October 20, 2007 12:36 AM BST
True that the idea must be advanced that Gender Identity Dysphoria needs to be accurately characterized as a medical condition. Also true that the average crossdresser is not necessarily interested in transitioning in the workplace, so it would seem that the idea of integrating transitioning TS people into the American workplace would be a sort of self regulating process.
However, it's not just transgender people who are affected by ENDA. It's any person who, for whatever reason does not conform to the standard of appearance consistent with the binary gender model. A woman who keeps her hair short and doesn't wear makeup or skirts. A man who has long hair and maybe pierced ears. It's anyone who, despite their proficiency or otherwise professional appearance, doesn't look exactly like everyone else.
Of course, this practice of enforcing appearance of conformity has always been commonly accepted business practice and perfectly legal, but what this ENDA controversy has done has been to emphasize this issue in such a way that some employers to whom it may not have previously occurred that they can get away with terminating someone due to their appearance, or refuse to hire a person because their appearance might suggest a sexual orientation or gender identity the employer is not comfortable with, may take advantage of this.
The issue of appearance suggesting gender identity is the very heart of the problem that the entire LGBT community takes exception with where Congressman Frank and Joe Slomnese, two straight appearing affluent gay men are concerned, as the ENDA bill in its present state really doesn't even provide protection for many of the people it is "intended" to protect. It provides only a token protection to LGB people, as long as they don't "look" LGB. This hasn't opened closet doors fro LGB people any more than it has T people. Unless the legislation includes the entire range of LGBT, it is worthless for anyone in any of these categories.
To address the issue of what businesses are affected by federal discrimination legislation, or most other federal labor statutes, to the best of my recollection, it applies to those employers with 15 or more employees and an annual income of over a certain amount.
Yes, we do need to establish a political identity that is independent of the gay agenda, however in this case, popular public perception has created the necessity for the groups to be included together for the success of this legislation. We've come this far in this fight. It's too late to turn back now. It's all inclusive or nothing.
Support the Baldwin Amendment to H.R. 3685. Oppose a non inclusive version of this bill.
http://www.house.gov/writerep
October 20, 2007 8:14 PM BST
What city is that, Karen?
October 21, 2007 4:17 AM BST
Kristina, although we seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, I understand and respect your opinion. I was not always the "owner" and the reason I am now is because I did not like how my former company operated.
I do think you helped make my point though. First off, anti discrimination laws have little if any effect preventing employers from hiring who they want. In most cases they are only enforceable on job promotions within a company. But as far as hiring and firing, with minimal simple documentation it is easy to get around.
Next, you thought it was bad that you did not get holiday pay if you were 6 minutes late. Sounds like you still had a job, I would fire you. I have customers that expect to have a service person there when they are told someone will be there. I bet you complain when the cable guy arrives late, yet for you it should be ok to come to work late.
The reason I included mental is if it were to be handled just like alcoholics, it's considered a disease and employers are obligated to allow for treatment of that disease. It is when the alcoholic does not disclose their situation and allow it interfere with their work that they can justly be fired. I feel our health is more important than our jobs and health insurance should universally cover TS needs. Most insurance policies already cover mental therapy which should be adequate for CD's.
We have different ideas, doesn't mean mine or your's is any better than the others. Maybe shake them together and see what we end up with and try that.
October 21, 2007 12:12 PM BST
Hi Kristina. I agree fully that hiring is the at the whim of an employer and that is why I feel realistically that an equal employment rights bill does little if anything. It is basically a feel good law with no teeth. A brief moment of glory no better then winning a race which in the end is soon forgotten.
I'm sure there are good and bad unions just as there are good and bad companies. Also there are good and bad employees. Not everyone has a good work ethic and often it comes down to giving employees an inch and they take two. I lived in a big city for 30 years, if it meant leaving a half hour early to be on time, I left early. I never was the type of person to arrive just as the bell rang.
Oh I completely agree this is biological, but I guess the point I was trying to make is our focus should be getting others to understand we are normal people who happen to have a birth defect, and the proper help for us is to allow us to transition and help provide the necessary treatment as they would for any other disorder.
Right now the general public sees us as freaks, and all an employment law does is say you can't fire someone just because they are a freak. The simple answer to that is don't hire them in the first place. That is why laws like this backfire in the first place. What is originally intended to give us equal footing in obtaining work, soon becomes just another thing employers have to deal with as if they didn't already have enough. So you just don't take the problem on in the first place. What many fail to see when they get all excited about laws like this, is you end up hanging a sign around your neck saying "I am a potential problem that you will have a hardtime getting rid of." So once again prospective employers look at that and say I think I will pass on this one. These laws will hurt us more than they will help us.
I think that most of our effort needs to be made from the health issue side. Doctors and Insurance companies need to acknowledge us as real people with medical needs. The general public accepts the opinions of doctors far better than those of people marching around demanding equal rights. What the general public hears in these equal rights issues is that they are being told they have to accept freaks. When a doctor says "No, this is actually a real health issue," more of the general public says "hmm, maybe there is something to all this."
We already have equal rights as normal people. Do you prefer to have equal rights as a freak? With that said everyone should be able to see where I stand on ENDA. I want health care readily available for TS's first. I want more pressure on doctors to let the public know we are not freaks, we were born this way, and there is medical treatment available to take care of us.
October 21, 2007 3:07 PM BST
In my union local, 15 minutes early was considered on time, and showing up even two minutes late could result in being sent home and replaced for that day. This could mean a loss of several hundred dollars, or if it was a week long show, could cost a couple of thousand. You can bet members of our local learned to tell time in a hurry. Those who were chronically late could be barred from working in a particular theater or venue for some period of time or suspended altogether.
This attitude stays with me to this day, and I have no tolerance for lateness.
Currently, I am engaged in negotiation with my health insurance carrier. My employer listed me as female on my policy, and that's pretty cool, but where my estrogen would not have been covered if I were listed as M, it turns out that my finasteride is not covered because I am listed as F. The estrogen is less expensive, so it seems I might have been better off staying with the other. I have offered to work with them to put together specific policies and procedures applicable to transgender workers.
Anyway, I am still a big believer in collective bargaining. If all employers were on the up and up, it wouldn't be necessary, but sadly, that is not the case. We do need to continue educating people as to the physiological aspects of the trans condition, and eventually, maybe we'll be at the point where they are in the UK. We shall see.
November 9, 2007 12:45 AM GMT
Today while talking about what congress does to waist time, Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh summed things up pretty good. Rush Limbaugh was talking about wednesday's vote by congress to pass ENDA. He did not bad mouth the bill, but he stated that these people (GLBT) talk about equal rights for everyone, but they can't even stand up for their own, the transgendered, transexuals. I can't say it any better. It is time to get the GLB out of our T.
October 19, 2007 8:39 AM BST
Maybe something good will actually come of this, eventually. The 'T' has clearly been separated which I personally think is a good thing since we now have the opportunity to distance ourselves from the sexual issues of the LGB. We didn't belong there anyway.
We can still be pushing for change but this time it will be specifically for TG people.
Nikki
October 20, 2007 5:14 PM BST
A little light in a dark corner. I scanned this out of todays paper.
October 20, 2007 11:15 PM BST
Detroit Mi.
I can't believe I didn't say that.