Bill to Exterminate Trans Women On Course to Pass

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

From Roll Call:

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

snip

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

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

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

This is worse than not having enda.

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

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

Nauseating.

  What is their problem?

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

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

Anyway, there is a lot of ground between-

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SD

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

SD

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

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

SD

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

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

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

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

I'm sympathetic here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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