The Delaware House of Representatives voted 24 to 17 to pass legislation protecting against discrimination on the basis of gender identity on Tuesday. The bill is an amended version of one that was passed by the Senate two weeks ago, meaning the bill now has to be approved by the Senate before heading to Gov. Jack Markell’s (D) desk. If the bill is signed into law, Delaware will become the seventeenth state to legally protect transgender people from discrimination.

The Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act would make discrimination on the basis of gender identity illegal in employment, housing, public accommodations, public works, contracting, and insurance. It would also make any violence or harassment motivated by gender identity discrimination into a hate crime.

Opponents of the law have attacked the law by calling it the “bathroom bill,” insinuating that transgender people are somehow dangerous, and that this law would allow or encourage anyone to enter any bathroom of their choice for any reason in a predatory manner. The House Amendment to the bill, introduced on Tuesday by Rep. Bryon Short (D), seeks to clarify the definition of gender identity to address such concerns. Whereas the original Senate bill defined gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth,” the amendment would add a clause stating that “Gender identity may be demonstrated by consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity; provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”

The amendment also includes a clause that would allow sex-segregated public venues like locker rooms to “provide reasonable accommodations” including “a separate or private place” for transgender people. Rep. Short and Equality Delaware President Mark Purpura clarified that no organizations would be required to provide such accommodations, but merely that they may do so if they wish. None of the provisions in the amendment are binding, or change the main purpose of the Senate bill in a significant way.

Currently, sixteen states and the District of Columbia have nondiscrimination laws in the books that include sexual orientation and gender identity amongst protections for ubiquitous categories such as race and religion. Four other states ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but do not include gender identity. At least 143 cities and counties also have nondiscrimination laws or ordinances protecting transgender individuals. Unlike the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act proposed in the US Congress, Delaware’s law introduces protections broadly to areas beyond employment.

The Delaware Senate passed the original version of the law by an 11-7 vote two weeks ago. If the House’s amended version is also approved by the Senate, the bill will head to Gov. Jack Markell, who has said that he will sign the protections into law.

Kumar Ramanathan is an intern at ThinkProgress.

Numerous conservative groups are concerned about a bill (AB 1266) advancing in the California legislature that would recognize transgender young people’s identities in school, allowing them to use the facilities and play on the sports teams that correspond with their gender identity. Focus on the Family’s resident ex-gay Jeff Johnston lashed out at the bill, claiming that trans identities only exist in a “fantasy reality”:

The reality is that humans are born male or female. At birth we don’t “assign” sex to a child arbitrarily, as the analysis of this bill implies. We recognize the child’s sex – it is a physical reality. But in the world of this bill, that reality doesn’t matter. Like Cinderella in a fantasy world, a person may choose or change his sex, saying, “I can be whatever I want to be.”

But trans identities have nothing to do with who a person “wants to be”; it’s about who a person is. And sometimes, people’s mental understanding of their gender identity does not match the sex of the body they were born into. Denying the reality of their lived experience only serves to shame and stigmatize them, but won’t change their core identity.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an anti-LGBT hate group, argues that the “idea of socially constructed gender is very radical” and “not safe for the kids,” but there is no evidence to support his aspersions. In fact, the American Psychological Association recommends the passage of nondiscrimination protections like this California bill and any effort to recognize and affirm transgender people. It is that affirmation that best serves their mental well-being, not condemnation and erasure like these conservative groups propose.

Other more conservative states have already implemented similar protections for transgender athletes. Nebraska, for example, quietly implemented such a policy last December, though so far no student has taken advantage of it.

Today marks an important victory for the transgender community, even though it may appear to be a small paperwork technicality. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced that it is now much easier for trans people to change their gender identity on their Social Security records. All that will now be required, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality, is for individuals to submit government-issued documentation reflecting a gender change, or a certification from a physician confirming they have undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.

This is a significant departure from the previous policy, which required documentation of complete sex reassignment surgery. Many trans people never undergo such procedures, either because they are too expensive, because they do not want to lose their procreative ability, or because it simply isn’t an important change for them to make to find authenticity in their identities. The SSA change eliminates this high standard for trans people to obtain the appropriate documentation for the gender that reflects how they live their daily lives.

Though Social Security cards do not display gender, the SSA does maintain that information as data, and it can impact other governmental programs. For example, individuals seeking coverage under Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Security Income, or other public benefits could face complications if their gender markers do not match from form to form and identification to identification. In addition to an invasion of their privacy, the discordance could even lead to a denial of benefits. The new change will eliminate the obstacles trans people can face to access protections they often need because of other forms of discrimination they otherwise experience in society.

On Wednesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments about whether or not a transgender student should be able to use the bathroom appropriate to her gender identity. When Nicole Maines was in fifth grade, she already identified and presented as a girl and was using the girls’ restroom at school. One boy insisted on monitoring her habits and ultimately his grandfather complained about her to the school. The school decided to force her to only use the staff bathroom, which isolated her form her peers and led to her being bullied and ostracized more.

Nicole is now 15 and planning to undergo a physical transition to further find authenticity in her gender identity. The Maine Human Rights Commission supports her family’s case, arguing that the Maine Human Rights Act bars discrimination based on sex.

A Colorado family is seeking the same relief for their six-year-old trans daughter, who was also forced to use either the boys’ room or a staff or nurse’s bathroom.

In both cases, the schools have argued these girls’ gender is irrelevant and that what genitals they have should determine what bathroom they use. Such a perspective erases their identities and opens them up to both ridicule and legitimate safety concerns.

ABC’s provocative hidden-camera show What Would You Do? dedicated its latest experiment to transgender teens. They’ve been in the news, with students New Mexico and Pennsylvania being told they can’t be recognized authentically at graduation, as well as schools naming trans prom kings and queens across the country. But how do individuals respond when a trans teen trying on prom dresses is condemned by her father? The results are surprisingly heartening and indicative of how a basic understanding of gender identity — however limited — can make the big difference between acceptance and rejection. Watch it:

The Delaware Senate voted 11-7 Thursday to approve a bill that will add gender identity to the state’s hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws. This includes protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations. It now goes to the House for consideration. When Delaware approved marriage equality earlier this year, the Senate’s vote was 12-9.

The trans nondiscrimination bill has the support of Attorney General Beau Biden and Gov. Jack Markell. Opponents have attacked it as a “bathroom bill,” making unfounded claims about how trans people are dangerous. Delaware would only be the 17th state to offer such legal protections for the trans community.

A bill is quickly advancing through the Delaware legislature that would add gender identity to the state’s nondiscrimination and hate crime laws. It passed out of a Senate committee Wednesday and is expected to come before the full Senate today. Focus on the Family, however, opposes what it calls the “bathroom bill,” and invited the Delaware Family Policy Council to expound on its supposed consequences:

• Organizations must allow people to access gender-segregated programs, activities, and facilities in accordance with the sex they choose. For example, an all-girls school would have to allow a biological male to participate in classes or athletic programs.
• Organizations such as schools with dorms, homeless shelters or rehabilitation centers would have to allow individuals to be housed with the gender that they choose. A women’s homeless shelter, for example, must allow a biological male who professes a female identity to sleep in the women’s facilities.
• Organizations would have to allow individuals to access bathrooms, showers, and locker-room facilities in accordance with the sex they choose. Creating a separate “family” or “unisex” bathroom is proving to still not be enough to prevent a lawsuit.

Terms like “biological male” are used to paint a false picture of who trans women are and what their experience in society is. Trans women are women — they not only identify as women, but they are perceived as women as well. Likewise, plenty of trans men are only known to the people who know them as men. Last year, Kylar Broadus testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee about how people always perceived him to be a man, but he was ostracized when he openly identifies as a trans man.

Thus, use of the facilities with which they identify is an important safety concern for transgender people. An individual who identifies (and looks) like a woman should not have to use a men’s bathroom or lockerroom, and vice versa. Likewise, trans people are more likely to experience extreme poverty, so a trans woman seeking shelter would have the same impetus to seek the safety of a women’s shelter as any other woman.

Arizona lawmaker Rep. John Kavanagh (R) has tried to enshrine discrimination against transgender people into law, because he believes that trans people’s bodies can be psychologically traumatizing to others. Fortunately, his bill has been shelved — for now. But his sentiment that trans people should only be defined by their bodies and that those bodies are dangerous can be heard in the opposition to Delaware’s bill. These narrow arguments focus only on trans people’s genitalia, ignoring the lives they lead and their whole identities as people beyond being trans. And none of these arguments actually answer the question of where trans people should go to the bathroom or which locker room they should use, suggesting that they’re not welcome anywhere at all. Delaware lawmakers have the opportunity to send a different message to the trans community.

The Delaware Family Policy Council is recycling a “bathroom bill” scare ad that has been used in other states that simply shows a man going into a women’s room, which has nothing to do with transgender people or the implications of the protections. Watch it:

The group One Million Moms has joined the backlash against SheZow, a gender-bending cartoon superhero for kids that debuted in the United States this weekend. Like Focus on the Family, OMM expressed concern that the cartoon would confuse children, but went a step further and condemned the idea that any child should ever aspire to be a girl who saves the world:

There is no doubt this superhero character will confuse kids. Children desire to be just like superheroes and will mimic a superhero’s every action, even to the point of dressing up in costumes to resemble the characters as much as possible. It won’t be long before little boys are saying, “I want to be a girl, so I can help people and save the world!”

Christian parents don’t need a TV show to contribute to what might be a real problem for some children. Loving your child is to teach them right from wrong and find help when they need it. We are all sinners, but we try to do better and get help when and where we need it in our lives. Thousands of Christian counselors and pastors are available all across the country to help anyone who is struggling with any kind of sin including homosexuality, gender identity disorder, gender confusion or gender dysphoria.

OMM’s promotion of ex-gay and ex-trans ministries is offensive, but par for the course. The idea that a girl saving the world would be “a real problem for some children” — for a boy or otherwise — speaks to the patriarchal values at the core of conservative arguments. For an organization that supposedly represents the strength and importance of women to families, this rhetoric greatly undermines female empowerment.

In reality, One Millions Moms is a subsidiary of the American Family Association, an anti-LGBT hate group, and likely isn’t even made up of moms, let alone one million of them.

The Australian kids cartoon SheZow will debut this Saturday here in the United States on The Hub (formerly Discovery Kids). It features a 12-year-old boy who finds a magic ring that transforms him into a legendary crime-fighting superhero, SheZow, who happens to be a girl. Focus on the Family is not happy about this gender-bending message for kids, as explained by the organization’s resident ex-gay, Jeff Johnston:

JOHNSTON: SheZow presents at a pop-culture level what transgender activists believe and what some academics have taught for years: that gender is completely socially constructed and that people can change genders… Instead of giving kids good role models to follow, this cartoon reflects our culture’s confusion about the two sexes, and kids don’t need that confused message.

Johnston regularly uses his platform at Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink outlet to trash transgender identities. He believes that trans identities are not “healthy” and are “problematic psychologically,” even suggesting that gender variation can be caused by sexual abuse. He also denies that gender is socially constructed and separate from sex, merely because none of the “other genders” can “replicate itself.” Focus on the Family regularly promotes ex-trans ministries, encouraging the use of shame to reject trans identities.

Despite its gender-bending premise, SheZow is not even about a transgender character. Instead, it simply sends the message that it’s okay to stray outside the rigid lines of gender norms, a sentiment which could go far to help reduce anti-LGBT bullying. Watch the show’s descriptive intro:

Earlier this week, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber revealed a brochure that was distributed at the Department of Justice called, ““LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” Developed by the DOJ Pride, the department’s LGBT and allies employee group, it outlines several simple suggestions for making sure the workplace is a safe and inclusive space. Barber claimed it was an “attack on freedom… riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.”

Tony Perkins echoed this ominous sentiment in the Family Research Council’s Washington Update Wednesday:

When the Justice Department is done violating journalists’ First Amendment rights, it looks like they’ll move on to employees’. In a chilling memo to DOJ staff, the Obama administration is warning managers that they’d better start embracing homosexuality–or else. The email, which a Justice employee leaked to Liberty Counsel, is a scary reminder of how far this administration will go to crush free speech and expression in America.

The full brochure can be read online. Here are some of the tips — suggestions, not rules — that Barber and Perkins object to and the context they leave out to make them sound more chilling:

• DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval. What neither Barber or Perkins mention is that this is advice given under the heading, “Know how to respond if an employee comes out to you.” The converse suggestion is, “DO respond with interest and curiosity. Asking respectful questions will set a positive, supportive tone.”
• DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender. Barber admits he believes this basic respect for a person’s identity constitutes lying. Objecting to this suggestion is blatant transphobia, more of which is apparent throughout the rest of his post.
• DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful. This has nothing to do with spying. It’s simply encouraging individuals to avoid making a joke or snide comment about LGBT people and assuming it’ll never get back to them.
• DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Apparently encouraging people not to be rude and offensive constitutes chilling their free speech.

Though it is a bottom-up document with no enforcement whatsoever, the mere thought of creating an LGBT-inclusive workplace is apparently quiet disconcerting to these conservatives. Perkins even jabs, “Imagine the level of workplace harassment Christians would face if viewpoint coercion were official U.S. policy” — i.e. if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act were passed into law. Of course, if a guide were put out with suggestions for not harassing Christians, that would conceivably be just as chilling to free speech, at least by their standards.

Perkins takes exception that LGBT equality is about “forced acceptance,” but as blogger Alvin McEwen points out, it’s actually about “respect for a fellow human being.” Groups like Liberty Counsel and FRC specifically do not want LGBT employees to enjoy basic respect in the workplace, and that’s one of many reasons they are designated as hate groups.