Barney’s the IssueHe’s afraid that if the “bathroom issue” is raised, both Trans and Gay people will be forced to use segregated facilities.
There’s no evidence of Trans misbehaviour in restrooms – but reams of it when it comes to Gay men.
As I commented to Diego recently, making further enquiries about the wording of ENDA:

The unconfirmed report I have (no names, sorry) is that the wording of ENDA had language in regarding allowing (but not compelling) people to use separate restrooms as it would otherwise lead to a “hostile working environment” with people being uncomfortable with their presence.
Furthermore, the report stated that this clause was inserted at Rep Frank’s insistence.
And that the whole thing was put on ice when word was passed of a GOP motion of amendment that would allow (not compel) employers to insist that Gays had to use those restrooms too, using the same argument. (That such an amendment motion was in the works regardless comes from a different source, one on the Right of politics, and I consider that source reliable)
Thus ENDA is in limbo indefinitely. Rep Frank has a “thing” about restrooms (actually locker rooms and showers), so while he’s involved, a trans-inclusive ENDA is an impossibility, it will never be allowed out of committee, lest Gays be targeted successfully.
Rather than believe this unconfirmed and single-source report of what was or was not in ENDA, I wanted to get some reliable data.

I still consider this “unreliable”, only one step up from “rumour”, but it’s getting more credible all the time.
As was said by another commenter:

As far as Barney Frank, I can tell you based on a conversation with him a few years ago he did have a “thing” about locker rooms and showers, which also indicated he had no idea how women acted in sports clubs and locker rooms. As a man I have been in mens clubs and locker rooms and as a woman in womens clubs and lockers. (I have never been to a gay mans club or locker room, but I can just imagine) Women comport themselves differently. Do you think he wanted to hear that? I was driving, was half lost in Union county, NJ, but he got me so upset with the locker room crap, it almost got the two of us killed.
As a matter of fact the first time I went to a womens health club was outside of Boston at the Sheraton Braintree when I was just beginning my transition. Common sense applied! No problem!

And one must not forget this:

“So,” I said, “does your support of transgender inclusion in the VAWA mean that you might be changing your mind about inclusion of gender-variant people in ENDA?” An innocent enough question, but you would have thought that I was threatening him with a loaded weapon. He got red in the face and started shouting, “Never.” His problem was that until we could answer the question of “people with penises in [women's] showers,” there is no way that he would support it. The conversation got rather heated to say the least. And with (him) speaking very loudly and repeatedly about “penises in showers,” we attracted a lot of attention in the restaurant.

The evidence is that when it comes to the issue of restrooms, Barney Frank’s not part of the solution – he’s part of the precipitate. Trans men he can deal with, trans women… not so much. All too many gay men have that problem.
And if you think, as Equality Maryland seems to, that we can avoid this by making no reference to “public accommodations”, see this headline from the Boston Herald:
Deval Patrick signs ‘bathroom bill,’ sets off ‘firestorm’

The executive order, unlike a similar bill that died in the Legislature over the past three years, needs no legislative approval and only applies to jobs, programs and services within state government.
…
“If this indeed is a bathroom bill, if it is there’s no doubt that it will impact the public schools,” said Kris Mineau, a longtime opponent of the bill.

A revocable executive order, only applying to employment, and only applying to state authorities – yet it’s called a “bathroom bill” by the witch-hunting hysterics.
For a defence against this professionally-whipped-up hysteria, where “spectral evidence” is taken as fact, see
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/20…
That’s not an argument aimed at the head: it’s pure, visceral propaganda. Arguments based solely on rationality won’t work (though are necessary as part of a strategy). We need to combat hysteria with emotive pictures showing how surreal the notion is, not mere logic.

Non-Violent Resistance is the keyProtesting in bathrooms makes sense, particularly if we are willing to brave the environment of the wrong bathrooms to make the point. That would make sense for GENDA in NEw York.  A trip to Spencerport might be interesting. Spencerport, outside of Rochester is where the headquarters of ff a handful of anti-GENDA organizations, founded by “Rev.” Duane Motley, including such gems as “New Yorkser for Constitutional Freedom.
For ENDA? I don’t think so – ENDA is not a full civil rights bill.  Protesting like this for a full civil rights bill would make sense – but ENDA doesn’t even cover housing, much less public accommodations.  The whole “incremental” approach is just a way to keep the oppressed “in line” as long as the oppressors can manage it, and I am getting tired of this approach.

As long as some trans people…Are pimping the meme that we aren’t a community, then we won’t get civil rights coverage

Why do we have to make it so difficult.1/3 of ALL bathrooms need to be 'gender neutral'. You know the little man/woman sign.. DUH Instead of needing signs that list the appropriate people, such as: 'opposite sex caregivers may enter with a handicapped user'  and'assist dogs may enter' 

What makes you think that trans people would want to use a gender neutral restroom…when they identify as male or female and not some third gender (with few exceptions).

I am not gender-neutral.I should never be forced to use a gender-neutral restroom.

“Barney’s the Issue”To the tenth power.
Sorry, but the title “The LGBT Community Has Ceded The “Bathroom Bill” Argument Without A Fight” is itself propaganda.
LGBT community?
Sorry, but aside from a few insta-’activist’ apologists, it isn’t trans people who have dropped the ball on this one.  Barney was whipping up the penis panic fifteen years ago while the LGB political oligarchy couldn’t even be persuated to admit that T even had had any connection to LGB whatsoever (with some pontificating that existing sex discrimination law plus the HRC-St. Barney ENDA would be all that trans people could ever possibly need.)
Why the improperly-inclusive title, Autumn?  
Another invitation for those of us who have actually noticed how the diseased arc of gay disinformation has curved for the last 15 or so years to point out how utterly miraculous it is that, when DADT was enacted, the only ‘bathroom issue’ that America cared about was the reality of what some gay men did and still do in restrooms but by the time DADT was repealed that the term ‘bathroom issue’ had become synonymous with mythical activities that no trans woman has ever been shown to have done (and that St. Barney is over in the corner of teh cloakroom with a shit-eating grin on his face as if to say, ‘What did I do?’) only to subject ourselves to whiny accusations of ‘trans people are homophobic’?
I hate the smell of Maryland in the morning – well, mornings of days in which I am a third-class citizen there and future morning in which I will be similarly even if purported ‘trans rights’ legislation has enough oxygen to live after the top priority gay marriage passes.

What do you suggest, if not ENDA?The addition of the words, “gender or gender identification” to the Civil Rights Act?  ’Cause it was written when they were assumed to always be one and the same as a binary M/F ‘sex’ and maybe it needs updating.  Or were you thinking even bigger?  Or is it even needed?  I noticed that a year and a half ago during the ENDA hearing, Dennis Kucinich mentioned that the hearings shouldn’t even have been taking place as it seemed we should be fighting to be recognized in the CRA instead, as inclusion seemed obvious.  Bathrooms should not and need not be mentioned, just the addition of four words as inclusive states, cities and companies have done.  Bathrooms are a red herring.
I’m actually leery at this point of including the term, “sexual orientation” because then the Big Boys will come rolling in and sell us out at the last minute, especially considering the money they could make off the fight.  And suddenly, it will very much become an issue of bathrooms.  Then the whole kerfluffle will fail and they’ll get to fundraise for a decade in the continuous “fight” failing every year but raising tens of millions.  Sadly, I don’t believe that is hyperbole.  
While we’re updating the understanding and language of our legal system, a smaller fight and possible starting place might be that a revision is sorely needed to the ADA and all the various laws that cut-n-pasted from it over the years.  The legacy of homophobic Jesse Helms needs to be ended; such an exclusion made by equating us with pedophiles and drug abusers would not be tolerated today and yet it stands.  

6. Those Excluded:
a. Current use of illegal drugs, if the employer acts on that basis;
b. Homosexuality and bisexuality;
c. Transvestitism, transsexuals, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting form physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
d. Compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; and
e. Psychoactive substance use disorders from current illegal drug use.

By allowing that foundation to stand, much of what followed is hard to rebuild.  It’d also more firmly establish that gender and sex differences are biological variations and not some sort of sin or other moral basis for law.  And it would open the door to easier insurance coverage.

Deval’s measuare is revocable, of coursebut it can stand as a “test case” proving the concern trolling is hystercial hyperbole without merit. A few years down the road when nothing awful has happened, what will they say? (Well, more of the same, but it will be even clearer they’re full of shit.)

A revocable executive order, only applying to employment, and only applying to state authorities – yet it’s called a “bathroom bill” by the witch-hunting hysterics.

to say nothing of the factthat bathrooms cost tens of thousands of dollars, if your place of business doesn’t have a third. No. I don’t think segregated bathroom solution works.
Is it so hard to just tell concern trolls to shut up?

Just to point out…Homosexuality and bisexuality in the ADA are moot because they’re no longer considered psychological disorders to begin with. That’s why Gay Incorporated has no interest in fixing the ADA.

I understand your response, but I *love* separate gender-neutral bathroomsbecause some days I simply don’t care to have the eyes of critical ultra-conforming women (be they cis or trans) on me.  I don’t need the negative attention, and if I can avoid it now and then by going into the single-stall “family” bathroom, I am grateful for the opportunity.  
But I agree that nobody, including me, should be required to use such facilities if we fell like using the sex-specific ones that are always available.

Perfectly willing to cede the issueTo me it is ridiculous to have Congress in anyway regulate employers’ bathroom etiquette. I say pull any such language out of ENDA. I have absolute confidence in women to handle it within each individual workplace although Barney makes me wonder about the capability of men to do likewise. I think Barney is afraid of bearded and penisless men showing up in male showers.  

You’ve got the right idea – maybe an end run around ENDA?Amend the Civil Rights Act and ADA (the latter to allow reasonable accommodation for those in transition), get the military regulations changed, repeal DOMA, and we’re federally okay, I think.  Perhaps a federal Gender Recognition Act patterned on the British law (coupled with a Model GRA for the states, coupled with a federal financial discouragement for those states that don’t enact one).
 

And lets not forget that HRC openly praised the anti-trans clauses when the ADA passed; all it cared about was AIDS coverage

This. This is the key to “educating” other LGBT people.

Another invitation for those of us who have actually noticed how the diseased arc of gay disinformation has curved for the last 15 or so years to point out how utterly miraculous it is that, when DADT was enacted, the only ‘bathroom issue’ that America cared about was the reality of what some gay men did and still do in restrooms but by the time DADT was repealed that the term ‘bathroom issue’ had become synonymous with mythical activities that no trans woman has ever been shown to have done (and that St. Barney is over in the corner of teh cloakroom with a shit-eating grin on his face as if to say, ‘What did I do?’) only to subject ourselves to whiny accusations of ‘trans people are homophobic’?

This is what needs to be cleaned up just a little, references added and then cut-n-pasted every time the issue is brought up by Gay, Inc. by every trans person who feels our representation is being stolen for the benefit of Gay Marriage and those who profit one way or another from “fighting” a purposely endless war for (or against, they dance together) same-sex marriage.

ADAThe ADA cannot be repealed nor the military regs changed with any ease until the DSM revision happens which, fortunately, is not long off.
I’d like to see the evidence that HRC openly praised the trans exclusions to the ADA in 1990. Thanks.

“The ADA cannot be repealed nor the military regs changed with any ease until the DSM revision happens “Why?
Its a statute.  It can be repealed just like it was passed.
Moreover, the trans exclusions (or any part thereof) can be repealed just like they were passed.

I’d like to see the evidence that HRC openly praised the trans exclusions to the ADA in 1990. Thanks.

It was in Bay Windows.  I can’t find the article itself online, but as I quoted from it in a footnote in a law review article a few years ago:

Following the amendments to the ADA bill in 1989, which yielded those exclusions, Steve Smith, a lobbyist for HRC (then the Human Rights Campaign Fund (HRCF)), actually offered praise for them: “By and large were quite pleased with it,” Smith remarked. Cliff O’Neill, “Senate Passes Disabilities Anti-Discrimination Bill – Measure Includes Protection for HIV Infected,” Bay Windows, Sept. 14-20, 1989 at 17. “Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. [Jesse] Helms has taken this position and we agree with him 100 percent.” Id. Peri Jude Radecic was a bit more realistic, agreeing with Smith about homosexuality and bisexuality, but noting, “as far as the other categories are concerned, I think that anytime that people are removed from protections, I don’t necessarily think that’s a good situation. I’m not happy anyone is excluded from the bill.” Id. Smith and Bay Windows neglected to point out not only that one of those “other categories” Radecic alluded to was transsexualism – something about which there is no consensus, even among transsexuals, as to whether it should be classified as a disability – and that some of the few LGBT successes under the pre-ADA, Nixon-era Rehabilitation Act were cases brought by trans people, one who identified as a transsexual and another who was denoted as a “homosexual and transvestite.” See Doe v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 84-3296, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18959 (D.D.C. June 12, 1985) (allowing transsexual woman to bring constitutional claims against post office for rescinding an offer of employment after learning that plaintiff was a transsexual planning a gender reassignment surgery); Blackwell v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 639 F. Supp. 289 (D.D.C. 1986) (alleging that Treasury Department discriminated against plaintiff when it failed to rehire plaintiff because he was transvestite). It is difficult not to wonder whether someone who had, at the time of the pertinent facts of the case, apparently been living full-time as a female since the early 1970s was, in fact, neither a homosexual nor a transvestite but a pre-operative or non-operative transsexual. Moreover, despite initial success, Blackwell’s claim ultimately failed. Blackwell v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 830 F.2d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

The citation, if anyone is into the unfashionable are of reading these days, is: Katrina C. Rose, Where the Rubber Left the Road: The Use and Misuse of History in the Quest for the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 18 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 397 at 436, fn. 199 (2009)

A few years down the track…

A few years down the road when nothing awful has happened, what will they say?

Something like this, when they revoke trans protections in favour of gay-only ones:

The governor is opposed to discrimination in state employment and has made that clear in this executive order in the way that he feels is most appropriate.

On Friday, Governor Kasich (R)  finally issued an order protecting LGB state employees with Executive Order  2011-05K, which unexpectedly and unnecessarily removed gender expression and gender identity from the list of protected qualities. – January 22, 2011..
And then the whole issue will be re-visited as if no protections had ever existed. This isn’t about logic or rationality, and facts don’t matter.

I need to bookmark that.Thanks for the research, Kat.

The ADA was updated recentlyThe update went into effect with the ADA Amendments Act 2008 on January 1, 2009.
I tried to get Gay Inc to at least give some input to the amendment process – but no-one was interested. It never occurred to them.

The coalition of advocates from the business and disability communities that spearheaded the efforts to pass the ADAAA first came together on February 19, 2008. That initial group consisted of representatives from the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD),[11] the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL),[12] the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the National Disabilities Rights Network (NDRN),[13] the Epilepsy Foundation (EF), the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the HR Policy Association (HR Policy).[14] Each group entered the negotiations by signing a document indicating its understanding that any agreement reached would be defended and maintained by all of the groups. Modifications and amendments to the draft bill were permitted only by mutual agreement.
The negotiating group met almost weekly from February through May 2008. Both the disability and business negotiators consistently checked back with a much broader group of disability and business advocates throughout the process.

But not the Human Rights Council, who were too busy commissioning a push-poll to prove that they were right in supporting the exclusion of T’s from what everyone knew was a symbolic vote anyway, with no chance of actually doing anything for either GLBs or Ts.
This whole “bathroom bill” issue could have been, would have been, avoided. And a bill that actually would help Trans people during Transition actually signed into law.

Not quiteHe’s afraid of bearded (like women with severe PCOS) and phallus-equipped (like women with severe CAH) women appearing in female restrooms, as they have done without causing problems since public restrooms were segregated in the 19th century.
Bearded and penisless men he doesn’t have a problem with – why look, he even hired a Trans man just to show his inclusivity! Barney just doesn’t like icky Girls.
Diego’s far more than just a token, let’s be clear about that. But there’s an element of that there, there can’t help but be – and unfortunately he must be reminded of that in a myriad of small ways every day… a monstrous injustice to the man.
I wish it were not so, his talent deserves recognition in any setting.

ADAI didn’t say it couldn’t be revised. Of course it can, but politically it won’t be, just as “trans in the military” won’t be until the DSM is formally revised.
As for HRC — I clearly have my issues with them, but your evidence does not show that HRC “praised the trans exclusions.” Smith apparently praised the entire bill, and not the exclusions. As noted, homosexuality and bisexuality were also excluded, and, also as noted, there was not then, nor is there now, any consensus whatsoever on whether or not using trans as a disability would be an appropriate strategy, regardless of the definition of trans.
I thank you for the footnote, which I had never seen. It also makes clear that context matters. What was most offensive to me at that time was being lumped in with pedophiles, etc., not that we were excluded. The implication was crystal clear. Similarly, I would have no problem stating that in 1989 dealing with AIDS was far more important to this nation than trans exclusions were, just as last year’s repeal of DADT for gay soldiers was far more important for national security than fighting for revision of the trans rules as well. Otoh, there is little point in excluding GI&E from ENDA or any state/local anti-discrimination laws. If anything, GI&E should take precedence over SO protections, as gender expression is the most common instigator of discrimination and abuse.

I don’t think soI don’t think anyone has ceded the issue.  I believe the trans community has always fought against it and the cis community has never really taken it up.  It doesn’t affect cis people much, except in rare examples like the DADT scare mongering.
I’ve seen a lot of activism against the bathroom predator meme and almost all of it has come from the trans community.  The absence of cis LGB and straight voices is a problem.
The issue needs to be addressed in a number of ways.  First of all, opponents of gender identity inclusive nondiscrimination law are appealing to a function of prejudice based on identity rather than behavior.  To them, it’s about who you are and what you look like versus how you are acting.  This, of course, is the same kind of prejudice that people of color faced when fighting against Jim Crow.
Second, it needs to be repeated every chance we get: the whole thing is a lie, unsupported by actual examples in jurisdictions that already have nondiscrimination laws that include gender identity.  If we point out that the haters haven’t given any examples of the harm they are predicting because there are no examples, we can put the lie to their propaganda.
Thirdly, we need to point out that trans people using the public restrooms is not a new thing.  We use them now and have never been convicted of harassing anyone.  You know the haters would trumpet that loud and hard too if they could find an example.
Lastly, we need to remind people that the law would not allow illegal activities in public restrooms and would not grant cover to those who would try to use it to get away with bad behavior.  Illegal behavior, in a public restroom or not, would still be prosecutable.  A corollary is that there’s little to nothing that keeps predators out of public restrooms now, despite not having a gender identity inclusive nondiscrimination law.
Facts and truth can kill this meme, eventually.  They just need to be pushed harder.

DiegoZoe,
I love you, but this isn’t fair to Diego or Barney. It’s superficially correct to call Diego a token transperson if you believe Barney should have hired more than one. Maybe he’ll hire me to put an end to that notion.
He didn’t hire Diego to show his inclusiveness, and I know because I discussed it with him at the time. He hired Diego because he had realized that the community demanded an inclusive bill and he was ill-equipped to lobby for it. Diego, who’s qualified to be a staffer in more ways than being trans, particularly for the health portfolio, fit into his office beautifully. And he’s been the best ambassador for us than could be imagined.
If Barney needed to make amends to the trans community for the 2007 ENDA debacle, he more than succeeded with hiring Diego. The reality is that even in 2009 they were both getting a lot of grief on the locker room nonsense, and we have to admit we do not yet have an effective response. Though, as I’ve told you, I love your flyer. If we could find someone to take it, expand and market it in a public service campaign, it would be wonderful.
That being said, I believe we had the votes anyway, if the gay leaders had the courage to push forward. DADT repeal had SLDN and SU as the major movers, pushing the rest of the community ahead. All ENDA had was ????

Note though…It would have done nothing to help GenderQueer, Gender Outlaw, Gender Fluid, Questioning, or nonconformant in appearance Gays or Lesbians. The Dykes too Butch, the Gays too Fey.
They would have been left behind… and I’m not sure that anyone would have come back for them any time soon.
ADA reform would help Intersexed and Transsexual people. Not Trans in general. That would need ENDA or Title VII protection.
Much as I identify as an Intersexed woman, straight, gender-conforming, someone who is Biologically More Female Than Even “True Transsexuals” (difficult writing that nonsense with a straight face)… no. I may not understand the “TG”s, I may not identify with them, but equality means equality for all, not just those “like me”.

Bathroom Bill“• The “bathroom bill” argument is an argument that assumes transgender women are really men, and that men are predators in women’s restrooms.”
Can you define transgender? When you use the term transgender here are you referring to crossdressers (who are mainly made up of men who dress as women) or are you talking about transsexual women?
If a man puts on a dress does that make him a woman?
GLAAD’s definition of transgender
Transsexuals
Cross-dressers
Other gender variant people
Please tell me which you refer to when you say “transgender women”.

Restrooms in MarylandNo doubt. I believe Autumn was referring to Maryland, where the resistance to public accommodations was furious among enough members of the House committee to have it stripped, as the only alternative to killing the bill altogether. The House sponsor fought for it, the Equality Maryland ED fought for it, but it was clearly not enough. To the best of my knowledge, no gay legislator has fought for it, nor did the Equality Maryland lobbyists (who were new to all this, an action I still don’t understand). For some that’s because marriage has sucked all the air out of the room, for others, they either just don’t care or don’t know how to fight for it.

BTW, the left side of this pageYou are grouping transsexual activists who are passionate about their beliefs and are NOT anti-transgender people in with official hate groups. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing this. It is the same thing that those hate groups do to the transgender and transsexual community by grouping us all with pedophiles. Disgusting.

Concur

Diego, who’s qualified to be a staffer in more ways than being trans, particularly for the health portfolio, fit into his office beautifully.

And that’s why to regard him as just a token is so manifestly unfair.
Even if he wasn’t Trans, he’d still be just as good at his job as ambassador. That’s just icing on the cake.
As regards Barney… I’m at the other end of the planet. You who are closer (not just geographically) to the situation have to know more than I do.
Dana, next time you think I’m full of it – feel free to tell me so with such kindness and courtesy. Diplomatically. Message received, and no offense taken.  

You’re wrongTrans people can and will be allowed to serve in the military before we are removed from the DSM.  Period.  Eight other countries ignored the DSM, so why do we have to use it as a crutch?  And, when trans people keep bringing it up, then it will become self-prophecy.  Trans people need to remain silent about the DSM when it comes to military service, or they will give the haters more ammunition to beat us over the head with.

Full of it?Zoe, I never think you’re “full of it.” A little unfair in this instance, but that’s all I can actually remember over the years. You’re one of the most passionate, articulate and clear-minded voices we have, and I thank you for all you do. Even from “over there.”

Trans in the militaryMonica,
I hope you’re correct, because it would be great to get it done in the next few months. I just don’t see it. If you have info I don’t, please share.
Oh, and congratulations on your new relationship!

“Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. [Jesse] Helms has taken this position”Happy is as praise does.

“Facts and truth can kill this meme, eventually.”I’m not so sure.  Facts and truth only work on people contemplating things at a rational level.  The bathroom meme appeals people at an emotional, visceral level, and it is pushed and used as an exploitation of subconscious fears.  Further, the restroom issue is so often repeated by people who just want to use it to keep transpeople suppressed that it’s become hard to tell how many people really buy into the argument and how many people are just repeating it as a political group identification buzz-term like “pro-life” and “pro-choice”.  Presenting facts and truth to people who are very consciously exploiting lies as a guise for how they really feel is futile.  They won’t look at the evidence and only react with extreme hostility to an any attempts to present it.  The bathroom issue cannot be tackled as a single issue as long as it’s used as a cover to justify deeper prejudices.
In my opinion, familiarity and comfort can kill this meme, eventually.  The more they see us, the more they get to know us, and the more we move from being creatures of myth to people they know, then the more we reduce their subconscious fear and discomfort with us, the less they will both feel fear over this bathroom issue and stop repeating it as a mask to cover their true feelings.  We permit this meme to perpetuate by staying out of sight, and best work toward eroding it by living out lives and being a visible presence.

Dem Onesees are for teh PigotsDem Pigots can use dem onesees while us normal folks can frolic innocently in teh group showers.

Dr Beyer, did the HRC get involved?You are a member of Human Rights Campaign’s Board of Governors; I assume that you could help us out on whether they lobbied?

Save your …Save your vitriol for this shite http://ts-si.org/guest-columns… and those (whom you defend) who promote it (and are presumed by many to have authored it in all of its misgendering glory).  
In other words, STFU.

Super!I offered an idea that of how trans people could use to battle the “bathroom bill” meme. And of course, by this model Rep. Frank could be dealt with as a “friendly” politician who isn’t as friendly as he should be.
If we want ordinary equality, Kat, we can’t just be curmudgeons. Talk is cheap — it’s the way we organize and use our lives everyday that tells what we believe in. We have to force the equality issue in a way that could result in the legislative changes we want.

It is not good enough to know why we are oppressed and by whom. We must join the struggle for what is right and just.
~Cesar Chavez

Sit-ins worked in the Black Civil Rights movement; a sit-in worked in Seattle on trans bathroom use at the Pacific Place Mall — a model I’m calling the Gender Odyssey Model. I believe it’s a strategy that if repeated over and over again, the Gender Odyssey Model could result in the legislative changes we want.
If you believe Rep. Frank is the problem, and he’s been the primary sponsor of ENDA for a number of years in the House (and that’s not going to very likely change in the next few years), what’s your idea to move Rep. Frank on bathrooms and/or showers? My idea is bathroom sit-ins…What’s your idea, Kat?

HRCMaura,
I was “removed” from the HRC board in December, so I cannot speak as an insider. From what I do know, HRC is focused primarily on marriage, though the talking points when lobbying are supposed to be for both bills.

She is no longer on their board of governors……nor is she on the HRC Board.

Threadjacking warning, DanaLane.We’re not having the subject of the essay changed in the comment thread to your agenda item, DanaLane. Period.
Please read the Pam’s House Blend Terms and Conditions of Service Section A, Item number 9′s prohibition against threadjacking — you agreed to follow the terms and conditions of service when you registered on this site.

First and last warning.

It’s harder than it looksThe Seattle Gender Odyssey protest was a very special convergence of events.  It was a specific example of trans people being subjected to discrimination over the bathroom coincidentally when one of the big transgender conferences was going on in the same city.  They were a concentration of trans people draw from across a very large region, as large as the entire country, they were there essentially “on vacation” at a conference, so they had time on their hands, they were in most cases in a city other than their own, helping to relieve fear of recognition and consequence, and attending a conference as they were probably more comfortable with being “out” and more strongly identifying with other transgender people as a group.  That’s a pretty special set of circumstances.  It doesn’t make a very useful model if it requires such a large set of extraordinary conditions to come together at once.  The real question is what can you accomplish in a typical city at a typical time in more every day circumstances.  How effective of a protest can you pull off?
The kind of protesting Autumn is describing under ordinary circumstances is more an activist fantasy than a plausible strategy.  If you’re going to fantasize, then why not advocate gathering a strike force of a dozen F15 fighters to sweep in and bomb them into submission?  In terms of large scale protests it’s only slightly less achievable, and when it’s all over, you’ll have a much better chance of selling the movie rights.  If you’re going to look at doing this kind of protest Autumn describes, let’s look realistically at what is involved and what happens when you actually try to do it.
I’ve actually tried to do it (or pretty close to it).  In 2006, a friend of mine, Michele deLaFreniere, went to a local nightclub in Scottsdale, AZ which she had been frequenting from before her transition and throughout it, with her roommate who was just starting her transition.  Michele’s roommate, also named Michelle (but with the extra “L”), was in the women’s restroom talking to a cis-female to get away from the extremely loud music in this dance club.  There was a complex series of events that evening, but someone complained to management, and long story short, the club owner banned them from the club.  Michele had an altercation over it with the club owner, and Michele reported to the trans community that the club owner had banned all trans people from his club.  She put out a call to action to get people in the trans community to come together to protest this.  Being the politically minded person that I am, it obviously seemed to me to be something couldn’t let stand.  I immediately joined her in this fight.  She and I worked effectively as a team to fight the club owner for a year until the matter was resolved.
We staged several protests on the street in front of the club.  On a good night, we could get about 10 people willing to stand on the sidewalks along the street holding signs, but the numbers participating dwindled with subsequent protests.  However, the fight we had with the club owner was peanuts compared to the war that raged within our local trans community over it.  We faced outrageous resistance from trans people who did not want these protests to happen.  They did not want there to be public attention drawn to the trans community, and they were much more comfortable with the idea businesses having policies of discrimination in place than they were of the idea of activism in general.  It created a rift in the community that exists to this day.  At the time the initial incident occurred, I was the board chair of the largest transgender support group in town, and I resigned in the face of the intense hostility from the leadership over my participation in political action.  They kept up their hostility after that to the point of driving out those most involved in the action.  In the end, in my experience, taking on the kind of protests Autumn is describing requires a willingness to expend more time and energy fighting with your own people then fighting with those who are discriminating against you.
You also have to be prepared to deal with the damage that fighting does within your own transgender community.  We thought that we could take on these protests largely because we had such an active and well connect local trans community.  However, once we started down that path, the community fractured because of it.  The connections within the community that made it possible to gather people broke down from the infighting, and our ability to engage in the fight diminished over time.  Meanwhile, the many of the positive benefits of our community went away as well.  It went from feeling like a large, friendly, connected community into being a bunch of separated factions, and isolated circles of friends, many of which were at odds with each other.  A sense of community can give you a false sense that you can pull people together for a political cause.  Politically minded people see the need for political action so clearly that they don’t comprehend that other people can’t see it.  When you try to seriously push ordinary people into political action, you’re going to get a considerable amount of push back.  They won’t be there for you.
Today, if such a protest needed to be organized in my city, it would in all likelihood fall on me to do it.  I know my community.  If I tried to do this today, I could probably get one person to join me (someone known to these pages), but beyond that I am extremely doubtful.  Our ability to stage a serious protest has diminished to almost nil, and a very significant portion of the reason for that is because we tried doing it four years ago and it was so divisive.  This is something to be aware of.  When you stage these kinds of protests, you may be spending your ability to stage these kinds of protests and won’t be able to do them again next time.  You don’t want to take these things on indiscriminately.  You need to approach community participation as a precious, limited resource.
The other reality is the necessity for a charismatic leader who can pull people together.  My friend Michele passed away from cancer in October, 2009, and since then the spirit of activism in my city has faded away.  Michele had the kind of assertive, positive, confident leadership that drew people to her.  I am not.  I’ve tried to be, but I’m just not.  It’s not just a matter of will.  Leadership is a personality trait that’s rare to find.  Not every community has the kind of natural leader who can inspire people to pull together in a collective effort.  As such, the ability to carry out this kind of activism is an accidental circumstance of having someone who is both willing and able to do it, and you can’t simply dictate it to happen in the absence of the right combination of people.
Meanwhile, you can get opposition in areas where you didn’t expect it.  This is an article that ran in the local “liberal” newspaper about our protest titled “Tranny-Gate”.  This paper, Phoenix New Times, was started in the early 70′s by a group of hippy reporters who walked away from the local main-stream newspaper to go shake up the establishment.  We thought they would be on our side.  They told us they were completely on our side in interviews leading up to the article.   Look at this cartoon they ran with the article.  
As shocking as that cartoon is to our eyes, people in the general public really believed that cartoon.  First, my friend Michele was never accused of any offense in a restroom at this nightclub, but it was her roommate who caused the trouble, although the confusion followed Michele throughout.  Secondly, Michele was not anything resembling the hulking figure depicted in the cartoon.  She was in her 50′s, about 6′ tall, had been on estrogen for over a decade prior to that, and was of average build.  Yet, online comments posted to the articles PNT published routinely reflected and assumption that she was a massive, muscled, mountain of meat.  This cartoon is how much if not most of the general public views the bathroom issue.  Engaging in the protest lead to this article and cartoon being published, and it’s reasonable to ask if the protests more advanced our message or the bathroom meme itself.
Here’s the odd twist in this story.  This columnist who relentlessly lampooned us, Stephen Lemons, proved invaluable in advancing our cause.  We got more mileage over using his columns to promote our position than we ever got out any protest we did on the street.  We couldn’t get any media to cover any of our protests, but Lemons in trying to destroy us kept the issue in the public eye and we were able to use that to eventually drive the club owner to the bargaining table to reach a resolution.  We have a stereotype in our head of “activism” involving people in physical, visible, potentially disruptive protests.  However, alternative forms of protest can be equally or more effective.  In the age of the internet, alternative approaches to protest should be considered.  I found that the ability to post your message to online local newspapers to be a very effective way to bring your issues to public attention.  It could just be that the old school model protests that Autumn is proposing are a poor investment of resources and may be obsolete.
I would like to mention that since all this happened, the club owner Tom Anderson has become a tremendous advocate for both the transgender and LGB community, and I have nothing but kind words for him and fond appreciation.  He’s a good man, and once he came to understand the issue, came to fully support our community.
Before you can ever hope to engage in the kind of protests Autumn is proposing, enormous changes and internal education must happen inside the trans community.  1) People need to be shown the importance of political action.  You would be surprised how many people don’t see it.  2) People need to be shown the value of working collectively toward political goals.  You would be surprised how many people don’t buy into that.  3) People need to learn to respect and leave alone political actions they don’t agree with, instead of working to stop them.  I encountered more people in the trans community willing to commit time and energy trying to stop us than people willing to pitch in and help.  Even if you don’t agree with it, you shouldn’t feel entitled to stop those who do.  4) You need to build political organizations that people are willing to follow, even when the organization takes an approach they don’t agree with.  This is enormously difficult.  There are plenty of people who believe in activism who still won’t join an effort that isn’t done 100% their way.  In other words, you have to do years of community building before you can possibly hope to stage that restroom protest Autumn describes.
Everyone involved in activism has a vision in their minds of masses of people joining together in large scale protests.  I’ve heard so many people proposing ideas in discussion or idle conversation that center on getting large numbers of people to do some dramatic action in unison.  The reality of making that happen is far, far more difficult than people realize.  You have to actually try to do that kind of thing to understand just how difficult it is.  Throwing out propositions of large scale protests against the bathroom meme is just so much activist fantasy not rooted in reality.  We don’t have the people, we don’t have the commitment, and we don’t have the culture in place to pull it off.  If we want to go down that road sometime in the future, we have to start building our community today.

Drat! A sympathetic insider would have been niceAnd my sympathies and my respect at your removal, you obviously did something right.

LGBT Community is correct in some places.In some states such as New Jersey,we are together! GLB folks fight for transgender rights and Transfolks fight for marriage equality! We’ve done it, so what is the BFD elsewhere?
Now I have been to at least one state where my gay and lesbian friends would actually love to have a transequality legislation, but they cannot find transpeople to stand up and get politically involved! Go Figya!
E pluribus unum

Curmudgeon thinking?I’m not going to be a curmudgeon.
As much as we like to think MLK Jr. had a solid African-American community behind him, his community was fractured as well. He went on working for civil rights anyway, and found others that would work with him.
I’m committed. I’m going to look for LGBT — and T-specific — equivalents to lunch counter, and I’m going to work with others smarter than me regarding tactics, strategy, and timing for direct actions for LGB and T people. I’m also going to work with peple who want to do something for their own ordinary equality.
And again, I’ll quote Cesar Chavez:

“…many have the idea that organizing people is very difficult, but it isn’t. It becomes difficult only at the point where you begin to see other things that are easier. But if you are willing to give the time and make the sacrifice, it’s not that difficult to organize.”

And…

“Those who are willing to sacrifice and be of service have very little difficulty with people. They know what they are all about. People can’t help but want to be near them. They help them; they work with them. That’s what love is all about. It starts with your heart and radiates out.”

And…

“We are confident. We have ourselves. We know how to sacrifice. We know how to work. We know how to combat the forces that oppose us. But even more than that, we are true believers in the whole idea of justice. Justice is so much on our side, that that is going to see us through.”

I make it a point to learn from other civil rights leaders that came before me, in other civil rights movements. I’m idealistic, and I’m willing to sacrifice for what I believe in, and I’ll join with others that believe that too…by engaging in community building you allude to above.

“If you’re not frightened that you might fail, you’ll never do the job. If you’re frightened, you’ll work like crazy.”

I’m with Cesar Chavez on that too, in that I am afraid I might fail, and as a community we may fail at achieving civil rights.
And of course, people may come to harm in engaging in direct action. Such as, one of these times when I go to jail for civil rights I fully expect to get sexually assaulted. That’s part of sacrifice — I wouldn’t ask anyone to risk what I wouldn’t personally risk…what I have risked.
And hey — if the Gender Odyssey Model didn’t work, then I’d again work with others to try something else to see if we can find a plan (b) to work on. And if plan (b) didn’t work either, then I’ll again work with others to develop a plan (c) for action.
But damnit, I’m going to try to make things better for my community peers, and I’m going to work with others to do it. And too, I’ll butt up against the wall over and over again until my peers and I succeed at ordinary equality. I have patience coupled with resolve.
In other words, I’m not going to be a curmudgeon — I will look for solutions, and keep looking for solutions until the peers that I work with and I find something that does work to get us ordinary equality.

The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people.

It’s never about the planned direct action or the specific legislation one is working for — those are the “grapes or lettuce.” I believe activists have to remember that it really is all about the people for whom one is working for the ordinary equality of.
I know I’ll never forget that.

Call in your chitsI think you raise a valid concern about finding enough trans people who are willing and can safely participate in protests.  This is where we allies must come in.  Like Autumn participating in the DADT protests in support of the LGB part of the LGBT community, we LGBs need to step forward in support of the T part of the LGBT community for T-organized and directed protests.
Autumn was there for the LGBs.  I’ll be there for the Ts if Autumn asks me to be.  It’s that simple.
The difficult part (for me anyways) will be figuring out which part of the T community has the authority in cases where there is disagreement on goals and tactics regarding a particular problem to be solved.  For example with the gender bill in MD, part of the trans community is backing the bill as-is and part wants to kill that bill.  Which group should an ally side with, if an ally takes sides at all?  If we should take direction from trans people on trans issues, which trans people do we listen to?  
All that said, I think this is a good kind of problem to have because it means that at least part of the trans community is engaged in real debate and both groups want positive change.  They just don’t agree how to get there.

HRCI still have my friends, and I did my thing for nearly four years. I just cannot speak as an insider. And, it should be repeated, I was not on the Board of Directors, which is the policy-making committee that gives Joe his marching orders. If they wanted a change, they could bring one about. With one trans person on that board (and there has never been more than one, and usually none), that’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

“What’s your idea, Kat?”Waiting for the actuarial tables to kick in.
He’s not going to change any more than Janice Raymond is.  (What’s the Matter With Kansas?  I think a better question is: What’s the Matter With Massachusetts?)
Our only hope is that he starts to decompose sooner than later. He’s looked like a walking heart attack to me for some time now.

A major splitA 50:50 split can be very problematic. The current problem in Maryland is that there is no longer a trans person on the board of Equality Maryland, which speaks to a serious underlying problem between the LGB and T communities, and allows that intra-community split to fester. Though it is fair to say each community has factions, and there is rarely unanimity under any circumstance. For several years we  seriously debated domestic partnerships vs. civil unions vs. marriage. That all seems so quaint now. Times change.
As for allies, the time has come. Political capital must be risked, and we have no one other than the bill’s sponsor sticking her neck out.

“I make it a point to learn from other civil rights leaders that came before me, in other civil rights movements. “Which is why I wrote what I wrote.  It might not rise to the grand scale you attach to the term, but my account is one of a civil rights movement that went before you, specifically one within the transgender community.  What I can’t quite gather from your fanciful missive is whether you are interested in learning from my experience or refusing to do so.  For what it’s worth, I offer it to you.
In learning from the experience of civil rights movements that went before us, it’s important to study what differentiates their circumstances from ours that may impinge on the ability to repeat their formula in our situation.  True MLK’s community was fractured, but they were also in a very different situation.  The discrimination they faced was different.  The worst of it was clearly defined in law and extremely oppressive.  A little of our discrimination is specifically stated in law, but the worst if it is in what the law passively allows to persist by not addressing it.  MLK’s community could not hide from discrimination except in the rarest of cases.  They were confronted with it every day and had to address it one way or another.  A lot of our people can and do hide from discrimination, and a very significant portion of them believe that hiding is the most appropriate way of dealing with it.  MLK’s community grew up in a world with discrimination from birth.  Our people only begin to experience it in adulthood.  MLK’s community lived in families who all shared the same experience of extreme discrimination.  Our people often face the worst discrimination from family members themselves.  MLK’s community was closely joined in physical space, being forced into specific neighborhoods as a result of discrimination.  Our community members with rare exception are physically scattered throughout their cities.  MLK’s community had regular meeting places with a strong central authority, the churches, where we could be reached and united.  Our community has no central authorities or regular meeting places where people will listen to and respect the wisdom of a strong leading voice.  MLK’s community was made up of a complete, diverse, full representation of people.  Our community is made up of a small, self selected minority of a much larger gender dysphoric population, and there are social filters that caused the visible minority that comes forward to make for a population very different from what you would find in a normal cross section.
In other words, you can’t guarantee that the formula that worked for him will work if repeated exactly in our very different set of circumstances.  The only way to find out is experimentation.  I actually conducted such an experiment.  Telling people about the experience, what worked, what didn’t work, and what differences between our circumstances and MLKs may have stood in our way isn’t being pessimistic, but a supreme act of optimism.  Only in studying what has been tried, including what has failed, before us can we make wise decisions of how to proceed in the future.  The scientific method continues to be the best general model for how to make progress in uncertain circumstances.  You study the available information, you form a hypothesis, you plan an experiment, you inject a stimulus, you observe the response, you theorize on the results, you form a new hypothesis, and you repeat the process.  In the long run, no other approach has ever worked better.
And in that spirit, I present the results of my experiment.

If you’re non white and transYou still experience discrimination every day.

Nothing just yetDana, This is not going to be a slam-dunk, and it won’t be included in any future changes for GLB people in the military.  We are looking at years, not months.  Mara is a bit more optimistic than Autumn and TAVA, but I see that as being hopeful.  She also agrees that the least we say about issues with integration of trans people in the military and the DSM, the better it will be.  What gives her hope is the eight allied countries that ignored the DSM.  It’s a plan I hope others will follow.
Thanks from Darlene and I.  We now are trying to get Facebook to change it to “Domestic Partnership,” but their process is all screwed up.

I had a similar take, but I’m trusting Monica has her ear closer to the ground. . . on this issue.  While I think amending the DSM would make it a lighter lift, I also agree it should not have to be a necessary prerequisite.

The inherent problemThe inherent problem is this: it assumes that people should be segregated because of who they are and what they look like rather than how they behave.  This is the same rationale that supports racial segregation.
It doesn’t matter if the person is a cross dresser, gender queer or transsexual.  It doesn’t matter where in the community the person stands.  It matters that they behave appropriately for the space they are in.
Keeping a person out of a restroom because of who they are or what they look like prejudges them.  It operates under the assumption that they will behave badly because of supposedly inherent characteristics.  This prejudice is at the bottom of the issue and is in direct kinship to the prejudice that keeps other minorities segregated and marginalized.

I guessI guess they didn’t know how to handle it for the same reason nobody knew how to handle it when the NYS Judiciary committee voted GENDA down.  There were no trans people there to advocate for it.  The people who were there were ill equipped to confront these objections because it was never an issue in their lives.
This is a direct result of the transphobia in cis LGB organizations that are unwilling to hire trans people.  Of course, I’m sure plenty of trans people would have volunteered to be there, no employment would have been necessary, yet they weren’t asked.  We are thus unvoiced and we suffer the harm from our continuing marginalization.

No oneNo one will convince the dyed in the wool haters with logic and facts but those who are less invested, those who have not succumbed to the more tenacious brands of transphobia, can be swayed.
Never forget that most people sit on the sidelines and simply read the articles, op ed pieces and comments without actually participating.  It’s this population that needs both sides of the story.

PredationYou’re missing the meme here.
The fear implied by the bathroom meme is not [only] that transwomen would behave badly in restrooms, but that cismen would be able to enter the women’s room and could simply claim that they “feel like a woman inside” when they are caught to escape punishment. It is significantly easier to prove that a person’s sex does not match the sign on the door than it is to prove intent.
The easy response to “show me the predation” is to claim that  the laws and/or policies prohibiting men from going into the wrong restroom–the very laws and policies you want to repeal–are the only thing keeping the perverts at bay.
This messaging won’t work.

Most localitiesIt may be an easy response but I don’t think it is an effective one.  Most localities don’t have any laws prohibiting people from going into the “wrong” bathroom.  An argument could be made, as a matter of fact, that such laws would be illegal as public accommodations discrimination based on sex.
Additionally, it is easy to note that gender identity inclusive nondiscrimination laws do not excuse illegal behavior.  They do not give cover to those who would break the law.  Anyone entering a public restroom, if it matches their presentation or not, and breaking the law will still be fully prosecutable.
No one is promoting the repeal of any laws against illegal behavior.  Your argument fails.

SLDN has included Gender Identity in the call for a military Non-Discrimination PolicySo, at least one mainstream GLBT organization is on board with trying to move this.

Nope.In 12 states, the District of Columbia, and 109 municipal jurisdictions around this country, we have had gender-variance anti-discrimination laws in place that protect a person’s right to use a public restroom that corresponds with their gender identity, expression, appearance, or behavior, for up to 36 years in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Not once in all that time has any incident of a trans person acting as an aggessor in a public accommodation ever come to light, nor have these laws to my knowledge ever been used to present a defense by a cis person. Not once.

It’s not the bathrooms. It’s the showers……and the locker rooms, to a lesser extent, the dressing rooms.
I maintain that the real problem with all of this is not public restrooms. Not that restrooms aren’t a problem, at all, but they’re not the main problem. Most people understand that women’s restrooms generally contain individual stalls with lockable doors, and there are already laws against public indecency that cover the problem of visible genitalia outside the stall. The only real problem with the restrooms is the people who think their little girls are somehow going to be at risk, and for them and anyone else who still harbors bathroom fears, we can continue to point out that no problem has ever surfaced, because it was never a problem in the first place.
The major stumbling block here is, as I’ve said elsewhere many times now, those sex-segregated spaces in which nudity is practically unavoidable, such as locker rooms and communal showers. In fact, Barney Frank has been quite specific about this. Note that he didn’t yell, “penises in women’s restrooms”, he yelled “penises in women’s showers“.
The only way I can see that we are going to get around this is by pointing out the fact that these problems have obvious solutions, and that very similar problems were overcome in the debate over providing suitable facilities for disabled people in the process of passing the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Nobody wants a “separate but equal” situation. That’s never going to work, and is already illegal, so that objection dies on the vine. We have to think of this in terms of “appropriate facilities” for the needs of all people. The only way we can get this done is to respect the fat that many people, trans and cis alike, either desire or require privacy in their hygienic functions. If we are able to see our way to providing such facilities for disabled people without thinking of it as creating a “separate but equal” problem, why can we not do the same for privacy?
Yes, it will cost money. So did the ADA, which is why extensive exceptions for existing businesses were written into the ADA, but we got it passed. This creates massive incentives for existing businesses to upgrade their facilities or risk losing customers, trans and cis alike, to newer businesses, and it creates jobs for plumbers, construction workers, electricians, manufacturers, architects, engineers, bankers (there will be loans involved, you can be sure)…the list goes on and on.
The answers are not only obvious, but already given. Why isn’t anyone else talking about it? Why hasn’t anyone refuted my argument? Please, if you can find anything to object about, do so.
Once again, I will say that a good document to refer to is the one produced by the Human Rights Commission of the City of New York concerning their anti-discrimination law. That document specifically addresses the bathroom issue in language as plain as day.
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/…

Education.Many people out there who would otherwise be supporters of the equal protection of the rights of trans people, even as it pertains to public accommodations such as restrooms, are quite simply unaware of the fact that only 12 states guarantee this protection, that 11 of those states have only been added to the list in the past 10 years (the lone exception being Minnesota), and that no states have been added to that list in the last 4 years.
You might be aware that I, like Pam Spaulding, am a alumna of Stuyvesant High School, and if you know anything about Stuyvesant High School, then you probably realize that our graduates tend to be very intelligent, well-educated people.
The other day, when I posted something on Facebook about the problems with the lack of public accommodations language in Maryland GIADA (HB 235), I had a number of responses from my friends, all expressing incredulity with the idea that I could be barred from using a gender appropriate restroom, and possibly even arrested for doing so. These responses came from fellow Stuy grads, former classmates from my college days at Carnegie-Mellon University, and cis women who have shared public restrooms with me. Here’s part of that discussion:

“That is insane and thoughtless.”
“Wow people are so ignorant. Well if they’re not going to let you in women’s restrooms they need to not let lesbians in women’s restrooms too. Totally not cool! Reading articles like this really gets my blood boiling. Ridiculous!!!!”
“Really??? I honestly wonder what country we’re in.”
“Wow, its like denying someone service or entry because they’re black. One day this fight will be over and our grand children will look back on this the way we look back on discrimination against the blacks and say ‘why were people so ignorant back then? What’s the big deal!!!’”
“What do you need us to do? Not this Facebook bullshit; what do you need people to really do?”

Another old friend from Stuy contacted me in response. That person had even had a close friend who was trans in their (now) home state, which they assumed, being a Northeastern state well-known for it’s liberal politicians (Massachusetts), was one of the better ones in this regard. They were rather shocked to find out that Massachusetts offers no statewide protections for trans people.
I published an article later that day on my Tumblr blog. Here is an excerpt:

“It’s a sad fact but there are very many of my cis friends, by and large extremely well-educated people, who are completely unaware of the facts about the discrimination against people that is legal in this country, based solely on their actual or perceived gender identity, expression, appearance, or behavior.”
…
“All of this, in and of itself, is very troubling; however, what is even more troubling is that most people, even among the very well-educated classes, are entirely unaware of these facts. This is especially a problem among well-educated liberal and/or progressive people, because the idea of discrimination rarely crosses their minds anymore, and they operate in a world where homosexuality is commonly socially acceptable, and where transsexuality is becoming acceptable, so they tend to assume that everything is doing well for us, and that although some people might still be stuck in the Stone Age with regard to the way they think about these issues, the world is much more enlightened now. Isn’t it?
In fact, this problem is so pervasive that they don’t realize something that would shock them even more:
Not only is it still perfectly legal in 38 states in this country to discriminate against people based on their actual or perceived gender identity, expression, appearance, or behavior, in 29 states in this country, it is still perfectly legal to discriminate against people based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

You can find the whole post at:
http://gemmaseymour.tumblr.com…
and you can feel free to use this to help you in your efforts to educate people.

Not for the T, for yourselves.This isn’t a trans issue, it’s an issue of actual or perceived gender variance of all kinds.
Don’t support an ENDA which includes actual or perceived gender identity, expression, appearance, and behavior because you’re being an ally to trans people; support it because it directly protects you as a cis homosexual person, and only fully protects you if it includes gender language as well as orientation language.

No definition needed.Dana, I am as sensitive as you, or anyone else, to the distinctions between male cross-dressers and transsexual women, but really, defining the distinction isn’t necessary for an inclusive, sensible, compassionate law to be drafted and passed.

StuyvesantOk, Gemma, you’ve gone ahead and done it. I’ve worked very hard to learn to respect Pam as a Stuy grad . Now, you, too? That’s a bridge too far.
A Science grad

That brought a smile to my face……as I’m sure you knew it would! Don’t feel bad, you guys have a nicer campus. Hell, you have a campus, from the pictures I’ve seen. We had 15th and 16th Streets.

I dropped outof Grover Cleveland HS, in Ridgewood, just north of Bed Stuy.  Does that count???  :)

Campus?You mean the barbed wire fence separating us from DeWitt Clinton HS? Oh, that campus!

SureBed Stuy is one degree of separation from Stuyvesant HS. I learned that at Science.
Or, no, from my father who grew up at Pitkin and Sutter.

This might be usefulWhat follows is an excerpt from the book “Canary: The Courageous and Moving Story of a Transsexual” by Canary Conn.  This transsexual autobiography was first published in 1974 in hardback and was republished in paperback in 1977.  This book and Canary herself were very influential in my life (she’s still living in L.A. someplace, but reportedly has become a recluse).  This is from pages 229-230 of the paperback edition (she refers to her male name, Danny):

I’d been to a ladies’ room before, but at times the action took on special significance.  As I entered, I noticed a huge woman, probably in her late thirties, standing in front of one of the sinks, holding something in her hand.  I hurried by her into a stall.  For some reason I didn’t realize what she was holding until I’d closed the stall door behind me.  It was a sap, a leather pouch filled with buck shot, and used in much the same way a blackjack is used.  Silently, I sat and wondered what would happen when I cam out.  Was she interested in robbery?  Danny had never had a fear of anyone female; he was too busy warding off male assaults.  Canary had never had to deal with situations like this.  She, I, wasn’t really afraid of anyone yet, and I’d not developed the sort of sixth sense women have of recognizing situations and people who threaten them.
I must have spent ten minutes waiting for the woman to leave.  Two rather small feet maintained their position patiently.  That crazy woman was going to try something!  Okay, I planned my defense.  If she hit me she would be using one arm, so I would use my large leather purse as a blocking shield.  There wasn’t much room in the place, so I was going to have to move rapidly to get out the door quickly.  If I needed to scare her, I had a pocket knife in my purse to ward off trouble, bit I didn’t want to have to use it.  I didn’t want to stab anyone.
With a burst of courage, I opened the stall door and confronted the woman with a glare.  She was leaning against the wall, with one hand tucked behind her.  That was the hand to watch.  Her arms were large and muscular, and her eyes halfway closed.  As though she were trying to look tough.  slowly, I moved past her, breathing carefully, watching her as my hand found the doorknob.
She was a girl, I was a girl.  I never realized women treated each other violently.  Now one ever told me about it.  I’d seen movies about women in prison.  The door wouldn’t open.  It was locked.  As I fumbled with it my hands began to perspire.  Just as I found the lock, she made her move.  I froze just long enough to let her bring the blackjack across my left shoulder.  Because I was five or six inches taller, she couldn’t reach my head.  And there was still muscle left in my shoulders from my days as male.  I unlocked the door, flung it open and took two steps through the tiny lounge.  I ran through the second door and slammed it as hard as I could.  For a minute I stood just outside the door, trying to catch my breath.  A patrol car had pulled up, and two police-men, who just have just been starting their break, got out.  I went over to them.
“What’s the problem, Miss?”
I didn’t know what to tell him.  The relief made me start to cry.  ”There’s a woman in there, and she’s got a sap.”  I was holding my shoulder.  The policeman looked carefully at me and asked if I was hurt.  If I told him I had been attacked, I’d have had to identify myself and make some kind of statement, perhaps appear at trial.  The only identification I had was a driver’s license issued to Danny from Texas.  This would cause me more trouble than the pain in my shoulder.
“No,” I said, “but I caught my arm on the door as I ran out. . . .”
“Okay, Miss,” he answered, and walked back to the car.  He and a couple other officers conferred before one of the radioed for a policewoman.  I told the police I’d be inside if they needed me.

There is an actual account of an attack involving a transwoman in a public restroom, but it was the transwoman attacked by the ciswoman.  I’m not sure if that’s useful or not, and I have tried using it against people hostile over the bathroom meme in the past, but it’s always felt to me like something that could be used in some way.  If nothing else, it gives us one example of a transwoman being attacked to their zero examples of a ciswoman being attacked.  It also illustrates that transpeople with ID’s that don’t match their gender presentation can be put in a vulnerable position and at greater risk of being victims of crime.
Submitted for your consideration.

Good pointI support both inclusive ENDA and state-level gender identity & expression anti-discrimination laws for two reasons: because they protect gender non-conforming LGB people as well as T people, and because it is the right thing to do as a trans ally.

Great posts…insightful…intelligent…supported by facts…All of these posts had my full undivided attention. Autumn, as I do, keenly understands where our community is chronologically speaking relative to past, present and future achievements and concerns. Essentially, the time is now long past for “civilized discussion”. We all recognize that the snowball has started rolling and has gotten larger with time. We are fortunate to have past civil rights battles and successes as models for our own fight. Indeed no two civil right issues will ever be mirror images. We need to return to the basics of who, what, when, where and how. Before we can establish the “what, when, where and how” we have to first cement the “who”. Without the “who” clearly delineated (transsexual vs transgender for example), our fight for equality will continue in an endless loop always touching but never achieving measurable success. I am reminded of the mathematical “idiom” that states division by zero is undefined. Until we successfully define “who” we are, essentially by “2/3 majority”, we will continue to suffer loss and defeat and equality will elude us.
No leader is ever without controversy or debate or infallible. Autumn provides outstanding leadership and her introductory posting convinces me even more that we must rally behind her as a group, form a new and independent national alliance (facilitated by the internet) with the current legal gender binary as a given (M/F) and almost IMMEDIATELY create a membership roster to demonstrate strength in numbers for credibility and clout sake. The easiest way to coalesce is too unite the current “national in scope” groups as one. Because of pride, this will never happen. We make the offer, wait about two seconds, then proceed. There is never the “right time” to have a child and never the “right time” to unite….Cesar Chavez and MLK themselves said no less.
Yes, many of us seek to disappear quietly into the night in our “new” gender but it’s time to acknowledge that this, in consequence, has amounted to “defection” that thins our ranks down. It is also time to be real and legitimize a gender transition through medical corroboration….cross-dressing men…I hate to break the news…are still men. This is no time to support part-time “gender” expression…we must stick to the core membership here…bona fide persons undergoing legal or medical transition. White persons did not become black by merely applying black makeup…so too do men not become women by merely applying makeup…I know many disagree but as I said…it’s time to identify the majority…count our losses and move toward victory.
Our “great” United States is “great” today because when words failed…action followed. It is not un-American to protest, challenge, “activate” and vehemently oppose phobic persons who hide behind the “shield” now called “bathroom bills”. Enough is enough….practically all of us have used the “opposite” gender restroom without incident. The longer we stay locked into the silly argument of restroom use the longer victory will elude us. The argument is simply phobia…hatred…loathing of all of us who are undergoing a LEGAL gender transition. The time for action is now.

Ouch!Talk about barbs!

Please explain.Look, we all know that cross-dressing men are men, and that transsexual women are women. So what? How does that make any difference to the need to pass legislation guaranteeing the equal protection of the rights of all people?
Are you honestly going to say that part-time transgender people shouldn’t have the right to use a gender-appropriate restroom? That they shouldn’t be accorded the dignity of being recognized as the gender which they present? Who are you to decide whose gender, gender identity, and gender expression is valid and whose isn’t?
How is throwing part-time transgender people under the bus going to in any way improve the chances for legislation being passed that protects transsexual women, especially pre-op and non-op transsexual women, or transsexual women who are in the earliest stages of transition and for various reasons cannot be full-time?
These are really, of course, rhetorical questions. We all know the answers there.
The main reason why we don’t get as much support as we should from cis LGB people, as well as from the post-SRS “true transsexual” crowd, is because they are comfortable in their physiology enough such that they know that no matter how much they might appear to transgress the gender binary normative rules, all they have to do to allay people’s fears is to drop their drawers in the locker room, and (most) all will be forgiven. The funny thing is, for this very reason, for those people, it’s primarily a restroom issue rather than a “penises in women’s showers” issue.
We’re quite well aware of the fact that phallophobia, misandry, transmisogyny, and transphobia is behind all of this. We know this is the real battle, even if most of us are too polite to say so.
Fortunately, as I keep saying, this distinction is entirely irrelevant to getting laws passed that protect everyone, cis LGB, trans people, and cis het people alike. You just have to change the way you’re framing the problem.
The problem isn’t getting phobic people to comply with our demands, the problem is getting phobic people out of places where they are going to inevitably feel uncomfortable, because right now, they hold all the best cards. The only way we’re getting around this is to provide “safe space” for everyone, most particularly those people who are irrationally terrified of being confronted with trans women’s penises. Those people need to be protected from themselves and their phobias, not from us, by their own choice, by their refusal to join the rest of modernity. They are people, too, and we should be as sensitive to their feelings as we possibly can without giving up our equality.
If we can do this, it obviates the need for The Umbrella Wars. It allows those trans people who wish to be stealth the ability to be so. It not only protects trans people, it protects cis LGB people from being discriminated against as much as it protects trans people, and by adding their numbers to the battle, we more than make up for any attrition we might have from trans people who are able to go stealth.
We must put The Umbrella Wars behind us, or we are dead. I was going to say “dead in the water”, but when it comes to trans people, that quite literally leads to death. To do this, we must find solutions that are as inclusive as possible, not solutions that are as exclusive as possible.
The answer is simple. Refuse to accept the premise of the argument. Reframe the argument. Change the playing field, change the rules of engagement. Think Equality.

Now THAT is a better argument… and ought to be included in the talking points.

Legality is not universal, nor even relevantMany places do have laws in place and enforced, constitutional or not. And even in places that don’t, I would wager that if you did a poll and asked people if it was legal for a man to use the womens’ room, you’d get a majority response of “no”.
Under such a context, you are indeed proposing to repeal a “law” [that might or might not actually exist] against an illegal behavior. In fact, the issue might just call attention to the nonexistence of such a law, and lead to its enactment.
I assume, however, that you are referring to other behaviors, such as harassment. Then another easy–though still not very reality-based–argument is that without these laws, we would have to wait for actual abuse to occur, rather than kick the creeps out preemptively.
Finally, creepy behavior that is currently prohibited might not necessarily be illegal, or prosecutable. It’s rather difficult to prosecute creeps for leering in public, for instance.

On a federal level, this ought to work.The problem is that this is not something that could be done at a local level. This means the strategy of starting local to build support can’t be used. You’d have to start with an entire state, at least.
How did the ADA get passed anyway? Perhaps we could learn from history here.

ArgumentIt’s a better argument, but a rational one, and, therefore, ineffective.

Except it already *has* been done on a local level……in 109 municipal jurisdictions around the country, and in 12 states, plus the District of Columbia. Hawaii may soon be added to that list*, as well as Maryland, if the problems with HB 235 can be resolved.
*The front page article today says HI already has housing and public accommodations laws in place, but I am unaware of the public accommodations side of that. HI is working right now on adding employment protections.

Not necessarily.I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re not going to change the minds of people who are already dead-set against us, but as I pointed out below, there is a huge throng of people out there who aren’t even aware of these issues, and would support us if they were.
Many other posters here and elsewhere have pointed out the fact that the arguments being used against us are the exact same arguments that were used to prevent homosexuals from sharing sex-segregated spaces.
People got over it enough to get the laws changed, or they got over it enough that many people no longer see the need to get the laws changed in many circumstances. The rational argument works on rational people. Rational people, strangely, do actually exist out there. We just have to shake them a little and get them to listen.
If we can get those people on our side, we’ll drown the opposition.

Also, there’s no reason why we can’t have multiple strategies.My bit is to work on the logical argument. That’s what I do, it’s who I am. I’d love to hear other strategies and tactics from people who are better suited to developing more emotional arguments.

More specifically…I think Barney’s been pretty up front about the fact that the problem he sees is the “penises in women’s showers” issue, which isn’t really a restroom issue, per se, but one of sex-segregated spaces where nudity is practically unavoidable.
How are people supposed to make the distinction between actual indecent behavior and innocent showering? It’s easy in a restroom that has separate stalls, because if your genitals are in view outside of the stall, there’s clearly a problem. Not so with communal showers and/or locker rooms.
That said, I really doubt Barney’s fear is that LGBT people will be forced into segregated spaces. I think it’s really more that he just doesn’t have the tools he needs to combat these arguments, because he clearly has got something that looks like transphobia, if it’s not outright transphobia, that prevents him from thinking about it all on his own.
To our detractors, this isn’t about the safety of gender-variant people, because they want us to just go away, by whatever means gets their hands the least dirty. What it’s really about is their fears of their own safety, and that of their grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters, cousins, daughters, nieces, and granddaughters.
I say, give them safe space, if they can’t stomach mingling with proper folk like us. Segregate them. They clearly have troubling mental and emotional issues, and they to be protected from themselves, as much as we need protection from them.

And wives and SO’s, of course……forgive me, I sometimes forget about wives, being, you know, divorced against my will, and all, and painfully single. Oy.

Well, if you’re going to be *that* way about it……then, what the hell, let’s really go for it!
Time for a new, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression/appearance/behavior inclusive Equal Rights Amendment!

gemma try out your inclusiveness at GLBT friendly corporationsgemma you have made some very good points. Here, however, is something for you to consider. Business controls Congress. Try taking a job at Lowes or Home Depot Then after a year or so (when you have proven to be a excellent employee) meet with the HR department and explain that on Tuesdays and Thursdays you would like to be George while on all other days you wish to be Georgette. I’d really like to know how that sells. I’m not against it. In fact I think it would be great but I doubt it will have wings.  

Dress codesDeena,
Most legislation, from ENDA on down, has a clause that allows proprietors to set dress codes. Those codes prevent the George/Georgette phenomenon. The protection would be for George, who may be Georgette at home or on a cruise, and prevent his employer from firing him if that is discovered.

public accommodations protections in Hawaiiinclude “gender identity or expression”.  Here is the actual law.

Precisely my point…”please explain”Greetings gemma…thanx for finding my comment worthy of a response.
So here we are…having to explain what is meant by male and female. The very fact that the gender binary begs explanation sums it all. How can we ever expect any successes or victories in our quest for equality if the very essence of why we seek it is so blurred that we cannot agree amongst ourselves the very meaning of male or female? If I may say so, women who have transitioned from a birth gender of male, that is legally or otherwise, are now “women”…not “transsexual”women—they have crossed the “Great Divide” and have “become” women. Their ID and not their genitalia, due to medical privacy laws, is what is used to “settle the matter”. I am also a “woman”—based not on my genitalia (again medical private matter) but on my ID. Being pre-op, I recognize the need to conceal this amongst women whose genitalia match their ID gender. So when we say “women”, our point of reference must be “legally” women not based on genitalia which is a private medical issue.
The Gender transition battles that we face are not battles or the equal rights of “all people”…our battle is for the rights of “commonly defined” persons undergoing a gender transition. Excluding others such as men who merely dress as women does not equate to throwing them other the bus…they will have to fight their own battles…if “transgender” includes “cross-dressing” men who wish to violate a females private area such as restrooms or locker rooms, etc. then we will never ever ever achieve full victory…at least not as long as there are children.
Another huge mistake is the failure to refer to post-op women as women…by retaining the designation “transsexual” this sentences them to a lifetime of “in-between”…there is nothing “in-between” about genital alteration…nothing. We must remember that an ID will show Male or Female—not transsexual female….so if women who “were men” continued to denigrate themselves by locking themselves into eternal “in-betweenness”…no dang wonder suffering continues for certainly an ID does nothing of the sort.
No one is ever required to “drop their drawers” to prove gender…in prison drawers are dropped not for gender proof but for a security strip search. Genitalia at this point cannot be concealed…
This is not the time for politeness. Words have failed. It is time for action…I am a follower in this area but not a leader. I like your thinking…yes…we need to change our approach…we need to unite…however its not us that are afraid of men in women’s restrooms…it is “them”…”they” will only be convinced if “women” use the women’s restroom, not men who merely “think” they are women.
It comes down to this….as long as the ID says “M” and not “F” not even the police will be convinced of the legitimacy to use the opposite gender restroom. It is crucial to obtain a gender marker change on the ID BEFORE using the opposite gender….not doing so will give police the legal right to arrest…no way around this…
I agree that the umbrella wars must end….it amounts to an implosion of our community. However we who are now able to provide verification that we are female (ID) (genitalia need not be exposed as proof)…must equally vehemently exlude persons with an “M” on their ID just as cis females do. We can support them to the extent possible since we who transitioned walked down this path…however merely cross-dressing is not yet a declaration of a gender transition. Again, in battle, sometimes the wounded must be left behind for the medics….this is not the same argument as “transsexual vs transgender”…both “trans” involve the intent to transition. Merely dressing up, although it might lead to a gender change, does not demonstratively prove that one is now a “woman”…
About “changing the playing field”…until we achieve strength in numbers…we are delusional if we think we have the power to do so…

And I’d agree with that Dana.I’ve seen the above suggested message been tried before, and the message doesn’t take. The message doesn’t adequately address the viseral response many now have to the “bathroom bill” meme.
I believe it would take multiple direct actions — over time shifting the burden of proof to the people who created the meme — for a shift of the burden of proof to take in the media.
And I tend to think it would be too late to try this in Maryland this year as the public accommodation section has already been stripped from the bill. My guess is that the trans bill is going to take second fiddle to the marriage equality bill.
However, even if a trans civil rights bill passed this year in Maryland, one could start a direct action plan for a trans public accommodation bill for next year.
If I lived in Maryland, I’d consider starting the Gender Odyssey Model late this coming summer, perhaps directing first actions against religious right organizations using the meme in Maryland.

DefinitionsFirst, there are no simple definitions of “man” and “woman.” Back in 2004 when the fundamentalists were pushing the federal marriage amendment to constitutionally define marriage as between “a man and a woman,” someone pointed out they needed to say “one man and one woman,” and then “one natural born man and one natural born woman.”
And what does that mean? “Natural born”? On what basis? There are about ten basic sex attributes we use for humans. Historically we depend on genitalia for sex assignment. That doesn’t always work, because genitalia are sometimes ambiguous. And it certainly doesn’t work if one prioritizes the brain over the genitals.
The primary focus of my activism as a physician and an intersex, trans woman is to solidify the medical understanding that transsexualism is a subset of intersex, that the brain is the prime determinant of gender for human society and not genitals, that everyone has a gender identity and being transsexual/intersex is not a mental disorder.
We’ve pretty much accomplished the latter, as it is the wide consensus of the medical profession, and it will be formalized later this year or next when the APA formally revises GID to GI and depathologizes us.
As for cross dressing men (cross dressing women have been part of the culture for decades now), we have a subset who are transsexual women who can’t or won’t transition legally, and then the rest. The first group we understand biologically, the second has never been studied. They will probably continue to be pathologized by the DSM V. That’s due to a dearth of medical research, and virtually zero political action.
That being said, the opposition to our bills, and fundamentally to us, has nothing to do with cross dressers. As the lead activist on the Montgomery County bill in 2007, and its lead defender in 2008, I learned up close and personal what the arguments were, and I’m still fighting them in court.
They refuse to acknowledge our existence. It throws their Biblically ordained world into a free fall. They never argued about cross dressers, who are viewed as hobbyists and inconsequential. Cross dressers see themselves as men and are seen as such. They see transitioned women (not men — they have no place for trans men in their world view) as perverted men, as predatory men, and act on that basis. They fear that “normal” men will use our laws as a shield to rape them. They fear we will teach their children by our very existence that the rigid gender binary is not. They don’t care that our ID has been changed; they consider that invalid, and one fundamentalist AAG in Maryland two years ago tried to prevent ID change from happening the way it has historically, arguing that genitals or sex chromosomes at birth are all that matter.
We know we are women, but since most Americans are never taught about gender identity, they have no conception that one can have a female brain and male genitals. We are not taught human embryology, or sexual development, which is a highly complex, choreographed dance of genes and proteins. And they don’t care, because it’s too complex for their simplistic world view.
It’s an old cliche, but the most effective meme for explaining ourselves to others is “born in the wrong body.” It’s not accurate nor precise, of course, because the brain is a part of the body. But that’s been a debate amongst philosophers for millennia, so I think we can safely shy away.
I hope you see that politically it is not about ID. Most gender atypical people never have problems in bathrooms and showers. When there are problems, an ID usually does the trick. The cases that make the news, and create the demand for public accommodations legislation, are when the ID is not accepted by the authorities who happen to be present. They don’t emotionally accept that a woman can wear a crew cut and combat boots, or have the physique of a linebacker. The value of the GI&E law then is to educate the community about gender variance and that it is nothing to fear.
And while we’re at it, we can try to convince women that all men are not predators and pedophiles. Maybe if our most popular television programs didn’t deal with sexual predators and serial killers we’d have an easier time.

Thank you.I like having proper citations. It’s nice that the TLPI maintains their list, but it would be more helpful if they included citations, though.
One minor quibble. That’s not the law you linked to, that’s the definition of “GI&E”. But I can find the rest of it from what you provided. Thanks again!

Re: Definitions

As for cross dressing men (cross dressing women have been part of the culture for decades now), we have a subset who are transsexual women who can’t or won’t transition legally, and then the rest.

Are you saying that any female who wears, say, long pants is engaging in cross dressing? Or are your referring to what we might call drag kings? Or some other practice entirely?
Do you feel that cross dressing males are entitled to enter any female-only space they wish, as long as they have a female presentation at the time?

This may take awhile to get through……so bear with me, please.
Let me address your last point first. We’re never going to achieve “strength in numbers” without changing the rules of the game. We’re not delusional, we absolutely have the power to do so, but if we keep playing the same games of saying “we’re not like you”, then we limit ourselves unnecessarily. The only “strength in numbers” we have access to is by inclusion, not exclusion. One would tend to think that this is self-evident. Fortunately for us, there is not only a large group of people who are directly and indirectly personally affected by the situation, there is a very large group of people who don’t even realize they are allies, as I pointed out in my post about my friends’ reaction to my post about Maryland’s GIADA (HB 235) on Facebook.
Focusing on “what makes a woman” leads us down a dead-end path. When I talk about “drop their drawers”, what I mean is not that people are going to be subjected to impromptu genital checks. Realize that the real issue is not restroom access, it’s shower and locker room access. There are lots of people whose appearance may subject them to occasional restroom scrutiny, but showers and locker rooms aren’t necessarily a problem for them, because when they drop their pants, they have the “right” genitalia. This group includes a good number of post-op transsexual women as well as cis women with a masculine or androgynous appearance. We lose their participation because restroom access is, in reality, rarely a problem even for them, in an era where the general public is largely familiar with homosexual people, and locker rooms and showers aren’t a problem at all, once they get past the door.
As far as the ID question is concerned, if we place any limits at all on who can legally use any particular restroom, by default we throw people under the bus. Certainly, we create more barriers to transition, at the very least. It’s very easy for trans people who have already changed at least some of their legal identification to forget what it’s like for people who haven’t done so, yet experience strong dysphoria.
Even the most strident advocates of the distinction between transsexual women and cross-dressing males, like Ashley Love, claim to recognize the rights of cross-dressers. I’ll accept that at face value. I can even accept that while their claims are genuine, they can still focus on their own needs first without being bad people. However, I maintain that this distinction is not relevant to passing laws that protect both groups, and that to fail to recognize this is detrimental to both groups. Insisting that the distinction is relevant is equivalent to a cis hetero conservative person being horrified at the very idea of sharing a restroom with a “man”.
I’m not an insensitive person. I want everyone to feel comfortable. Of course, that’s probably never going work out perfectly, but solutions can be found that make everyone as comfortable as possible without unnecessarily tossing people under the bus.
I have no problem with the idea that there might be somebody out there who wants to go to work on Monday as Francis, and on Tuesday as Frances, and I have no problem referring to them as a man on Monday, and as a woman on Tuesday, or having them use the men’s room on Monday, and the women’s room on Tuesday, assuming that like most other people, they do not engage in indecent behavior. I’ll also note that company dress codes don’t prevent this, they only ensure that Frances is Frances and Francis is Francis. That is to say, a company is allowed to make people dress in traditionally acceptable gender roles, regardless of anyone’s presentation on any given day.
The locker room is a whole different story, it’s true, but until we get to the point where people don’t freak out at being naked with people with different genitalia, somebody’s going to have to be excluded in some way. The only question is how to do this without trampling people’s rights, their dignity, or their privacy, and the only solution I can see is to effectively kick those who can’t stomach reality and who can’t muster an ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings out of the showers by insisting that they remove themselves from the situation, and providing them the dignified means to do so. Although I firmly believe that gender variance is not a disability and should not be treated as such, the situation of disabled people has clear parallels to the situation of gender variant people. We no longer insist that disabled people hide themselves, it is time to stop society insisting that we hide ourselves.
Let’s focus on the type of legislation that has been passed already, everywhere that legislation that guarantees the equal protection of the rights of gender-variant people. The language that is used everywhere is some variant of “actual or perceived gender identity, expression, appearance, or behavior, whether or not traditionally associated with that person’s assigned sex at birth”, because discrimination doesn’t happen because of what you are, it happens because of other people’s ideas of what you are, or should be. Remember that the non-pejorative meaning of the word “discriminate” is “to make distinction between”.
Our community is always going to include people who are “in-between”, no matter how many times, or how stridently, some people in this community insist,  ”but, we’re different”. Anyone who thinks that they are no longer trans just because they’ve had surgery is engaging in wishful thinking and disassociated with reality. While you may very well have a right to believe this, do you have any idea, or do you even care, how this sounds to those of us who consider ourselves “real women”, albeit of a transsexual nature, but have not yet started or completed transition? It sounds like, because it is, oppression. Oppression of the worst kind, because it comes from our sisters in arms, and it is even considered so by a significant proportion of those of us who have completed transition.
Ever hear the term “conditional cis privilege”? I don’t care how “real” or “no longer trans” you think you are, the second the wrong person finds out you were born “male”, they’ll pull your “woman” card without so much as a blink.
I understand quite viscerally the point of view that it is important not to get stuck in an in-between mindset for many trans people, but there are plenty of trans people out there who are comfortable with the fact that while we may be “real” men and women, we still have, and will always have, a different experience of manhood and of womanhood than cis people, and that we have, and will always have, particular needs, just as I am comfortable with the fact that having been born half-Asian in a White-dominated society, there will always be peculiarities to my personal experience. I am a rational person. It makes no sense to me to deny my origin. That doesn’t make me any less of a woman, nor does it take away my entitlement (oops, there’s that word again) to be treated with as much dignity and respect as any other woman, nor does it take away my rights as a woman. Nor should it you, or yours.
Requiring a changed ID is, as Dr. Beyer points out so well, not going to solve the problem. First of all, the people who are most against us are against us changing our gender markers, in any case, and second of all, guarantees that the tactic they will use next is to challenge every law and regulation that allows people to change their gender markers in the first place.
If they can’t get these things repealed outright, they will at the very least insist on a surgery standard. As an underemployed trans woman of color, I am vehemently against this, because it is a classist issue, and every classist issue inevitably has racist and sexist overtones. Not only that, we’ll probably win that battle, anyway, because the medical community, the only community that is in a position to set standards in this area, is increasingly coming around to the idea that transsexuality is a natural variation of human development, and that transsexual women are really women and transsexual men are really men, so whither ID standards?
As I’ve pointed out before, the standard in NJ is quite simple. A form that states that your gender identity is that of your target gender, and that it can be reasonably be expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. Transsexuality is a self-diagnosed condition, it always has been, and it always will be, because the biological evidence for it is so complex, even if it is quite real and concrete. There simply is no other reasonable medical standard that can be used as a basis for justifying a legal gender marker change.
The essence of why we seek equality has never, ever, been blurred. We seek it for the same reason people of color seek it, we seek it for the same reason women seek it, we seek it for the same reason disabled people seek it, we seek it for the same reason poor people seek it, we seek it for the same reason homosexual people seek it, we seek it for the same reason that marginalized people everywhere, of every circumstance, have always sought for equality throughout human history.
We seek it because we are human beings, and because we believe that all human beings are created equal, that they are endowed inherently with certain natural and unalienable rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We seek it because we believe this is true whether we are male, female, neither, both, or somewhere in-between, and we do this to secure these Blessings not only for ourselves, but for our Posterity. We, even we here, hold the power, and bear the responsibility. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.
(my apologies to Messers. Jefferson, Morris, and Lincoln)

yeah, they break up the textacross several web pages, so you do have to do some clicking around to see the whole thing.
glad i could help.  fyi if you want citations for other laws that you’re maybe not finding at your favorite reference site, i got the actual citation (but not link) from hrc’s website.  i don’t think they list local laws, but they’re good for state-level citations.

Cross dressingYes, women who wear pants are cross dressing, as the term is usually defined. It’s just become a societal norm and acceptable. There are wonderful books on the subject, and a great deal in Shakespeare as well (of course, he was gay, so maybe he doesn’t count).
As for your second question, I believe I made myself clear. Cross dressing males have male ID, and do not live in a reassigned gender. Therefore, they have no social right to enter women’s only spaces. The cross dressers I know who go out and party do so at establishments who know them and that they’re coming and make accommodations. As most American businesses do for their trans employees who are in transition. There is a great deal of HR material today for businesses to help deal with transitioning individuals.
Also, the laws are generally written with dress code exceptions that require a consistent appearance. That precludes cross dressing.
Most people find that when they are proactive, solutions can be found. That’s one reason why the fear of some pre-op woman waving her penis in the shower is so absurd. These situations are dealt with before they can become problematic. Even the psychotic trans women I’ve known would never consider doing such a thing.

I’ve been thinking of putting together a web site myself… …that lists all the laws and their actual text with citations, but I don’t have a server that works for me right now. I’ll be working on the files locally for now.

Four day thread and we’re back to square one.Your suggestion is part of the problem, I’m afraid.
You see, it’s no longer that simple and likely never will be again.  Allies (and some trans people, too!) see the term, “inclusive ENDA” and assume that because trans people aren’t excluded as we were in 2007 that they should jump right in with full support.  They find themselves saying things like, “I support only an inclusive ENDA”.  That is the model that Barney built, implemented and manipulated.  That is a subtle and effective tactic to intentionally harm us that passes right over the heads of 95% of people.  Maybe more.
There are versions of bills whereupon Trans inclusion in ENDA causes all of us more harm than good.  There are versions of protective bills in which public accommodations have been quietly removed and as a result the bills are silently trans exclusive despite being proudly pushed as trans inclusive.
This is the new reality; it’s not enough for trans people to be included on our behalf.  We need to be included in the process itself to ensure that the inclusion helps us and does not make things worse.  Currently those creating the bills are working against us.  But we are at least partially to blame.  We’ve been content to sit back and hope we get asked to dance.  We didn’t use to be this way, you know.  There was a time when gender variant people of all flavors fought together and the assimilationists sat off on the sidelines and tsk-tsk’ed us for not fitting in and being happy with whatever we were given.
So, perhaps it’s time for us to once again find and choose our allies and work with them on creating gender-variant equality bills that would protect all who don’t fit the somatic, behavioral and social role that has been pushed on our society.  Perhaps it’s time for us to once again initiate protection for all who are in some way gender variant.  We never really stopped, not at local levels and not at corporate levels and not at the grassroots and next-door neighbor level.  But we did quietly cede the National fight to the professionals.

The ADA was passed without the exclusionsJesse Helms then went back and requested that the exclusions that equated such gender-variant people as gays, transsexuals and transvestites with pedophiles, pyromaniacs and the like be added and they were included in everything downstream since.  Except for being gay or bi, which was no longer covered due to DSM delisting.
See?  Incrementalism works…just not in our favor.

ADA exclusionsTrent Lott on the House side.

I’m not really sure where I stand on this.…because I’m not particularly comfortable with characterizing gender variance, even the sort that demands medical intervention, as a disability, per se.
For one thing, I’m an advocate of complete removal of GID/GI from the DSM-5, and reclassification of transition-related healthcare in the ICD.
Yet, there are perhaps benefits to describing transition in some ways as being a disability. This hasn’t been a focus of my activism, so I’m not sure of the ramifications. Certainly, gender variance has parallels with disability.

DisabilityThe British have followed this tack while we haven’t.
As for the ICD, there is already a code called “transsexualism.” I would rather it be “congenital neurodevelopmental variation,” but this is adequate for now.
Getting GID reviseed to GI is a huge advance, then we have to get rid of TF and finally GI from the DSM.

Sure…to get to California from Florida…just head east..till u get there…Now this post is the poster child of what not do do…reminds me of several idioms…”if you write too much you lose the reader”…”there is the easy way and the hard way”…there is layman’s language and technical jargon”…and lastly “what part of male and female are we failing to understand?
Ppppppplease…..spare us the grief…there are males and there are females…no third gender (yet)…hopefully never.
There are males who become females…there are females who become males. Yes there is a transition period. However, until we “cross the Rhine”…between the male camp and the female camp…there is no “transitional” gender…no “provisional license” if you will. Is there one needed? Absolutely! Is there a third gender needed? Absolutely not! A third gender locks us into a “no man’s gender”…a permanent state of in-betweenness…permanent state of transition…a “giving up”…it would amount to conceding to “them” that we really are “freaks” after all…indescribably undefinable…”other”…”IT”…basically death to transition.
So NO THIRD GENDER!….However since being male or female is not an illegal “deed”…neither is a gender transition. Many of us have been terminated from employment for the “illegal” (not!) deed of gender transition…so…
What is needed, is our “authority” to legally support our gender transition (gender marker change)….and our “authority” supported by legislation so that we can be protected during our gender transition…such as some sort of medical corroboration that we are undertaking a gender transition. I mean…many legal documents already have many supplemental cards to go with them…if one of us is undergoing a gender transition…we get challenged for opposite gender restroom use…someone calls the police…we break out our ID AND a medical card stating “transition under way”…I know its not this easy….
This is only the beginning…there is a long road ahead until “gender” phobia is minimized….but….

DocumentationMost people in transition already carry documents, so what is your point?
There also aren’t “males who become females . . . ” There are those assigned male at birth based on genitalia who legally become female, and vice versa. That is not the same as “males becoming females . . .” There are species that are serially hermaphroditic, but not humans.
If we had a mole on our skulls that distinguished male brains from female brains, we wouldn’t have this problem. Of course, we would have some other problem, since that system wouldn’t be perfect, either, as the multiplicity of intersex conditions make clear.

Try this line of thoughtIn no way is gender variance a disability.  It’s not even an oddity.  Just about everyone is gender variant in some way, some more than others.  Gender as described by the dimensions, “male” and “female” are two bell curves that overlap greatly and constantly change over time and culture.  It’s no more relevant to employment than political or religious affiliation.  I would challenge anyone to even define what a non-gender variant person would be.  It’s a relativistic concept.  Now, the effects of bigotry might mimic a disability, but that’s a whole ‘nother matter.
Classifying gender variance or sex variance or sexuality variance as a mental illness is not only mistaken, but harmful.  At the very most basic level it assumes that any variation from the binary extremes is inherently damaged, a position difficult to defend given history and biology.  Much of the problem stems from a Judeo-Christian Tradition embedded into our culture and it’s roots, but there are doubtless other minor influences as well, but much of the history of modern mental illness has been based on morality.  A distinction must be made between inherent dysfunction and that caused by societal judgement of those deemed different or outsiders.
That last bit, though, leads to part of the confusion:  transsexuality has been shown, convincingly, to have a biological basis.  Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and sometimes development doesn’t go the way we expect.  Neurological, morphological and endocrinological processes are primed and develop in the direction opposite the sex assigned based on a one-second genital check or measurement.  In that respect transsexuality, if severe enough, can be an inherent and harmful dysfunction as is a cleft palate or malformed heart valve.  Or certain other maladies also treated as mental illness that cannot be fixed by therapists but are successfully managed by medical intervention…
So, what it comes down to is that variations of gender ranging from gay to cross-dressing to transsexualism are in fact problems of societal misguidance and bigotry.  As such they have no place in any insurance manual of mental illness, though the effects of said misguidance and bigotry may need treatment and coverage.  For the same reasons, ‘homosexuality’ was delisted (and temporarily replaced with, ‘ego-dystonic homosexuality’), although someone may need therapy to deal with acceptance, again based on societal traditions and values, not an  internal dysfunction or illness.  As such, all gender variation needs to be protected by law to ensure equal freedom from discrimination.  Now wrap your head around the idea that taken to the extreme in a strongly male-centric society, simply being a woman can be seen as a gender variation and has been treated as such in the present and in the past by mental health ‘professionals’.
Transsexuality on the other hand, is an inherent physical dysfunction that can be disabling if not medically treated.  As such I see no reason that it should not be protected by the ADA, if needed.  There is also no reason that the insurance codes of the AMA cannot be used instead of the APA and treatment managed by a GP, making referrals to endocrinologists, surgeons and yes, psychologists even as part of the initial diagnosis.  The APA has been happily taking our money for decades claiming to have a “cure” while failing miserably, while the surgeons and endocrinologists and others have been effecting the actual treatment of the cause.  In any other field that would be labelled fraud; in psychology it’s called the SOC.  
There are better ways of helping people and sometimes the assistance of protections such as the ADA are what are required.  Such as when a bathroom stall is too small for someone in a wheelchair, or when someone isn’t even allowed into the bathroom of a particular gender perception due to religious based morality.