
Bowick addresses council; Councilors Mejia and Breadon on the right.
Boston city councilors today declared Boston a sanctuary city for transgender people - but said that's only the start of drafting specific ordinances to back that up.
The 12-1 vote was for a non-binding resolution sponsored by Councilors Julia Mejia (at large) and Liz Breadon (Allston/Brighton) that also includes other LGBTQ people, but councilors emphasized that now comes the hard work of developing specific protections, similar to the way the city's existing Trust Act prohibits Boston Police from cooperating with ICE raids of immigrants not facing criminal charges.
As always, Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown) cast the lone no vote. Flynn, who has long supported LGBTQ-related efforts, said he was not opposed to the basic idea, but, as always, he wants to do his "due diligence" and have a hearing to learn what impact the non-binding resolution would have on other city ordinances and efforts such as the Trust Act.
Councilor Henry Santana (at large), who has been active in LGBTQ affairs, voted for the resolution, but said he was hesitant at first, also not because he opposes the basic idea, but because he thought the better idea would be to draft and pass a local law with specific protections, rather than a non-binding resolution.
But Chastity Bowick, head of a new group fighting for trans rights in Boston, said, "as taxpayers, as people who are paying this high rent in Boston, who are going over these potholes in Boston," the community needed to hear from its elected officials - who had not publicly spoken since the current regime was inaugurated in January.
The resolution came after Cambridge and Worcester passed similar measures. Mejia said she originally planned to introduce her proposal on Feb. 12, but withdrew it in part because of concerns from other councilors about "the heat Boston was already taking" over the Trust Act.
Mejia, Breadon and other councilors, including Gabriela Coletta Zapata (North End, Charlestown, East Boston), however, said they agreed it was time for Boston to take a stand - both in general because of increasingly bitter efforts to deny trans people in particular their humanity, one the day after a Republican committee chairperson in Congress referred to Sarah McBride, Delaware's representative, as "Mr. McBride."
"We are losing, actively, our morality, to not respect the dignity and humanity of others," Coletta Zapata said.
"We are up against what seems like Goliath in this fight," she said, but added the council has done hard things before - such as enacting the Trust Act - and she's ready to get to work.
Councilor Sharon Durkan (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway, Mission Hill) said the resolution doesn't go nearly far enough and that she's not sure Boston is really a sanctuary city: "I don't feel like we are a sanctuary city when our rent is high, when you can't afford your groceries, when you can't get a PCP when your health-care research funding is being stripped by the federal government."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Is Flynn actually going to perform diligent acts?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 2:44pm
Or is this an OJ looking for the "real killers" thing?
He would if he could, but he can't so he won't
By adamg
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 3:40pm
The way the council works: Possible ordinances are introduced at the council's Wednesday meetings, then get referred to a specific committee for at least one public hearing involving, typically, several panels of experts/advocates along with an open mic for residents to comment. Then there's at least one "working session" where committee members fine-tune whatever the proposal is, which then goes back to the full council for a discussion and vote.
The thing is, and Flynn knows this, obviously, is what the council voted on today is NOT an ordinance: It was a non-binding resolution. The council approves those without a hearing by the bushel every single week, in fact, right after the vote on the trans resolution, the council approved a resolution declaring today "School Social Worker Appreciation Day" in Boston.
And just in case it wasn't clear, proponents of the trans sanctuary resolution made it clear, over and over, that it was just a resolution, one with as much force in law as the declaration of School Social Worker Appreciation Day (nothing against school social workers), that it was sort of just a stepping stone to declare that proponents (Mejia and Breadon, basically, but with other councilors signing on) would develop and file actual proposed ordinances, things that, if approved, would have some force of law, but that in the meantime, given what's happening in this country, that trans residents deserved some statement of support from their elected officials.
But for some reason, Flynn decided the resolution needed more study. So 12-1 vote - on a basic issue he has long supported: That Boston's trans residents are deserving of the same protections and freedoms as every other Boston resident.
Ill be honest , I'm not sure
By Anonymous
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 9:30pm
Ill be honest , I'm not sure if he's totally wrong here.
If you call yourself a sanctuary city there's some expectations. I think calling it a sanctuary city without putting any real protections in is not actually a good take.
I think we now have an answer
By South Ender
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 3:37pm
I think we now have an answer to this question:
Ed Flynn is one of Michelle Wu’s loudest critics on the Boston City Council. Is he needlessly obstructionist, or needed balance?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/02/metro/ed-flynn-boston-city-counci...
Good news
By cliff
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 4:41pm
But what protections are afforded the Trans community that are not available to them in the city of Boston before this resolution?
Like the story says ...
By adamg
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 9:22pm
This doesn't change anything - it's basically saying councilors will now get to work drafting actual protections.
Mass General Law already covers it
By deselby
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 10:49pm
I can't think of anything they could do that would not be redundant of the law which already ban discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations according to "gender identity," MGL 151B, and the other state laws.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-la...
in other words, a waste of time.
The Boston city Council
By StillFromDorchester
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 2:01am
Never lets an opportunity to Virtue Signal pass.
Necessary sometimes
By Anonymous
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 9:47am
During times of upheaval, virtue signaling is necessary to let a very nervous segment of your citizenry know that their city has their back. This is one of those times.
If I had a nickel
By Transphobia Watch
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 12:34pm
As soon as I saw this article, I knew at least one of our resident transphobes would show up and make a transphobic comment.
Let trans folks decide whether this is a waste of time because there are already laws. Talk to some of us about how well it actually works to shrug and say that support and advocacy isn't needed because transphobia is already illegal. There's no reason for a cis person, especially one who constantly posts transphobic comments, to spout off about how supporting queer communities is a waste of time.
Adam, can you remove this nonsense? Gender identity is a thing that exists and does not need scare quotes. Our legislature has determined that it is a protected characteristic. If someone doesn't like that, they're welcome to contact their representative.
Also, how long are you going to let yourself be trolled? This troll has gone so far as to name this one of their sock puppets after a character who is famously anti-science, in case the transphobic comments somehow didn't get your attention, which they seem to not have. And you're just letting it post as if it's in good faith? FFS.
People can't seek sanctuary
By chaosjake
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 4:56pm
People can't seek sanctuary here if they can't afford to live here. And the delta between the cost of living in Boston and the rural corners of red states where trans people are most endangered makes it nearly impossible to get a fresh start here.
People can't seek sanctuary
By chaosjake
Wed, 03/12/2025 - 4:58pm
People can't seek sanctuary here if they can't afford to live here. And the delta between the cost of living in Boston and the rural corners of red states where trans people are most endangered makes it nearly impossible to get a fresh start here.
They can ... and are
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 10:50pm
Not every in-migration requires an entire living unit. See also: Boston 1943. It isn't optimal, but people can and do pack friends and family in to their existing spaces when extraordinary events demand it.
There are a lot of people who are over-housed who may take in boarders when it is a matter of life and death.
Among a number of other
By Frelmont
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 8:02am
Among a number of other considerations I suggest that he may have wanted to not be patronizing.
Not quite what it says
By Transphobia Watch
Thu, 03/13/2025 - 12:41pm
The resolution does contain this one sentence, which is great, but throughout it refers to "the LGBTQIA2S+ community" rather than specifically trans folks. This matters, because one of the talking points of Trump and his supporters is that they're not queerphobic because Trump has a couple of (white, cis, abled, rich) gay friends. This is a common misstep among cishet folks, thinking that somewhere is inclusive of queer folks because a few normative gay men are included, but failing to recognize that you have no trans folks.
While the policies of his administration are harmful to, well, everyone, and do target wider marginalized populations, he is specifically waging a targeted genocide on trans folks. This needs to be acknowledged more. Politicians are using language referring to the broader community to be more palatable, and it reads to trans folks as a bit all-lives-matter at this point. It would be great to see commitment to specifically protecting trans folks, but this is only a step in the right direction.
A resolution to be resolute in our resolve
By registeredUser2
Fri, 03/14/2025 - 11:38am
Dissolve the city council.
Add comment