And If We Do Pass A Gender Anti-Discrimination Law, Then What?

Rhode Island passed a gender inclusive anti-discrimination law in 2001 and discrimination is still rampant in the state…

Trans community continues to face adversity despite protections
by Joe Siegel
EDGE Contributor
Tuesday Jun 3, 2008

Despite advances in protections for transgender individuals, discrimination is still widespread, according to activists.

"Most of the women of trans experience (designated male at birth) have been fired from one or more jobs due to their trans status," says Gavi Ansara, executive director of Lifelines Rhode Island. Lifelines is the state’s only statewide non-profit focused on trans, gender variant and inter-sex concerns.

In 2001 Rhode Island became the second state in the nation--following Minnesota in 1993--to adopt a non-discrimination law that clearly prohibits discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing, credit and public accommodations. The law amends all of the state’s non-discrimination laws to ensure that transgender people who face discrimination may seek redress in the form of injunctive relief and damages.

However, trans people are still facing harassment at their jobs, even with the legal protections.

Additionally, Ansara has even heard stories about trans people getting ridiculed, harassed and escorted from stores by security when doing their shopping. In many instances, they have been prohibited from using the changing room or bathroom that matches their gender identity.

"Most have experienced sexual and other forms of workplace harassment, though sexual harassment laws do not appear to be applied equally to trans people," notes Ansara. "Many of these women have switched careers or accepted lower-paying work for which they are overqualified due to employment discrimination. For men of trans experience, many work in lower-paying jobs where they do not have to procure a resume."

Ansara continues, "This is a problem for many trans people--even those who pass as the gender with which they identify, the requirement of higher-paying positions to check references means that many have their trans history or status disclosed against their will by previous employers or other references."

Here in Connecticut, I think that we have to concentrate on educating the citizens of Connecticut about the purposed law and about gender and identity. It is not enough to pass a bill if the people do not know about the law and their rights.