Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« About That Roads and Transit P... | Not About That Roads and Trans... »

Friday, September 28, 2007

Trans Awareness Weak

posted by on September 28 at 15:01 PM

The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act—a.k.a. ENDA—is making its way through the Dem-controlled U.S. House and Senate. The original language would have protected gays, straights, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans folks from discrimination. Now the MTFs, FTMS, and genderqueers are out. The SF Chronicle is on it:

Even as the Senate passed a hate crimes bill sought for a decade by gays and lesbians, House Democratic leaders decided Thursday to strip transgender people from another long-languishing civil rights bill, generating dismay in the gay community and furious but fruitless lobbying for more time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Reps. George Miller, D-Martinez, Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., believe that they lack the votes in the Democrat-controlled House to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it includes gender identity along with sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for firing an employee.

Says Barney Frank:

We are on the verge of an historic victory that supporters of civil rights have been working on for more than thirty years: the passage for the first time in American history by either house of Congress of legislation declaring it illegal to discriminate against people in employment based on their sexual orientation. Detracting from the sense of celebration many of us feel about that is regret that under the current political situation, we do not have sufficient support in the House to include in that bill explicit protection for people who are transgender.

The question facing us—the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice—is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today.

RSS icon Comments


"The question facing us—the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice—" ...
He misspelled "LGB" there.

Posted by Dee in SF | September 28, 2007 3:11 PM

I hate this shit so much. So much. If we exclude the trannies from our bill that will help it pass through congress so GWB will veto it anyway.

Such bullshit.

Trannies, deag queens, and butch dykes brought you the COmpton Caffeteria riots in SF and the Stonewall riots a year later and what do we get in return? Discrimination from HRC and political discourse.

Fuck you, Barney Frank. Being a gay man you should know better than to discriminate against trans folks. Except, of course, he's a gay man and therefore more likely to discriminate and distance himself from us "freaks" in public when fighting against his own "freak" label given to him by the x-tian right.

Posted by gender fucker | September 28, 2007 3:17 PM

So is it all or nothing, then? All or us, or none of us?

Posted by Boomer in NYC | September 28, 2007 3:20 PM

Speaking of Trans-awareness. Those Trans-Awareness Week banners have been flying around Capitol Hill and downtown for a couple of months. When the hell is this "week?"

Posted by JC | September 28, 2007 3:28 PM

The transgendered *should* already be covered under discrimination because of sex (any discrimination against the transgendered being because of their original sex), and thereby already illegal. Too bad judges are largely incapable of understanding such simple reasoning.

Posted by Matt | September 28, 2007 3:30 PM

@3: It's not all or nothing here - it's going ot be nothing anyway because of the asshole in the white house who will veto the bill whether or not T is included in GLBT rights.
Why should they compromise my rights away when nobody will be getting equal protection under the current administration.

It's just the HRC being very clear that Trans people don't matter to them or their agenda. It's a bunch of heteronormative horse shit.

Posted by gender fucker | September 28, 2007 3:41 PM


Move to Canada.

Get citizenship there.

Get married as a transgendered person (legal).

Move back to the US and insist on your NAFTA rights as documented by your Canadian passport.

Problem solved.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 28, 2007 4:02 PM

I think this reflects the fact that trannies don't have the same kind of social cohesion and identity that gays and lesbians do, and so are weaker as a political force. I think this is because being trans is primarily about self-identity while being gay, lesbian or bisexual is primarily about social-identity. The fact that many LGBs seem willing to put their rights on hold in recognition of Ts is a beautiful thing.

Posted by gavingourley | September 28, 2007 4:05 PM

I say scrap the whole idea for now. I am not comfortable moving further to the front of the bus while others in my community are forced to stay in the back.

I don't want to start feeling like the GLB stands for "us" and the T stands for "them".

Posted by johnny | September 28, 2007 4:12 PM

Ahem. DON'T LET THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD! This bill is obviously hugely flawed, but for the people in all those states where it's perfectly legal to say, "Hey, faggot, you're fired," it would be of little comfort that the Dems stood on principle and left them completely unprotected for the many, many years it will take to round up the votes to add legal protection for trannies.

What don't you people get about politics being the art of the possible? What don't you get about civil rights always advancing incrementally? By your logic, our allies in the Connecticut legislature should have voted against repealing sodomy laws in 1962 because the bill didn't contain full marriage rights.

Now quit being naive and give two cheers to the Dems for actually passing this damn thing.

Posted by Gitai | September 28, 2007 4:17 PM

Many know me as the managing editor of the Seattle Gay News. Others may know me as the executive director of the local chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. But, my activism both in the LGBT community and beyond extends far beyond that.

I've put myself in some pretty tight spots and have had to confront bigotry first-hand. One thing I have learned is that you can't measure oppression. It all stinks just as badly.

As a member of the LGBT community, I would benefit from ENDA just as much as the next person. However, I would gladly forgo any immediate gain if it meant leaving Transgender people behind.

I have Trans friends and collogues. They deserve the benefits ENDA would provide. For me, the answer is simple. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t feel that way.

Rep. John Lewis, one of the organizers of the 1963 march on Washington
Discrimination is discrimination -- no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong," he told The Associated Press. "There are no 'special rights' in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary 'special rights' at the expense of blacks."

Posted by Robert Raketty | September 28, 2007 4:20 PM

#7, this is about far more than marriage rights. Trying to invoke NAFTA won't help against employment discrimination or harassment protection.

I had been on the fence with this one, but #9 is well spoken.

Posted by Ari | September 28, 2007 4:21 PM

i'm with johnny. and will, that's sounds really easy. you know, a nice way to spend a weekend.

Posted by infrequent | September 28, 2007 4:23 PM

Woo, sold down the river again. Maybe some day, the mainstream gay rights movement will actually include trans people as equal partners instead of only when it's convenient. Signing off on a discriminatory bill like this isn't a good step, it's being a party to that discrimination.

It's so wonderful to see, again and again, how the queer community puts forward a unified front on this sort of thing, and then as soon as it looks like gay men will have things go their way, it's cut and run, sorry but we have to be expedient, and oh, no, the rest of you are on your own, we've got other battles to fight and you don't matter.

Posted by Dymaxion | September 28, 2007 4:30 PM

@11 No, you won't benefit from ENDA as much as the next guy. You live in a city and state that already offer protection on the basis of sexual orientation, and in a city that's offered it for years. It's the guy in Nebraska who keeps a picture of a fake wife on his desk for fear of being found out and fired by his boss that benefits. Here, in Seattle, we have the luxury of discussing this from an idealistic point of view. For a lesbian in Montana who gets foreclosed on because she was fired for being gay, your brave pseudo-martyring of yourself is utterly meaningless.

Posted by Gitai | September 28, 2007 4:36 PM

#15, sure, and the transwoman who lives next door to him can just do sex work for a while longer to make rent. Yes, it sucks for anyone to be without these rights, for any amount of time. However, if a non-inclusive version of this passes, it will be years before an inclusive version is even properly on the table again, and you can bet that the mainstream gay rights movement won't be putting dollars behind their empty press releases.

Also, especially for trans people but for the rest of the queer community as well, discrimination at the federal level matters. There are plenty of agencies who's policies this will effect, and just because we live in Seattle doesn't mean we aren't touched by it.

Posted by Dymaxion | September 28, 2007 4:58 PM

I have a question. Is a trans-gendered person legally his/her new gender?

So if someone changes gender to ID as a heterosexual, he/she will enjoy their usual constitutional rights. If he/she changes gender to ID as gay or lesbian, they'll enjoy the rights of this new bill.

Does a trans-gendered person always want to be identified as a trans-gendered person?

So what will be missing from the bill then is protection for those who are in the process of trans-gendering. It's uncomfortable territory for people who are happy with their gender and haven't been exposed to the trans community - and difficult for the uneducated to cope with a 6'2" trans-gendered female in size 13 pumps sitting next to them at work. There are still many people in this country who freak out at the first sign of an effete male or a butch woman (although I do think tomboys get a break). And god help that their children show signs of gender fucking.

I don't know what the solution is short of some legal battles in court.

Posted by Bauhaus | September 28, 2007 5:09 PM

I doubt Barney Frank, Pelosi et al. want to exclude transes on any ground beyond a real political expediency. That does not make it OK to sacrifice trannies!

I think @16 nailed it: if Ts are dropped now, the game is over for them in Congress, and poof! goes spillover political funding and energy from self-absorbed rich white gayos such as moi.

Posted by tomasyalba | September 28, 2007 5:16 PM

Thanks, @13. Plus, you can have lots of sex on the honeymoon, so it's a bonus.

P.S.: The chocolate up there is way better than here ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 28, 2007 5:23 PM

@16 Hey, I didn't say it was perfect. I'd be really fucking happy if it passed with protection for trannies included. I'd also be happy if single payer healthcare; a military budget 25% of the size of the current one; the impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales; increasing the budget of the NEA tenfold; decriminalization of drugs; a ban on the death penalty; and free puppies for everyone passed. But it ain't gonna happen today or this year. It's an ugly reality that protection for trans people won't pass this year, but it is reality. In the meantime, add what protections you can. Again, incrementalism is the norm in civil rights movements:

1. Ninety years from the founding of the first abolitionist society to the end of American slavery.

2. One hundred-three years from abolition to the Civil Rights act of 1968, providing at least nominal legal equality for all races, with ongoing struggles for actual equality.

3. Ninety-four years from Frances Wright to the 19th Amendment.

4. Sixty-nine years from the founding of the National Labor Union to the Wagner Act, with ongoing struggles.

5. Fifty-seven years since the founding of the Mattachine Society, and gays and lesbians are still working for legal equality.

What makes you think the movement for transgender rights is going to be any faster? So, yeah, this is an injustice, so vent your anger, and then get organized and start your activism. That's what's going to change the political environment in such a way that transgender rights will advance, not by putting forth legislation that's guaranteed not to pass.

Posted by Gitai | September 28, 2007 5:33 PM

This field is not my forte, but have always thought the trans communities were already coved because - transition, one sex to the other - is a diagnosed medical condition, ie. gender dysphoria.

Is this not true?

Exactly how does existing law not cover a medical condition?

Posted by zak | September 28, 2007 5:58 PM

I side with the real politic approach on this issue. Historically, positive change has not occured quickly and , sadly, generations of regressive and progressive individuals die off before goals are achieved. In the meantime, people must create their own communities and be commited to outreach efforts to educate their fellow citizens who hold backward views. As any republican fear monger will tell you, once gay rights become the norm, the next step will be acceptance of transgendered individuals. right on!

Posted by MSW | September 28, 2007 8:16 PM

Trans Awareness Week? Really? I wasn't aware of it...

@7: if you think Canadian transpeople have it easy, do some reading. If you think marriage is the biggest legal problem transpeople face, do some reading.

@17: some transpeople (depending on where we live, what we look like, whether we have money, whether we have surgery or not, and other things) are able to get their birth certificate changed. Many are not, ever. Being legally the right gender buys you almost nothing. "You're fired you pansy" doesn't break any rules that affect cisgendered heterosexual people no matter what your legal gender is.

Posted by Anne | September 28, 2007 9:41 PM

You're going to to hate me.

I am way liberal. I support gay rights left and right. I believe that gay marriage should be just as legal as straight marriage. I believe that gay men and women should be equally eligible to adopt and everything else. I don't understand why men who have engaged in gay sex are still not allowed to give blood.

But I don't view transgendered people as the same class (legal term) as gay people. Gay men and women are sexually attracted to the same gender. Transgender status is (MTF, FTM) are not defined by whom a person is attracted that. As I understand it, transgendered people can be straight, gay or bisexual.

And that means, to me, that it is not intuitively obvious that transgendered people should be included in this bill simply because gays and lesbians are included.

That is not to say that I think that transgendered should not be include. Rather, it is to say that it is a separate question.

Finally, I must say, my understanding of transgenderism (I admit it, I don't even know the right word) is not good enough figure out whether or not they should be included in the bill.

I just don't know, but I am looking to be convinced. However, I am sure that I will be blasted/flamed instead.

Posted by Alex | September 28, 2007 10:24 PM

Gitai (#20)'s comment assumes, quite incorrectly, that the same body of people will be lobbying for the transgendered as lobby for the collective set of people now referred to as GBLT now. All of Gitai's examples of long-duration struggles, for example, are examples wherein it's the same set of people being semi-equally oppressed throughout the spectrum; in this case, most of the population will get legislative relief, and for them, this particular battle will be over, and they will not return to it with similar enthusiasm. That difference in reality makes the example situations they describe completely different than this one.

Some may protest this conclusion, but history says they're wrong. Post-non-inclusive-ENDA, the GLB portion of the GBLT coalition will have achieved this goal - though they certainly won't achieve it this year, there will be no veto-proof majority - and a substantial percentage of the political GLB population will move on and no longer see it as a primary concern. And that's honest; for them, it isn't a primary concern any longer, since legal employment discrimination will no longer apply to them. This is simple, but unfortunate, reality: it will be natural for them to care much less, so they will. That leaves substantially the transgendered to fight alone, and transgendered people are a fractional minority of an already small minority, a fractional minority which is more than occasionally disliked by the members of the greater minority in which it is immersed. Some of those members will even become openly hostile, given the opportunity to decide that they have moved on. (It has long been noted that alliances are in the most danger of collapse at both the points of defeat and victory. This would be an example of the latter.)

I'm not saying it will be impossible for transpeople to gain these protections later; it could happen. But it becomes at least significantly, if not dramatically, less likely. If the GLB (cisgendered) portion of the GBLT minority decides this is acceptable and cuts off the transgendered, so be it - but it should be done honestly, with full knowledge, and not with lies to itself about what it's really doing.

Posted by Dara | September 28, 2007 11:03 PM

Alex (#24) said: "...and that means, to me, that it is not intuitively obvious that transgendered people should be included in this bill simply because gays and lesbians are included."

Some - a lot - of this is historically based. There was a broken idea in psychology for a long time that transgendered people were actually "hyper"-homosexual people, either super-lesbian or super-gay-male, and not actually facing an issue of fundamental gender identity rather than gender attraction. This is fundamentally broken, but nonetheless formed the basis for similarly abusive treatment of both minorities. (You still see this now, and not just from the fundamentalist groups. I could point out examples but prefer to not here.)

Really, though, that's not all of it. Both LGB people and T people violate the so-called "ideal" gender roles in fairly difficult to ignore ways. The two groups may have done so in different ways and for different reasons, but both groups did that same thing. And since these were traditionally the same as gender assignments from a societal standpoint, they were grouped by both culture and psychology.

Now, if you ignore this history and this critical issue of societal-gender-role violation, then there's a reasonable case to be made that the two groups aren't really the same, tho' many transgendered people are also lesbian, or gay, or bisexual. But history is important in politics and society, even if that history is not consciously recognised, and there's a genuine commonality in that question of role of gender. Plus, whether it's fair or not, the fundamentalist movement rather explicitly still holds on to that broken idea that transpeople are SUPERFAGGOTS!(tm) and, while wrong, things like that also matter in politics.

So that's a dramatically oversimplified explanation. Hopefully that helps a bit.

Posted by Dara | September 29, 2007 12:10 AM

About 10% of men and women identify themselves as gay. What percentage of people identify themselves as transgendered?

Posted by lawrence clark | September 29, 2007 4:02 AM

It has always amazed me how quickly many gay men turn into neo-cons as long as they're getting their dick sucked on a regular basis. Straight tranny here, have marched in many parades and worked hard for gay rights, only to be left behind the minute being gay becomes even a bit more socially acceptable.

While people are still getting killed or beaten for being gay, a guy walking down the street in a dress and heels literally takes his life in his own hands every time he walks out of the house. As for showing up at work that way? Don't make me laugh.

Let me know when you all form the locals chapter of "Queers for Republicans" so I can stop taking you seriously altogether.

Posted by Fifty-Two Eighty | September 29, 2007 11:39 AM

Hate to say this, but frankly it chaps both that the T's will be in a separate bill -- AND -- that so much of the argument against passing ENDA as reformulated is coming from the usual gay activist enclaves on the blue coasts (where protections are already largely in place).

The seismic shift that will happen when every red state has to deal with sexual orientation non-discrimination cannot be underestimated in moving the equality goalposts.

That alone will tie the fundies up for the next 30 years.

Posted by Mike | September 29, 2007 5:37 PM

I am in the same boat with Alex, #24. I support all the same stuff he does.

However, I also support this bill in the diluted form. I also expect to get quite a bit of flames as a result.

GLB is primarily about what you do in private. T is very much about what you do in public. Importantly in the context of this bill, GLB is about what you do at home and T is about what you do at the office.

I don't think it is reasonable for an employer to fire someone for stuff they do at home that does not affect work. Similarly I don't think it is reasonable for an employee to burden an employer because of the employee's sexual desires.

If T all of a sudden becomes a protected class, like race, employers are going to encounter all sorts of situations where their hands are tied in unpleasant ways.

Imagine an airline hiring for a check-in clerk. They hire a man, based at least in part on his professional appearance. As soon as he is hired, he announces that he is in fact a she and will be appearing in female dress. Now, there are a wide variety of scenarios that can result from this. She might be equally professional looking and everything might be fine. She might also be dressing for the first time and be horrifying to a manager expecting someone serving the public to look polished and professional. She might also just be a TV out for some kicks.

The business has no way of determining which of these is the case, and if T is a protected class, it might be very difficult for the employer to do anything at all, including trying to determine whether the employee is really a member of the protected class.

Now, one could argue that she should only dress if she was hired while dressing or any number of other compromises. I am a lawyer, and I can't even imagine a law that could adequately protect T's without just making them into a protected class. Any compromise would just be impossible to write into an enforceable law. Either the corner cases expand to the point that the protection means very little, or the protection becomes paramount to the point that the compromise is effectively overturned.

In my mind the distinction here is all about public vs private behavior. Your boss should not be able tell you whose genitals you are allowed to suck. Your boss should be able to enforce a dress code.

Posted by Jim | September 29, 2007 10:34 PM

@30: Fuck dress codes btw.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like legally speaking it would be easier to challenge a constitution or a law if there is precedent that leans towards being in favor of something else. I don't think transgendered folks should be left out, but if there is legislation or some kind of law mumbo jumbo in place protecting one type of people, it will be easier to protect the next type of people. Isn't something better than nothing? I don't know. Time will eventually weed everything out...maybe.

Also, I think it is sad that the transgendered folks think that all other queer or queer positive people are really so compelled to leave them (the transgendered) with their asses dangling in the other words, there are substantial numbers of people in the world who would still fight for transgendered folks once "the battle is won" for GLB. I know sometimes it seems like trans people get left in the dust, but you are not alone in your fight.

Some change happens in one fell swoop and some change happens slowly. We should be grateful (I think) for change in whatever form it takes. We should always push for change, but it is never going to be fast enough or soon enough or all inclusive enough. We shouldn't have to fight our whole lives for something basic like civil rights, but fuck...we are stuck in backwardsville a lot of the time.

For what it's worth, I do believe the queer community has made great positive change in even the last ten years. I mean, real and sustained change. Do you know how fucking unbelievable that is? Even admist this tide of conservativism...queer folks are getting through the din. I'm not really hopelessly optimistic either. Or maybe I'm becoming that...I don't know. It must be my old age creeping in.

Whatever, you can say I'm full of shit. Maybe I am. I just think it will get better and we aren't going to leave anyone behind in all of this. If the right is going to try to dismantle our freedom brick by brick, then we will have to build it up faster until they give up. If we have to do it one brick at a time, so be it.

And, if you are alone in a room with one brick and George W., just go ahead and throw it at his head...hehe Sorry, it was funny in my head...probably no one elses! I don't even know what the hell I'm saying...don't listen to me!

Posted by Kristin Bell | September 30, 2007 6:43 AM

I'm on the fence on this one. Transgendered people shouldn't be left behind, but its going to take a one hell of a public education program to change things. I'm a gay guy and don't have any idea of the trans experience. I just accept it. To some its a pretty complicated issue that they can't wrap their heads around. How would you explain a lesbian marrying a pre-op trans MTF lesbian,,, to someone who still thinks gays can be "cured"? It will be a while before people realize that sexual identity, preference or roles really aren't tied to what equipment they have between their legs. You don't always understand everything, but jeez, get over it ,,,, Heck I don't know why my mother married my step-father either, but I didn't throw a protest at their wedding.

Posted by Steviemn | September 30, 2007 11:17 AM

Honestly? This change to the wording of the legislation does not seem like a big deal to me, at all. Take it and smile; celebrate a victory.

This is a case where the language and politics of the community is getting in the way of good political and legal sense.

The suggestion that the explicit exclusion of the word "transgendered" from the legislation somehow does not grant to the transgendered protection from discrimination when the term "sexual orientation" *is* used, is not justified. In my view, sexual orientation is very likely to be enough to secure the protection of the legislation, on its own.

In Ontario, for example, the Human Rights code does not explicitly provide for protection for transgendered from discrimination. It does provide for protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation - and that's enough, imo. You won't find many other Canadian lawyers who would say otherwise.

Take the legislation as offered, consider it a victory, and deal with the interpretation, if required, in the courts through judicial interpretation. That's how legislation works. That's how societies and the law evolves - when the politics of a nation will not permit it to do directly what it will do indirectly.

In short - on balance - I'd have to say this is a political hissy fit and unwarranted drama. Shut the fuck up and savor the victory.

Posted by Robert Trifts | September 30, 2007 11:19 PM

#33 You are clueless. This isn't Canada!!! What gets me is how many people GLB people don't anything about T people. Thank God my brother is an exception. Anywho, I also love how everyone always assumes the trans person is MtF. Hello! People go both ways! I would also take issue with the person who said it's private vs public. Umm NO! The problem is transition. While a person is in transition they are gender variant, at least to some degree. However, given enough time most people eventually blend into their identitfied gender. That's right most of us eventually disappear!

Transition also costs money. Hard to transition if the first thing your boss does is fire you when they find out. I am one of the lucky ones. My bosses didn't freak and I was able to transition on the job. But the reality is most people never get a chance. They are summarily fired and it doesn't matter how good a job they did. Many people end up marginalized and more than a few commit suicide.

It's just not right. No-one should be treated this way simply because of the way they were born. And that's what we truly have in common; we know we were born this way, but the general population is slow to accept that.

I can only speak for people born transsexual. We're such a tiny minority that we'll never have a chance on our own. Our one and only chance has always been to work together with our GLB brother and sisters. We have always been here, at Comptons, at Stonewall and we're still here. We've helped you all get to where you're at. All we ask is that you remember that. And that's where we can all learn a lesson from Rep Frank. He's long ago forgotten where he came from and I think that's a terrible shame.

Posted by xrk9854 | October 1, 2007 12:06 AM

Keep yelling, keep fighting. I'll support a bill that protects any members of the LBGT community, and i'll keep yelling and fighting for those that are excluded. If they (miraculously) pass this bill, I'll consider that a good thing, but nowhere near enough.

Posted by Papel | October 1, 2007 8:45 AM

Clueless huh? OK. Have it your way then.

Nevertheless, this clueless straight Canadian lawyer thinks the term "sexual orientation" is flexible enough in its meaning when used in a statute to include "sexual identity", and is not restricted to being a synonym for "sexual preference" with respect to the gender to whom one is attracted.

There is considerable wiggle room in all legislation, and human rights legislation is generally interpreted expansively, not restrictively. This is the general rule of legislative interpretation - even in the Born Again USA.

I'm telling you, point blank, that you are drawing a distinction that a straight male 50-something judge is not likely to make when interpreting this legislation.

Guaranteed? No. Better than even chance? Yes.

So, on balance, this looks like drama to me.

Posted by Robert Trifts | October 1, 2007 8:55 AM

Robert may be a Canadian lawyer, but I am an American one and I think he has a very good argument. As long as the bill is written in terms of sexual orientation, Trans most likely will be covered.

This does feed into my public/private dichotomy though. Writing the bill as "sexual orientation" makes it pretty clear that you can't be fired for being trans. It is less clear (to me at least) that it protects your right to as you put it, transition, at work.

Writing trans into the bill explicitly seems more likely to protect transitioning at work. And while I admire your employer for allowing you to do so, I do not think it is appropriate to require all employers to do the same thing.

In response to your ummm, no: was your transitioning at work somehow not public?

Now, assuming that you are right that trans eventually disappear, this is where Robert becomes right and you also get protection. Dana who becomes Dan and is hired as Dan and later fired when Boss finds out Dan was born Dana is almost certainly going to be protected by a law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Posted by Jim | October 3, 2007 1:17 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).