Activism and Politics > Activism

civil rights

(1/6) > >>

.  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.

If I interpet that right, I see it as an excellent solution Leigh.  It allows any <not allowed> 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.


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?

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.


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.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version