It's MzMartiPants to you!

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Chris Crain has repeatedly suggested 1, 2, 3, 4 that transgender people don’t need to be included in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because “existing federal civil rights laws have already been interpreted by some judges to protect trans workers.”

A recent EEOC informal discussion letter would suggest otherwise.

Historically, courts and the EEOC have held that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against an individual because of transgendered status. See, e.g., Ulane v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984); EEOC Dec. 75-030, ¶ 6499 (CCH) (1974). In the past few years, however, some courts have determined that discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute unlawful gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. See Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm Inc., 2006 WL 456173 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2006); Tronetti v. TLC Healthnet Lakeshore Hosp., 2003 WL 22757935 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003); cf. Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2006) (disagreeing with Ulane and holding that discrimination based on sexual identity may be discrimination based on sex). Other courts, however, have adhered to the view that discrimination based on transgendered status does not violate Title VII. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 2005 WL 1505610 (D. Utah June 24, 2005); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 2002 WL 31098541 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002). Whether discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII is a factual question that cannot be determined outside the context of specific charges of discrimination and a complete investigation. - Title VII: Sex Discrimination/Coverage of Transgendered

Reading Jen Burke’s “Breaking the Binary: Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Presentation (Volume 1: Employment)” was key in my understanding of the rulings of the United States concerning gender and sex. Title VII only covers transgender people if their employer “sex stereotyped” them. Sex stereotyping is a form of harassment directed at a person because that person does not conform to traditional sex stereotypes.” Sex stereotyping is just as illegal against a gay people as it is against transgender or heterosexual persons. Regardless of what you’re told, it’s still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

If nothing else, last week was historic in that the three major transgender advocacy organizations (National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition) brought in citizen lobbyists to Washington D.C. from across the United States for a week of direct congressional advocacy.
Rolling in to DC on Tuesday, I had the chance to see the lobbyists for the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) in action. Tuesday night NTAC sponsored a plenary session or “lobbying 101,” instructing those new to lobbying on the importance of presentation and lobbying “do’s and dont’s.”

On Wednesday morning I set out to visit my Representative, Julia Carson. I had other business to attend to while in DC, but at the very least I wanted to make sure that I’d talked to my own Senators and Representative. I’ve headed many a protest in my day, but this was actually the first time I lobbied a public office holder. For me, anger is much easier to emotion to project publicly than one on one interaction. But like the Byrds song says

“To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven”

This was the time to lobby.

One thing I was shocked by was how friendly even the most conservative offices were. Actually, I got more time to explain why we were there in Richard Lugar’s office than I did in Evan Bayh’s office.

NTAC uses the buddy system, pairing up veteran lobbyists with the newbies (me, for example). I was amazed at the professionalism and polish of those who went along with me. As I learned later, NTAC and GPAC (who lobbied on Friday) have been lobbying Congress for many years (I did contact NCTE for this post, but they did not return my call).

It was a powerful experience, to see the wheels of power turning. To connect with the people in power that make critical life effecting legislative decisions is very important. It’s empowered me to lobby on a local level and I’ll be returning to Washington D.C. on a routine basis. If you ever get the chance to go, do it.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

It’s coming up on two years ago that I wrote an “Open Letter to Cheryl Jacques.” A month after I posted my open letter, Jacques greeted transgender protesters outside of Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) offices with the news that HRC would not support any version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that didn’t include transgender protections. She later wrote:

“passing ENDA without gender identity and expression is like passing a copyright law that covers books and television shows but doesn’t cover digital music or videos.But ENDA is about people’s lives, not MP3s or DVDs. That’s why it’s so important that we have the strongest and most comprehensive bill possible.”

Last Friday I asked whether or not we are one community. I’ve been told more than once that a GLB”T” community just isn’t a reality. Maybe I’ve just been spoiled by living in Indianapolis (I never thought I’d ever utter those words), but our community has been strongly united. During the battle for the Human Rights Ordinance there was NEVER any serious talk of removing gender identity from the list of those protected.

Why do I bring this up again? Another voice is calling for the removal of gender identity from the Senate version of the hate crimes bill. And according to anonymous sources, HRC is flatly refusing to ONLY support a hate crimes bill that has gender inclusive language.

The transgender lobbyists I spoke to on the Hill on Wednesday said that they are being told by Senate offices that the ENDA bill in the Senate will NOT include gender identity.

Even more worrisome is the chatter among many of the other leading GLBT organizations that gender identity will be removed from the hate crimes bill that is currently in committee in the Senate.

Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), and the National Organization for Women (NOW) have stated publicly that they will only support legislation that is trans-inclusive. So again I ask, are we unified in this fight for GLBT Americans? It’s a good question to ask, and has been asked many times this week. Unfortunately, HRC isn’t talking.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

So we’ve got a trans-inclusive ENDA, time to celebrate!

Or so I thought, till I actually looked at the language.

Section 8(a)(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

So even if you’ve had sex reassignment surgery, you’re still a tranny. As a friend of mine said, “I didn’t transition so I could identify as a transsexual.”

I thought separate wasn’t equal?