Yes. It makes it worse for TS-people. My all respect towards rep. Frank has gone. The realistic thing to do will be re-introduce ENDA with only GLB protections. This kind of law would be a huge set back.

I don't understand how protection for a limited few in their bathroom use makes it worse than no protection of anything for anybody.

because it causes discrimination for those who haven't had bottom surgery or are unwilling to share that they have. It makes it illegal to use a restroom that many already use. It gives employers an excuse to fire you. No where does it say that en employer has to show proof that you used the wrong bathroom, only that you have to prove your 'right' to use the correct one.

@LordKAT: You're right.  I wanted to say that Laura's suggested ENDA would have the issue I stated.

Regarding the ENDA we actually seem to be getting, only a small portion of TSs out of the whole TG family (those who have had SRS) get "covered," and there are many details outlined that could make matters worse.  Actually, if TSs could be subject to inspection, then any person (even cisgendered) could theoretically be subject to it.  A particularly abusive employer may use this power to "inspect" any employee the person would like to intimidate or harass, even without any serious objective reason to suspect the carpet doesn't match the drapes the employee's gender doesn't match their privates.  (They're called "privates" for a reason, right?)

Or am I getting ahead of myself here?

On this note, does anyone know of any particular state(s)/cit(ies) with an inclusive ENDA-type policy that actually handles these issues effectively?  There may be some slight hope of getting a good inclusive ENDA by giving an example of where such a policy works.

It works in a number of places. Fed gov't isn't listening real well.

So ok - how do those of you who are required by medical law to cross live full time before you can have surgery get through - this seems like double jeopardy to me.

You are to be prevented from using the gender "correct" restroom - but if you don't then some awkward doctor could in theory use your legally enforced use of the "wrong" one to disqualify your from SRS by saying that "full time exept when I use the bathroom" isn't really full time! So in effect this law effectively makes full compliance with the international standard of care completely impossible for any American. Brilliant!

Yes - I am taking things to the ultimate extreme but to any person with an iota of common sense this whole thing is totally crazy and unworkable! What you going to do - have bathroom police - or airport style nudity scanners at the entrance to them all?

I say you lot need to go on a major civil unrest style demonstration before this moronic rubbish makes your nation into the laughing stock of the civilised world I think!

I agree Jenny. This law with the bathroom part in it is a major disaster. What happened to simply ending discrimination for work, housing , and public accommodations?

It would seem to be adding to the discrimination, not easing it in any real way.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Err, no one mentioned that St. Barney was also specific about "reasonable accommodations" as opposed to forcing anyone into the wrong bathroom.
You all seem to forget that sexual harassment is against the law so those who haven't been blabbing about their plumbing can refuse to discuss it on those grounds and make it stick (of course if you've insisted on discussing your wee wees all over the internut, you are pretty well screwed now)....and lastly, all ENDA would have meant best case is an employer could not tell you straight out "I'm not hiring you because you are some sort of gender freak".  The years after the civil rights bill was put into place taught us quite clearly the lesson that proving an actual discrimination case is extremely difficult and that if an employer doesn't want to hire you for whatever reason, as long as they are careful what they say, they don't have to and won't.

Bathrooms, at least public ones, are considered a public accommodation.

So, I guess first of all - all the people who were writing on supporting this legislation, I have to wonder if you read it first?

The HBS people^* have long asked, no, demanded, that these be the standards.  No self-diagnosis, no self-administration of hormones, no non-ops.  If you've been around here (or other TS/TG boards) you would have seen that argument play out time and time again.  It's the old 'ham and eggs breakfast' argument.  The chicken is involved, but the pig, the pig is committed.  And this law is only going to work for the committed. It works only for those who have taken committed and non-reversible actions to deal with their HBS.  Again, as the HBS people would have it.

how do those of you who are required by medical law to cross live full time before you can have surgery get through - this seems like double jeopardy to me
Back to the old stand-by of 'carry letters' signed off on by a medical/psychological professional.  Being 'in treatment' I'm sure will be considered 'enough' under the statue, but be 'in treatment' you must be.  And for people to be 'in treatment' it's mandatory to have some sort of diagnosis/treatment protocol, so this has HUGE implications for the writing of the DSM.

See, for all the push for a 'trans inclusive EDNA' (write your congressperson today!) that perhaps was not the best course to tie trans to gay in that manner.  I'm sure it would have taken another decade for a trans-only NDA to be written, but perhaps it should have taken that long.  But having more data from local efforts (See Twin Cities, SF, and a few other places) to see how it worked out in practice would have aided in the creation of a better bill.^**

And, for all the talk about the gays pushing the trans persons off the bus, it's going to make your head swim just how fast the people this does cover take to jettison the rest of us.  As it is, it's not 'inclusive' (though few laws are) it's really a post-op protection act, and as such, though not representing any sort of a common advance, it is a pretty simple first step.


* - This group includes people with GID who agree with the HBS path, as well as a considerable portion of the professional medical community who make a lot of money are deeply involved with the people diagnosed with GID.

** - BTW, the standard solution to the bathroom problem has been to advocate for more unisex facilities, which is a 'third-path' solution, and also is a way around having to fight out the bathroom issues for real.

Unfortunately, we still don't know the specific language so we are arguing about speculations.  It could turn out well or it might yet be a disaster.  I pray that we will have a chance to react to the actual language of the bill and not be presented with an divisive fait accompli which will most assuredly damage our community for years to come.

hugs & smiles
Emelye

Any bill designed to 'protect' some group or class of persons begins with defining who is (and also, who is not) a member of that group or class.

Quote from: kyril on May 10, 2010, 01:38:08 AM
Prohibit gender-specific dress codes. It's really quite simple, and it should already be the law.

There's no reasonable chance that would ever pass. The law of unintended consequences would play havoc with it anyway.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 10:00:48 AM

---

Quote from: Jen on May 10, 2010, 02:51:15 AM
I don't even think you can have the debate without defining whether it is,

or

or

...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.

IMO, you are many decades away - at best - from seeing any action which goes beyond the binary.

the best possible outcome for trans folks in the relatively near term will still be very driven by the binary.

anything beyond that is a pipe dream with some really interesting stuff in the pipe.

Oh, and I don't think that excluding recreational crossdressing from these protections, or those who defy the binary, constitutes a "narrow" definition of transgender. Without being privvy to statistics, I'd still guess that the VAST majority of those who identify as transgender do so within the binary.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 11:10:34 AM

---

Quote from: Kaelin on May 10, 2010, 02:52:56 AM
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.

What does "AG" refer to?

As for crossdressers, and I speak here of people who are perfectly happy being males and crossdress for enjoyment only, I will speak here an unpopular opinion (big surprise, eh?0 but:

I'm not "throwing them under the bus" from my point of view because they were never within the group of folks I thought needed legal recognition in the first place (except, as i said earlier, that they should not suffer on the job for what they may be discovered to do off the job).


Crossdressing - as I describe it above - is an ACTIVITY. It's not WHO YOU ARE.

I don't think you should suffer for it in general terms, anymore than one should suffer for playing tennis or whatever. But it's not identity.

consider a nice hetro activity like swinging. I don't think anyone should suffer retribution at work or socially or in any other aspect of their life because they are swingers as long as that activity doesn't specifically and directly affect the job (as in for instance violating rules against fraternization) BUT it is, ultimately, a recreational activity and not an identity that needs to be protected in law.

In this and many other cases, a private citizen may wrong another private citizen - it happens. It's not practical for the government to intervene in every private wrong.

But the term "thrown under the bus" implies you have someone with you in the lifeboat you are willing to toss overboard to survive. In my personal worldview, crossdressing - as described above - was never in the boat to begin with so I'm not "sacrificing" anyone here.

---

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 01:20:24 PM

---

Quote from: Kaelin on May 10, 2010, 05:32:33 AM
@LordKAT: You're right.  I wanted to say that Laura's suggested ENDA would have the issue I stated.

Regarding the ENDA we actually seem to be getting, only a small portion of TSs out of the whole TG family (those who have had SRS) get "covered," and there are many details outlined that could make matters worse.  Actually, if TSs could be subject to inspection, then any person (even cisgendered) could theoretically be subject to it.  A particularly abusive employer may use this power to "inspect" any employee the person would like to intimidate or harass, even without any serious objective reason to suspect the carpet doesn't match the drapes the employee's gender doesn't match their privates.  (They're called "privates" for a reason, right?)

In that regard, even a post-op might be subject to "inspection" just to verify they are not forging the "proof" if an employer really wanted to be abusive.

Which is to say that beyond not only not increasing protection, the bill (if the rumors are true) would actually DECREASE freedom for (in theory) ALL people.

At least, if I'm understanding the reactions correctly.

Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
What does "AG" refer to?

Androgyne

I think the protections propsed in this bill are substantially less than those already available under the Price-Waterhouse line of cases.  We'd be better off without a Congressional rulemaking that essentially rejects that line of cases.

I was wondering what it would feel like to have the shoe on the other foot.  I was against the non-inclusive ENDA.  As a post op person, this bill would purportedly protect me.  Yet, still I am against it.  Yay me!

Hell, it's on course to pass the House, though I don't think it makes it through the Senate, but who knows?

I'm trying to word this as not to sound offensive because it certainly comes off as such when I read it back and that is far from my intention. I'm trying to alleviate my own ignorance on the subject. Ok, so how does the Employment Non Discrimination Act, including the current 'have to match genitals with bathrooms concession', apply to all of you who don't identify as TS?  Basically, what would you like to see included and excluded as it pertains to your situation in the workforce.

Personally, I've already given up on ENDA.  The supposed "T" inclusive bill is doing more harm than good to the community and imagine it will continue it's downward spiral to the top.

QuoteOk, so how does the Employment Non Discrimination Act, including the current 'have to match genitals with bathrooms concession', apply to all of you who don't identify as TS?

The bathroom part of ENDA does not.  However ineloquently, I begin to discuss this matter back in this post.

QuoteThere's no reasonable chance that would ever pass. The law of unintended consequences would play havoc with it anyway. ... the best possible outcome for trans folks in the relatively near term will still be very driven by the binary.

For AGs (androgynes) or alternate-genders in particular, this does not provide good results.  Their own identity is in conflict with binary, and writing a law that permits discrimination against such people is destructive to them.

As to mandating gender-neutral dress codes, there are almost always "unintended consequences" with laws.  The question is whether there are any so destructive as to create serious problems that cannot be fixed by through simple clarifications and adjustments.  I don't see why there would be such problems here.  The employees involved still have to do their jobs professionally.  If someone poorly assembles their visual presentation while integrating elements of more than one gender, that can probably dealt with much the same way as a person poorly assembling their visual presentation using elements of just one gender.  If there's a skirt, dress, blouse, etc that are inappropriate for a "man" to wear, it is not appropriate for anyone to wear.

QuoteAs for crossdressers, and I speak here of people who are perfectly happy being males and crossdress for enjoyment only, ... consider a nice hetro activity like swinging.

Not all cross-dressing is done out of "enjoyment."  CDing is an "activity" much in the same way as "wearing clothes" is an activity.  CDing pertains to a class of expressions that are generally accepted for the "other" gender.  Granted, first amendment rights don't apply in the workplace, but gender discrimination can be regulated/prohibited.  On the other hand, if a male-bodied employee spends half an hour walking around the office in their favorite getup to try to get their co-workers to acknowledge their appearance, then that employee isn't doing their job.  There are rules for dealing with a person being a doofus.

The swinging analogy just does not apply.  Swinging implies having sex, and ALL sex is generally prohibited in the workplace.  Clothing that's worn by the "other" gender is not.

It CDing is something that comes off as a "fun activity" rather than expression, it is because so much of society suppresses it that once a person does get around to doing it, it may provide a lot of relief to them.  If a person can publically wear their desired attire seven days a week rather than maybe a few hours on a weekend, the person will be in a better position to just focus on their job and live their life, even (or especially) while dressed.

Quote from: Laura Hope on May 10, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Oh, and I don't think that excluding recreational crossdressing from these protections, or those who defy the binary, constitutes a "narrow" definition of transgender.

I meant 'narrow' in the sense that if you put an "and" instead of an "or" between the statements I quoted, anybody that hasn't had bottom surgery is excluded, which would include anybody that's pre-op and many post-op FTM's-- all of whom do fit nicely into the binary.

I'm not really talking about crossdressers.  To leave people twisting in the wind that have transitioned but don't fit the narrow definition described above because of this paranoia people seem to have with bathroom behavior seems a little myopic to me.  The catch-22's that go with it have been well stated.  Why not just make going to the bathroom to leer at people a fireable offense, regardless of gender, sexuality, or whatever else, for goodness sakes-- if that is the real issue people are so worried about?

Quote from: tekla on May 10, 2010, 11:24:36 AM
Back to the old stand-by of 'carry letters' signed off on by a medical/psychological professional.  Being 'in treatment' I'm sure will be considered 'enough' under the statue, but be 'in treatment' you must be.  And for people to be 'in treatment' it's mandatory to have some sort of diagnosis/treatment protocol, so this has HUGE implications for the writing of the DSM.

I get the concern now that it's been explained clearly, but I dunno, the position still seems a little paranoid to me.  Though it is often the paranoid that voice dissent loudly enough to get reasonable clauses added to loophole-ridden drafts of legislation.  So, carry on =P.

I believe the acronym, "AG" refers to autogynephile, that hateful diagnosis/word coined by Ray Blanchard and promoted with him by Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence.  I also believe this term does not belong in this discussion and will ask those who think of using it to refrain.  It's part of an unproven, controversial and fringe theory that most trans people reject and as such, will be considered a slur unless someone wishes to apply the definition to themselves and themselves only.  Thanks!

hugs & smile
Emelye

I was using it for "androgyne."

It's a shame that the word you mentioned can lay claim to the same acronym -- I will refrain from using it in the future.