Susan's Place Transgender Resources

The big Transgender LIE

http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-transgender-lie.html (http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-transgender-lie.html)
6/2/11
By Elizabeth

What is the big transgender lie?  It is simple actually. One will never read or listen to a speech by a transgender activist dealing with public opinion where they tell the truth about what being transgender means in total. The implications are ignored and a classic case of obfuscation is presented. If there is one thing I am impressed with when finding TG activists is they are really good at lying.  You change transgender to what it really means, transsexual, transvestite, cross-dresser, gender variant, and wonder how much support they would get? Not a lot actually based on personal experience in my world which is basically hetero-normal.

QuoteIt is a matter of life or death for most transsexuals while it is a matter of sexual arousal for many of the others but not all of them but it is not a life altering decision for anyone but transsexuals.

Disagree.

The claim is that

Quoteand skip the fact that 90+ percent of the transgender crowd is fetishistic transvestites, cross-dressers, cross-dreamers, and gender variant people with only the remaining 10% being just you plain old garden variety transsexual ranging in age from kids to older adults.

This is a silly approach and one which can only create more problems.

All people must be permitted to express themselves, freely.  A man in a cowboy hat is expressing himself. The confines should be the same for all.

Gender expression, however it is manefest or its purpose, should be defensible. Those that use anything, gender expression or any other expression, for inappropriate sexual behaviour are not acceptable. But people who choose to express who they are in their appearance are expressing individuality and the pursuit of happiness.

If we seek to exclude those that don't, haven't or can't actively seek surgical transformation, we necessarily apply subjective judgement and random regulation.

At the risk of repeating myself I strongly support the unberella notion of transgender, applying to all. I strongly support blanket protection from harrisment or discrimination based upon self expression, applying to all.

I also sincerely hope that other will feel free to offer any counter arguments.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theshirtlist.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2FHaters-Gonna-Hate.jpg&hash=b570c2217dbf8c9d6c9bdb5a3485cf7820c6f97d)

I thought we were going to leave this one alone for awhile...........

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 04, 2011, 11:08:48 AM
Hugs to everyone.

:icon_hug:

Quote from: cynthialee on June 04, 2011, 11:04:47 AM
I thought we were going to leave this one alone for awhile...........

To be fair, I don't think we did nor do I see any reason why we should.

We are all mature adults. We are all most certainly quite intelegent. It really shouldn't be beyond any of us to form cogent arguments without getting upset about others.

And this is an incredably important issue.

We, all of us, are at a crossroads. We have achieved legitmacy from so many quarters. If someone had told me, even 3 years ago, that the Dept of Heath would sanction the use of pubatry blockers I think I would have chocked on my organic veal and actually fallen silent for a moment. (Might have been worth it really).

Society seems ready to ask us how we seek to be adressed. Perhaps we should seriously think about this and treat the world with the respect it is trying to show to us.

A dream you dream alone is only a dream.
A dream you dream together is reality.
    John Lennon

In the last week we have had a number of people who were not even involved in the discussion get upset and leave in disgust.
This has proved to be too hot of a topic to pursue at this point.

Please just let it be. Notice that no one else is actually talking about the original post.

GID is a separate diagnosis than  fetishistic transvestism(FTV). Problem is that GID only covers TS and non-specified TS; there is no category for: non-fetishistic transvestites, and the other "transgender" denominations.

I will bet that if were to take a poll on those non-TS transgender individuals at Susan's we will find that the vast majority do not identify themselves as fetishistic transvestites.

We and the medical community need to come with some new definitions that are based on reality. Do keep Blanchard out of the discussion

without getting too deeply into my views - as long as a long discussion doesn't break out - I think part of the problem is that when folks start speaking to the topic, they often confuse the issues.

for instance, there's a distinct difference in trying to define, for clarity's sake (for the ill-informed cis-friend) the difference in TS and the other TG sub-categories, and saying you do not want to be associated with the "others" in an activist sense.

There's a difference in saying - correctly in my view - that there's a distinction between a TS in transition having protections to dress as the target gender on the job and protections for a recreational cross-dresser do do so just because they enjoy it - and saying that you don't give a care about the concerns of the non-TS folks under the TG umbrella.

it's only rational to recognize divergent concerns. That does not mean a person who does is engaged in "throwing people under the bus"

I CAN state confidently that a transitioning TS NEEDS legal protections that go beyond what is practical regarding non-TS gender expression - and at the same time affirm that there IS a considerable spectrum of was in which a gender variant expression needs protection as well.

for one example - while I defend in the strongest terms my right to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser (i.e. a man who enjoys a female gender expression on occasion, but has no desire to alter their physical sex - or vice-versa) however at the same time, I strongly defend that persons right to not lose standing on the job because of what they do on their own time.

Different situations, different concerns, but both in need of legal protections specific to their situation.  That's not an "My problem is more legit that your problem" attitude.

However, it's been my observation in at least some of these discussions that between folks making unwarranted assumptions about what other people are "really" saying, and people not being on the same page about what exactly they are talking about, you end up getting a lot more heat than light.

Freedom for me, but not for thee.  Got it.

Most movements are destroyed from within.  Just sayin'.

Freedom for everyone.

But conditions different depending on different conditions.

For instance, we do not have complete freedom for nudists. if the VP of your local bank shows up naked and says "Hey, I'm a nudist, accommodate me" he will not have his job protected.

One can argue whether or not we SHOULD be that open - but we're not.

It is not oppression to take note of differing conditions and set your policies accordingly.  nor is it throwing people under the bus, or trying to elevate yourself by judging others, or any other such thing.

And to be clear, I'm NOT one of those raising a stink in every corner saying "no not THIS label, THAT one" - I'm just standing on the sideline and making a rational observation.

In my opinion the law should protect us all TG people including TS, FTV, non fetishistic transvestites, and the other variations. We are own those protection under our constitutional right to "the purse of happiness."

For example if you are cross dressed and you are beaten by a thug, what difference makes why you were cross dressed? It is not like the thug is going to ask you why you are cross dressed, and then as a well informed thug, not beat because you are a TS.

Another logical analogy would be like saying that the "ethnic intimidation laws" should apply only to dark-skinned African Americans, and not to the light-skinned ones; well? do you think that a racist white supremacist is going to be analyzing the degree of pigmentation before attacking that person?

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 07:50:35 AM

For example if you are cross dressed and you are beaten by a thug, what difference makes why you were cross dressed? It is not like the thug is going to ask you why you are cross dressed, and then as a well informed thug, not beat because you are a TS.

The problem with 'hate crime' statutes is they create an additional burden on the State when it comes to the prosecution precisely because you now have to PROVE motivating thoughts.  Instead, it is far better for the State to simply focus on prosecution of the very provable charge of Aggravated Assault causing Serious Bodily Injury or whatever title applies in other States (AA w/SBI is a 2nd degree felony in Texas punishable by up to 20 years in the pen). 

I'll leave the balance of the original topic at hand alone since my guess is that, by now, most know very well where I stand on the issue...

Ann,

That was just an example; we are talking about all the laws TG people need to be protected, housing, jobs, intiidtion, violence, etc. We need not discuss just how current laws could be used in special circumstance to prosecute a crime that wa motivated by transgender hate.

The point of this thread is to debate whether the TG umbrellas should be extended only to TS, or be inclusive.

Please stick to the thread, what is you opinion on this very important subject?

Kate D

Kate

I can't help asking why Americans have to classify everyone and everything to within an inch of it's life? 
Why is it so important? Given the social conditions reported by so many of my brothers and sisters here, it's a bit like fighting for the best seats on the Titanic.
I am beginning to think that there is a class system in operation that is worse than anything in the countries earlier generations left, to go to the USA.
A genuinely puzzled Karen.

Extending your umbrella to cover the needy is a in my opinion an act of compassion, it is what Jesus would have done, it s what Buddha teach us, it is the "American way."

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 08:30:09 AM
Ann,

That was just an example; we are talking about all the laws TG people need to be protected, housing, jobs, intiidtion, violence, etc. We need not discuss just how current laws could be used in special circumstance to prosecute a crime that wa motivated by transgender hate.

It may have been 'just an example' but it was nonetheless the example YOU chose to introduce.  I simply illustrated the problem when one tries to craft carve-outs in the law to create special categories.

QuoteThe point of this thread is to debate whether the TG umbrellas should be extended only to TS, or be inclusive.

Please stick to the thread, what is you opinion on this very important subject?

It has been made abundantly clear in my short time on this board that my views on the subject were not wanted precisely because I do not subscribe to the 'collective's' school of thought. Hence my deliberately having stayed away from getting more specific in my earlier response. 

I am getting so very sick and tired of this topic coming up again and again.

We have aproximatly 70% of the people (side A) and 25% of the people (side B) in a serious disagreement with no quarter given or taken on either side. Which leaves about 5% of the others who give a squat about this topic being alienated from both sides.

We need to start looking to the things that bind us togather. Not the things that set us apart from eachother.

**hugs**

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 05, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
It may have been 'just an example' but it was nonetheless the example YOU chose to introduce.  I simply illustrated the problem when one tries to craft carve-outs in the law to create special categories.

It has been made abundantly clear in my short time on this board that my views on the subject were not wanted precisely because I do not subscribe to the 'collective's' school of thought. Hence my deliberately having stayed away from getting more specific in my earlier response.

Well, this is a different thread, and a s long as we keep a civilized conversation, I think we can debate different view points. So, state why you object to extending the protections TS could achieved to fetishistic transvestites and other non-TS TG individuals? Make you case.

Kate D

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
Make you case.

As cynthia notes, this has been a rather divisive subject.  It has been made abundantly clear that people did not want my opinion on the matter.  I'm electing NOT to add further to the fray.  As far as arguments against broader language, I will articulate those to the appropriate legislators as individual bills are considered...

Quote from: cynthialee on June 05, 2011, 09:34:26 AM

We need to start looking to the things that bind us togather. Not the things that set us apart from eachother.

**hugs**

What bind us together is that due to ignorance and superstition we are l "targeted people." We all are persecuted because our mind does not rhyme with our bodies, and that grinds many people in our nations. Our nature is perceived as a religious abomination or as a psychological perversion that needs to be punished by any means.

We should do well remembering that many our gains have been afford to us by the umbrella that the gay and lesbian activist generously extended to us.

Kate D

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 05, 2011, 09:40:36 AM
As cynthia notes, this has been a rather divisive subject.  It has been made abundantly clear that people did not want my opinion on the matter.  I'm electing NOT to add further to the fray.  As far as arguments against broader language, I will articulate those to the appropriate legislators as individual bills are considered...

hum? pity! I expected better from you.

Okay, careful folks. No Ad Hominem attacks. Let's keep it civil and to the point please. Your last post was uncalled for, Kate. It would be appreciated if you keep further responses focused on the thread subject rather than the people posting in it.

Thank you.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 05, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
It has been made abundantly clear in my short time on this board that my views on the subject were not wanted precisely because I do not subscribe to the 'collective's' school of thought.

Everyone's opinions, including yours, are welcome here, as long as they're expressed without flaming other people or violating the TOS. There is no "collective's' school of thought" at Susan's. I haven't noticed very many who think like me here.

Z

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 04, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
for one example - while I defend in the strongest terms my right to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser (i.e. a man who enjoys a female gender expression on occasion, but has no desire to alter their physical sex - or vice-versa)

But why not?

To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

while I defend in the strongest terms my rights to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser in anyone else's rights.

FIFY

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 08:30:09 AM
Ann,

That was just an example; we are talking about all the laws TG people need to be protected, housing, jobs, intiidtion, violence, etc. We need not discuss just how current laws could be used in special circumstance to prosecute a crime that way motivated by transgender hate.

The point of this thread is to debate whether the TG umbrellas should be extended only to TS, or be inclusive.

Please stick to the thread, what is you opinion on this very important subject?

Kate D

Kate

I do not disagree.

I'm making the observation that SOME of our concerns- places where our rights might be infringed - extend to ALL TG peoples, and some of them apply more narrowly to TS people. A few examples:

Take housing - all TG people need to have a right to equal housing. You should not evict or deny a person because they are full time TS in transition, OR because they occasionally like to spend a weekend en femme.

Same for employment - you should not be denied a job or lose your job either because you are 24/7 or because you find out your VP is a drag queen on the weekends. BUT the former needs to dress at work and the later doesn't - thus there is a different "on the ground" set of concerns here. Not bigotry, not "I'm better than you" - just normal ordinary different circumstances.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for anyone to recognize.

Quote from: kyril on June 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
But why not?

To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

Because it's not, at root, about "men and women" it's about what the motivation is.

It is, whether we like it or not, quite true that the presence of an open and obvious TG person on staff WILL hurt the business of companies which deal with the public.

it's wrong, it shouldn't be, but it does. that's why companies HAVE dress codes. Companies routinely turn away applicants for length or style of hair, piercings, cleanliness, and all sort of appearance related things.

If an employee can say "I'm just much more comfortable in a skirt so I'm gonna wear a skirt and you can't stop me - even a very professional looking skirt which matches the suit - then why can't the person at the next desk demand shorts because they are more comfortable? Why can't the next guy just say "screw it, I'm not wearing a tie anymore" and so forth and so on.

If the rational for modifying the dress code, or abandoning it altogether, is mere preference or comfort, then anything goes.

that CAN'T practically be the standard. Even if you argue it should be, you will NEVER live to see the day.
It.
Will.
Not.
Happen.

In the mean time, a transitioning TS MUST be able to dress in the target gender 24/7 or they cannot follow the prescribed methodology. what we need to do is NOT recreation, or optional ,or comfort driven. the motivations are entirely different.

Thus we have two choices - ask for something we MIGHT reasonably succeed in getting - tolerance for a TS in full transition - or take a stand that anyone can wear anything anywhere at any time or nothing....and get nothing. EVER.

To repeat myself for clarity - I'm not discussing what a perfect world would look like - I'm observing what is realistic in THIS world - and what you describe, no matter how fair or reasonable, is NOT going to happen in our lifetimes.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 06:43:58 PM
I do not disagree.

I'm making the observation that SOME of our concerns- places where our rights might be infringed - extend to ALL TG peoples, and some of them apply more narrowly to TS people. A few examples:

Take housing - all TG people need to have a right to equal housing. You should not evict or deny a person because they are full time TS in transition, OR because they occasionally like to spend a weekend en femme.

Same for employment - you should not be denied a job or lose your job either because you are 24/7 or because you find out your VP is a drag queen on the weekends. BUT the former needs to dress at work and the later doesn't - thus there is a different "on the ground" set of concerns here. Not bigotry, not "I'm better than you" - just normal ordinary different circumstances.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for anyone to recognize.

So, we note that differences exist, but for enacting practical laws, what difference would it make. Lets assume that we agree that in issue "A" only TS deserve a law to protect them, and not the other TGs. Then what do you propose, that the government issue card identifying who is who in the zoo? and even if the TGs are getting away with a law that should not protected because they are not really afflicted with issue "A," then so what? in which way does it affects you that they got away with a freebee?  Better they get away with a freebee than they get exclude and persecuted, right?

Quote from: tekla on June 05, 2011, 12:32:09 PM
while I defend in the strongest terms my rights to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser in anyone else's rights.

FIFY

And THIS is an example of why this subject ends up as an argument instead of a discussion.

There's no counter argument, no "I respectfully disagree and here's why"

Nope.

Just a simple attribution of dishonorable motives. An assumption that the person quoted acts or speaks in bad faith.

Is THIS what produces unity, in your opinion?

Do you really have standing to assert my position is divisive given the nature of your reply?

It was asked, up top, that this be discussed with civility. I submit the opinion that your reply is most UNcivil.

I believe in equal rights, that's all.  Separate but equal is always separate, but never equal.

Lol, I think that poster in the original blog is really Fred Phelps and his mission is to create divisiveness in the trans community  :D

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 06:57:28 PM
So, we note that differences exist, but for enacting practical laws, what difference would it make. Lets assume that we agree that in issue "A" only TS deserve a law to protect them, and not the other TGs. Then what do you propose, that the government issue card identifying who is who in the zoo? and even if the TGs are getting away with a law that should not protected because they are not really afflicted with issue "A," then so what? in which way does it affects you that they got away with a freebee?  Better they get away with a freebee than they get exclude and persecuted, right?

In no way at all.

And I'd be quite happy to see that succeed. but it won't.

what WILL happen is that the law will become astonishingly more difficult to pass because the opposition wil make great hay out of the "freebies"

To again refer to employment - if you go to many large companies and say "I'm a transsexual about to begin a full time transition and I need to know the company will support me in this" - many will be supportive. And would support laws affirming that person's right to do so.

if you go to the same company and say "I'm going to start wearing skirts cause i just think they are pretty and comfortable" not only will they tell you "NO WAY" but they would VERY actively oppose any law which obliged them to put up with it.

All sorts of cis people in all walks of life who are at least nominally sympathetic to the problems a TS faces will be barraged by the bigots with example after example after example of "a man dressing up just to enter the women's locker room" or "dresses like a woman one day and a man the next" and so forth and so on.

And most of they are FAR to under-informed to overcome that.

You WILL LOSE.

And thereby none of us will have any protections in ANY area.

To repeat- I WANT the full slate of protections in every case where your private personal behavior on your own time might cause discrimination or violence.

No compromise - what you do on your own time that does not harm another is NEVER grounds for discrimination.

But what you do in certain situations, such as on the job, is NOT your private behavior, it affects things which others have a legitimate interest in. in such cases i think a reasonable compromise is not only sensible but fair - but more to the point without it you won't get anything but a decades long war (think the fight over abortion).

The conflict in these discussions, it seems to me, is at root represented by tekla's post: they "Unity or nothing" side of the argument feels compelled to ascribe hateful and divisive motives to the "partners" side of the discussion.

It seems to me flatly obvious that whether you are discussing legal protections, or medical diagnosis and treatment, or simply explaining your situation to a friend or neighbor - it's simply a reflection of reality that there is a definable difference between a TS in whatever state of transition and other forms of optional gender expression non-conformity.

The condition, rights, concerns, and needs of a drag queen (for instance) are simply NOT the same as those of a transitioning TS (assuming of course the DQ is not also a TS) - they just aren't. they overlap in many ways and that's great. where they don't overlap I think we ought to be allies with each other's concerns - I'm NOT saying that one should ever say to the other "good luck with that" and stay on the sidelines.

I see no profit in denying these realities in a pollyanna effort to pretend they don't exist. I see actual potential for harm to any movement for equal rights.

now, cue tekla and others assuming and accusing i only see it this way because i want to throw other TG people under the bus in order to get ahead. And in so doing think they are contributing more to the thread than i just did.

I rather invite those who disagree to make counter points that are logical instead of making assumptions about my motives.

For complete clarity: if you read this post and believe that it says I advocate in ANY way toleration of persecution of ANY person then you have not understood what I'm saying.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 07:01:54 PM
And THIS is an example of why this subject ends up as an argument instead of a discussion.

There's no counter argument, no "I respectfully disagree and here's why"

Nope.

Just a simple attribution of dishonorable motives. An assumption that the person quoted acts or speaks in bad faith.

Is THIS what produces unity, in your opinion?

Do you really have standing to assert my position is divisive given the nature of your reply?

It was asked, up top, that this be discussed with civility. I submit the opinion that your reply is most UNcivil.

Totally agree; is just destructive posting, nothing offered just negativity.

Quote from: tekla on June 05, 2011, 07:03:27 PM
I believe in equal rights, that's all.  Separate but equal is always separate, but never equal.

Agreed. I do not advocate "separation" of any sort.

In the same way that I do not suggest that LGB and T should not be severed - and yet at the same time, the LGB portion of that group does not have a need to advocate for access to public accommodations but the T does.

Allies. Partners. Shoulder-to-shoulder.

But with different practical considerations.

Seems obvious to me.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
Agreed. I do not advocate "separation" of any sort.

In the same way that I do not suggest that LGB and T should not be severed - and yet at the same time, the LGB portion of that group does not have a need to advocate for access to public accommodations but the T does.

Allies. Partners. Shoulder-to-shoulder.

But with different practical considerations.

Seems obvious to me.

It is obvious, but i submit to you that at the beginning we act together as we are a small group. Then later on things can be refined.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 04, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
There's a difference in saying - correctly in my view - that there's a distinction between a TS in transition having protections to dress as the target gender on the job and protections for a recreational cross-dresser do do so just because they enjoy it - and saying that you don't give a care about the concerns of the non-TS folks under the TG umbrella.

Why an assumption that a cross dresser is only doing it for recreation? It might be as much an integral part of their identity as someone else's need to transition and have surgery.

Quote from: kyril on June 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

I agree 100%. And why shouldn't our laws protect everyone?

Z

I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with cross dressers being allowed to go back and forth in a work setting.

However...
I am forced to ask...
Where are these men and women who are chomping at the bit to yo-yo their gender presentation at the work place? Most C-D's I have known are very much private with their cross dressing.
It would seem to me that there will be very few people who would take advantage. Being a social outcast is not a good payoff.

Having been in charge of hireing and fireing at a couple places I have worked I know how easy it is to fire someone for any number of things. If I didn't like someone I could always find a reason to can them. I have come out of Labor hearings looking like gold both times I have been called to the matt by the man.
I am sure if my semi educated self can creativly find ways to can those who I disliked, HR directors can find ways to weasel out of any class protection laws that cover a cross dresser that they find detrimental to buisness.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on June 05, 2011, 07:04:03 PM
Lol, I think that poster in the original blog is really Fred Phelps and his mission is to create divisiveness in the trans community  :D

this what I thought as soon as I read it..... la mission accomplished.
unfortunately.

Quote from: cynthialee on June 05, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with cross dressers being allowed to go back and forth in a work setting.

However...
I am forced to ask...
Where are these men and women who are chomping at the bit to yo-yo their gender presentation at the work place? Most C-D's I have known are very much private with their cross dressing.
It would seem to me that there will be very few people who would take advantage. Being a social outcast is not a good payoff.

Exactly, some folks may cross dress at work to get a few laughs, but the majority of CDs that I've noticed yo-yoing don't do so at work... They test the waters elsewhere and mostly they seem to be yo-yoing because they are in decision mode and afraid

Most people that CD at work tend to have made their decision and are doing their required RLE in prep. for their day of rebirth

Also, folks that are into fetish stuff tend to be rather private

Anyway, I just thought Ms. Elizabeth was being somewhat ridicules with her assertions regarding the transgender comunity

Quote from: cynthialee on June 05, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with cross dressers being allowed to go back and forth in a work setting.

However...
I am forced to ask...
Where are these men and women who are chomping at the bit to yo-yo their gender presentation at the work place? Most C-D's I have known are very much private with their cross dressing.
It would seem to me that there will be very few people who would take advantage. Being a social outcast is not a good payoff.

Having been in charge of hireing and fireing at a couple places I have worked I know how easy it is to fire someone for any number of things. If I didn't like someone I could always find a reason to can them. I have come out of Labor hearings looking like gold both times I have been called to the matt by the man.
I am sure if my semi educated self can creativly find ways to can those who I disliked, HR directors can find ways to weasel out of any class protection laws that cover a cross dresser that they find detrimental to buisness.

I agree with everything you just said.

(in fact, truth be known even with legal protections it will be exceedingly hard for us to have real job security for that very reason)

I'm not suggesting more narrow goals because I think such a law would be abused - I'm suggesting them because those who don't want to give us ANY ground will use such unusual (and highly unlikely) cases as scare tactics to defeat any broad based bill which comes up.

In the big picture, I'd go so far as to argue that once transsexual people are "normalized" into society - and people see us as something other than freaks and perves - that tolerance for other gender variant behavior will rise right along with it. The best way to change minds is to put a face on the problem. But that can't happen if the initial goal is set so very high that it's very very easy for the bigots to defeat.
this is, in my view, an incremental long game - not a hail-mary pass.

Quote from: V M on June 05, 2011, 10:24:14 PM
Exactly, some folks may cross dress at work to get a few laughs, but the majority of CDs that I've noticed yo-yoing don't do so at work... They test the waters elsewhere and mostly they seem to be yo-yoing because they are in decision mode and afraid

Most people that CD at work tend to have made their decision and are doing their required RLE in prep. for their day of rebirth

Also, folks that are into fetish stuff tend to be rather private

Anyway, I just thought Ms. Elizabeth was being somewhat ridicules with her assertions regarding the transgender comunity

At the risk of repeating myself - YES!

That's very much something I'd agree with.

and SINCE that is the case, WHY would we go to the mat to ask for legal protection for something that almost never happens and thereby give the bigots a HUGE hammer to use against us when we seek much more critical protections.

for the unaligned citizen trying to decide, you have a much better chance of winning their support if you say "I'm seeking protections in order that i might seek treatment for my legitimate medical condition" than if you give AFA the chance to go out there and say "this bill would let an employee show up dressed as a woman one day and a man the next, it would let men slap on a little nail polish and go into the ladies room" and other such baloney.

A narrowly tailored bill takes that weapon away from the bigots while "costing" us a right that even we thing is pretty unlikely to ever be needed.

  I also see a lot of people leave this forum as well and didn't come across this thread until now.  A messy, jumbo can of snakes opened here on this thread.  I don't agree on some of that opinion the blogger gave.  I have come across a lot of fakers and chameleons of politics and other things in my life that I see a parallel here.  Those calling themselves "transgender" who are not really, to gain protection and status with the new laws being passed.  I have experienced these fakers and chameleons of race, ethnicity, and even faith to gain favor on the workplace and especially during job hunting. 
  I was lucky at my company that one of those ethnic fakers was discovered and was let go when the house detectives found other lies in his past.  I got called in after they hired and then fired him.  Nearly 20 years with that company.
  Meghan, Rev. Phelps hates everyone!  Even those who just died for our country.  The SCOTUS says that he and his ilk can picket those funerals.  Take it from one who was spat at by a citizen of my own country while wearing my Navy uniform during the Vietnam war.
  Joelene
 

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 06:56:16 PM
If an employee can say "I'm just much more comfortable in a skirt so I'm gonna wear a skirt and you can't stop me - even a very professional looking skirt which matches the suit - then why can't the person at the next desk demand shorts because they are more comfortable? Why can't the next guy just say "screw it, I'm not wearing a tie anymore" and so forth and so on.

If the company holds all employees doing the same job to the same standards, then the dress code is fair and presumably reasonable. Your hypothetical guy who'd prefer to wear shorts wouldn't be allowed to unless everybody could wear shorts.

But it's not fair to say "this class of employees must follow one set of standards, and that class of employees must follow another set of standards." The courts have held that it's acceptable as long as gendered dress codes don't impose an "unequal burden" - I find that line of reasoning unacceptable. It's far too reminiscent of the "separate but equal" standard of the past. (Imagine if there were different dress codes for black employees and white employees.) The truth is that separate is never equal. Women's business dress standards are universally more burdensome than men's - if not necessarily in cost, than in other factors. Women have to invest more time in dressing, have to deal with sexualized businesswear (or the messages they send when wearing non-sexualized clothing), and more.

And think about the reasons why there are gendered dress codes in the first place, and why people cringe at the idea of men being allowed to wear what women wear to work while giving little thought to the reverse. It's because women are allowed/required to wear things that people don't want to see on men. Why? Why is a man in women's businesswear icky? It's only partly because of the gender transgression per se. It's mostly because women's businesswear is sexualized and often revealing, and people want to see women in sexualized and revealing clothing, but not men - women are objects, while men's bodies may not be objectified. That's not equal. If there's some style of clothing a company doesn't want to see on their male employees because it would look unprofessional, then their female employees shouldn't be wearing it either - it's just as unprofessional, they just like it because it's hot.

You say that gender-neutral dress codes are unrealistic. I say they are the only truly ethical solution. They solve transsexual men's and women's problems, while also providing equality to everybody else. Nobody gets special treatment or special protections - not trans people, not cis people. Everybody is equal. That's what I support.

I do, of course, support protections for transsexual employees in the short term. But the end goal should be a world where those protections are simply not necessary with the (possible) exception of bathroom rights. And protections for transgender employees further that goal.

You think of crossdressing men wanting to wear skirts, and you say that's bad for business. I think of butch lesbians forced to wear skirts, and I say that's bad for business too. Ever seen a butch in a skirt? Scarier than most men. Nobody wants to see that. Which is why, as long as dress codes are gendered and gender expression isn't protected, masculine women will suffer employment discrimination - women are only allowed in the professional workplace as long as they're sexy. But nobody wants to confront that fact. Everyone just wants to bury their heads in the sand and keep thinking gendered dress codes are the natural order of things and not hurting anyone but trans people.

ROFLMAO

It would be nice if someone actually read the article.  The LIE is simple and obvious. The transgender politicos do not promote the fact they are primarily NOT transsexual as a group. The lie is they simply deny the existence of the transvestites, cross-dressers and gender variant when proposing change and legal standing.

I actually do not believe anyone should be hurt or denied their right to expression in their own lives and that includes transvestites, cross-dressers, gender variant, gay, lesbian, etc.. The big transgender lie is the simple fact they never mention the "other" people under the transgender banner and the public is uninformed.

I do not believe this extends to the workplace and that is my opinion and nothing more. The transgender do not extend their umbrella to cover the needy and it is far from an act of compassion. The transgender extend the umbrella to cover the transsxual because without the transsexual they would be laughed out of town.

Quote from: cynthialee on June 05, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with cross dressers being allowed to go back and forth in a work setting.

This is the problem though, isn't it?

If we don't support self expression for everyone, then how can we claim it for ourselves?

Being transgender/transexual, (whichever), is a matter of self expression. To claim otherwise is self dilusion.

Tekla's hit the button on this one. Though I'm still trying to figure out what Valerie's point is.

Quote from: Elizabethor liz on June 08, 2011, 03:01:34 PM


I actually do not believe anyone should be hurt or denied their right to expression in their own lives and that includes transvestites, cross-dressers, gender variant, gay, lesbian, etc.. The big transgender lie is the simple fact they never mention the "other" people under the transgender banner and the public is uninformed.

I do not believe this extends to the workplace and that is my opinion and nothing more. The transgender do not extend their umbrella to cover the needy and it is far from an act of compassion. The transgender extend the umbrella to cover the transsxual because without the transsexual they would be laughed out of town.

Your opinion is not only eloquent but also the absolute truth. As a TS I do not want any protection unless it covers the other TG people.

Kate D

First I doubt that CDs would 'go back and forth' most people choose a look/style and stick with it, no matter what their gender preference is.


that CAN'T practically be the standard. Even if you argue it should be, you will NEVER live to see the day.
It.
Will.
Not.
Happen.....

I'm observing what is realistic in THIS world - and what you describe, no matter how fair or reasonable, is NOT going to happen in our lifetimes.

I have people at my bank with full sleeve tats, facial piercings and some pretty far out outfits.  People get their checks cashed anyway.  Matter of fact, in places like SF or LA, or NYC for the most part dress codes are so bent and broken that they are rarely seen outside of highly professional occupations - and we're really not talking about those, are we?  Pretty much outside of small town and rural America, the majority of people in this country see this happening every day and somehow live through it.

Never live to see the day?  The day has pretty much come and gone for the majority of this nation and no one seems any the worse for it.

And laws are not going to create jobs where there are none.  It's not going to change much of anything really.  That kind of change is more a matter of social notions and culture more than anything else.  I'll bet if we changed all those laws tomorrow that it still would have been better to be T-something 20 years ago in the Bay Area than it will be in Mississippi in 10, 15, or 20 years from now.

And, how exactly is anyone going to be able to tell in the first place?  There are many CDs who have the genetic luck that they would pass without any HRT or FFS or SRS.  And some TS persons who never will, no matter what.  So, what are the qualifications?  Will you need a letter from your therapist?  HRT?  SRS (note: irreversible changes are the legal requirement to change sex in a lot of jurisdictions). 


In the mean time, a transitioning TS MUST be able to dress in the target gender 24/7 or they cannot follow the prescribed methodology. what we need to do is NOT recreation, or optional ,or comfort driven. the motivations are entirely different.
What about the people in my union where the dress code does not allow for any of that?  Black pants (skirts are always verboten due to ladder work no doubt), black shirts, black shoes (with steel toes) - and none of that is feminine.  And we've had several successful transistioners in the past decade.

Oh yeah, we frequently (due to star demands) have a unisex bathroom.  No problems in the 10 years I've been using it.

I work for a 75000 people organization. Unless there are visitors or you are in an official visit representing the organization, you pretty much can dress as you want. People come in sweat, cammo, jeans, khakis, sandals, sneakers, cowboy boots. Most people dress "bussiness casual"

Three years ago, I started coming dress like the other women, business casual suits, slacks, silky blouses, 3 inch heals, long hair, earrings, a bit of make up, perfume, and acrylic nails. By now most people now I am a TS, either I told therm, somebody told them, or they figure out on their own.

And you now what, as long as I bring funding and produce outstanding products and costumer satisfaction, nobody cares how I dress. I have been promoted twice in the lat three years, the last one to a position with high visibility inside and outside the organization.

I would not be here with out the umbrella of laws that the GLBT have won for me.

Kate D

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 09, 2011, 05:38:25 AM
I cant remember :)

hugs,

Val

Nice one Valerie.

Quote from: kyril on June 06, 2011, 05:31:56 AM
But it's not fair to say "this class of employees must follow one set of standards, and that class of employees must follow another set of standards." The courts have held that it's acceptable as long as gendered dress codes don't impose an "unequal burden" - I find that line of reasoning unacceptable. It's far too reminiscent of the "separate but equal" standard of the past. (Imagine if there were different dress codes for black employees and white employees.) The truth is that separate is never equal.

Exactly.  The real issue isn't whether or not TS's should get to wear certain clothes and CD's shouldn't.  The actual issue is whether or not gendered dresscodes are justified to begin with.  But nobody wants to talk about that issue.

QuoteYou say that gender-neutral dress codes are unrealistic. I say they are the only truly ethical solution. They solve transsexual men's and women's problems, while also providing equality to everybody else. Nobody gets special treatment or special protections - not trans people, not cis people. Everybody is equal. That's what I support.

You are forgetting one thing:  nobody wants to talk about this issue.  Nobody wants to talk about this issue, because nobody feels special in unisex clothing.  They need the special treatments and special protections so they can feel special.  As long as people still want to feel special, and as long as they let their gender override their pragmatism, there will never be equality among the genders.

Either everybody gets to wear everything, or everybody has to wear the same thing.  Any other scenario is discriminatory, regardless of people's sexual appearance or claimed gender.

QuoteYou think of crossdressing men wanting to wear skirts, and you say that's bad for business. I think of butch lesbians forced to wear skirts, and I say that's bad for business too. Ever seen a butch in a skirt? Scarier than most men. Nobody wants to see that. Which is why, as long as dress codes are gendered and gender expression isn't protected, masculine women will suffer employment discrimination - women are only allowed in the professional workplace as long as they're sexy. But nobody wants to confront that fact. Everyone just wants to bury their heads in the sand and keep thinking gendered dress codes are the natural order of things and not hurting anyone but trans people.

Gendered dresscodes are, and always were, discriminatory.  It is impossible to separate the facts from the issues.  Gender discrimination cannot be eliminated until there is a reasonable solution for why men and women have to wear different outfits in the workplace.

I think we can all talk plainly, here.  There is no reason to have three pages of off-topic debate when the issue is actually quite simple.  Why is there a transgender LIE, as the original article called it?  George Orwell once wrote, "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity."  That is exactly what is happening here.  The intentional misuse of terms like transgender is very unclear and insincere language.  It is insincere, because lying is the only way to achieve justice in a system which is inherently corrupt.

If gendered dresscodes are unjust (which they are) then it is impossible to achieve equality in a system which supports those dresscodes.  Anyone who does not conform to gender stereotypes must lie.  If I were a crossdresser or a transvestite, you would bet your bottom that I would be trying to hijack legislation designed to protect transsexuals, because that would be the only way I could do it in a world which is inherently discriminatory.

So what happens if transsexuals get the rights to expression at work but not anyone else?  Well, we will get our piece of the pie, for sure.  But it's not going to be the pie that we thought we were going to get.  Instead of being the underdog, we will become the overlord.  We will be enforcing the exact same type of discrimination that we thought we were fighting against.  The only difference is that we won't be on the receiving end, it will be those crossdressers and genderqueers down on that end.

Nietzsche once wrote, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."  As I see more of these transsexual "elitists" enumerating the ways in which they have nothing in common with crossdressers, I have to ask myself this question:  is it truly possible to fight against gender discrimination while still promoting the same types of discrimination and stereotypes against others?  Maybe we have been fighting against monsters for too long.  Maybe we should take a long hard look at ourselves, and what we are becoming.

And for anyone thinking that they aren't throwing the transgender community under the bus:  stop deluding yourselves.  You know that's exactly what it is.  You know there are a lot of people who don't like the idea of guys in dresses, or women who act overly-masculine.  You are willing to leave all these transgender people behind just to protect your own interests.  Shame on you for pretending like you aren't throwing them under the bus.  What we need to do is all stand TOGETHER, instead of individually clawing our way to the top by trying to gain popular opinion and political influence.  If you are angry at the transgender community for trying to leech your prosperity, then stop throwing them under the freaking bus.  If you are going to sacrifice the many to save the one, then stop complaining when they latch onto you as you ascend to greater heights.

The real transgender LIE is the lie that we tell ourselves, not the lie that we tell others.  We tell ourselves that gender discrimination damages transsexuals but not crossdressers.  We tell ourselves that some of us are more important than others.  We tell ourselves that some of us are worthy to be able to live and do as we please, but others are not.  Shame on us for our self-destructive behavior.  If we keep acting like this, then we deserve all the shame and guilt that society tries to place on us.  There is still much of society that thinks we are pretending to be men and pretending to be women.  But we are much worse than that.  We are pretending to be human beings, when we are really just animals fighting each other over the scraps of meat called social acceptance.

Quote from: kyril on June 06, 2011, 05:31:56 AMYou say that gender-neutral dress codes are unrealistic. I say they are the only truly ethical solution. They solve transsexual men's and women's problems, while also providing equality to everybody else. Nobody gets special treatment or special protections - not trans people, not cis people. Everybody is equal. That's what I support.

I do, of course, support protections for transsexual employees in the short term. But the end goal should be a world where those protections are simply not necessary with the (possible) exception of bathroom rights. And protections for transgender employees further that goal.

You think of crossdressing men wanting to wear skirts, and you say that's bad for business. I think of butch lesbians forced to wear skirts, and I say that's bad for business too. Ever seen a butch in a skirt? Scarier than most men.

Well, I don't disagree with what you are saying as a LONG term goal, but if you are expecting dispassionate logic to prevail any time soon - I just don't expect it. You probably need incremental progress in the mean time.

As for "butch in a skirt" - I was under the impression that slacks are always an option - except for specialized jobs, what place requires skirts?

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 10, 2011, 07:00:36 PM
Well, I don't disagree with what you are saying as a LONG term goal, but if you are expecting dispassionate logic to prevail any time soon - I just don't expect it. You probably need incremental progress in the mean time.

As for "butch in a skirt" - I was under the impression that slacks are always an option - except for specialized jobs, what place requires skirts?

A lot of waiting tables type jobs.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 10, 2011, 07:00:36 PM
if you are expecting dispassionate logic to prevail any time soon - I just don't expect it.

I don't expect it, either.  That's why I use passionate logic.

Quote from: tekla on June 08, 2011, 11:00:20 PM
First I doubt that CDs would 'go back and forth' most people choose a look/style and stick with it, no matter what their gender preference is.

You might well be right but you won't get the uninformed and uninterested cis-person to believe that.

Quote
that CAN'T practically be the standard. Even if you argue it should be, you will NEVER live to see the day.
It.
Will.
Not.
Happen.....

I'm observing what is realistic in THIS world - and what you describe, no matter how fair or reasonable, is NOT going to happen in our lifetimes.

I have people at my bank with full sleeve tats, facial piercings and some pretty far out outfits.  People get their checks cashed anyway.  Matter of fact, in places like SF or LA, or NYC for the most part dress codes are so bent and broken that they are rarely seen outside of highly professional occupations - and we're really not talking about those, are we?  Pretty much outside of small town and rural America, the majority of people in this country see this happening every day and somehow live through it.

Oh, i have no doubt the people who don't like it would "live through it" and ultimately suffer no harm - but i have no doubt they will raise all manner of hell in the mean time.

It is very much true that there are a lot of people in this country who live in the biggest cities who are relaxed to this (albeit, there's a difference in a customer putting up with it because it's everywhere and a business owner who wants the government to dictate to him how he handles the subject) but at the same time, there are a lot of people outside those cites who will be unhappy about it, and will vote their unhappiness.  I'm not suggesting they are RIGHT, but they are very passionate about several things they are wrong about.

I get your point but I'm still of the opinion it is a huge sea-change to try to get all at once. It wasn't, for the most part, imposed by the government in those cities you mention (correct me if I'm wrong) - rather, it came about via the slow evolution of the culture. that's a GOOD thing, but you cannot infer from that history that what evolved on it's own in SF and LA should be pushed by force of law in Peoria or Tupelo.

Quote
Never live to see the day?  The day has pretty much come and gone for the majority of this nation and no one seems any the worse for it.

And laws are not going to create jobs where there are none.  It's not going to change much of anything really.  That kind of change is more a matter of social notions and culture more than anything else.

YES! EXACTLY!!

That's precisely my point. As the culture evolves, the standards, such as they are, change. that's almost never done via regulation.

Quote
  I'll bet if we changed all those laws tomorrow that it still would have been better to be T-something 20 years ago in the Bay Area than it will be in Mississippi in 10, 15, or 20 years from now.

probably. And not a little because many (most?) people will actively resis social evolution that they feel is being forced on them.

Quote
And, how exactly is anyone going to be able to tell in the first place?  There are many CDs who have the genetic luck that they would pass without any HRT or FFS or SRS.  And some TS persons who never will, no matter what.  So, what are the qualifications?  Will you need a letter from your therapist?  HRT?  SRS (note: irreversible changes are the legal requirement to change sex in a lot of jurisdictions). 

I suspect if you were challenged and invoked the protection of law you'd be expected to produce for the court a letter from a professional asserting the validity of your claim. There's also going to be other evidence, particularly in a smaller city or town (where the injustice would be more likely) - if you are full time, the folks at the market and the Wal-Mart and the dentist office know. and they know if you are not.

Ultimately though, the obvious legal standard is a professional opinion, even if it's just your GP.

Quote
In the mean time, a transitioning TS MUST be able to dress in the target gender 24/7 or they cannot follow the prescribed methodology. what we need to do is NOT recreation, or optional ,or comfort driven. the motivations are entirely different.
What about the people in my union where the dress code does not allow for any of that?  Black pants (skirts are always verboten due to ladder work no doubt), black shirts, black shoes (with steel toes) - and none of that is feminine.  And we've had several successful transistioners in the past decade.

If the dress code where you work is gender neutral (or more specifically gender irrelevant) then none of this would apply (except of course i guess whether you have a bra on). Obviously where there are uniforms, such as police officers, there's not much gender variance but the transitioner will still have things like an obvious (not visible) bra, earrings, or hair styles, make-up, etc which will be gender specific and potentially a violation of some rule or other. Obviously not all of that is REQUIRED to transition, but one would have to think that protection would be applied in such a way as to make the transitioner's expectations consistent with that of the target gender in the same job.

Which answers your question - if the "old" gender and the "new" both wear the same outfit, then the transitioner is consistently practicing a full time RLT, right?

Quote
Oh yeah, we frequently (due to star demands) have a unisex bathroom.  No problems in the 10 years I've been using it.

Well yeah - I'd be pretty surprised if anyone ever had any bathroom issue in the bay area.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on June 10, 2011, 10:04:46 PM
I don't expect it, either.  That's why I use passionate logic.

it's been my experience that issues like this are usually met with very passionate IL-logic.

Quote from: Miniar on June 10, 2011, 07:07:30 PM
A lot of waiting tables type jobs.

Yes, there will be upper-scale type places I suppose, or a casino - they DO exist. but it's relatively rare, particularly in "professional" fields.

I'm certainly not arguing things are anything close to even good, let alone perfect. But I'm also still of the opinion that progress will only be achieved incrementally.

QuoteThe real transgender LIE is the lie that we tell ourselves, not the lie that we tell others.  We tell ourselves that gender discrimination damages transsexuals but not crossdressers.  We tell ourselves that some of us are more important than others.  We tell ourselves that some of us are worthy to be able to live and do as we please, but others are not.

I'd suggest the considerable majority of all people do not REMOTELY "live as they please" in the same context as a crossdresser being able to dress or not dress at work as it suited them.

Those in our trans community may scoff at the comparisons because we are - of necessity - a bit more evolved on the point than people who don't need to be. But I'm going to go ahead and tell you that for the unsymathetic, the EASIEST thing in the world will be to say

"What? So I'm supposed to let a crossdresser come in here in a dress just because he gets off on it? what's next, he'll show up in a little bo peep outfit (and yeah, those guys ARE out there)? what happens when someone announces they are a nudist and they intend to show up naked, i'm supposed to allow that too?"

that and a hundred other comparisons. you can say until you are blue in the face that the fetishist won't ask to show up in costume (yes, some are just self absorbed enough to try - a few but in only takes one or two to reinforce the prejudice)  but for the unsympathetic cis-gender employer he will dismiss your claim as "self serving" and believe it anyway.

He'll throw the slippery slope at you until both of you are greasy.

and if you hold out until you get them to give up that position you will grow old and die having achived nothing.

will you get your way in SF and LA and Seattle? Maybe. You won't get it in Dallas and Columbus and Charlotte and Phoenix.

You sure won't get it on a national scale.

I don't even think it's dispassionate logic that triumph, in the end it's a mixture of boredom, self-interest, and familiarity.  All of this has become common enough that its no longer rare in the larger US population centers.  I toss off NY, SF, LA, Chicago and that's not just 4 towns, its 45 million people just in those four regions alone, and that's a lot.  That the very reason that everyone is not up in everybody else's business in the city, it's just too much work.  It's not in your self-interest in LA to worry about what everyone else is doing, that level of obsession will just ruin your life.  And once everyone had it (as its been) pretty much 'in your face!' like they've had over the past decade they just lose interest - it goes from special to ordinary.  It kinda fades into the general background mix of the city.  They are just one of the other people on the bus or BART car with you.  Then perhaps you might just meet in some setting someone who is 'that way' and they turn out to be nice, or even cool and fun, or great co-workers, or something non-threatening at the very least. 

The ONLY reason that all of this stuff about laws, discrimination and the rest is that there ARE so many people out and about and living that there now exists a need to do something.  It's become a situation far beyond any sort of rare and unusual occurrence, and now has become common enough that a huge dog pile of our largest corporate citizens have formal policies for dealing with it.  It's become common enough that 90 cities, 12 states and Washington, DC, protect people on the basis of gender identity and expression in their nondiscrimination policies and laws.  Unions have had to adopt policies dealing with these issues.  Social groups have had to look at policies in light of potential discrimination. 

Really a very plausible, indeed dispassionate, logic would conclude that its a pretty common deal if Bank of America, and Macy's, and Chevron (Standard Oil of California)^* have to write new corporate policies dealing with it.  Nothing is as common as corporate policies in the USA.


* - Among others.
Employers rated in the Corporate Equality Index 2011 that provide insurance coverage for transgender-related treatments, including surgical procedures, for employees and their covered dependents:

3M Co.
Aetna Inc.
Alcatel-Lucent
American Express Co.
Ameriprise Financial Inc.
AT&T Inc.
Avaya Inc.
Baker & McKenzie
Bank of America Corp.
Barclays Capital
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
Campbell Soup Co.
Cardinal Health Inc.
Carlton Fields PA
Chrysler LLC
Cisco Systems Inc.
Citigroup Inc.
Clifford Chance US LLP
Coca-Cola Co., The
Covington & Burling LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Cummins Inc.
Deloitte LLP
Deutsche Bank
Diageo North America
DLA Piper
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont)
Eastman Kodak Co.
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
Exelon Corp.
Faegre & Benson LLP
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac)
Food Lion LLC
Ford Motor Co.
Fried, Frank, Haris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
Genentech Inc.
General Motors Corp.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., The
Google Inc.
Harris Bankcorp Inc.
Herman Miller Inc.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
Intel Corp.
International Business Machines Corp. (IBM)
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Johnson & Johnson
K&L Gates LLP
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group Inc.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
KPMG LLP
Kraft Foods Inc.
Latham & Watkins LLP
Littler Mendelson PC
Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., The
Microsoft Corp.
Morgan Stanley
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Nike Inc. 
Oracle Corp.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
PepsiCo Inc.
PG&E Corp.
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Replacements Ltd.
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
Schiff Hardin LLP
Sears Holdings Corp.
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
State Farm Group
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
TD Bank, N.A.
Thomson Reuters
UAL Corp. (United Airlines)
Walt Disney Co.
Wells Fargo & Co.
White & Case LLP
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
Yahoo! Inc.

Quote from: tekla on June 10, 2011, 11:12:33 PMthe very reason that everyone is not up in everybody else's business in the city, it's just too much work.  It's not in your self-interest in LA to worry about what everyone else is doing, that level of obsession will just ruin your life.  And once everyone had it (as its been) pretty much 'in your face!' like they've had over the past decade they just lose interest - it goes from special to ordinary.  It kinda fades into the general background mix of the city.  They are just one of the other people on the bus or BART car with you.

So you're suggesting that the mere persistence of the transgender phenomenon will in itself be the solution?  That makes sense.  It's not like genderqueer is going away.  I can see why fundamentalists would give up the fight when they realize it is a fight that will never end.

Still, I feel it is more of a generational thing.  There are some people who will fight until the day that they die.  When they are all dead, the world will probably be as you describe:  nobody will care.  In another 50 or 80 years, people will find it very odd that everybody in our time made such a hoopla about gender and stereotypes.  It will seem very silly and nonsensical (which it is)

I can see why fundamentalists would give up the fight when they realize it is a fight that will never end.

Still, I feel it is more of a generational thing.

To no small degree that entire fundamentalist movement is a generational thing also.

that's definitely the trend. In a sense, the whole "slippery slope" they have cried about for years does exist to an extent. the more out we are, the more of us are out.

I think the "boredom" bit is a good way to look at it, like moralizing about alcohol or gambling or, i dunno, short skirts? At some point you just see you are not going to win.

in fact, the head of Focus on the Family was quoted in an interview a couple of weeks ago acknowledging "We've probably lost on gay marriage"

So yeah, the trend is definitely there, and will continue. and if you live in a big city where the thing is further advanced then by ALL means fight for every last scrap of gender expression rights because you have a chance.

i still say that in Memphis or Birmingham or Spartenburg or wherever, you probably will have to take it a step at a time and let that "Boredom effect" kick in a bit more.