Friday, May 7, 2010
is my transgendered coworker using the right bathroom?
http://askamanager.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-my-transgendered-coworker-using.html (http://askamanager.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-my-transgendered-coworker-using.html)
A reader writes:
I have a question of how/if/when transgendered coworkers get to be treated as such in the workplace. Specifically, there is a man in our office (widely known as such) who wears women's clothing, hairstyles, shoes, makeup, etc. every day, and refers to himself as "she". Some women in the office have been claiming that his use of the women's restroom constitutes sexual harrassment. Employees of both sexes have claimed that if he is male, he's violating company conduct and dress codes by wearing women's clothing to work.
The problem is, we have no idea if he is fully transgendered, ie, with a legal right to be treated as female in the workplace, or if he's just a guy that likes to crossdress and use the wrong restroom.
Interesting, well written (yikes, how rarely do I say that?) and the comments are interesting also. It's interesting to see this written about in a very 'values' free' kind of manner.
I suppose I'll alienate the folks who argue that recreational crossdressing is as deserving of protection as true ->-bleeped-<- but I, for one, wouldn't dispute the idea that an employer would be in the right to question whether or not the employee in question was transitioning 24/7 or just taking advantage of legal protections to indulge himself at work.
It shouldn't be that hard to build a credible case that you are full time. Not that I'd argue for specific "markers" like "must be in therapy" or "must be on HRT" as proof - just for a common sense assessment.
I DON'T think that someone who has no intention of transitioning to a full-time female status and likes being male and wants to be male but happens to enjoy crossdressing should be recognized and protected in the same way as a transgender individual.
That said, I do think it's legitimate to protect a crossdresser from retribution at work for what they do when NOT at work.
Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 11:48:56 AM
In specific reference to the link, there seems to be a misunderstanding:
QuoteMost employers have a meeting with co-workers to explain the company's non-discrimination policies and how they affect the workplace in the situation of gender transition on the job. It's extremely unusual to hear of a situation where a co-worker starts wearing clothing of the opposite sex and starts using the other restroom without any notice to employer or co-workers.
Actually, in the question as quoted - the questioner does NOT say that the co-worker STARTED presenting female after employment, she may well have been hired while presenting female.
Otherwise, though, it's still a good answer - the company should be out in front on the situation.
All the law really is, is a matter of definitions. And now the law is going to have to define some things that even on these boards over the last 18 or so years have failed to be agreed to.
If you are going to protect some, and not others, then how do you draw a line to set them apart? There seems to be three options.
First, the status-quo, which is pretty much, "because I say so." GID, TG, TS and all that were pretty much self-defined, and left to the individual to places themselves in that spectrum. This is going to be the old way I'm afraid.
Second, we can have a medical model, which is part-way engaged at this point, where medical professionals attest to your fitting their criteria and also attest that you are under some sort of medical care and 'making progress' of some sort. Since we love doctors, this is going to be the new way.
Third, and in the end it might come to this. Change the door from "men" and "woman" to read "penis" and "vagina." Lot of support for this idea really. Gets bonus points because most post-op women feel this way.
It almost seems as if the woman in the article, who has always identified as female and gone by a female name, could very well be a natal female, a hypothesis born up by the fact that HR has been silent on the matter. There are masculine looking natal women, just as there are feminine looking natal men. In that case the poor woman herself could have a case for harassment if she has been confronted about the bathroom issue in a negative manner.
An interesting thought
My thinking regarding future options would be something more along the lines of a mandate (similar in application to the mandates for handicap access) that certain public facilities and large enough businesses and companies be required to provide a Unisex restroom in parallel to the "mens" and "ladies" rooms.
Anyone who wanted to could use the unisex room, and no one in there would have grounds to complain about who else might come in.
In application, I presume few ciswomen would enter, but I've shared the rest room with more than a few who were not disturbed by my presence (and had reason to know of my genetalia) so I don't think it would be a ghost town.
Plus, are there not a lot of places that already have such restrooms? I recall there was some comment on it when a TV series featured such a restroom (who's name I'm having a brain cramp on...the "dancing baby" show)
The reality is that the unisex is a single person facility marked for both sexes.
I've long advocated that employers should be required to provide unisex single occupancy restrooms for narrow minded bigots to use who don't want to share the ladies room with their transgendered colleagues.
Honestly, it would disturb me far more deeply to see an actively transitioning FtM in the ladies' room than an MtF in women's clothes. Presenting as a male and going in the WOMEN'S room, or vice versa, is creepy. Presenting as a woman in the women's head is fine.
Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 02:37:44 PM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on May 10, 2010, 02:30:51 PM
I've long advocated that employers should be required to provide unisex single occupancy restrooms for narrow minded bigots to use who don't want to share the ladies room with their transgendered colleagues.
I've long advocated people should get over it. If someone is not prepared to share a restroom with a colleague of the same gender, then they should probably go into a field where they work in a more solitary environment.
I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 02:46:08 PM
I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.
We could even package it as a "Family Restroom," complete with changing table. What should we call this bill? The "Family Protection Act?" The Fammily Assurance Act?" The "Family Non-->-bleeped-<- Affiliation Act?"
The article is well written and open minded. To me, it shows progress. This is a touchy subject. We, here, can't even agree on the answer.
My opinion? I believe any person suffering from a doctor diagnosed medical condition (per the DSM) should be allowed to use the washroom of their current presentation. As far as I know, most cross-dressers rarely get diagnosed as such, while most TG's seeking to transition do. Is it a litmus test? Yes; but progress is incremental, whether we like it or not. Asking everyone to accept everything all at once may be a bit overwhelming. Providing safe guards to those fearful of the "man in a dress" syndrome may not be such a bad idea...
No factory would install a 'family' bathroom. No way that would work.
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 04:38:16 PM
No factory would install a 'family' bathroom. No way that would work.
That's why we need this legislation! Write your congressional reps now to demand the accomodation of families by mandatory provision of suitable unisex one occupant restroom facilities wherever restrooms are provided.
This is not the time to mention that such mandatory provision eliminates the concerns of "moderates" regarding transgendered people and restrooms. We can simply point that out AFTER the Family Accomodation Act becomes law.
As I read through the first few comments, I found myself thinking, "I know what Aria Blue would say to all of this."
Speak of the devil...
Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 11:41:20 AM
true ->-bleeped-<-
Sorry, Laura, but I'm not a "true transgender person," and neither are you.
You just don't get to put trans people on a hierarchy, with transsexuals who've completed every surgery known to science at the top, and crossdressers at the bottom. That's not logical, and not okay. There's nothing "truer" about my gender variance, or yours, than the gender variance of crossdressers.
This is like how haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish theology refuses to acknowledge non-Orthodox Jews as "real Jews;" it's actually considered against
halacha (religious law) for them to pray in a Conservative or Reform synagogue. This, of course, bars my lubavitcher relatives from attending shul with us on holidays, and they didn't come to my
bar mitzvah (adulthood ceremony) for this reason. Of course, it's fine for
us to attend
their services. Sigh.
So no, there's no such thing as "true ->-bleeped-<-."
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 02:46:08 PM
I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.
.
I'll second that sentiment. (many already have single-stall handicap bathrooms for handicap-accomodation purposes already)
.
.
On a side note, this issue has always been more about presentation than genitals. If someone can pass, people don't tend to notice. If they don't, that's when people throw a fit.
.
I met someone a week ago at a transgender meeting that illustrated this point rather well. For the purposes of anonymity, lets call her Callie...but she goes by the androngynous short-form of her name "Cal." Born genetically female, raised female, F on her license and birth certificate. She's still deciding how to identify herself. She's always had a rather high level of T in her bloodstream. She thinks she may be IS of some sort, but nothing conclusive has ever been found except for the high level of T. She has a moustache, and fairly masculine features. Despite her genetics, she can't pass for female at all. She loves going to museums and other public places in a nearby major city...but they won't let her use the bathroom there. Other women scream at her to leave the bathroom because of how she looks. Even after being presented with her ID, the security/management won't let her use the public restroom (ie. it's not about the genitals at all). To avoid the issue, she's gotten into the habit of just going in the men's room...though when it's that time of the month...she really hates having to resort to that. She's fairly butch, and doesn't put much effort into looking female. Even if she did though, she'd come off more as a crossdresser than a woman.
.
Definitely a difficult situation. Very similar to being trans...just flipped on its head. Like transgender individuals, she didn't ask to be that way...she just is. Like many of us...there isn't anywhere that she really fits completely.
.
To me, this is about public accomodation of certain varied minority groups. I think Tekla is right about the 'medical model' as being the likely method of determining who will be legally allowed to. As much as we like to be all-inclusive, there need to be some lines drawn somewhere. The public at large likes structure. "Anything goes" scares the hell out of them. And accepting that anyone under the broad umbrella of 'transgender' can use whatever bathroom they wish...is essentially "anything goes."
.
The difficulty of such legislation is in balancing the rights of those who need to use the bathroom (Like Cal above), with public at large's need to feel safe in those same spaces. Actively transitioning TS's and IS individuals should obviously be included...but after that there is a vast amount of grey area. Anyone who wants the grey area to be included needs to seriously consider where they think the line should be drawn to address the concerns of both groups, instead of merely protesting with indignation that all such grey areas aren't being included. Cal above obviously needs to use the women's restroom (especially when she's on the rag)...just as a TS individual does....while Joe Smith heterosexual crossdresser out for an occasional night on the town may want to use the women's facilities...but will be more than happy to return to the men's facilities the following day. "Need" vs. "Want" is a key here...and there are many different shades of TG people in between those two extremes that make drafting such legislation difficult. Law is about 'Yes you can' or 'no you can't'. You can't say "yes you can tonight because you're wearing a dress...and tomorrow you can use the other one because you're wearing pants"...because it's tantamount to "anything goes". Or at best its structure is so murky that it's completely unenforceable. Law defines things and sets limitations. "Anything goes" is it's antithesis...it's seen as anarchy.
Eventually a line has to be drawn somewhere...and cutting off part of such a vast group of peple (transgender) who want certain privelages...but may not need them...is never a popular or fun thing to do...but that's what "reasonable accomodation" is all about...emphasis on "reasonable."
.
A multi-stall "family bathroom" for both sexes isn't the answer. That's exactly the situation that many people are afraid of the current structure becoming. Nor is it fair to force IS and TS individuals to use a multi-sex bathroom because of a medical condition. That solution fails to address their similar safety concerns, and would have the result of likely outing the medical condition of some that may not want others to know. (concerns of conflicts with anti-discrimination law, harassment law, and possibly even HIPPA...depending on the situation).
.
Damn this got long fast. Sorry about that.
I can't write a long reply right now, but I'd like to point out that the centrist "mainstream" types in the LGBTetc. rights fight like to leave out rights for trans people as part of compromising and reaching a "reasonable" solution. You know, throw the most vulnerable LGBTetc. population, with the highest suicide rate, most trouble getting jobs and so on, under the bus. Reasonable. Very.
Of course, compromise is a real and unfortunate need in many situations, but politically-speaking, in issues of rights I tend to view it with suspicion.
My answer to the question asked: Of course she is... Identifying as a gender opposed to the gender assigned at sex, can mean that it is extremely uncomfortable/ unsafe to go into the restroom of one's birth gender. The fears of cisgender females/ males (sexual harassment/ rape) are greatly exaggerated. One would be hard pressed to find a incidence of this type of occurrence in the record where a transgender person rapes/ harms someone in the restroom in this manner. These fears are created out of misinformation and ignorance. It is unfortunate that this occurs, but nevertheless it does.
Most public settings, like a factory, have to comply with health codes, so there must be X number of bathrooms per X amount of workers, or seating, or whatever. Though it's possible to have new construction accommodate newer unisex bathrooms, particularly if they count both ways and thus lower the construction costs. But, to retrofit is very expensive, and would be opposed by the people/companies that you would be forcing to pay for such a retrofit. What they are going to come up with - or what's its going to come down to - is to call for 'reasonable accommodation' like the American's with Disabilities Act.
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 10, 2010, 08:31:16 PM
Sorry, Laura, but I'm not a "true transgender person," and neither are you.
You just don't get to put trans people on a hierarchy, with transsexuals who've completed every surgery known to science at the top, and crossdressers at the bottom. That's not logical, and not okay. There's nothing "truer" about my gender variance, or yours, than the gender variance of crossdressers.
This is like how haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish theology refuses to acknowledge non-Orthodox Jews as "real Jews;" it's actually considered against halacha (religious law) for them to pray in a Conservative or Reform synagogue. This, of course, bars my lubavitcher relatives from attending shul with us on holidays, and they didn't come to my bar mitzvah (adulthood ceremony) for this reason. Of course, it's fine for us to attend their services. Sigh.
So no, there's no such thing as "true ->-bleeped-<-."
then we (respectfully) disagree.
I do not suggest a long hierarchy - but neither will I consider Johnny Depp's weekend hobby to be the equal of my identity.
That might be an unpopular opinion but there it is.
but neither will I consider Johnny Depp's weekend hobby to be the equal of my identity.
Who would? He almost gets paid more for taking a dump while filming then you made all year. Actually, considering a standard 21 day filming, 12 hours a day, old Johnny will make $220,000 an hour, so if he takes 10 minutes in the bathroom, he just made $37K just for dropping the kids off at the pool, so who in their right mind is going to compare the two.
BTW, at somewhere between $56 million (the figure I used) and $75 million he is going to be paid for Pirates 4, one can hardly get the impression that he is being discriminated against.
But I don't see his identity as any more compelling than yours is. Nor would the reverse be true either. A lot of people I know have been blurring the lines for decades now. Others, like myself, have been dressing for decades, including the year I spend seeing how full time worked out for me. Why is that any less compelling then something you've only really found out about (in any meaningful way, or at least in a way you were willing to do anything about) a few years ago should over-ride what others have been working on for a long, long time now?
The sad truth - or the happy one, depending on how you look at it - is that no one is going to get ahead unless all move forward. So long as all of this is self-actualized, then its going to be hard to figure out who is the 'true' transgender (and the law specifically cites 'transgender' persons, not 'transsexual' persons) and who are just out for the weekend as you would have it.
Quote from: Laura Hope on May 15, 2010, 12:10:24 AM
then we (respectfully) disagree.
I do not suggest a long hierarchy - but neither will I consider Johnny Depp's weekend hobby to be the equal of my identity.
That might be an unpopular opinion but there it is.
People crossdress for many reasons, ranging from amusement to deep, abiding need. How do you know that Johnny Depp doesn't CD out of deep, abiding need, and if he does, isn't that a gender identity just as worthy of respect as yours or mine?
Her view of rights are pretty much summed up in Nat Henthoff's famous phrase: 'freedom for me, but not for thee.'
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 15, 2010, 03:09:06 PM
People crossdress for many reasons, ranging from amusement to deep, abiding need. How do you know that Johnny Depp doesn't CD out of deep, abiding need, and if he does, isn't that a gender identity just as worthy of respect as yours or mine?
If it is, then he -by definition per my previous remarks - doesn't fall in the category of activity I was referring to.
I don't think I was in ANY way unclear about the distinction between NEED to dress and "dress for fun"
I'm not going to parse the words even further to address nitpicking.
And, point of order regarding tekla's post (which is all I wish to reply to about that post) - I didn't just become aware of this "a few years ago" and "dealing with it" applies just as much to "trying to get rid of it" as it does to embracing it.
Post Merge: May 15, 2010, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: tekla on May 15, 2010, 03:15:19 PM
Her view of rights are pretty much summed up in Nat Henthoff's famous phrase: 'freedom for me, but not for thee.'
*sigh*
I'll refrain -it's not worth it.
So those that embraced it much earlier are not entitled? There are a lot of ways though this maze, not everyone follows the same path, not everyone can (or should).
And there are a lot of other people out there who don't conform to gender norms that this law is intended to protect, not just the transsexuals.
Quote from: tekla on May 15, 2010, 09:36:45 PM
So those that embraced it much earlier are not entitled? There are a lot of ways though this maze, not everyone follows the same path, not everyone can (or should).
And there are a lot of other people out there who don't conform to gender norms that this law is intended to protect, not just the transsexuals.
I'd be in favor of "non-binary" folks being covered but as an objective opinion, i don't think Congress has either the stones or the smarts to write a well constructed law that would ever do that.
I'm not saying "binary is better" just that I don't think there's any practical chance of getting "non-conformists" any specific protection.
I think that as long as the government recognizes that employers do have some rights regarding the physical presentation of those they employee (uniforms, dress codes, etc) then there's a limit to which one can "non-conform" and expect to obtain or retain certain jobs.
Hell, it's not at all uncommon that certain employers routinely frown on the amount and placement of body art for that reason, which is a lot milder act of non-conformity than gender-blurring.
I think - neither being a San Francisco resident (which is apparently a +50 on the credibility scale in some circles) or a veteran activist - that the first and obvious step would be to obtain legal recognition for that which has a strong argument for being part of a persons identity (just as ethnicity, for instance, is) as orientation, and gender identity are.
To muddy those waters by attempting to also gain recognition for that which will be widely seen as optional behavior(again, not unlike getting a tat or a piercing) is doing nothing but handing the opponents the needed ammunition to shoot down the whole thing.
It has been widely observed (and I believe it to be true) that many a political war rages because both sides insisted on getting EVERY thing they wanted.
that's obviously not to say i favor ANY compromise - but some are more obvious than others.
An unrelated example: if the "pro-life" people had argued, back in the 70's, for limiting abortions to the first trimester at most (except life of the mother) and other reasonable restrictions, they'd have won the day hands down and have saved many lives (as they perceive them to be lives) - but because they insisted on "life from conception" they never won what might have been won.
Similar circumstance here.
Quote from: tekla on May 15, 2010, 09:36:45 PM
And there are a lot of other people out there who don't conform to gender norms that this law is intended to protect, not just the transsexuals.
Exactly.
What I was really attacking, Laura, was the idea (far too common amongst trans people of the "transsexual" mold) that there is this besieged minority of "true" trans people who suffer from this terrible condition - HBS, more or less - to which the other gender-variant types can't claim: that a butch dyke, for example, isn't "really" gender variant in the way that a "true transgender person" is, and yaddity ya. This leads to a sort of trans pissing contest, in which people point out how much more persecuted they are than everyone else, how much they've struggled to pass, how much surgery they had to go through to get there, and aren't they just terribly special, etc. etc. In so doing, they completely overlook the fact that they are in fact part of a spectrum, and that even if the
do struggle more - which they may - that doesn't put them on a special pedestal of sorts above everyone else who doesn't conform to gender standards.
I mean, I'm a genderqueer/andro MtF trans queer kinky atheist subculturally affiliated ethnically Jewish artist with severe lifelong depression, a learning disability and an intersex condition that would've landed me in a wheelchair had it gone undetected, and led to an early death. Poor me, I guess - but I've had a supportive family backing me all my life, not just my mother and father but my brother, my aunt and uncle, my stepmother, my grandmother have all contributed to raising me. I've got a college trust fund to pay my tuition and housing expenses, for crying out loud. I live in San Francisco, LGBTetc. capitol of the world. I grew up in a library - my father's a professional writer/speaker/consultant, and tiny as our house was, his book collection spanned the entire house. I have a family who can carry on a lively debate on the meaning of
Finnegans Wake. That's a form a privilege.
Struggle is a matter of a confluence of situational factors, not just something that happens isolated from everything around it. A young butch dyke with no desire or need for hormones or surgery of any kind, who's got vanilla sexuality, is a Protestant, identifies just fine with mainstream culture, is ethnically a Midwestern caucasian mix, is naturally happy, has no trouble processing sensory inputs or concentrating, and has no significant diseases or genetic anomalies could end up struggling much more than I ever have simply because she's dirt-poor, lives in a tiny town of heterosexual bigots, has been completely abandoned by her family and has no available job opportunities or skills. She might end up as one of the stream of homeless queer and trans kids who filter into San Francisco every year, and end up addicted to drugs and turning tricks on the streets.
It's not really constructive or fair to try to achieve one-upmanship by how bad our diagnosis is. We need to spend less time HBSing ourselves and more time looking out for each other; queers, trans and gender variant people have all been thrown in the boat together, and we need to fight together for the rights of every one of us, instead of fighting each other.
QuoteWhat I was really attacking, Laura, was the idea (far too common amongst trans people of the "transsexual" mold) that there is this besieged minority of "true" trans people who suffer from this terrible condition - HBS, more or less - to which the other gender-variant types can't claim: that a butch dyke, for example, isn't "really" gender variant in the way that a "true transgender person" is, and yaddity ya. This leads to a sort of trans pissing contest, in which people point out how much more persecuted they are than everyone else, how much they've struggled to pass, how much surgery they had to go through to get there, and aren't they just terribly special, etc. etc. In so doing, they completely overlook the fact that they are in fact part of a spectrum, and that even if the do struggle more - which they may - that doesn't put them on a special pedestal of sorts above everyone else who doesn't conform to gender standards.
Again, I'm not remotely trying to do that.
Admittedly I think that one can look at what is practically possible as something different than one's ideal outcome, and on THAT score I might well suggest that "A & B can make the cut but they will never include C in our lifetime" - that won't mean it's what I WANT, just analyzing the possibilities.
But in the distinction i was making re crossdressing, i was not and am not trying to de-legitimize anyone or put myself above anyone or "trow someone under the bus" ... rather, I am saying - in as plain language as i am capable of - that I make a distinction which I believe to be reasonable and which I believe ANY legislation which is passed will recognize: that what one feels one MUST do as a part of their identity is something different than what one does recreationally.
that's not just crossdressing, it's how much ink you wear or how many piercings or how long your beard or hair is or any of 100 other ways one could "non-conform"
Labor policy clearly recognizes the right of the employer to consider such matters of visual presentation in employment decisions and, in my humble opinion, will continue you to and should (because one can't completely infringe the freedom of the employer to obtain freedom for the employee)
Thus, to restate - if you MUST crossdress, even in a non-conformist way - as a matter of identity, you are NOT what I'm talking about.
If you do so because you enjoy it - you have no greater argument than the fellow who can argue he enjoys wearing shorts and flip flops and a wife beater to the office.
i can't figure out why this is causing so much disagreement, it seems self evident to me.
Either the argument is that no employer has ANY right to place ANY standards on ones appearance, or one must acknowledge that reasonable requirements are part of their rights as employers (employers DO have rights after all) and having once conceded that point, then it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that recreational crossdressing would be a legitimate item for an employer to bar in the dress code.
I don't think it's any more of a "choice" for a weekender than it is for full timers. And while the need for a weekender to use the restroom of the gender of presentation (at least for safety reasons) is only there on weekends, it is no less real or "legitimate." So I can't see that there is ever case when it will be OK to demand that weekenders have rights different from full timers. And if weekenders have the rights they need (i.e., complete freedom from the gender binary), then we will have the rights we need. But, too often, we see trans separatists advocating for some sort of legal distinction recognizing a difference between them and other people under the T umbrella. It always makes me unhappy when I see that, and it just seems they crave some kind of demonization of the others to, by being distinguished from the condemned, somehow achieve societal salvation for themselves.
Quote from: tekla on May 10, 2010, 12:05:07 PM
Third, and in the end it might come to this. Change the door from "men" and "woman" to read "penis" and "vagina." Lot of support for this idea really. Gets bonus points because most post-op women feel this way.
And how do you suppose non-bottom op transmen feel about it?
Quote from: tekla on May 10, 2010, 12:05:07 PM
Third, and in the end it might come to this. Change the door from "men" and "woman" to read "penis" and "vagina." Lot of support for this idea really. Gets bonus points because most post-op women feel this way.
You really want fully-transitioned trans men using the same restroom as trans and cis women?
Or pre-op trans women having to use the one for men? Given the rape/assault statistics?
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 15, 2010, 10:22:27 PM
It's not really constructive or fair to try to achieve one-upmanship by how bad our diagnosis is. We need to spend less time HBSing ourselves and more time looking out for each other; queers, trans and gender variant people have all been thrown in the boat together, and we need to fight together for the rights of every one of us, instead of fighting each other.
.
While I can agree with this, the method by which such would be achieved is difficult for me to see. I honestly would like to see everyone included...but haven't a clue as to how such would ever be written into law, much less passed through Congress.
.
The factor we're talking about here isn't really about "how bad" a diagnosis is...the issue is really all about
consistency, and about how John/Jane Q. Public can
identify whether or not someone belongs in a designated space.
.
Transexuals are easy. They identify and present consistently as the opposite of their physical sex. Medically, whether through HRT or Psych letters, there is a way that they can be identified.
.
Everyone else is tricky. There isn't a medical way to identify them. It's all based upon their word. (And when was the last time anything in business was done with the trust of someone's word and a handshake rather than a 100 page legal document or a formal decree?) And even if we assume that we can convince the public at large that all TG people aren't fetishistic freaks to be feared and scorned, we also have to consider that there are Non-TG people that could and would take advantage of poorly written legislation.
.
First, we have to start off by acknowledging and respecting the concerns of those who oppose such legislation.
.
Namely: People feel
vulnerable in the bathroom. Seated with your pants around your ankles isn't exactly a position of strength. Knowing that only other women are allowed in that space does give some a feeling of
security, and of a certain amount of
privacy. While these are often overstated by the opposition, and such feelings may not match the reality, they are still the perception that we must deal with. There's also social "
decency" factors: Where many men really couldn't give a damn about who hears/smells their bodily functions, women tend to be a bit more reserved/embarassed about such things...especially when it comes to the opposite sex. These are a few of the things that we are seen as taking away from people by passing fully inclusive legislation. Poo pooing these concerns doesn't help our cause. We need to deal with them directly to assuage their fears if we hope to gain their support.
.
Which brings us back to the first two issues: consistency, and identification. The easiest way to deal with the above concerns, is to define a group effected by such legislation that can be seen as "safe" that contains both of the above criteria.
.
Without some sort of medical or psych diagnosis...or some sort of voluntary registration process...identification is impossible.
.
With the gender fluid, or the part-timers, consistency is completely absent.
.
Personally, I would love to see anyone who identifies cross-gender as covered. But because we as a community can't define ourselves adequately, or delineate specific boundaries, we are unable to address the two main concerns that the public at large has with such legislation.
.
Alternate solutions could involve the construction of an additional type of bathroom, but I don't see any of these as adequately and fairly addressing the concerns of both sides.
.
Which...unfortunately...leaves us right back where we started.
.
If you have suggestions for how to resolve these issues, I would honestly love to hear them. I'm sure our legislators would too.
.
While I never thought I'd actually say this...I'm actually with Laura on this one...for probably the first time ever. ;)
While I think she could have phrased things more delicately to begin with, the issues she's writing about are the same as I've addressed above. A lot of this debate seems to be 'much ado about nothing'...In a way, it's the dreamers vs. the practical...and while we all need a bit of both, laws and regulations are the business of taking those dreams...and making them as real as is possible in a given framework. I think Laura was trying to make a line of distinction in the beginning, and was clubbed a bit over the head for her troubles. Which is a definite problem in this debate. In law, we need to have a definition of who is...and who isn't...covered. This means defining what "transgender" means in such concerns. When anyone in the community who tries to define and delineate that term is criticized/attacked out of habit for attempting to use that very necessary scalpel, it's a disturbing trend indeed. And one that is not at all helpful in furthering the goals of the trans-community in the legal realm.
So which bathroom does this guy have to use?
And why doesn't he get to choose?
What's wrong with our society that it can't accomodate such individuals?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_rK6ER1tOZLg%2FSh8Nn6Nag2I%2FAAAAAAAAAvM%2FW9eIQ4F5uq0%2Fs400%2F20090525_ScarFairyMan.jpg&hash=d89a89ec793d1f3254a18d36dc691bd808a387eb)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F206%2F462455983_18a7ee6144.jpg&hash=b26b2c1d30b1a5859488c30f91f85fd149bca123)
It costs a company absolutely nothing to remove the Male and Female signs from their bathroom doors, and simply treat them all as unisex. Close the urinals altogether and just use the stalls.
Quote from: Muddy on May 16, 2010, 10:50:03 AM
It costs a company absolutely nothing to remove the Male and Female signs from their bathroom doors, and simply treat them all as unisex. Close the urinals altogether and just use the stalls.
.
If you're talking about physical costs, you're right for the most part. Though, there are some locations where the stalls aren't quite full height. (and gosh those are awkward. :P) Though, ignoring the current culture of segregation of the sexes (which also appears to be desired by the majority of both sexes)...won't get you very far in getting something like that passed. Additionally, often when we speak of this issue, we're assuming a measure of adult maturity from those using the facilities. Imagine if you will...a pre-adolescent boy who is a bit brash and curious about the differences between the sexes with only a crack to peer through, or a wall to look over/under. Children just haven't learned the impulse control that is necessary in the adult world. There's no question that it would happen on occasion. Stalls aren't completely enclosed spaces, so privacy is still a bit of a concern in a mixed setting.
That a society is a certain way, is not an argument for it to remain that way.
Many cultures are far less uptight about bodies. Curiosity in children arose out of an almost obsessive need to treat the human body as something shameful, to be hidden.
There are many heavily gender-binary cultures which are accustomed to unisex or "family" bathrooms; the key is that they usually have full-privacy, floor-to-ceiling stalls. My French transfer student friend has complained to me how exposed our bathroom stalls make her feel - people can see her feet, and could conceivably peek over or under the stall! These things truly are social conventions.
I'm not interested in being a dreamer, I'm interested in covering everyone in the trans community - which, I should note, gender identity discrimination law already gets relatively close to doing in many places. The home stretch - complete freedom from the gender binary - is of course a dream, but the rest of the thing is a simple as basing law from identity, not genitalia - which is common already - and unisexing things from there.
Quote from: Kay on May 16, 2010, 12:26:51 AM
.
While I can agree with this, the method by which such would be achieved is difficult for me to see. I honestly would like to see everyone included...but haven't a clue as to how such would ever be written into law, much less passed through Congress.
.
The factor we're talking about here isn't really about "how bad" a diagnosis is...the issue is really all about consistency, and about how John/Jane Q. Public can identify whether or not someone belongs in a designated space.
.
Transexuals are easy. They identify and present consistently as the opposite of their physical sex. Medically, whether through HRT or Psych letters, there is a way that they can be identified.
.
Everyone else is tricky. There isn't a medical way to identify them. It's all based upon their word. (And when was the last time anything in business was done with the trust of someone's word and a handshake rather than a 100 page legal document or a formal decree?) And even if we assume that we can convince the public at large that all TG people aren't fetishistic freaks to be feared and scorned, we also have to consider that there are Non-TG people that could and would take advantage of poorly written legislation.
.
First, we have to start off by acknowledging and respecting the concerns of those who oppose such legislation.
.
Namely: People feel vulnerable in the bathroom. Seated with your pants around your ankles isn't exactly a position of strength. Knowing that only other women are allowed in that space does give some a feeling of security, and of a certain amount of privacy. While these are often overstated by the opposition, and such feelings may not match the reality, they are still the perception that we must deal with. There's also social "decency" factors: Where many men really couldn't give a damn about who hears/smells their bodily functions, women tend to be a bit more reserved/embarassed about such things...especially when it comes to the opposite sex. These are a few of the things that we are seen as taking away from people by passing fully inclusive legislation. Poo pooing these concerns doesn't help our cause. We need to deal with them directly to assuage their fears if we hope to gain their support.
.
Which brings us back to the first two issues: consistency, and identification. The easiest way to deal with the above concerns, is to define a group effected by such legislation that can be seen as "safe" that contains both of the above criteria.
.
Without some sort of medical or psych diagnosis...or some sort of voluntary registration process...identification is impossible.
.
With the gender fluid, or the part-timers, consistency is completely absent.
.
Personally, I would love to see anyone who identifies cross-gender as covered. But because we as a community can't define ourselves adequately, or delineate specific boundaries, we are unable to address the two main concerns that the public at large has with such legislation.
.
Alternate solutions could involve the construction of an additional type of bathroom, but I don't see any of these as adequately and fairly addressing the concerns of both sides.
.
Which...unfortunately...leaves us right back where we started.
.
If you have suggestions for how to resolve these issues, I would honestly love to hear them. I'm sure our legislators would too.
.
While I never thought I'd actually say this...I'm actually with Laura on this one...for probably the first time ever. ;)
While I think she could have phrased things more delicately to begin with, the issues she's writing about are the same as I've addressed above. A lot of this debate seems to be 'much ado about nothing'...In a way, it's the dreamers vs. the practical...and while we all need a bit of both, laws and regulations are the business of taking those dreams...and making them as real as is possible in a given framework. I think Laura was trying to make a line of distinction in the beginning, and was clubbed a bit over the head for her troubles. Which is a definite problem in this debate. In law, we need to have a definition of who is...and who isn't...covered. This means defining what "transgender" means in such concerns. When anyone in the community who tries to define and delineate that term is criticized/attacked out of habit for attempting to use that very necessary scalpel, it's a disturbing trend indeed. And one that is not at all helpful in furthering the goals of the trans-community in the legal realm.
:standing ovation:
Post Merge: May 16, 2010, 01:45:37 PM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on May 16, 2010, 10:09:21 AM
So which bathroom does this guy have to use?
And why doesn't he get to choose?
What's wrong with our society that it can't accomodate such individuals?
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_rK6ER1tOZLg%2FSh8Nn6Nag2I%2FAAAAAAAAAvM%2FW9eIQ4F5uq0%2Fs400%2F20090525_ScarFairyMan.jpg&hash=d89a89ec793d1f3254a18d36dc691bd808a387eb)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F206%2F462455983_18a7ee6144.jpg&hash=b26b2c1d30b1a5859488c30f91f85fd149bca123)
do you suppose the fellow is likely to show up at work looking like that? Even if he could?
Do you argue that any employer is out of line if they have any sort of dress code that would conflict with that appearance? do you think a cisfemale would be welcomed at ANY non-circus job in that outfit?
Honestly - arguments like that are hardly worthy of this discussion.
Post Merge: May 16, 2010, 02:58:18 PM
Quote from: glendagladwitch on May 15, 2010, 10:56:57 PM
I don't think it's any more of a "choice" for a weekender than it is for full timers.
You are seriously going to take the position that every guy who ever put on a skirt for fun should be considered transgendered?
Quote
And while the need for a weekender to use the restroom of the gender of presentation (at least for safety reasons) is only there on weekends, it is no less real or "legitimate."
It also has exactly NOTHING to do with a law which directly speaks to EMPLOYMENT discrimination. "Weekender" is, by definition, in referance to what one does on one's private time which is an entierly different discussion.
Quote
So I can't see that there is ever case when it will be OK to demand that weekenders have rights different from full timers. And if weekenders have the rights they need (i.e., complete freedom from the gender binary),
Again, no one alive today will ever live to see the day when a bill which essentially outlaws any preference for the gender binary will even be considered, let alone passed.
The odds are it will NEVER happen.
Quote
then we will have the rights we need. But, too often, we see trans separatists advocating for some sort of legal distinction recognizing a difference between them and other people under the T umbrella.
Context is everything. There are a great many things people do and ought be free to do
on their own time that an employer has every right to disallow on the job.
That's not "I'm more T than you are!" That's simply understanding the context of the situation at hand. One may be an alcoholic but that doesn't mean employers should be required to allow you to work drunk; One may be a nudist but that doesn't mean an employer must allow you to work naked; One may be into infantilism but an employer has the right to ask you not to wear your diaper and binky to work; the list is endless.
None of that has to do with an intramural argument within the T community.
Quote
It always makes me unhappy when I see that, and it just seems they crave some kind of demonization of the others to, by being distinguished from the condemned, somehow achieve societal salvation for themselves.
I'm not interested in deamonizing anyone, but neither will I subscribe to an all or nothing approach when "all" is 1000% impossible to achieve.
If we can't agree even within the community (and it's not like I'm the only one who disagrees about where the line should be drawn or even if there should be one) regarding something as narrow as who should be in what bathroom at work, then how can we in good conscious demand a Congress (which is ham-handed when dealing with the clearest of issues) pass acceptable legislation which both protects our rights and is acceptable to the general population?
I don't need to "demonize" Pink Tutu Guy in order to recognize that if you are holding out for an ENDA that defends his right to that outfit at work, you'll die disappointed.
Why is it so hard to set a gender-neutral dress code? You don't have to abolish dress codes. Just don't discriminate by gender.
And it is, plainly, on its face discriminatory to say that a male must wear one set of clothes and a female must wear another. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. Consider any other protected class. Could I, as an employer, require all my black employees to wear yellow shirts and all my white employees to wear blue shirts? Would anyone anywhere consider that to be remotely acceptable? What if I wanted to require all employees over 40 to wear pants or ankle-length skirts and all employees under 40 to wear miniskirts or short-shorts? No? I think you get the picture. The "equal burden" test doesn't fly any more than "separate but equal."
And there is literally no legitimate argument for it. The arguments boil down to (a) history (recall that segregation had historical arguments for it too), and (b) other people's discriminatory aesthetic preferences. There's not even a vaguely-reasonable-sounding privacy argument like there is for bathrooms. It's just "I like to look at women (and women only) dressed appealingly for my sexual tastes." Which is no different and no less harassing/objectifying/inappropriate than "I want to look at young people (and young people only) dressed appealingly for my sexual tastes."
Quote from: kyril on May 16, 2010, 03:23:51 PM
Why is it so hard to set a gender-neutral dress code? You don't have to abolish dress codes. Just don't discriminate by gender.
And it is, plainly, on its face discriminatory to say that a male must wear one set of clothes and a female must wear another. I don't care what the Supreme Court says. Consider any other protected class. Could I, as an employer, require all my black employees to wear yellow shirts and all my white employees to wear blue shirts? Would anyone anywhere consider that to be remotely acceptable? What if I wanted to require all employees over 40 to wear pants or ankle-length skirts and all employees under 40 to wear miniskirts or short-shorts? No? I think you get the picture. The "equal burden" test doesn't fly any more than "separate but equal."
And there is literally no legitimate argument for it. The arguments boil down to (a) history (recall that segregation had historical arguments for it too), and (b) other people's discriminatory aesthetic preferences. There's not even a vaguely-reasonable-sounding privacy argument like there is for bathrooms. It's just "I like to look at women (and women only) dressed appealingly for my sexual tastes." Which is no different and no less harassing/objectifying/inappropriate than "I want to look at young people (and young people only) dressed appealingly for my sexual tastes."
More or less, yes.
Practically speaking, of course, a single uniform would lead to the complete and total disappearance of skirts from uniforms. Probably what would happen is that employees would be given the "choice" between a pants uniform and a skirt uniform, and while women really would have the choice, men would be harassed and ostracized if they every even considered choosing a skirt.
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 16, 2010, 03:27:41 PM
More or less, yes.
Practically speaking, of course, a single uniform would lead to the complete and total disappearance of skirts from uniforms. Probably what would happen is that employees would be given the "choice" between a pants uniform and a skirt uniform, and while women really would have the choice, men would be harassed and ostracized if they every even considered choosing a skirt.
Yes, and that's unfortunate. In some cases it may be grounds for sexual harassment complaints, but that's a separate issue. The main point is that we (outside the U.S. military) don't generally implement discriminatory rules to enshrine the personal preferences of racists or homophobes. If we did, public pools would still be segregated and gay people wouldn't be allowed on sports teams. But we don't restrict the equal rights of members of other suspect classes because other people might treat them badly. So why do we show such deference to sexists?
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 16, 2010, 01:49:10 PM
There are many heavily gender-binary cultures which are accustomed to unisex or "family" bathrooms; the key is that they usually have full-privacy, floor-to-ceiling stalls. My French transfer student friend has complained to me how exposed our bathroom stalls make us feel - people can see her feet, and could conceivably peek over or under the stall! These things truly are social conventions.
.
That is a very good suggestion. I've never seen a bathroom with floor-to-ceiling stalls, so I wasn't even aware that they existed. It definitely makes unisex or family bathrooms a far more realistic option to consider.
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 10, 2010, 08:31:16 PM
Sorry, Laura, but I'm not a "true transgender person," and neither are you.
You just don't get to put trans people on a hierarchy, with transsexuals who've completed every surgery known to science at the top, and crossdressers at the bottom. That's not logical, and not okay. There's nothing "truer" about my gender variance, or yours, than the gender variance of crossdressers.
This is like how haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish theology refuses to acknowledge non-Orthodox Jews as "real Jews;" it's actually considered against halacha (religious law) for them to pray in a Conservative or Reform synagogue. This, of course, bars my lubavitcher relatives from attending shul with us on holidays, and they didn't come to my bar mitzvah (adulthood ceremony) for this reason. Of course, it's fine for us to attend their services. Sigh.
So no, there's no such thing as "true ->-bleeped-<-."
cosign.
And in addition the current definition of transgender is:
From Websters
a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.
I think what you are trying to say is "True Transsexual"? As in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care? Please correct me if I am wrong.
" The true transsexual was thought to be a person with a characteristic path of atypical gender identity development that predicted an improved life from a treatment sequence that culminated in genital surgery. They were thought to have: 1) cross-gender identifications that were consistently expressed behaviorally in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood; 2) minimal or no sexual arousal to cross-dressing; and no heterosexual interest (relative to their anatomic sex). "
Okay if that is the case then I am not a True Transsexual since I have not had surgery and did not know what was wrong with me for most of my life.
Most of us here are likely transgender whether it be transsexuals (pre/post/no op), androgynous, cross-dressers and others (sorry if I missed someone). There is a HUGE difference between a cross dresser and a transsexual. I think most people realize that. But I think we should all have rights to express ourselves in a way we need to to be happy. This right should be protected.
Laura, I remember some heated discussions about politics where you said something to the effect that it will take time for Republicans to accept us and you were okay with that. Why not now? The public needs to learn how to accept this for everyone.
Post Merge: May 16, 2010, 05:10:25 PM
Quote from: LordKAT on May 10, 2010, 02:46:08 PM
I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.
I live in Philadelphia and there is actually a Philadelphia law that deals with this. If someone is uncomfortable using the restroom that a transgender person uses then they have two choices. Find another restroom or schedule time to use the restroom where they can be totally alone to use it. Nobody else can enter while they are in there.
I never quite got the 'their using the wrong bathroom' argument. What do they think we are going to do in there? Or see for that matter?
I also wouldn't fit into the quoted definition of transexual, so it isn't true for all of us. We are individuals following a path that has many twists and turns. What sets us apart is the ultimate goal, not the beginning.
It just shows you what a stupid bigoted world we live in.
Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on May 16, 2010, 06:00:15 PM
They think that trans women in the female bathrooms will:
- rape cis women
- expose themselves to cis women
- make cis women feel threatened
And will also allow cis men to dress as women in order to enter the female bathrooms and rape cis women.
Radical feminists also believe that the female bathrooms are a woman only safe space and that trans women are men who are trying to appropriate that safe space for their own ends.
(If 'my own ends' entails making wee, then washing my hands and leaving, then colour me guilty!)
And, as with many issues, radical feminists are wrong. They spearheaded the prudish and censorious anti-pornography movement on the left, they've harbored anti-trans sentiment for a long time, and they cling to binary notions of gender even while some of them argue that gender is socially constructed.
I'm a proud feminist, but I'm often dismayed at the behavior of various major groups in the feminist movement. There are the folks who want us to spend all our time dissecting speech and trying to reconfigure it to be more polite and PC, almost to the exclusion of going out there and actually working for gender equality and freedom. There are the radical essentialists, who want to divide everyone into either pink or blue, and the folks who are convinced that feminism means war against men.
What happened to simply working to create and sustain gender equality? Why all the sectarianism and ridiculousness?
Quote from: Laura Hope on May 16, 2010, 02:42:21 PM
do you suppose the fellow is likely to show up at work looking like that? Even if he could?
He is at work in those photos. Ren fest staff. I saw him in person last year.
Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 16, 2010, 06:15:36 PM
And, as with many issues, radical feminists are wrong. They spearheaded the prudish and censorious anti-pornography movement on the left, they've harbored anti-trans sentiment for a long time, and they cling to binary notions of gender even while some of them argue that gender is socially constructed.
I'm a proud feminist, but I'm often dismayed at the behavior of various major groups in the feminist movement. There are the folks who want us to spend all our time dissecting speech and trying to reconfigure it to be more polite and PC, almost to the exclusion of going out there and actually working for gender equality and freedom. There are the radical essentialists, who want to divide everyone into either pink or blue, and the folks who are convinced that feminism means war against men.
What happened to simply working to create and sustain gender equality? Why all the sectarianism and ridiculousness?
Some people who call themselves feminists aren't feminists at all. There's a large, loud subset that is:
- anti-sex, and denies the possibility of female heterosexual consent or pleasure
- pro-sex-segregation
- biological-essentialist
- tied to the dominant paradigms of femininity and masculinity (cooperation vs. aggression, monogamy vs. polygamy, etc etc)
- actively undermining acceptance of women in male-dominated workplaces by demanding that they (and the rest of the public sphere) be completely expunged of male sexuality
- anti-trans, and anti-any form of gender expression that subverts biological-essentialist views of male masculinity
That's not feminist. In fact, it's a fundamentally sexist world view.
Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on May 16, 2010, 06:36:23 PM
Or, to put it simply; replacing patriarchy with matriarchy.
With the caveats that:
(1) genuine matriarchy has never been shown to exist - cultures that have been described as matriarchal are actually largely egalitarian (this is part of the patriarchal bias that causes us to view situations that are actually equally balanced as being dominated by women)
and (2) the particular "matriarchal" ideal espoused by this set of self-described feminists draws very heavily from Western patriarchy, particularly in the centrality of control of sexuality and the segregation of women, and is probably better characterized as an alternate implementation of patriarchy.
Quote from: glendagladwitch on May 16, 2010, 06:29:44 PM
He is at work in those photos. Ren fest staff. I saw him in person last year.
what the heck is "ren fest"?
Ah....Google is my friend...Renaissance Festival
That's hardly the sort of job where gender specific dress codes are in play....is it even a real full time job? As opposed to a recreational activity?
In any case - the provisions of ENDA are hardly designed to address the staff of ren fest any more than they are the staff of a comic con.
Quote
I think what you are trying to say is "True Transsexual"? As in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Not remotely what I was saying.
I've explained it repeatedly in later posts. Hopefully something in this thread cleared up your confusion about my intent.
Ren Faire is a full-time job for some people - traveling craftspeople and performers, mainly - and a hobby for others.