Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
Make you case.

As cynthia notes, this has been a rather divisive subject.  It has been made abundantly clear that people did not want my opinion on the matter.  I'm electing NOT to add further to the fray.  As far as arguments against broader language, I will articulate those to the appropriate legislators as individual bills are considered...

Quote from: cynthialee on June 05, 2011, 09:34:26 AM

We need to start looking to the things that bind us togather. Not the things that set us apart from eachother.

**hugs**

What bind us together is that due to ignorance and superstition we are l "targeted people." We all are persecuted because our mind does not rhyme with our bodies, and that grinds many people in our nations. Our nature is perceived as a religious abomination or as a psychological perversion that needs to be punished by any means.

We should do well remembering that many our gains have been afford to us by the umbrella that the gay and lesbian activist generously extended to us.

Kate D

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 05, 2011, 09:40:36 AM
As cynthia notes, this has been a rather divisive subject.  It has been made abundantly clear that people did not want my opinion on the matter.  I'm electing NOT to add further to the fray.  As far as arguments against broader language, I will articulate those to the appropriate legislators as individual bills are considered...

hum? pity! I expected better from you.

Okay, careful folks. No Ad Hominem attacks. Let's keep it civil and to the point please. Your last post was uncalled for, Kate. It would be appreciated if you keep further responses focused on the thread subject rather than the people posting in it.

Thank you.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on June 05, 2011, 09:25:43 AM
It has been made abundantly clear in my short time on this board that my views on the subject were not wanted precisely because I do not subscribe to the 'collective's' school of thought.

Everyone's opinions, including yours, are welcome here, as long as they're expressed without flaming other people or violating the TOS. There is no "collective's' school of thought" at Susan's. I haven't noticed very many who think like me here.

Z

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 04, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
for one example - while I defend in the strongest terms my right to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser (i.e. a man who enjoys a female gender expression on occasion, but has no desire to alter their physical sex - or vice-versa)

But why not?

To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

while I defend in the strongest terms my rights to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser in anyone else's rights.

FIFY

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 08:30:09 AM
Ann,

That was just an example; we are talking about all the laws TG people need to be protected, housing, jobs, intiidtion, violence, etc. We need not discuss just how current laws could be used in special circumstance to prosecute a crime that way motivated by transgender hate.

The point of this thread is to debate whether the TG umbrellas should be extended only to TS, or be inclusive.

Please stick to the thread, what is you opinion on this very important subject?

Kate D

Kate

I do not disagree.

I'm making the observation that SOME of our concerns- places where our rights might be infringed - extend to ALL TG peoples, and some of them apply more narrowly to TS people. A few examples:

Take housing - all TG people need to have a right to equal housing. You should not evict or deny a person because they are full time TS in transition, OR because they occasionally like to spend a weekend en femme.

Same for employment - you should not be denied a job or lose your job either because you are 24/7 or because you find out your VP is a drag queen on the weekends. BUT the former needs to dress at work and the later doesn't - thus there is a different "on the ground" set of concerns here. Not bigotry, not "I'm better than you" - just normal ordinary different circumstances.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for anyone to recognize.

Quote from: kyril on June 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
But why not?

To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

Because it's not, at root, about "men and women" it's about what the motivation is.

It is, whether we like it or not, quite true that the presence of an open and obvious TG person on staff WILL hurt the business of companies which deal with the public.

it's wrong, it shouldn't be, but it does. that's why companies HAVE dress codes. Companies routinely turn away applicants for length or style of hair, piercings, cleanliness, and all sort of appearance related things.

If an employee can say "I'm just much more comfortable in a skirt so I'm gonna wear a skirt and you can't stop me - even a very professional looking skirt which matches the suit - then why can't the person at the next desk demand shorts because they are more comfortable? Why can't the next guy just say "screw it, I'm not wearing a tie anymore" and so forth and so on.

If the rational for modifying the dress code, or abandoning it altogether, is mere preference or comfort, then anything goes.

that CAN'T practically be the standard. Even if you argue it should be, you will NEVER live to see the day.
It.
Will.
Not.
Happen.

In the mean time, a transitioning TS MUST be able to dress in the target gender 24/7 or they cannot follow the prescribed methodology. what we need to do is NOT recreation, or optional ,or comfort driven. the motivations are entirely different.

Thus we have two choices - ask for something we MIGHT reasonably succeed in getting - tolerance for a TS in full transition - or take a stand that anyone can wear anything anywhere at any time or nothing....and get nothing. EVER.

To repeat myself for clarity - I'm not discussing what a perfect world would look like - I'm observing what is realistic in THIS world - and what you describe, no matter how fair or reasonable, is NOT going to happen in our lifetimes.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 06:43:58 PM
I do not disagree.

I'm making the observation that SOME of our concerns- places where our rights might be infringed - extend to ALL TG peoples, and some of them apply more narrowly to TS people. A few examples:

Take housing - all TG people need to have a right to equal housing. You should not evict or deny a person because they are full time TS in transition, OR because they occasionally like to spend a weekend en femme.

Same for employment - you should not be denied a job or lose your job either because you are 24/7 or because you find out your VP is a drag queen on the weekends. BUT the former needs to dress at work and the later doesn't - thus there is a different "on the ground" set of concerns here. Not bigotry, not "I'm better than you" - just normal ordinary different circumstances.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for anyone to recognize.

So, we note that differences exist, but for enacting practical laws, what difference would it make. Lets assume that we agree that in issue "A" only TS deserve a law to protect them, and not the other TGs. Then what do you propose, that the government issue card identifying who is who in the zoo? and even if the TGs are getting away with a law that should not protected because they are not really afflicted with issue "A," then so what? in which way does it affects you that they got away with a freebee?  Better they get away with a freebee than they get exclude and persecuted, right?

Quote from: tekla on June 05, 2011, 12:32:09 PM
while I defend in the strongest terms my rights to dress appropriately to my target gender in the workplace, I do not believe the law should recognize the same right for the recreational cross-dresser in anyone else's rights.

FIFY

And THIS is an example of why this subject ends up as an argument instead of a discussion.

There's no counter argument, no "I respectfully disagree and here's why"

Nope.

Just a simple attribution of dishonorable motives. An assumption that the person quoted acts or speaks in bad faith.

Is THIS what produces unity, in your opinion?

Do you really have standing to assert my position is divisive given the nature of your reply?

It was asked, up top, that this be discussed with civility. I submit the opinion that your reply is most UNcivil.

I believe in equal rights, that's all.  Separate but equal is always separate, but never equal.

Lol, I think that poster in the original blog is really Fred Phelps and his mission is to create divisiveness in the trans community 

Quote from: kate durcal on June 05, 2011, 06:57:28 PM
So, we note that differences exist, but for enacting practical laws, what difference would it make. Lets assume that we agree that in issue "A" only TS deserve a law to protect them, and not the other TGs. Then what do you propose, that the government issue card identifying who is who in the zoo? and even if the TGs are getting away with a law that should not protected because they are not really afflicted with issue "A," then so what? in which way does it affects you that they got away with a freebee?  Better they get away with a freebee than they get exclude and persecuted, right?

In no way at all.

And I'd be quite happy to see that succeed. but it won't.

what WILL happen is that the law will become astonishingly more difficult to pass because the opposition wil make great hay out of the "freebies"

To again refer to employment - if you go to many large companies and say "I'm a transsexual about to begin a full time transition and I need to know the company will support me in this" - many will be supportive. And would support laws affirming that person's right to do so.

if you go to the same company and say "I'm going to start wearing skirts cause i just think they are pretty and comfortable" not only will they tell you "NO WAY" but they would VERY actively oppose any law which obliged them to put up with it.

All sorts of cis people in all walks of life who are at least nominally sympathetic to the problems a TS faces will be barraged by the bigots with example after example after example of "a man dressing up just to enter the women's locker room" or "dresses like a woman one day and a man the next" and so forth and so on.

And most of they are FAR to under-informed to overcome that.

You WILL LOSE.

And thereby none of us will have any protections in ANY area.

To repeat- I WANT the full slate of protections in every case where your private personal behavior on your own time might cause discrimination or violence.

No compromise - what you do on your own time that does not harm another is NEVER grounds for discrimination.

But what you do in certain situations, such as on the job, is NOT your private behavior, it affects things which others have a legitimate interest in. in such cases i think a reasonable compromise is not only sensible but fair - but more to the point without it you won't get anything but a decades long war (think the fight over abortion).

The conflict in these discussions, it seems to me, is at root represented by tekla's post: they "Unity or nothing" side of the argument feels compelled to ascribe hateful and divisive motives to the "partners" side of the discussion.

It seems to me flatly obvious that whether you are discussing legal protections, or medical diagnosis and treatment, or simply explaining your situation to a friend or neighbor - it's simply a reflection of reality that there is a definable difference between a TS in whatever state of transition and other forms of optional gender expression non-conformity.

The condition, rights, concerns, and needs of a drag queen (for instance) are simply NOT the same as those of a transitioning TS (assuming of course the DQ is not also a TS) - they just aren't. they overlap in many ways and that's great. where they don't overlap I think we ought to be allies with each other's concerns - I'm NOT saying that one should ever say to the other "good luck with that" and stay on the sidelines.

I see no profit in denying these realities in a pollyanna effort to pretend they don't exist. I see actual potential for harm to any movement for equal rights.

now, cue tekla and others assuming and accusing i only see it this way because i want to throw other TG people under the bus in order to get ahead. And in so doing think they are contributing more to the thread than i just did.

I rather invite those who disagree to make counter points that are logical instead of making assumptions about my motives.

For complete clarity: if you read this post and believe that it says I advocate in ANY way toleration of persecution of ANY person then you have not understood what I'm saying.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 07:01:54 PM
And THIS is an example of why this subject ends up as an argument instead of a discussion.

There's no counter argument, no "I respectfully disagree and here's why"

Nope.

Just a simple attribution of dishonorable motives. An assumption that the person quoted acts or speaks in bad faith.

Is THIS what produces unity, in your opinion?

Do you really have standing to assert my position is divisive given the nature of your reply?

It was asked, up top, that this be discussed with civility. I submit the opinion that your reply is most UNcivil.

Totally agree; is just destructive posting, nothing offered just negativity.

Quote from: tekla on June 05, 2011, 07:03:27 PM
I believe in equal rights, that's all.  Separate but equal is always separate, but never equal.

Agreed. I do not advocate "separation" of any sort.

In the same way that I do not suggest that LGB and T should not be severed - and yet at the same time, the LGB portion of that group does not have a need to advocate for access to public accommodations but the T does.

Allies. Partners. Shoulder-to-shoulder.

But with different practical considerations.

Seems obvious to me.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 05, 2011, 07:25:13 PM
Agreed. I do not advocate "separation" of any sort.

In the same way that I do not suggest that LGB and T should not be severed - and yet at the same time, the LGB portion of that group does not have a need to advocate for access to public accommodations but the T does.

Allies. Partners. Shoulder-to-shoulder.

But with different practical considerations.

Seems obvious to me.

It is obvious, but i submit to you that at the beginning we act together as we are a small group. Then later on things can be refined.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on June 04, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
There's a difference in saying - correctly in my view - that there's a distinction between a TS in transition having protections to dress as the target gender on the job and protections for a recreational cross-dresser do do so just because they enjoy it - and saying that you don't give a care about the concerns of the non-TS folks under the TG umbrella.

Why an assumption that a cross dresser is only doing it for recreation? It might be as much an integral part of their identity as someone else's need to transition and have surgery.

Quote from: kyril on June 05, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
To put it in simpler terms, why should men and women be subject to different standards of dress in the workplace? If a given outfit is professional-looking and acceptable on a man, why is it unprofessional or unacceptable on a woman, assuming that it's neatly worn and properly fitted?

I agree 100%. And why shouldn't our laws protect everyone?

Z

I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable with cross dressers being allowed to go back and forth in a work setting.

However...
I am forced to ask...
Where are these men and women who are chomping at the bit to yo-yo their gender presentation at the work place? Most C-D's I have known are very much private with their cross dressing.
It would seem to me that there will be very few people who would take advantage. Being a social outcast is not a good payoff.

Having been in charge of hireing and fireing at a couple places I have worked I know how easy it is to fire someone for any number of things. If I didn't like someone I could always find a reason to can them. I have come out of Labor hearings looking like gold both times I have been called to the matt by the man.
I am sure if my semi educated self can creativly find ways to can those who I disliked, HR directors can find ways to weasel out of any class protection laws that cover a cross dresser that they find detrimental to buisness.

Quote from: MeghanAndrews on June 05, 2011, 07:04:03 PM
Lol, I think that poster in the original blog is really Fred Phelps and his mission is to create divisiveness in the trans community 

this what I thought as soon as I read it..... la mission accomplished.
unfortunately.