Whenever I discuss transgender medical or therapeutic treatments over at the Ex-Gay Watch, I always seem to go back to the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care. Like or hate this document (and the GID diagnosis), what the document does is provide criteria for determining if one has a condition that falls under the document’s purview; it provides a general outline of what medical and psychological treatments are appropriate for transsexuals; and it lists timelines and benchmarks for when particular treatments are considered appropriate.

Many medical and mental health conditions have standards of care — evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. There are standards of care for everything from treating ingrown toenails to managing Alzheimer’s disease; from treating acute dental trauma to treating bipolar disorders.

The National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ maintains a public resource for many of these guidelines.

Not too surprisingly, there are no entries in the National Guideline Clearinghouseâ„¢ for Same Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) — no evidence-based clinical practice guidelines listed there for how to conduct conversion therapies for a SSAD (or any other named disorder relating to treatment of homosexuality or unwanted homosexual propensities) diagnosis.

National Association For Research & Therapy Of Homosexuality (NARTH) indicates this about its function:

NARTH’s function is to provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue.

After reading the organization’s function one might think that the organization would maintain an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for treating unwanted homosexual propensities. Yet, if one searches the NARTH website, one finds they have no published standard of care for SSAD, or standard of care for any other titled disorder relating to treatment of homosexuality or unwanted homosexual propensities.

Read the rest of this entry »

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting the following about a recent transgender homicide:

San Francisco police are seeking to determine whether the slaying of a transgender victim found naked near the Interstate 280 freeway is somehow linked to reports of a nude woman seen walking on the same freeway two hours later, authorities said Monday.

Inspector Karen Lynch of the homicide detail said investigators were summoned at 5:40 a.m. Friday to Indiana and Cesar Chavez streets and found the unidentified victim of a homicide on the sidewalk.

Lynch said it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman. “We don’t have the identity on the person yet, except the medical examiner has determined that this is a homicide,” she said Monday.” The victim was completely nude, and we are asking for the public’s help in finding anyone who has seen anything suspicious or could help us.”

The victim was Latina, about 30 years old, with black, shoulder length curly hair, Lynch said. She had healed cuts that left scars on her arms.

In the wake of the killing, Media Matters for America is reporting about some Michael Savage hatemongering in their article Savage called transgender murder victim a “psychopath” and a “freak”.

On the March 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage discussed a San Francisco Chronicle report detailing the murder of a transgender woman whose body was found naked near a freeway outside San Francisco. Savage read a sentence from the article stating that “it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman,” to which Savage replied: “Yeah, process of becoming a woman — psychopath. [She] should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication.” He went on to say, “And what’s this sympathy, constant sympathy for sexually confused people? Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society?” adding, “But you know what? You’re never gonna make me respect the freak. I don’t want to respect the freak.” Savage concluded: “The freak ought to be glad that they’re allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I’m sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.”

As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), Savage has a history of hateful attacks on gays and lesbians. He has repeatedly referred to “the homosexual mafia,” claimed that “the homosexual dance of death” is the “seminal issue of our time,” and compared gays to “drug addicts.”

One can listen to an MP3 of the commentary in question: here.

Savage has derided gays and lesbians recently, and now he sneers at the death of a transgender “freak.” His hate talk must make for “good radio,” right? Well, just lovely.

I’d personally love to know who advertises on his show so I could just avoid their products. Hey — free speech is wonderful and all, but I don’t want to subsidize Savage’s brands of free speech.

In the meantime, I’m going to keep in my thoughts and prayers the as yet unknown family of transgender crime victim.

This is one of those “you’ve just got to be kidding me” stories. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Some schools ban gang colors. Others prohibit miniskirts. But 14-year-old Toni Kay Scott and her parents say they weren’t prepared for a school that outlawed Tigger on a pair of socks.

For coming to class at a Napa middle school wearing hosiery that portrayed the Winnie-the-Pooh character — in violation of the school’s solid-colors-only, no-pictures, no-logos dress code — the seventh-grader landed in the principal’s office, and then in a detention program called Students With Attitude Problems.

Now Redwood Middle School and the Napa Valley Unified School District, which approved the code, have landed in court.

The school’s “unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and restrictive uniform dress code policy” flouts state law, violates freedom of expression, and wastes teachers’ and students’ time and attention that would be better spent on education, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a suit filed Monday on behalf of six students and their parents.

Toni Kay, now an eighth-grade honors student, said Tuesday that she’s been cited more than a dozen times in the last year and a half, and sent home from school twice, for such infractions as wearing a polo shirt with the manufacturer’s butterfly logo, a pair of pink tennis shoes and a shirt with the insignia of the anti-drug program D.A.R.E.

Here’s how the article describes the dress code:

The school policy, in effect for more than a decade, requires students’ clothes and backpacks to be entirely solid colors: The only colors permitted are blue, white, green, yellow, khaki, gray, brown and black. The only acceptable fabrics are cotton twill, chino and corduroy.

No jeans or “denim-looking” clothes allowed. No pictures, words, symbols or patterns, except the school logo. And definitely no Tigger.

One girl at school was cited for wearing a pink ribbon pin in support of breast cancer awareness. Another girl at the school was cited once for going to school wearing pink socks, and sent to the principal’s office again last month for wearing a t-shirt that read “Jesus Freak.”

Geez Louise, the ban on clothing text would seem to violate federal precedence on free speech, and the ban on clothing that has nothing to do with school safety (i.e. wearing pink ribbons in support of breast cancer awareness) seems like it flaunts the language of California law on dress codes. Per the California Education Code:

48907. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press including, but not limited to, the use of bulletin boards, the distribution of printed materials or petitions, the wearing of buttons, badges, and other insignia, and the right of expression in official publications, whether or not such publications or other means of expression are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities, except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous.

32282. (2) (F) The provisions of any schoolwide dress code, pursuant to Section 35183, that prohibits pupils from wearing “gang-related apparel,” if the school has adopted such a dress code. For those purposes, the comprehensive school safety plan shall define “gang-related apparel.” The definition shall be limited to apparel that, if worn or displayed on a school campus, reasonably could be determined to threaten the health and safety of the school environment.

Any schoolwide dress code established pursuant to this section and Section 35183 shall be enforced on the school campus and at any school-sponsored activity by the principal of the school or the person designated by the principal. For the purposes of this paragraph, “gang-related apparel” shall not be considered a protected form of speech pursuant to Section 48950.

It’s almost unbelievable that this dress code has been in place — and unchallenged — for about ten years. It’s not just a stupid dress code policy because the regulations are so over the top (and hey! unlawful!), but it’s a stupid dress code policy because the school board seems to have been begging to defend itself in a lawsuit. Picking lawsuit-sized fights over obviously unlawful and indefensible dress code policies takes money right out of the classroom. Umm . . . Duh!

~~~~~Update 1~~~~~
* ACLU: California Judge Strikes School Dress Code That Banned Winnie-the-Pooh Socks (7/5/2007)
* San Francisco Chronicle: Judge socks it to a Napa school’s dress code; Tigger or other such decoration OK as student expression

~~~~~Update 2~~~~~
* San Francisco Chronicle: School district will appeal Tigger ruling; Superior court judge says dress code defies First Amendment

~~~~~Update 3~~~~~
* San Francisco Chronicle: Napa school district changes stripes, amends dress code

~~~~~Update 4~~~~~
* San Francisco Chronicle: Tiggergate proves expensive for Napa Valley school district

Well, what did I say — it was expensive to fight this, and the court fight took money right out of the classroom. Nice going, Napa Valley Unified School District.

When it comes to sexual harassment law, probably one of the knowledgeable and insightful writers I’ve seen on the subject Joanna Grossman of FindLaw Writ. I’m not an attorney, but FindLaw Writ is one of my favorite news websites, and Ms. Grossman is one of my favorite writers at the site.

In her (longwindedly headlined) column Recent Firings Serve as a Reminder of the Employment Struggles Unjustly and Sometimes Illegally Faced by Transsexuals, she writes about the recent discriminatory workplace actions against Julie Nemecek and Steve Stanton in particular, and about employment discrimination transsexuals face in general.

And, of course she brings up Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, informing us as to why discrimination against transsexuals likely goes directly against this Supreme Court prescience.

Transsexuals have generally been unsuccessful in establishing rights under federal anti-discrimination laws. Most courts have held that neither transsexuals, nor gays and lesbians, comprise a protected class under Title VII. Efforts to enact federal legislation to protect against both these forms of discrimination have been undertaken, but thus far have been unsuccessful.

Fourteen states have adopted statutes banning sexual orientation discrimination, but only four of those statutes explicitly extend to discrimination on the basis of transsexualism. Many cities, however, protect transsexuals against discrimination through local ordinances.

I believe some of her numbers are a little off — the numbers have improved in the last few years to nine states currently that have civil rights protections based on gender identity, and seventeen states have civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. Although frankly, if one looks on the web one can still find the older numbers she references in greater frequency than the current numbers.

Nemecek has a better prognosis for her discrimination suit, and seems to be aware of that fact: Unlike Stanton, she has filed a complaint with the EEOC, an act that is the required precursor to filing a lawsuit. Her situation is legally more complicated than Stanton’s, but more likely to work out in her favor.

Nemecek is fortunate that, unlike Stanton, she can invoke the 2004 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (in whose jurisdiction the state of Michigan falls) in Smith v. City of Salem. In that case, a transsexual firefighter argued that he had suffered adverse employment actions and retaliation because of a gender identity disorder that led him to “express a more feminine appearance on a full-time basis,” including at work. Contrary to rulings from several other federal appellate courts, the Sixth Court ruled that the plaintiff was indeed discriminated against on the basis of his sex, as Title VII requires, when he suffered discrimination on the basis of his transsexualism.

In what way does firing a transsexual employee constitute sex discrimination? The roots of the theory lie in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that sex-stereotyping in the workplace is actionable under Title VII. In that case, a very successful woman employee at Price-Waterhouse was turned down for partnership at least in part because she wasn’t “feminine” enough. Despite her superb rainmaking abilities, partners at the firm charged with evaluating her criticized her for being “too macho” and advised her to wear more jewelry and go to charm school.

That sort of gender policing, the Court ruled, violates Title VII. A woman should not have to “act like a woman” (particularly a stereotypical one) in order to keep her job if she’s otherwise good at it. In a quote that’s often repeated, the majority observed that: “[W]e are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associate with their group.”

This was a watershed case in sex discrimination law and, yet, it has been underutilized as a precedent in the 18 years since it was decided.

Granted, this precedent has enabled some gay male employees to successfully challenge harassment or other forms of discrimination even though Title VII has been held not to protect against sexual orientation discrimination. Thanks to Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins, if an effeminate gay male is singled out for adverse treatment, whether by the employer or by co-workers who harass him, he can allege illegal sex-stereotyping. In Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that harassment of a gay, male employee reflecting hostility toward him because he was too “feminine” constituted illegal sex-stereotyping. (I considered this legal theory further in an earlier column).

But that theory is of no use for gays and lesbians who do conform to gender expectations. The simple fact that they may choose a same-sex partner has not been treated as “gender” nonconformity with the meaning of Price-Waterhouse, even though stereotypes still hold that they should choose an opposite-sex partner instead.

One might predict that the limited protection for gays and lesbians under Title VII bodes poorly for transsexuals, an even more ostracized gender minority. However, the premise of Price-Waterhouse - that employers cannot punish employees for gender non-conformity - is actually a better fit for discrimination on the basis of transsexualism, than for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. After all, gender non-conformity is the essential trait of transsexualism, while many gays and lesbians do not exhibit it.

The Sixth Circuit in Smith relied on this reasoning to hold that the transsexual firefighter was protected by Title VII. Discriminating against a male who assumes a female identity is a form of gender policing as well, it concluded: According to stereotype, a “real” man wouldn’t “switch” genders away from the one assigned to him at birth, and so a man who does so is singled out for maltreatment.

Joanna Grossman concludes:

In sum, while there may be some recourse for those within the range of the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction, the overwhelmingly majority of transsexual employees still face hard times in the current legal regime.

Thus, though an obvious target for bigotry and discrimination, transsexuals have little or no protection against it. Price-Waterhouse provides a way out of this regime, and a mandatory one at that. No court should be able to justify refusing to protect employees against transsexual discrimination, since the very essence of it is precisely the kind of gender policing that Price Waterhouse stressed was a noxious form of gender discrimination.

It’s employment, housing, and public accommodation discrimination that propels me into transgender activism– the kind of discrimination that Ms. Grossman commented on in her article. Transpeople have to do legwork to fight discrimination to fight anti-transgender discrimination. 

Frankly, I believe people like me — and my transgender peers — should be part of the solution to anti-transgender employment, housing, and public accommodation discrimination.   We can’t all sit back and wait for someone else to do the work — if everyone waited for someone else to do the work, nothing would get done.

——
Further reading:

Dr. Jillian Weiss is writing some insightful legal commentary in her blog Transgender Workplace Equality. She has several informative pieces up on both the Steve Stanton and Julie Nemecek firings.  One of her most recent pieces on Steve Stanton’s firing is Update on Law Covering Steve Stanton – Dr. Weiss in this piece goes over some Florida State case law she’s recently researched out, and how this may impact the Stanton case.

(click to watch video)

The “diagnosis” for Wayne Besen:

“Your friend [Wayne] could be GAY!”

Ah-hahhahaha!
——
H/t: Ex-Gay Watch.

Kinda strange when one of the bigger blogs notices ya’.  Today, Shakespeare’s Sister noticed my post Code Pink Transwoman Visible At The Plame Hearing.

Does it make me a geek to like it when ShakeSis notices me low volume blog?  Her link to this blog resulted in the my hits being roughly quadrupled today — Yeah, I like feeling like I have a significant voice, even if it is just for a single day. 

One of my favorite free speech related stories of all time has reached the Supreme court!

Quoting Focus On The Family’s CitizenLink on their summary of the case:

The case began in 2002 when Joe Frederick, then a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, stood along a parade route with a message he hoped would create a stir and maybe even get him on TV.

Deborah Morse, then the school principal, confiscated Frederick’s sign and suspended him.

“She suspended me for five days and I couldn’t believe I was being suspended for a free-speech experiment,” Frederick told KTUU-TV. “And furthermore, after quoting Thomas Jefferson, ‘Speech limited is speech lost,’ Ms. Morse (the principal) responded, ‘You’ve just earned another five-day suspension.’ ”

In arguments befor the Supreme Court, CNN captures this exchange between former Special Procecuter Kenneth Starr and Associate Justices Souter and Kennedy:

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr argued for the principal that a school “must be able to fashion its educational mission” without undue hindsight from the courts.

That brought swift skepticism from some justices.

“There was no classroom here,” said Kennedy.

“This was education outside a classroom,” replied Starr of the torch relay observation.

“What did it disrupt on the sidewalk?” asked Souter of Frederick’s banner.

“The educational mission of the school,” was Starr’s answer.

“The school can make any rule that it wants on any subject restrictive of speech, and if anyone violates it, it’s disruptive?” asked Souter.

CNN went on to state:

Justice Samuel Alito, alone among his conservative bench mates, appeared sharply critical of the school’s position.

“I find that a very, very disturbing argument,” he said, “because schools have and they can define their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that’s inconsistent with educational missions.”

Sweet.

An interesting twist to this story comes from the Focus On The Family’s CitizenLink, which has the article Christian Attorneys Defend ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ Student. Apparently, fundamentalist Christian attornies have filed friend-of-the-court briefs that side with the folk with the banner:

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said it’s important schools strike a proper balance between the students’ rights and school officials’ interests in a safe learning environment.

“While Christians generally support the right of schools to maintain discipline, there has been a disturbing trend in recent years of schools prohibiting only Christian speech while allowing other speech antithetical to Christian belief,” he said.

For example, in the case of Harper v. Poway Unified School District, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a school’s right to ban a student from wearing a T-shirt with a biblical reference to homosexuality. The school allowed a pro-homosexual message by other students.

The ACLU, in that case, argued in favor of censoring religious speech.

“And the Ninth Circuit – in a previous case – had held that parental rights ‘ended at the schoolhouse door,’ ” Hausknecht said. “Taken together, it’s obvious that liberal, activist courts are trampling the rights of Christians while paving the way for secular, anti-Christian indoctrination.”

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, said religious liberty experts were encouraged by what they heard in court today.

“The good news is that [justices] were clearly understanding [the implications],” he said. “For instance, Justice Alito said that the argument that the school was making was – and this is a quote – ‘very disturbing.’

Again, sweet.

For those who’ve forgotten what the First Ammendment to the US Constitution actually says, here’s the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here’s hoping the Surpreme Court comes down on the side of free speech . . . and freedom of religion.

The National Association For Research And Therapy Of Homosexuality (NARTH) is again commenting on transgender issues, although their mission, vision, and previous leadership statements have indicated that their focus has “nothing to do with any social issue other than same-sex attraction.”

NARTH recently posted an article on their website entitled NYU Students Find Accepting Campus For Transsexuals. In the article, Christopher Rosik, Ph.D. (a member of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee) is quoted:

While transgendered students are clearly in need of our compassion, I suspect that simply affirming their disjuncted gender identity does them a disservice. A preferable first response would be to determine if any help can be provided to lessen the disjunction for these individuals.

Follow up studies of transsexuals have suggested that, while interventions such as sex change surgery reduced distress due to the perceived gender incongruity, their relational, vocational and emotional difficulties continued unabated. The collusion of NYU officials with these students’ psychological reality to the apparent exclusion of encouraging them to seek help is therefore ill advised.

The gist of Rosik’s message seems to be that he doesn’t believe New York University should be trans-affirmative. Since a significant number of post-operative transsexuals still have employment, relationship, and emotional problems, Rosik believes the goal of treatment shouldn’t be to affirm a transgender person’s gender identity, but rather to affirm that their gender be joined or rejoined to their natal sex. Rosik doesn’t clarify whether or not he believes joining or rejoining gender to natal sex would then, by itself, solve all of these individuals other employment, relationship, and emotional problems.

Beyond treatment, he appears to be implying that no government or private agency should recognize a person as transgender — again, because a significant number of post-operative transsexuals still have employment, relationship, and emotional problems after sex reassignment surgery.

He also appears to be implying that if transgender people seek assistance that isn’t help joining or rejoining one’s gender identity to one’s natal sex, and then these transgender people aren’t actually seeking help.

What Rosik is proposing is outside of mainstream medical thought. He wants NYU, and other public and private entities to adopt his minority medical opinion as policy instead of the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care. The mainstream medical opinion indicates public and private entities’ trans-affirmative treatments/policies are appropriate for transgender people.

If Rosik and NARTH were actually interested in changing NYU policy on transgender people — or affecting public policy in general regarding transgender people — they would work within the system (i.e. American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, etc.) to change the standards of care for transgender people to non-trans-affirmative.

Or, an alternate strategy might also be found in NARTH adding transgender issues to their mission/vision statement, and then developing an alternate standard of care to rival the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care. Then, they could argue to public and private entities that their standards of care are the ones that should be adopted as mainstream medical thought, and should be utilized for developing public policy instead of the Harry Benjamin Standards Of Care.

My suspicion is; however, that Rosik is merely voicing his opposition opinion regarding trans-affirmative public policies, and that’s as far as he and NARTH will go. He and NARTH likely have no intent to do anything about trans-affirmative public policies except to provide quotes for the future use of ex-gay and ex-transgender affirming organizations as to why trans-affirmative public policies are the “wrong” policies. Basically, NARTH doesn’t appear to have sufficient transgender mission identification or alternative documentation to offer real, actionable alternatives to the trans-affirmative public policies that NARTH (via Rosik) objects to.

Of course, why would the lack of a transgender issue mission identification statement or alternative documentation preclude either Rosik or NARTH commenting on transgender issues in the future? The lack of these haven’t stopped them previously — I doubt the lack of a transgender issue mission identification statement or alternative documentation will stop them in the future.

——
David Roberts of the Ex-Gay Watch contributed to this article.

——
Crossposted here to/from the Ex-Gay Watch.

(click to play video)

Transgender anti-war activist Midge Potts — A U.S. Navy Veteran and former Rebublican congressional candidate — is in the news. She was the Code Pink activist in the background at the Valerie Plame hearing.

Bil Browning at bilerico.com posted the following under the title Code Pink tranny strike

This video is too damn awesome. Everyone give a big roar for Midge Potts, a transgender veteran from Missouri. You can see her in the hot pink “IMPEACH BUSH NOW!” t-shirt (and matching pillbox hat!) over Valerie Plame’s shoulder - through most of her testimony! I love it when she does the “shameful fingers” hand movements; it cracks me up. While they later made Midge set down, they didn’t remove her from the hearing.

The caption for the YouTube video:

A protester named MIDGE POTTS from Code Pink got inside the Valerie Plame Wilson hearings, appearing directly over Plame’s right shoulder, wearing an IMPEACH BUSH NOW T-shirt. The protester was there for the nearly the entire hearing while Waxman presided. I tuned in an hour later on CSPAN and the protester was not removed, but they were sitting not standing. Here’s a few excerpts from the earlier part of the press conference, ENJOY! Let me know what you thought in the comments area. I called code pink and confirmed the protestor’s identity at 5:15pm EST today (Autumn Note: March 16,2007).

Some other comments on Ms. Potts from the blogosphere are below.

From California Conservative:

The second weird moment was the trans-gender Code Pink man dressed like Jackie Kennedy on the day her husband was assassinated standing in the background behind Plame. He seemed out of place yet oh, so right for this occassion. His pink jacket was overlaid a pink shirt (clever) that read “Impeach Bush”. It was odd and weird, like Mardi Gras at Christmas (out of season, cross-dressed and filled with rhetorical presents for the anti-war left).

As a military wife of an active duty soldier and Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, the comparison between a rich, spoiled, pampered brat and selfless, heroic, injured soldiers is repugnant, insulting and otherwise incompatible. They Code Pink Girl-guy just adds insult to injury.

From HolyCoast.com:

. . . Plame’s testimony was accompanied by a transvestite Code Pink protestor directly over her shoulder in the camera shot. At appropriate moments he/she/it was seen make the hand signal for “shame, shame, shame” as Plame spoke.

From queertardo:

What appeared to be a drag queen Code Pink protester joined the Valerie Plame hearing wearing a t-shirt with the words “Impeach Bush” written on it. The protester made several signals with his/her fingers. Check out the MSNBC video here.

From Poster Hot Air at the Free Rebublic (or as Pam at the Blend calls it, Freeperland):

What appeared to be a transvestite Code Pink protester joined the Valerie Plame hearing wearing a t-shirt with the words “Impeach Bush”written on it. The protester made several signals with his/her fingers, one is shown in the still shot.

I guess not too many bloggers love a transgender veteran making an anti-war stance.  Use of terms like “it,” “girl-guy,” and “transvestite” to describe Ms. Potts show how hard it is for a transperson to be an activist; it seems to also show how issues have often become about discrediting and demeaning the messenger if one doesn’t like the message — Why debate the merits of any issue?

The Vermont Senate passed a bill banning gender identity discrimination on March fifteenth. It’s a preliminary vote — 26 to 0 — that the State Senate approved on Thursday. Governor Jim Douglas has indicated that he was likely to sign the bill if it reached his desk. He vetoed a similar bill last year based on wording that he considered too broad, but his concerns have been addressed in this version of the bill.

Over in New York, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which would ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in New York State, was reintroduced into that Legislature this week –the bill was introduced with a record 53 Assembly sponsors and 9 Senate sponsors.

And, over in Oregon, a bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the books for employment, housing, and public accommodations passed out of committee 3-1, and is now heading toward that State Senate’s floor. In 2005, a similar bill — coupled with a provision for civil unions — passed through the state senate, but died in a house committee without ever getting a hearing. With both Oregon houses now controlled by Democrats, chances are considered significant for the bill to reach actually reach the Governor’s desk.

Per the HRC, if these laws in Vermont, New York, and Oregon pass, would be the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth states with civil rights laws protecting people based on their gender identity and/or gender expression. Oregon would be the eighteenth state with civil rights laws protecting people based on sexual orientation.

Hi y’all,

My back has been acting up for a couple of weeks – It’s keeping me on the couch or in bed most of the time.  It’s feeling better, but feeling better has been (and still is) a slow process.

I’ll be posting occasionally until I can get sit for long periods agian.  :|  My apologies for anyone who’s been wondering why I haven’t been posting as much anywhere of late.

 Warmest thots,

The AP is reporting that Prof. Nemecek and Spring Arbor Univeristy have settled their employment dispute. An excerpt from the article:

A transgender professor who was fired by a Christian school has reached a settlement in her sex discrimination complaint.

Julie Nemecek and Spring Arbor University agreed to the deal Monday after mediation talks with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Terms of the settlement were not released, though Nemecek said Tuesday she will no longer be employed by the school outside Jackson, about 75 miles west of Detroit.

“It was a lengthy process and both sides are happy,” said Nemecek, a married man who recently changed her name from John. “I’m looking for other employment. I may do some consulting work. I’m definitely going to do advocacy for transgender issues. I won’t give up that fight.”

Spring Arbor said the discrimination charge has been withdrawn.

And, of course, the AP violated the essence of their own stylebook (The Associated Press; Stylebook 2006, pg. 249, transgender entry) when referring to Julie Nemecek as a “married man.” For today only, I give up on trying to get the media to follow the AP stylebook.

——-
H/t: Transgender Workplace Diversity

(Click to watch video)

I read a lot of comic books as a teenager.  The L.A. Times is reporting on on the death of Captain America — Captain America being a title I read in the 70’s and 80’s:

FORGET THE endless congressional debates about Iraq. The most telling measure of America’s current distemper can be found in a more mundane place — in the gory assassination of Captain America in issue No. 25, which hit the stands Wednesday.

The startling demise of Captain America, who until recently had been leading an underground insurgency against a government 9/11-style “Superhuman Registration Act” that forced superheroes to divulge their secret identities, captures the growing sense that America itself is floundering in the war on terrorism.

That message hasn’t been missed by conservatives such as Michael Medved, who complains that Captain America is setting a terrible example for America’s youth by turning soft on terrorism and is “anti-American.” But a look at Captain America’s evolution over the decades suggests he should not be dismissed so easily. In fact, Marvel Comics has almost always had a perfect feel for America and its moods.

Over the years, Captain America’s story has accurately reflected U.S. attitudes, as our country moved from the self-confidence of the early Cold War to the guilt-ridden angst of the 1970s to the revival of national pride that characterized the Reagan 1980s.

(more at the link.)

Y’know, if Captain America (secret identity: Steve Rogers) is to be killed off, then I’m glad he dying fighing for civil rights — the right to privacy. Fighting for a cause he believed in is a way that I think the character, if he were a real person, would want to die.

Of course, we all know that Captain America isn’t really going to die forever.  The character will no doubt be resurrected at some point, although it may not be Steve Rodgers who is the man behind the Captain America mask, but someone living up to Steve Rodgers’ . . . Captain America’s . . . ideals. 

The L.A. Times article ends with the following two paragraphs:

Cut to 2007. Today, in his latest incarnation, Captain America has morphed yet again, this time into the champion of the common man — defending individual liberty against an oppressive government that he once loyally served. To his credit, he calls on his troops to surrender once he sees the general devastation taking place in Manhattan. “We’re not fighting for the people anymore,” he says. “We’re just fighting.” Sound familiar?

Gunned down by a mysterious sniper in the latest issue as he’s entering a Manhattan federal courthouse to be arraigned, Captain America symbolizes the death of the American dream. Can he and it come back? Of course! Captain America will no doubt be resurrected as soon as the country has recovered from its current fiasco. Until then, it seems hard to believe that the dark world portrayed by Marvel won’t be sharply at odds with the heroic Army advertisement featured on the back of issue No. 25 of Captain America.

Hey! I got quoted in this article! I am just so impotant…I mean IMPORTANT! –Autumn–
—–

Kimmel’s trans-gression
Talk show apologizes for jokes on transgender beauty

By ZACK HUDSON
Southern Voice - GA,USA
Friday, March 09, 2007

. . .Transgender activist Autumn Sandeen, author of “The View from (Ab)Normal Heights,” a regular blog about transgender and other issues, asked GLAAD and the news media to increase scrutiny on anti-trans remarks.

“I hope that this does become as big an issue to GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign as the recent rash of homophobic media incidents have been. Mocking transgender people as a class, and then joking about violence against transgender women, seems at least as significant an issue as the [Isaiah] Washington ‘faggot’ comment,” she said.

(Links added to article text.)