... every State action since 2003 has included 'gender identity', all eleven of them.
Among jurisdictions that provide protection for sexual orientation and gender identity, the population voting for both outnumbers those with just one by a nearly two-and-half-to-one margin (38% to just 15%).Dropping 'gender identity' bucks the trend, as every State action since 2003 has included 'gender identity', all eleven of them. Not one exception or qualification.
With nearly 53% of the voting public covered by some sort of workplace non-discrimination, one would think that it would not be that far a jump to finish up the rest at the Federal level, given that national polls suggest over 60% support to do so. Why are the Democrats having such a problem?
The more one looks at the trends and the numbers, the more perplexing a "strategy" to move forward without gender identity seems oddly calibrated.
Table: Sexual Orientation (SO) and Gender Identity (GI) Non-discrimination by State, with some adjustments for city ordinances
| Both GI and SO | % | TG Added | SO only | % | Added | |
| Minnesota | 1.8% | 1993 | Wisconsin | 1.8% | 1982 | |
| Rhode Island | 0.5% | 2001 | Massachusetts | 2.3% | 1989 | |
| New Mexico | 0.7% | 2003 | Connecticut | 1.1% | 1991 | |
| California | 12.2% | 2003 | New Hampshire | 0.5% | 1997 | |
| Illinois | 4.4% | 2005 | Nevada | 0.7% | 1999 | |
| Maine | 0.5% | 2005 | Maryland | 1.8% | 2001 | |
| Hawaii | 0.5% | 2005 | New York | 6.7% | 2002 | |
| New Jersey | 3.0% | 2006 | 14.9% | |||
| Washington | 2.1% | 2006 | Trans Lcl Ordinance | -4.2% | ||
| Iowa | 1.1% | 2007 | SO Only Lcl Ordinance+ | 4.5% | ||
| Oregon | 1.1% | 2007 | Net Total SO: | 15.2% | ||
| Vermont | 0.2% | 2007 | ||||
| Colorado | 1.6% | 2007 | ||||
| 29.7% | Total Population | 53.2% | ||||
| Local Ordinance | 8.3% | Covered: | ||||
| Total: | 38.0% |
*Based on 2000 census population figures and this list of jurisdictions.
+SO Only local ordinance is a plug based on total population covered, 53%, written up here.
