VT Dems to pioneer trans-inclusive bylaws

Funny thing about gender-inclusive language in various settings — like, for instance, political party bylaws. It’s necessary to ensure equitable treatment of women, but it can have the unintended consequence of limiting transgender participation.

How so? Well, take the Vermont Democratic Party bylaw mandating that its chair and vice-chair be of “opposite” gender. Which is fine if you’re only considering males and females. But what about those who are “crossing the river,” or even choosing to live on an island in the river? They aren’t the “opposite” of anybody.

They’d seem to be SOL, right? After all, if a person is in transition, or considers themselves to be something other than absolutely male or female, they’d be left out of the “opposite gender” mandate.

At the very least, when the party’s own rules define gender as a male/female construct, there’s a tacit exclusion of transgender people.

Well, at its meeting on Saturday, the Democratic State Committee asked its Bylaws Subcommittee to propose trans-inclusive language in three specific places in the bylaws. And apparently it’s the first Democratic state party to initiate this process. “We’ve queried other state committees across the country,” said State Committee member Matt Levin, “and no one has figured this out.”

So the Vermont Democrats will be the pioneers, it seems.

The Bylaw Subcommittee will devise trans-inclusive language for three areas of the bylaws:

— A sentence stating that the party accepts gender as “non-binary.”

— Each county has three delegates to the State Committee. Currently, each county’s delegation must include at least one man and one woman. The new bylaw will retain the call for inclusiveness without the trans-exclusionary binary language.

— The new bylaw will state that the chair and vice-chair should “not be of the same gender,” instead of “opposite gender.”

The goal is to devise new language in time for a State Committee vote at its next meeting, in mid-September.

Even if the new language is adopted, there will still be one important place where the party will be trans-exclusionary. The state party has two members on the Democratic National Committee: one Committeeman and one Committeewoman. The VDP can’t do anything about that, because those are the national rules. But perhaps the VDP’s example will be followed by others.

To those who haven’t encountered these issues personally, this can seem awfully picayune and excessively PC. But for those affected, inclusive places and organizations are havens of welcome in an often-unfriendly world. Besides, it’s really not hard to do. And the more inclusive the party is, the stronger it is.

2 thoughts on “VT Dems to pioneer trans-inclusive bylaws

  1. NanuqFC

    As I understand it, a significant portion of transmen and transwomen seek to be men (period) and women (period), and would be included under a binary framework as members of one of those two genders. Strictly speaking, the current language does not exclude transmen and transwomen per se. It is, however, not inclusive of those who reject the binary gender framework, who identify as somewhere along a gender continuum, rather than at one end or the other.

    There are those who would prefer doing away with gender specificity altogether. Perhaps times and attitudes have changed enough that the presumption of male competence, dominance, and entitlement among Democrats is no longer operative. I’m not so sure: just look at the fact that there is one statewide elected official who is female. Vermont has never elected a woman to the House or the Senate, and has ever elected only one woman as governor.

    I’m not opposed to writing inclusive language into the bylaws. If the party wants diversity and openness, we have to invite and include people not yet in the tent and make sure they have equitable representation. And we should be in consultation with members of the populations we hope to include.

    1. John S. Walters Post author

      “A significant number” do. But some are in transition, and many feel artificially constrained (or simply excluded) by being forced to choose. As I understand it, the Dems want to make their bylaws more inclusive without taking a step back on male/female equity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s