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.

It is a sad and aggravating story about a woman that adopted a baby that turned out to be intersex. Not that big of a deal on the surface right. Well not quite so fast. The doctor wanted to do invasive surgery to “FIX” the child and the mother told the doctor not to do any surgery at all. Later, after the mother had taken the baby home, the doctor called her and told her that the baby’s single testicle may become cancerous and they should do a biopsy to make sure. The doctor CLEARLY went against the mother’s wishes and removed the testicle trying to turn the child into a girl. UGGGGGGGG. PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO. I feel that it is very important that everyone watches the video and if you can please pass it on to others.
Why is it so important? Have you heard of Alice Dreger? To quote TSRoadmap, “Dreger is the J. Michael Bailey of the intersex community: someone whose trade is writing and speaking about controversies surrounding marginalized populations.” Read this and maybe you’ll understand. Anyways, its people like this that give make this world so difficult for the intersex and transgender communities. Ugggg. I also believe its attitudes like this “I know better than you” that give doctors like the one in the story above the attidude that they can do anything they want. What do you think?
I said I would keep it short, so I’ll say good night for now. Thanks for listening.
Michelle

While I have this chance, I also want to say some things about activism. The trans community in this country is small, and the number of those willing to speak out on the issues that affect us is even smaller. That means that each one of us is vital if we ever want the public’s attitude toward us, and the discrimination, hate and bigotry that we face, to change. It also means that one person can have a significant impact on the direction that our community takes in addressing the issues that we face.

It sounds clichéd, but I have learned through experience the truth of the statement that if I don’t do it, if I don’t step forward and say “this is wrong and must change,” if I don’t propose solutions and work to make them a reality, then who will? The answer is no one. It happens every day. We see or hear about something that we know is wrong – another trans woman shot in Memphis, another trans woman homeless because she can’t get a job – and we stand by in silence and do nothing. Those things will never change if you don’t work to change them, even if all you can do is to say “this is wrong.” Keep in mind too that, although it is important that we in the trans community know about these injustices, it is our families and friends, our lesbian, gay and bisexual sisters and brothers, and the general public that need to hear our voices. So many people truly have no idea about the mistreatment that we suffer, how widespread it is and how few protections exist to ensure that most basic of human rights: the right to live lives of peace and dignity. Those are the people we need to speak to, because it is their sense of justice and morality that we need to invoke if we ever want things to change.

Is it scary to step forward and say, “I am trans, this is wrong and it must stop”? Of course, it is. But there are also rich rewards in showing the world that we are proud of who we are, that we refuse to cower in the darkness of ignorance and hate any longer, and in knowing that we are helping to change the world, not just for ourselves, but for people everywhere. Join me! Today do just one thing to make the world a better place to live, whether that’s giving a hug to a friend you know is having a hard time, writing a letter to the editor or simply telling your story. But, most of all, Be Who You Are!!

(Cross-posted from my personal blog.)

I agree with the basics of your description [of the law concerning marriages in which one partner is trans], but want to clarify that what happens in most of these cases is that the couple is able to get a marriage license and marry simply because they appear to be a typical male/female couple.  Thus, although they are allowed to marry, they are “legally” married only in the sense that no one has challenged it yet.  Many couples involving a trans partner may marry, live out their lives and die without anyone ever challenging the validity of their marriage, and thus escape the uncertainty I’ve been talking about.  But there’s no way to predict which couples will be that fortunate and which ones will face the horror of being told years later that they were never legally married.

As for the “trans lesbian” who married her partner that you mentioned, I assume that you are referring to cases where a MTF transsexual marries a cisgender female, before the trans partner has changed her name or sex marker on any of her identification documents.  I know of several such cases.  Again, as long as the couple appears to be a male/female couple to whatever clerk issues the marriage license and to whatever judge or other authority marries them, their marriage is treated as a legal, opposite-sex marriage, but may, or may not, in fact be legal if it is ever challenged.

The basic rule is that a marriage that was legal when and where it was entered into continues to be valid until dissolved by divorce.  The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), however, makes an exception to that rule for same-sex marriages by allowing states where such marriages are banned to refuse to recognize a legal same-sex marriage entered into in another state or country.  DOMA should not apply, however, to a marriage between a trans woman who was legally male at the time and a cisgender female since, at the time it is entered into, it is a legal opposite-sex marriage.  The same applies to a trans man who is legally female at the time he marries a cisgender male.  Such marriages should, therefore, be safe from challenge even after the trans partner legally changes her/his name and sex.  A marriage between a man and woman, one of whom realizes that she/he is trans after the marriage and then transitions, should also be legal, since the only difference between that situation and the ones I just discussed is simply a matter of timing.

BUT, and this is a big “but,” I know of no cases anywhere addressing whether a marriage in which one partner transitions after marriage continues to be valid.  Everything I know says it should be, but stranger things have happened, especially when it comes to trans people.

Finally, just to clarify, the majority of courts that have faced the issue have said that a marriage between a trans woman (i.e., an MTF transsexual) who is “legally” female at the time of marriage and a cisgender man (or vice versa) is INVALID as an illegal, same-sex marriage, despite any change in identification documents, birth certificates, or whatever.

The bottom line is to get married before the trans partner has legally changed her/his sex if you can.  If not, once married, see an attorney to draft wills, medical directives, child adoptions, etc. to legally create as many of the benefits of marriage as possible, in case the marriage is declared invalid at some future date.  (In fact, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to do those things even when the couple marries while they are still legally of different sexes, just in case.)  In other words, do the exact same things that other “same-sex” couples have to do to create the semblance of a legally recognized marriage.  That’s why marriage equality is just as much an issue for trans people as it is for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Yes, another cross-post from my personal blog.

During my skimming of the sites discussing TDOR, I came across some links to sites that profess to know what’s best for me (yah right) and I’d like to take some of the comments that were left at these various sites and personally reply to them here.

Note: Some comments are in reference to President-elect Barack Obama including sexual orientation and gender identity in his non-discrimination policy. But I felt a need to address some of these comments here because many show their ignorance and hatred toward trans people and felt it was important to discuss these issues.

“Well, there you go. Happy liberals? It makes me sick to my stomach.”
I never considered myself liberal, but yes it does make me happy. Happy that there is FINALLY someone in the White House who will give me the respect that I or anyone else deserves. Someone who will not discriminate against me because I am transsexual. If this makes you sick to your stomach I suggest that you take some milk of magnesia and call your doctor in the morning.

“I sincerely pray this doesn’t happen. What a short sighted policy with only one group being considered.”
One group you say. I believe he’s including everyone in this policy. From his Change.Gov site “The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law.” Now does that sound like one group? Not to me.

“People should be content with the way God made them, and if they are having trouble with that, seek godly council.”
First off, I don’t have a problem with the way God made me. I’ve accepted the challenges put in front of me and I’m ready to move forward with what I need to do to make my life better for myself. I’m not a mistake, I’m not a freak or anything else that you’d like to call me. I feel I have this condition for a reason and I plan on doing what I can do deal with it. If that means transitioning to the gender I was meant to be, then so be it. You’re the one that seems to have a problem with me being transsexual; maybe you should take your own advice.

“Gays and Lesbians can be delivered of this sin/sickness thru our Lord Jesus Christ! Obama is opening the door to more molestations to our children with this decision as well. Our country will need to pray continuously and stand up and fight for all Christian beliefs as that is what this country was founded on! God Bless!”
I’m sorry, but if you really believe I want anything to do with your children, you have another think coming. I have two wonderful supportive kids of my own. I too want to protect them from the molesters, but you are sadly barking up the wrong tree when you suggest that I would want to do anything to your children. Studies have shown that the only real treatment for someone who truly is transsexual is to accept who they are and do what they can to make their life better. Sometimes that means transitioning to their known gender. Nothing else has been shown to work, not shock therapy, confinement, religious institutionalization or any other treatment. By the way, the majority of the child molesters out there are not even in the LGBT community, and maybe you should look to them with your prayers. If you want to pray for anything, please pray for the 100’s of trans people who have been murdered for just trying to be themselves.

“As a woman who regards my gender as a gift rather than something to be disrespect, I don’t particularly find it either respectful or considerate for some guy who thinks he has to be “one of the girls” just because he likes to wear dresses any good reason to take over the women’s bathroom. Your choice-a very self-centered choice-is an assault on healthy, normal people. Just because you can’t figure out how to be a man isn’t cause for you to defile my feminity. I don’t appreciate that you make me have to put up with your self-gratifying, self-centered deprivation. Go to the men’s bathroom…honey. And go on ahead, call me a hater. What I really hate is how you deviates push your ugly behavior on normal, healthy people.”
I’m sorry that you feel I’m disrespecting you in any way, but that is far from the truth. You called it correctly though, you are a hater no matter how you slice it. There are millions of trans people in this world who just want to be left alone to live their lives as quietly as possible. I should be the one insulted by you “defiling my feminity”. Yes, I am a woman whether you like it or not. I’ve know it since I was 6 years old and that’s the God honest truth. BTW, if I walk in the women’s restroom, you or any other woman in that restroom is the last thing on my mind. I just want to get in there and do my business and get out like any other self respecting woman would. I would respectfully ask you and others to do your research on transgender people before you place judgment on me or any other trans person. There are several studies suggesting that there is a biological connection to this condition.

“God help us!”
Yes , God help us all to see that we are a loving people and that we mean no harm to any other. Although many of you would not even think twice about killing us, writing us off as rejects, denying us the same civil rights that every human being should have.  Too many have died at the hands of creeps who murdered Teish Cannon this past Friday with a gunshot to the chest. Or Lawrence King who was shot to death by a classmate at school, he was only 15. Duanna Johnson who was beaten badly by on-duty police officers in Memphis, TN. She was later shot in the back of the head execution style.  There are too many to mention here. Yes, I ask God’s help in showing others to have compassion for others in their plight to be their true selves. To show the world that we have every right to be here as much as you do.

I’m not asking anyone to like me, I could care less if you do. All I ask is respect for who I am and let me live my life for who I really am. A Woman. How many more have to die? I will not stand here anymore and be quit. I’m here in this world for a purpose and I plan on living my life the best I can and to treat everyone I meet with respect and dignity.

In closing I’d suggest that everyone read Abby’s post from yesterday and check out the video and links she provided. Peace!

Please visit the websites below to find out more about the Transgender Day of Remembrance and the location of a vigil near you where you can join with others to honor those who have died because of who they are.

Remembering Our Dead, the project that began the Day of Remembrance

International Transgender Day of Remembrance, maintained by Ethan St. Pierre, contains a comprehensive listing of Transgender Day of Remembrance events around the world.

Transgender Day of Remembrance, a website maintained by Gwendolyn Ann Smith, the founder of the Transgender Day of Remembrance

Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project, a collaboration of various webcomics to help raise awareness about the Transgender Day of Remembrance.

Although there are many videos memorializing the Transgender Day of Remembrance, one of the most moving I have seen is this one, created just this year as a collaboration of several members of the trans community. After you watch it, click on the link above and leave a comment thanking all those who participated in this project.

Whatever you do, please take a few moments tomorrow to honor those whose lives have been ended simply because they expressed their gender in ways that made other people uncomfortable, which, at bottom, is the source of all hate and bigotry. Then, think of one thing that YOU can do to help end the hate and DO IT, and KEEP DOING IT until there are no more names to add to the list of our dead.

Cross-posted from my personal blog.

UPDATE, 11/19/08, 1:55 p.m. MST:  To understand why the Transgender Day of Remembrance is vital to our community and why some of us are so angry about our needs being ignored in favor of priorities that others have set, read little light’s latest post.  If her writing doesn’t make you cry and vow to take action, at least to show up at your local Transgender Day of Remembrance event, I don’t know what will.

There are two things I’m likely to post about. The first is gender in general: gender roles, stereotypes, fluidity of gender, etc. The second, which is perhaps the reason for my invitation in the first place, is my developing understanding of transgender issues and how this process has impacted on my life. This has been a year of transition for me…just not the kind of transition that is usually discussed here. I have, for most of my life, been a member of the Mormon church – a church that has pretty conservative doctrines and policies when it comes to gender, gender roles, and related issues such as gender reassignment and sexual orientation. Over the last year or so, I’ve rejected many of the beliefs I once held, and I plan to resign membership in that church by the end of the year.

Several months ago I came across riftgirl’s blog and through that I have also found several other blogs written by people who are transgender. This exposure to transgender people and issues has been very helpful to me. I feel awkward and lacking in life experience because there are so many things I don’t know or have no experience with and losing my faith, which right or wrong has been a big part of my life and identity, has been easier to process in the face of so much evidence that the teachings of the Church are inadequate in dealing with real people in real situations that do not fit neatly into pre-defined boxes.

I make no claim to understand what it feels like to be transgender, but I don’t think I need to understand that completely in order to accept that GID is real, to consider the issues it creates, or to be supportive of transgender people.

DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene.

The genetic difference may cause weaker testosterone signals, the team reported in Biological Psychiatry (abstract available here).

However, other genes are also likely to play a part, they stressed.

Increasingly, biological factors are being implicated in gender identity.

There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice, however our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops

Read the rest: BBC – Transsexual gene link identified

I’m not sure how I feel about this article.  Much of it is troubling, since I wish the whole topic of the origins of being transgender and how best to treat it to be neat and simple, but it just isn’t.  In the end, I believe that children should be allowed to make their own decisions to the extent that’s feasible.  (Obviously, that’s a huge loophole, but, for the moment, I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to define my position any further.)  If a child typed as a boy at birth wants to live as a girl, she should be allowed to do that with her parents’ support.  At the same time, her parents need to make clear that either choice is OK.  If she later decides that she wants to live as a boy, that too should be allowed.  Will it be more difficult then?  Yes, of course.  Every choice we make has consequences and, as much as we might like to, we cannot insulate our children from the consequences of their choices any more than we can avoid the consequences of our own.  But I believe that the challenges of returning to life as a boy, after living as a girl for weeks or months or years, will be less traumatic than growing up never having had the chance to have that experience and to make a more informed decision about her future.

Eventually, she will be faced with decisions that will have permanent, physical consequences — whether to begin cross-sex hormones, whether to have SRS.  That is where the use of hormone blockers has the greatest benefit, since they delay the onset of changes that will make living in her affirmed gender infinitely harder until she has the maturity and the information she needs to make that momentous decision, while retaining the option of allowing her puberty to proceed as it would without intervention.  In the end, however, it must be her decision, not her parents’, not her doctor’s.  None of can know what is truly best for another person, even our children.  All we can do is ask Spirit to guide our choices and the choices of our children and then trust that She will respond to our calls.

(Crossposted from my personal blog.)

I’m an attorney and my practice is limited to appellate work only (criminal appeals in my case, but the rules for interpreting statues are the same whether you’re talking about civil or criminal law). The argument that the exclusion of gender identity and expression from ENDA last year indicates Congress’ understanding, and intention, that sex discrimination under Title VII doesn’t cover gender identity discrimination is an obvious one. In the end, however, it’s completely bogus.

Ask yourself, how is the belief or understanding of a completely different Congress almost 45 years after Title VII was enacted relevant to what Congress intended sex discrimination to include back in 1964? It’s not the job of Congress to decide what laws they’ve already passed mean. That’s the job of the courts.

Two other important factors further undercut this argument. First, if you review the congressional record from 1964, you will see that sex discrimination was added to Title VII with the explicit intent to defeat it by convincing the majority of Congress that it was too radical to vote for. So, there’s no evidence in the record that Congress intended sex discrimination to mean anything, let alone evidence as to whether they intended “sex” to apply only to biology or to include gender identity.

Second, what happened last year was simply that a single committee of the House of Representatives sent a bill to the floor of the House that didn’t include gender identity and that the House passed that bill. It was never passed by the Senate or signed into law. Consequently, while it may be proper to say that the House Labor Committee didn’t think that gender identity discrimination should be illegal, there is no evidence that the full House or the Senate agreed, since they were never given the opportunity to vote on that question. Divining legislative intent from Congress’ *failure* to do something without any explicit up or down vote on the issue is a perilous business.

Finally, I’m no conservative by any measure, but I agree with Justice Scalia that the first place we have to look in determining what Congress intended is what they actually said. It frustrates me to no end when the courts here in Arizona agree with prosecutors that, despite the explicit language in a statute, the legislative history shows that they meant something entirely different. At some point, what the legislature or Congress actually said has to mean something.

This is not an argument that, if Congress didn’t think about the problem in 1964, Title VII shouldn’t apply to it. As one person involved with the Schroer case (it may have been Sharon McGowan, the ACLU’s lead attorney) recently said to a reporter when asked if Congress intended Title VII to apply to trans women and men, the framers of the Constitution weren’t thinking about TV either when they talked about freedom of the press in the First Amendment; does that mean it shouldn’t have the same protections as newspapers?

Change is a natural process that preexisting laws must continually adapt to. It is the difficult but absolutely necessary job of courts to determine how those laws should be applied to situations that the people who adopted them never contemplated. That doesn’t make the process illegitimate; it just makes it very, very hard.