers and fathers from
all sides of the political spectrum, and no side at all. I just
received a letter this morning from a Georgia mom deeply
concerned with what is happening with girls sports and its
effect on daughters and girls everywhere, and I would like to
ask that to be submitted for the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
Mr. Collins. But opposition to this bill also consists of
many people who are scared to express their views, and so we on
our side are going to use some of our question time to give
voice to those who might otherwise remain voiceless in the face
of the injustice that will be imposed by this legislation.
To that end, I will begin my questioning by reading parts
of the peer-reviewed study by Dr. Lisa Littman entitled,
``Parents Reports of Adolescents and Young Adults Perceived to
Show Signs of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,'' which shows how
the transgender ideology is propagated in part by social media
and aimed at vulnerable children. H.R. 5, if enacted, would
codify an Internet phenomenon into Federal law.
H.R. 5 would make it illegal for well-meaning parents and
doctors to protect children from rash judgments that are part
of childhood, even more so in the era of smart phones and
social media obsession. The following is from Dr. Lisa
Littman's article.
Dr. Littman found that none of the AYAs, adolescents and
young adults, described in the study would have met diagnostic
criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood. In fact, the vast
majority, 80.4 percent, had zero indicators from the DSM-V
distinct diagnostic criteria for childhood gender dysphoria,
with 12.2 percent possessing one indicator, 3.5 with two
indicators, and 2.4 with three indicators.
Adolescents and young adults had received online advice,
including that if their parents were reluctant to take them for
hormones, that they should use the suicide narrative, telling
the parents that there is a high rate of suicide of transgender
teens to convince them, 20.7 percent, and that it is acceptable
to lie or withhold information about one's medical or
psychological history from doctors or therapists in order to
get hormones and get hormones faster, 17.5 percent.
There is a lot of concern, as I stated in my opening
statement. There is love and compassion for all folks who are
going through different stages, but this bill has real
consequences and real concerns.
Professor Coleman, as a member of Congress I am used to
being discussed in the third person about what I have said and
not said, and my Chairman, we talk about each other a lot in
different ways than what we have said, but your testimony has
actually been brought up, and I would like for you to be able
to respond to what was said earlier, discussing the dysphoria
aspect and some of these differences that we have seen that is
not isolated in this, and I would like for you to comment on
that.
Ms. Coleman. Thank you. So, I understand that sport is
really important in consideration of this bill, but it covers
things more broadly, and I want to make clear again that my
position is narrow and concerns only sport, and you can do with
that what you would like.
A couple of responses. Again, Professor Yoshino mentioned
that transgender girls and women have not yet broadly displaced
girls and women in sport. That is absolutely right, but also
this is just the beginning of a period of time in various
states where trans kids are coming out as trans and are being
welcomed and included for their authentic selves. So the
question is what will happen if this trend continues and
identification into girls' and women's sport comes to be based
on gender identity rather than biology, or in addition to
biology on an equal basis.
In the Olympic movement we have seen the effects of this
issue in the last period where the Court of Arbitration for
Sport lifted the requirements of testosterone reduction for
intersex and trans women. For example, the Olympic podium in
the women's 800 meters likely was comprised entirely of
biological males in the last Olympic championships, and that
is--we are talking three people out of hundreds of girls and
women.
I will just add, with respect to the national championships
in indoor track recently, the high school and college national
championships, only one of the two girls from Connecticut was
able to compete, and the girl who was able to compete had
satisfied the National Scholastic Athletic Foundation policy of
dropping her T levels for over a year to within the women's
range, the girls and women's range.
Mr. Collins. Well, thank you.
And again, I appreciate everyone who has come here today.
We may disagree on certain things, but also not everything is
simply solved by nature or number, and these are questions that
need to be addressed and need to be talked about. But I think
the concerns, most that I relate here, is something that we
need to discuss, and I appreciate the Chairman having it, and
we will continue on.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
The gentle lady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like so many other Americans, LGBTQ have had their rights
eroded since the Administration took power, from removing LGBTQ
issues from Federal data collection surveys, to the ban on
transgender individuals who are serving in the military, just
to name a few. The first few years of the presidency had our
country taking several steps backwards.
We have taken this step with the Equality Act to stop
stepping backwards but to step forward, and I am a proud
original co-sponsor of this bill. As a consequence, everyone,
regardless of their sexual orientation, should be afforded the
same protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and other
civil rights bills, and the Equality Act does ensure that that
is the case.
I have listened to the testimony, and all of you said
interesting things, and I appreciate that you were here. But,
Reverend Wiley, I was so moved listening to your testimony and
thinking back to your days in the segregated south. We have
many challenges remaining, but we have made some progress. We
should celebrate the successes in addition to bemoaning the
challenges that remain.
But I am particularly struck that you are here as a man of
faith, and many opponents--I am not suggesting here on the dais
today but in our country--of LGBTQ equality claim that somehow
that equality is at odds with religious freedom and with people
of faith, and yet here you are, a faith leader testifying in
support of this bill.
Why, as one who has dedicated himself to religious life
your entire life, do you support LGBTQ equality? How do you
reconcile your faith, your belief, with those who oppose it for
religious reasons?
Rev. Wiley. Thank you for the question.
I grew up as the son of a Baptist minister. My uncles, a
couple of uncles were ministers. I have an aunt who is a
minister, cousins, my brother. So I have been surrounded by the
Church all my life, and I am thankful that my parents not only
taught me the Bible, but they also lived what they believed to
be the principal concept of the Bible that included justice,
equality, liberty, compassion, and those are the kinds of
things that were instilled in me.
And also, the need to stand up for what we believe is
right. My father assisted Dr. King on many occasions in the
civil rights movement. So I grew up believing that it was part
of my responsibility as a minister not just to stand in the
pulpit and preach on Sunday mornings, but also to be active in
the community and in the nation and the world in an active way
to challenge any kind of issue that would bring any kind of
injustice to people.
I also was taught to respect and appreciate all of God's
creation, that God was a god of love and a god of forgiveness
and a god of saying that everybody is welcome into God's house.
So I am sometimes amazed at how the Church is not more
active in struggles like this. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he
was sitting in the Birmingham jail and wrote the letter from
that jail, he was concerned that some of the ministers in that
town were saying he was going too fast, he needed to wait, he
needed to slow down and be more gradual. But he says that he
could not wait because justice delayed is justice denied.
So that is where I come from. And not only was I involved
in the struggle for racial justice but as I studied with
theologians, they helped me to understand that none of us are
free until all of us are free.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Reverend. My time is
expired, but your words are inspiring to us all. Thank you very
much.
Rev. Wiley. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the witnesses for providing insight for members on both sides
of the aisle here, whether you are for or against H.R. 5.
As well as being a member of this committee, I happen to be
the ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, which
is the lead Republican on that committee. In the last two
congresses I was chairman of that committee, and in that
capacity we get to hear from small businesses all over the
country about how laws that we pass here impact them on a daily
basis, and I would note that America's small businesses provide
about 70 percent of the new jobs created in America nowadays.
With respect to H.R. 5, small business, particularly small
business owners who have common religious beliefs, many of whom
are women, have shared their concerns about H.R. 5 with me and
other members. For example, and we have already seen this in
athletics, where physical men now in some cases have to compete
with women, we heard testimony on both sides of that, and it
does not seem to be fair to a lot of people that men who
identify as women are competing with women. Similarly, it does
not seem fair for men who identify as a woman to be able to
take advantage of certain government contracts, because doing
so allows them to utilize the women-owned small business
Federal contracting program, for example, which is designed to
provide greater access to Federal contracting opportunities for
women-owned small businesses.
One of the requirements to be certified in that particular
program is to be 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more
women. This program gives contracting officers a statutory goal
of providing at least 75 percent of Federal contracting dollars
to women-owned firms, and adopting H.R. 5 could mean that this
program and others like it, designed to level the playing field
for women in business, could be jeopardized. So that is
certainly, I think, something to be considered.
It could also mean that small business owners would have to
provide the cost of providing health care if one of their
employees wanted to undergo elective procedures that were
covered under H.R. 5, the bill that we are considering today.
This could be very costly for small business owners who are
already facing rising health care costs under the Affordable
Care Act or Obamacare, whichever terminology one prefers.
Forcing them to provide pharmaceutical and other types of
health care for these sorts of procedures because someone
identified as a member of the opposite sex could, no doubt,
exacerbate the already high cost to small business.
So overall, while H.R. 5 says it is intended to provide
equality for all, it in many people's views does anything but
and goes beyond creating a level playing field to once again
making it easier for men who identify as women to take
advantage of programs that are actually designed to do that. So
that is something to be considered.
And then finally, there is a report from Dr. Littman, a
study that I think a number of us had access to. This is a
different topic, but there are online instructions about lying
to parents and physicians under this, and these are a couple of
things that it said, and these are quotes from some of these
young people.
``Find out what they want to hear if they are going to give
you T,'' which apparently stands for testosterone, ``and then
tell them just that. It is about getting treatment, not about
being true to those around you. It is not their business, and a
lot of time doctors will screw stuff up for you.''
Another one said, ``Get a story ready in your head and, as
suggested, keep the lie to a minimum, and only for stuff that
can't be verified, like how you were feeling but was too afraid
to tell anyone, including your family.''
From another one, ``I would also look up the DSM,'' which
is Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, by the way, ``for the
diagnostic criteria for transgender and make sure your story
fits it, assuming your psych follows it.''
Another correspondent offered, ``He is rewriting his
personal history to suit his new narrative.''
And another respondent said, ``Our son has completely made
up his childhood to include only girlfriends and dressing up in
girls'' clothes and playing with dolls, etc. This is not the
same childhood we have seen as parents.''
And then finally another parent said, ``I overheard my son
boasting on the phone to his older brother that the doc
swallowed everything I said hook, line and sinker, easiest
thing I ever did.''
And I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, and thank you all for being here today.
Super-protections should ensure that no one can be
discriminated against in their housing, their employment, and
their public accommodations. Would you agree with that,
Professor Coleman?
Ms. Coleman. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And do you agree with that, Ms.
Beck.
Ms. Beck. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And so you both seem to be more in
line with discriminating in the area of athletics, in the area
of women's athletics. Is that correct, Dr. Coleman, Professor
Coleman?
Ms. Coleman. That is what I am here to testify about.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And Ms. Beck, you also?
Ms. Beck. I believe sex is a basis upon which sports should
be segregated.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, is it true that there are some
women who have high levels of testosterone, and then some with
lower levels of testosterone?
Ms. Coleman. So, if I can, I can point you to----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I mean, I am just asking as--
some women, traditional women, if you will----
Ms. Coleman. Biological females' T levels do not overlap
with biological males' T levels. There is quite a gap, no
overlap, between the two ranges.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So you are in favor of kind of
discriminating in the field of athletics based on testosterone
levels.
Ms. Coleman. We have always done that. Sports has always
done that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Now----
Ms. Coleman. That is the reason women's sport exists, is
because of testosterone levels.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Ms. Chandy, what is your position
on that, on that distinction insofar as it would create an
ability to legally discriminate against someone?
Ms. Chandy. The Equality Act would ensure that LGBTQ
students, including women and girls who are LGBTQ, have the
same opportunity to participate as their peers. We have heard
about the benefits of sports, particularly for students who may
be experiencing self-esteem or other concerns. It can be
incredibly important.
And so the key for most of the people playing in sports is
for inclusion and participation at those levels, and state
schools and athletic associations across the country have found
for many years that equal participation for LGBTQ students,
including ones who are transgender, does not harm women and
girls' sports in any way.
I also want to say that under similar state laws, schools
and athletic associations have developed approaches that place
primary focus on ensuring equal opportunity for participation
for transgender athletes while taking account of the different
context for ages and levels of competition. And so there are
rules that govern these areas where experts can figure out how
to allow transgender students to participate equally and
without facing discrimination.
So these sort of discussions and rules are already in place
in half of our country, and I was so relieved to hear Professor
Coleman say this is actually not a problem now. This is a
hypothetical problem. And meanwhile people are being excluded,
and we want people to not have a place on the team for some
hypothetical problem that we cannot even--we have no evidence
of it. So we cannot create law based on that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Professor Yoshino, has this issue of testosterone levels
and sports been an issue that you have formed an opinion about?
Mr. Yoshino. I do have an opinion.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Turn on your microphone.
Mr. Yoshino. I defer it to Ms. Chandy, who has deeper
expertise on this issue than I, but I do have an opinion based
on the mere empirical evidence that has been adduced. We opened
with Ranking Member Collins offering up the example of the two
individuals in Connecticut who placed first and second in a
particular athletic meet. Ms. Chandy responded by saying they
went on to nationals. One did not participate, the other placed
30th.
Then I understood Ranking Member Collins to follow up on
that and to say to Professor Coleman I understand that this is
not a single incident and this is actually a much broader
phenomenon, and I heard Professor Coleman agree with my
testimony to say that this is not a broad phenomenon, that
these are isolated incidents, but that in the future we might
expect more. And my only response to that is again the
federalism point, which is that we have had decades of
experience since the 1970s of women participating, trans women
participating in women's leagues, and they have not dominated.
It just strains credulity to think that an individual who
is undergoing such a deeply personal transformation as to
transition away from the gender assigned to them at birth would
do so opportunistically simply because they wanted a gold medal
in some track meet. This is not what gender identity is about,
and this is not what the AMA or the American Psychological
Association or the American Psychiatric Association say that it
is about.
This is a civil rights issue. This is not about individuals
opportunistically trying to take advantage of particular
entitlements or benefits that are accorded to women, whether
that be in sports, whether that be in small business. It is a
deeply, deeply personal issue of identity formation that
occurs, as many physicians say, at a very early level.
And one thing that I really appreciate both sides of the
aisle being concerned about is our youth and our children, and
I am glad to hear that even opponents of this bill articulate
deep compassion for the children who are affected by gender
identity disorder. I will point out that in the name of that
compassion, I think it is useful to point out that the suicide
rate among individuals who are transgender is 40 percent. Forty
percent of individuals had attempted suicide in their lifetime,
which is nearly nine times the attempted suicide rate in the
overall population.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, may I make a unanimous consent
request? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in light of
this line of questioning, that this statement of women's rights
and gender justice organizations in support of full and equal
access to participation in athletics for transgender people be
made a part of the record.
It is signed by a number of organizations, including the
American Association of University Women, Legal Voice, National
Women's Law Center, the National Women's Political Caucus,
Women Leaders in College Sports, the Women's Sports Foundation,
and many, many others. I ask that it be made a part of the
record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection, the document will be
made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
MR. CICILLINE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is
recognized.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Coleman, you had a response to the last answer?
Ms. Coleman. Yes, please. So, trans women and trans girls
are participating in sport, and most of them--this is just a
factual point--most of them have dropped their T levels. In
fact, part of transitioning, as I think everyone knows here--I
do a lot of work with trans kids, including in the medicine
area, and one of the things that trans girls would like to do
is to drop their T levels into the female range as part of
becoming their authentic selves. And when they do this and they
compete, it is not at all a problem.
So just to be clear, at least my position is not that trans
kids should be excluded from sport. It is simply that inclusion
based on biology or biological trait, sex-linked traits makes
sense because otherwise, in fact--and this is not a
hypothetical. In fact, it will be the end of girls' and
women's-only sport if we make simply gender identity the basis
for eligibility for----
Mr. Gohmert. Right. You will have men's sports and you will
have co-ed sports.
You were one of two girls to get a track scholarship to
Villanova in 1978, thanks to Title 9. And the point has been
made--and I can see your facial expression, Professor Coleman--
about the comment that there is no evidence of a problem with
men competing. But there is no question that problem will
continue to arise, and nothing more dramatic than this diagram
you have, each one of these points representing an athlete, and
the three red dots that are lost in the middle representing
three Olympic winners in the 400 meters, and yet when they are
compared with just the performances in the single year of 2017
of men, as you say, it shows that even at the women's best, the
women would lose to literally thousands of boys and men,
including to thousands who would be considered second tier in
the men's category.
I think that we consider laws to say something is equal,
like testosterone, when the testimony has already indicated it
is clear in the medical literature it does make a difference.
As you say in your testimony--I thought it was pretty clear--
``Scientists agree that males and females are materially
different with respect to the main physical attributes they
contribute to athletic performance.''
It is true, but to see that graph you have, that
demonstration, anybody here that seriously thinks that there
are men who would not like to have Professor Coleman's
scholarship and could get it, apparently there are thousands
that could have beat you if there are guys that say, look, I
feel like I am a woman--and let's be fair here, too. If we are
going to say, as this law does, that the Olympic Committee and
every other sport is going to have to eliminate the
testosterone level requirement, that is going to have to go,
because the presence of that rule makes it very clear that
there is not equality in sports, and that is why that rule was
put in place, because it was so unfair to the women.
And you point out in your testimony--I mean, viva la
difference, but women are biologically able to carry children,
most, and men are not. There is a difference. And having my own
experience in the area of felony judgeship prosecution, I think
about all the psychiatric testimony I have heard about women
who--they seem to have more post-traumatic stress disorder from
sexual assault, and yet we are going to force them to have men
in combined spaces, in shelters where they are seeking refuge
away from men inflicting violence on them, and because we are
going to stand up here and say, well, it is just too bad, we
are going to force men to be into your spaces, and you are
going to have to like it, I think is a war on women that should
not be allowed.
We need to make consideration for what is going on, and I
would ask unanimous consent--Ms. Chandy, you talk about
evidence? This is one of the best, most thorough reports, the
New Atlantis, the Journal of Technology and Society. I would
ask unanimous consent that this special report on sexuality and
gender be admitted as part of the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
Mr. Gohmert. The head of Johns Hopkins, the first hospital
in America to do sex-change surgery, Dr. Paul McHugh, his
article in the Wall Street Journal dated May 13, 2016.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
Mr. Gohmert. And also the transgender individual that had
the surgery, his article in the Federalist from January 29,
2019, I would ask that that be made a part of the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection, the documents will be
admitted into the record.
MR. GOHMERT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I would ask unanimous consent that the following documents
be inserted into the record: a statement from the ACLU in
support of H.R. 5; a statement from Todd Brower of the UCLA
School of Law in support of H.R. 5; a letter from Nancy Kaufman
from the National Council of Jewish Women in support of H.R. 5;
a letter from Business Roundtable in support of the Equality
Act; Federal policy recommendations regarding how the criminal
justice system affects the LGBTQ community from the
organization Black and Pink; and a letter of support from the
American Bar Association.
Without objection, I will grant my motion to admit these
documents.
[The information follows:]
MR. NADLER FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. I now recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. Thanks for holding
this hearing. Thanks to Representative Cicilline for
introducing H.R. 5.
I am proud to stand with the LGBT community, and with an
ever-increasing majority of Americans in support of full
equality and truly equal protection for all.
I think we can all agree that the mainstream view of LGBT
has moved forward at a rapid pace in recent years. We still
have a long way to go for full equality, and the Equality Act
is an important next step.
As I realized back when I was in the Florida State Senate,
on these issues and so many others, legislative progress is
tied to personal experience. When I introduced the Employment
and Non-Discrimination Act in Florida, it did not include
protections for trans people because we thought, you know,
maybe we can just take what we can get, we will make a little
bit of an advancement, and that will be a dramatic step
forward.
And thanks to the thoughtful and passionate advocacy of
Equality Florida and so many other activists that I had become
privileged to know and become friends with, I came to
understand how important it was to include trans rights, and
what I learned then and what we are reminded of today is that
equality means equality, and you cannot have full equality if
we leave people behind. That is what we are reminded of at this
hearing today.
So I am a proud and outspoken ally of the LGBT community
and the trans community especially, and I want to thank the
panel for being here. I want to thank Carter and Jami--sorry,
Mr. Brown and Ms. Contreras. I want to thank you both for
coming here today to share your stories. It can be hard to open
your lives to the microscope of this hearing, but I think
having members hear about your experiences with discrimination
is a critical step to help move all of us forward.
What struck me about both of your experiences is that you
were both doing everything right. Mr. Brown, you invested in
yourself. You worked hard to make a better life for yourself
and your family. The thought that it could all disappear by the
simple disclosure of your identity as a trans man is repellant,
but it is, sadly, not surprising.
Ms. Contreras, beyond the denial of care that you
ultimately experienced, you and your wife wanted to take on the
burden of being discriminated against in advance, in advance,
to shield your daughter from having to experience it herself,
when in a fair world all three of you would be protected.
Both of your cases get to the heart of why the Equality Act
is necessary. Yes, some states have laws explicitly protecting
people from these kinds of discrimination, but fewer than half.
So we can either accept that fewer than half of Americans
benefit from equal treatment, or we can move forward with the
Equality Act. That is what today is about.
Now, I would just like to say a couple of words about some
of what I have heard here today, and the gentleman from Texas'
comments before especially. I am grateful to the trans
community for something that I never thought I would be
grateful for, and that is that there is now an interest in the
other side of the aisle in women's athletics that has never
existed in this House before. [Laughter.]
Mr. Deutch. So I am thankful for your helping to elevate
the issue of full participation in women's athletics. Thank you
for helping to accomplish that.
I also was struck by----
Mr. Gohmert. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Deutch. I will in one moment because I am going to say
one more thing about something else you said.
I also would acknowledge that it is, frankly, rich for some
of the members on the other side of the aisle who come to this
committee literally every single time we meet since I have been
in Congress doing everything they can to limit the ability of
women to make their own choices about their own bodies, to talk
about a war on women. That is absolutely rich, but I would be
glad to yield to Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. As a father of three girls who would
absolutely love seeing them, helping them, coaching them, I
have been a fan of women's sports for a long time.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that.
Ms. Chandy, let me just actually give you the opportunity
to respond to some of what we have heard just over the past 15
minutes or so.
Ms. Chandy. You took my main point, which is that I am so
excited to have a discussion about women's rights. We are
talking about women's safety in the MeToo moment. We have spent
a considerable amount of work connecting people with lawyers to
fight back about sexual harassment in the workplace, in the
schools, in health care, and across all of these contexts, and
women's safety and rights is at the utmost, at top of our mind
as a national women's rights law center.
So in that context, I want to say that transgender students
and individuals are at higher risk of sexual violence than
cisgender women, and we need to protect all of us and be in a
collective struggle against sex discrimination and sexual
assault wherever it happens. If there is an incident of
assault, whether it be in a shelter, a prison, or anywhere
else, it must be investigated and dealt with, and we are very
firm about that. But we do not create policy about myths and
stereotypes, and that is what I am hearing here today, is that
based on individual instances of harassment or assault, they
must be addressed.
But that is not a reason to exclude transgender individuals
from this bill, and you can never do that in the name of
women's rights, and that is what I am hearing here, and thank
you for allowing me the chance to respond.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chairman, if I could have 10 seconds, I
appreciate it.
Professor Yoshino, I also just wanted to take a moment to
thank you for your comments at the start of this hearing and
sharing your very powerful story, your personal story, the
impact that two moments of our history have had on you and how
much of an honor it is for us to have you here with us today.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I now recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For dozens of days, my Republican colleagues have gone to
the floor of the House seeking a vote on the Born Alive Act so
that human beings are not slaughtered and murdered after their
birth. A number of those human beings are women. So we will
accept no lecture on that subject----
Chairman Nadler. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Gaetz. No. Since the majority has taken an excessive
time, I would like to take all of my time.
Chairman Nadler. I will grant you an extra minute.
Mr. Gaetz. Very well. Then you can take it at the end of my
remarks, Mr. Chairman.
I want to support this legislation, and in the broadest
sense I do. I believe that individuals in our country should
not face discrimination for their sex or their gender or their
sexual orientation or for their gender identity. Our country is
an inclusive place, and bigotry and prejudice and
discrimination do not belong here. I very much want to support
the legislation, but I keep--because the legislation would only
nominally protect certain individuals while causing tremendous
harm to others.
First off, the legislation has a drafting problem partly
because H.R. 5 does not define gender identity well, and I will
read directly from the legislation. It says, ``The term `gender
identity' means the gender-related identity, appearance,
mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an
individual regardless of the individual's designated sex at
birth.'' And then only a few lines later the bill says, ``The
term `sex' includes sexual orientation or gender identity. ``So
gender identity is defined as a concept distinct from sex, but
at the same time the term sex is defined in part by gender
identity.
In the last Congress and this Congress we passed
legislation for the advancement of women, improving women's
access to STEM education in careers. We passed bills that
increased the number of women-owned businesses to help female
entrepreneurs, and more.
What happens when sex is defined as gender identity and
gender identity is terribly vague? Will all sex distinctions be
erased? That may sound like something my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would cheer, but thinking more broadly,
would grants for female-owned businesses or programs for women
in STEM fields suddenly be open to all persons whether they
believe or not that they identify as a woman?
I strongly support the rights of transgender individuals. I
will not denigrate or deny their existence or their struggles,
but I am concerned about the potential bad actors who exploit
the provisions of this law for their own gain.
Consider this possibility. If President Trump were to say
``I am now the first female president,'' who would celebrate
that? Would those who support the legislation think that is a
good thing, or would they be dismayed?
Bad actors have already weaponized some ostensible equality
laws for their own benefit. Steven Wood was convicted of serial
sexual assault and was in prison. He then announced that he
identified as Karen, a woman, and was transferred to an all-
female facility, where he promptly sexually abused female
inmates.
Recently, a musician and weight lifter who identified as
Zube briefly claimed identity as a woman, during which time he
broke the women's world record dead lift, and then promptly
went back to identifying as a man.
These are isolated instances, to be sure, and I am most
emphatically not saying that a majority of transgender
individuals are using their gender identity to exploit the
process. But I am saying that these cases do exist, and the
legislation before us would expand and exacerbate those
problematic loopholes.
Faith-based businesses, religious institutions, and
religious groups would find their rights greatly jeopardized by
the legislation as it explicitly prevents claims from being
filed on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Consider the
Chairman's own words on the passage of that bill. He said,
``What has made the American experiment work? What has saved us
from the poisonous hatreds that are consuming other nations has
been a tolerance and a respect for diversity enshrined in the
freedom of religion clauses of our Bill of Rights. It was no
accident that the framers of our Bill of Rights chose to place
the free exercise of religion first among our fundamental
freedoms. The House should do no less.''
Yet this legislation significantly and overtly undermines
religious freedom, and it is not something worth celebrating
because it will harm people and communities of faith across our
nation.
Again, I support protecting individuals from discrimination
based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, but this
legislation creates more problems than it solves. It will chill
freedom of speech. It will harm religious liberty. It will
undermine women's rights, and I wish I could support it, but I
cannot.
I wanted to yield my remaining 20 seconds to Ms. Beck
because I found your advice very instructive about a path
forward that would accommodate our desire for greater equality
without falling into some of the traps I have identified.
Ms. Beck. Thank you, and I would like to dispel some of the
logical fallacies that were stated today.
No one is saying that people do not exist. How can we tell
if someone is lying about identifying as transgender? If Karen
White was a woman, then he would have belonged in a woman's
prison. But we know that he was lying. There is no way to tell
if someone is lying about being transgender because there is no
evidence.
And I would like to go back to what Ms. Chandy said. If
there is no evidence, we cannot legislate.There is no evidence
of a gender identity. It is not a material reality at all.
There is also the myth of assault being higher for people
who identify as transgender. But according to GLAAD, in 2015
there were 20 people killed. The rate of murder for transgender
identified individuals is 1.5 per 100,000. That is lower than
the murder rates of both men and women. So this data shows that
people who self-identify as transgender are murdered at a lower
rate than the general population.
I would also like to say that--where else was----
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired, has
well expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. Let me also thank
my good friend David Cicilline for his tremendous leadership on
the Equality Act.
I have great respect for my friend from the State of
Florida, but the reality of the situation is that many of my
colleagues voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. Many of my
colleagues voted against equal pay for equal work,
notwithstanding the fact that women are paid approximately 80
percent of what men are paid for doing the same job. Many of my
colleagues on this Judiciary Committee voted against the
Violence Against Women Act.
So we do find it strange that you want to come here and
lecture us about women's rights.
Ms. Chandy, you have 20 years of experience in civil rights
law and are a member of the LGBT community; is that correct?
Ms. Chandy.Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And LGBTQ Americans make up approximately 4.5
percent of the population; is that right?
Ms. Chandy. Right.
Mr. Jeffries. And it is about 14 million people; is that
correct?
Ms. Chandy. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. But there is no Federal legal standard that
guarantees 14 million Americans rights and protections under
our civil rights law; is that right?
Ms. Chandy. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. So that means that there are still places in
the United States of America where someone can be fired because
of their gender identity or sexual orientation; is that right?
Ms. Chandy. That is right. There is Federal law that is
evolving, but it is not a guarantee, and there is no clear or
explicit protection in Federal law to protect against sexual
orientation or gender identity-based discrimination.
Mr. Jeffries. And are there still places in the United
States where someone can be evicted because of their gender
identity or sexual orientation?
Ms. Chandy. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And still places in the United States of
America where someone can be denied a loan because of their
gender identity or sexual orientation?
Ms. Chandy. That is correct. I am giving just the caveat
that there are Federal protections evolving, but those are not
guaranteed, and so it is sort of a guess. So we need the clear
Federal protections.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And approximately 50 percent of LGBTQ
Americans live in 30 states that lack statewide legal non-
discrimination protections; is that correct?
Ms. Chandy. Right.
Mr. Jeffries. Is that one of the reasons why it is
important to have a Federal standard?
Ms. Chandy. That is right.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ Americans
report having experienced discrimination in their personal
lives; is that true?
Ms. Chandy. Right, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And do discriminatory laws and practices have
a negative impact on our economy?
Ms. Chandy. Well, of course. You are not getting jobs, not
getting housing, you are not able to purchase things. I mean,
the areas of protection that we are looking for today impact
all areas of our lives.
Mr. Jeffries. Ms. Silas, several hundred companies,
including your own, support a Federal non-discrimination
standard for LGBTQ Americans, like the one included in the
Equality Act; is that right?
Ms. Silas. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And can you explain why you as a business
person support it?
Ms. Silas. Yes, there are a number of reasons. One, I
stated earlier that enduring 100 years as a prominent American
company has been grounded in really our belief around fairness
and equality, and this is not the first issue we have advocated
for, and it certainly will not be the last, but we think it is
an enduring characteristic of an American company.
The second is the survival of any corporation is about
skills, and adequate access to those skills, and we believe
that access to skills means that we need to ensure that our
employees are in environments that will protect them and their
families, and that that does not become a distraction to the
productivity and the contribution that they can have to
American innovation.
And then lastly, what we find problematic is certainly the
patchwork of legislation. So thinking about a brand such as IBM
and how we operate, it certainly is not within state lines, and
we cannot just ensure access to skills and protections of
employees based on singular state legislation, but there really
needs to be a Federal minimum standard so that our employees
can operate and run our business broadly.
Mr. Jeffries. In terms of that patchwork, one of the things
that my free enterprise colleagues on the other side of the
aisle often lecture us about is the notion that we need
certainty in the business environment. How can you have
certainty when there is a patchwork of legislation in terms of
what States do or do not do?
And last question--my time is expiring--am I correct that
your company actually bases business decisions on whether a
State has a nondiscrimination protective statute or not?
Ms. Silas. That is 100 percent correct, and that is correct
in this context and dates as early as the 1950s, when we
declared even prior to the Civil Rights Act that we would be
making decisions around where we base our employees based on
segregation policy at that time and the idea that we would not
comply with that. So it is not new to us, and it certainly is
the case today.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you. Not only is the Equality Act in
our view pro-American, it is also pro-business.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Contreras, I wanted to ask you a quick question.
You said in your testimony that you had chosen a doctor,
and the doctor refused to work with you, and another doctor
came in and worked with you. Did you receive inferior medical
care?
Ms. Contreras. Possibly. I don't know, to be honest with
you. So we didn't do any research on that doctor. We didn't
have the opportunity to.
Mr. Buck. Did you have any complaints about the medical
care that you received from that doctor?
Ms. Contreras. There were some things in that meeting that
were less than what we were looking for and what we expected
from a pediatrician, yes.
Mr. Buck. Did you--is your daughter healthy now? Ms.
Contreras. Yes, she was healthy at the time, luckily. Yes.
Mr. Buck. Is it your position that an orthodox Jewish
doctor should be required to work with a--orthodox Jewish
doctor whose grandparent was killed in the Holocaust be
required to work with a Nazi patient?
Ms. Contreras. Well, here is what I--here is what I
believe. I believe that the Religious Freedom Act, religious
freedoms are a core American value. I think it is very
important. I think it is important that you know that I was
raised on Christian values, came from a Christian home. Me and
my wife are raising our children on those same values, which is
respect everyone, love thy neighbor, treat everyone equally,
which is----
Mr. Buck. Would you answer my question? Should that doctor
be required to take that patient?
Ms. Contreras. I think that there are some people here that
could answer that a little bit better than I could, but I think
that everyone should be treated equally and----
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Buck, if you will yield, I am happy to
answer that question. I don't view Nazis as a protected class--
--
Mr. Buck. I will not yield. I will not yield. I reclaim my
time. I will not yield.
Mr. Cicilline. Oh, okay.
Mr. Buck. Professor Coleman, I have a question for you.
Chairman Nadler. If the gentleman doesn't want an answer,
he doesn't have to yield.
Mr. Buck. Well, that is a nice cheap shot from the
chairman. I appreciate that. I didn't know the chairman----
Chairman Nadler. Not a cheap shot, it is a real shot.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Buck. Professor Coleman, under this legislation, would
BYU be required to open its married student housing to a gay
couple, a gay married couple?
Ms. Coleman. I believe so.
Mr. Buck. And is that the--would you define for me what
``public accommodation'' means?
Ms. Coleman. Public accommodations are hotels, restaurants,
things like that.
Mr. Buck. A business that opens itself up to the public?
Ms. Coleman. Correct.
Mr. Buck. Including a university?
Ms. Coleman. A university is an educational institution and
typically is governed under a different set of rules, but
sometimes it is a place of public accommodation.
Mr. Buck. Okay. But this law does apply to public
accommodations?
Ms. Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Buck. And Notre Dame the same way would be required to
open its student housing. And I am not suggesting that BYU or
Notre Dame would have a religious objection, a theological
objection to that. But if they did, they would still be
required to do it?
Ms. Coleman. I believe so.
Mr. Buck. And is that your position also, Professor
Yoshino?
Mr. Yoshino. I actually don't think that that is correct
with regard to educational institutions. So if there is a
religiously run educational institution, that that religiously
run educational institution would be protected in the same way
that a church would be protected.
Mr. Buck. And you are saying that this law does not apply
to educational institutions receiving Federal financing,
Federal funds?
Mr. Yoshino. I don't believe that this alters Title VI. So,
yes.
Mr. Buck. Okay, good. I appreciate that. And I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Rhode Island, the
author of the bill, Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here and for your
really inspiring and very powerful testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Nadler, for calling this hearing and
for your outspoken and unwavering support of the Equality Act
from the very first moment we began to discuss it nearly 5
years ago.
This bill is bipartisan and now has 240 cosponsors,
including 3 Republicans. As we consider H.R. 5 here in the
House, I can't help but think of the upcoming 50th anniversary
of the Stonewall riot just a few weeks from now. Just 50 years
ago, the patrons of Stonewall Inn in New York, one of the few
places of refuge for the marginalized and criminalized LGBT
community, were targeted, beaten, harassed, and arrested simply
for being willing to live their true lives.
That riot 50 years ago in what is now Mr. Nadler's district
sparked the modern LGBT rights movement that has ushered in
extraordinary achievements in our fight for equality. As a
young man, I never could have dreamed I would be the first
openly gay mayor of a capital city in America or that I would
be able to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives openly
and not afraid to be my authentic self.
This path was made possible by activists like Harvey Milk,
Bayard Rustin, Barbara Gittings, and Audre Lorde, to name just
a few. In the political world, the trail was blazed by many,
including our former colleagues and my friends Barney Frank,
Tammy Baldwin, Jim Kolbe, who is here today, and many others.
And today, I am proud that we have the greatest number of
individuals from the LGBTQ community in the House of
Representatives in U.S. history with eight openly lesbian, gay,
and bisexual Members.
I want to acknowledge and thank my LGBTQ Equality Caucus
co-chairs who have supported my efforts on this bill--Mark
Pocan, Mark Takano, Sean Patrick Maloney, Angie Craig, Chris
Pappas, Sharice Davis, and Katie Hill, all trailblazers in
their own right.
It is important to me that young people now have the
example of a diverse group of LGBT lawmakers not just on the
Federal level, but across government at the State and local
level. We introduced the Equality Act because we don't think it
is right that members of our community are still told that they
can't go to school, live where they want to live, work in their
chosen field, access healthcare or housing. It is simply not
right, and it undermines core founding values of this great
country of fairness and equality.
And I want to be clear that when someone votes against this
bill or questions why LGBT people should have the same rights
as everyone else, they are telling me that my rights and the
rights of my community don't matter as much as their own
comfort. Now is the time for legal discrimination against an
entire community of Americans to end.
Speaker Pelosi has been an extraordinary and great champion
for our community and a bulwark of support for this bill, as
are our majority leader Steny Hoyer and whip Jim Clyburn, and
our esteemed colleague and civil rights icon, John Lewis.
On the Senate side, we have worked in tandem with the
Senate lead, Senator Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, and Cory Booker,
and I couldn't be prouder to have partnered with them in this
effort.
As you all know, no major piece of legislation is possible
without the support and advocacy of a cavalcade of experts,
advocates, and allies. And I want to take a moment to thank the
groups who have been so instrumental in getting this
legislation drafted and introduced with such a strong showing
of support.
The Human Rights Campaign, and I know Chad Griffin is with
us today, the president. The ACLU, the National Women's Law
Center, the Center for American Progress, the National Center
for Transgender Equality, the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, the National Black Justice Coalition, the
National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National LGBT Task
Force, Lambda Legal, Family Equality Council, the National
Partnership of Women and Families, the Transgender Law Center,
Freedom for All Americans, SAGE, PFLAG, the NAACP, the Urban
League, and many, many others.
I would also like to mention that we have widespread
support in the business community from companies of all sizes,
all across the country. Additionally, we have the support of
labor groups, trade associations such as the National
Associations of Manufacturing and even the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter this
list of 330 organizations and 180 companies who have endorsed
the Equality Act into the record as well.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. CICILLINE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cicilline. We have such widespread support because
businesses know that their employees thrive when they are free
from harassment, when they are able to visit doctors, take
their children to school, and live freely.
I should note that this bill does not only provide
protections for the LGBT community, we also add protections in
areas of civil rights law that weren't previously in place. We
expand the list of public accommodation protections in the
civil rights area so that there will be recourse for people who
are harassed for shopping for the color of their skin or flying
because of their perceived religion.
This bill will target one of the root causes of poverty,
marginalization and alienation of many in the LGBT community in
this country. For example, LGBT people are more likely to live
in poverty, and LGBT people of color experience some of the
highest rates of poverty of any group in the United States.
This can be directly attributed to the discrimination in
employment, housing, and other areas that make it more
difficult for people to maintain a job and earn a living wage.
The Equality Act seeks to level the legal playing field so that
all Americans have a chance to thrive. It is vital for Congress
to be clear that sexual orientation and gender identity are
protected under the law, and individuals cannot be
discriminated against on this basis.
But of course, any bill that expands civils rights must
never retreat from our commitment to the progress that we have
made, and it is vital and very important that we first do no
harm.
So, Mr. Chairman, under our proposal, the very same
protections that exist for other minorities in the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 will protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender people all across America. We are asking for no
more and no less. And as my great friend and colleague
Congressman John Lewis told me when we began this work on the
bill, the time is now.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, is recognized.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that all people should be treated equally, but I
am concerned that H.R. 5, with the weight of Federal law,
forces schools, prisons, shelters, et cetera, to prioritize the
rights of biological males over that of biological women.
H.R. 5, in the vast number of settings covered, will
require that men be allowed to enter space formerly reserved
for women. Whereas Federal anti-discrimination laws are
supposed to protect women from the unjust dominance of men in
virtue of their generally bigger size and strength, H.R. 5 will
require that dominance of males over females in sports and
incentivize it in other areas such as dormitories, locker
rooms, bathrooms, and even the Girl Scouts, which is a
federally chartered and federally funded organization.
Nine women have sued the Poverello House, one of the
largest service providers for homeless people in Fresno,
California, for allowing a male resident to sexually harass
them during their stay at the nonprofit women's shelter,
leering at them in the shower, showing them pictures of himself
masturbating, and making sexual advances. He was permitted to
do these things on the basis that he identifies as a woman.
In England, Karen White, who is male, was transferred to a
female prison on the basis of his self-declared gender
identity. He later admitted to sexually assaulting women in a
female prison and raping another two women outside jail.
Alexis Lightcap, a high school student in the United
States, is also challenging the violation of privacy caused by
her own school's policy of allowing boys in the girls'
bathroom.
A liberal writer and gay advocate Andrew Sullivan writes in
opposing H.R. 5, ``The Equality Act also proposes to expand the
concept of public accommodations to include exhibitions,
recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays. It
bars any religious exceptions invoked under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and it bans single-sex
facilities like changing, dressing, or locker rooms. It could
put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal
jeopardy. The bill, in other words, undermines the fundamental
legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based
oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls.''
Ms. Beck, do you think H.R. 5 will eliminate separate
spaces and opportunities for biological women?
Ms. Beck. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
I definitely do. I believe that the language of gender
identity lends itself readily to abusive gaslighting that
disguises and distorts women's ability to name what is
happening. Nothing is to be gained by pretending that all
social issues and oppressions are gender neutral. We must be
able to name sex.
And for women, being female has never been a private
matter. Institutions such as marriage, prostitution, and forced
sterilization, and rape mark women's bodies as public domain
across the world. Well, we won't have the ability to name these
things if men can be women, if male people can call themselves
women.
So, yes, we risk losing all of our sex-segregated spaces if
H.R. 5 passes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
And Ms. Coleman, do you think that H.R. 5 will eliminate
separate opportunities in sports for biological women that now
will be like biological men will be allowed to compete in
women's sports?
Ms. Coleman. It won't eliminate the ability to participate,
but it will eliminate or reduce competitive opportunities
significantly.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and let me thank
Representative David Cicilline for bringing this important
legislation.
So some of the arguments I hear from my colleagues across
the aisle strike me as very similar arguments when their first
LGBT movement started, the notion that somehow people who are
transgender are pretending to gain an advantage. That is what
they said about gay people, that they are just pretending, that
they could be straight if they wanted to. It spawned this whole
industry of conversion therapy that did significant harm to
patients across America.
One reason I was proud that when I was in the California
State legislature, I authored the first ban on conversion
therapy in the Nation, and it has now been copied in multiple
jurisdictions. And what we are hearing today is a very similar
argument against those who are transgender.
And I don't question the motivations of my colleagues. I
have learned not to do that, and I don't believe they are
bigoted for believing this idea. I am simply making a point
that the idea itself is bigoted, and I urge them to let it go.
I served in the United States military on active duty. The
U. S. military is the best in the world because we rely on
data, on facts, on science. We don't live in a fantasy world
because if we did, U. S. troops will die. We live in reality.
And reality is women serve in combat. Women serve on
nuclear submarines. Women are fighter pilots. We are simply
making progress. And every time we make progress, we hear the
same exact arguments repeated over and over again.
So one reason that we now have Title IX, and it has been
successful, is because congress chose to pass it despite very
similar arguments again that it was, again, going to hurt
women. So, Professor Coleman, let me ask you. Are you hearing
very similar arguments today as you did during Title IX's
passage in terms of how it would hurt women or equality?
Ms. Coleman. I think I disagree with you. I think that it
was pretty clear before Title IX was passed in 1972 that girls
and women didn't have opportunities in the educational space,
including in the sports area, but more broadly, in the
educational space. And that Title IX was going to help girls
and women by providing those opportunities.
There may have been some conservative positions that
suggested that women belonged outside of educational spaces and
outside of sport, but I think that----
Mr. Lieu. I am sorry--let me. I was not narrow enough in my
question. Was there a conservative argument that women would
be, in fact, you still hear it, would be assaulted?
Ms. Coleman. Would be assaulted?
Mr. Lieu. Right. Sexually assaulted because of having their
athletic facilities not be discriminatory?
Ms. Coleman. Women would be assaulted----
Mr. Lieu. Maybe we don't read the same conservative blogs
that I have?
Ms. Coleman. I probably don't. I try to stay off of social
media.
Mr. Lieu. So let me ask this another way. Title IX has been
a success. Is that correct?
Ms. Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. Okay. We will leave it at that. So one of the
things we know about discrimination against LGBTQ is that there
has been a rise in homelessness among many constituencies, but
particularly among the LGBTQ sector. So, Ms. Chandy, can you
explain why that is and how we can try to make that better?
Ms. Chandy. I would like to use this question to talk about
the rates of harassment and violence since I think it relates
to that. Transgender students face harassment and violence at
far higher rates than their cisgender peers, and confirming
earlier studies' recent data from the CDC shows that 27 percent
of U. S. transgender high school students feel unsafe at school
or traveling to or from campus, that 35 percent are bullied at
school, and 35 percent attempt suicide.
Similarly, a survey conducted by the National Center for
Transgender Equality found that the majority of respondents who
were out or perceived as transgender in school in K through 12
experienced some form of mistreatment including being verbally
harassed, 54 percent; physically attacked, 24 percent; and
sexually assaulted, 13 percent; because they were transgender.
And startingly, 17 percent of respondents experienced such
severe mistreatment that they left school as a result.
Respondents who did not complete high school were more than
twice as likely to have attempted suicide as the overall
sample.
And finally, in a survey conducted by the American
Association of Universities, nearly 1 in 4 transgender students
experience sexual violence in college, a higher rate of
victimization than that experienced by cisgender college women.
I wanted to share these statistics because Congress
designed Title IX to address sex discrimination across the
board, including women and including transgender individuals.
And we are continuing to fight against this narrative that
puts women's rights on one side and LGBTQ rights on another or
the rights of transgender people on another. Because
transgender women are women, and so all of us need this
protection together.
And that is why, why would the National Women's Law Center
and the host of women's rights organizations be here in support
of the Equality Act if it was going to harm women? We are the
experts on this. This is what we do, day in and day out, across
sectors, workplace, you know, healthcare. Workplace, justice,
education, all of these areas, this is what we do is we fight
for women's rights.
And so please look to us as the experts on whether or not
this bill is good for women and LGBTQ people.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Before I recognize the next person, I ask unanimous consent
to insert into the record a letter from more than 40 trade and
professional associations in support of the Equality Act.
Without objection, it will be entered.
[The information follows:]
MR. NADLER FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Now I recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last week, I had the privilege of visiting with an
endocrinologist from my district, Dr. Michael Laidlaw. He has
witnessed the medical dangers of this obsession with new
transgender ideology and specifically how dangerously it is
being pushed on children as young as 8 years old, which will
only be made worse by this legislation when parents are
threatened with lawsuits or the loss of their children for
questioning their child's gender dysphoria or objecting to
life-altering therapies or surgeries.
And I would like to submit three items for the record.
First, a letter he wrote outlining what he has seen and his
concerns for how H.R. 5 will elevate children's feelings about
their gender over biological and medical reality.
Second, a piece he wrote in the Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism, calling for more skepticism among
physicians who treat young people claiming gender dysphoria in
light of the highly detrimental health consequences of gender
affirmative therapy, such as increased ovarian cancer, lower
bone density, and thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms.
And third, an excerpt from an NIH report, indicating that
NIH has lowered the minimum age for inclusion in their studies
about gender transition hormones from 13 to 8 years old, which
I find truly disturbing.
I would like unanimous consent to enter those into the
record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. McCLINTOCK FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McClintock. I am hopeful that these documents, along
with all of the other questions raised by my colleagues today,
will give pause to those who are championing the embrace of
this radical trans ideology over biological reality.
Ms. Beck, am I safe to assume that we should all agree that
gender-based stereotypes about how men and women should speak
or act or dress or appear should not be the basis of our
interactions as a society?
Ms. Beck. I would only agree if you used the word
``gender'' as a synonym for ``sex.'' I don't agree with----
Mr. McClintock. I mean how somebody chooses to act, to
dress, to talk really should not be an object of notice by
their government, should it?
Ms. Beck. I mean, those are all personal traits that are
subject to change any day, any hour. My hair grows, you know?
Mr. McClintock. Exactly, and we wouldn't assume that these
stereotypes--well, we shouldn't use these stereotypes to craft
statutory or legal definitions on discrimination.
Ms. Beck. I agree. Like I said earlier, there is no way to
tell if someone is lying about being transgender. So if a man
who wears a dress is considered as a woman by Federal law, he
could be lying, and there is no way for us to tell.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that is the question I want to get
at. H.R. 5 gives us a definition of gender identity that is
based on stereotypes. Let me read from the text of the bill. It
says the term ``gender identity'' means the gender-related
identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related
characteristics of an individual.
The drafters of this bill could have saved themselves some
legalese and just said gender identity means gender
stereotypes. What does that say about this movement that the
lawyers drafting this bill are unable to define gender identity
without relying on stereotypes?
Ms. Beck. It says not much because they haven't written
much, unfortunately. I find it really disheartening that we are
debating a Federal law that is just incomplete and baseless. We
have given a lot of testimony to show how this would affect
women negatively, and that is just being--we were told to let
it go. This would eliminate women and girls as a coherent legal
category worthy of civil rights protection.
Mr. McClintock. Well, let me ask you this. I would assume
that you would support the numerous efforts by the Government
over the last several decades to promote women-owned
businesses, for example, by giving women-owned businesses
preference when competing for Government contracts?
Ms. Beck. Sure, yes. I think that is all great on the basis
of sex.
Mr. McClintock. Well, what should we tell a woman-owned
business that loses out to a Government contract because a man
decided to identify as a woman in order to win that contract?
Ms. Beck. That should never happen.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Chandy, doesn't that happen under this
bill?
Chairman Nadler. Use your mike.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, what would you say----
Ms. Chandy. Transgender women are women, and so I find this
sort of language about calling transgender women by some other
name to be not in line with----
Mr. McClintock. Well, whatever language you would choose--
--
Ms. Chandy. Can I--can I----
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. The question remains, what
would you tell a woman-owned business that lost a contract
because a man decided to identify as a woman in order to win
that contract?
Ms. Chandy. Okay. If it was a transgender woman, I would
say you lost out. Another woman won. It was probably a better
application.
Mr. McClintock. Well, so let me ask this.
Ms. Chandy. Let me finish. If it was a man who was trying
to be fraudulent, I would do an investigation on fraud. But
this question----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, but how are you going to know----
Ms. Chandy. Can I finish? Can I answer your question?
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. if he's trying to be
fraudulent? No, because the time is mine. Actually, I am out.
Ms. Chandy. Okay.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I ask the witness be permitted
to finish her answer to that last question.
Mr. McClintock. Well, if I can have a follow-up question.
Mr. Cicilline. No, no. Your time has expired, but the
witness gets to answer the question.
Chairman Nadler. I will let--excuse me a second. Let the
witness answer the question, and I will grant the gentleman an
additional question.
Ms. Chandy. Thank you.
This question of people being able to lie about their
gender identity I find so interesting because I think someone
raised today people can lie about being gay, people can lie
about being a lesbian, and yet we need rights because we are
gay or lesbian. The same rights apply. These are not things
that people lie about to gain rights. These are things that are
the basis of really painful discrimination as we have heard
from so many of us.
And so to go ahead and mispronoun and misname people based
on their true identity is--and now these questions are coming
at me in a way that don't make sense. If it is a man who is
pretending to be a woman, then that is fraud. If it is a
transgender person, then it is a woman.
Mr. McClintock. But under your criteria, the only way to
decide if the person is lying is to read their mind, which was
beyond our abilities. And I want to ask you, what if every
Government contractor in America decided to identify as a
woman? What mechanism is there for the Government to verify
that all of these men who do Government contracting are
identifying with women for genuine gender transition as
compared to trying to game the system?
You can't tell unless you can read their minds, and I doubt
you can.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
witness may answer the question.
Ms. Chandy. I would just say that is not how civil rights
laws work. There are individuals who have protections based on
race. You may or may not be able to tell what their race is.
I mean, there are protections based on if you are LGBTQ
that have been in effect across our country in half of the
States. Sometimes you can tell. Sometimes it is because of a
perception. That person might not even be LGBTQ, but you think
they are and you discriminate, and that would be
discrimination. And so this idea of not being able to tell is
not really an issue in civil rights law.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Sometimes when you are in the middle of the trees, you lose
sight of the forest. So I want to make sure we remark upon what
a great and historic day this is, that we are taking up the
Equality Act. And I believe we have got a majority in the House
of Representatives ready to pass it, and I think there is a
majority on this committee ready to bring it to the floor.
I want to salute my colleague David Cicilline for his
really passionate advocacy and stewardship of this legislation.
Your name will go down in history, Mr. Cicilline, with other
great members of the Judiciary Committee in our past, like
Thaddeus Stevens and Peter Rodino and other great Members of
Congress like Everett Dirksen and Hubert Humphrey and John
Lindsay--Republicans, Democrats, both--who stood up for equal
rights against always a barrage of increasingly absurd and
desperate arguments mounted by the opposition.
The second thing I want to say is I would be glad at the
end of my remarks to grant my colleague from California any
time if he can find a case of a man impersonating a woman who
received any kind of small business advantage or credit. And if
there is one, I would love to know about it, either a man who
impersonated and was prosecuted for it or a transgender person
who was proven to have engaged in a fraud on the Government. I
would be happy to yield for that purpose.
Now what I want to talk about----
Mr. McClintock. Is the gentleman serious about yielding?
Mr. Raskin. If you can find an actual case when I get to
the end, I have got something important----
Mr. McClintock. Well, that is----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. I am reclaiming my time now. You are
going to have to stew on that for a second. [Laughter.]
Mr. Raskin. Okay. The H.R. 5 is going to help improve
outcomes for more than 437,000 children and young people in the
child welfare system. Over 120,000 children waiting to be
adopted.
Now we know that the opponents of marriage equality were
greatly disappointed by the Supreme Court's historic
pronouncement in the Obergefell decision, which wiped away
their arguments, of course, that if you allow gay people to get
married, it would destroy and erode the institution of
marriage. Tell that to two of my nieces and my younger sister,
all of whom got married in straight marriages since Obergefell
took place.
Obviously, the expansion of marriage to include all of our
citizens didn't undermine marriage at all. But now they have
trained their guns on a different site. They are saying, well,
these married couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
Currently, 10 States, including Virginia across the river,
allow discrimination against same-sex couples who seek to
foster and adopt children. And two more legislatures today have
bills pending before them to accomplish that same objective.
This is a profoundly troubling offense to the equality norm
and to our Nation's commitment to children and to our young
people. These States are placing the ideological commitments of
some grown-ups over the practical welfare and happiness of tens
and hundreds of thousands of children and young people. Think
about that for a second.
They are saying that they would prefer to have kids either
not get adopted or placed in a foster home at all than to be
with a lawfully married couple that they disapprove of. That is
a remarkable thing, and we are going to take care of that with
the Equality Act. This is a magical moment for our country. We
are expanding equality.
This is the whole history and trajectory of our
Constitution, of our laws. We started as a slave republic of
white male property owners over the age of 21, and through
social struggle and social connection and the moral discovery
of the people that all human beings really are equal, certainly
in the eyes of the Constitution.
It is not in the eyes of God, according to some. It is not
in the eyes of other citizens, according to some. In the eyes
of the Constitution, all of us have to be equal. And so we have
expanded ourselves to do that.
So we are going to--we have seen in some of these States
the adoption levels go down because you are removing lots and
lots of very qualified families that want to adopt. In fact,
one study showed that 70 percent of same-sex couples want to
form families, and 40 percent want to do it through foster and
adoption.
Now why, for the life of us, would we remove them from the
roster of parents who are ready to adopt? Why would we do that?
Unless you have bigoted and prejudiced ideas about the ability
of gay people to parent and to form families. By the way, those
are bigotries and biases that are contradicted every day by
LGBT parents across the country.
So let us see. I have got an embarrassment of riches here.
But let me ask you, Ms. Chandy, about this. Is this not a
problem today that in many States or some States, it is the
minority of States. But in some States that the LGBT community
is being locked out of foster care and adoption?
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The
witness may answer the question.
Ms. Chandy. Yes, I mean, of course. Turning away qualified
LGBTQ foster and adoptive parents, you know, limits the pool
for children, and I also want to make the point that this
really is harmful for the children because one in five foster
youth identify as LGBTQ. And this takes away the chance that
that might be put with an affirming family.
And there are over 400,000 foster kids in America, and we
need to have all of the families who are willing to be in the
pool to take care of them. And so I would just heartily agree
with you that we cannot exclude LGBTQ potential parents from
this. And as adoptive parent myself, obviously, I take this
very personally, to think that I would go to an agency, and
they would turn me away.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings?
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony
today.
You know, just saying that you support equal rights or
women's rights, I think that is more interesting what is going
on over there.
Mr. Raskin. He has no case. I would be very happy to----
Mrs. Demings. Just saying that you--okay. Just saying that
you support equal rights or women's rights or civil rights
isn't enough because the American people are always watching
what you do, not just listening what you say, but watching what
you do. As great as we are as a nation, I am just amazed that
we just simply cannot yet seem to get past racial
discrimination, sexual discrimination, or discrimination of any
kind.
For some reason, America just cannot seem to get past
tearing other people down who are different in some way for us.
You all know the history of our country. Our past is so ugly in
this area I would think that we would all do everything within
our power to make it right.
But instead, we sit here today, at least my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, and look for a technicality to
continue to justify discrimination in what I do believe is the
greatest country in the world. We have heard about
discrimination in housing. We have heard about discrimination
in employment. We have heard about discrimination on so many
different areas that are necessary to living a quality life in
this country.
But yet we are overruling all of that based on this belief
that there may somehow be discrimination in the area of sports.
Now I played sports, and I do not believe that it takes
precedence over my ability to love whomever I want to, to live
wherever I want to live, to work wherever my qualities as an
individual take me, or to be my authentic self.
All of you have added very important testimony to this
conversation, but Reverend Wiley, I want to go back to you, and
I know you so eloquently in your opening statement talked about
why this matters to you. But just for all of our sake as we
wrestle with discrimination still yet today, you grew up in the
Jim Crow era in the South, and I want you to tell me why does
that motivate you so much as it pertains to this issue today,
and what would you say to those who argue that it is
inappropriate to equate racial discrimination with
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity?
Rev. Wiley. First of all, I would say that injustice
anywhere, as M.L. King said, is a threat to justice everywhere.
And again, I have just developed a sensitivity to the fact that
having gone through what I went through as in the segregated
South has sensitized me to the injustice of discrimination
toward anybody.
And one could say that no two discriminations are the same.
I mean, racial is not the same, exact kind of a discrimination
as LGBTQ discrimination or gender discrimination, but it is
still discrimination. So that if any of us have--and so in
moving from Winston to Washington, even though Washington
itself has a sordid history of discrimination as well in the
past, and we are seeing some things even in the present that
remind us of that.
But again, I think that if we believe in a society where
all people are created equal and everyone is entitled to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, either we are telling a
lie when we say that, or we really mean it. And I think that if
we really mean it, then we are open to whatever needs to be
done to make it a reality.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
You know, this is a personal issue for me. We said
yesterday when we were talking with some of these folks, it has
been personal since my baby sister came out to me 40 years ago.
And for many people in this country, that is when the fight
hits home. It gets personal when someone who you love says,
``This is who I am,'' and you know and value that person, and
you will do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one
can live their life to the fullest, free from hate and
discrimination.
I do want to recognize and remember Shantee Tucker, a
transgender woman of color from Philadelphia who lived at the
intersection of racial and sex and gender identity
discrimination. Last fall, she was murdered, and that is
something we hear time and time again, that when all of these
discriminations coalesce, that is where there is even more
serious danger.
I am sad to say that my home commonwealth, Pennsylvania, is
one of the 30 States that has not adopted anti-discrimination
provisions in this arena. We don't have legal protections on
the books for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister or anyone
else could drive across State lines and either gain or lose
protections is both heartbreaking and, I think, profoundly un-
American. So that is why we need this bill.
I was really interested in Ms. Silas' testimony about IBM
and the other major corporations that are really taking the
lead in this arena and making the business case for why this
law is important.
I did want to ask a question to Ms. Chandy as we talk about
the patchwork of laws across this country. In Pennsylvania,
last year the State's Human Rights Commission announced that it
would accept complaints dealing with sexual orientation or
gender identity, discrimination, even though no Federal or
Pennsylvania State law explicitly addresses those issues. So
why is it important that we have a Federal law to address this
issue?
Ms. Chandy. Sure. As you have noted, there are States and
localities for many, many years that have had protections based
on sexual orientation and gender identity. And while--including
D. C.
And while the individuals who live in that jurisdiction are
able then to bring explicit complaints, as you said, if you go
across the State lines, then you don't. And so I think we want
to have a country where all of us have these protections as
LGBTQ individuals.
As we also mentioned, some of the court cases are evolving
in this way to say that the Federal protections of sex
discrimination also provide protections if you are
discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. Again, that is dependent on circuits, meaning sort of
regions.
And so these rights cannot be dependent on States,
localities, or Federal regions. They need to be for all of us.
Ms. Scanlon. Is it fair to say that if the character of the
Federal judiciary were to change, for example, if a whole host
of more conservative judges were appointed, that that could
imperil some of these advancements in the Federal courts?
Ms. Chandy. Yes, that is correct because these--until we
have a statute, a Federal statute that gives clear and explicit
protections, some of these decisions are dependent on the
discretion of Federal district judges and circuit judges. So,
yes, the makeup of the judiciary can impact on these
interpretations until we have a Federal statute that protects
all of us.
Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I have spent the better part of the last
30 years working on issues involving public education, and I am
really proud now to serve on the Transgender Equality Task
Force with Congressman Kennedy. So earlier this year, we sat
down and had a couple of sessions with parents and children in
schools talking about their experiences as transgender or
gender nonconforming youth and their struggles and the bullying
and the bureaucratic roadblocks they face.
Can I ask you about how the Equality Act would affect those
students?
Ms. Chandy. Sure. And. with permission, I would love to
bring in Carter Brown, if you are willing? Given that we have
someone who might be able to speak to that more personally, I
will just say that this law would provide additional
protections. But really, I would defer, if you don't mind?
Mr. Brown. Sure, thank you.
In my experience when working directly with the transgender
community, we have heard lots of stories here today about the
damage that the option to transition does to children. I have
heard--I can combat those stories double with positive stories
of children, personal testimonies of children and their parents
stating the opportunity for their children to be able to
transition and live authentically with support has given them
so much fulfillment in their life and enriched their quality of
life.
I can say for myself personally if I had the opportunity to
transition at a much younger age, I would feel that I could
have achieved much more, having not been ostracize in school
settings or a negative effect on my social life overall and my
ability to access opportunities in education and employment and
things that every other American is afforded.
I do believe that a person's gender identity is a very
personal thing, and it is not something that can be defined by
anyone else, and it is definitely not something that anyone
wants to perpetrate for the purpose of hurting someone else.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse?
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses gathered here today, for your testimony.
Fairness and equality, in my view, are core American
values. Our Nation's civil rights laws protect people on the
basis of race, national origin, in most cases, sex, disability,
and religion. And yet when it comes to sexual orientation and
gender identity, as we heard today, more than half of our
States still lack explicit laws to protect people from being
fired, refused housing, or denied credit simply because of who
they are.
We cannot grow complacent in the quest for equal rights for
all, and that is why I am very glad to be a cosponsor of the
Equality Act and proud that the chairman and this committee are
taking up this issue.
Prior to serving in Congress, I had the distinct honor of
running our State's regulatory department in the great State of
Colorado, which included the Civil Rights Commission, the
Masterpiece Bakery case that the professor mentioned earlier
happened to be a case that originated in that agency. I am also
proud that my home State of Colorado took an important step
towards equality over a decade ago by making it illegal to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity and employment, housing, public accommodations,
education in credit. And it is long past time that we emulate
those important protections at the Federal level. It is time
that we get this done.
And so, again, I am very grateful to Representative
Cicilline and to the many cosponsors of the Equality Act.
Mr. Brown, I want to give you a chance to talk a little
bit, and if you will indulge me, I first want to say thank you
for sharing your testimony and for sharing your story, which I
think is just incredibly important. Your honesty and the
strength that you have shown by being here this morning--I
guess it is afternoon now as the hearing goes on--and
ultimately, your approach I just think is incredibly admirable.
And so I thank you for that.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Neguse. And I am, of course, sorry, as I know my
colleagues in the committee are, to hear about the
discrimination that you faced and the toll that it took on your
family. Just a couple of weeks ago when I was back home in
Colorado, I had a chance to meet with a group of LGBTQ
individuals and allies at Out Boulder County.
And Out Boulder is the perfect example of a grassroots,
locally driven organization that has made strides in our
community because of its ground-up approach to building support
for the community. But the first thing they brought up when I
met with them with respect to the concerns that they had in the
community and sort of nation at large, the issue they talked
about the most was the need to have proactive support for the
transgender community.
They have obviously felt, you know, been under attack quite
constantly by the Trump administration, but we also want to be
fighting for the transgender community even when they aren't
under attack in the news. And so Mr. Brown, the question is
outside of the Equality Act, which I fully support and look
forward to voting for, what other steps would you recommend
this committee or the Congress in general take to better
support the transgender community?
Mr. Brown. Well, my understanding of the law is that is not
to persuade personal beliefs, but to provide personal
protections for all of its citizens, period. So I feel that to
have more support for the transgender community, to be made
into law, simply gives all Americans equal citizenship.
For me personally, I feel that if the Equality Act is
passed, that allows me--it not only protects my identity as a
black person, and not only it protects my identity or--I am
sorry, my faith in God, but it also protects my gender
identity, which is innately all of me and my characteristics.
None of those characteristics are less than or more than. They
all make me.
And as a hard-working American citizen and as a taxpayer, I
deserve the same rights as my neighbors, and that's simply put.
So I feel that not only familial support, where we are talking
about suicide and suicide ideation in the trench or in the
community, that is generally due to lack of support, due to
lack of access to healthcare, due to lack of being integrated
into society as anyone else creates depression and mental
health problems for many people.
And I would equate that to, you know, as the Reverend
Doctor stated, with the discrimination against black people
where we are talking about separating the black people from
schools or separating them in sports because it was believed
that they could jump higher or stronger, or separating them,
you know, or even gay people, separating them in school lockers
because we were afraid that the gay boys would attack the
straight boys, et cetera.
This is the same thing of just hate mongering and inflaming
fear for isolated incidences where a crime was committed by
someone who happened to be transgender, and then flipping that
prejudice onto a whole community of people does nothing but
continue to divide us as Americans, as opposed to actually
bring us all together as the United States, as we say we are.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Brown. And I see my time has
expired.
If the chairman would indulge me in 4 seconds to just
simply say thank you to Ms. Silas in particular and to IBM's
voice. I happen to represent Boulder, Colorado, where IBM is
headquartered, and so I just want to--I am grateful for your
support of the Equality Act and leading in the business
community on this front.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairman Nadler.
And I want to thank the outstanding witnesses here today
for your testimony. I also want to thank my friend, Congressman
Cicilline, for your long-term leadership in drafting this
Equality Act and shepherding it through this process. And with
the help of the new Members of Congress this year, we are going
to get it passed through Congress. So thank you for your
leadership, Congressman.
Cities across the country recognize the importance of
ensuring all people have the ability to live and work without
fear of discrimination because of who they are. We certainly
understood that in Phoenix, and during my time as mayor, we
sent the message that everyone is welcome, regardless of sexual
orientation or gender identity.
To me, it is simple. Our communities are stronger when they
are inclusive and welcoming, and what is more, our economy is
stronger.
So today I want to underscore the Equality Act's potential
economic impact. In three specific cases in Phoenix, we saw
that taking action to prevent discrimination had a positive
economic impact. In 2013, we passed a citywide
nondiscrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination on the
basis of gender, sexual orientation, and disability in
employment, housing, and public accommodations.
As a result, Phoenix earned national recognition as a city
promoting equality. Socially conscious companies look to our
region as a place that aligns with their vision for
inclusivity, and they are expanding to create jobs and do
business in our city. In 2014, we stood up against a proposed
State law that would have allowed businesses to discriminate
against customers on the basis of religious belief, the so-
called bathroom bill.
We joined businesses across Arizona and the country to
demand that the governor reject the bill, and major
corporations, including Apple, AT&T, American Airlines spoke
out, too. Even the National Football League considered moving
the 2015 Superbowl if the bill were to become law, a clear
example that pushing discriminatory policies puts us at
economic risk. Under pressure, the governor did ultimately veto
that bill.
In 2016, Phoenix joined other U.S. cities in offering
transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits to city employees and
their families. This sent a strong message to our transgender
public servants: you matter and we value you. Providing those
benefits was vital to the wellbeing of our city employees and
continues to make the City of Phoenix a more sought-after
employer. We learned in Arizona that inaction has consequences.
Allowing discrimination to take place or not being proactive
about outlawing discrimination that pushed out the talented
people our cities need to thrive economically.
More proof. A study from the William Institute found that
``When LGBTQ people are targets of violence, denied equal
access to education, stigmatized in communities, and
discouraged from pursuing jobs that maximize their skills,
their contributions to the whole economy are diminished,
holding back economic advancement for the national economy.''
The bottom line is that LGBTQ individuals want to live and work
in places that embrace them. States and cities have been doing
the heavy lifting when it comes to preventing discrimination,
and it is time for this Congress to act. The Equality Act is
the overarching legislation that our country needs right now.
Here is my question. It is for Ms. Silas. You mentioned in
your testimony that IBM is a place to create a supportive and
inclusive environment for all of your employees, and I want you
to speak a little more, maybe expand upon that a little bit.
Can you speak to the importance of having inclusive policies in
terms of recruiting and retaining talent? I believe corporate
America has been way ahead of the political side in terms of
promoting inclusivity. Please.
Ms. Silas. Yes, thank you for that question. So, you know,
the reality that we sit in today is there are half a million
technical jobs open right now, right? And certainly when we
think about IBM and our talent needs and venturing into spaces,
such as blockchain and cybersecurity and quantum computing, all
of which are incredibly important spaces for innovation and
advancement in the technical field, we are not in a position
where we aspire to handpick people based on anything other than
skills. I have no interest in discriminating against people
based on personal attributes. It doesn't make good business
sense.
Beyond that, I am proud to work for a company where we are
grounded in the belief that our actions need to absolutely
result in business growth, and it is why we are focused on
skills. But we also have a 100-year history focused on societal
impact and how do we use our role and our impact on society to
drive fairness and equality. That is also good business.
Mr. Stanton. All right. Thank you. The Equality Act is good
for the American economy, good for business. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the Williams
Institute study that I referenced called ``The Relationship
Between LGBTQ Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis
of Emerging Economies.''
Chairman Nadler. Without objection, the document will be
admitted.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
MR. STANTON FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you
for coming and talking with us today on this important
conversation about how we create a more perfect union. If you
notice, some of us are leaving this room. We are going in and
out to other hearings. And I happen to be going to a hearing
across the hall, not very far away, and it is not far away in
terms of what we are talking about. It is the Financial
Services hearing on fair housing.
And as I stepped in there to have my opportunity to listen
in and to ask some questions, Ms. Johnson, who is an expert on
LGBTQ issues, said, ``We must name sexual orientation as a
protected class.'' It is interesting how these two
conversations are meshing. And so in the frenzy of running
between and in the sausage-making that you are all watching, I
just want to commend the chairman for hosting this committee
because in the search of a more perfect union, we have these
messy conversations, these uncomfortable conversations, and I
thank the chairman. I thank Mr. Cicilline for his extraordinary
leadership on this legislation.
Some things that I wanted to examine, and, Ms. Silas, in
terms of IBM, we sometimes talk about we don't want to
discriminate because it is not the right thing to do. But
economically, it is the right thing to do to make your
workforce as diverse as possible because our diversity actually
makes us stronger. Our diversity comes up with creative
solutions. Is that IBM's experience?
Ms. Silas. It certainly is. I mean, it is not abnormal when
we talk about the benefits of how our teams work and embedding
diversity, that we strongly believe that diversity helps us do
things like, you know, mitigate group think, or identify errors
more efficiently, or innovate more effectively. And that is
core to how we work, and ultimately it is how we thrive as a
business, so it is absolutely normal and core to how we work.
Ms. Dean. So it is not only the right thing to do, it is
the economically smart thing to do to come up with more
creative solutions. And, Reverend Doctor, I really appreciate
your experience and your testimony and your years of pastoring
to so many. Before you even had your very personal connection,
you were already pastoring on this subject because you
understood it as a subject about our common humanity, and you
understood it as a core subject of love. How we love one
another is actually what should guide us.
So you might imagine that I am extraordinarily puzzled by
the conversation that has been going on by some of the
testimony here, but also by some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle that throw up what I think are rather phantom
fear-mongering examples of fear of invasions of bathrooms,
invasions of shelters, invasions of sport. I don't understand
that in the balance, even if any of those, anecdotally, things
were true, on whole, on the measure, in the balance of how we
move forward in this country, are we to be held back those
phantom anecdotes, or are we to look for a more perfect union
and to stop discriminating?
And so I wanted to give whomever the opportunity, and I
really commend Mr. Brown, Ms. Contreras, and Professor for your
compelling personal testimony. And as I am one of the last to
question you, is there anything you realize in this
conversation we really haven't heard about in personal
discrimination, because I was a township commissioner a long
time ago--not so long ago--in Abingdon Township, Pennsylvania
in 2012 when we passed this as an ordinance, this bill as an
ordinance. And people kept saying to me, come on, is there
really discrimination in housing? Is there really
discrimination in accommodation? Well, your testimony shows
beyond measure the extraordinary heartbreaking discrimination.
What else have we missed? What else should people know so they
understand the importance of this law?
Ms. Beck. We should understand that sexual orientation is
not the same thing as gender identity. These two things are
very different, and, in fact, one invalidates the other. Gender
identity language obfuscates sex. One of my colleagues in the
Baltimore City LGBTQ Commission, before I was kicked off for
using male pronouns to talk about a male rapist, one of my
colleagues said that sex was fake. Sex was a thing of the past,
that science had progressed so far that we didn't even need to
worry about it. And I asked him how could we be gay if sex is
fake. Gender identity obfuscates sex, so we can't legislate one
thing while it invalidates the other.
Ms. Dean. I thank you, Ms. Beck. I thank you, Ms. Beck. And
I understand you do not understand this as a civil right, so I
actually was asking for some other input. Thank you.
Mr. Yoshino. Great. So just a couple of things that I think
might be useful, Representative. One is thinking about the
assault issue that you raised and that one of your colleagues
on the other side of the aisle raised with the Karen White
case. It is interesting that we need to travel abroad to the
U.K. to find that example because we have seen no examples of
that, to my knowledge, on this side of the pond. That was a
case of really unfortunate assault, but of both men and of
women. So the only thing that could have prevented that assault
are the things that we have in our criminal law and in our tort
law that abolish and punish assault and criminal behavior as
such rather than sex segregation per se.
And, in fact, that individual, it was interesting that no
one thought to mention, is serving a life sentence in jail,
right, so that we do have redress within our criminal law for
egregious actions of that kind without having to resort to
excluding trans individuals from sex-segregated spaces. And, in
fact, one of the painful ironies of this entire hearing is that
we hear over and over again trans individuals being cast as the
perpetrators of assault and harassment, whereas statistically
there is no evidence that trans individuals are more likely to
perpetrate assault or harassment. And, in fact, exactly the
opposite is true. Trans individuals are much more likely to be
the victims of assault and harassment, and that is exactly what
this Equality Act would cure.
The only other thing that I would like to mention has to do
with the freedom of religion issues that have been raised. I
was a bit puzzled to hear one of the representatives say that,
you know, the First Amendment is one of our first freedoms,
and, therefore, should be enshrined, you know, given that this
act under the supremacy clause does nothing to disturb and
could not disturb the free exercise clause jurisprudence that
the Court has articulated. So that is a constitutional
amendment. There is nothing that ordinary legislation can do to
alter that or the protections in place under the free exercise
clause.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to
say thank you so much to so many of you that have given
beautiful, beautiful testimony today. I have my pack of Kleenex
here because I found it deeply moving. And I want to remind
anybody that might be watching what we are talking about today.
The Equality Act is a landmark civil rights bill to make clear
that discrimination against LGBTQIA people has no place in our
society. It rectifies an unacceptable situation, and sets forth
comprehensive protections against discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation or gender identity.
As I listened to some of you today, I was struck by this
push to presume that these provisions would somehow be
manipulated or used by people in ways that would hurt existing
sex protections. And I was struck so much, Reverend Wiley, by
your beautiful testimony, and it occurred to me that we are
talking about fear versus love. We are talking about fear
versus freedom. And I didn't intend to say this today, but--
excuse me.
My beautiful now 22-year-old child told me last year that
they were gender nonconforming. And over the last year, I have
come to understand from a deeply personal mother's
perspective--I have always been a civil rights activist. I have
always fought for my constituents and my communities to have
equal rights. But from a mother's perspective, I came to
understand what their newfound freedom--it is the only way I
can describe what has happened to my beautiful child--what
their newfound freedom to wear a dress, to rid themselves of
some conformist stereotype of who they are, to be able to
express who they are at their real core.
And since this deeply impactful moment last year, my child,
who has always done well in school, but has carried what a
mother can only describe as a heavy burden of conflict in their
own being that I could not fully identify or help to express.
Since this deeply impactful moment last year, my child's
embracing of their nonconforming gender identity and all that
it has allowed, all that it allows in terms of their
creativity, their brilliance, their self-expression, the only
thought I wake up with every day is my child is free. My child
is free to be who they are. And in that freedom comes a
responsibility for us as legislators to protect that freedom to
be who they are and to legislate, as Dr. Wiley so beautifully
said, to legislate our behavior towards all people in our
society.
So let me go to some questions. Washington State has had
protections for transgender people since 2006, and we have
never had issues such as those that are being raised today as
fears. So, Ms. Beck, I know you have described yourself as a
lesbian radical feminist. You last appeared before this
committee during the hearing for the reauthorization for
Violence Against Women Act, which incorporates gender identity
in its non-discrimination provision, and you criticized these
protections saying that ``Predatory men will do anything to
gain access to victims.'' And you went on to say that,
``Acknowledging biological sex is not inhumane. It is actually
inhumane to force women to share intimate spaces with male
people who call themselves women.'' Is that correct?
Ms. Beck. Correct.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Ms. Chandy, as legal director at
the National Women's Law Center, you are an expert not only on
LGBTQ rights, but also on gender and women's issues. In your
expert opinion, is it problematic to have inclusive spaces that
provide safe spaces for transgender people?
Ms. Chandy. No. As we have talked about here today, sexual
assault happens across all kinds of workplaces and schools and
many, many settings, and does not require some, you know, sex-
segregated spaces for that. There is no evidence that having
trans-inclusive, sex-segregated spaces would lead to more
sexual assault. And I can also say on a personal note, I have
so many South Asian LGBTQ organizations and would love to
connect with you around that to provide support if that is
useful for you.
Ms. Jayapal. And I am a proud Keralite, by the way.
Ms. Chandy. Oh, wow, so.
Ms. Jayapal. So happy to have you here.
Ms. Chandy. You can talk to my parents then.
Ms. Jayapal. So let me just add my time is expiring, but I
wanted to ask, Mr. Brown, if you could just share what these
protections for transgender people in the Equality Act would
mean for you and your family. Ms. Beck has said that she
opposes protections for transgender people, and I would just
like to hear from you from a very personal perspective. What
would it mean to have us pass the Equality Act with these
transgender protections?
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
witness may answer the question.
Mr. Brown. From a personal perspective, having the Equality
Act passed would provide safety for me. We hear a lot about,
well, we have heard a lot today, about transgender people being
a threat in the bathroom, in sports, in the workplace, so
forth. My experience, I need protections. I do not feel safe in
the workplace. I do not feel safe in the bathroom if someone
knows that I am transgender. I know a lot of transgender men
that have been harassed and attacked in the bathroom because
they were transgender. I need protections for me as a trans
person.
My identity is not a threat to anyone else. As it stands,
it is a threat to me and my ability to provide for my family,
to work hard. And in the intersections of my gender identity
and my race and my class, it is not a level playing field as an
American, as a person who has worked hard to complete school,
to buy a home, to pay taxes, and all the things that America
promised me as a freedom. And my right, an inalienable right,
to pursue my road to happiness is now being threatened because
I have no protections.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Brown. And, Mr. Chairman, thank
you. I just want to say that this is such an important bill. I
thank Mr. Cicilline and you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
critical discussion on how we move forward as a country.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady
from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I truly
applaud the courage from the members of the panel that are here
with us today. Thank you for being here. The courage of a
mother, my colleague, Representative Jayapal, who with her
words truly touches each and every one of us. And David
Cicilline, who has been fighting every battle to ensure that we
finally protect every individual regardless of gender identity
or whom they love. This is the United States of America.
Equality is equality.
And I have to say that every time I come to this committee
and I sit through hours of hearings, whether it is passing the
universal background checks bill, the Violence Against Women
Act, I hear from my colleagues across the aisle things that
make absolutely no sense. And I just wonder if these comments
are based on fear or is their masculinity being threatened. Are
they scared that all of a sudden by passing the Equality Act,
their favorite sports team is going to lose to some female
sports team that now has males that are pretending to be women
so that they can participate in female sports? It makes
absolutely no sense.
I can tell you that I am very proud to represent a
community where our motto is ``One human family,'' and that is
Key West. We have elected our mayor back in November who is an
openly gay mayor. We have a police chief who is openly gay. We
welcome over 450,000 tourists who are members of the LGBTQ
community. Our rates of violence are lower than any other
community in Florida. I am proud to represent Key West. We
should all learn from that community what it means to be a
member of one human family.
And since I hear a lot of words from my Republican
colleagues about, you know, fear, bad actors, I am going to
talk to them on terms that maybe will grab their attention, and
that is the economy and money in their pockets and what it
means to lose businesses or employment opportunities if we
discriminate against our brothers and sisters from the LGBTQ
community. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, ask for unanimous
consent to include in the record the list of companies that are
endorsing the Equality Act.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MS. MUCARSEL-POWELL FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. ADP, American Airlines, Speyer U.S.,
LLP, Boos Allen Hamilton, Choice Hotels International, Cisco
Systems, Deloitte, LLP, Diageo North America, Ernst & Young,
Google, Hyatt, IKEA, Intel, Lyft, Marriott. The list goes on
and on and on. So it is not just a social justice issue. This
is an economic issue. So maybe that will bring attention to my
colleagues across the aisle.
So to that effect, I would like to ask some questions for
Tia Silas, Ms. Silas. According to the Human Rights Campaign
2019 Corporate Equality Index, 93 percent of Fortune 500
companies have non-discrimination policies that include sexual
orientation, and 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have non-
discrimination policies that include gender identity. Why are
businesses proactively adopting explicit LGBTQ non-
discrimination policies?
Ms. Silas. Thank you for the question. So I stated a little
bit earlier that it really is around access to skills that
allow our business to thrive, and the fact that we have, you
know, at least a half a million, in my space, technical jobs
open. And so we need to care about skills. I also touched on
something else I haven't been able to speak on, which is why a
company would care about protections beyond the four parameters
of our wall, so thinking about things like housing and credit.
And for IBM, our particular story is one where we understand
that if we are only concerned about protections within our four
walls, then that puts us at a competitive disadvantage in
recruiting people.
I often reference, you know, my predecessor, a guy by the
name of Ted Childs, led during an era where we were really
progressive around the recruitment of minorities, Hispanic,
blacks into our Westchester, New York area. It was important
for our headquarter. We found that while we were fairly
aggressive working with HBCUs and incredibly successful in
recruiting people, that when we want to relocate them in the
Westchester community, that they were unable to access to
things like housing or credit to get a car.
And we had to go out into the community--we are one of the
founders of an organization called WRO--so that we could
advocate for holistic and 360-degree fairness and equality for
our employees. So we have learned through our 100 years, right,
that it is important for us to care about what we can control
within our four walls, but we rely really on you, right, to
ensure that there are protections across State lines and beyond
employment.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Silas. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
There are 8-and-a-half minutes left in the vote. We are going
to try to finish the hearing and ask them to hold the vote
open, so I am going to be more strict on the 5-minute rule. The
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for this hearing. David Cicilline, the journey is
continuing, but thank you for the passion, and we commit to you
and all of you that we will not give up the fight.
Let me indicate that I want to acknowledge and associate
myself with the personal testimonies of all of you, including
the members on the dais who spoke eloquently about their
concerns. You heard the time element, and so, Reverend, just
give me just a quick two-word, what is imperative, Reverend, of
having equality be a moral imperative, because you started a
church on that basis.
Rev. Wiley. Let me just share a quote from Howard Thurman,
and it is very simple: ``I have always wanted to know how to be
me without making it difficult for you to be you.''
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think it is stunningly true. Jami
Contreras, all of us have looked at that baby and that bouncing
baby with such joy, and I just want to congratulate you. And I
know that this child will be wonderfully beloved and as well as
accepting. Tell me how deep the pain was rejected by a
physician who takes the Hippocratic oath.
Ms. Contreras. It is a pain that is indescribable, and it
sticks with me to this day. And I think that is why I have to
keep sharing my story to make sure it doesn't happen to anybody
else because it was horrifying. And this question that really
keeps me up at night, and me any wife, that just haunts us is,
what if that had been an emergency? What if we were in an
emergency room and that on-call doctor didn't want to see us?
How long until we get another surgeon or an EMT showing up at
our house? So the Equality Act can give us finally a sense of
peace of mind to just provide for our children and keep them
safe like any other parent wants to do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. What a powerful statement. Mr. Brown, you
hail from the State of Texas. We call it great, and that means
it should be great for you. And I can't imagine the pain. You
wear the color of black skin who have seen such segregation and
devastation and now in your life. So would you be kind enough
just to say again the piercing impact that you were fearful of
not being able to take care of your family?
Mr. Brown. Yes, absolutely. And as I stated, when I was
outed as a transgender man at work, my known transgender
identity, I did not harass or discriminate against anyone. I
was harassed and discriminated against. When I went to the
bathroom, I didn't harass or try to make anyone feel
uncomfortable. However, I was harassed and made to feel
uncomfortable because of my transgender identity. So, again,
the Equality Act is important because it provides safety for
everyone, not excluding transgender people.
And also being fired from my job so abruptly because of my
identity, again, left me in a very vulnerable place in a very
perplexed mind state and wondering will I be able to secure
employment again because I am still going to be me. And I
didn't feel that I should be reprimanded for living
authentically in my personal life.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I have dealt with through a
young man that I have come to love and have tried to help. My
good friends in the audience remember when we were dealing with
hate crimes and David Richardson was a young man in my
constituency. I visited him at home, and so this is his story
very briefly. As horrific and painful as the past year had been
for hate crime survivor David Richardson, his future seemed
brighter: a chance to attend college for free, to devote his
life to public service, and leave behind a troubled past. The
past 15 months of Richardson's life was focused on recovering
physically and emotionally from a brutal attack in which he was
beaten unconscious and sodomized in the backyard with a plastic
pole by a man shouting ``white power.''
Sometimes these things overlap. David Richardson was a
person who testified during our hate crimes hearing many years
ago, but ultimately David Richardson leaped to his death in the
Gulf of Mexico from the upper deck of a Carnival cruise ship.
These are the stories that are unheard, and this simple
legislation, H.R. 5, that is congruent with our civil rights
laws and our hate crime laws is long overdue. And I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that we will be able to pass that expeditiously.
I ask unanimous consent to submit these into the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. LGBT----
Chairman Nadler. Without objection, they are admitted.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. And others whose names they
want me to call, but I will have them, and UCLA. And I hope
that the tone of this meeting will be that we will never, never
forget. With that, I yield back within the time. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Ms. Garcia of Texas.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to just
ask a couple of questions and then yield about 1 minute of my
time to my colleague, Mr. Cicilline, who will have the final
words on this bill. My questions will be directed to you,
Professor. And I actually have a lot of other questions, but we
are in a hurry to get to our votes.
This whole issue of the deeply-held religious beliefs and
the way, in my view, some folks appear to be using it to hide
behind discrimination. I know that one of your panel members
talked about how there was no way of knowing who is lying when
they say they are transgender. I would submit to you that we
never know any way who is lying that they really have a deeply-
held religious belief, and that, therefore, they are going to
do X. And how deep is deep and how held is that belief? So can
you just tell us in like a minute or two what your analysis is
of what that really means and where that whole theory is
evolving and where it may take us?
Mr. Yoshino. Absolutely, Representative Garcia. The exact
same thought was going through my head as I heard about this
faking it notion of thinking we wouldn't abolish protections
for religious minorities simply because it is very easy for you
or me to say I have a particular religious belief, so I should
be able to avail myself of that religious exemption. We don't
do that even though the courts have been very loath to inquire
into the sincerity or the coherence of somebody's religious
beliefs, as well they should.
So if we don't worry about it in that context, if we are
not saying let's repeal, you know, religion as a Title 7
category, then why should we have any pause about people faking
it in this context? The fact that some people may
opportunistically use it is no reason to deny protection for
the people who really need it. So I would say that much.
The only other thing I would add here is that the reason
that we are quite leery about putting too many religious
exemptions into this act is the sad history of the use of
religion, sometimes sincerely, sometimes opportunistically, in
order to undermine the edifice of civil rights. After the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there was a
restaurateur, a barbecue owner, who said that he refused to
serve African-Americans on the basis of his deeply-held
religious beliefs. The Supreme Court said that that was
patently frivolous, right, but he was not alone. There are
others who said my religious beliefs compel me to not serve
across racial lines. So what we are seeing today is individuals
who are saying our businesses are otherwise open to the public,
saying that on the basis of my religious beliefs, I will not
actually serve you even though I am otherwise open to the
public.
And to answer the question that was posed to Ms. Contreras
about whether or not the physician on deeply-held religious
grounds should have to serve a Nazi patient if they were
Jewish, you know, I would respond the same way, that I heard
Mr. Cicilline respond before he was cut off, which is to say
Nazis are not a protected class. What we are trying to do here
is make sure that transgender individuals and individuals who
are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, are that protected class, that
they do not have to suffer the searing indignity that Ms.
Contreras went through because for her to have to go another
doctor is the same as for that black patron who was refused
from Piggie Park to have to go another restaurant. It doesn't
matter that there is another barbecue down the block. The
memory of being denied that service simply on the basis of your
race, or on the basis of your sexual orientation, on the basis
of your gender identity lives with you for the rest of your
life.
Ms. Garcia. Well, thank you for that because it has
troubled me because I come from Texas, and we fought the
bathroom bill, you know, just tooth and nail. And it seems that
more bills have crept up, whether it is for, you know, faith-
based organizations denying, you know, any LGBTQ members from
adopting, from foster care, you know, the pharmacists not
dispensing medicine. In my view, it is sort of like they are
getting carried with it. But so thank you for that, and, Mr.
Chairman, again, I yield the remainder of my time to my
colleague, who has worked so hard on this bill, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, I would just ask, I know Congresswoman McBath went
down to vote and had a very eloquent statement that she
intended to give. I would ask unanimous consent that it be put
into the record twice to reinforce the power of it.
Chairman Nadler. It will be put into the record 3 times.
Mr. Cicilline. And, Mr. Chairman, I have nine articles that
I would ask be made part of the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection for all nine of them.
[The information follows:]
MR. CICILLINE FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cicilline. And finally, I just want to end where I
began my comments in thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for this
historic hearing for these extraordinary witnesses. And for any
young, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender youth out there who
is worried or feels discriminated against or fearful, help is
on the way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Applause.]
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I thank the
gentleman for introducing the bill. This concludes today's
hearing. Thank you to our distinguished witnesses.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]