Gay dot com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will postpone advancing the latest version of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act that includes protections for gay men and lesbians but excludes transgender people, her office said Monday.

The bill was scheduled for mark-up in committee Tuesday, at which point it would have been sent to the House floor for a vote.

---

House Postpones Action on Non-Transgender ENDA
Towleroad

According to a press release from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, "Tomorrow's scheduled House committee action on a version of employment non-discrimination legislation without protections for transgender people has been postponed. A statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Miller, Representative Frank and Rep. Baldwin said this would 'allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with Members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.'"

The roaring of the masses throughout the land was heard in the halls of Congress, it seems. I bet it was Tammy Baldwin who got this turned around from the inside.

Thank Goddles!  I've been sick over the divisiveness I been seeing about it everywhere.  Even when people agree, they go on and on about how stupid and careless dropping the T is.

Now I have time to compose the most perfect letters to send out.  Heh heh.

So much for all-inclusiveness:

QuoteSection 8(a)(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

Section 8(a)(4) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee's hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.

What about people that don't have a definite gender identity? People that cross or blur the lines are left out, and no one gives a damn. Just as Bi-sexual people that identify as neither homosexual or heterosexual enjoy the protections for homosexuality, so ought all people be able to express their gender identity as they see fit and still have the same protections as the transgendered undergoing transition.

For these reasons, I am stiil against this bill as it currently stands. So, I also will be sending out my letters against the bill. Leave no one behind.

I know a lot of companies that are OK with trans people. All they want to know is if you are male or female. Just like society, they are still on the binary system. I don't see anything wrong in going to work as one or the other, but when you off the job you can be whoever you want. Afterall you are working for a company or family or a person who owns the business and they want you to be their public figure head. The public is having a hard enough time learning about trans issues. I don't feel that in your private life that you should be held accountable to what society wants with in reason. You should not be fired cause you are who you are in the private sector and you should not be evicted from your home either. If you don't like what a company does with a dress code, then open your own company and you can have whatever you want. Maybe some day there will be no pressure on whether your male or female, it is coming closer everyday. My wife is in human resources at her job and they just did a big change in the dress code. There is no reference to either male of female. They just want you to be neat and clean and not sloppy. They do have a half ass uniform. This is a major company in the United States. They have all ready accepted trans people and are into letting people transition on the job.
Sheila

QuoteNothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee's hours at work . . .


What about people that don't have a definite gender identity? People that cross or blur the lines are left out, and no one gives a damn. Just as Bi-sexual people that identify as neither homosexual or heterosexual enjoy the protections for homosexuality, so ought all people be able to express their gender identity as they see fit and still have the same protections as the transgendered undergoing transition.

For these reasons, I am stiil against this bill as it currently stands. So, I also will be sending out my letters against the bill. Leave no one behind.

This is simply a clause which allows employer dress codes to exist.  I really can't think that this is truly onerous to anyone.  If you are working and your employer has a dress code then it's part of your agreement, when you take that paycheck, to follow their rules.  What you do outside of work is your time and no one has a right to tell you how to dress and express yourself as long as you aren't hurting anyone.  But if a person dresses in a manner that's inappropriate to the marketplace and your appearance hurts business, then harm is being done.  So if someone finds they cannot live with their employer's dress code then they are free to search for employment elsewhere.

Gender stereotyping and uneven application in dress codes has already been addressed in the courts and they ruled it's illegal.  I can't see how this clause harms people in the way it has been accused of doing.  I don't see how it leaves anyone out.  We are all subject to our employers' rules.

hugs & smiles
Emelye

Thank you for your response of sanity and good sense, Emelye.

I agree; androgyny, dual gendered, etc should be protected for GLBT and Str8. Whether or not that would ever get included into a first draft of such a bill is, sadly, unlikely. Someone always seems to get left behind and the lobbyists never keep promises of "we'll come back for you!"

Quote from: Thundra on October 01, 2007, 08:53:22 PM
So much for all-inclusiveness:

What about people that don't have a definite gender identity? People that cross or blur the lines are left out, and no one gives a damn. Just as Bi-sexual people that identify as neither homosexual or heterosexual enjoy the protections for homosexuality, so ought all people be able to express their gender identity as they see fit and still have the same protections as the transgendered undergoing transition.

For these reasons, I am stiil against this bill as it currently stands. So, I also will be sending out my letters against the bill. Leave no one behind.

Even if every last one of us were included in a bill, within a week, there would be a new powerless bunch of people.

Suddenly people who watch television in the dark would be demonized simply because there always has to be a victim for bullies.

It seems to me that the terms, "gender identity and expression" are general enough to cover those who do not fit into the binary.  This is something the courts would probably have to decide though, once the bill is passed.

As far as the delay in bringing up the bill is concerned, I think this is good news.  I'm happy that the congressional leadership has heeded the outcry their proposed strategy created.  I'm also happy to see that the HRC has joined us in condemning that misguided separation of our community.

So now it's up to us to make sure that Congress knows how badly we need this bill and also to let them know who and what we really are - ordinary men and women with extraordinary histories - and that we are not what the anti-gay groups' lies would paint us as.

I will be writing a short description of who I am and will send it to my representatives in Washington.  I will also tell them my fears and how the lack of federal protection limits me in ways that they probably would never dream of.  The downside to this is that I have to be willing to stand up in public and admit to people that I am a woman who grew up in a man's body.  It's my belief that this is worth it.  I hope everyone else who reads this will think so too.

I got to thinking about all the trans people who are living in stealth and might be afraid to stand up and be counted.  I think there's a way that people in stealth can help a great deal and still remain anonymous.

If you are a trans person living in stealth I think it would help a great deal to write an email to your congressional representatives using a fictional name.  A free email account can be quickly set up on Yahoo or Hotmail or some such provider.  If I were writing that way I would admit in the email that the name is fictional and then I would explain why I was afraid or unwilling to be out and known as a trans person.  Stories of why many of us live under the radar can be powerful indicators of how much anti-discrimination laws are really needed for trans people.  If you could provide general information about your location that would indicate that you live in that representative's district, so much the better.

I really appreciate that people are willing to pitch in and I hope we'll be able to provide the great groundswell of heretofore unseen support for a trans inclusive ENDA that will be needed to pass this essential piece of legislation.  Thanks!!

hugs & smiles
Emelye

QuoteGender stereotyping and uneven application in dress codes has already been addressed in the courts and they ruled it's illegal.  I can't see how this clause harms people in the way it has been accused of doing.  I don't see how it leaves anyone out.  We are all subject to our employers' rules.

Unless the company in question has a uniform dress code, that is unisex in nature, including everything from hair length to makeup, it's not even. I worked for a major corporation also, and there was a guy there that liked to play dress up sometimes. He was not queer, or transgendered, but he liked to wear a skirt at times. Why?  Who knows?  There was also someone on staff that was transitioning, and she also wore skirts sometimes. She had full clearabce to do as she pleased, but if he wore a skirt, or eye makeup, he got sent home.

All this is an attempt to make everyone fit the binary standard. I say &(^% the binary standard, and anyone that tries to enforce it. Not everyone that conflicts with gender norms is queer or transgendered either.

The only way for a company to have a uniform dress code that is not discriminatory, is to make everyone wear the same style of slacks, the same cut of top,  no prohibitions on hairlength or style, and a ban on makeup. Either that, or allow everyone to dress as they will under a single set of standards. But the public doesn't want that, because they don't want some guy coming to work in heels and a dress on casual Fridays. I don't think they'd be too keen with having some woman come in wearing a three-piece and sporting facial hair either.

This is not about expanding freedoms for all people, this is about finding a way for people to conform to the rules of duality. If an emplyer makes a person choose one gender type or another, that is another form of restriction. The only solution is a unisex code of appearance and conduct. Can you say Mao Tse-Tung and cultural revolution? Because that is where we will be headed to conform to this kind of application.

QuoteI don't see anything wrong in going to work as one or the other, but when you off the job you can be whoever you want. Afterall you are working for a company or family or a person who owns the business and they want you to be their public figure head.

Yeah, well that is probably what they would tell a lot of transsexuals if they could too.

And then this:

Quoteprovided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

Again with the transtioning people. What about gender-variant people that are not going to transition? IMO, you are selling them out. Yeah, you can pass the bill as is and come back for them later, right? What a bunch of hypocrites. When the queer population leaves you behind, they are committing a mortal sin. When you leave the gender-variant or gender-ambiguous behind, it ain't no big thang, right? Whatever.

Quote from: Thundra on October 02, 2007, 06:53:22 PM

Quoteprovided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee's gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

Again with the transtioning people. What about gender-variant people that are not going to transition? IMO, you are selling them out. Yeah, you can pass the bill as is and come back for them later, right? What a bunch of hypocrites. When the queer population leaves you behind, they are committing a mortal sin. When you leave the gender-variant or gender-ambiguous behind, it ain't no big thang, right? Whatever.

They will never come back for us.  I know it. You know it.  The American people know it.

   We'll be cast adrift on waterlogged rafts with a half empty can of sardines. And there we will remain until the ocean swallows us whole.  A-waitin' for a rescue that we know in our hearts will never materialize. 

   By the way, I like the Unisex chairman Mao look.  I'm not being sarcastic.  My perversion is to appear as being genderless.      Too bad I suck at it