US Revises Security Rules Concerning Gays

[LostInTime]

Security clearance rules may impede gays

Excerpt:
he Bush administration last year quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national-security clearances, drawing complaints from civil rights activists.

The Bush administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

The White House sought to play down the changes, approved by President Bush in December, as an effort to ensure the security clearance rules are consistent with a 1995 executive order about access to classified information.

"The minor language change did not and was not intended to alter the way sexual orientation is treated," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said Tuesday. "The U.S. government policy has not changed in any way."

Jones said government lawyers made the changes for clarity.

[Hypatia]

I want to know more about this. How much protection do we have from discrimination in the intelligence community?

I know a wonderful trans woman who is an out queer activist, who has a security clearance and works in the intelligence community. She transitioned on the job without any difficulty as far as I know.

The original document in question is Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information. The relevant part in section 3.1 originally read:

"(c) The United States Government does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information.

(d) In determining eligibility for access under this order, agencies may investigate and consider any matter that relates to the determination of whether access is clearly consistent with the interests of national security. No inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee."

The words "transgender" or "transsexual" do not appear anywhere in this document. I am not acquainted with any legal precedent for including transgender under the category of "sexual orientation." So it was never clear to me in the first place exactly to what extent our rights have been protected by this. Anyone know?

[Lisbeth]

I want to know more about this. How much protection do we have from discrimination in the intelligence community?

I don't know that the intelligence community is any different than any other government agency.  During his first term in office Mr. Bush rewrote the regulations for government employees so they can be dismissed for sexual orientation.

[Hypatia]

Is transgender now a form of sexual orientation? Been hunting all over for some explanation of this. My first therapist (two and a half years ago) told me I could transition on the job with no worries because of executive order 12968. When I looked it up, there was not even a hint of gender issues in it. I'm still trying to find out what she meant.

The revision took place in 1995, which was in Bush's second term.

[sandra]

Hypatia,

I have read that some laws & ordinances (whether state,
federal, county or municipal -- I don't know) define "sexual
orientation" to include gender identity.  Then any place
in the document that "sexual orientation" is used, it is in
that broader sense.  If it works OK, fine.  But the fact is that
these are two different realities, and writing laws ( and I
haven't heard anything about departmental rules based
on laws) this way is bound to create confusion for many
people.

Sandra

[Hazumu]

I noticed the AP article was dated Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / 09:22 AM.  Quietly, indeed.

This coupled with all the other things I'm hearing the guvvamint doing makes me suspect that the chess pieces are being put in place for something...

Karen

[Hypatia]

I don't know that the intelligence community is any different than any other government agency.

The executive order applies to all civilian employees in the Executive branch. The difference from any other government agency is that it specifically concerns access to classified information. When it comes to security clearances, most of the civilian ones are intel. Either direct employees of intelligence agencies or their contractors. That's why the focus on this area.

When I worked in the Defense Department a few years ago, there was a very butch woman from the CIA working there. In a motivational meeting, when asked to state an achievement she was proud of, she said "I got Barney Frank to come and speak at the CIA." (Mr. Frank is an out gay congressman.) Implying that she faced no problem being out there. Military personnel do not have this freedom.

They held a celebration at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in 2005 for the 10th anniversary of the executive order that meant it was finally safe for queer spooks to come out. There was a performance of the Washington Gay Men's Chorus held there as part of the celebration. They put up diversity posters there and distributed educational pamphlets promoting diversity. The lady I know who transitioned on the intel job was literally the transgender poster girl for this effort. So things were peachy there 2 years ago, but anymore I'm not sure and would like to find out if trans people are in greater danger of getting their clearances pulled now.

[Hazumu]

...So things were peachy there 2 years ago, but anymore I'm not sure and would like to find out if trans people are in greater danger of getting their clearances pulled now.

If they jerk me around I'll let you know -- and I hope I never have to let you or anyone know I've been jerked around because I'm not 'straight'...

Karen

[Hypatia]

I was planning to transition on the job -- I'm already "out" in gender expression, very femme at work, so it won't come as a shock to anyone when I transition -- and management has always been great with me, the gender issue has never even come up at all. So I felt secure to go ahead as soon as I'm ready. But when I learned of the revision that might put us in some danger, I had to wonder.

I sent this question to NCTE, HRC, and TLPI. I asked my therapist too, but he says he knows nothing about this subject. So far I've gotten a reply from TLPI--they told me they don't know the answer either, but I should contact NCTE because they're said to be working on this issue.

Hmm. I'd already written several e-mails to NCTE over the past year, but never got a reply. Has anyone else had any luck ever contacting them about anything?

[BeverlyAnn]

Hypatia, try directing your question directly to Mara (Executive Director of NCTE) if you haven't done so in the past.  Her e-mail is MKeisling@NCTEquality.org.

Beverly

[Hypatia]

(I take back what I said about Mara never answering--because she has answered me)

[seldom]

Hypatia to answer your question:
Without the words "Gender Identity" there is no Transsexual or Transgender protection under the law, unless it is one of the few states and juristictions which lump gender or sexual orientation and interprate it as gender identity.

Under federal law, there is no protections, in fact under a few federal laws we are explicitly discriminated against. 

[Hypatia]

I talked with Mara, who has been consulting with trans people who have clearances, and this is what she said:

If you have a clearance and you're queer the only thing the investigators care about is if you're keeping secrets. So that you could be blackmailed if someone finds out your secret. I said I've been completely open about it at work, and have nothing to hide. I've been visibly gender variant for years and the management where I work has never objected or even hinted anything is wrong with that. I'm well-liked and respected for my work. No one has asked me about my gender or sexuality, but if they do I have the letter ready to show them.

So Mara said I should not have a problem coming all the way out at work and everything. I'm already out, in effect, except for the official name change etc.