Methinks it's time to drop Saint Barney an e-mail.

I can tell you what Barney will tell you, and it ain't pretty.  I'm pretty sure he could care less these days, or any days in the past few years at any rate.  He has much better - i.e. more powerful, more important, more of a crisis, and more lucrative - things to worry about in heading up the House Banking Committee than in any of this EDNA stuff, which for him was (at least the LG part) something he basically wrote years, if not a decade ago and just kept proposing.  He's long over it.  He for sure don't need it at any rate.  No one's firing him for being gay.

It's Tammy Baldwin (D, of course - WI) who has really been the mover of the bill the last couple times through as Barney has just been too busy with the total collapse of the financial system as we know it, to pay much attention to this thing.

Well, I just called his office, and they're having a Legislative Assistant contact me back. We'll see what the LA says.

Quote from: Emelye on May 11, 2010, 07:55:27 AM
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!

I've not heard this term before so I can assure you it's not what I was referring to.  In an effort to learn more about it I researched and found no mention of "AG" being an acronym for  ->-bleeped-<- (which I don't agree with either) or androgyny.  It's use by people on this board as an acronym for androgyny seems perfectly acceptable to me until shown otherwise.  Does anyone know what the standard recognized acronyms are for these two terms? Or if there even are any?

QuoteNot all cross-dressing is done out of "enjoyment."

No, but it is to those who are that I am referring

Quote
The swinging analogy just does not apply.  Swinging implies having sex, and ALL sex is generally prohibited in the workplace.

you are pulling that analogy out of context.

The point I made about swinging is this:

suppose an employer finds out one of his employees is a swinger. it has no direct impact on their job but, in the employer's view, reflects badly on the place of work (as in, suppose, a teacher or a marriage counselor or whatever) and gets disciplined or canned over it.

I disagree with that. IMO if what you do on your time doesn't have a DIRECT impact on your job performance then it should be off the table, no matter what the employer thinks about it.

In like manner, I would argue that if one crossdresses EVERYWHERE but at work, if they are not allowing it to directly impact their job and work performance it should be off the table, no matter how much the employer might dislike it.

It was in THAT case that I made the swinging analogy. I was NOT speaking of what happened AT work.

QuoteTo 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.

I agree on that.

Alright, folks, here's the deal.

I have received a reply from Diego Sanchez, a Legislative Assistant for Barney Frank who is himself a transman and the first openly trans person to work on Capitol Hill.  He referred me to this post on Pam's House Blend, which contains an hour-long interview with him on the current state of ENDA:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify

I just listened to said interview. It seems that the principal sacrifice being made is that a trans person is not allowed to sue for access to bathrooms at any time; the current language also stipulates that employers are not required to build anything new for the sake of a trans employee. In other words, an employer would be able to enact a sort of time-sharing on bathrooms, so that they could prevent a transphobic employee and a trans employee from being in the bathroom at the same time.

As for genital checks, I haven't the expertise to split hairs on the matter and look for loopholes; however, Sanchez says in the interview that it's "not on the table," and that we shouldn't worry about it.

I called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 11, 2010, 05:25:19 PM
Alright, folks, here's the deal.

I have received a reply from Diego Sanchez, a Legislative Assistant for Barney Frank who is himself a transman and the first openly trans person to work on Capitol Hill.  He referred me to this post on Pam's House Blend, which contains an hour-long interview with him on the current state of ENDA:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16092/enda-a-quick-note-from-diego-sanchez-to-clarify

I just listened to said interview. It seems that the principal sacrifice being made is that a trans person is not allowed to sue for access to bathrooms at any time; the current language also stipulates that employers are not required to build anything new for the sake of a trans employee. In other words, an employer would be able to enact a sort of time-sharing on bathrooms, so that they could prevent a transphobic employee and a trans employee from being in the bathroom at the same time.

As for genital checks, I haven't the expertise to split hairs on the matter and look for loopholes; however, Sanchez says in the interview that it's "not on the table," and that we shouldn't worry about it.

I called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

If I wrote myt congresspeeps, I expect they would dispatch police to "take me out."  But I'm just basing that on the fact that I live in Texas.  I have to remember that the Texas legislature voted unanimously last year to permit a marriage license to be obtained by presentation of a court ordered gender change.  But I honestly don't think they read the bill.

---

Post Merge: May 11, 2010, 08:02:07 PM

---

Quote from: BrandiOK on May 11, 2010, 02:17:54 PM
I've not heard this term before so I can assure you it's not what I was referring to.  In an effort to learn more about it I researched and found no mention of "AG" being an acronym for  ->-bleeped-<- (which I don't agree with either) or androgyny.  It's use by people on this board as an acronym for androgyny seems perfectly acceptable to me until shown otherwise.  Does anyone know what the standard recognized acronyms are for these two terms? Or if there even are any?

By "AG," I thought autogynophelia was meant, except the context did not fit.  That's because I've seen it abbreviated that way so many times, including on this forum in other discussions.  But I don't think there is a "Codex Transgendera" yet.   I know "androgyne" has way too man letters, but maybe you could say "androgyne (AG)," and then use AG to mean androgyne after you've established the meaning.  Meanwhile, if I ever talk about autogynophelia, I will do the same.

QuoteI called him back to ask about how, if at all, ENDA will effect employees whose gender expression is being interfered with by dress codes and uniforms - say, a butch lesbian being forced to wear a skirt, or an andro person being forced to wear makeup. He's not yet gotten back to me on that.

He did spend significant time in the interview exhorting the trans community to keep pushing as hard as it can for trans-inclusive ENDA, and emphasized that we are, in his words, "very close" to getting ENDA and need to work as hard as we can. In particular, he emphasized how important it is to make calls and write emails to our congresspeople, representatives in particular, to help stir up enough support for ENDA to pass.

For me, the latter paragraph's fate with respect to me is tied to the former.  Or it would be if not for the fact that I share glenda's "Texas problem" (my House Rep is also Republican).

Quote"Not all cross-dressing is done out of 'enjoyment.'"

No, but it is to those who are that I am referring

If the idea is to allow employers to prohibit "CDing-to-play-around" or "CDing-to-harass" but not CDing in general, requiring a gender-neutral dress code does not interfere with that.  Playing/goofing around is grounds for termination.  Harassing employees or customers is grounds for termination.  Class protections obligate equal treatment/opportunity, not immunity.  Barney Frank's language does not appear supportive of this viewpoint.

FWIW I took AG as androgyne as that is the only way I have seen it used. I see where it could mean either one now. I think you need to look at context as other acronyms can be taken two different ways, one not kind, You use context to know which.

Just my opinion

To avoid confusion it is wise to avoid most acronyms.

Quote from: Kaelin on May 12, 2010, 01:27:24 AM
For me, the latter paragraph's fate with respect to me is tied to the former.  Or it would be if not for the fact that I share glenda's "Texas problem" (my House Rep is also Republican).

If the idea is to allow employers to prohibit "CDing-to-play-around" or "CDing-to-harass" but not CDing in general, requiring a gender-neutral dress code does not interfere with that.  Playing/goofing around is grounds for termination.  Harassing employees or customers is grounds for termination.  Class protections obligate equal treatment/opportunity, not immunity.  Barney Frank's language does not appear supportive of this viewpoint.

I talked further with Mr. Sanchez. What he said to me was that under Congressman Frank's language:
-employers are allowed to have gender-binary uniforms and dress codes, but you have the right to choose the uniform which accurately reflects your gender identity
-you must choose a uniform or gendered dress code and stick with it - so if you want to CD at work, you'll have to do so full-time.

There are no gender-neutral uniforms required, but it does allow for some breathing room within the binary. This was presented to me as a reasonable concession, and I think I agree with that.

For what it's worth, Mr. Sanchez is a very nice fellow - a transman himself - and would probably be happy to address whatever concerns and questions you have. His number at Congressman Frank's office is 202-225-3609, and his email address is Diego.Sanchez@mail.house.gov . He called me back after work hours and spent a good long time discussing the bill with me, and he clearly really cares about this stuff. He might be able to give you advice for who to call and email, since you have your "Texas problem."

Regarding the term 'AG'...

I'm a lawyer.  The only use of the term with which I was previously familiar was as an abbreviation for 'Attorney General'

So as I understand the 'clarification', any pre-op or non-op transgendered employee will still be required to use whichever bathroom matches their genitals.  So MtF's will have to use the mens room and FtM's will have to use the ladies room.  However the employer will be required to set up a system that makes sure that non-tg men who are bothered by it won't have to be in there at the same time.  Which, by default, means non-tg men who aren't bothered by it will be in there with MtF women and vice versa for FtM.  It also means, should an employer not offer an alternative bathroom, TG employee's will be subject to scheduled bathroom breaks (maybe I'm weird but my bathroom usage rarely follows a schedule).  This also means TG employee's who are stealth and haven't had grs/srs will be outed to everyone based on bathroom usage.

I never expected there to be actual genital police inspecting genitals but since the concession is in place there will also have to be a process for determining genitalia.  Will that be the use of gender markers on ID? Probably not since the requirements for having gender markers changed vary from state to state.  Will it be the gender listed by the social security office? Perhaps, I think the SS, on a federal level, requires a letter from a surgeon proving said person has had SRS/GRS.  I suspect, however, there are loopholes which will prevent SS from being used as the gold standard.  So...why aren't they telling us what standard will be used to determine genitalia? They are quick to say there will be no genital checks but don't give any detail on what they WILL use to decide. 

I understand that the process is still in a debate and decide mode but as they continue to tell us a vote is coming very soon, the details, and not generalizations, of what has been decided should be available for us to see what is being voted on for our "benefit". 

Actually, Brandi, Diego Sanchez made it explicitly clear to me that the current bill language avoids use of the Medical Model entirely - it's based entirely on gender identity, not genitalia. Pre-op and non-op people will be just as protected as op folks.
One of the provisions of the bill is that no employer can ever force an employee to use a bathroom that does not fit their gender identity - and it is of course illegal not to provide bathrooms for all employees.
Employers are empowered to regulate bathroom use by occupancy, so that they can mandate that a trans employee and a transphobe employee not use the bathroom at the same time. The current bill language also states that employers do not have to build any new facilities.

So, in short, Brandi, all these fears about genital policing and genital-based bathroom use are outright bunk. There is no Medical Model language in the bill.

I encourage you to call or email Diego Sanchez yourself. He's a very nice fellow and will be happy to answer your questions.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 12, 2010, 10:53:28 AM
I talked further with Mr. Sanchez. What he said to me was that under Congressman Frank's language:
-employers are allowed to have gender-binary uniforms and dress codes, but you have the right to choose the uniform which accurately reflects your gender identity
-you must choose a uniform or gendered dress code and stick with it - so if you want to CD at work, you'll have to do so full-time.

There are no gender-neutral uniforms required, but it does allow for some breathing room within the binary. This was presented to me as a reasonable concession, and I think I agree with that.

I agree. Seems reasonable.

I understand Mr. Sanchez's explanation, however, so far the only written evidence of such from the actual roll call shows Barney Frank saying transgender people with one set of genitals will NOT be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.  I'm afraid that is the sticking point.  If this is the actual concession, and so far there has been no change reported on the concession, then I'm afraid I'm not going to believe otherwise.

It's very possible that I, and many others, are wrong but the burden of proof falls on the language of the bill and not a political interpretation of what it means or doesn't mean by a policy advisor, even if that policy advisor is transgendered.  I will Email Mr. Sanchez and ask him to provide the actual language of the bill and how it pertains to this subject.  This is an occasion where I would be tickled pink to be wrong.

Yes, I encourage you to do so. I can't offer proof that we're not being somehow secretly screwed over here, but from what I can tell, Congressman Frank was just speaking clumsily and trying to appease the fears of transphobe "moderates." I understand that Barney Frank's far from perfect, but I haven't seen any indicators that such language is actually in the bill.

The tone of some of the trans activist blogs I've seen around this is downright paranoid. I understand where that comes from - we're an embattled minority, and we get screwed over and thrown under the bus frequently - but it's hardly constructive.

I'm not sure if the bill language is being made public yet, but I do encourage you to email Diego Sanchez and try to figure the situation out yourself.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 13, 2010, 01:10:23 PM
Congressman Frank was just speaking clumsily and trying to appease the fears of transphobe "moderates."

Pretty much.

I listened to Mr. Sanchez's interview on TransFM (I think that's what it's called) in it's entirety and found it lacking in any real answers to the bathroom issue.  Mr. Sanchez repeats many of the same generalizations that we have questioned but offers little in the way of details or bill language. The interview included multiple pleads by Mr. Sanchez for the trans community to stop discussing this issue because it feeds the opposition.  I, for one, thinks that it is the 'clumsy speaking' of Mr. Frank that has created and fed this controversy and not those who stand to question it.  If, in fact, this controversy is a mountain out of a mole hill situation the blame falls squarely back onto Mr. Frank. 

I Emailed Mr. Sanchez and asked the most direct and pointed questions I could on this issue.  I sincerely hope I receive direct and pointed answers instead of the side-stepping we've seen so far.  Example of which would be the concern that transgender employees won't be allowed to use the restroom that matches their gender identity and instead be forced to use restrooms that matched their physical sex.  The answer tossed about is basically 'no transgender employee will be denied restroom usage' (um, that's not the question, of course nobody is going to tell you that you can't use the restroom) or 'transgender employees will not be required to use the wrong restroom' ("wrong" has yet to be defined. If "wrong" is defined as a restroom opposite of gender identity then say it but if "wrong" is based on matching genitalia, as quoted by Mr. Frank, then say that too). 

If I receive an answer back to my Email I'll pass on that information here.

Quote from: Jen on May 13, 2010, 02:39:02 PM
Pretty much.

Frank has never been the smoothest of communicators.