Testimony on HB 13 in the Maryland House of Delegates

This afternoon I joined a dozen other advocates for LGBTQ rights in testifying before the Maryland House of Delegates' Environment and Transportation Committee in favor of HB 13, which would eliminate unnecessary burdens on transgender and gender non-binary Marylanders with respect to having accurate information on their drivers licenses.

The first panel to testify included Gender Rights Maryland Executive Director Dr. Dana Beyer, Pediatric Endocronoogist  Dr. Elyse Pine of the Chase-Brexton Clinic in Baltimore, and Free State Justice Attorney Laura DePalma   Several Republican members of the Committee asked a number of questions, which demonstrated either hostility to, or lack of information about, transgender and gender non-binary people.  I choose to believe that they just did not have enough information.  The answers provided by Dr. Beyer, Dr. Pine, and Ms. DiPalma turned the lengthy discussion into an excellent seminar of what we have learned, and what the science has taught us, about gender identity -- a Guide for the Perplexed in the 21st Century.  I look forward to the discussion being posted on the Maryland General Assembly website.

UPDATE:  The video of the hearing may be found here.  Dana Beyer's testimony begins at 9:10, Elyse Pine's at 12:15, Sean Mullen's (Delegate Robinson's legislative aide) at 15:00, and Laura DePalma's at 18:52.  The 45 minute question and answer period begins at 22:29.  (For anyone interested in my testimony -- i.e., some relatives who are not tired of my voice -- it begins at 1:12.)

LATER UPDATE:  I wrote a letter to the Washington Times in response to its article about the hearing.  The letter was published, and may be found here.

(Below is the text of my testimony, followed by the written submission from Rabbi Rachel Ackerman on behalf of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism [LATER UPDATE: and the letter published in the Washington Times].

TESTIMONY OF DAVID S. FISHBACK, MD ADVOCACY CHAIR

METRO DC CHAPTER OF PFLAG,

IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 13

BEFORE THE MARYLAND HOUSE OF DELEGATES’  ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 8, 2018

         My name is David Fishback, and I am testifying on behalf of the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG, an organization that supports LGBTQ people and their families. Exactly a decade ago, I accompanied my wife to Annapolis, when she testified on behalf of Civil Marriage Equality.  A few years later, in 2012, the General Assembly enacted marriage equality, and now both of our sons are happily married and we have two adorable grandchildren.

         When our sons came out in the late 1990s, we did not know transgender or gender non-binary people.  Indeed, we probably were not even aware of their existence.  But, as PFLAG parents, we have met, and become friends with, many transgender and gender non-binary people.  We have also learned about the challenges they face in simply being who they are. We are proud that you and other officials in Maryland have acted to ease their burdens. The 2014 enactment of the Fairness for All Marylanders Act protected people against discrimination based on gender identity and expression.  In 2015, our state Department of Education issued guidelines helping local school systems protect students based on gender identity and expression; and local school systems, like that of Montgomery County, have enacted clear mandatory rules protecting students. 

         HB 13[1] is another step in helping our fellow Marylanders who happen to be transgender or gender non-binary.  By providing an “unspecified” option on drivers licenses and related documents, HB 13 allows gender non-binary people to have their documents accurately reflect who they are.  And by not requiring transgender and non-binary Marylanders to go through hoops in order to have their gender identities accurately reflected on these documents, we take another step to make their lives easier.  And we would do this at no real cost to anyone else.

         In times when the national discourse on so many things is fraught with division and acrimony, we should seize the opportunity to take steps to make life kinder and gentler.  This is such an opportunity.

         Thank you. 

---

[1] http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0013&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2018rs

********************************************************************************************************************************

Rabbi Rachel Ackerman, Rabbi at Temple Shalom in Chevy Chase, MD and Co-Chair of Religious Action Center’s Transgender Rights Campaign 

Testimony in support of House Bill 13 

Before the Maryland House of Delegates Environment and Transportation Committee

 February 8, 2018 

My name is Rabbi Rachel Ackerman and I am the Associate Rabbi of Temple Shalom in Chevy Chase, Maryland. I am testifying in support of House Bill 13 on behalf of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism’s (RAC) Urgency of Now Transgender Rights Campaign. The RAC is a joint instrumentality of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest stream of American Judaism which encompasses 900 congregations and 1.5 million people across North America, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which includes 2,000 rabbis. There are 19 Reform congregations across the state of Maryland. 

The Union for Reform Judaism came together in November 2015 to unanimously ratify a Resolution on the Rights of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People.1 In passing this resolution, we made a commitment to live by one of Judaism’s bedrock principles: b’tzelem Elohim, the belief that all people are created in the image of God and are therefore deserving of love and respect. We are now acting swiftly on this commitment, making our congregations, camps and religious schools more inclusive and through the advocacy of our Transgender Rights Campaign. 

Personally, this issue is one that I have studied and taught about over the past few years during my time as a student at the Hebrew Union College, in my congregation and in the wider Reform Movement. I have several students who have come through Temple Shalom’s religious school who are gender diverse or who are transgender and I have been witness to their successes and struggles, struggles that they should not have to encounter for expressing on the outside who they have always been on the inside. It is their courage and what they have taught me that inspires me to be here today. In a class discussion I led about expressing ourselves at our public schools, one of my seventh grade students said, “My teacher taught me that students have three rights in school: to learn, to be safe, and to feel safe.” 

This student’s words apply in all aspects of our lives. I am proud to work in Maryland where our Department of Education and individual school districts, like Montgomery County Public Schools, have sent a clear message to Marylanders who are transgender: we see you, we value you, and we will stand up for your rights. We believe that HB 132 is another opportunity to send that same message. By providing Marylanders an “unspecified” option on identification documents we will allow transgender and gender diverse individuals the opportunity to more accurately express who they are and we will make Maryland a safer, more inclusive place for everyone. I urge the House of Delegates to move quickly to pass this important bill.  

1 https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/resolution-rights-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-people 

2 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0013&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2018rs

***********************************************************

Hearing on gender informative

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES -
Wednesday, February 14, 2018

---

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Other than to report a he-said-she-said exchange between one legislator and one witness, your Feb. 9 article on a hearing in the Maryland General Assembly (“Maryland explores ‘unspecified’ gender option for driver’s license applications,” Web) raised but did not really discuss a matter very important to many Marylanders. The hearing delved deeply into gender-related issues, and a video of it is posted on the Maryland.gov website. The testimony, which begins at the 9:10 mark, is followed by 45 minutes of informative give-and-take between the first three witnesses (two of whom are medical doctors) and several Republican legislators.

The hearing turned out to be an excellent seminar in what we have learned and what the science has taught us about gender identity — a sort of guide for the perplexed in the 21st century. Those interested in these issues would be well-served by listening to the discussion.

DAVID S. FISHBACK

Maryland advocacy chair

Metro DC Chapter, PFLAG

Olney

The Hedgehog and the Fox: Lessons for the Trump Era

When I was an undergraduate at George Washington University in the second half of the 1960s, a big deal was made about a lecture on campus by British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin.  It sounded interesting, and I attended.  He spoke about his most famous essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox.  It left a great impression upon me, because it so fit in with my understanding of much 20th Century history up to that point.  As The Guardian noted in a 2016 article, "Berlin explored the fundamental distinction that exists between those who are fascinated by the infinite variety of things (foxes) and those who relate everything to a central, all-embracing system (hedgehogs)."
  

Trying to sort through what had happened in revolutionary movement of the first third of the century, and having read a fair amount about Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky, it occurred to me back then that Lenin and Stalin were classic Hedgehogs, and that Trotsky was something of a Fox.  And that struggle did not turn out well for the Fox, who died from a hatchet to his skull in Mexico, placed there by a Stalin agent in 1940.  As I did some googling on that point, I discovered, not to my surprise, that my insight was not unique:  "Both Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin fit Isaiah Berlin’s classic definition of the hedgehog, who knows 'one big thing.' Leon Trotsky, on the other hand, exemplifies the fox, who knows many things."

Hitler also was a Hedgehog.  Yet, FDR, the Fox, prevailed.  Mao was a Hedgehog -- and his ideological heirs preserved power by adopting Fox-like understandings, while still ruling as Hedgehogs. 

Our presidents in the first 35 years of the Post-World War II era were Foxes, but their electoral opponents were not Hedgehogs (except for Barry Goldwater, who had the disadvantage of running against a wave of optimism engendered by increasing economic prosperity and optimism in many places that we were about to turn the corner on American racism.)  That changed with Reagan, who was a relatively (as compared to the horrors of the 1930s and '40s) benign Hedgehog.  Bush I was more Fox than Hedgehog, although his first opponent, Michael Dukakis, was pure Fox. Bill Clinton was a policy Fox, who was able to be just enough Hedgehog to win twice (albeit with only pluralities of the popular vote).  Bush II was an odd mixture of both Hedgehog and Fox, but his election opponents were almost as pure Fox as Dukakis.  Obama was a classic Fox, who somehow was able to synthesize the streams of the best of the American experience in a way that resonated with a majority of voters -- twice.  (I believe that Robert Kennedy was in the same mold.)

In national politics, the Hedgehogs generally have had the advantage, because so many people do not have the time or inclination to ruminate over the subtleties of governance and the human condition.  Yet, Hedgehogs' success in great clashes is not inevitable, as the 1964 Johnson/Goldwater race demonstrated.  But we need to recognize that Obama -- the quintessential Fox -- ran against opponents at the top of the ticket who tried to run as Hedgehogs, but had enough Fox-like characteristics that they were not able to run as pure demagogues.  

Which brings us to 2016.  Some, but not many, commentators in 2016 explicitly saw the Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton face-off as one between a Hedgehog and a Fox.  Trump supporter Newt Gingrich saw it that way: "Clinton is a fox who knows many things you can fact check. Trump is a hedgehog who knows one very big thing: We need change."  

John Cassidy of The New Yorker agreed with the analogy, while hoping that Clinton could be an effective Fox: "If the late philosopher Isaiah Berlin were alive to watch Monday night’s Presidential debate, he would surely recognize the ways in which the two candidates on the stage personify his famous metaphor of hedgehogs and foxes. In Berlin’s terms, Donald Trump is a classic hedgehog. He knows, or claims to know, one big thing: the United States and the world are going to hell in a handbasket, and they need a strong man like him to fix things. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is one of Berlin’s foxes. She knows many things."

Hillary Clinton did win a plurality of the popular vote, and I suspect that the seven percent who voted for neither Clinton nor Trump would not have voted for Trump if they had been presented with the binary choice. (A lot of those people would not have voted for Clinton, either.)  Still, Trump is the duly elected President, and incumbent Presidents have the opportunity to expand their support.

What is different in the Trump Era, as opposed to previous Hedgehog/Fox face-offs going back a century, is that the Trump Hedgehog is not, at bottom, tied to an ideology.  Much of his base -- those who do not like his self-centeredness and self-regard, but will go along with him because he advances their ideological beliefs -- at the end of the day would not be sad if he disappeared tomorrow.  The Cult of the Personality is so much of Trump's current appeal, that it may not be sustainable if too many people tire of the cult.  

And, more to the question of where we go from here, Trump only has sustained support from between 1/3 and 2/5 of the electorate (as defined by those who voted in 2016).  What this suggests is that continued success of this Hedgehog is not inevitable. This does say a lot about how deeply rooted the best vision of America is in most people, and we should not forget that.   But it is essential to oppose Trump with candidates who are able to synthesize the sensibilities of the Fox with enough Hedgehog tactics, and personal emotional attractiveness, that the 60% percent of the electorate who are, at minimum, extremely uncomfortable with Trump, will vote for the alternative proxies in 2018 and actual alternative candidate in 2020.  

Post-script:  This 2015 piece by financial journalist Felix Salmon suggested that Bernie Sanders would have been an effective Hedgehog in 2016.  Maybe.  But we not only need to win elections.  To protect progress, we need to be able to govern effectively, which is why, although I like  much about Bernie, I do not think he has enough of the Fox in him to be an effective President.