Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
There are some significant things going on this week regarding rights for transgender people. First, Congress just passed a bill called the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the 1969 hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It passed in the House back in May, and passed in the Senate last week.
While gay rights advocates celebrated the passage of that bill, another one is winding through Congress, and not doing as well. In fact, this is a little bit of a dilemma. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, will prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. But there are some problems in Congress. A couple of straw polls have indicated that the bill won't have enough votes to pass as it is.
According to the Washington Blade:
It's kind of a Sophie's Choice type of thing. Of course the gay community is glad to see that Congress is willing to pass a bill to prevent workplace discrimination against them, but at the same time, they hate to see the gender-identity wording cut out of it.
I've written before about this, it seems to me that if anybody deserves protection it is the transgender population. You can be gay and un-obvious about it, but a dude look like a lady is going to stand out in a crowd, no matter what. People universally don't get it, don't understand it, and there are just a lot of misconceptions and bad feelings about it, lots of violence, lots of prejudice and discrimination.
A little more from The Blade:
I don't know what you do here. You don't give up the whole thing, I mean this is a big chunk of progress, even if it only applies to gays and lesbians. On the other hand, they are all in this together, and it means a lot to keep gender identity in there.
Well, we'll see how it plays out. It sounds like there is a lot of behind-the-scenes talk going on, I hope they are able to pull together the votes for this, with the whole thing.
Finally, today is the day the Montgomery County Council is going to discuss, and possibly vote on, a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity, which is defined as "an individual's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."
There will be public comments, and I understand a couple of haters from the CRC will be making statements. It's funny, they've got nothing to say here, the gay stereotype badmouth that they like to spew doesn't have anything to do with those who feel like they are a different sex from their bodies. But here they come anyway, signing up, they'll say the same old stuff, whatever it is they're against it. This tells you more than anything. If there was something about homosexuality that they disapproved of, who knows, they could try to make a point, but the fact that they generalize to transgender people as well tells you, in case you couldn't tell already, there's no reason behind it, it's just old-fashioned bigotry. Fear of the unknown. Hatred of the different.
The one thing that drives them the very craziest in the new curriculum is that Portia vignette, where the transgender teen talks about how nice her teachers are and everything. What they really hate about the vignette is that it makes you empathize for a minute with a person who feels they have been born with the wrong body. You're not supposed to empathize with someone like that, you're supposed to find them repulsive. The Portia vignette was the inspiration for the classic CRC slogan: "No unisex bathrooms." So I'm sure they'll have some charming and quotable words to say to the Council today.
Some of us will be there for the discussion, and to see if there's a vote. It is certainly a positive thing for our community to be doing, a good thing, I'm proud that Montgomery County is considering this.
While gay rights advocates celebrated the passage of that bill, another one is winding through Congress, and not doing as well. In fact, this is a little bit of a dilemma. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, will prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. But there are some problems in Congress. A couple of straw polls have indicated that the bill won't have enough votes to pass as it is.
According to the Washington Blade:
House Democratic leaders are strongly considering dropping anti-discrimination protections for transgender persons from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, after an internal Democratic head count on Wednesday found that the bill would likely be defeated if it included the trans provision, multiple sources familiar with the bill said.
The current version of the bill calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, terms that are defined in the measure to include gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.
As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.
Human Rights Campaign board members reportedly met on Thursday to discuss the situation and to debate whether or not it would support a revised ENDA that does not include trans protections. ENDA hits snag over transgender inclusion
It's kind of a Sophie's Choice type of thing. Of course the gay community is glad to see that Congress is willing to pass a bill to prevent workplace discrimination against them, but at the same time, they hate to see the gender-identity wording cut out of it.
I've written before about this, it seems to me that if anybody deserves protection it is the transgender population. You can be gay and un-obvious about it, but a dude look like a lady is going to stand out in a crowd, no matter what. People universally don't get it, don't understand it, and there are just a lot of misconceptions and bad feelings about it, lots of violence, lots of prejudice and discrimination.
A little more from The Blade:
The leader of one of the nation’s most prominent transgender rights groups expressed strong skepticism on Wednesday over reports that support for the transgender provision was eroding.
“I do think we have the votes to pass this bill,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “We’re getting down to the wire, and whenever you get close to a vote on an important bill like this, some people always get worried.”
Keisling and other gay and transgender rights leaders have been telling their members that ENDA enjoys widespread, bipartisan support and predicted it would pass the House, with some expecting a more difficult effort in the Senate.
Members of nine gay rights groups issued several press releases Thursday in response to the news. They demanded more time to secure a transgender-inclusive ENDA.
"If the question is shoring up support for the bill as it stands, the answer is to give us more time, not to leave a part of our community behind," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
I don't know what you do here. You don't give up the whole thing, I mean this is a big chunk of progress, even if it only applies to gays and lesbians. On the other hand, they are all in this together, and it means a lot to keep gender identity in there.
Well, we'll see how it plays out. It sounds like there is a lot of behind-the-scenes talk going on, I hope they are able to pull together the votes for this, with the whole thing.
Finally, today is the day the Montgomery County Council is going to discuss, and possibly vote on, a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on gender identity, which is defined as "an individual's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."
There will be public comments, and I understand a couple of haters from the CRC will be making statements. It's funny, they've got nothing to say here, the gay stereotype badmouth that they like to spew doesn't have anything to do with those who feel like they are a different sex from their bodies. But here they come anyway, signing up, they'll say the same old stuff, whatever it is they're against it. This tells you more than anything. If there was something about homosexuality that they disapproved of, who knows, they could try to make a point, but the fact that they generalize to transgender people as well tells you, in case you couldn't tell already, there's no reason behind it, it's just old-fashioned bigotry. Fear of the unknown. Hatred of the different.
The one thing that drives them the very craziest in the new curriculum is that Portia vignette, where the transgender teen talks about how nice her teachers are and everything. What they really hate about the vignette is that it makes you empathize for a minute with a person who feels they have been born with the wrong body. You're not supposed to empathize with someone like that, you're supposed to find them repulsive. The Portia vignette was the inspiration for the classic CRC slogan: "No unisex bathrooms." So I'm sure they'll have some charming and quotable words to say to the Council today.
Some of us will be there for the discussion, and to see if there's a vote. It is certainly a positive thing for our community to be doing, a good thing, I'm proud that Montgomery County is considering this.
posted by JimK at 9:37 AM
13 Comments:
"The one thing that drives them the very craziest in the new curriculum is that Portia vignette, where the transgender teen talks about how nice her teachers are and everything."
Never get on what basis Jim thinks the "Portia" story drives CRC "crazy". CRC is overjoyed that the new curriculum includes bizarre and extreme examples that can be highlighted. The subtle insinations are the ones that might drive pro-family forces crazy. They require more explanation.
As for the anti-family legislation in Congress, the whole discussion above is a bunch of irrelevant rhetoric. Bush will veto either bill and the votes aren't there to override.
Looking past 2008, President Huckabee's views will be similar to the current administartion.
ANON: "As for the anti-family legislation in Congress.."
To characterize a person's freedom to make a living -- feed, clothe and shelter themselves, and their families, as "anti-family legislation," shows that this isn't just about hatred, it's about the LOVE of hatred.
How about short people or people who speak with a Texas drawl or people with real big hairy ears? Shouldn't there be discrimination laws for them too?
As most of us are aware, although TTF didn't notice, President Ahmadinejad surprised the world by announcing in NYC last week that Iran is the first country in the world with no gays. Everyone laughed but it turned out to be true. He executed them all. Yes, a few escaped to Toronto (see irqo.net). But apparently none are left in Iran.
Anyway, the question is: what do you guys think should be done to get some gays back in Iran? Is war an appropriate response or do you prefer a bunch of UN resolutions? Let's brainstorm.
There was an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal relating to the last comment. Here is a link. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119127620102645595.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Since a lot of people who are in favor of equal rights for GLBT people are also extremely leery about enaging in military adventures overseas, some others who are far more predisposed to fight wars may seek to use the Iran situation as a way to suggest hypocrisy.
I would differ significantly. Only pacifists are against all wars, and since most of us thought it was necessary to fight World War II, their are few real pacifists around. But war -- i.e., organized killing -- is a very serious business. It seems to me that there ought to be several prerequisites to going to war:
First (A) that the evil to be confronted is so great that the sacrifice of thousands or even millions of lives is justified or (B) that the opponent poses a real, fairly imminent existential threat to those who would go to war.
With respect to Reason A, anyone or group with the power to make such such choices bears an enormous moral responsibility. It is, in a sense, like playing God.
Moreover, even if a war is "justified" on Reason A grounds, one still has to make the judgment that the goal can be achieved. With respect to Iran, I do not think anyone seriously believes that taking military action there will lead to the end of the killing and suppression of people on grounds of sexual orientation.
Reason B seems to be the purported reason that some in our current government may be laying the groundwork for war. If there is a real existential threat (by that I mean slaughter of a major portion of our own population), then the question is how we best protect ourselves. The Soviet Union posed an existential threat, and we wisely used Containment, not war, to protect ourselves. While the circumstances involving Iran are not identical, the historical example of success is signficant. Also, while we probbly could eliminate any possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability by simply nuking their facilities, any military action short of that is probably impossible. And a preemptive nuclear first strike, so problemmatic during the Cold War that there was a consensus that it was unthinkable, would have enormous negative consequences, particularly in the current circumstances (no actual weapons, no mass delivery capability, etc.) Our occupation of Iraq became a great recruiting opportunity of Al Qaeda; one shutters to think what kind of terrorist recruiting would be done in the wake of the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
Basically, to use an old metaphor, the game must be worth the candle.
As always, a rational sounding response, David. We may have big problems developing in Iran, however. Even the French president is now talking openly about the possibility of war. We can't sit by with indifference while a guy who has vowed to destroy Israel develops nukes.
One key difference with the old Soviet Union is that we were dealing with materialists who had a rational sense of fear.
The radical elements in Iran, however, have a celebratory attitude toward martyrdom and, thus, an assured destruction policy may not have the same effect it did in the USSR.
What we can all hope for is that rational players in Iran, and there is a thriving underground society with a constructive culture, will find some way to seize power from the nuts. It's not looking good now though.
On the transgender issue, this article from yesterday's Washington Post should be considered:
Woman Suing IRS Over Sex-Change Tax Claims
Case to Test if Procedure Is Deductible
By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 1, 2007; A03
NEW YORK -- After years of painful soul searching, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain -- a former construction engineer from a devout Irish Catholic family in Boston -- decided to surgically change his sex to female in 2001. The struggle was equally tough financially -- hormone treatments and medical procedures set her back $25,000, a burden she felt could be partially offset by taking a $5,000 tax deduction for medical costs.
When she sent in her tax claims after the surgery, the Internal Revenue Service initially issued the 64-year-old former Coast Guard reservist a refund check for $5,000. But soon after, she was audited and ordered to return the refund because the IRS had determined that her surgery had been merely "cosmetic" -- and therefore not tax deductible.
Rather than return the money, O'Donnabhain opted to sue the IRS. The result has been a riveting case -- the first of its kind in normally staid U.S. Tax Court -- in which lawyers have just concluded oral arguments and are set to present a new round of written briefs next month. The core question is this: Should changing your sex be tax deductible?
The answer, according to leading medical experts, is an unequivocal yes. In fact, O'Donnabhain's treatment by the government has sparked outrage among medical professionals who specialize in gender identity disorder, a condition that leads an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 Americans a year to undergo sex-change operations.
"When did the IRS suddenly become physicians?" said Marshall Forstein, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. "It's absolutely clear that transgender identity is a condition discussed in diagnostic manuals. It seems the IRS is now in the business of practicing medicine without a license."
According to O'Donnabhain's lawyers from the Massachusetts-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the case is expected to set a precedent on whether such procedures will be considered tax deductible.
U.S. tax laws do allow deductions for a broad array of medical treatments. An IRS spokesman declined to comment on the O'Donnabhain case, citing the pending litigation. When questioned about what types of medical procedures are tax deductible, he pointed a reporter to an IRS publication that contains a rundown of eligible expenses.
The publication defines deductible medical expenses as "the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body . . . [to] . . . primarily alleviate or prevent a physical or mental defect or illness."
Among the things that are tax deductible: abortions, inpatient alcohol treatment programs, the purchase of artificial teeth, chiropractic care, birth control pills and vasectomies, to name a few. Sex readjustment surgery, however, is not mentioned in the IRS literature.
O'Donnabhain and her lawyers have argued that the IRS's change of heart in issuing her a refund effectively amounted to a political decision, perhaps even a moral judgment.
"All I want is to be treated like anybody else," she said in a statement.
O'Donnabhain's problems with the IRS come at a time when she is still trying to adjust to life as a woman. According to a statement she supplied, she began having misplaced feelings about her gender as early as elementary school. A life as a Coast Guard reservist, marriage and the fathering of three children did nothing to reverse those feelings. She was diagnosed with gender identity disorder after seeing a therapist in 1996. In the years leading up to her sex-change operation in 2001, she went through years of intensive counseling and hormone treatments.
"If you have bunions on your feet and it makes it hard for you to walk, that's covered, but something as broad-based as gender identity disorder is not?" said Bennett Klein, a GLAD lawyer representing O'Donnabhain. "I think what's clear here is that the IRS is making a political decision on what should have been an obvious medical deduction. You can't set different standards for a person's health; IRS agents should not be in a position of second-guessing health-care professionals."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001194.html
"Anyway, the question is: what do you guys think should be done to get some gays back in Iran? Is war an appropriate response or do you prefer a bunch of UN resolutions? Let's brainstorm."
They could stop hanging gays, that might help.
___________
"How about short people or people who speak with a Texas drawl or people with real big hairy ears? Shouldn't there be discrimination laws for them too?"
Do you think that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed?
""Anyway, the question is: what do you guys think should be done to get some gays back in Iran? Is war an appropriate response or do you prefer a bunch of UN resolutions? Let's brainstorm."
They could stop hanging gays, that might help."
How to get them to stop doing that was the question, Improv. Stay awake. Concentrate.
You can do it.
___________
""How about short people or people who speak with a Texas drawl or people with real big hairy ears? Shouldn't there be discrimination laws for them too?"
Do you think that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed?"
Anti-discrimnation laws are expensive to enforce. If we try to legislate away every injustice based on appearance, we'll bankrupt ourselves. Gays are empowered in our society and can take care of themselves.
"Do you think that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed?"
Anti-discrimnation laws are expensive to enforce. If we try to legislate away every injustice based on appearance, we'll bankrupt ourselves. Gays are empowered in our society and can take care of themselves.
So be it, but it was a yes or no question not exclusive to gays. Let's try it again.
Do you think that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed?
Anon writes:
"What we can all hope for is that rational players in Iran, and there is a thriving underground society with a constructive culture, will find some way to seize power from the nuts. It's not looking good now though."
The reform and student movement was gaining strength in Iran before we invaded Iraq. Having the U.S. on Iran's doorstep played into the mullahs hands as much as it played into Bin Laden's hands. The most prominent reformers in Iran have warned against U.S. military action againt Iran, arguing that such action would solidify the hold of the mullahs.
This is a very important factor to consider.
The Soviet Union survived into the 1980s in large part due to the memories of the western military interference after the 1917 Revolution. This fear evaporated by the 1980s -- the fact that the "cowboy" Reagan was president and even he did not act militarily against Russia may have been a big reason for the evaporation. But had we taken military action against the Soviets, the fears of attacks on Mother Russia would have been confirmed and all societies tend to circle the wagons when under physical attack.
"The reform and student movement was gaining strength in Iran before we invaded Iraq. Having the U.S. on Iran's doorstep played into the mullahs hands as much as it played into Bin Laden's hands. The most prominent reformers in Iran have warned against U.S. military action againt Iran, arguing that such action would solidify the hold of the mullahs.
This is a very important factor to consider.
The Soviet Union survived into the 1980s in large part due to the memories of the western military interference after the 1917 Revolution. This fear evaporated by the 1980s -- the fact that the "cowboy" Reagan was president and even he did not act militarily against Russia may have been a big reason for the evaporation. But had we taken military action against the Soviets, the fears of attacks on Mother Russia would have been confirmed and all societies tend to circle the wagons when under physical attack."
Very interesting, David. Love to see what you can do with older periods of history.
"Looking past 2008, President Huckabee" better start doing better before 2008 if he hopes to still be in the race in 2008.
As of July his exploratory committee raised a grand total of $1,274,797.78 from individuals and another $33,700.00 from Political Parties and Other Political Committees. With him sucking up all that money, how will the front runners ever keep up???
I wonder who sent in the $915.00 he picked up in Maryland. Must be all those CRC supporters.
Post a Comment
<< Home