Poll

do you agree with this law as it is written?

Yes
6 (75%)
No
2 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 4

Author Topic: civil rights  (Read 10817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Leigh

civil rights
« on: July 18, 2005, 12:59:58 am »
.  The prohibitions in this Chapter against discriminating on the basis of gender identity do not prohibit:

1.  Health or athletic clubs or other entities that operate gender-specific facilities involving public nudity such as showers and locker rooms, from requiring an individual to document their gender or transitional status. Such documentation can include but   is not limited to a court order, letter from a physician, birth certificate, passport, or driver’s license.



Terri-Gene

Re: civil rights
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2005, 01:10:28 am »
If I interpet that right, I see it as an excellent solution Leigh.  It allows any <transgender> person to have unlimited access, but protects the mainstream clientel from entry by any that can't show a form of documented proof that they are legitimately female, or male identified, and most of those that are can show at least a drivers licence, which would be a form of proof that is usually easy for any totally female or male identified person to produce, and of course if they have it, chances are excellent they also can obtain a letter from a qualified therapysts, hard for me to understand anyone objecting to such an arrangement.  That is, if I read it the way I think I do.

And it seems to me at least to say that it is not required to show proof, only that the managment can check if it wants to if in any doubt, or as a standard proceedure for the emotional comfort of it's clientel....I'm not to keen about that "not limited to" though, thats a little to open to be taken advantage of by some.  It would seem to mean none of the above have to be accepted as "proof" with what is final not specified.

Terri

Offline Susan

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Reputation: +225/-0
  • Gender: Female
    • Susan's Place Transgender Resources
Re: civil rights
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2005, 03:05:25 am »
I voted no for one reason. Either they should demand that everyone shows id or they should not be able to demand it of anyone. You are a Postop TS in the restroom and in comes the employee who demands you alone show id what are all the other women in the restroom going to think then?
Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! You can also view the donor wall of fame.

Terri-Gene

Re: civil rights
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2005, 03:31:21 am »
I voted yes Susan.  I see a major flaw in it, but it is start and a foothold in terms of law and public education.  By not demanding id be shown, but allowing it, it opens up some areas that would be more lax, but places safegards for areas that feel it is needed.  Politically it is what they call a "compromise" with a bone thrown to both sides of the issue.  Such things are not an end all, but they work well for intermediate transition to a true understanding of each others problems with such issues.

I'd rather have something like this then chance nothing at all, and a few individual inconvieniences is worth a hugh step forward for the many.  It may not seem fair or right, but asking birth identified women or men to prove thier status would be an insult to them and would make them less likely to vote for such a proposal because of what they would have to give up in order to accomodate us.  We have to get used to small steps rather then one killer piece of legislation, thats just to hard to achieve all at once.  Thats just the nature of the animal and we have to earn it's confidence before we can lye down with it and sleep easy.

Terri

Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2005, 08:58:20 am »
What is says by using the words "not limited to".  A DL may have an F but they can also ask for a letter from a Dr. to verify that you are anatomically correct to validate participation in a venue where nudity is common.

This is totally seperate from the bathroom only issue.  Bathrooms would be under public accomodations.

Terri-Gene

Re: civil rights
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2005, 09:58:05 am »
I would hope that is the intent of the "not limited" to,  LeighAnn, though it doesn't state specifically that any of the other qualifiers, even all put together would be sufficient to a particular manager or what other criteria may be included, as the way written, I could easily see that as being open.

That is the only loophole, with lawyers involved, that I would see a problem with in this but I wouldn't really think of it as all that great a problem, just the occassional terrifically uptight establishment which most wouldn't be comfortable in anyway.

Anyway, It sounds like a proper step to me.  Is this out of actual legislation, pending legislation, or just a considered piece of wording?

Terri


Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2005, 10:11:02 am »
This is the law for the city (Portland) and the county (Multnomah).

I excerpted the relevant identity issues.

http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28187

 
23.01.020 Intent. - 

(Amended by Ordinance No. 175158, effective January 15, 2001.) The City Council finds that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and source of income exists in the City of Portland and that state law does not clearly prohibit such discrimination.

It is the intent of the Council, in the exercise of its powers for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare and for the maintenance of peace and good government, that every individual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the life of the City and that discriminatory barriers to equal participation in employment, housing, and public accommodations be removed

C. “Gender Identity” – a person’s actual or perceived sex, including a person’s identity, appearance, expression or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, expression or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s sex at birth.
   
23.01.040 Exceptions. - \

(Amended by Ordinance No. 175158, effective January 15, 2001.)
A. The prohibitions in this Chapter against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity do not apply:

1. To the leasing or renting of a room or rooms within an individual living unit which is occupied by the lessor as his or her residence;

2. To dwellings with not more than two individual living units where one of the units is owner occupied;

3. To space within a church, temple, synagogue, religious school, or other facility used primarily for religious purposes.

C. The prohibitions in this Chapter against discriminating on the basis of gender identity do not prohibit:

1. Health or athletic clubs or other entities that operate gender-specific facilities involving public nudity such as showers and locker rooms, from requiring an individual to document their gender or transitional status. Such documentation can include but is not limited to a court order, letter from a physician, birth certificate, passport, or driver’s license.

2. Otherwise valid employer dress codes or policies, so long as the employer provides, on a case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation based on the health and safety needs of persons protected on the basis of gender identity.
 
3. The above exceptions do not excuse a failure to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations permitting all persons access to restrooms consistent with their expressed gender.

23.01.060 Discrimination in Selling, Renting, or Leasing Real Property Prohibited.
(Amended by Ordinance No. 175158, effective January 15, 2001.)

B. In addition, it shall be unlawful to discriminate in selling, renting, or leasing real property on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older except as is excluded in ORS 659.033 subsection 6 (a) and (b), by committing against any such individual any of the acts already made unlawful under ORS 659.033 when committed against the categories of persons listed therein.

23.01.070 Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation Prohibited -

B. In addition, it shall be unlawful in public accommodations to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income or familial status, by committing against any such individual any of the acts already made unlawful under ORS 659.037 or ORS 30.670 to 30.685 when committed against the categories of persons listed therein.

Sandi

Re: civil rights
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2005, 10:21:38 am »
Health and athletic clubs require membership. You would show your gender specific proof only to join, after that you are issued an membership ID. You flash your membership card and get a towel or whatever and use the facililties.

But it isn't a discrimination issue, it is a privacy and respect thing.

That said I still couldn't vote because it isn't whether or not you have letters from psychologists and/or doctors, this is one rare case when it's what is between your legs that counts. A penis doesn't belong in the woman's facilities, and a vagina doesn't belong in the men's facilities. PERIOD.


Sandi

Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2005, 10:26:31 am »
A health club may ask for a letter from your surgeon that surgery has been completed.

This has happened more than once since enactment of the ordinance.


Offline Dennis

  • Fishin' Fool
  • Family
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,636
  • Reputation: +50/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: civil rights
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2005, 10:38:14 am »
Quote
That said I still couldn't vote because it isn't whether or not you have letters from psychologists and/or doctors, this is one rare case when it's what is between your legs that counts. A penis doesn't belong in the woman's facilities, and a vagina doesn't belong in the men's facilities. PERIOD.

The problem is, what happens in cases where, as with many FtM's, the bottom surgery is less than satisfactory and expensive so many don't get it all or for many years down the transition road. Yet we look so male that it would be incredibly uncomfortable for any woman in the women's change room. That's not fair to those women.

Gender neutral facilities would be an acceptable solution to me, but without that, an inability to use either the men's change room or the women's change room is not acceptable. And others would not find gender neutral facilities acceptable because it would run the risk of outing them each and every time they went to the health club.

Dennis

Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2005, 11:16:50 am »
How do you have gender neutral bathrooms in a gender specific facility?

This is one of the reasons that no law is perfect.  It is impossible to accomodate all the needs, of all the people, who actually need them.


Sandi

Re: civil rights
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2005, 12:37:02 pm »
Quote from: Dennis
The problem is, what happens in cases where, as with many FtM's, the bottom surgery is less than satisfactory and expensive so many don't get it all or for many years down the transition road.

Then you do what I do. You don't go. I had used the facilities at the YMCA as a member for years, and sadly I miss it a lot, but there is no way I am going into the womans lockers or showers with a penis dangling, or would I go into the mens with boobs.

Even if it were legal for me to do so, I would not. I have more respect for the pricacy of others than that, especially women.


Sandi

Cassandra

Re: civil rights
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2005, 12:55:54 pm »
I vote, Yes. It is a start in the right direction. It is not going to please everyone. It is not the end all or be all. Also I agree with Sandi, I wouldn't go into any such facilities with only half of me finished. Heck I'm pretty prudish. I've never liked getting naked in front of anybody, except my wife of course and before her my many girlfriends. I've always been a lesbian.  >:D

Cassie

Ellen

Re: civil rights
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2005, 01:50:53 pm »
im sorry i see the poll but not the specific question
 what law are we talking about ?
Love ... Ellen

4years

Re: civil rights
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2005, 04:00:02 pm »
Hum, I had to see the law I context (post #6 Ellen) to understand the question.

Yes, because if I go into a changing room I’m expecting the people there to be.. you know.. similar.
It’s not fair of course, but I think it is what the majority would want. Given that the situations presented are elective it seems reasonable to do what the majority wish. (presuming the majority like the law as it is presented of course);

Offline Susan

  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5,974
  • Reputation: +225/-0
  • Gender: Female
    • Susan's Place Transgender Resources
Re: civil rights
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2005, 04:13:43 pm »
It’s not fair of course, but I think it is what the majority would want.

If we only did what the majority would want we would still have segregated schools, women would not have the right to vote, We would still have the Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. For that mattter we could roll back hundreds of years of civil rights progress. The first step to changing something is someone somewhere taking a stand and saying no that is not right. Looking at the poll today it looks like that is me :)
Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! You can also view the donor wall of fame.

Terri-Gene

Re: civil rights
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2005, 11:21:08 pm »
  "The first step to changing something is someone somewhere taking a stand and saying no that is not right."

Well, we can take a stand Susan and demand all or nothing and you don't need two guesses to figure out what we will get.  As to the majority thing, well, it's a thing that has to be voted on, so majority rules and thats that or toss out the whole system and constitution and spend another hundred years hammering out a new one, with the same problems for <transgender people> all over again included. I don't recall how many years it took to put it all together with a lot of fighting and such the first time when things were a lot simpler, it would take lifetimes nowdays.

I see the law as a good one, it provides access which normally wouldn't be available, and yes there is some inconvienience to it, but at least it accomplishes a purpose of opening a door and allowing people to go where they couldn't go before and very many won't qualify because they refuse to identify one way or the other.  There will be some hangups here and there, as Leigh said, laws arn't perfect, so there are going to be some winners and losers, but the win is greater then the loss in this, so it is a step forward.  At least this tries to be fair to each side with the majority of the population (mainstream) having to give in the most, take some comfort in that.

It is arguments about not wanting to settle for anything other then a perfect world that drive activists out of their minds.  You do all you can reasonably accomplish with what you got to work with and everyone spits on you for not doing anything for them because someone somewhere didn't get what they wanted.

When is everyone going to realize, it is a step at a time by it's nature and we have to dig in for the long haul as it is not going to be a sprint.  We are going to have to take any small step we can and then work to lengthen that step.  It's like a baby having to crawl before walking before running and that is just the way it realistically is and damn the perfect world which doesn't seem to exist anywhere on earth.

  "If we only did what the majority would want we would still have segregated schools, women would not have the right to vote"

If you check the history of it, I do believe change didn't happend all at once,  We are still fighting the segregation issue today and check just how long the womens right to vote battle actually went on and the real and actual violence that occurred during the heyday of that battle.

Most all the rights issues were dearly bought a piece at a time, it wasn't just one all at once piece of legislature that did it, it was piece at a time and building on those pieces.  When all realise that, it will be easier to fight and win these battles.

We have to take what we can get, lick our wounds and count our losses and go on to the next hill, and to do that we need to be realistic and understand what it is we are up against and work with it rather then just scream discrimination and cut our own throats by demanding what is not reasonable to expect to get at a given time.

Please give some thought to the fact that the law presented was likely the very best that could be had in the given political climate, rather then condem it because it isn't "perfect".  And as to someone needing to take a stand, well, ask her and I believe you will find Leigh herself took a stand and had a part in getting this much for the community in her area.  The attitude that somebody has to take a stand and we are being screwed by those who do is what she ment about simply painting a target on herself in trying to help the <transgender> community and why she now prefers to only work within G&L for issues that are important to them and to her, as it is just spinning wheels trying to work in the "perfect world" of Transgerder mentality.

Terri


Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2005, 01:23:56 am »
Terri

Thanks for the accolades.  My part was minor compared to the efforts of one, repeat one, person who pushed and pushed to get it through.  Oh sure, I stood up and said my piece at City Hall.  Somewhere I have the newspaper that did the acticle on myyelf and the ordinance.  At the time it was the right thing to do, for me and for this segment of the community. 

A censored portion of the article.

CIVIL RIGHTS FOR 'GENDER IDENTITY' ON CITY AGENDA
Summary: Portland is likely to approve expanding protections for <transgender> people, a move some object to

At **, he left an Eastern Oregon tire shop to become a woman. He believed he had been one for much of his life.

At **, she is xxxxxxxxxxxxx. She lives and works in Portland, installing tires on big rigs.
She has a fire-mist-red stock-class sedan in her garage with the engine pulled, and a pile of 11 racing trophies nearby. She has had to work at making gentle gestures with her hands and speaking softly. She shivers easily now.

And she will be among a contingent of transsexuals appearing before Portland's City Council this morning. At the request of Mayor Vera Katz and Commissioner Dan Salzmann, the council is set to vote on expanding the city's 1991 civil rights ordinance to include "gender identity" as a protected class.

If the council approves the ordinance -- and it is expected to -- Portland will join Minnesota and 26 other local governments, including Seattle and Benton County, Ore., that have passed laws barring discrimination against <transgender> people in jobs, housing and access to restaurants, shops and bars. The law allows victims of discrimination to file state civil rights complaints and lawsuits.



I would not go public if I could do this over.  That was then, this is now and I have learned so much more about myself in the last 5 years.

I understand Susan's position about majority votes.  In this case I truly believe this was the right wording.  If it only said gender expression was needed for nudity specific facilities then a man, not tg in any way, could put on a dress and be legally permitted to use them.  It would only take 2 or 3 times that this happened and the screams of outrage would have seen any identity ordinances quickly phased out.  Some of the people all of the time.  All of the people some of the time.  All of them all of the time is wishful thinking.



Terri-Gene

Re: civil rights
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2005, 02:31:05 am »
I also understand Susans position Leigh and was talking about the in general TG positions about that and the fact that it was in context to the Portand etc. law and that it was not good enough and should have been better.  You have just explained the political climate under which it was passed and that it was pressed to the limit of passage as it was.

The article you posted about you was infuriating as it is obvous it made you all to public and exposed at a time when you were trying to distance yourself from the person it talked about.  I realise how hard such things must have been to take and live with the consiquences of but you did it because that is the essance of you.

Also it is obvious from your post how much actual support there was from the TG community you went through this for in relation to something they were waiting for "someone" to do something about.  Another inferiation.  The truth is though, you felt responsible enough to do it and did it for yourself as well as others even if they would not help themselves.

It just eats into me though that most of the community will complain to no end, but won't even so much as contribute money or background help to change things and then complain because it wasn't all inclusive when they don't even understand the political climates that have to be delt with in such matters. 

The failure to understand that it is not necessarily what you want, but what you can get is what gets me the most.  If they don't like what they are getting, then my view is get off thier butt and produce that one killer piece of legislation themselves and see how far they get with it.  The rest of us deal with reality and part of that reality is if you want something done you have to work with those who are at least commited enough to work for the same goal in a reasonable and responsible manner and willing to do what it takes.

And I understand about learning more about yourself.  I've perhaps learned more about me in much less time then I ever thught about or realised in the lifetime before.

Terri


Leigh

Re: civil rights
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2005, 06:17:15 pm »
Terri

I didn't post the entire acticle.  It was over 1000 words.

I did have the right to edit any material that I thought was less than factual.  I even consented to the pronouns used to show the before to the now in the paper.

I said before "If you and not part of the solution you are part of the problem"

In November of 2002 at the  5 day Creating Change conference put on by the NGLTF I met all of the movers and shakers in the TG community.  Most were motivated by really wanting to make change in the laws to benefit everyone.  A very very few (my opinion) were using this to make a living as their main motivation. 

Sheila.  If you read this, I am not talking about our mutual acquaintance as being one of the few.

Its been almost five years.  Memories fade, times and priorities change.

Tags: