Susan's Place Transgender Resources

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

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

If I interpet that right, I see it as an excellent solution Leigh.  It allows any transgendered person to have unlimited access, but protects the mainstream clientel from entry by any that can't show a form of documented proof that they are legitimately female, or male identified, and most of those that are can show at least a drivers licence, which would be a form of proof that is usually easy for any totally female or male identified person to produce, and of course if they have it, chances are excellent they also can obtain a letter from a qualified therapysts, hard for me to understand anyone objecting to such an arrangement.  That is, if I read it the way I think I do.

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

Terri

I voted no for one reason. Either they should demand that everyone shows id or they should not be able to demand it of anyone. You are a Postop TS in the restroom and in comes the employee who demands you alone show id what are all the other women in the restroom going to think then?

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

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

Terri

What is says by using the words "not limited to".  A DL may have an F but they can also ask for a letter from a Dr. to verify that you are anatomically correct to validate participation in a venue where nudity is common.

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

I would hope that is the intent of the "not limited" to,  LeighAnn, though it doesn't state specifically that any of the other qualifiers, even all put together would be sufficient to a particular manager or what other criteria may be included, as the way written, I could easily see that as being open.

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

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

Terri

This is the law for the city (Portland) and the county (Multnomah).

I excerpted the relevant identity issues.

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


23.01.020 Intent. - 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Otherwise valid employer dress codes or policies, so long as the employer provides, on a case-by-case basis, for reasonable accommodation based on the health and safety needs of persons protected on the basis of gender identity.

3. The above exceptions do not excuse a failure to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations permitting all persons access to restrooms consistent with their expressed gender.

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

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

23.01.070 Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation Prohibited -

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

Health and athletic clubs require membership. You would show your gender specific proof only to join, after that you are issued an membership ID. You flash your membership card and get a towel or whatever and use the facililties.

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

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


Sandi

A health club may ask for a letter from your surgeon that surgery has been completed.

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

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

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

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

Dennis

How do you have gender neutral bathrooms in a gender specific facility?

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

Quote from: DennisThe problem is, what happens in cases where, as with many FtM's, the bottom surgery is less than satisfactory and expensive so many don't get it all or for many years down the transition road.

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

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


Sandi

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

Cassie

im sorry i see the poll but not the specific question
what law are we talking about ?
Love ... Ellen

Hum, I had to see the law I context (post #6 Ellen) to understand the question.

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

Quote from: 4years on July 18, 2005, 04:00:02 PM
It's not fair of course, but I think it is what the majority would want.

If we only did what the majority would want we would still have segregated schools, women would not have the right to vote, We would still have the Jim Crow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_law) and anti-miscegenation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation) laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). For that mattter we could roll back hundreds of years of civil rights progress. The first step to changing something is someone somewhere taking a stand and saying no that is not right. Looking at the poll today it looks like that is me :)

  "The first step to changing something is someone somewhere taking a stand and saying no that is not right."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terri

Terri

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

A censored portion of the article.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I also understand Susans position Leigh and was talking about the in general TG positions about that and the fact that it was in context to the Portand etc. law and that it was not good enough and should have been better.  You have just explained the political climate under which it was passed and that it was pressed to the limit of passage as it was.

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

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

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

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

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

Terri

Terri

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leigh, you never cease to amaze me.  There is always something a little deeper.  No, I hadn't known you were allowed to approve the article and that you actually allowed the use of the pronouns used.  This peace of information says a lot about the fairness of your local press, and about you, not asking for or giving quarter, as long as it was fair and factual as printed.  I would had thought you had no control in the matter.  It appears you simply did not excercise it as long as the facts were straight.  But i have seen that restraint in you before and am thankful you have that trait, it is rare to find.

Terri

Terri, without the ability to edit, I would never have consented.  All of us have seen wrong interpetations, misrepresentation and a jerry springer approach to reporting.

I have to admit that my doing so was not totally altruistic.  My company while on the surface was ok, they were less than forth coming on changing company ID, payroll, all the paperwork that goes along with transition.  By appearing in the paper at the passing of the ordinance there was no possibility that they could drag things out any longer, not could they retaliate by dismissing me.  At least not immediately.

If anyone would like to read the article I can either e-mail it to you or post it here, with some censorship, to remove any information that could be used as a personal identifier or be found through an internet search.

I'd like a copy if you would Leigh, I'm kind of a junkie where you are concerned ya know.  no matter how many layers you peel away, there are always more to go and there are always surprises.  I learn from those layers as I have for years now and it makes me better then I was and helps correct deficiencies and slips when I'm on ice.  Just a personal thing, I'm sure you understand.  It's important for me to know someone out there who has made it through the worst of times.  If they can do it, I got no excuse for myself if I don't hang in there, regardless, without giving into petty escapes when it gets toughest.  As I always said, "Bust or Bust".

Terri

I think that is one of the things I admire most about you Terri. Never say die!

I confess I also am curious Leigh...

CIVIL RIGHTS FOR 'GENDER IDENTITY' ON CITY AGENDA

Summary: Portland is likely to approve expanding protections for transgendered people, a move some object to

At **, he left an Eastern Oregon tire shop to become a woman. He believed he had been one for much of his life
.
At **, she is ***** *** *****. She lives and works in Portland, installing tires on big rigs.
She has a fire-mist-red stock-class sedan in her garage with the engine pulled, and a pile of 11 racing trophies nearby. She has had to work at making gentle gestures with her hands and speaking softly. She shivers easily now.

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

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

The *hristian *oalition of Oregon is opposed. Director *** ***** says Katz is needlessly embroiling the faith community. He worries about declining morals, and thinks transsexuals are putting their will ahead of God's. He also worries about the effect on "the small Christian businessman or the businessman of faith" forced to hire a cross-dresser.

The ***** ***** Foundation, an advocacy group for transsexual civil rights and health care, thinks the law doesn't go far enough. Director******** ****** ******** says exceptions that allow employer dress codes and require only "reasonable accommodations" for transgendered people could backfire, giving employers a legal hook to discriminate. The proposed law is "a hoax," she says.

The ordinance is written broadly: The people it is designed to protect would range from the relatively small number of transsexuals who have had sex-change surgeries to those discriminated against because others simply think they dress, look or act like the opposite sex. Some cities have laws that protect transsexuals but exempt people who cross-dress.

The city points to reports from San Francisco and Boulder, Colo., as well as a local Metropolitan Human Rights Commission report four years ago, to justify the ordinance. Those reports include testimony, mainly from transsexuals, of discrimination and violence. Discrimination against transgendered people, particularly against men who dress or act like women, is disproportionately violent, according to crime data compiled by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

For ***** and seven other members of the **** **** **** who gathered recently at a Portland club, an expansive ordinance is appropriate. Many transsexuals want surgery -- estimates range as high as 225,000 waiting for the operation in the United States. Others don't, including many women who identify as men and face a less reliable operation.

Some transgendered people are 100 percent out, "presenting" as the opposite sex full time. Others stick with their biological sex at work and at home, shifting only in the off hours, some by choice, some for fear of ridicule and discrimination.

***** came to Portland with 14 years of experience at a truck stop tire shop, planning to live as a woman around the clock. But as *****, she hesitated to apply for a job. "I was sitting at home before the interview and I had on women's tennis shoes, jeans and a blouse, and I thought, 'Maybe I can go a little longer without working,' " ***** said. "I almost berated myself into putting on the plaid shirt, the cowboy boots and the big belt buckle, but I said, 'I can't do that. I have to start over.' "

No comments from co-workers ***** said she hasn't heard a negative comment on the job, despite working in a nearly all-male shop. "But I still have this fear that no matter how hard I try I will lose my job because of this, and we shouldn't have to have that fear."

As a boy raised by his grandparents in rural Idaho, ***** said he began to feel that something was off about age 4. When he and his cousins played hide-and-go-seek, he would go to his grandma's closet and hide inside a black dress.

He learned to run a treadle sewing machine and a laundry press. And he subbed in for no-shows at his grandma's weekly pinochle game, enjoying the camaraderie of a dozen women. But he also hunted and fished, bagging deer and antelope, and took up auto racing as a young adult, all activities ***** hopes to continue as a woman. "I do know considerable about cars," she says.

The American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual defines transsexualism as a "gender identity disorder," a less severe diagnosis than in the past that still rankles some transgender activists.

According to San Francisco's Human Rights Commission, the prevailing scientific view is that the condition stems from a blend of genetic, hormonal and social factors, a mix of nature and nurture.

"This is not something I chose to do," ***** said. "Who in their right mind would expose themselves to the potential loss of every friend, every family member, to, as people say, make a spectacle of yourself?"

***** said he was certain by 30 that he identified as a woman, not a man. He had managed to learn of the potential for surgery through furtive trips to the library. But he had custody of a son by a previous marriage. At that point, ******** says he was drinking too much and was "a very angry person," but didn't want to come out because of the ridicule his son, now grown, would face in a small town.

***** came to the city a year-and-a-half ago to test out living as a woman, and then moved permanently in January. She is taking hormone treatments and trying to save money for sex-change surgery, which can cost $10,000 or more. People have been uniformly respectful, she said, whether on the job, in stores or at restaurants.



[edit]edited name by beth[/edit]

Thank you Leigh, very much.

Ditto ...

Terri