I can not begin to describe how angry I am at this moment.
Disclosure: I am a FtoM Trans person. I am a male according to the State of Texas. Trans men are lucky that testosterone works very well to change the female body to a male body. Sadly, MtoF do not do as well.
I'm a conservative, and pretty vocal in my views. The one area that you might say I am liberal (I say I'm still consevative) is in helping people who's body does not line up with their mind or heart.
TG persons have lead the fight for equal treatment for decades, but, recently TG persons have been cast aside to further gay rights. I'm often accused of not supporting gay rights, but the truth is I don't support rights for others while leaving TG people behind. If you can't support the very people who have risked their very lives and health and been more vocal than anyone else, I can't support you.
If you support dropping TG people from the ENDA bill, you never supported TG people from either point of view.
HRC is dead to me now. I've donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to them in the past, that's over.
I hope you can sleep well knowing one group of people are being held out as too different to be considered equal.
To my brothers and sisters, we have fought long and hard, we won't give up now.
Ron
Transgender is a gender issue (currently to male or female). There are legal issues that the HRC and other "T supporters" have not thought through. Sexual preference or marital status is not an issue with any form of ID or application. Something simple; a transgendered with their ID (drivers license or passport) having their birth certificate assigned gender but with their outward appearance a different gender causes many issues and confusion. There needs to be more discussions on solutions dealing transgender issues. What has HRC offered as solutions? I feel that "T" is putting the cart before the horse.
Thanks for writing about this in depth. It has helped me to clarify my thoughts. It is tempting to go with Barney Frank and have some recognition but it just didn't sit right with me. Now I have the reasons why.
So this is how we thank the people that stood up and said "no more" at stonewall in 1969?
This is what you get when you let straight people take over our organizations.
I'm sure a Republican will be busted in Tearoom with a pre-op tranny hooker any minute now.
One thing I think everyone has to realize is this bill was not just for trans-persons, but for everyone.
The Price-Waterhouse decision by the Supreme Court in 1989 was not about a trans issues but about a woman who was not perceived feminine enough by her employers, it was about gender identity. This bill would have covered anyone who wasn
’t perceived masculine or the feminine enough for their gender.
Maybe Ahmadinejad was on to something when he spoke at Columbia the other day...he said that homosexuals don't exist...now Barney Frank is suggesting we get real quiet and let him and his girl Nancy do their thing...don't look behind the curtain...get invisible...we'll take care of you...
We should trust them, right?
No way.
I admire Barney Frank. One thing that strikes me about him, though, is his inability to perceive the symbolic. He is pragmatic to a fault. It only matters if you can get it done, he seems to think. Frank accepted the so-called compromise of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, insisting that the version he agreed to included Don't-Pursue. In practice there's been plenty of pursue.
Republicans are happy to indulge in huge splashy symbolism; witness the repeated introduction of the Anti-Marriage Amendments and such fireworks as the Sciavo bill. There are those who say the Republicans are letting down their strongest supporters because they haven't succeeded in outlawing abortion or inserting an anti-marriage amendment into the Constitution. Maybe. But the country is not virulently anti-abortion and it's getting more pro-gay all the time, yet the the Democrat's attempts have been mired in a sort of anti-symbolism, as though the only way they can get anything good done is if it's possible to sneak it by.
What makes me so angry is that this chaos and division is exactly what the so-called 'Conservative' gays hoped would happen. Andrew Sullivan, Jeff Gannan, and Matt Drudge have all hyped up their wacko base against this bill from the start claiming it is some "special rights" agenda. It is truly devastating when time and time again, it is deranged people from within our own community who feed the frenzy of hate.
Ron the Conservative: if you have been voting Republican, and for Bush, then you have helped create the exceptionally divisive, winner-takes-all environment.
I absolutely don't believe that anyone should be excluded from employment, housing etc. Anyone familiar with jurisprudence knows that law is made not only by legislatures but also by the courts in the way that they interpret the laws. With respect to the Don't ask, Don't tell policy, discresion was left to the military (which by nature are right wing freaks): so it actually increased discrimination. I think that in the Price-Waterhouse decision, the courts were able to broaden an interpretation. The difference in how courts operate and how the military does is significant(so they are two different tyes of instances). It seems to me that the bill needs to be written to be inclusive of gender descrimination of every kind. People are naturally physically ill defined sexually (J. Money etc.) and have no certain gender and that there is a similar overlap psychologically.
The matter is just not a simple or certain regarding cosmetic choices people make. On thing we can say is that "T's" are human beings. That's sufficient.
Jesse, I don't see any democrats leading the way, nor will any of the democrats running for president (who actually have a chance in hell) say they support any of us.
I was almost convinced by the piece I read by B. Frank (see link in post) regarding the incremental approach. I hesitated, but then thought perhaps his ideas made sense.
Then I read this post. Nice response. True incremental steps always include everyone, not only a part of the community.
Thanks Michelangelo (did yer mama give you that name) Signorile.
I don't think I have ever disagreed with you before now, Signorile.
Who the hell is anyone to tell me what "everybody" is on some minority rights legislation and what cutting some people out is? I argue that no minority rights bill ever included "everybody" as you claim it has. And who arbitrarily gets to decide for me what group I belong to? I have never been a fan of the silly GBLT label. How many more letters are you or someone else going to add to it and tell me that's the group I'm part of? I am and always have been part of the gay community.
Trangendered does NOT mean that a person picks a gender and sticks with it, it is fluid. Do we allow two IDs (one as a man and another as a woman) or will there be a new category?
What about passports? Will the trangendered person have to choose or do they get to have two passports (which is illegal)?
Public Bathrooms?
Health Insurance for sex changes? Health Insurance for T or Hormones? Health Insurance for Counseling that is required for sex changes?
Military Service?
I just think there are too many legal issues that need to be figured out. If you want an example, try ADA. The ADA had policy prepared, solutions suggested and supportive documentation. ADA also had given an allotted time for adjustment.
Maria:
People have figured out most of those "difficult legal arguments". We have the experience of legislation in over 90 municipalities to rely on.
And Lord, why do people obsess over bathrooms so much? Let's remember that Barney Frank had members of Congress who refused to share the gym with him after he came out. And really; I think we can stipulate that those who've been cornering the market on bathroom behavior stories lately aren't transgender people.
Questions of what health benefits to cover are on-going for every person. Lord knows there's enough contention that's gone on about abortion - but I don't hear anyone saying you should hold off on that right to choose until we get your insurance figured out.
But the really interesting question is - why do you think someone needs to figure out what letter to put on my drivers license before they can be told they can't discriminate against me? Why does what sex I'm seen as determine my right to earn a living?
Are you really saying I have to address all facets of the discrimination I face before I get employment rights? That's like saying gay people shouldn't have employment protections until they issues around marriage are figured out or don't ask don't tell or names reporting for HIV testing.
Kinda looney- isn't it?
Kathy in Philly -- you wrote "why do people obsess over bathrooms so much".
This is not a "bedroom issue" but a legal issue to identify those who are T. To be protected means you have to identify yourself as T. Transsexual people identify as, or desire to live and be accepted as, a member of the gender opposite to that assigned at birth.
Here is a question, what if a T wants to be referred to as a Female and checks the Female box. She would be legally lying. Because even though she is passing, she is genetically underneath the clothes a male. Legally that would be false information. What would be the solution so that the T would be protected. Add a third box to every form asking the question? If so, what would be the third box? Would it just be T? What if you don't want people to know you are T?
For example the boxes that we check on ALL forms of ID is either Male or Female. That is a simple question for those who are either Male or Female. But for a T it is not. What should the legal document have as options? One box that is for T? What about 5 boxes M, F, MTF, FTM, Other? What is other? What would all the various categories be a checked box? But again, MOST who are T want to pass as either Male or Female and want to be legally Male/Female.
Unlike the same-sex marriage issue, this doesn't affect your ID (Drivers, Passport ID). There is a big difference. When was the last legal form any person signed that required to know if you are gay or not?
Gender identity and transgender identity are fundamentally different legal issues than that of sexual orientation.
Note: be be protected as a transgender you have to identify as a transgender . I do not think that everyone understands the consequences or issues. It is much more complex than sexual orientation legally and should be handled differently.
Fine, Maria, handle it differently.
But handle it.
Ignoring it does nothing for anyone and perpetuates the myth that trans and intersex people don't exist and that its ok to shit on them.
I don't feel bad for the people that are paid to figure out how to create a form that will ask people to click a box to indicate their identity. Apparently this God person that everyone is so fond of wasn't all that interested in creating simple boxes for us to fit in.
No - to be protected as transgender or gay (or as a member of a race or religion) - you must be perceived as transgender or gay.
Just like if someone beats up a straight woman and their motivation was they thought she was a lesbian - it's a hate crime based on sexual orienation. If someone is fired because someone presumes they are transgender - they may or may not be transgender - it's still discrimination. No matter what little box they may have checked - or if they declined to check any box.
But your point makes a good case for getting rid of a sex check off box from job applications and such - no ones required to check off race or religion. Getting rid of those happened AFTER the non-discrimination bill was passed, by the way - not before. No one said - hey we have a race check off box - what if someone checks off a box & I disagree with what race or religion they say they are? Can I have them arrested?
Good Point concerning Race. Affirmative Action is about equal access to employment, education, social and financial security.
But the problem is identify, what transgendered person wants to check the box transgendered, they want to be the gender they decide. But that leads to legal documentation (passports, id).
I am not saying the solution is going to be easy, but I am very happy that the dialogue is happening. This is exciting. Maybe we can find a solution to appeal to both transgendered and legal with the laws and documentation.
How many transgendered person had to prove who they were? It is a humiliating process. Lets make it an easy process for the not only the transgendered person but also those who want to protect.
Maria I find your thought insensitive and insulting. I may have been born with a male body, but i was NEVER a man. I seat of consciousness is the brain is it not? Mine say I'm a female.
Your essentialist argument just doesn't hold water in theory or practice. What do you do with girls with Complete Androgen Insufficiency Syndrome? They are genetically male (XY) and yet appear female in all respects. There are many such exceptions that render your argument useless.
I am not a "transgendered" person. I am a WOMAN with a birth condition. This is a common ploy to marginalize people born transsexual, to categorize them "other" against their wishes. Shame on you.
My gender is not fake or chosen. It just is. My gender is just as authentic as yours. I was simply born with a birth condition that I'm almost done fixing. Keep your elitist BS to yourself. I suggest you try reading "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano if you need further explanation.
Get educated before you say anything else insulting and plain stupid. A good place for you to start might be http://www.LynnConway.com
Proudly Female
"I am not a "transgendered" person. I am a WOMAN with a birth condition."
Thank you for showing how complex this really is. xrk9854 is not a transgendered person, therefore should there be a separate bill to protect those with this medical condition? I say yes.
Maria:
You've convinced me - there should be a separate bill for people who have trouble understanding the current one.
Good luck.
The Lesbians and Gay men who support dropping transgender protections from ENDA should be ashamed of themselves. All LGBT folk are transgender people!!! All of us have a non-traditional approach to gender; that's what "transgender" means! Did it ever occur to some of you who vociferously proclaim yourselves to be "all-woman" or "all-man" that you really aren't? That your sexual orientation is an expression of a gender identity that's neither male nor female? The letters "LGBT" are grouped together for a reason; it's not just for convenience! Gay Rights pioneer Magnus Hirschfeld called us the Third Sex, and recent scientific research seems to prove him more right than wrong. Transgender, not "queer", is the word that unites us, and it's high time we came to grips with that fact. We must keep solidarity with our transsexual brothers and sisters, because that's what they are. If we turn our backs on them, we are expressing the deepest kind of self-hatred, and disowning part of our family.
LGBT: Here is my general understanding.
GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL are social terms to describe someone who is sexually attracted to the same-sex (or both sexes as in the case of bisexual). These are sexual orientation social labels.
TRANSGENDER is a gender identity issue.
What are Transgender Americans?
1. Transsexuals
A transsexual is a person who has changed, or is in the process of changing, his or her physical sex to conform to his or her internal sense of gender identity.The term can also be used to describe people who,
without undergoing medical treatment, identify and live their lives full-time as a member of the gender
opposite their birth sex.Transsexuals transitioning from male to female are often referred to as “MTFs.”
Similarly, female-to-male transsexuals are frequently called “FTMs.”
2. Cross-dressers
Cross-dressers wear the clothing and/or accoutrements, such as makeup and accessories, that are considered
by society to correspond to the “opposite sex.” Cross-dressers can be either male-to-female or
female-to-male.
Unlike transsexuals, they typically do not seek to change their physical characteristics permanently,
or desire to live full-time as the opposite gender. (Cross-dressers are sometimes called transvestites,
but that term is considered pejorative today.)
3. Gender Non-Conforming/Genderqueer
There are many people who are not transsexuals or cross-dressers, but who still express a non-standard
gender identity or don’t conform to traditional gender norms. Often, these individuals identify
as gender non-conforming or genderqueer.
There are gender non-conforming women who act “butch,” or in a stereotypically masculine manner,
and men who act “femme,” or in a stereotypically feminine manner, but do not identify as the opposite
gender and do not present themselves as such full-time.Not all transgender people fit neatly into
one of these subcategories, because the range of expression of gender identity is so great.
Those are definitions from HRC.og (Transgender Americans: A Handbook for Understanding).
Transgender are NOT about seuxal orientation. It is about gender. This is all about male/female or none of the above. It is not about who you want to sleep with.
Many Transgender do not consider themselves Transgender. They are the gender they are on the inside and some take measure to make sure both match inside and outward appearance.
How do protect Transgender people if most Transgender do not consider themselves Transgender but a specific gender?
Lets talk about solutions rather debate if they should be treated fairly. What do we do about passports, driver's licenses, and birth certificates. What about those who are teachers (The most issues is dealing with parents, children are most unconditional)? What can we do as a society to make the Transgender is more visible in society?
One of the biggest problems is Unemployment and under-employment are huge issues for transgen
From: Speaker Pelosi
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:43 PM
Subject: PELOSI -- Miller, Frank and Baldwin Statement on ENDA
Contact: Brendan Daly/Drew Hammill, 202-226-7616
Monday, October 1, 2007
Pelosi, Miller, Frank and Baldwin Statement on ENDA
Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, Congressman Barney Frank, and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin issued the following statement today on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
"After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage of ENDA, we have agreed to schedule mark-up of the bill in the Committee on Education and Labor later this month, followed by a vote in the full House. This schedule will allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with Members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill."
I called into the show the other day and said this...but it seems that it needs to be said again.
The "trans" part of the bill is NOT just important for people who are transgendered. It protects people from being discriminated against because of their gender identity AND EXPRESSION. A large majority of people who have variant gender expressions do not identify as transgendered. So (although I think we need to talk about trans issues as well) let's remember that this isn't a debate about trans issues.
Are you (even slightly) butch for a woman? Are you (even a little bit) feminine for a man? Then this is about you. This is not just about FTMs and MTFs and genderqueer folk (although - obviously - an inclusive ENDA would be hugely important for them). This is about everyone who doesn't fit into society's neat little concept of what a man or a woman should be.
The gender identity & expression part of ENDA applies to almost every GLB person I know (and quite a few straight people, too).
P.S. In response to some of Maria's comments.....
Why do we need "M or F" boxes at all? Why is it anyone's business what genitalia and/or chromosomes I have anyway!? I don't think anyone needs to know other than me, my doctor, and my lover(s).
Why do we need "M or F" boxes at all? Why is it anyone's business what genitalia and/or chromosomes I have anyway!?
I agree. But every country in the entire world has a passport requirement to travel. So far I have heard nothing but anger and rightly so.
But what are the solutions?
Also, if a transgendered doesn't see themselves as transgendered, then how do you protect them? A transgender person wants to be viewed not what is their birth assigned gender -- then what do we do to protect them?
What about legal documentation that require a gender? What about medical emergency? How do we protect the transgenered who is going through customs (real life stories) and they have to prove their gender.
We need solutions! So piss off if you don't like what I am saying. It is a gender issue. Do they need protection? Absolutely!!!!
To be protected as a transgendered you have to say you are transgendered. Why not ask a transgendered person do they view themselves to be transgendered or male/female. Very few % will say transgendered, while most will say male/female. What is the solution? Force everyone who does not publicly portray what is on their birth certificate to wear a badge? We are not a Nazi Country (although it feels like it sometimes).
If you can't grasp your mind around this serious subject, let me explain it simply put.
If you want to protect trangendered woman (mtf pre-op) but she wants to be considered a female....then she does not view herself as transgendered! We have to broaden this bill... transgendered only fits a small percent of those it deems to represent. When does the protection of being a transgender start and if a transgendered fully makes the body change are they still transgender? Or are they the gender after the operation? If so, do they still get protected? If so, does not the post-op went through such change to be more complete and have the right to be considered a male/female? Or do we still label them transgendered?
These are questions I do not hear anyone asking! I am asking. To assume that this is legal protection for those who are butch or femme is quite limited.
Do we need a box that says male or female? That is a good question...do that mean gender is not an identifiable element? What would you say would be the alternative? How do you prove yourself? If anyone has traveled outside the US it is important.
Lets talk about solutions that protect everyone and help those who protect.
No, here's what doesn't wash, gays and lesbians in New York and California telling gays and lesbians in Alabama, Kansas, Texas, Florida, Utah, Indiana, Georgia, etc., etc., etc. that ENDA is not urgent because New York and California already have gay rights laws.
The choice is not between an inclusive ENDA and a non-inclusive ENDA. The choice is between an ENDA that can pass now and one that can't pass for another decade. Supporters of an inclusive ENDA, including Lambda Legal, should stop hiding the fact that their asking for another decade of delay in passing a bill that has already been pending for over three decades.
I hate that the trans rights movement is 10 to 20 years behind the gay rights movement, but the simple political reality is that is it. Leaving gays and lesbians outside the two coasts without legal protection will do nothing to change that.
Steve - Good point. What about the middle America who desperately need the law with or without "t".
Maria you are being needlessly combative. Even snarky with your previous response to me. I openly expressed who I am and once again you belittle me. You need a course in interpersonal communications; insulting people doesn't help get anything done.
I disagree with Steve about the prospects for an inclusive bill. True it probably won't pass this year, but in all likelyhood has an excellent chance in '09. You seem to think that this is still the 90's. Progress happens and continues to do so. People are becoming, even if begrudgingly, more educated all the time, including about trans issues.
You are trying to use fear (a la Bush/Cheney) to get your way. It's important that the community remains united; we are stronger united than divided.
Also Steve maybe you need to brush up on you GBLT history. Trans people are NOT Johnny come latelys. We were there at Comptons and we were there at Stonewall.
There are no easy solutions. Throwing trans people under the bus may seem inviting, but it is really a victory for the bad guys because they would have succeeded in dividing and conquering the community. Sticking together and showing those bastards that we don't hold anyones civil liberties up for negotiation is the best way to show them we mean business. Just look what happened today. There was such a uproar over Franks effort to push an exclusionary bill that they had to change their plans. Why? Because they know we mean business.
Now let's go kick some congressional butt!
And another thing. Did you hear about the contents of Franks (Uncle Tom's) bill? He was selling you a bill of goods. Check it out:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon07/
...100107endup.htm
See? You can't trust this guy, he was trying to screw you as well.
xrk9854 - I have not been combative, but I guess it is the flaw of using text, it is in the interpretation of the reader.
There are no easy solutions. So what are some of the solutions? Do we get rid of gender identification all together?
But you wrote, "I am not a "transgendered" person. I am a WOMAN with a birth condition." - which means even when the laws pass to protect trangendered person -- you do not count yourself as a transgendered.
To be protected as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered person you have to be counted and labeled such. If you want to be protected as a lesbian, I have to say I am a lesbian.
So, please with all request for understanding, if only a small % of transgendered consider themselves transgendered while other are either male or female how do you suppose the law is to protect them? How does any law protect a transgendered person if they are not counted -- your own words "I am not a "transgendered" person. I am a WOMAN with a birth condition."
Are you saying this is a medical condition and should be protected as a medical condition? When transgendered protection law passes how will that protect you if you not transgendered?
"To be protected as a transgendered you have to say you are transgendered."
As the bill doesn't specify "transgendered", but rather protects people from discrimination based on their gender identity and expression, this is not an issue. It doesn't matter whether or not you see yourself as transgendered. If someone else does, or if someone simply thinks that you're not "girly" enough to be a woman, and discriminates against you based on that...this bill is about protecting you. Whether or not you identify as trans has nothing to do with the bill.
This applies for the sexual orientation part of the bill, as well. It doesn't matter how you identify. If someone discriminates against you because they THINK that you're a lesbian, the bill would protect you.
When transgendered protection law passes how will that protect you if you not transgendered?
Maria | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 9:56 am | #
========================
Are you purposly misunderstanding these issues?
Again - if a man is fired because someone thinks he's gay - but he isn't gay or doesn't identify as gay or is bisexual or identifies as "smae gender loving" or is a a transsexual man who is gay .....wait for it...........
it's still discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It's not the identity of the person who is discriminated against that matters - it's the presumption of the person discriminating.
A law covering gender ID & the characteristics of gender expression would cover lesbians if the employer says - "hey - I didn't fire her because she's a lesbian - I fired her because she's just too butch for my clientele". Which of couse has happened.
But - you know that- don't you?
I guess I hear everyone talking about it should be included. But how do you really protect them?
What about ID with gender being an identifier? People who have been mistaken that they are a man being kicked out of a restaurant for using the female bathroom. MTF travels overseas and customs stops them because what it says on their passport doesn't match what the agent sees and they have to 'prove' their sex.
To be protected, to being able to go the bathroom without being kicked out of the restaurant - how does this protect us? Will this end up with GLBT community having a special mark on their passport of driver license? How do we prove we are who we are without pulling down our pants?
I am not trying to be "purposly misunderstanding these issues" and I trying to see the consequences. Are we so focused on the bill that we are not prepared for what might happen when it comes law? It is scaring the crap out of me.
Unlike protecting someone based on color this is not identifiable.
I am not trying to be "purposly misunderstanding these issues" and I trying to see the consequences.
=======================
Al of those issues are always addressed in implementation guidelines or regulation - not in a bill.
Go look at the Guidelines the city of DC wrote after they passed their gender ID bill. Or SF or Boston or NYC - etc., etc. etc.
"Go look at the Guidelines the city of DC wrote after they passed their gender ID bill. Or SF or Boston or NYC - etc., etc. etc."
Right... So again we put the cart before the horse.
Rolling the dice with lives. SF, Boston, NYC and DC are NOT alike. The "vibe of it" is not acceptable. It seems that HRC has failed again.
Knowing this would be a debate, why not handover the guidelines or consequences with the bill just as the ADA?
I guess we know that we have to wait until another midwest gay dies before any will happen.
The Bill is on hold.
It actually write as a definition:
(9) SEXUAL ORIENTATION- The term `sexual orientation' means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
I wonder what the definition will be for gender identity?
NOTE: if you are a volunteer you are excluded.
NOTE: if you work for a religious organization your are excluded.
I am not going to say what is really on my mind because it surely will be misconstrued.
What I will say is what a wonderful world it would be if everyone got everything they wanted.... but no society on earth has come close to that.
Historically, most positive changes do come in incremental steps while unfortunately the negative changes seem to come in massive actions.
For me the question is no ENDA better than an imperfect ENDA?
I guess we know that we have to wait until another midwest gay dies before any will happen.
Maria | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:28 am | #
================
As someone who's been shot at and known 4 transgender women murdered in hate crimes - I think you're full of crap.
"What about ID with gender being an identifier? People who have been mistaken that they are a man being kicked out of a restaurant for using the female bathroom. MTF travels overseas and customs stops them because what it says on their passport doesn't match what the agent sees and they have to 'prove' their sex.
To be protected, to being able to go the bathroom without being kicked out of the restaurant - how does this protect us? Will this end up with GLBT community having a special mark on their passport of driver license? How do we prove we are who we are without pulling down our pants? "
I'm sorry, but remind me again how this relates to ENDA? Because, I'm pretty sure that ENDA stands for the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act". Including "gender identity and expression" in the bill would simply prevent someone from firing or not hiring you based on your gender identity or expression. It wouldn't solve every problem that the trans community faces, but it's a definite start.
The debate over identification (and whether or not anyone should have to put their gender on their ID) is a completely seperate issue.
And with that, I'm going to try my best to stop responding to your posts, Maria. I don't think that anyone here is going to shed any light on this issue for you, and trying to do so is just frustrating me. I hope that someone, someday, can make you understand.
Peace.
(and YAY!!! about the announcement that they're postponing the vote and that it will be an inclusive ENDA)
PS - Once again...Why should anyone have to prove who they are by pulling down their pants?? Gender doesn't prove who you are. We could eliminate the sex/gender category on IDs completely. That would simplify things tremendously.
We could eliminate the sex/gender category on IDs completely.
OK then what will be an identifier?
Maria, not only are most of your objections unrelated to "employment", most of them aren't even issues.
Trans people can get their birth certificates corrected to reflect their true sex once they have the appropriate surgery in 47 states.
A trans person can get a limited 1-year passport with her sex marker matching her identity even before she has corrective surgery. Once she has surgery, she can get her sex marker changed permanently. Similarly, once a trans person has had the appropriate surgery, she can get her records updated with the SSA.
And so on...
The biggest issue with regard to identification is that most states will not let you change your legal sex and gender markers until you have surgery. Which is unfortunate, particularly for those who can't (or won't) have surgery. But this really isn't an issue that urgently requires federal intervention compared to making employment discrimination illegal.
All of my documentation matches my gender identity, but that didn't prevent my transphobic former employer from firing me once he found out I was trans...
Ok, I give in. One more thing.
How is gender an identifier in the first place? Everyone is shoved into one of two categories. Does that really narrow down the possibilities of who you are? Wouldn't your license that has a photo of you on it prove who you are, even if it didn't say whether you were male or female??
Further - if there are questions regarding the application of the law, they could be resolved in court once the inclusive ENDA is law.
If someone is claiming they were being denied gender/orientation protections at work based on ENDA, they can sue and the court can decide how to apply the law and whether or not it is a reasonable claim.
I'd much rather see a judge make these determinations than a politician, a religious zealot or an anonymous person writing in a blog.
Don't let Frank and Pelosi decide what is important. Left to their devices everything is for sale - the constitution, the budget, and our votes.
Trans was added to ENDA without thought as to whether there were votes there in support. Either find out how to get those votes or pass ENDA as originally written. Building support for LGB ENDA was the ONLY thing the HRC did correctly over the years.
Where were the rest of you all when the HRC was ignoring everything else progressive in order to fete its conservative base? Now that it is YOUR rights that are off the table, now it is okay to pile on the HRC?
-marc
Commenting by HaloScan
