Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Bill to Exterminate Trans Women On Course to Pass

http://endablog.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/bill-to-exterminate-trans-women-on-course-to-pass/ (http://endablog.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/bill-to-exterminate-trans-women-on-course-to-pass/)

From Roll Call:

    But Frank said that he is optimistic about the vote count and that transgender protections will remain in the bill.

snip

    He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates' concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with "one set of genitals" would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

    And, Frank said, they also would have to have a "consistent gender presentation" in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

    "They can't sit there with a full beard and a dress," Frank said.

This is worse than not having enda.

fail
(so much for the idea of "gender expression")

Does this mean there will be someone at the door of every bathroom checking what's in our pants? And what kind of person would THAT job attract? I shudder to think :icon_yikes:

Nauseating. :eusa_sick:

 :icon_no: What is their problem?

It's that the HBS group won the internal debate.

This is about protection from discrimination, not making anything illegal, right?

Anyway, there is a lot of ground between-

People with "one set of genitals" would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

and

They can't sit there with a full beard and a dress.

Last I checked, a beard was not genitalia.  I know it's typical of politicians to use red herrings whenever possible, but it still makes me mad when they do that stuff.

I have to say the writer kind of lost me with the trollish title they chose for their article, though.

Wow...thanks for all the support there Barney.  You are a credit to the community....you know, the community of fear mongering haters.

This little 'concession' is exactly what trans people have been fighting against and now it's included in a bill to protect us from discrimination???

I can only hope someone with some sense see's how hurtful and harmful such a provision would be and removes it.

I, too, am going to latch onto the argument the blogger underestimates:

QuoteAnd, Frank said, they also would have to have a "consistent gender presentation" in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

"They can't sit there with a full beard and a dress," Frank said.

How is it that a dress necessary implies its wearer is trying to pass for "female" anyway?  What's to say that an employer can't say that pants are only for men?

The only real argument that differentiates these two cases is that they follow a "consensus standard."  However, what is "consensus" (or is perceived as such) is arbitrary and subjective, and laws need to be clear.  While it's unfair to have different standards anyway, but there will simply be cases where this standard will face a more immediate crisis, such as guys wearing earrings.

It will make it easier to fire people for refusing to share their genitalia story/view.
That has the opposite effect that Enda was supposed to do. This is very bad. I would rather not have it and move to another state if my job here goes under or if I decide to get a different one.

So... the vast majority of FtMs who, like myself, will never have bottom surgery due to its inability to produce favorable results, are now obligated to use the women's? Sounds like it's time for me to move to France.

SD

Quote from: Sebastien on May 09, 2010, 08:56:36 PM
So... the vast majority of FtMs who, like myself, will never have bottom surgery due to its inability to produce favorable results, are now obligated to use the women's? Sounds like it's time for me to move to France.

SD

After this bill passes, and guys like you start using the women's, see how quickly they scramble to fix it so you can use the men's.  You guys should get a group together and all go take tours of Congress and use the women's.  See how that goes down.

Quote from: Sebastien on May 09, 2010, 08:56:36 PM
So... the vast majority of FtMs who, like myself, will never have bottom surgery due to its inability to produce favorable results, are now obligated to use the women's? Sounds like it's time for me to move to France.

SD

I'm with you but can't speak French, perhaps I will visit Chloe and CindyJames.

Quote from: Kaelin on May 09, 2010, 07:06:47 PM
I, too, am going to latch onto the argument the blogger underestimates:

How is it that a dress necessary implies its wearer is trying to pass for "female" anyway?  What's to say that an employer can't say that pants are only for men?

The only real argument that differentiates these two cases is that they follow a "consensus standard."  However, what is "consensus" (or is perceived as such) is arbitrary and subjective, and laws need to be clear.  While it's unfair to have different standards anyway, but there will simply be cases where this standard will face a more immediate crisis, such as guys wearing earrings.

I'm sympathetic here.

i find the whole bathroom business abhorrent on more different levels than I have time to describe (not the least of which is that Frank himself uses the bathroom with people of a gender he's sexually attracted to and they presumably all feel safe) but I'm more sympathetic to the part you quoted simply because that eventually derives back to all the businesses that have dress and apperance codes.

It goes without saying that in a vast array of jobs the employer has the right to say "none of this and noe of that" whether it's length of hair or skirt, whether it's facial hair or jewelry or whatever.

I don't see how you could have legislation specifically protecting gender expression in appearance without getting into a massive amount of minutia.

Now, I think maybe you could protect Trans people by including that a person who self identified as other than their birth-assigned gender had the right to present consistently as their identified gender without retribution, but I do think the employer is entitled to leeway that's not specifically targeted to the trans individual.

And yes, as much as some among us won't like it, you are pretty much trapped in the binary. whether you reject the binary or not, an employer is never going to be compelled to overlook "genderblending" that overtly defies the traditional binary. There's only so much the law can do.

Part of defing the societal norms is having society treat you as abnormal - if they didn't you wouldn't be defying anything.

But I digress.

I'd like to see a lot more data on this whole business of the bathrooms because it's SO illogical on SO many levels that it's hard to believe it comes down to an "inspection" at some point. I can't even go into something that nutty tonight.

Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 12:56:44 AM
I don't see how you could have legislation specifically protecting gender expression in appearance without getting into a massive amount of minutia.

Prohibit gender-specific dress codes. It's really quite simple, and it should already be the law.

Quote from: Zythyra on May 09, 2010, 08:23:51 AM


    And, Frank said, they also would have to have a "consistent gender presentation" in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

    "They can't sit there with a full beard and a dress," Frank said.

So what if you're pre everything? Can you still sue, or is it only if your employer, or some court thinks that your Trans?

I don't even think you can have the debate without defining whether it is,

QuotePeople with "one set of genitals" would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

or

QuoteThey also would have to have a "consistent gender presentation" in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

or

QuoteThey can't sit there with a full beard and a dress.

...because those are 3 different arguments.  In any case, they really do need to put some more thought into how they plan to handle the issues of those that don't fit neatly into the gender binary.

Unless they have put in the thought and have decided to only protect, at least regarding bathroom use, a narrowly defined segment of binary-conforming trans people, excluding people that fit the binary but haven't finished all the steps, along with many FTM's that have.  And that argument... would be a whole can of worms I will steer clear of.

QuoteAnd yes, as much as some among us won't like it, you are pretty much trapped in the binary.

In other words, it is you want an ENDA that includes TSs and ISs but excludes AGs and CDs.  It faces the same kind of problem as a GLB-only ENDA -- it protects many groups under the GLBT umbrella, but it throws the rest under the bus.

It doesn't protect TS's. That is the problem. It actually makes it worse for them.

Yes. It makes it worse for TS-people. My all respect towards rep. Frank has gone. The realistic thing to do will be re-introduce ENDA with only GLB protections. This kind of law would be a huge set back.

I don't understand how protection for a limited few in their bathroom use makes it worse than no protection of anything for anybody.

because it causes discrimination for those who haven't had bottom surgery or are unwilling to share that they have. It makes it illegal to use a restroom that many already use. It gives employers an excuse to fire you. No where does it say that en employer has to show proof that you used the wrong bathroom, only that you have to prove your 'right' to use the correct one.

@LordKAT: You're right.  I wanted to say that Laura's suggested ENDA would have the issue I stated.

Regarding the ENDA we actually seem to be getting, only a small portion of TSs out of the whole TG family (those who have had SRS) get "covered," and there are many details outlined that could make matters worse.  Actually, if TSs could be subject to inspection, then any person (even cisgendered) could theoretically be subject to it.  A particularly abusive employer may use this power to "inspect" any employee the person would like to intimidate or harass, even without any serious objective reason to suspect the carpet doesn't match the drapes the employee's gender doesn't match their privates.  (They're called "privates" for a reason, right?)

Or am I getting ahead of myself here?

On this note, does anyone know of any particular state(s)/cit(ies) with an inclusive ENDA-type policy that actually handles these issues effectively?  There may be some slight hope of getting a good inclusive ENDA by giving an example of where such a policy works.

It works in a number of places. Fed gov't isn't listening real well.

So ok - how do those of you who are required by medical law to cross live full time before you can have surgery get through - this seems like double jeopardy to me.

You are to be prevented from using the gender "correct" restroom - but if you don't then some awkward doctor could in theory use your legally enforced use of the "wrong" one to disqualify your from SRS by saying that "full time exept when I use the bathroom" isn't really full time! So in effect this law effectively makes full compliance with the international standard of care completely impossible for any American. Brilliant!

Yes - I am taking things to the ultimate extreme but to any person with an iota of common sense this whole thing is totally crazy and unworkable! What you going to do - have bathroom police - or airport style nudity scanners at the entrance to them all?

I say you lot need to go on a major civil unrest style demonstration before this moronic rubbish makes your nation into the laughing stock of the civilised world I think!

I agree Jenny. This law with the bathroom part in it is a major disaster. What happened to simply ending discrimination for work, housing , and public accommodations?

It would seem to be adding to the discrimination, not easing it in any real way.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Err, no one mentioned that St. Barney was also specific about "reasonable accommodations" as opposed to forcing anyone into the wrong bathroom.
You all seem to forget that sexual harassment is against the law so those who haven't been blabbing about their plumbing can refuse to discuss it on those grounds and make it stick (of course if you've insisted on discussing your wee wees all over the internut, you are pretty well screwed now)....and lastly, all ENDA would have meant best case is an employer could not tell you straight out "I'm not hiring you because you are some sort of gender freak".  The years after the civil rights bill was put into place taught us quite clearly the lesson that proving an actual discrimination case is extremely difficult and that if an employer doesn't want to hire you for whatever reason, as long as they are careful what they say, they don't have to and won't.

Bathrooms, at least public ones, are considered a public accommodation.

So, I guess first of all - all the people who were writing on supporting this legislation, I have to wonder if you read it first?

The HBS people^* have long asked, no, demanded, that these be the standards.  No self-diagnosis, no self-administration of hormones, no non-ops.  If you've been around here (or other TS/TG boards) you would have seen that argument play out time and time again.  It's the old 'ham and eggs breakfast' argument.  The chicken is involved, but the pig, the pig is committed.  And this law is only going to work for the committed. It works only for those who have taken committed and non-reversible actions to deal with their HBS.  Again, as the HBS people would have it.

how do those of you who are required by medical law to cross live full time before you can have surgery get through - this seems like double jeopardy to me
Back to the old stand-by of 'carry letters' signed off on by a medical/psychological professional.  Being 'in treatment' I'm sure will be considered 'enough' under the statue, but be 'in treatment' you must be.  And for people to be 'in treatment' it's mandatory to have some sort of diagnosis/treatment protocol, so this has HUGE implications for the writing of the DSM.

See, for all the push for a 'trans inclusive EDNA' (write your congressperson today!) that perhaps was not the best course to tie trans to gay in that manner.  I'm sure it would have taken another decade for a trans-only NDA to be written, but perhaps it should have taken that long.  But having more data from local efforts (See Twin Cities, SF, and a few other places) to see how it worked out in practice would have aided in the creation of a better bill.^**

And, for all the talk about the gays pushing the trans persons off the bus, it's going to make your head swim just how fast the people this does cover take to jettison the rest of us.  As it is, it's not 'inclusive' (though few laws are) it's really a post-op protection act, and as such, though not representing any sort of a common advance, it is a pretty simple first step.


* - This group includes people with GID who agree with the HBS path, as well as a considerable portion of the professional medical community who make a lot of money are deeply involved with the people diagnosed with GID.

** - BTW, the standard solution to the bathroom problem has been to advocate for more unisex facilities, which is a 'third-path' solution, and also is a way around having to fight out the bathroom issues for real.

Unfortunately, we still don't know the specific language so we are arguing about speculations.  It could turn out well or it might yet be a disaster.  I pray that we will have a chance to react to the actual language of the bill and not be presented with an divisive fait accompli which will most assuredly damage our community for years to come.

hugs & smiles
Emelye

Any bill designed to 'protect' some group or class of persons begins with defining who is (and also, who is not) a member of that group or class.

Quote from: kyril on May 10, 2010, 01:38:08 AM
Prohibit gender-specific dress codes. It's really quite simple, and it should already be the law.

There's no reasonable chance that would ever pass. The law of unintended consequences would play havoc with it anyway.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 10:00:48 AM

---

Quote from: Jen on May 10, 2010, 02:51:15 AM
I don't even think you can have the debate without defining whether it is,

or

or

...because those are 3 different arguments.  In any case, they really do need to put some more thought into how they plan to handle the issues of those that don't fit neatly into the gender binary.

Unless they have put in the thought and have decided to only protect, at least regarding bathroom use, a narrowly defined segment of binary-conforming trans people, excluding people that fit the binary but haven't finished all the steps, along with many FTM's that have.  And that argument... would be a whole can of worms I will steer clear of.

IMO, you are many decades away - at best - from seeing any action which goes beyond the binary.

the best possible outcome for trans folks in the relatively near term will still be very driven by the binary.

anything beyond that is a pipe dream with some really interesting stuff in the pipe.

Oh, and I don't think that excluding recreational crossdressing from these protections, or those who defy the binary, constitutes a "narrow" definition of transgender. Without being privvy to statistics, I'd still guess that the VAST majority of those who identify as transgender do so within the binary.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 11:10:34 AM

---

Quote from: Kaelin on May 10, 2010, 02:52:56 AM
In other words, it is you want an ENDA that includes TSs and ISs but excludes AGs and CDs.  It faces the same kind of problem as a GLB-only ENDA -- it protects many groups under the GLBT umbrella, but it throws the rest under the bus.

What does "AG" refer to?

As for crossdressers, and I speak here of people who are perfectly happy being males and crossdress for enjoyment only, I will speak here an unpopular opinion (big surprise, eh?0 but:

I'm not "throwing them under the bus" from my point of view because they were never within the group of folks I thought needed legal recognition in the first place (except, as i said earlier, that they should not suffer on the job for what they may be discovered to do off the job).


Crossdressing - as I describe it above - is an ACTIVITY. It's not WHO YOU ARE.

I don't think you should suffer for it in general terms, anymore than one should suffer for playing tennis or whatever. But it's not identity.

consider a nice hetro activity like swinging. I don't think anyone should suffer retribution at work or socially or in any other aspect of their life because they are swingers as long as that activity doesn't specifically and directly affect the job (as in for instance violating rules against fraternization) BUT it is, ultimately, a recreational activity and not an identity that needs to be protected in law.

In this and many other cases, a private citizen may wrong another private citizen - it happens. It's not practical for the government to intervene in every private wrong.

But the term "thrown under the bus" implies you have someone with you in the lifeboat you are willing to toss overboard to survive. In my personal worldview, crossdressing - as described above - was never in the boat to begin with so I'm not "sacrificing" anyone here.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 01:20:24 PM

---

Quote from: Kaelin on May 10, 2010, 05:32:33 AM
@LordKAT: You're right.  I wanted to say that Laura's suggested ENDA would have the issue I stated.

Regarding the ENDA we actually seem to be getting, only a small portion of TSs out of the whole TG family (those who have had SRS) get "covered," and there are many details outlined that could make matters worse.  Actually, if TSs could be subject to inspection, then any person (even cisgendered) could theoretically be subject to it.  A particularly abusive employer may use this power to "inspect" any employee the person would like to intimidate or harass, even without any serious objective reason to suspect the carpet doesn't match the drapes the employee's gender doesn't match their privates.  (They're called "privates" for a reason, right?)

In that regard, even a post-op might be subject to "inspection" just to verify they are not forging the "proof" if an employer really wanted to be abusive.

Which is to say that beyond not only not increasing protection, the bill (if the rumors are true) would actually DECREASE freedom for (in theory) ALL people.

At least, if I'm understanding the reactions correctly.

Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
What does "AG" refer to?

Androgyne

I think the protections propsed in this bill are substantially less than those already available under the Price-Waterhouse line of cases.  We'd be better off without a Congressional rulemaking that essentially rejects that line of cases.

I was wondering what it would feel like to have the shoe on the other foot.  I was against the non-inclusive ENDA.  As a post op person, this bill would purportedly protect me.  Yet, still I am against it.  Yay me!

Hell, it's on course to pass the House, though I don't think it makes it through the Senate, but who knows?

I'm trying to word this as not to sound offensive because it certainly comes off as such when I read it back and that is far from my intention. I'm trying to alleviate my own ignorance on the subject. Ok, so how does the Employment Non Discrimination Act, including the current 'have to match genitals with bathrooms concession', apply to all of you who don't identify as TS?  Basically, what would you like to see included and excluded as it pertains to your situation in the workforce.

Personally, I've already given up on ENDA.  The supposed "T" inclusive bill is doing more harm than good to the community and imagine it will continue it's downward spiral to the top.

QuoteOk, so how does the Employment Non Discrimination Act, including the current 'have to match genitals with bathrooms concession', apply to all of you who don't identify as TS?

The bathroom part of ENDA does not.  However ineloquently, I begin to discuss this matter back in this post (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,76906.msg529233.html#msg529233).

QuoteThere's no reasonable chance that would ever pass. The law of unintended consequences would play havoc with it anyway. ... the best possible outcome for trans folks in the relatively near term will still be very driven by the binary.

For AGs (androgynes) or alternate-genders in particular, this does not provide good results.  Their own identity is in conflict with binary, and writing a law that permits discrimination against such people is destructive to them.

As to mandating gender-neutral dress codes, there are almost always "unintended consequences" with laws.  The question is whether there are any so destructive as to create serious problems that cannot be fixed by through simple clarifications and adjustments.  I don't see why there would be such problems here.  The employees involved still have to do their jobs professionally.  If someone poorly assembles their visual presentation while integrating elements of more than one gender, that can probably dealt with much the same way as a person poorly assembling their visual presentation using elements of just one gender.  If there's a skirt, dress, blouse, etc that are inappropriate for a "man" to wear, it is not appropriate for anyone to wear.

QuoteAs for crossdressers, and I speak here of people who are perfectly happy being males and crossdress for enjoyment only, ... consider a nice hetro activity like swinging.

Not all cross-dressing is done out of "enjoyment."  CDing is an "activity" much in the same way as "wearing clothes" is an activity.  CDing pertains to a class of expressions that are generally accepted for the "other" gender.  Granted, first amendment rights don't apply in the workplace, but gender discrimination can be regulated/prohibited.  On the other hand, if a male-bodied employee spends half an hour walking around the office in their favorite getup to try to get their co-workers to acknowledge their appearance, then that employee isn't doing their job.  There are rules for dealing with a person being a doofus.

The swinging analogy just does not apply.  Swinging implies having sex, and ALL sex is generally prohibited in the workplace.  Clothing that's worn by the "other" gender is not.

It CDing is something that comes off as a "fun activity" rather than expression, it is because so much of society suppresses it that once a person does get around to doing it, it may provide a lot of relief to them.  If a person can publically wear their desired attire seven days a week rather than maybe a few hours on a weekend, the person will be in a better position to just focus on their job and live their life, even (or especially) while dressed.

Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Oh, and I don't think that excluding recreational crossdressing from these protections, or those who defy the binary, constitutes a "narrow" definition of transgender.

I meant 'narrow' in the sense that if you put an "and" instead of an "or" between the statements I quoted, anybody that hasn't had bottom surgery is excluded, which would include anybody that's pre-op and many post-op FTM's-- all of whom do fit nicely into the binary.

I'm not really talking about crossdressers.  To leave people twisting in the wind that have transitioned but don't fit the narrow definition described above because of this paranoia people seem to have with bathroom behavior seems a little myopic to me.  The catch-22's that go with it have been well stated.  Why not just make going to the bathroom to leer at people a fireable offense, regardless of gender, sexuality, or whatever else, for goodness sakes-- if that is the real issue people are so worried about?

Quote from: tekla on May 10, 2010, 11:24:36 AM
Back to the old stand-by of 'carry letters' signed off on by a medical/psychological professional.  Being 'in treatment' I'm sure will be considered 'enough' under the statue, but be 'in treatment' you must be.  And for people to be 'in treatment' it's mandatory to have some sort of diagnosis/treatment protocol, so this has HUGE implications for the writing of the DSM.

I get the concern now that it's been explained clearly, but I dunno, the position still seems a little paranoid to me.  Though it is often the paranoid that voice dissent loudly enough to get reasonable clauses added to loophole-ridden drafts of legislation.  So, carry on =P.

I believe the acronym, "AG" refers to autogynephile, that hateful diagnosis/word coined by Ray Blanchard and promoted with him by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence.  I also believe this term does not belong in this discussion and will ask those who think of using it to refrain.  It's part of an unproven, controversial and fringe theory that most trans people reject and as such, will be considered a slur unless someone wishes to apply the definition to themselves and themselves only.  Thanks!

hugs & smile
Emelye

I was using it for "androgyne."

It's a shame that the word you mentioned can lay claim to the same acronym -- I will refrain from using it in the future.

Methinks it's time to drop Saint Barney an e-mail.

I can tell you what Barney will tell you, and it ain't pretty.  I'm pretty sure he could care less these days, or any days in the past few years at any rate.  He has much better - i.e. more powerful, more important, more of a crisis, and more lucrative - things to worry about in heading up the House Banking Committee than in any of this EDNA stuff, which for him was (at least the LG part) something he basically wrote years, if not a decade ago and just kept proposing.  He's long over it.  He for sure don't need it at any rate.  No one's firing him for being gay.

It's Tammy Baldwin (D, of course - WI) who has really been the mover of the bill the last couple times through as Barney has just been too busy with the total collapse of the financial system as we know it, to pay much attention to this thing.

Well, I just called his office, and they're having a Legislative Assistant contact me back. We'll see what the LA says.

Quote from: Emelye on May 11, 2010, 07:55:27 AM
I believe the acronym, "AG" refers to autogynephile, that hateful diagnosis/word coined by Ray Blanchard and promoted with him by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence.  I also believe this term does not belong in this discussion and will ask those who think of using it to refrain.  It's part of an unproven, controversial and fringe theory that most trans people reject and as such, will be considered a slur unless someone wishes to apply the definition to themselves and themselves only.  Thanks!

I've not heard this term before so I can assure you it's not what I was referring to.  In an effort to learn more about it I researched and found no mention of "AG" being an acronym for  ->-bleeped-<- (which I don't agree with either) or androgyny.  It's use by people on this board as an acronym for androgyny seems perfectly acceptable to me until shown otherwise.  Does anyone know what the standard recognized acronyms are for these two terms? Or if there even are any?

QuoteNot all cross-dressing is done out of "enjoyment."

No, but it is to those who are that I am referring

Quote
The swinging analogy just does not apply.  Swinging implies having sex, and ALL sex is generally prohibited in the workplace.

you are pulling that analogy out of context.

The point I made about swinging is this:

suppose an employer finds out one of his employees is a swinger. it has no direct impact on their job but, in the employer's view, reflects badly on the place of work (as in, suppose, a teacher or a marriage counselor or whatever) and gets disciplined or canned over it.

I disagree with that. IMO if what you do on your time doesn't have a DIRECT impact on your job performance then it should be off the table, no matter what the employer thinks about it.

In like manner, I would argue that if one crossdresses EVERYWHERE but at work, if they are not allowing it to directly impact their job and work performance it should be off the table, no matter how much the employer might dislike it.

It was in THAT case that I made the swinging analogy. I was NOT speaking of what happened AT work.

QuoteTo leave people twisting in the wind that have transitioned but don't fit the narrow definition described above because of this paranoia people seem to have with bathroom behavior seems a little myopic to me.

I agree on that.

Alright, folks, here's the deal.

I have received a reply from Diego Sanchez, a Legislative Assistant for Barney Frank who is himself a transman and the first openly trans person to work on Capitol Hill.  He referred me to this post on Pam's House Blend, which contains an hour-long interview with him on the current state of ENDA:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify)

I just listened to said interview. It seems that the principal sacrifice being made is that a trans person is not allowed to sue for access to bathrooms at any time; the current language also stipulates that employers are not required to build anything new for the sake of a trans employee. In other words, an employer would be able to enact a sort of time-sharing on bathrooms, so that they could prevent a transphobic employee and a trans employee from being in the bathroom at the same time.

As for genital checks, I haven't the expertise to split hairs on the matter and look for loopholes; however, Sanchez says in the interview that it's "not on the table," and that we shouldn't worry about it.

I called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 11, 2010, 05:25:19 PM
Alright, folks, here's the deal.

I have received a reply from Diego Sanchez, a Legislative Assistant for Barney Frank who is himself a transman and the first openly trans person to work on Capitol Hill.  He referred me to this post on Pam's House Blend, which contains an hour-long interview with him on the current state of ENDA:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify)

I just listened to said interview. It seems that the principal sacrifice being made is that a trans person is not allowed to sue for access to bathrooms at any time; the current language also stipulates that employers are not required to build anything new for the sake of a trans employee. In other words, an employer would be able to enact a sort of time-sharing on bathrooms, so that they could prevent a transphobic employee and a trans employee from being in the bathroom at the same time.

As for genital checks, I haven't the expertise to split hairs on the matter and look for loopholes; however, Sanchez says in the interview that it's "not on the table," and that we shouldn't worry about it.

I called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

If I wrote myt congresspeeps, I expect they would dispatch police to "take me out."  But I'm just basing that on the fact that I live in Texas.  I have to remember that the Texas legislature voted unanimously last year to permit a marriage license to be obtained by presentation of a court ordered gender change.  But I honestly don't think they read the bill.

---

Post Merge: May 11, 2010, 08:02:07 PM

---

Quote from: BrandiOK on May 11, 2010, 02:17:54 PM
I've not heard this term before so I can assure you it's not what I was referring to.  In an effort to learn more about it I researched and found no mention of "AG" being an acronym for  ->-bleeped-<- (which I don't agree with either) or androgyny.  It's use by people on this board as an acronym for androgyny seems perfectly acceptable to me until shown otherwise.  Does anyone know what the standard recognized acronyms are for these two terms? Or if there even are any?

By "AG," I thought autogynophelia was meant, except the context did not fit.  That's because I've seen it abbreviated that way so many times, including on this forum in other discussions.  But I don't think there is a "Codex Transgendera" yet.   I know "androgyne" has way too man letters, but maybe you could say "androgyne (AG)," and then use AG to mean androgyne after you've established the meaning.  Meanwhile, if I ever talk about autogynophelia, I will do the same.

QuoteI called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

For me, the latter paragraph's fate with respect to me is tied to the former.  Or it would be if not for the fact that I share glenda's "Texas problem" (my House Rep is also Republican).

Quote"Not all cross-dressing is done out of 'enjoyment.'"

No, but it is to those who are that I am referring

If the idea is to allow employers to prohibit "CDing-to-play-around" or "CDing-to-harass" but not CDing in general, requiring a gender-neutral dress code does not interfere with that.  Playing/goofing around is grounds for termination.  Harassing employees or customers is grounds for termination.  Class protections obligate equal treatment/opportunity, not immunity.  Barney Frank's language does not appear supportive of this viewpoint.

FWIW I took AG as androgyne as that is the only way I have seen it used. I see where it could mean either one now. I think you need to look at context as other acronyms can be taken two different ways, one not kind, You use context to know which.

Just my opinion

To avoid confusion it is wise to avoid most acronyms.

Quote from: Kaelin on May 12, 2010, 01:27:24 AM
For me, the latter paragraph's fate with respect to me is tied to the former.  Or it would be if not for the fact that I share glenda's "Texas problem" (my House Rep is also Republican).

If the idea is to allow employers to prohibit "CDing-to-play-around" or "CDing-to-harass" but not CDing in general, requiring a gender-neutral dress code does not interfere with that.  Playing/goofing around is grounds for termination.  Harassing employees or customers is grounds for termination.  Class protections obligate equal treatment/opportunity, not immunity.  Barney Frank's language does not appear supportive of this viewpoint.

I talked further with Mr. Sanchez. What he said to me was that under Congressman Frank's language:
-employers are allowed to have gender-binary uniforms and dress codes, but you have the right to choose the uniform which accurately reflects your gender identity
-you must choose a uniform or gendered dress code and stick with it - so if you want to CD at work, you'll have to do so full-time.

There are no gender-neutral uniforms required, but it does allow for some breathing room within the binary. This was presented to me as a reasonable concession, and I think I agree with that.

For what it's worth, Mr. Sanchez is a very nice fellow - a transman himself - and would probably be happy to address whatever concerns and questions you have. His number at Congressman Frank's office is 202-225-3609, and his email address is Diego.Sanchez@mail.house.gov . He called me back after work hours and spent a good long time discussing the bill with me, and he clearly really cares about this stuff. He might be able to give you advice for who to call and email, since you have your "Texas problem."

Regarding the term 'AG'...

I'm a lawyer.  The only use of the term with which I was previously familiar was as an abbreviation for 'Attorney General'

So as I understand the 'clarification', any pre-op or non-op transgendered employee will still be required to use whichever bathroom matches their genitals.  So MtF's will have to use the mens room and FtM's will have to use the ladies room.  However the employer will be required to set up a system that makes sure that non-tg men who are bothered by it won't have to be in there at the same time.  Which, by default, means non-tg men who aren't bothered by it will be in there with MtF women and vice versa for FtM.  It also means, should an employer not offer an alternative bathroom, TG employee's will be subject to scheduled bathroom breaks (maybe I'm weird but my bathroom usage rarely follows a schedule).  This also means TG employee's who are stealth and haven't had grs/srs will be outed to everyone based on bathroom usage.

I never expected there to be actual genital police inspecting genitals but since the concession is in place there will also have to be a process for determining genitalia.  Will that be the use of gender markers on ID? Probably not since the requirements for having gender markers changed vary from state to state.  Will it be the gender listed by the social security office? Perhaps, I think the SS, on a federal level, requires a letter from a surgeon proving said person has had SRS/GRS.  I suspect, however, there are loopholes which will prevent SS from being used as the gold standard.  So...why aren't they telling us what standard will be used to determine genitalia? They are quick to say there will be no genital checks but don't give any detail on what they WILL use to decide. 

I understand that the process is still in a debate and decide mode but as they continue to tell us a vote is coming very soon, the details, and not generalizations, of what has been decided should be available for us to see what is being voted on for our "benefit". 

Actually, Brandi, Diego Sanchez made it explicitly clear to me that the current bill language avoids use of the Medical Model entirely - it's based entirely on gender identity, not genitalia. Pre-op and non-op people will be just as protected as op folks.
One of the provisions of the bill is that no employer can ever force an employee to use a bathroom that does not fit their gender identity - and it is of course illegal not to provide bathrooms for all employees.
Employers are empowered to regulate bathroom use by occupancy, so that they can mandate that a trans employee and a transphobe employee not use the bathroom at the same time. The current bill language also states that employers do not have to build any new facilities.

So, in short, Brandi, all these fears about genital policing and genital-based bathroom use are outright bunk. There is no Medical Model language in the bill.

I encourage you to call or email Diego Sanchez yourself. He's a very nice fellow and will be happy to answer your questions.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 12, 2010, 10:53:28 AM
I talked further with Mr. Sanchez. What he said to me was that under Congressman Frank's language:
-employers are allowed to have gender-binary uniforms and dress codes, but you have the right to choose the uniform which accurately reflects your gender identity
-you must choose a uniform or gendered dress code and stick with it - so if you want to CD at work, you'll have to do so full-time.

There are no gender-neutral uniforms required, but it does allow for some breathing room within the binary. This was presented to me as a reasonable concession, and I think I agree with that.

I agree. Seems reasonable.

I understand Mr. Sanchez's explanation, however, so far the only written evidence of such from the actual roll call shows Barney Frank saying transgender people with one set of genitals will NOT be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.  I'm afraid that is the sticking point.  If this is the actual concession, and so far there has been no change reported on the concession, then I'm afraid I'm not going to believe otherwise.

It's very possible that I, and many others, are wrong but the burden of proof falls on the language of the bill and not a political interpretation of what it means or doesn't mean by a policy advisor, even if that policy advisor is transgendered.  I will Email Mr. Sanchez and ask him to provide the actual language of the bill and how it pertains to this subject.  This is an occasion where I would be tickled pink to be wrong.

Yes, I encourage you to do so. I can't offer proof that we're not being somehow secretly screwed over here, but from what I can tell, Congressman Frank was just speaking clumsily and trying to appease the fears of transphobe "moderates." I understand that Barney Frank's far from perfect, but I haven't seen any indicators that such language is actually in the bill.

The tone of some of the trans activist blogs I've seen around this is downright paranoid. I understand where that comes from - we're an embattled minority, and we get screwed over and thrown under the bus frequently - but it's hardly constructive.

I'm not sure if the bill language is being made public yet, but I do encourage you to email Diego Sanchez and try to figure the situation out yourself.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 13, 2010, 01:10:23 PM
Congressman Frank was just speaking clumsily and trying to appease the fears of transphobe "moderates."

Pretty much.

I listened to Mr. Sanchez's interview on TransFM (I think that's what it's called) in it's entirety and found it lacking in any real answers to the bathroom issue.  Mr. Sanchez repeats many of the same generalizations that we have questioned but offers little in the way of details or bill language. The interview included multiple pleads by Mr. Sanchez for the trans community to stop discussing this issue because it feeds the opposition.  I, for one, thinks that it is the 'clumsy speaking' of Mr. Frank that has created and fed this controversy and not those who stand to question it.  If, in fact, this controversy is a mountain out of a mole hill situation the blame falls squarely back onto Mr. Frank. 

I Emailed Mr. Sanchez and asked the most direct and pointed questions I could on this issue.  I sincerely hope I receive direct and pointed answers instead of the side-stepping we've seen so far.  Example of which would be the concern that transgender employees won't be allowed to use the restroom that matches their gender identity and instead be forced to use restrooms that matched their physical sex.  The answer tossed about is basically 'no transgender employee will be denied restroom usage' (um, that's not the question, of course nobody is going to tell you that you can't use the restroom) or 'transgender employees will not be required to use the wrong restroom' ("wrong" has yet to be defined. If "wrong" is defined as a restroom opposite of gender identity then say it but if "wrong" is based on matching genitalia, as quoted by Mr. Frank, then say that too). 

If I receive an answer back to my Email I'll pass on that information here.

Quote from: Jen on May 13, 2010, 02:39:02 PM
Pretty much.

Frank has never been the smoothest of communicators.

He's never had to be, his constituents love him, no one else really matters - particularly if they are not supporting his re-election campaigns.

I have always found his sense of humor pretty witty.  He doesn't always think things through to the end before he says something, but that is part of his charm.

And how exactly do they plan to check the pre-op or post-op status of the job applicant if this law is passed?  Do they plan to check the genitals of the applicants ::) or are they going to go by the sex that is listed on their identification cards and social security records?

Disgusting.  This is one of those instances in life when I love being Swiss.  So much for "the land of the free", eh?

Someone much smarter than me should try and update this Wikipedia page to give more details of what RLE means. It mentions no specifics at all. I am thinking RLE includes using the appropriate restroom for the gender you identify with. How am I supposed to live full time as a female if I am required to use the mens restroom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life_experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life_experience)

Fact is most of these protections have been a matter of law in several areas of the country for well on 25 years now.  Though far from 'all' states, the existing laws cover about 75% of the population base.  Nothing about this is going to change much in LA, or NYC, or SF.  It will, maybe, eventually, change some stuff in rural areas like Mississippi.

Oh, and most of those laws address the problem by defining who goes go what bathroom by presentation.

Of course it's easier for nations with less population (NZ would rank, as a nation, about 14th or 16th or so (depends on who is counting) in US metro areas, or about half the population of either of the two largest urban areas, about the same population as Minneapolis, or San Diego, which is only California's 3rd largest area) and less land area to govern.

Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on May 15, 2010, 01:36:15 AM
Well, even though that seems totally ridiculous, at least one trans woman has been asked to photograph her post-op genitals for proof of SRS in her workplace (in order to use the female toilets).

That's horrifying!