apparently, if you’re born in illinois, and you get your gender reassignment surgery outside the united states, you can’t change your gender marker on your birth certificate. via the aclu:

For more than four decades, Illinois has permitted individuals who have gender confirmation surgery to change the gender “marker” on an original birth certificate; the Department of Vital Records, however, recently started interpreting the law to provide this option only if an individual has the surgery by a United States-licensed physician. This creates an unnecessary and unfair burden for the growing number of persons who select a surgeon from Europe, South America or Asia.

the aclu lawsuit states:

The complaint notes that “(c)hanging the name and gender on a person’s identity documents is another important aspect of sex reassignment, since those documents are crucial to that person’s ability to function successfully in the new gender.” An accurate birth certificate is important not only in those situations where an employer may require a birth certificate to start a new job, but also – especially under REAL ID proposals approved by Congress – may be necessary in the future to secure identification to drive a car, enter a federal building or board an airplane.

and to think, that illinois is “the land of lincoln”. i think he’d roll over in his grave.

according to this ny blade article, christianist matt barber “called the Obama administration’s addition of a gay-rights section to the White House web site an ominous sign of things to come.”

“I suspect the immediate, stark and ‘in your face’ changes made to the White House web site are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of policy, from his administration,” Barber said in a statement. “The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies.”

“every demand” of the extremist transsexual lobbies – you know, like equal opportunity to jobs, medical care, housing, marriage – the “extremist” things that every american has equal opportunity for.

note, he says “shoot”, not “chute”. can you say “closeted”?

david moore, co-owner of crew’s inn in dallas, issued an apology in the dallas voice.

“We at the Crews Inn do not discriminate. We appreciate all of our customers. If anyone has felt offended or discriminated against, we certainly did not intend to do so.

“We believe that all customers should have a good experience at the Crews Inn, and we take our responsibility to ensure that seriously.”

apparently, the women banned accept his apology. personally, when the apology includes language like “If anyone has felt offended or discriminated against, we certainly did not intend to do so.”, that puts a damper on the sincerity. you know, i’m sorry i banned your ass, i didn’t mean to offend you. wtf?

in other news, hospital technician daniel i. alawoya rapes a transgender “male” patient and gets time served and three years probation. (though the article refers to the victim as a “transgender male patient”, i’m inclined to believe she’s a trans woman, despite the pronouns.) i find it interesting that:

“If you scream, I’ll kill you,” the victim said Alawoya told him while choking him. The sexual activity lasted between 15 and 40 minutes.

translates to “committing a lewd act”. of course i’m just a mere trans woman, but to me, that sounds like rape. thank god for plea bargaining.

and finally, if a school is set up to create an environment that’s safe for lgbt people, it’s considered to be all about sex. never mind that the kids can’t attend school without getting their heads bashed in on a daily basis. just “get out of the bedroom” and the head bashing is ok. another wtf moment.

and special thanks to marti for fixing my template and restoring my blog roll and categories!

charlene moore-arcila is apparently not passing, through the philadelphia septa system that is. their “transpass” has a gender marker, and depending on the driver, charlene is sometimes perceived as male when she buys the “female” transpass, and female when she buys the “male” transpass.

maybe they should call it the “cispass”.

from abc 6 action news.

the new york post reports that a yeshiva university professor left two years ago on leave, and returned today as a woman. since judaism, in my opinion, is at the root of modern judeo-christian “disapproval” of all things trans and gay, one can imagine the reaction of some members of the staff and faculty.

“He’s not a woman. He’s a male with enlarged breasts,” said Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a senior dean at Yeshiva’s rabbinical school and a professor of biology and medical ethics. “He’s a person who represents a kind of amorality which runs counter to everything Yeshiva University stands for. There is just no leeway in Jewish law for a transsexual.

“There is no niche where he can hide out as a female without being in massive violation of Torah law, Torah ethics and Torah morality.”

holy mortal sin, batman! of course, the new york post doesn’t waste a second reporting the most important aspects of this story:

Literature Professor Joy Ladin, formerly known as Jay Ladin, 47, showed up for her first day of school sporting pink lipstick, a tight purple shirt and a flirty black skirt. She cheerfully strutted through the doors of the Midtown campus’ main building, where she oversees the writing center.

um, a skirt that hits below the knees is “flirty”? perhaps the new york post’s “journalist” rebecca rosenberg needs to get out a bit more. the article goes on to say:

Many at the Jewish university are horrified by the presence of the transgender professor. Some fear the news could cut alumni donations.

there you have it – the real meat of the story. the jews are horrified that money will be lost.

holy stereotypes, batman!

according to this article from ascribe:

New figures released today by the Transgender American Veterans Association reveal that transgender service members and veterans, like many transgender people in the U.S., face a variety of forms of discrimination based on their transgender status. The survey of 827 U.S. military veterans and active-duty personnel mark the first major empirical findings on transgender people in the military.

ya think? well, at least now there’s actual empirical documentation.

kinds gives this issue some teeth.

he is thinking that we should love each other as we love him. what are you thinking?

this is classic, as it perfectly illustrates how trans people are simply not understood. to wit:

When transgendered folks get through the final stage of transitioning and reach “the end”, all that gender fluidity goes right out the window and solidifies into the crusty crud on the bottom of my boots. They have merely succeeded in upholding the gender binary — the very same binary which has held women down for the last 10,000 years.
[clip]
there is also no corresponding need to switch out body parts in order to express what is basically described as internal character, unless the purpose is merely to commodify one’s personality as a dainty girl might wear pink or a goth craves black. The genitalia have been reduced to the status of wardrobe accessory.

i guess the majority of trans people who never reach “the end”, and never “switch out body parts” don’t actually exist. and the majority of trans people that i know, who are in fact “gender fluid”, don’t exist either.

see, this version of “feminism” uses a few examples of individuals, and applies the characteristics of those few individuals to an entire class of people. i seem to remember there being a word that describes that type of stereotyping.

h/t belledame222

the district court for the southern district of texas:

This court followed the lead of other courts by ruling that transgender employees may advance sex-stereotyping claims. The court agreed that Izza never misrepresented herself in any sense, and rejected River Oaks’ claim that transgender people have a duty to disclose their biological sex to employers.”

let me repeat that for emphasis. The court…rejected River Oaks’ claim that transgender people have a duty to disclose their biological sex to employers.