Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Equal Rights’ Category

Here’s my report on today’s Arizona State Bar Board of Governor’s meeting:

It’s a long story, but there has been controversy surrounding the ethical rule governing Arizona attorneys that prohibits bias or prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sex, etc. in the practice of law for several years now. (ER 8.4(d) and Comment 3.) As a member of the State Bar’s Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), we have been pushing to, among other things, expand the rule to add “gender expression” to the already existing categories of  “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as a prohibited basis for discrimination. As anyone familiar with Arizona politics will understand, the more conservative elements of the Bar have opposed this move. In fact, their most recent move was to file a petition to completely gut the rule by, among other things, removing all listed grounds of discrimination.

To counter that proposal and, hopefully, put this controversy to rest once and for all, Ameilia Cramer, the current President of the State Bar (and an out lesbian), appointed a task force representing all sides of the controversy to develop a recommendation to the Board on what should be done with this rule. The Task Force, by consensus, determined that the rule should be strengthened by clarifying what practices are prohibited, expanding the rule so it applies to attorneys’ work outside the courtroom, and by adding “gender expression.” That proposal was unanimously approved by the Bar’s Rules Committee, which reviews all proposals for changes to Arizona court rules, and recommended for adoption by the Board of Governors. (Adoption by the Board would result in the Bar filing a petition to the State Supreme Court to adopt the proposed rule; that court has the final say.)

Today was the Board’s first opportunity to review the proposed rule amendment. I, another trans woman attorney who was a member of the Task Force and a member of SOGI, and the chair of the SOGI committee (a gay man) appeared on behalf of the committee in support of the proposal. My role was to explain the concept of gender expression, since virtually no one on the Board has had any experience with trans people, let alone that unfamiliar phrase. In the short time I had, I provided a couple of examples from my own life of gender expression and how it has affected my perception and treatment by others. In addition, in response to a question from a member of the Board, I explained the differences between gender identity and gender expression and why including both is important.

Unfortunately, given the strong opposition by right-wing groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (fka the Alliance Defense Fund), which is based in Arizona, it appears likely that the Board will adopt the Task Force’s proposal but without “gender expression.” The Board won’t actually vote on the Task Force’s proposal until the next meeting on December 14. Amelia Cramer asked that I return for that meeting, so I will be definitely be there.

Although the inclusion of “gender expression” in the rule would serve an important educational function by informing attorneys that that type of discrimination is prohibited, omitting that phrase should not have any substantive effect on the scope of the rule, since discrimination based on gender expression, or failure to conform to gender stereotypes, is already prohibited as a type of sex discrimination under the line of cases culminating last April in the EEOC’s decision that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination because someone is transgender (Macey v. Holder). In addition, I was assured by State Bar Counsel, who is responsible for filing disciplinary proceedings against attorneys who violate the rules of ethics, that the current rule is already interpreted to prohibit gender expression discrimination. Consequently, I, personally, do not oppose omission of the phrase “gender expression” from the amended rule. At the same time, I will strongly support efforts to insert that phrase into the rule in the next 1 or 2 years, after further education of Arizona attorneys on this issue, as discussed by Board during today’s meeting.

So, stay tuned and I’ll let you know what happens on December 14.

By the way, if the Task Force’s proposal was adopted in its original form, Arizona would become the first state to specifically include that phrase in the ethical rules governing attorneys, a remarkable feat if it comes to pass, given that, in recent years, the “firsts” Arizona has been known for have been on the extreme opposite end of the political spectrum.

Read Full Post »

UPDATED: see below.

Recently, the Center for American Progress published an FAQ on ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). Although generally accurate and informative, this article provides a misleading impression of the scope of ENDA’s provisions concerning access to restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.

In the hopes of correcting this error, I have emailed CAP. I will update this post when I receive a response.  Here’s what I told them:

As I’m sure you know, the most contentious issue surrounding anti-discrimination protections for trans people is access to restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities. Therefore, I was disturbed to see that CAP’s FAQ misinterprets ENDA’s provisions on that issue. In response to the question, “What does ENDA require of employers in terms of restroom facilities and access?,” the article states:

“Under ENDA, employees would only be required to provide employees with ‘reasonable access’ to adequate restroom, shower, and dressing facilities consistent with an employee’s gender identity. Employers who deny employees access to a shared facility would not be in violation of ENDA as long as they provide a viable alternative. Nothing in the proposed bill requires employers to construct new or additional facilities.”

There are two primary problems with this response. First, ENDA never mention restrooms. Consequently, ENDA’s gender identity non-discrimination requirements apply to access to restroom facilities in the same way they do to all other “terms and conditions” of employment. Thus, there is no exemption for employers who, for whatever reason, decide to bar a trans woman from the same restrooms that other women use, or vice versa for trans men.

Second, section 8(a)(3) of ENDA, from which the “reasonable access” language in the above quote is taken, applies only to “shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable.” (Emphasis added.) That section allows employers to bar trans employees from such facilities (but not facilities where being seen unclothed is avoidable), provided that the employer provides separate shower or dressing facilities that are consistent with the employee’s gender identity at the time of being hired or as specified in a later notice to the employer.

By implying that ENDA provides some sort of exemption regarding access to restrooms, and failing to note the very limited nature of the exemption for shower and dressing  facilities, the response in the FAQ misleads employers, trans people and the public in ways that I believe can unnecessarily complicate the debate on non-discrimination protections for trans people. Accuracy in describing what ENDA does and doesn’t do is essential in informing the public debate on these issues. Therefore, I hope you agree that a revision of the portion of FAQ dealing with these issues is necessary.

For my interpretation of how ENDA would apply to sex-segregated facilities, see Why the “Transsexual” vs. “Transgender” Debate Is Irrelevant to the Fight for Equal Rights.

UPDATE: Apparently, in response to my email, CAP has edited the section on facility access.  It now reads:

Q. What does ENDA require of employers in terms of facilities and access?

Under ENDA, employees would only be required to provide employees with “reasonable access” to adequate shower and dressing facilities consistent with an employee’s gender identity. Employers who deny employees access to a shared facility would not be in violation of ENDA as long as they provide a viable alternative. Nothing in the proposed bill requires employers to construct new or additional facilities.

As you can see, all they’ve done is delete the word “restroom.” The second error, and the resulting misimpression that employers can exclude trans people from all shared showers & dressing rooms with impunity, remains. Nice try, CAP, but you still didn’t get it right.

Read Full Post »

To me, the answer is quite clearly “Yes!” However, since some people apparently disagree, I’ll go ahead and explain how I reach that conclusion.

In thinking about laws legalizing same-sex marriage, it’s always been my understanding that the goal is to make the sex or gender of the partners irrelevant, in other words, to allow anyone to marry anyone else without regard to what sex or gender they are. The text of the New York Marriage Equality Act passed and signed into law yesterday reflects this principle.

The Act states that its purpose is to “formally recognize[] otherwise-valid marriages without regard to whether the parties are of the same or different sex.” In addition, the legislature’s intent in passing the act is to ensure “that all provisions of law which utilize gender-specific terms in reference to the parties to a marriage … be construed in a gender-neutral manner….” (Sec. 2.)  To carry out these purposes, the operative provisions of the Act (Sec. 3) state:

A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex.

No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage … shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or having been of the same sex[,] rather than a different sex. When necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, all gender-specific language or terms shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner in all sources of law.

It’s true that the phrase “the same or different sex” could be interpreted as referring only to the two binary sexes, i.e., only to male and female. Any such interpretation, however, is contradicted by the statement that “all gender-specific language or terms shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner.” “Gender-neutral” means “without gender,” not just male or female, or masculine or feminine.  The reference to parties who are “of the same sex[,] rather than a different sex,” rather than the different, or opposite, sex, also contradicts any claim that the Act was only intended to allow people who are either male or female to marry and deny that right to intersex people who may be neither or both sexes.

Finally, as the Supreme Court declared in Loving v. Virginia, the right to marry is a fundamental right. Therefore, any statute barring intersex people from marrying would likely be unconstitutional. In keeping with the separation of powers between the three branches of government, courts always attempt to carry out the legislature’s will by avoiding any interpretation of a statute that would render it unconstitutional. Under this principle, even if the language of the New York Marriage Equality Act could be interpreted as excluding intersex people, any court addressing that issue will strive to avoid finding the Act to be unconstitutional by adopting the equally reasonable interpretation that the legislature intended that everyone should have the right to marry anyone, regardless of their sex or gender (or any combination or lack thereof).

Thus, given both the language of the Act, and the potential unconstitutionality of any other interpretation, intersex people can be confident that, like those who fall within the sex/gender binary, they can marry whoever they want in the State of New York without regard to sex or gender.

NOTES

  1. In most cases, when one section of a statute is found to be unconstitutional, the courts will “sever” that provision and allow the remainder of the statute to go into effect.  However, the religious exemptions added to the Act on Friday, which won over the three Republican votes needed to pass the Act in the Senate, also included a “poison pill” provision to discourage anyone from challenging those exemptions. Section 3 of those amendments states that, if any part of the Act is held to be unconstitutional, the entire statute is invalid. Given this additional incentive, courts are sure to do everything possible to ensure that the entire Act is interpreted to be constitutional, including interpreting it to give intersex people the same right to marry as everyone else.
  2. I find it interesting that whoever drafted the Act was evidently aware of questions regarding the validity of an otherwise valid opposite-sex marriage when one of the partners transitions from male to female, or female to male.  It appears that the statement that no marriage shall be treated differently “based on the parties to the marriage … having been of the same sex[,] rather than a different sex” is designed specifically to remove any lingering doubts about that question.

Read Full Post »

I hesitate to jump into these shark-infested waters, but here goes.

I certainly have my own opinion on the “transsexual” vs. “transgender” debate that has ignited many a flame war on the internet over the last few months between those who want to separate our community based on those who have had or, at least, want to have, SRS, from everyone else, but I’m not going to express that here. Instead, I’m going to take a position that I’ve never seen expressed by anyone else, although some have come close. My position comes from my background as an attorney and my understanding of how anti-discrimination laws are written and are intended to operate.

Here’s what I know to be true: the dispute about who is transsexual and who isn’t is irrelevant to the fight for protections for transsexual, transgender, genderqueer and every other gender variant or gender nonconforming person in this country. Why? Because of how anti-discrimination laws are written for both practical and constitutional reasons.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Pedro Julio Serrano, Communications Manager for The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is again doing his best to erase the role of transphobia in the murder of Jorge Steven López Mercado in Puerto Rico last fall.  Pedro had this to say in today’s article in EdgeBoston on the run-up to the trial of Jorge’s murderer:

“Jorge Steven’s murder was an eye-opener for a lot of folks on the island and many people who either didn’t think or want to believe that homophobia is pretty much alive and affecting so many people in Puerto Rico,” said Pedro Julio Serrano of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. “I have never seen such a wide array of support and tangible solidarity in Puerto Rico.”

(All emphasis in the quotes from the article are mine.)  Of course, that didn’t stop Pedro or others from invoking the “T” when it serves their purposes:

“The Jorge Steven López Mercado case has allowed LGBT activists and organizations to shed light to a long-time problem of violent crimes for LGBT individuals in Puerto Rico and the overall United States,” said Jorge Cestou, the Chicago-based co-chair of Unid@s, a national Latino LGBT rights organization.

* * *

Illinois state Rep. María “Toni” Berrios [D-Chicago,] who also traveled to the island with the delegation, conceded she remains unsure whether anything has actually changed in Puerto Rico since the teenager’s death. She added, however, it galvanized LGBT Puerto Ricans.  “Jorge Steven López Mercado’s murder brought together all of the LGBT groups and has made them work even closer together to try to combat hate crimes towards their community,” said Berrios.

* * *

[Ada Conde Vidal, president of the Fundación de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Foundation,)] was instrumental in the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the territory’s hate crimes law in 2002, but  authorities have rarely implemented it.

* * *

[New York City Councilmember Melissa] Mark-Viverito, who was born in San Juan, told EDGE there remains “qu[i]te a lot of work to be done” in Puerto Rico, but Serrano stressed López’s murder changed the conversation about LGBT rights on the island.  “It’s no more a debate of whether there is homophobia,” he said. “Now the debate is how we are going to stop it; how are we going to end it. People are more aware of the importance of respecting everyone; regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

It seems that the idea that gay men may be feminine in some way is so distasteful that, while it’s OK to acknowledge that gay men exist in Puerto Rico, the idea that they may not be as “macho” as every other man must be avoided at all costs.  That, of course, does not stop anyone involved from claiming support from the “T” portion of the LGBT community or showing how inclusive they are by mentioning “gender identity” protections in Puerto Rican law. What blatant hypocrisy!

And, yes, it really pisses me off.

Read Full Post »

Over on Bilerico, Karen Ocamp shared her take on President Barack Obama’s speech at HRC’s annual dinner last night.  I don’t go for name calling (Karen says Obama is a “sissy”), but I share her disppaontment at Obama’s failure to use the power of his office to put action to his words, to demonstrate there is more to him than rousing speeches and inspiring words.  Here’s my dream of what Obama could have said to show that “Yes, We Can!” is more than just a slogan to win votes and volunteers, which I left as a comment on Karen’s essay:

I was very disappointed in Obama’s speech. I don’t think it would have been much more of a risk, politically, for him to have said, “Tonight, I call on Congress, on Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, to start making my vision for America a reality by passing ENDA and delivering it to my desk to be signed into law.” Or to say, “Today, I signed an executive order telling the United States military to stop spending your tax dollars on investigating and discharging dedicated Americans who have volunteered to serve our Nation simply because of who they are. Our county cannot afford to lose those soldiers, sailors, air men and women and others. But, more importantly, I signed that Order because it is the right thing to do. And, now, it is time for Congress and the rest of America to do the right thing too. We can no longer stand on the sidelines and watch as Americans are denied the promise of equality that this great Nation has stood for for more than 200 years simply because of who they are, and who they love.”

But, then, I’ve always been a dreamer. It’s hard to maintain that hope, however, in the face of continued disappointment.

As Rep. John Lewis, who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., said on the floor of the House during the debate over a trans inclusive ENDA in November 2007, “It is always the right time to do the right thing.”  Mr. President, the time is NOW!

Read Full Post »

Perhaps, someday, I will have the time to write a proper blog on this topic. For now, however, I simply want to record (for my own future use, and that of my friends) various internet discussions on the the use of the terms “cisgender” and “cissexual” and the issue of cis privilege. I have encountered these discussions over the last few days as I explored these topics in response to the controversy that erupted on Pam’s House Blend, when one cisgender male objected to being informed that’s who/what he is because it hurt his feelings to have his position of privilege as a cis person (i.e., one who doesn’t have to endure the challenges, not to mention the harassment, discrimination and other oppression, that those of us whose gender identity differs from the biological sex to which we were assigned at birth, i.e., trans folks, experience on a regular basis) pointed out to him. I suspect I’ll revise and add to this list as time goes on.

The posts where this controversy arose on PHB:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11728/aravosis-needs-to-issue-his-own-apology-to-trans-people-before-1st-citing-tgs-on-lgbt-civil-rights

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11753/

The resulting discussion on Questioning Transphobia, which contains links to several other relevant discussions: http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/cis-is-hostile-terminology-really/

Julia Serano’s blog post on the origins, of these terms and her use of them in her book, Whipping Girl: http://juliaserano.livejournal.com/14700.html

Some discussions prompted by the above discussion on QT:
http://www.xoros.net/2009/06/30/cis/
http://queersubversion.blogspot.com/2009/06/cisgender-privilege.html
http://tgnotwhatyouthink.blogspot.com/2009/07/counteroffensive.html
http://mythcongeniality.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-margins.html

An earlier discussion on QT explaining why every cis person should “check [her/his] cis privilege” before getting all huffy after being told s/he *is* cisgender and/or cissexual and, consequently, is speaking from a place of cis privilege: http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/how-to-check-your-cis-privilege/

A simple explanation of the meaning of “cis”: http://smashthecisarchy.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/trans-101-what-is-cis/

An interesting and informative post that explains why I will hereafter ensure that I always say “trans woman” and “trans man,” not “transwoman” and “transman,” which ties into the discussion of cisgender, cissexual and cis privilege: http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/put-the-goddamn-space-in-transwoman-transfeminism-transmasculine-etc-language-politics-1/

UPDATED with links to some additional discussions that have recently arisen.

UPDATE, 7/13/09
A cis woman’s take on being cis – http://jadedhippy.blogspot.com/2009/07/hey-guess-what-im-still-cisgender.html
Continuing discussion on Questioning Transphobia – http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/a-point-about-cis/

Read Full Post »

Attorney and law professor Jillian Weiss has posted another interesting article over on Bilerico.  This one concerns the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that laws making sex between consenting adults of the same sex a crime (aka “sodomy” laws) are unconstitutional, and whether and how that decision can be used to, in her words, “loosen the chokehold that the law has on transgender people.”  One of the commenters there asked if she could write another article on the definition of “sex” in Title VII and EEO policies banning “sex” discrimination, as applied to trans people.  Rather than wait for Dr. Weiss’ response, I decided to weigh in on this topic.  Here is my response:

E.T., I’ll take a stab at responding to your second question regarding the definition of “sex.”

It’s important to distinguish 2 different situations in which the legal definition of the word “sex” impacts trans people: first, laws that ban discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc.; and second, the right of trans people to access legal privileges, e.g., marriage (in most states), that are restricted on the basis of a person’s sex. The second group could also encompass the right of trans people to use services or facilities, e.g., public restrooms, access to which is restricted on the basis of a person’s sex. (I say “could encompass” since, in most places, contrary to public opinion, there are no laws that say a man can’t use a women’s restroom, or vice versa. In other words, sex segregation of restrooms is largely a matter of social convention, not law, although trespassing and disturbing the peace laws are sometimes used (unjustly, in my opinion) to enforce those conventions.)

Where access to a legal privilege, service or facility is restricted based on sex, determining a trans person’s right of access requires a determination of what “sex” the person is, since sex-based segregation is based on a strict binary division between male or female, where no ambiguity is allowed. Answering that question, in turn, raises myriad complicated questions regarding how a person’s sex is determined. For example, is it strictly biological or chromosomal, or does it include a person’s gender identity or expression? If biological, do we look only at the configuration of the person’s genitals or genes at birth, or do we, also or instead, give effect to the person’s genital configuration after surgery? Can a person’s sex be legally changed? And what do we do about intersex people whose chromosomes, genitalia, internal organs, etc. are not clearly male or female?

Most, but not all, of the cases addressing this question in the context of the right of a trans person to marry have ignored the effects of surgery and attempts to “legally” change the person’s sex by amending her/his birth certificate. In other words, they were decided based on the basic premise espoused by many of our opponents that “once a man, always a man,” and vice versa.

Fortunately, most, but not all, of the recent cases involving the definition of “sex” for purposes of determining a trans person’s right to protection under laws banning sex discrimination have avoided this difficulty. They do so by saying that it doesn’t matter what sex a person is, i.e., whether the person is male, female, both or neither. Instead, what matters is whether the person was treated differently because of some sex-related characteristic. This trend started with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1988. In that case, the court said that discrimination based on sex under Title VII, the federal law banning sex, race and other types of discrimination in employment, includes being treated differently because the person doesn’t conform to sex-based stereotypes regarding dress, mannerisms, etc. Thus, the Supreme Court held that it was illegal for Price Waterhouse to refuse to make Ann Hopkins a partner basically because she was too “butch.” (The court, of course, didn’t use that term and there is no indication that I know of that Ms. Hopkins was lesbian.)

This trend, IMO, reached its logical endpoint with last fall’s federal trial court decision in Diane Schroer’s Title VII sex discrimination suit against the Library of Congress. Schroer v. Billington. In that case, the court found that the Library violated Title VII by discriminating against Schroer because she was changing her sex, not because she was male, female, both or neither.

Thus, in the context of discrimination laws or policies that you were talking about, it isn’t necessary to define a person’s sex as male or female, etc. It is only necessary to tackle that question when the trans person is seeking access to a legal privilege like marriage, or a service or facility, like a restroom, where access is restricted based on whether the person is male or female. The lack of a coherent and consistent definition of a person’s sex and/or methods for legally changing one’s sex that are actually recognized by the courts are the source of most, if not, all, of the ongoing confusion regarding the rights of trans people.

In the case of marriage, I think the best solution to that confusion is to remove all sex or gender based restrictions, in other words, to legalize same sex marriage. That’s why the battle for marriage equality is important to the trans community, contrary to the opinions of some. With respect to access to restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities, I think the best solution is to provide for personal privacy, e.g., the stalls in women’s restrooms, and allow access based on the person’s gender expression. In other words, if you’re presenting as a woman, you use a women’s restroom, and vice versa, regardless of your physical sex. Any other solution quickly becomes too complex and confusing to administer and enforce. Implementing that solution will, however, require the American public to just “get over” their hang-ups about the sex or gender of the person in the stall next to them.

UPDATE

Some of you may also be interested in this post from last year on how laws that ban sex discrimination in access to public accommodations relate to the right of trans people to public restrooms.

Read Full Post »

eQualityGiving is proposing a bill to correct the unequal treatment of LGBT people in all areas of federal law – employment, housing and public accommodations discrimination, the American with Disabilities Act, DOMA, DADT, etc. Read about (and download) it here. Whether or not a comprehensive bill like this is ever introduced or enacted, I think it serves a useful purpose in uniting the debate on the many ways in which we are treated unequally and helping to ensure that the changes we seek are consistent.

What do you think?

******************************
FYI, here is eQualityGiving’s email announcing its proposal:

INTRODUCING THE EQUALITY & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT

Dear Abigail,

What if we asked for legal equality all at once in one comprehensive omnibus bill?

THE BLUEPRINT FOR LGBT EQUALITY

What would a bill for total legal equality look like? We asked attorney Karen Doering, a very experienced and savvy civil rights attorney, to prepare such a bill. It was presented and discussed on our listserv, which includes many of the major donors to the movement and the executive directors of all the major LGBTQ organizations.

We believe now is the time to introduce an omnibus bill.

We have prepared a section of our website with all the information about the proposed bill:
www.eQualityGiving.org/Blueprint-for-LGBT-Equality

There you can read the actual text of the bill and read the answers to the frequently asked questions. There is also a section reviewing the status of the incremental bills currently proposed. You can also post your comments directly on the site.

WHAT THE OMNIBUS BILL COVERS

1. Employment
2. Housing
3. Public accommodation
4. Public facilities
5. Credit
6. Federally funded programs and activities
7. Education
8. Disability
9. Civil marriage
10. Hate crimes
11. Armed forces
12. Immigration

INCREMENTALISM vs. OMNIBUS BILL

Some people think that an omnibus bill is too unrealistic to pursue because Congress functions in a very complex way. But the country voted for a new leader who promised major changes to the way our government functions.

We have tried incrementalism at the federal level for LGBT equality for 35 years without any results. Now is the best time to capitalize on the energy of new leadership and propose what we think change looks like.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said:

“A right delayed is a right denied.”

Asking for an omnibus equality bill does not mean that we need to pursue it at the expense of incremental bills. Both approaches can be used simultaneously, and we encourage this strategy.

An Omnibus bill has two major benefits:

> It points out in clear legal terms all the areas in which we are not treated equally under the law. If we ask for less, we will certainly get less.

> An Omnibus bill provides a standard to which incremental victories can be compared. We may discover, for example, that even the trans-inclusive ENDA introduced in March 2007 still did not provide the same level of protections in employment that other groups receive.

SAY WHAT YOU THINK

If you believe that, in addition to incremental bills, we should also push for an Omnibus Equality Bill, tell your member of Congress, talk to your friends, and write about it on the site. All the info about the bill is here:

www.eQualityGiving.org/Blueprint-for-LGBT-Equality

For many months we have been preparing this Omnibus Equality Bill. Join us to push for it, so that we can achieve LGBT legal equality faster.

Best regards,

Juan Ahonen-Jover, Ph.D.
Ken Ahonen-Jover, M.D.
Founders, eQualityGiving

P.S. Please forward this alert to others who could be interested.

********************************

UPDATE – 3/24/09

Recently, there has been some discussion in the blogosphere about the impact of what some believe to be a narrower definition of “gender identity” in the federal Hate Crimes Bill (HR1592) from 2007, when compared to the definition of that term in the gender-inclusive ENDA (HR2015) from that same year.  (The Hate Crimes Bill defined “gender identity” as “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics,” while the inclusive version of ENDA defines it to mean “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.  To learn about this discussion, read Kathy Padilla’s recent posts on The Bilerico Project here and here.)  In a comment I left on eQualityGiving’s website, I pointed out this difference and the risk of unnecessary litigation over whether the definitions are intended to have different meanings.  In response, eQualityGiving has amended their Omnibus Bill to include the same definition in all its provisions, including hate crimes.  The revised version of the bill, dated March 21, 2009, is available for download on eQualityGiving’s website.

In my original post, I failed to note one huge advantage eQualityGiving’s Omnibus Bill has over even the inclusive version of ENDA.  Rather than enacting a separate statute with a broader exemption for religious organizations and other provisions that differ from existing civil rights law, eQualityGiving’s bill would simply amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the federal law banning sex, race and other discrimination in employment) by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to its terms.  As Karen Doering, the drafter of the Omnibus Bill, explains on the FAQ page for the bill, this approach has substantial advantages over ENDA.  Having worked as an investigator of discrimination claims under Title VII and being familiar with its terms and, especially, how it has been interpreted by the courts, I see this as a major improvement over current proposals.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: Once more, it is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the day on which we honor the memory of a great man who has proved so inspiring to so many of us.  I, too, have a dream and I pray each day for the day we can each can celebrate our diversity and our equality throughout this country and the world.

I originally posted this one year ago today [i.e., January 2008] on my old Yahoo 360 blog, while the wound from transgender people being excluded from ENDA by HRC and Barney Frank was very raw (it still is).

Today is the day in the United States that we celebrate the dream of equality and freedom that the Rev. Martin Luther, Jr. inspired in this country and, I hope, in the world. There is not much that any of us can add to his inspiring words, so I simply invite all of you to take 17 1/2 minutes of your day to listen to his words and to share his dream. (The video and the direct link to YouTube are below.) As you do so, you might want to note as I did, the following words, which seem so appropriate today as we struggle for recognition of equal rights for all transgender people against the argument that we need to wait our turn, that incrementalism is the path to freedom and justice for us:

“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.” (Beginning @ 5:15 on the video below)

I followed up the next day with another post on Martin Luther King’s opposition to incrementalism and how he convinced LBJ that that was not the right approach:

As I noted yesterday, in his “I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed applying “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” to the civil rights struggle of that time.

More information about Dr. King’s opposition to that strategy came out last night on Bill Moyers’ Journal on PBS. During that program, Moyers recounted a previously unrevealed conversation between Dr. King and Lyndon Johnson that Moyers was privy to as a young presidential aide. (You can watch or read the transcript of this program here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch4.html.) Initially, LBJ tried to convince Dr. King to quell the demonstrations and other unrest that he and others were encouraging, in order to help Johnson convince the white supremacists in Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In keeping with his words at the Lincoln Memorial, King refused, saying that “his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken.” After listening to King, Johnson changed his mind and told King to “keep doing what you’re doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing.” King did as asked, LBJ used his legendary arm-twisting skills in the Senate and one of the most important pieces of legislation of the last century, and one that today provides the only glimmer of hope for protection against employment discrimination for most trans women and men in the U.S., was passed.

So, Lyndon Johnson insisted on doing what was right at the time, rather than what he thought was practical or pragmatic given the resistance he faced. As civil rights pioneer and U.S. House of Representatives member John Lewis said on the floor of the House during the ENDA debate last November [2007], “It is always the right time to do the right thing.” Johnson, King and many others knew this in 1963 and 1964. Why is it that today so many people believe that this principle doesn’t apply to our own struggle for equal rights?

Today is still the time to do the right thing!  Perhaps, with Barack Obama’s inauguration tomorrow as our next President, we will finally begin to achieve the civil rights, the human rights, that we all deserve.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »