City Council Members Call For Definition Of Gender Expression; Public Comments

  • Tuesday, July 7, 2015
  • Emmett Gienapp
photo by Emmett Gienapp

A potential non-discrimination ordinance for same-sex city employees continued as a point of contention in a city council meeting on Tuesday as some called for further definitions about “gender expression and identity,” and posed questions about how the ordinance may limit the freedom of religious residents or affect individual privacy in public restrooms.

The ordinance would expand the group protected from discrimination or harassment to include individuals of all sexual orientations.

The ordinance is on the council’s agenda for next week on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

after having been moved back two weeks to allow for further public comment and opportunity to learn about what the decision would entail.

Council member Chris Anderson, who introduced the ordinance, has expressed frustration with other council members who are either being obstructionists or are stalling the adoption of the ordinance, specifically council member Chip Henderson who asked that the vote be moved back.

Prior to the meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Anderson commented on a Facebook group organized to support the ordinance and said, “Councilman Henderson, who is apparently unaware this is 2015, plans to offer amendments. I do not know what they are, but I assume he will be playing to the most conservative in his base.”

Mr. Henderson did not offer any amendments because the meeting was designed to be an educational session in which the council could ask questions or clarifications of the city attorney. However, he did ask that a list of definitions on phrases like “gender expression and gender identity,” be included since the proposal is a legal document.

He also asked whether the ordinance would give recourse to transgender individuals who were otherwise barred from using the public restroom of their appropriately selected gender identity. His concern was that allowing such a move could be an invasion of individual privacy, specifically women who may not be comfortable with a transgender individual using the female restroom.

Several city employees said in response that multiple restrooms in city buildings are unisex, and whatever potential modifications to restrooms would be next to nothing, if that were necessary.

Council member Larry Grohn also asked if the workplace is a proper place for people to express gender identity, since they are prohibited from overly expressing political or religious identities.

City Attorney Wade Hinton said that that particular issue would be one that the council would have to address with further legislation, but that the ordinance was designed simply to expand the group protected from discrimination.

The ordinance itself is scheduled for the voting session next week, at which point debate will be opened to the whole council and amendments may be made with a simple majority vote.

Then on Tuesday night, dozens of community members gathered before the City Council after its voting session to voice their opinions on the current non-discrimination ordinance that is scheduled for a vote next Tuesday.

 

With the new ordinance in place, the group of city employees currently protected from discriminatory hiring or firing policies based on gender or race would be expanded to include individuals of all sexual orientations as well.

 

Supporters for the ordinance uniformly wore red to the council meeting to show their solidarity and several spoke out strongly saying that not having such an ordinance, which other cities like Nashville and Knoxville have already, is an injustice.

 

However, several council members and some members of the public as well now, have raised concerns about some of the wording in the ordinance. Specifically, some residents take issue with the right to “gender expression” that the ordinance allows for in the work place.

 

Earlier, council member Chip Henderson asked if the ordinance would give recourse to transgender individuals who were barred from using public restrooms of their appropriate gender identity. His concern was that allowing such a move could be an invasion of individual privacy, specifically women who may not be comfortable with a transgender individual using a female restroom.

 

Several supporters of the ordinance took issue with this concern saying that not only is there no need for concern with that situation, but that in all of the cases where cities or states have put a similar ordinance in place, there have been no allegations of sexual assault resulting from such a scenario.

 

One man, Marcus Ellsworth, said, “The ordinance has nothing to do with bathroom use.” He went on to say that Chattanooga is behind other progressive cities on this particular issue and that the issue of restrooms for transgender individuals is detracting from what is really going on—workplace discrimination for individuals who deserve equality.

 

Shannon Edmondson echoed Mr. Ellsworth’s statements saying that the heart of the ordinance is focused on acknowledging the worth and dignity of everyone. She said that it is wrong that someone can now actually be married to a spouse of the same sex in the morning, thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, but can be fired later that same day in Chattanooga because of their sexual orientation.

 

However, not every person in the audience was in support of the ordinance—though the majority said that their primary issue was with the wording of the document rather than its stated intent.

 

An electrician at Tuftco, Johnny McCollum stood up to say, “I don’t want anyone discriminated against, but if a man decides he’s a woman today and then goes into a bathroom with my granddaughter tomorrow, I have a problem with that.”

 

Other audience members expressed similar concerns saying that though they were concerned with not discriminating against anyone, they were also against putting anyone in a situation in which they were uncomfortable.

 

Some suggested that council members retain the references to sexual orientation in the ordinance, but remove the phrase “Gender expression and identity,” to prevent potentially difficult situations.


Latest Headlines
Breaking News
Latest Hamilton County Arrest Report
  • 3/19/2024

Here is the latest Hamilton County arrest report: AWOLOWO, APRIL 105 EUCLID STREET ATHENS, 373030000 Age at Arrest: 36 years old Arresting Agency: HC Sheriff THEFT OVER $1000 BARNETT, ... more

Senator Colton Moore Challenger Hits "An Incumbent Bent On Self-Promotion Instead Of Humble Leadership"
  • 3/18/2024

Angela Pence, a Chickamauga resident who is making a race against 53rd District Senator Colton Moore, said she aims to bring principled, effective leadership "to a district that has gone unheard ... more

Wamp Pushing For Tighter Local Lobbying Rules, Tax Abatement Policies; Bigger Share Of Sales Tax
  • 3/18/2024

County Mayor Weston Wamp spoke to the Pachyderm Club on Monday about the significance of a state basketball title, the need for local lobbying regulations and tightening up on tax abatement policies. ... more