A ‘Yes on 3’ Vote Protects a Vulnerable Community. It Endangers No One.

Viewpoint articles are written by members of the SPH community from a wide diversity of perspectives. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University or the School of Public Health. We aspire to a culture where all can express views in a context of civility and respect. Our guidance on the values that guide our commitment can be found at Revisiting the Principles of Free and Inclusive Academic Speech.

On November 6, Massachusetts will hold the nation’s first-ever statewide popular vote on whether transgender people should be protected from discrimination. So far, polling shows the vote will be disturbingly close. Yet many Massachusetts voters still do not know what is at stake. It is nothing less than the safety and dignity of a vulnerable community, both in this state and across the country.

In 2016, SB 2407 passed with a bipartisan supermajority in the state legislature. It protects the rights of transgender people by preventing them from being turned away from, denied service at, or harassed in public places like parks, restaurants, stores, movie theaters, public transportation facilities, or doctors’ offices. For most people here in Massachusetts, the law has since gone almost completely unnoticed. But for transgender people, the law has had a dramatic and very real effect: It has protected our health and safety as we go about our daily lives.

From a public health perspective, the transgender community is astonishingly vulnerable. According to the 2015 US Transgender Survey, the largest-ever survey of our community, transgender people are nine times more likely to attempt suicide in our lifetimes, eight times more likely to have experienced severe psychological distress in the last year, twice as likely to be living in poverty, and five times more likely to be living with HIV than the general US population. One-third of respondents who had received health care in the prior year had at least one negative experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity.

For many transgender people, statistics like these are never far from our minds. Nor are the known transgender people murdered this year in the US, or the often-cited estimate that the life expectancy of a transgender woman of color is 35. In the face of such adversity, the current state law not only protects us against any individual act of discrimination—it tells us that we are worth protecting, and that Massachusetts has our backs.

The opposition to Massachusetts’ law focuses on concerns about sexual assault in restrooms. Those who oppose the law claim it provides cover for male sexual predators to enter restrooms and locker rooms to harass and assault women and girls. But the data make plain that this fearmongering message is groundless. Massachusetts has seen no increase in public safety incidents as a result of this law, and not a single case where anyone has been charged with falsely claiming gender identity to enter a restroom for an improper reason. Neither have the 18 other states, DC, and more than 200 cities and towns across the country with similar legislation.

In fact, the 2015 US Transgender Survey shows that, when it comes to sexual violence or other harm in restrooms, transgender people are the ones at tremendous risk of being the victims. Almost half of all transgender people experience sexual assault in their lifetimes, according to the survey, and 10 percent of the respondents had been sexually assaulted in the prior 12 months. The survey also found that 9 percent of respondents reported someone denying them access to a restroom in the prior year, and 12 percent had been harassed in the restroom; 60 percent said they avoided using a public restroom in the prior year because they were worried about how they would be treated, and 32 percent limited the amount they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom. About 8 percent also reported getting a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or other kidney-related problem as a result of avoiding restrooms—to say nothing of the psychological effects of not being able to use a restroom where and when one needs to.

Massachusetts’ law and laws like it are supported by more than 250 organizations around the country that work to prevent violence and help survivors, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, and many more. The law is also supported by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, the Massachusetts Major City Chiefs, and other local law enforcement organizations and officials. It is clear to these organizations, and to the thousands of other members of the Yes on 3 coalition, from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce to the Red Sox, that the current law must remain in place in order to protect our community.

And not just in Massachusetts—this vote is crucial for the transgender community across the country. If Massachusetts can’t keep its law in a popular vote, our community will be threatened everywhere else as well. States with similar laws on the books will see them challenged, and other states will be even more hesitant to introduce new protections.

In November, Massachusetts voters will decide the fates of thousands of transgender people in the state and more than a million more across the country. A “yes” vote on Question 3 keeps in place a law that protects the unalienable rights of transgender people. A “no” vote would take away these newfound, fundamental human protections. Massachusetts voters must vote yes on Question 3.

Iris Olson is an MPH student and an activist fellow focusing on transgender rights at the Activist Lab. Michelle Samuels is the senior writer and editor in the Office of Communications. They are both volunteers with the Yes on 3 campaign.

On September 12, SPH and the Activist Lab are cohosting a Dean’s Seminar titled “Transgender Rights Ballot Battle: What’s at Stake?”