Transgender Law Center Outraged by Discriminatory Arizona BillThis bill will not only effect trans-people but also any women who doesn’t look womanly enough. They will also be challenged to product their birth certificate and it will not just happen to them once but over and over again when they try to use a public bathroom. This bill is vindictive and transphoblic. You better look like a woman when you use a bathroom in Arizona because otherwise you will be asked for your papers.
AZ Bill SB1045 Would Permit Businesses to Discriminate Against Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People
SAN FRANCISCO – Transgender Law Center is gravely concerned that a pro-discrimination bill introduced by Arizona Representative John Kavanagh would have devastating consequences for transgender people and their families.
Arizona Senate Bill 1045, dubbed “no loo for you” by local residents, would permit business owners to restrict access to gender-specific facilities based on a person’s gender identity or gender expression. Designed to eviscerate recent LGBT protections passed by the Phoenix City Council, the proposed state bill would prohibit local governments from creating or enforcing nondiscrimination laws meant to protect transgender people from discrimination.
[…]
Ilona Turner, Legal Director said, “This bill encourages discrimination and harassment by singling out transgender people to deny them legal protections against discrimination. This effort is bigoted, harmful, and unnecessary. The last thing Arizona needs right now is another embarrassing and costly lawsuit. We urge Arizona’s legislators to halt the progress of this destructive bill.”
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal government's national insurance program, is reconsidering whether or not it should cover gender reassignment surgery (often called sex reassignment surgery) for transgender people who have Medicare. It has offered the public 30 days to offer opinions on the matter. Since around 48 million people are covered by Medicare, if the agency decides to allow coverage, the change would have a significant impact on transgender people in the U.S.Then the internet was abuzz with speculation on what happened. But then an article in “The Hill” started appearing in post say they closed the comments and are going to consider it internally.
This official reconsideration of coverage began yesterday and goes for 29 more days in which the public can comment.
The Health and Human Services Department said early Friday that it would accept public comments on whether to reexamine its decision not to cover sex changes.And that is what I am now worried about. The news media caught wind of it and it is going to be all over Fox News and other far-right conservative media outlets and also the Republicans are going to try to pass a law banning coverage. I fear Paul Ryan or another Republican will insert a provision in some bill that will have to pass to prevent Medicare and Medcaid from funding the surgery, just like they did with ADA.
But a spokesperson said Friday evening that the proposal has been withdrawn. HHS pulled information from its website Friday after various news media outlets reported on the issue.
The controversial decision to consider using taxpayer money to cover sex changes was sure to attract criticism from Congress.
The Australian Government’s vision of a socially inclusive society is one in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society.When you think about it this is a very important idea, not only do you have a right not to be discriminated again but you also have a right to be involved with the government and the community. When I look at this from a trans-perspective I see companies that have a non-discrimination policy but the employees socially isolate the trans-employee, such as the employee who never gets invited to have lunch “with the gang” because the other employees don’t want to be seen with the transgender employee. I see the trans-student who never gets call on by the teacher in class or never gets invited to classmates’ birthday parties.
Achieving this vision means that all Australians will have the resources, opportunities and capability to:
- Learn by participating in education and training;
- Work by participating in employment, in voluntary work and in family and caring;
- Engage by connecting with people and using their local community’s resources; and
- Have a voice so that they can influence decisions that affect them.
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights.So back then they had an idea that there is such a thing as social rights. How social integrations get implemented I think remains to be determined, but it is a very interesting concept.
Dr. Libal will talk about the importance of social inclusion and non-discrimination as a fundamental to human dignity and the foundation of identity. She will discuss the right to participation in community, to have a cultural identity that is respected, and the importance of addressing social inequality to be sure that all individuals have the capacity to have their identity recognized.I think it should be very interesting from a trans-perspective lens.
Smith College Returns Application Of Transgender TeenSo it all boiled down to whether you put an “F” or an “M” on a piece of paper.
ABC News
Posted: Mar 26, 2013
(ABC News)--Calliope Wong, a high school senior from Connecticut, has twice sent an application to the prestigious all-female Smith College, but her papers have been returned without even an official admissions review.
It's not her grades or SAT scores, but her self-identity as a transgender female.
Wong, 17, was born male, which her family indicated on her federal application for financial aid in order to coincide with her Social Security number. But her admission materials describe her as female.
Smith has told her it cannot process her admission application as a female because the gender markers on her forms conflict.
[…]
The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, is a federal form that can be filled out by the student, a parent or a guidance counselor and does not require official proof certifying gender.
Wong said her father filled out the FASFA forms, "according to what he thought was safest and most logical." He marked it male to match her Social Security information, which she said they had not yet had the chance to update.
A Cook County judge approved a new decree Tuesday that would allow transgender Illinoisans to obtain birth certificates with their correct gender from the Illinois Department of Public Health without having to undergo genital reconstruction surgery.So if Ms. Wong was from Illinois her father could have checked “Female” box, but because Connecticut require surgery, her father checked the “Male” box and she couldn’t apply for Smith College.
The policy change comes as the result of a settlement reached in July in a class-action legal challenge involving three transgender individuals who filed suit in May 2010 after they were denied corrected birth certificates from the IDPH because they did not undergo genital surgery.
In the most dramatic ruling it could deliver, the Supreme Court could use Hollingsworth v. Perry to rule that marriage is a constitutional right available to all Americans, gay or straight.In this possibility the court could find the marriage equality bans violates the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause and this ruling will overturn laws in the 39 states that ban on marriage equality, either by law or by their constitution. This option I think is the least possible ruling; the court is too conservative for them to make marriage equality the law of the land.
The second big move the court could make would be to declare that same-sex marriage is not protected by the Constitution.This ruling will result in each state governing marriage in their states and will not overturn of the state’s bans. It will mean that instead of one united effort in federal court, the marriage equality battle will have to be fought in all fifty states. I think this has a better chance of being the court ruling, but not the most likely.
In a third alternative, the Supreme Court may decide that states that recognize same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships -- and provide them with nearly the same benefits of marriage -- cannot legitimately bar same-sex marriage.I think this has a more likely chance of being the ruling of the court, but not the mostly ruling. Again, I think the court is too conservative to have this outcome.
That decision could extend same-sex marriage to California and eight other states that currently have comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership laws -- and it's the argument the Obama administration has put forward.
At the same time, Winkler [UCLA School of Law Professor] said it could be a "dangerous" argument from the perspective of gay rights proponents in one sense -- "It could discourage other states from granting civil unions," he explained.The fourth choice is…
In a fourth option, the Supreme Court ruling could apply just to California because of the case's unique circumstances.I think that this outcome is the most likely of the five possible rulings. I think that this one is the most likely outcome because I think the courts want to overturn California law and still make some national impact, this ruling will do so. It will say once you grant marriage equality you can’t take it away.
Voters in California passed Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage, in 2008 -- after the California Supreme Court had granted same-sex couples the right to marry. That put California voters in the unique position of taking away rights granted by the court. After Prop. 8 passed, a federal court followed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said Prop. 8 was unconstitutional
In yet another option, the court could decide the proponents of Proposition 8 have no standing in court and dismiss the case entirely.This has a chance of being the court ruling because as said, I think the court wants to overturn Prop 8 and this ruling will have the least effect on the other states. So it will boil down to if the judges want to limit their ruling to just California or to include the other states that granted marriage equality.
Normally, California's governor and attorney general would defend a state law in court. In this case, however, they declined to appeal the district court ruling striking down Proposition 8. Instead, supporters of Proposition 8 took it upon themselves to appeal.
Dellinger [former acting solicitor general of the Clinton administration] filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the Proposition 8 supporters have no legitimate reason to be in court.
Transgender AU senior turns personal experience into political actionAs I said, I’m only in favor of “gender neutral” as an option that is available to all. I do not want to see it used as a “Trans Getto” where all the transgender students get dumped.
The Washington Post
By Rachel S. Karas
March 24, 2013
McBride channels her experiences to effect change at American. As president, she successfully lobbied for gender-neutral housing on campus and the creation of a Sexuality and Queer Studies minor. Her current efforts as a Class of 2013 senator include pushing for coverage of transgender transition care, such as medicine and surgery, in AU’s student health insurance policy.
Though she said universities nationwide have become more effective at dealing with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, McBride challenged college campuses to constantly question how inclusive and accessible they are.
Grant High's transgender students get unisex bathroom optionWhat I like about this is that the option to use the gender neutral bathrooms is for everyone and that the trans-students have the option of not using it. Too often school will require the trans-students to use only the gender neutral bathroom and the school officials will claim it is for the safety of the trans-student. When in reality the schools are required by law to provide a safe space for all students.
The Oregonian
By Nicole Dungca
March 22, 2013
Northeast Portland's Grant High School, addressing an issue schools increasingly face across the nation, has created six unisex bathrooms in response to concerns from transgender students uncomfortable with traditional bathrooms.
Officials say four student restrooms and two staff restrooms -- all single-stall -- will be open to all students but create another option for the five to 10 transgender students at the high school, Portland Public Schools' largest. The move is a first in the district and relatively uncommon nationwide for K-12 schools, which typically make staff or other small bathrooms available.
Transgender Bathroom Use Debate Emerges In ArizonaThat is complete bull! This is the typical right-wing conservative party line. There has never being a single case where a pedophiles has used the gender identity and expression anti-discrimination law to gain access to a bathroom since the City of Minneapolis passed the first transgender-inclusive non-discrimination law in 1975.
Huffington Post
By CRISTINA SILVA
03/20/13
PHOENIX — A prominent Republican lawmaker in Arizona wants to link public bathroom use to birth certificates in what civil rights advocates are calling the nation's toughest anti-transgender measure.
The bill would require people to use public restrooms, dressing rooms or locker rooms associated with the sex listed on their birth certificate or face six months in jail.
[…]
In Arizona, where Republicans control state government, Kavanagh said government shouldn't allow people to use facilities based on "you are what you think you are." He said he was worried an anti-discrimination ban passed in Phoenix last month would serve as a cover for pedophiles who want to expose themselves to children of the opposite gender.
The proposal had been scheduled for a vote Wednesday during a House of Representatives committee. But in an unusual scene for the usually staid halls of state government, men in dresses, women in business suits and other transgender supporters crowded into the committee room and the lobby of the House to protest the legislation.Let’s hope that this bill never see the light of day again.
Minutes after the meeting started, state Rep. John Kavanagh said he would delay the debate on his bill because of a paperwork error.
 |
| Best Of......... |
Policies for Gender Variant StudentsThis is a spinoff from a speech that I gave this past summer for the Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities at their Civil Rights and Anti-Bullying Leadership Summit. I was talking to the director of True Colors and she suggested that I do a workshop on the topic.
This workshop will examine barriers that gender diverse students face in schools and how the non-discrimination law affects them. In a school system, some of the obstacles gender diverse students face in their educations can easily be overcome by having a policy in place. This workshop will cover briefly the transition process and the Connecticut anti-discrimination law. Then we will look at what a school policy should cover, such as name change, changing records and the use of bathrooms.
Transgender People Force Debate on Bathroom UseThis is a punitive response to Phoenix passing a gender identity and expression non-discrimination law.
By Cristina Silva Associated Press
Phoenix March 20, 2013 (AP)
Arizona lawmakers have jumped in to the national debate over the rights of transgender people with a bill being debated Wednesday that would make it illegal for people to use public restrooms not associated with their birth gender.
Advocates say the measure would be the toughest standard in the nation for transgender people and bathroom use, requiring Arizona residents to use the restroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. One local TV station has dubbed it the "Show Me Your Papers Before You Go Potty" bill, a reference to the Arizona Legislature's sweeping 2010 immigration law.
How would such a law be enforced? By every overzealous restroom patron, security guard, business owner or mere passerby who decides that someone they see entering a restroom doesn’t conform to their notions of how a “man” or “woman” should look and complains to police. In other words, trans men, women and children, butch lesbians, feminine gay men, and straight, cisgender people who violate societal gender norms in some way can be harassed to prove their right to do what every other citizen takes as a given – the right to use a restroom for its intended purpose without harassment.I’m not a lawyer, but from what I understand of the law, discrimination is when you do something different for one group of people who are in a protected class that is different from the non-protected class. So the way I see it, is if you do not ask everyone for their birth certificates it is violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and possible the 14th Amendment.
PA11-55I pointed out that nowhere in the law does it say anything about transgender or transsexual. That was done on purpose because the law protects everyone. From the feminine man to the masculine woman, it protects the guy with long hair and an earring or the straight woman. All that is required is that they were discriminated against because of their “appearance or behavior.”
Gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth…
…which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.I pointed out that in all discrimination cases that you must prove that you are a member of the protected class and that this just suggests some of the ways you might show that you are protected.
U.S. Tax Court ruling in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) qualifies as medical care under Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code, and, therefore, provided there is adequate medical documentation, related expenses (e.g. hormones, surgery, therapy and other expenses related to the treatment of GID that satisfy the requirements of Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code) may qualify as a medical deduction for federal income tax purposes.I then said that this may be another tool in our toolbox to use to argue for insurance coverage.
U.S. District Court decision in Kosilek v. Spencer was a finding that, despite GRS being established medical care, and despite the right of prisoners to necessary medical care being widely settled under the constitution, the Department of Corrections (DOC) "engaged in a pattern of pretense, pretext and prevarication," to deny Michelle Kosilek the treatment that every DOC doctor to evaluate her had prescribed.I then brought up the fact that those trans-employees who covered by ERISA would not be affected by a statement by the insurance commissioner because they are covered by federal law, not state law. I mention these two cases…
Diane Schroer v. Library of CongressAnd also the EEOC ruling last May,
The lawsuit charged that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination in the workplace. The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case several times, claiming that transgender people are not covered under Title VII of 1964. U.S. District Court of DC
VANDIVER ELIZABETH GLENN v. SEWELL R. BRUMBY
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th District Circuit
In 2007, Vandy Elizabeth Glenn (who at that time went by Glenn Morrison) told her boss at the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel that she was planning on transitioning from male to female. He promptly fired her, after remarking that “it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing,” and describing a male in women’s clothing as “unnatural.”
In a unanimous opinion written by Judge Rosemary Barkett, the court held that “discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that “discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender nonconformity is sex discrimination.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled in a 5-0 decision that an employer who discriminates against a transgender employee or job applicant because of the person’s gender identity is illegal sex discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.I then opened the Q&A segment.
