Kiplinger Letter Stating Inclusion Of Trans People In ENDA Still Questionable / SHRM's ENDA Take

Maybe It Really Is All About the Bathroom

I'm pretty deep in the heartland and I can tell you this line of thinking is fairly common.  The reaction around here is that no one should be fired for their personal lives, so most people support ENDA for gays and lesbians.  I'm actually surprised at how much of a non-issue it is.

If you bring up transgendered issues at work ... it is an entirely different story.  What surprises me more than anything is that the most visceral reaction seems to come from women, not men.  The comment that always comes up is that they want to share a bathroom.  They talk about how they would feel violated and they don't want to have to "pretend" like they are talking to another woman.  When I asked about how they'd feel about a woman who wanted to become a man, they said it would be weird but not nearly as big of a deal.  

We're talking about even the women in my life.  Many of them don't even have a problem saying they wouldn't even consider hiring a transgender person because it would "make their other employees uncomfortable."

I don't understand how women think so I have absolutely no idea why that would be the case.  Frankly, as a gay man, it baffles me.  I've never understood the bathroom rituals of the ladies, to be honest.  Relieving themselves in groups, chatting around the sink ... that's not what a bathroom is for.  I'm just going to add this to the list of things that elude me in regards to mysterious power of the powder room.  

Someday, the world will change.  If the shrillness in the voice of folks at sites like the Free Republic are any indication, it will be sooner rather than later.  

---

by: GoldTopHat @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 05:39:41 AM CDT

There was a time . . .

 . . . when one of the arguments in favor of segregating bathrooms by race was because white women weren't comfortable sharing the facilities with African-American women.  Of course, in places that enforced racial segregation, there were so many other places where the races were not allowed to rub elbows or share a facility.  It was not just that black people ahd to sit in the back of the bus.

Discriminating against women based on the color of their skin is just as nonsensical as discriminating against women who were born with a birth defect (having a wollfian duct genital development instead of the mullerian system expected based on brain development).

The problem is one of perception, especially when a trans woman is transitioning on the job.  It can take some time (in most cases, no more than a month or so) for other women to adjust to the idea that a formerly "male" co-worker is really a woman, and isn't sharing the bathroom for some imagined sexual thrill.  But there are ways to ease this transition in the workplace that generally work (except for a tiny minority of women-born-female whose prejudice is too deep - and they are the ones who can possibly be accommodated with a less-accessible facility).

If the SHRM members are concerned about trans women, might they also want to consider the sentiments of those straight women who would want to keep lesbians out of the straight women's rest room, because straight women might feel uncomfortable based on their assumption that oversexed lesbians might peek under the stall door to get aroused?

If we still had racial segregation, the easy answer would have been to classify all trans women as "colored" regardless of our race, and have us use the "colored" restroom (which was in most cases a unisex bathroom anyway).

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:55:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've brought this up earlier

about a year ago as far as concerns of many Lesbians.

They could grudgingly accept transsexuals in transition, would in a majority of instances without reservation accept women of operative history.

But their perception of the transgender umbrella is such that they will oppose blanket inclusion.

No, I do not think that it is a good or moral position, so please do not attack me. I am just conveying my experiences with my own community.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 05:55:53 AM CDT

The assumption being

that there are only transwomen. As my friend Ethan (a transguy) said while testifying last week in response to a Holly Roller who asked - how do I explain transwomen  about "opertaive history" in the women's room to my children?

1. If you know the "operative history" of anyone - you're guilty of a huge invavsion of privacy in the rest room that should see you arrested.

2. With a smile - Ethan asked back - does she really want to explain me in the women's rest room?

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:44:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

correction

how do I explain transwomen in the women's room to my children?

there we go.

Oh - will you tell your friends that I still support their equality under the law - even if they're bigots?

Thanks.

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:34:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kathleen, could you please be a bit more clear?

If I know the "operative history " of a person I ought to be arerested?

Exactly why?
If I know, I was told by them.

Further, my "bigot" friends are not my friends at all, I am reporting on discussions within Lesbian activism

There remain a significant number of Lesbian women with objections to penises in women's spaces.

I am not defending that position, but the failure to deal with the issue honestly and dialogue about it can not solve the issue

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:22:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a rest room

people were referring to rest rooms. If they're inspecting or peeping at someone's genitals in a rest room - I hope they are arrested. If they haven't seen someones genitals - they're making suppositions, based upon who knows what stereotypes.

If someone shares voluntarily their medical history & another has difficulty sharing a rest room with them - they can of course wait 2 minutes or go to the next facility. I'm not aware of anything in the legislation that requires inclusion in non-public spaces or shower facilities.  

So - yes - your friends, in placing their minor discomfort at possibly having to wait 2 minutes or walk to the next public facility over someones ability to feed themselves & their families is bigotry.

I find it interesting that they don't require we address the concerns of religous straight women over sharing facilities with lesbians. Must they be solved before lesbians can have equality in employment rights? Do you really think they could be? Or will their always be some who object to sharing facilities with gays, lesbians & bisexuals? Should lesbians civil rights be placed on hold until all others bigotry is overcome? Or is passing equality under the law one step in overcoming that bigotry?

Do they agree that minority rights shouldn't be subjected to the prejudices of larger groups? That all objections of all groups need to be met before nondiscrim legislation should be passed? Women would still not have the vote under that standard.

In your orginal statement you mention that they would in the majority of instances accept women with a trans history if they could approve their genitals first - which implies - not all of them would concur with this standard. Must the objections of this smaller group also be solved before employment protections are codified in law? That even women of "operative history" shouldn't be allowed to use public facilities designated for women? Perhaps it's easier to ask the question another way - What bar doesn't need to be met when transpeoples rights are involved?

And - do they seek my support for their inclusion in non-dicrimination legislation? Or do they reflexively presume a superior position to transpeople?

I accept that their are many who will never agree with my having equality under the law & will find whatever justification they can for imposing this inequality. They can choose to opposse this - but need to honestly accept the lives lost by their decision to do so.

In the end - I'm not asking for their approval or they're friendship - I'm demanding equality.  

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:05:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kathleen, I am simply pointing out some of the problems

I do not shre the viewpoints, but then need to be addressed honestly

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:10:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't say

you shared those views.

But - I've addressed their viewpoints - even "honestly" addressed them.

They haven't addressed mine.

So - Why should I support their equality under the law? When will they solve their differences with the religous right?

And what bar is so small that transpeople needn't jump it for their amusement?

They are free to oppose my equality under the law. They can not require I justify to them my demand for equality prior to the law passing. Especially an anonymous they who won't put their names to their purported opposition.

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:27:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most folks

don't know the operative history.

Since the very knowledge that one is transsexual is covered under HIPPA, however, the way that one uses and acts on that knowledge in many situations is the point.

Right now, its actually a violation of HIPPA for most businesses to send out notices regarding someone's transition if they do not wish to do so, since that knowledge is protected information.

So, generally speaking, for someone to claim offense on the supposition of penis is, in fact, without any merit, and if they do know there is one, then they are either knowing the person directly, or engaging in peeping (which is a civil and sometimes criminal offense, even in bathrooms).

And hi :D  Hope things are going well :D


http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 23:46:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it's all about the bathrooms...

Then why can't they just add an exception for gender-divided spaces? Restrooms would continue to be a problem for us, but at least that way we'd have some protections. Then employers can deal with the restroom issue on a case by case basis.


Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 06:22:52 AM CDT

That won't actually protect anybody.

Since EVERYBODY has to use the restroom, multiple times a day (and a lot of pre-op trans women have to pee more frequently than cis women, because spironolactone is a diuretic), and since trans women can be put in danger of physical harm using men's restrooms... there's no protection from such a law.

Authorizing bathroom discrimination also encourages others to NOT think of us as our correctly gendered selves, and gives the religious right more ammunition to assault us.

---

by: Kittyburger @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 06:37:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would still protect us

for employment, housing, credit, and all other public accommodations. It's better than nothing at all.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 11:56:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's just employment.

None of the rest are covered by ENDA. Which is one of the reasons why some think the whole strategy is wrong. We're getting no less opposition than if we'd gone for all the rest, yet we're getting so little.

You can't compromise when the opposition is uncompromising.

If you want the rest, amend Title VII instead. Or as well as.  

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

by: ZoeB @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 21:15:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hence my suggestion:

remove the lines from the ADA.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 23:34:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But then ...

If gender identity is classified as a disability, then airlines can fire pilots who are trans because people with mental disabilities aren't allowed to fly planes.  I'd much rather amend Title VII.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:28:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So would most people

including myself, but I don't see that happening.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:37:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They should look at what private employers do

With regards to "accommodating" trans folks, they need to look at what many private employers do in this area.  If they did, they would know that many private employers are "accommodating" trans employees already.  (BTW, what does this have to do with hiring and promoting someone based on their qualifications?)  They're missing the point.

As a side note:  ENDA is not "in trouble". The addition of gender identity and expression appears to be at risk, but ENDA, as originally defined, is not "in trouble", and will pass.

---

by: JJ in Chicago @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:45:20 AM CDT

They should also look at other states

Why aren't they looking at the nearly dozen states and hundreds of local jurisdictions that already have gender identity and expression protected by law? If they have any questions about how the bathroom thing is going to work out, it has already been happening for years in many places and the experience in those place should be able dispel their worries.

---

by: Stephanie @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:03:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The typical

reasonable accomadation for employers has been - that if a person objects to using a public facility with a transgender person - the objecting person should use a different rest room.

---

by: Kathleen @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:47:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most don't address this issue

Stephanie, very few of the state and local laws explicitly address the restroom issue or transitions by employees. Although the inclusive ENDA has been characterized as simply doing what a number of states and local governments have already done, it is actually a bit more explicit than the legislation that has passed in very many states or municipalities. Most of the state and local measures have just added "gender identity" to existing laws without delving into the details of accommodation.

This is why some of us been trying to warn that the inclusive ENDA is a bigger leap than advocates have suggested. We haven't successfully grappled with these restroom and transition issues in legislative debates in many states or municipalities yet. And where those issues have received more attention, such as Connecticut, we've had a harder time getting the bills passed.

A better strategy for ENDA would have been to include "gender identity" without specifics about transitions and restrooms. The EEOC could have filled in those details after enactment by issuing implementation guidelines, the way it has done for other traits since 1964.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 19:00:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"As a side note: ENDA is not 'in trouble'."

Looks like no one took your bait yet, so let me be the first to point out that Autumn didn't say that ENDA is in trouble. She clearly defined her concern about the issue:

So according to Kiplinger's report, a fully inclusive ENDA is in trouble.

---

by: Pollyanna @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 14:00:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Educatin

OK - I'm going to ask this again: For over a decade, a certain organization has claimed to have been 'educating' Congress, et. al., about trans issues, so where's the evidence? Or, at the very least, what's the pertinent definition of "educating"?

Yet again, it seems as though the 'education' would appear to have ben 'educating' Congress, et. al., that there is indeed a bathroom threat; its just not gay men but, instead, is 'men in dresses.'

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:14:35 AM CDT

It's time to choose sides.

"An injury to one is an injury to all" is the slogan that will lead us to liberation. Divide and rule is the answer of the bigots.

In 2007, as part of their preparations for the 2008 elections, Democrats took several steps to distance themselves from the LGBT agenda to make it easier for them to pander to bigots. They refused to repeal Clintons grossly bigoted DADT and DOMA. Even though it'd passed both houses quietly they let the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill die by appending it to a bill for increased supplies of napalm and white phosphorus/napalm for use on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Ominously, they're doing the same now.)

To complete their showy and very public abandonment of our communities they sent in an attack dog named Barney Frank who sunk his teeth into the original ENDA in his teeth and ripped it to shreds, accepting every right wing Republican and Democrat amendment offered. Franks version of ENDA became a non bill, a bit of harmless rubbish which he hoped would satisfy both ourselves and the bigots who make big money paying lower wages. Leaving aside the fact that ENDA, even in its original form could use a few more teeth, the exclusionary version is from our point of view worthless, a pacifier and little more.

In the process Frank deliberately launched a bigoted attack on transfolk to divert attention from his treason. Business owners are not the only ones who understand the dynamics of divide and rule and I'm sorry to same many in our communities jumped on Barneys bigot bandwagon.

Politically, nothing has changed. The Democrats replaced the Republicans but things are still stacked against us.

The Democrats, in spite of their promises have no intention of repealing Clintons horrendously bigoted DADT and DOMA. They've pulled the same stunt with the hate crimes bill because they don't have the votes to pass it. And now ENDA is up for grabs again. Obama and the Democrats captured the bigot vote back from the Republicans and there's little reason to assume they'll be giving it up anytime soon.

I don't plan on speculating too much on what bill will be introduced and whether or not it'll be handed over to attack dogs like its predecessor until I see some analysis from the ACLU, the NLCR, Lambda and similar groups.

But what we should all be saying, loud and clear, is that an exclusionary bill is worse than no bill at all.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 13:27:06 PM CDT

transgendered in the workplace

Again with the bathrooms??
Love,
Rick Cabral

---

by: RickCabral @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 13:29:46 PM CDT

Kate Clinton

At the last Out & Equal Summit, Kate Clinton congratulated the transgender community on how far they've come, noting that when people are talking about bathrooms, you know you've got a real civil rights movement on your hands.  And then she explained how bathrooms were key to civil rights based on race, women in the military, gays in the military, disability rights, and a host of others.  Brilliant analysis, I thought.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

---

by: red7eric @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:31:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the unknown that is frightening -- and the obstacle to progress

The discussion about a transgender-inclusive ENDA is typically couched around legal issues and politics.

What gets lost is the fact that companies large and small have successfully addressed workplace protections for sexual orientation AND gender identity/expression.

Non-discrimination for sexual orientation does have implications regarding workplace behaviors -- and if we're honest, also starts the clock on parity for same-sex couples' benefits.

Non-discrimination for gender identity/expression also has implications -- not just in terms of co-worker behaviors, but also in HR systems and processes (I'll touch on benefits at a different time).  None of these is insurmountable, but for most companies, it's a black-box of unknowns... even if they've had the experience of having an employee transition.

As the primary author of my company's transgender guidebook, I can tell you that it took quite a bit of pre-work to frame the conversation appropriately -- but once the framework is in place, your chances of success increase exponentially.

This is where, I think that we're having difficulties in unlikely places like SHRM.

---

by: txmichael @ Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 15:42:21 PM CDT