Excluded...does it bother you?

[Rogina B]

The other day the US military signed a "sort of" Human Rights Ordinance...They left out T in creating it. Around the country,20 percent of the HRO's do not include protection of TG's..because "it" got purposely left out to "make things pass easier"..One of the problems that "EQUALITY ......[fill in your state] has is lack of involvement from the TG community.When "there is no one to see or hear their side from" it makes it awfully easy to ignore the TG and their Human rights. Some members here feel that "they are living stealth and no one knows" and I really doubt that.Many people are compassionate humans,and have a live and let live attitude.. Does it bother anyone here that their "social transition" could stand some legal protection and what are you personally doing to help? I have been on a quest of engaging "male ,mainstream decision makers."[the ones that sometimes pretend to be liberal minded,but aren't] as to what is so mystifying about the TG world,that it isn't worth supporting in HR issues...Like "Bad Tranny" wrote recently in a reply.".take the position that you don't pass and people know"....You are not outing yourself to be involved...And remember,Transmen have an equally hard time as well...

[Michelle.M]

I haven't heard of this military Human Rights Ordinance. Can you provide a link so we can read about it?

[kimdl93]

Yes, it bothers me. I do feel that we need to speak out to decision makers when the opportunity presents itself and at least for my part, be out in the community, eroding, I hope, the negative or simply erroneous stereotypes of who we are.

[LeaP]

The history of *activism*, never mind legislation and agreements such as you cite, is one of transsexual exclusion. On this basis alone, I reject the implication that transsexuals (your stealthy transitioners) would somehow be better off if they were politically active in "TG" issues.

Your suggestion that stealth is a cause of the suggested lack of involvement betrays a lack of understanding. Stealth isn't hiding out of fear and there are many ways of being politically active besides.

Some transsexuals believe that intermingling their issues with those of gender variant people and crossdressers works against transsexual interests. The problem lies in diluting numbers and masking distinctions by falsely conflating transsexual issues of need with others' issues of choice (freedom, if you prefer). This is the exact opposite result you imply activism brings.

Finally, in the US, the path of rights recognition for transsexuals (at least) is legal recognition that discrimination is SEX discrimination. This view has now prevailed in ruling after ruling in federal courts across the country and is now officially the stance of the EEOC as it pertains to discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

So, does it bother me that the "TG" got left out? No, not really. I support legal protections for transsexuals. Non-transsexual acceptance issues are perhaps better left to cultural change.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Don't you dare tell me what to do with my transition.
Especially when you presume to know what its like to permanently live as a woman.

I don't live stealth, I am totally out in the open in the same house I've lived in for many years as a guy, but I can say for a fact that in the last 3 years not one person I have ever met and spent meaningful time with has any clue that I lived as a man for all those years...not one.

I don't actually need protection. The actual outcome of having tough laws is that it incents a transsexual to get hired as a man, and then transition on the job where they are presumably protected. But in reality they are only protected in the most narrow sense. And once they leave one workplace they are not only unprotected, but the laws that are meant to help are now obstacles. Your hiring becomes an "issue" and each hiring group must work to understand its own legal obligations..its like having a stamp on your resume that says you are a potential problem. It's bad business.

Surely if I look for work, any background check will include my male past..i will never get hired 'stealth"
How does the company knowing that there are myriad laws that "protect" me help a manager want to hire me more and not less??
I'm better off on my own thank you.

I also find hate crime laws to be politically expedient ways to mollify people...
Murder and getting beat up is pretty much a hateful crime every time..
I don't think many low lifes are reading up on local hate crime laws before they start punching, and its just a way to say you did something for transsexuals, its not a way to protect us.
"sorry I can't support the ENDA bill including transsexuals, but I did support hate crime legislation"

I support other transsexuals by giving speeches and talks at local colleges and a few churches.
I have counseled transsexuals on how to look at their lives pragmatically and realistically and I don't have time for the number of bubble baths i'd have to take in order to wipe the slime off after spending time with politicians.

[Rogina B]

We have a young transman in the Equality coalition here in NE Florida. After graduating college,transitioning,he now works two jobs.At one job in a "franchised" FF place,He is not allowed to use the men's room without permission and a guard,etc..He doesn't have a penis,after all..Any complaints about this,he will be let go. Another TS woman,10 years transitioned,is working as a computer systems subcontractor for a major rail line.Female supervisor was curious as to why they weren't in agreement regarding office/field dresscode and did a thorough backround check on her. Found out she was once a male..She had been raped and injured in a robbery in which the felons are in prison,this past Fall. There is a whole victim treatment package that she was entitled to by law. However,because she is Mto F,her case was swept under the rug asap.She is now out on short term disability..So, that makes two cases where a Human Rights ordinance would make for a different outcome..

[arbon]

I've been involved lately with adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the Idaho human rights act. There has been a surprising number of trans men and women involved with the effort along with the lgb community. I think it is important and right to stand up against discrimination and that we should be treated fairly.

[LeaP]

... He is not allowed to use the men's room without permission and a guard,etc..He doesn't have a penis,after all..Any complaints about this,he will be let go. Another TS woman,10 years transitioned,is working as a computer systems subcontractor for a major rail line....

Both are employment related and therefore actionable right now through the EEOC per my earlier response. The first sounds relatively straightforward to me, assuming there is a basic and cogent history. I can tell you that the second case is a swamp despite any potential legal remedies. I've been involved in too many HR situations with employees and all the signs are there.

[Michelle.M]

Some transsexuals believe that intermingling their issues with those of gender variant people and crossdressers works against transsexual interests.

That doesn't even make a bit of sense.

Who are these "some transsexuals"? How are transsexual people not gender variant? How are transsexual interests unique or different from the equality issues and legal protections sought by anyone else who might be transgender but not transsexual? How does not speaking up benefit those who desire social justice?


I haven't heard of this military Human [-]Rights Ordinance[/-] Goals Charter. Can you provide a link so we can read about it?

It's here -

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16670

[LeaP]

Who are these "some transsexuals"? How are transsexual people not gender variant? How are transsexual interests unique or different from the equality issues and legal protections sought by anyone else who might be transgender but not transsexual? How does not speaking up benefit those who desire social justice?

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16670

"Some." ... Me, for one. There are others. There are those who like to call themselves separatists.

You certainly term transsexuals as gender variant. I have consistently said that many distinctions are those that proceed from a point of view and are not absolutes. My intention here was to distinguish transsexuals from non-transsexuals of certain types. If you like, female identified versus not. Those who have transition and congruence "musts" versus those do not.

If there is a hard difference, it is medical necessity. Conflating issues of medical necessity with legal rights – which are ultimately different – does nothing to clarify the situation.

I'm not advocating silence. My response was narrower in that I was rejecting generalized advocacy under the transgender flag.

[Michelle.M]

There are those who like to call themselves separatists.

Got it, but I see that as a path to conflict and continued denial of civil rights for trans folks. We can take some very helpful cues from gay and lesbian activists. Solidarity, not separatism, is what will earn us our rightful place in society.


My intention here was to distinguish transsexuals from non-transsexuals of certain types. If you like, female identified versus not. Those who have transition and congruence "musts" versus those do not.

Again, I do not see where this is helpful or where it promotes social justice. It’s exclusionary and serves only a very small segment of the population that is too small to do squat by themselves (I'm talking about those of us who identify as TS). And reinforcing arbitrary binary rules will ultimately lead to those same rules being modified to keep us from attaining our civil rights, just as is happening now.


If there is a hard difference, it is medical necessity. Conflating issues of medical necessity with legal rights – which are ultimately different – does nothing to clarify the situation.

While we may see sharp distinctions along those lines the general public and the policymakers who want their votes do not. And besides, lack of medical necessity is not a valid justification for favoring one segment of the population and denying rights to another. Liberty and justice for all, yeah?


I'm not advocating silence. My response was narrower in that I was rejecting generalized advocacy under the transgender flag.

Still not seeing that as a good idea.

[LeaP]

Additional information on the charter: The pentagon recognized, in a statement by a spokesman, that gender identity protection for DOD civilian employees would fall under the EEOC guidelines I mentioned earlier, as it covers DOD civilian personnel.

Meanwhile, in a moment of serendipity supporting my contention that the path is through sex protection and not gender identity per se, the Dept. Of Education announced TODAY that "Title IX's sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity and OCR accepts such complaints for investigation."

News reference

http://transequality.org/news.html#DepartmentofEducationClarification

Full document (see last para. page 5):

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

[Kathryn Martin]

That doesn't even make a bit of sense.

Who are these "some transsexuals"? How are transsexual people not gender variant? How are transsexual interests unique or different from the equality issues and legal protections sought by anyone else who might be transgender but not transsexual?

I am another of the transsexuals who are of the view that the difference in health care needs and requirements between gender variant and transsexual folks are marked. How are transsexual people not gender variant? If you would read some of the posts I have written here in the past you would actually understand the distinction between someone who finds that the current gender stereotypes don't accord with their need for expression and someone who was born with a birth defect.

My concern, for instance, has never been what rights I have but rather that I get the correct healthcare to deal with my condition. And contrary to what most gender variant persons are on the barricades about, namely discrimination concerns I am mostly concerned with ensuring that correct and appropriate health care is in place for those who need it. I represent both, but at least I know the difference and understand that the needs of each group are quite distinct.

[Michelle.M]

If you would read some of the posts I have written here in the past you would actually understand the distinction between someone who finds that the current gender stereotypes don't accord with their need for expression and someone who was born with a birth defect.

Oh, I’ve read your posts; I just don’t agree. Not agreeing is not the same as not understanding.


My concern, for instance, has never been what rights I have . . .

Well, of course not! You live in Canada. By dint of overarching civil rights that cover everyone in your country (one example being same sex marriage), you never have to worry that any one state’s (in our case) laws will invalidate your marriage just because you were born with a Y chromosome (it has happened here in Texas). Or that as a trans person you can’t serve in the military (you can, we can’t). Or that you might be able to pee in a public restroom in one place but not in another, where you might even be arrested.

You enjoy many rights that you probably never even think about that are hotly debated equality issues here in the Land of Liberty.


. . . but rather that I get the correct healthcare to deal with my condition.

And considering that you have national health care that’s a real concern. In your case the government decides who gets what and how. We’re not quite there yet. Although our health care costs are much higher we probably wouldn’t be denied appropriate care as long as we can pay the bill. It’s not politics that would deny us health care here, it’s money.

[Rogina B]

Both are employment related and therefore actionable right now through the EEOC per my earlier response. The EEOC does not cover the "small businesses" nor is a ruling easily attainable. Local HRO's have an enforcement plan built into them that keeps the hearings local.False claims face a penalty as well. I feel that discrimination protection sets a "tone" for a business,landlord,etc to "keep the table level". And forum members that are in a good situation often forget the slippery slope that a person can go down if mistreated.

[LeaP]

... We can take some very helpful cues from gay and lesbian activists. ...

... While we may see sharp distinctions along those lines the general public and the policymakers who want their votes do not. And besides, lack of medical necessity is not a valid justification for favoring one segment of the population and denying rights to another. Liberty and justice for all, yeah?



Oh yes, the gay community that has been throwing trans people under the bus for over 50 years ... let's take a cue from them ... ENDA anyone?

The reason that people don't make distinctions is that activists stress false commonalities. Take the bathroom issue (you brought it up!). A transsexual has a need attendant to their gender. A cross-dressed man has a problem resulting from his choices. The transsexual's situation is a matter of basic rights. The cross-dresser's is not. Why? Because the issue at hand - entry into women's spaces (whatever you think the value) - is a matter of immutable identity and not action or choice. And immutability is the common point across the various protected classes.

Medical necessity certainly is justification for favoring one segment of the population over another ... when the issue is medical treatment!

[Michelle.M]

Oh yes, the gay community that has been throwing trans people under the bus for over 50 years ... let's take a cue from them ... ENDA anyone?

Come on, stay on track. You really didn’t misunderstand that I was referring to gay and lesbian activism and solidarity, did you?


The reason that people don't make distinctions is that activists stress false commonalities. Take the bathroom issue (you brought it up!). A transsexual has a need attendant to their gender. A cross-dressed man has a problem resulting from his choices.

* * * *

Medical necessity certainly is justification for favoring one segment of the population over another ... when the issue is medical treatment!

You’re still advocating inequality, injustice and separatism. Sorry, you’re not going to get a buy-in from me on this.

[LeaP]

It is possible that I did misunderstand you, Michelle. Yes, I understand that gays and lesbians (more or less) stood together. Their solidarity makes sense because their sexual preference basic issue is identical. The movement as a whole, in the case of marriage rights, did not stand shoulder to shoulder with, say, polygamists. Why? Because their issues are completely different, despite being nominally about marriage. I'm sorry, but I simply see cross-dressers and transsexuals issues a lot closer to my marriage example then I do the sexual preference example.

[Lilo]

I agree with Michelle. In the eyes of cis people we are the same as crossdressers. If they 'read' you, they will see a 'man in a dress' and will not care about wether you are a trans-woman or a man dressed as a woman. In a practical sense, laws that protect against gender identity (of all kinds) discrimination tend to be the most effective for trans-women also. This is because they will only care about their 'facts' and not about how you or I really feel inside. How would this be proved or disputed in any court?

[Rogina B]

In addition to agreeing with Lilo,I will add that "people don't care for the long explanation" regarding someone's degree of "Tness",in addition to it being immeasurable by casual conversation. "Transwoman" or "Transman" accurately describes the usual situation,as the mainstream paints quickly and moves on with life.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Nobody here is against "social justice".

Your OP was basically saying that transitioned transsexuals don't support "their own" because they go into hiding and then you added the add'l wonderful idea of "you all don't pass anyway"...

It's very typical of your posts, thanks for the lecture and the dig..

I can do everything in my power to help others as the woman I am...I don't have to wear a transsexual button to do it, and only a person blind to the realities of transition would argue that I 'should'

Anyway, I already wore that sign for two years...all the people I love and care about, my colleagues and friends all watched me transition, my neighbors too
..they all saw me thrive..they are all now supportive and hopefully would consider my issues in their political decisions.

========

Michelle it is just so easy to use the big broad terms and so unhelpful...calling thoughtful statements nonsense is just not helpful at all..

What does it mean to be for social justice? What is social justice? Are there other things we want from our laws that are more helpful to transsexuals?

Who here is against it? Not me, not Lea, not Kathryn that's for sure. The discussion is not about the simplistic notion of lets all just get along. Lea's comments are not "nonsense" at all.

It is very legitimate to discuss what social justice means, how to go about improving it, and how to deal with very real competing interests.
In all things there are trade offs, in all things you cannot get everything you want, when you want it. If you ignore them, you ignore reality.

Is an ordinance that says anybody that is presenting or claiming femaleness should use the ladies room about social justice? What is the nature of a law and its actual relation to social justice?

Which is more important social justice or medical support? Is helping a thousand transsexuals afford FFS or SRS on the same level of letting somebody use a bathroom?

If a law is not enforced how is it meaningful to pass a law that says the law must be followed? Does hate crime legislation actually help the people it should protect? or is it just an easy way for politicians to say they support a group? after all, who would not be against hate crimes? but getting shit kicked or worse is already a crime and I doubt the guy kicking me is thinking about whether its a 5 year or 20 year sentence if he's caught, and I don't want my congressman to be able to check the T box so easily.

Even what seemed like obvious examples on the face of it are not obvious at all... If an employer is so ignorant to not allow a transitoning man to use his bathroom freely, a law is not going to help... the issue is how the manager feels about the employee..the issue is that no one will stand up for this man...its not about a bathroom, if there was a policeman there to enforce some ordinance about a toilet, the manager would find some other way to hate his transsexual employee

I find the argument that people don't care for the long explanation to be true but it makes the opposite point Rogina wants to make...

Face it, crossdressers using the ladies room is a hot button issue...people HATE IT... and they are not interested in debating what is or isn't a woman...
go read the cd forum.... people actually brag about their adventures in the ladies room

This is actually why my interests are not aligned....I don't believe use of the ladies room is an issue of social justice and if it is I would say that a woman's right to use the women's restroom privately trumps the man's right to use the ladies room because he's embarrassed to use the mens and like it or not , many of the crossdressers are doing it for the thrill of it... be honest about it
.... this idea hurts the transman in the example above...his interests are different

You can say anything you want, but if you leave out the specifics, if you don't deal with the fact that competing interests exists, then you are just talking.

[Michelle.M]

Kaitlyn, I think you’re assuming too much.

I never advocated for crossdressers to use public restrooms, although I really don’t care who pees where as long as nobody causes any trouble (but that would apply to everyone, including politicians). But let’s be honest for a moment. We’ve both been here long enough to see where this thread is going.

Comments about “medical necessity” are the early signs of that same old “trannier than thou” argument that infects this place from time to time. Not only will that veer this thread off topic but it’s stupid and elitist. But then again, we haven’t had one of those train wrecks for a while, so I suppose we’re due for a little bloodletting.

And what happens when “medical necessity” cannot be accommodated? Or when we make the case for the validity of someone choosing to be a non-op trans person? Then we get those despicable comparisons that dismiss a non-op as practically a CD and it all goes back to being all about the correct configuration of body parts as proof of a valid expression of someone’s trans identity.

Yeah, it's nonsense. We either treat people with equality or we don’t, and THAT is what the OP was about.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Thanks for the response..i understand what you are saying..
Michelle my reaction was to your statement that certain points were nonsense.
They are not nonsense...and I see where this thread is going too... but I think the premise of a "trannier than thou" blame game is flawed.

I believe we must all accept that although its politically incorrect, there are varied interests..
Ignore it if you choose, but you ignore a real thing

Non op transsexuals have different things they may prioritize over folks that need srs...
Crossdressers fighting for social justice have a different definition of it than I do
... so I boil it down to specifics...

we are both for equality, justice and fairness!! Now what it is EXACTLY that you want? that's where the conversation lies...

Treating people with a different agenda simply as people with a different agenda is a facet of equality...not all differences come with judgments or a pecking order...

Your mention of the word equality is an example of how its not really going to move the ball forward with a very broad concept ..I agree...lets treat each other equally.
What is equality?? Equality of what? How is it best expressed? Through laws? How is it best enforced??
Through incentives or punishments?

It's ok to disagree... but I think if it's kept to the very specific issues its much easier to get rid of the rancor and its much easier to make real progress.


There is no doubt that there are corners of the transsexual experience where many of us feel excluded.
I have experienced this myself...my own experience was very different than that "classic" transsexual narrative..i was very much harmed by that group think..
consider me looking at tsroadmap 10 years ago wondering about my life......to them I was a guy in a midlife crisis...they wanted nothing to do with me...

And I find it offensive when somebody tells me what to do with my transition, or that tells me what group i should support, its arrogant and self absorbed...
I have lots of issues I deal with in my life...there are lots of agendas I support..
So that puts me in a mood for this thread anyway..

[LeaP]

Yeah, it's nonsense. We either treat people with equality or we don’t, and THAT is what the OP was about.

That may or may not be what the OP had in mind, but discussing the details is highly pertinent to the DOD charter. Why? Because the details as they pertain to the OP's themes are: 1) per my earlier comment, the DoD assumes civilian employees are covered by Title VII, and 2) the military's stance is that being "transgender" is incompatible with the military's mission.

The details of 2, above, are worth discussing further. What the military has actually said is that the medical needs of this population can't be reliably met - meaning they obviously have transsexuals in mind. They have cited such things as remote and unannounced assignments.

I would say a couple of things in response to this. First, this is an example where the notion of the transgender umbrella works more against the interests of cross-dressers and gender variant people than it does transsexuals. I see no reason whatsoever why the military would care if a member privately cross-dressed. I do see where a formal recognition of gender identity (i.e., and not transsexualism per se) could be an issue for uniform service. From the standpoint of transsexuals, the military's argument has some merit. Whether or not that could be practically overcome is most definitely a discussion of the details.

Michelle, I don't quite know what to say in response to the ad hominems. I don't care so much about definitions as I do treating transitioners legally as women. Lumping that concern into generalized right and freedoms doesn't make any sense to me. Just what are the commonalities the tie them together? If it is simply the notion of freedom for all, then the implications are a lot bigger than you (or the OP) are making them. Truth is, it is little more than a rhetorical approach.

[Michelle.M]

That may or may not be what the OP had in mind, but discussing the details is highly pertinent to the DOD charter. Why? Because the details as they pertain to the OP's themes are: 1) per my earlier comment, the DoD assumes civilian employees are covered by Title VII, and 2) the military's stance is that being "transgender" is incompatible with the military's mission.

Lea, I don’t know if you’ve ever served in the military, but I did and I spent decades seeing these Human Goals Charters posted on bulletins boards everywhere. The Human Goals Charter is a very generic statement of how the DoD wants to regard their human capital, and not much more. It’s a very nice thing, but please don’t read too much into it.


I don't care so much about definitions as I do treating transitioners legally as women.

We are in total agreement on this.


Lumping that concern into generalized right and freedoms doesn't make any sense to me.

That seems to contradict your previous statement. For me, the bottom line is that our society does not treat trans women, in any state of transition, as equal to other members of society. There are way too many legislative restrictions based on gender identity or gender expression that make no sense at all. As long as those exist there is not equality. And general rights and freedoms is pretty much the definition of equality, isn’t it?

[LeaP]

Navy. I'm not reading too much into it. My comments on both Title VII and transgender service were based on Pentagon statements. The Pentagon's Title VII comments were specifically in response to the lack of gender identity language in the charter.

Some of the "community" reaction has been that the lack of gender identity language in the charter is not a big deal. Even from the standpoint of gay inclusion, it's been noted that nothing has changed as far as recourse outside the chain of command goes. (This speaks to one of Kaitlyn's points.) The way one article put it was that the decision was a "disappointment but ... all it does is just simply pass us by. This is actually good, because then it’s a much simpler policy decision process to just clarify that transgender workers are included." [i.e., as was done in the subsequent comment on civilian workers - Lea]

So perhaps the OP makes too much of it?

[Edit]

The following document is the detail behind what we are actually talking about. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/613003p.pdf

There is "sex change" specific language in the document. There are a number of things that could be called out in connection with transsexualism, however. These range from pretty clear, in the case of prohibiting those taking steroids (sex hormones are steroids), to things that are commonly associated, such as history of depression. It is not my purpose to call any of this out by way of defending it. Rather, to point out that the details matter a great deal.

[Kathryn Martin]

Comments about “medical necessity” are the early signs of that same old “trannier than thou” argument that infects this place from time to time. Not only will that veer this thread off topic but it’s stupid and elitist. But then again, we haven’t had one of those train wrecks for a while, so I suppose we’re due for a little bloodletting.

And what happens when “medical necessity” cannot be accommodated? Or when we make the case for the validity of someone choosing to be a non-op trans person? Then we get those despicable comparisons that dismiss a non-op as practically a CD and it all goes back to being all about the correct configuration of body parts as proof of a valid expression of someone’s trans identity.

And here we are with the grand old life style choice theory that has haunted transsexuals since they began roaming the earth.

There is a fundamental difference between gender variant persons and transsexuals. It is not my problem that you annexed a medical term by calling it the same as everyone else . The medical needs of gender variant persons are quite different than those of transsexuals. The social issues are completely different, but you refuse to even see it.

A gender variant person who needs to present in a cross-gender manner, but has no need to have srs has obviously different medical needs than a transsexual who needs srs. But you keep denying that difference and as a result transsexuals (being called transgender) are faced with the question why they need srs when most transgender person does not need it. Remember, this is a serious encroachment on a medical need that only transsexuals have. You don't need SRS, well you will be a woman with a dick, no matter how many times you turn it this way or the other. It is different. And don't make that into a trannier than though because it has nothing to do with it, it is not a value question it is a differentiation question.

As I said, the medical needs are different, the medical diagnosis is different and the way in which governments and insurance companies deal with this correctly for all involved is to explain, point out and reference research about that difference. In Nova Scotia, where for the longest time no assistance was available at all, explaining the difference and providing the research to the government led to an inclusion of SRS and top and bottom surgeries in the medical code.

The result was, that the Human Rights Code was amended to reflect gender identity and gender expression as a protected class AND for transsexuals the inclusion of SRS in the medical code. One addresses the social implications and the other addresses medical procedures for those who need it.

Equality means nothing, especially if you cannot define what substantial equality is. Substantive equality is to treat people equal according to their specific circumstance. It's called equitable treatment. Equal always draws to lowest common denominator, and usually leads to exactly what you want to avoid, that some are more equal than others but equity actually provides substantive equality.

Body parts have nothing to do with valid expression of anything, and actually only prove that

a. you had your face done
b. you had your boobs done
c. you have a penis
d. you have a vagina

etc.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Ironically this whole thing was started by somebody who was only trying to tell us that we weren't tranny enough.

[Michelle.M]

The following document is the detail behind what we are actually talking about. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/613003p.pdf

No, we were talking about this:

http://www.defense.gov/documents/DoD-HumanGoals_4-28-14.pdf

I PM’d Rogina after her OP and asked what she was talking about and she referred me to the source of her observation, so I went there and put up this link in an earlier post so others who had the same question could see it.


My comments on both Title VII and transgender service were based on Pentagon statements. The Pentagon's Title VII comments were specifically in response to the lack of gender identity language in the charter.

I don't know what that is. I don't see Title anything in either of these linked documents.

[LeaP]

No, we were talking about this:


I was referring to the substance of the transgender policy, which is contained in the DODI doc I linked.

[Aprilrain]

I've told a few people that I'm trans. None of them knew before I told them, some of whom I've known for over a year. I know I pass, thank you.

In my experience the general public knows basically nothing about CDers or gender variant people, they aren't even on the radar. Everyone I've ever told I was "trans", and that is the word I use, automatically assumes I mean TS even if they didn't know that term. (They conflate the term transgendered with transsexual. For better or worse mainstream media has replaced the word transsexual with the word transgender) They assumed I have had surgery (which I haven't yet) and that I transitioned many years ago, that I must have "always known since childhood" and must have played with dolls, Or something along those lines. One woman was so confused that even after I explained everything she still had to ask if I was my kids mom. Damn kids! Always outing me:heehee:

Like it or not, to the observer you are what they see (and hear) This is why I have focused so heavily on my physical transition. The TSes that I have met who tend to have issues with either "gatekeepers" or the general public in my opinion need to work on their presentation.

I know this dosen't tie in directly to the topic but I think it's worth noting.

[Marleena]

Interesting twist in the replies. I thought being TS was between the ears and not the legs? If somebody is diagnosed as TS or believes they are TS I feel for them. Not everybody will have the same outcome for transition for various reasons I won't go into again. It's about survival.

As for the OP I'm all for equality since trans people are a significant part of the human race.

[Lilo]

One thing is social acceptance and another is a person being in their right (lawful right!) to kick you out of a restroom or deny services. Most of us, I would postulate, will go through a phase where the physical appearance is ambiguous at best. Some may never leave that phase due to their physical attributes. Equality rights protect everyone against discrimination without having to get into the specifics of a person's future goals or feelings because those are un-measurable. Yes, presentation is important and that is why all bathroom laws are written based on going to the bathroom consistent with the 'gender being presented' and not based on surgeries, feelings etc... For the military codes, I cant say anything. I am totally ignorant about it and leave that for others to discuss.

[Aprilrain]

Yes, presentation is important and that is why all bathroom laws are written based on going to the bathroom consistent with the 'gender being presented' and not based on surgeries, feelings etc...

So with that logic we all need to "look" male or female (binary) and then we need to define what males are "supposed" to look like and what females are "supposed" to look like. Which has already been ruled sex discrimination. This is flawed and disenfranchises anyone who chooses to transgress gender norms. Under this system a genetic female who identifies as a female but who chooses to dress in masculine attire and have a buzz cut would have to use the men's room? Or a guy who has long hair and a slight build should use the ladies? What If a guy who just likes to wear skirts wants to use the men's? Should he be sent to the women's?

I don't claim to have the answers to these complex issues, I just share my experience. Most places don't actually have laws that specify who may use what restroom. I Would oppose any such law.

[Lilo]

April, those are good points and I dont deny them. It is, however, how rules (state and corporate) are usually worded. I am sure that a man on a kilt would not get kicked out. Some countries are doing away with gender specific restrooms altogether and choosing unisex facilities. I think that is better. I do not mean to claim that our current laws are perfect. Yet, I admit that knowing that my state would protect my rights to use a women restroom did help with my confidence when first venturing out and doing this. It is now natural for me, my appearance improved and I no longer care about these laws. Others may never be lucky enough to loose this fear. I still think we ought to find ways to allow them to go about their lives. In general, the point is that laws/rules that protect everyone behaving appropriately are a good thing. Regardless of your definition of TG, TS, CD or whatever.

[edit]
BTW these rules say a person 'can' use the bathroom that is consistent with the gender pf their 'presentation' and not that the HAVE to use either facility. At the end of the day, they protect basic rights and, I think, should be considered 'good' to have antidiscrimination policies for all people. I fail to see how the alternative is better.

[celeste26]

Given the rape culture of our military and the lack of follow up on most of it, I would think that most of the people in this forum would be smart and stay out of the military. Its one thing to loudly proclaim a "right" but quite another to be raped over it without recourse. Those rapes are not just the GG's being raped but men too.

Under the present rules local CO's can choose to hear cases on their own without even consulting legal authorities. By keeping those "hearings" quiet it means that nothing gets done, the perpetrator is slapped on the wrist (if even that) and the victim is thrown under the bus for violating esprit de corp. Yeah we can talk all we want about rights but until those rights are honored properly I would advise anyone here to stay away.

[Michelle.M]

I was referring to the substance of the transgender policy, which is contained in the DODI doc I linked.

Got it. I was just trying to stay on topic.

The document you presented is important (and as far as I can tell the individual service regulations pretty much read the same), but that's not the Human Goals Charter that Rogina was trying to discuss.

Maybe we should start another thread specifically dealing with military exclusion rules as opposed to the DoD's recent (albeit lukewarm) attempts to be inclusive despite addressing "genetic information" (WTF?) for civilians only and not for military.

[Rogina B]

Are we in agreement that sexual preference and gender identity should be included in Human Rights Ordinances,everywhere? I sure hope so..

[DebbieL]

For most of us, except perhaps for FtMs, the Military is probably not generally a good idea. If you express an interest, you are likely to be approached by one of the intelligence organizations (CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, or units too secret to say here). Our talents at deception, illusion, misdirection, and keeping secrets are far too valuable to let us be used for "Cannon Fadder".

Still, there is a common misconception, especially among conservatives, that granting gays or transgenders human rights as granting them "special rights". The fact is that refusal to acknowledge these rights actually violates rights guaranteed to ALL people by the constitution. The right to privacy, to be secure in our persons and property. The constitution says we can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, including warrants, calling witnesses, ability to cross-examine witnesses, legal counsel, and even if we are convicted of a crime, we can't be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

Yet, homophobia and transphobia feels that it's the "God Given DUTY" of their group to expose the sexual preference and/or identity of others, even if they have no evidence. They can't be held liable for the damages they cause, and they often engage in torture, terrorism, and even murder by torture as punishment.

When these vigilantes take the law into their own hands, they often get minimal punishments. First degree murder is often given a plea bargain of 2nd degree manslaughter - minimal sentence, house arrest, and early parole. In other cases the crime isn't even investigated, because the police simply see it as "occupational hazard" like prostitutes.

The problem is that prostitutes are actually committing crimes, we are simply living our lives, doing the best we can to make the best of a difficult situation in the least harmful way we know how.

Ironically many of us have above average morals, religious backgrounds, spirituality, and many of us have stayed clean and sober. We often have above average education, experience, and incomes, because we often work harder.

Many of those who are transgendered and do turn to crime, or become suicidal, do so because their parents threw them out of the house when their secret was discovered, or they were outed and harassed emotionally, mentally, verbally, and physically - often many times a day.

Transgenders are not asking for special rights, we are asking for the same rights as everyone else.

[LeaP]

... Our talents at deception, illusion, misdirection ...

This has to be one of the most offensive things I've read in this forum to-date.


Still, there is a common misconception, especially among conservatives, that granting gays or transgenders human rights as granting them "special rights". The fact is that refusal to acknowledge these rights actually violates rights guaranteed to ALL people by the constitution. ...

You are talking about rights as if law and regulation, the common law and courts had no role in defining or clarifying them, setting forth the rules and conditions under which they apply (or may be restricted), and how competing rights are to be handled.

There are NO absolute rights and never have been. For good or bad, depending on your point of view, various people, groups, actions, etc. may receive preferential treatment, be ignored, or be disadvantaged as a result of prevailing cultural and legal views. Appeals that all people should receive equal treatment AND THEREFORE trans people (pick your definition) should be treated .... confuses philosophical principle with its implementation. One doesn't proceed from the other in the real world unless a consensus view as to the specific issue at hand prevails or a a legal majority can force the interpretation where that is permitted.

Discrimination is permitted under yet another right - that of freedom of association. This is also a critically important right, as it facilitates the creation of all kinds of groups and relationships that FOSTER diversity.

The closest you can get to an enumerated right in connection with this discussion is equal treatment under the law. Yet the law itself properly permits all kinds of distinctions nonetheless.

Special rights? In fact, protected classes under the law DO have special rights. They tread (mostly positively, in my view) into many activities in which other kinds of discrimination in the normal, freedom-of-association sense are permitted, such as housing and employment. Moreover, they criminalize many kinds of discrimination and provide recourse for claims, something that does not exist for non-protected classes. So, you may discriminate by hiring, say, only people that went to your alma mater. The rejected may go to court and may even be heard, but they won't get redress on that basis alone.

A major principle in employment law is whether selection criteria are actually pertinent to the job. Military selection follows the same general principle. So you can shout all you want about equal treatment, but the actual thing you have to overcome is the applicability of the criteria. If you are blind, old, missing a leg, have certain diseases, bad teeth, inflamed hemorrhoids, or whatever, you aren't getting in because the military has successfully defended its position that these conflict with its mission. A bunch of the criteria apply to transsexuals, both explicitly and implicitly.

Even if you knock down the restrictions on trans people in the military as they exist today, others will inevitably be raised. In-transition status would be an interesting example to consider.

I support equal rights for all as a general principle. But that always still begs the question.

In response to the OP's last post, I could support gender identity as a protected class. I don't think I would support gender expression in the same way (except as related to the first, obviously). I regard gender identity as an inborn characteristic. I support broad prohibitions against sex discrimination and regard gender identity as exactly the same thing, which is why I'm pleased by the general direction the courts have taken.

Gender expression in the sense of crossdressing is more difficult. There is a limited sense in unequal treatment here may be considered sex discrimination on the basis of relying on sex stereotypes, but it is not sex discrimination in itself. Consider an analog. Should one be compelled to hire a white candidate in blackface on the basis of affirmative action or race non-discrimination laws?

[Rianna Humble]

This has descended, as I always feared it would, into a debate about politics. Time to close.