Bill to Exterminate Trans Women On Course to Pass

From Roll Call:

[T]he whip count on ENDA, which Obama also backs, is entering its fifth week. The effort has most recently focused on rechecking support among Members thought to be more comfortable with the legislation than politically imperiled moderates who have raised most of the concerns, one source familiar with the effort said. That, the source said, bodes well for its progress. But many Members remain officially undecided and have quietly voiced frustrations about the prospect of taking a tough vote that they see as a distraction from an agenda focused on job creation.“It seems to run contrary to what the Speaker said a few months back about focusing on jobs and moving away from these controversial items,” one senior Democratic aide said. “Anything that’s not specifically tied to keeping the economy going raises red flags for folks.”

But Frank said that he is optimistic about the vote count and that transgender protections will remain in the bill.

“There’s no chance of doing it without it,” he said of the transgender protections.

Frank said he’s told wavering Democrats that “the principle is the same. It’s discrimination.”

He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates’ concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

And, Frank said, they also would have to have a “consistent gender presentation” in order to be able to sue for discrimination.

They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.

Actually, that last bit is reaonable.

But about that bathroom issue.

Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.

Will lesbians be allowed to use the women’s restroom when looking like this? 

And if so, will it be before or after their genitals are inspected?

This is all about demonizing trans women out of the workplace even with an ENDA on the books.

Under what St. Barney is saying – and I can’t quote the bill language because he and HRC’s acolyte, Gramma Frumpp, consider it to be forbidden knowledge – no transsexual, be it pre-op or post-op will ever be able to refuse a genital inspection.  Moreover, who will be the prime target?  Not simply trans women, but trans women who are beginning to transition or are presumed to have ‘merely’ begin to transition.

What will be the ‘reasonable accommodation’?

And who will have to make it?

Here’s a hint: Employers won’t have to do anything that they don’t have to do now – and the person beginning her transition (and I don’t want to be read as ignoring FTMs; this will hit them as well, but we all know who the gay rights industry is most wiling to get be driven from the workplace: any transsexual woman not named Mara Keisling or Allyson Robinson) or who is forcibly outed as being pre-op will have to make an accommodation: namely, packing up her things and heading to the unemployment office.

Sound reasonable to you?

Don’t tell me that the Gramma Frumpp-St. Barney ENDA won’t allow – or perhaps even mandate – such an outcome…

unless, of course, you have the Gramma Frumpp-St. Barney ENDA language in hand, are willing to share it and defend its operative effect.

48 Responses to Bill to Exterminate Trans Women On Course to Pass

  1. valeriekeefe says:

    Wait… to be covered by ENDA I’m required to have a surgical procedure?

    Okay, this right here is already NOT a trans-inclusive bill. Who appointed Representative Frank chief of the penis police?

  2. laughriotgirl says:

    Considering that the required surgical procedure isn’t covered – or required to be covered on insurance (thanks in part of cis G&L folks) this still keeps trans women in a very dangerous position. Needing work to afford surgery to be able to get work…

    • translegalhistorian says:

      thanks in part of cis G&L folks

      No – its thanks 100% to them, but just in part to those of this generation and in part to those of the 1970s generation (I won’t mention Janice Raymond by name, of course.)

      this still keeps trans women in a very dangerous position

      It will successfully keep us out of the workplace.

      Any woman, transsexual or not, suspected of being transsexual can – and will – be asked not only to give a truthful statement about her gender histoy (and, of course, a lie would, when discovered, be grounds for termination), but have no grounds whatsoever (and, here’s where the HBS-er histrionics will fail: it WON’T MATTER if she actually is post-op) to challenge the intrusion.

      I’ll eat a big steaming pile of what comes out of my dog Louise’s butt if there’s any language that BOTH requires an employer to safely accommodate a pre-op AND does not give an employer legal wiggle room to avoid dealing with MTF employees by claiming that an MTF going to the men’s room (which will be the only other option) causes too much ‘disruption’….

      leaving, of course, Mara Keisling Gramma Frumpp and Allyson Robinson HRC’s anti-credibility insta-activist as the only two employed trans women in America.

  3. Zoe Brain says:

    And of course the Religious Reich will have a field day, saying that this bill will require genital inspection of everyone….

    • translegalhistorian says:

      the Religious Reich will have a field day, saying that this bill will require genital inspection of everyone….

      Well, for it to actually be non-discriminatory, it should. Otherwise, we’re right back to where we were 35 years ago when the first transsexual Title VII case was filed: Employers have absolute discretion and transsexual employees/applicants have no rights whatsoever.

      Oh wait…

      There will be one difference.

      HRC will be there touting this as a victory

  4. kelli anne says:

    This bill would prevent all but a tiny percentage of transmen from using the correct restroom!

    Transmen and many states declare a transman legaly male after top surgery. Not so for transwomen if they have top surgery.

    This would force every pre op transwoman and transman into unemployment and homelessness.

    This is Bullshit.

  5. Revlon Robyn says:

    Ugly and Unacceptable. But you know that. As I said last August, I don’t (didn’t) trust Barney, especially when he said “we *should* have enough votes for an inclusive ENDA” and when he was asked what the hell he meant by that, he shrugged his shoulders… And yes, Joe and Barney will be gulping martinis in celebration together.

  6. Michelle Marquise says:

    This is wrong. I’m pre op transsexual and my body chemistry among other physical attributes are not male.
    So because I have a medical condition and I have not had surgical correction for it because I can’t afford it at the present time I should be forced to be humiliated by using the men’s room. This is totally wrong. Perhaps they should have put government funding in the new health care bill in regards to corrective surgery for transsexuals to be paid by the government for full femininity surgeries.But then what about others with health issues that can’t go through surgeries to to other medical conditions.If the bathroom thing is going to be the big issue then pass a law that all bathrooms are uni sexed.

    • translegalhistorian says:

      As I said earlier: Send ‘thank yous’ to Mara Keisling, the voice manufactured by HRC to drown out all of ours.

  7. Allison Sinclair says:

    Barney’s Law. You have been charged under USC Title 69 Article 69 by the Genital Gestapo for entering a restroom with the wrong genitalia. You are to serve 30 days in jail with inmates that match your genitalia and pay a fine of $1000. Sieg Heil Barney

  8. Nataliya says:

    This is ridiculous.. I’m so glad to know that 1. i have to humiliate myself and use the wrong bathroom, but 2. they can “inspect” me….

  9. Lisa Jacobs says:

    This language would be harmful not only to transgender people, but to anyone who doesn’t fit standard dichotomous gender presentations: genderqueer folks, intersex persons, effeminate men and butch women. Essentially, this language would reinforce discrimination against all who don’t fit into gender dichotomies. I’m constantly frustrated that many folks don’t understand this…GLB equality will mean very little without trans/gender equality, as that affects so many people of all sexual orientations. Without trans inclusion, all our communities remain vulnerable and we remain fractured.

    I can’t help but wonder what bathroom an intersex person would use if their genitals don’t match either bathroom…

    • megan says:

      Unfortunately, I don’t think that Barney and friends want even GLB equality. They want “equality” only for the straight-acting, politically connected LGs only, and everyone else can join the trans women under the bus.

      • translegalhistorian says:

        I’ve said this for years – and I will acknowledge that when I first did so it was partial hyperbole just to draw attention to the injustice of us being left out of ENDA.

        However…

        Increasingly, I truly believe that there will be no ENDA of any variety as long as Barney Frank is in Congress.

        As a transsexual woman, I can at least take comfort in knowing that he is my enemy; at the same time, I find myself feeling sorry for LGBs who actually believe that he is on their side to any greater degree than is Lou Sheldon.

    • GraceR says:

      I hate to say this, but what more can we expect from a country that STILL doesn’t have an Equal Rights Amendment that includes *old* definitions of gender, much less anything modern. Equal Rights are constitutionally guaranteed to all the *men* in this country regardless of race (we know how well that works) but not to women, no matter their race. As a biological female who does not have a consistently female gender presentation, this would/will absolutely affect me, and I have deep sympathy for my trans/queer sisters and brothers for whom this is an even greater threat, but I’m not *surprised*.

  10. Erisis says:

    If this language is accurate, this is nothing short of a shockingly short-sighted affront to the the dignity and humanity of trans and gender variant people in this country. We would actually be worse off than we are now. How horrifying.
    I would urge Representative Frank to address this immediately and to give all ears to our very serious concerns.
    Transgender people are beginning to finally come together as a viable and powerful movement. All that fresh energy can be used either to move forward from a strong and effectively potent Trans-Inclusive ENDA. Or it can be used to support some fresh voices that will.

    • translegalhistorian says:

      If this language is accurate….

      Well, that’s part of the scam. We don’t know what the language actually is.

      They’ve been urging us to ‘lobby for ENDA’ for the last six months knowing that the bill, as it existed when last there was a hearing on it, isn’t actually the bill.

      We could be lobbying for our own extermination.

      Or, they could be pulling a Tebow-ad on us. Recall how Focus on the Fraud released what appeared to be the script of the Tebow ad prior to the Super Bowl – a script that was explicitly anti-abortion? But then, the ad that actually ran was benign (albeit with a mention of FOTF’s website), which in turn led the right-wing media (and its MSM shills) to crow about how histrionic the pro-woman majority had been.

      Where St. Barney and St. Mara are involved, trust nothing.

  11. valeriekeefe says:

    I do just want to specify that my intent in responding to this post wasn’t just outrage on behalf of pre-bottom-surgery trans women, but on behalf of my fellow non-bottom-surgery trans women.

    Surgery should not be a prerequisite for human rights, even surgery that’s an entitlement.

    • Deanna2Be says:

      Genitalia, period, should not be a prerequisite for human rights.

      If I, as a pre-op trans woman business owner, were to refuse to hire a cis-straight person because of their refusal to surrender their genitals for inspection, then I would find myself in front of the Supreme Court in 5 seconds flat for discrimination, sexual harassment, assault, sexual abuse and various other counts of depravity.

      Equal justice under the law.

  12. WAT says:

    “I can’t help but wonder what bathroom an intersex person would use if their genitals don’t match either bathroom…”

    As someone with inbetweeny genitals I wonder too…

    ” “They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.

    Actually, that last bit is reaonable.”

    …but evidently genderqueers like me don’t deserve protections anyway.

  13. Gwen Spencer says:

    If the wording of Enda is as reported, it sounds like we will all be screwed over by Rep. Frank again. I can just hear him and Joe Solomese (sp?) cackling over drinks on how the put one over on the trans community again.

    I have to wonder how Frank’s trained trans-yes-man feels about the fact he will have to use the women’s bathroom if this bill passes. Or, does he really think that working for a U.S. Representative will protect him and give him special privileges.

    • translegalhistorian says:

      The yes-man in question was interviewed on Trans FM recently (maybe even last night.) I think the interview is even available online already, but I will confess that I haven’t listened to it.

      And, in reality, I’m not sure I want to bother.

      My car’s air filter does a good job of filtering out dirt – sometimes lots of it – from air. But, it wouldn’t do too well if a brick was being sucked into the intake.

      Filtered lies and scams and half-truths and pretzel-quasi-truths are bad enough – but what useful element is there really to be left after the filtering process when you start out with a brick full o’ Barneymaramonese?

  14. Ally Howell says:

    This is such total BS – and I do not mean Bachelor of Science either.
    I have had surgery. So, I am safe under Barney’s concession. But I have a voice that is more male than female because vocal cords just do not respond to estrogen like they do to testosterone. Will that make be submit to a genital inspection. Who will do the inspections – the minimum wage Barney Fife security guards? This concession smells like a sell out by Barney and HRC – YET AGAIN. It is a shame we have to trust our future to HRC and Barney.
    One of the prior posts about butch lesbians is right on.
    For any one who knows how unscrupulous some employers and their lawyers can be, we need gender identity and sexual orientation BOTH

    • translegalhistorian says:

      I have had surgery. So, I am safe under Barney’s concession.

      No, Ally – you’re not. You’ll be lulled into thinking you are, but you’re not.

      But I have a voice that is more male than female because vocal cords just do not respond to estrogen like they do to testosterone. Will that make be submit to a genital inspection. Who will do the inspections – the minimum wage Barney Fife security guards?

      Who was going to do the inspection for West Group if Juli Goins had actually consented?

      Go back and look at the Goins v. West Group litigation. West had everybody believing that everything would hhave been fine if (a) Juli had been post-op and (b) proved that up.

      Which is all bullshit.

      Someone there read her and didn’t like the fact that she was there at all – and anyone who believes that West (or pretty much any employer with someone high enough up in the food chain to be as much of an asshole as those who forced her to sue were) would have gone ahead and let her be if only they had managed to get information about what her genitals looked like is, well, a Barneymaramonese.

      This concession smells like a sell out by Barney and HRC – YET AGAIN.

      Smells like?

      Its the definition of one – and, thus far, the only difference between it and all of the others is the calendar.

  15. Ally Howell says:

    One of the prior posts about butch lesbians is right on.
    For any one who knows how unscrupulous some employers and their lawyers can be, we need gender identity and sexual orientation BOTH. Otherwise, an employer will say we did not discriminate against him because he is gay, but because he was not masculine enough, or we did not discriminate against her because she is a lesbian but because she was not feminine enough. I seen this kind of tactic actually used – and used successfully.
    We need gender identity and expression protection.
    I recently was ranked number one for a job that I applied for and was told by the person with whom I would have interviewed that he “had to offer me an interview” since I was ranked number one, but “it would not do you any good.” When will that be illegal every where in this country.

  16. translegalhistorian says:

    When will that be illegal every where in this country.

    I dunnow. Ask the MTF attorneys at Lambda Legal.

    Oh, wait….

    That’s right. There aren’t any.

    I was given a perfunctory first and second interview before the standard gay organization operating procedure ran its course: the job was given to an FTM, 15 years my junior and with less experience.

    With ‘friends’ like that organization….

  17. Gwen Spencer says:

    Well, the suggested wording regarding transgender people in ENDA (if this is the wording) shows that Rep. Frank has no regard for the lives of transgender people. By forcing any transgender person living full-time without the benefit of surgery to use the bathroom that matches their genitals. I think everyone here can agree that such a requirement can result in more violence towards transgender people.

  18. Mike B. says:

    actually i don’t think that in order to sue you need “a consistent gender presentation.” has anyone heard of selective passing? sometimes you need to present yourself in different ways to be safe. and if someone has a problem with “inconsistent” presentations they need to grow up because presentation is oresentation; you can’t pick and choose what is “REAL” discrimination. If a transwoman has her beard growing and gets beat up, is she not protected? is it her fault? SHould she carry around a razer and shaving cream just in case? If a genderqueer has an androgynous look and is fired, what would the reason be for that? DISCRIMINATION! And with discrimination comes a right to sue. Let’s not put other people in the same position we don’t want to be put in, especially because it’s FOR TEH SAME REASONS!! your gender is your gender; people need to grow up about that. How dare anyone complain about being harassed for their differently-gendered existence and say it’s okay to happen to another group of us. Really, guys?

    • translegalhistorian says:

      If a transwoman has her beard growing and gets beat up, is she not protected?

      Well, beat up where?

      And I mean geographically, not anatomically.

      If we’re talking about going to and from work – or just out and about anywhere else – then ENDA actually isn’t relevant (presumably, though, she would be covered under the hate crime law.) ENDA deals SOLELY with employment-related discrimination. Nevertheless, the question of what constitutes a ‘beard’ will invariably come up.

  19. Mike B. says:

    PS I agree with @Gwen Spencer. if he wants to force people into certain rooms according to “their genitals” then he better be willing to put up the money for everyone to get SRS/GRS. He needs to think about that. And not everyone can HAVE surgery (or wants it) for reasons both medical and personal (and obviously financial). Frank keeps getting worse and worse w/ his d-bag-ness. Who’s butt is he kissing, the extreme right wing? And why, to get more gay acceptance? Feels like ’07 HRC b.s. all over again. He’ll never get it.

  20. [...] – as is HRC’s Favorite Manufactured ‘Activist’ Its nice to see that my previous post about what is currently having to pass for ‘the ENDA bill’ – namely, quotes about [...]

  21. GraceR says:

    Does the right to privacy ring any bells for anyone? I don’t care who mandates it, as a biological woman who’s favorite “work” outfits include slacks, a ‘men’s’ dress shirt,tie and sport coat, and refers to the person I live with as my “partner” I refuse to submit to “genital inspections.” In fact, who has the authority to “inspect”?

    • valeriekeefe says:

      Not only do I agree with the sentiment, including the fact that yes, heaven forefend a lesbian like me might prefer slacks and comfortable shoes to heels and skirt, I would posit most trans women and reams of evidence would indicate that trans women have genders are, like cis women, primarily of biological origin.

      Anyway, you’re trying to be awesome and doing a damn good job of it, just thought I should mention that, Grace.

  22. Dana Lane says:

    This just infuriates me. What Frank is saying is this:

    If you have not already completed your transition then to bad. Because WPATH standards REQUIRE living as the gender you identify with for ONE YEAR (which includes using the appropriate restroom for the gender you identify with).

    • translegalhistorian says:

      I wish it was as simple as St. Barney just ‘not getting it,’ but its not.

      The title of this post was only partially hyperbolic. ‘Exterminate’ in the Third Reich sense? No (probably.) But, ‘exterminate’ in the ‘how many trans women do you see in legitimate, policy-related positions at gay rights organizations?’ sense. Yes.

      Barney Frank hates trans women to the same extent that Janice Raymond does – but simply with different reasoning and methodology. His classic, northeastern liberal-ness won’t let him go to the ‘all but Third Reich’ land that Raymond and her followers (and there are still plenty; they’re just more stealth about how they graft their trans-misogyny onto public policy) inhabit, but he absolutely will not do anything that will allow gay men such as himself to suffer the indignity of not being legally superior to trans women.

      And, a federal employment anti-discrimination law that puts trans women on equal footing with people such as himself, Joe Solmonese, John Aravosis, Chris Crain, et. al., is an unacceptable outcome. Trans women will not emerge from this process as anything other than permanently ‘othered’ – something that will not affect St. Mara, given that she has insulated herself from having to deal with the job market as it will exist in the world that the people who actually pay her salary (hint: it ain’t trans people who have to deal with sending out resumes and filling out job applications – and it actually isn’t trans people at all) are paying for.

  23. [...] dealing with the fake reality of the 2009-10 ENDA’s political petri dish, a fake reality constantly defended by our [...]

  24. [...] of course, Gramma Frumpp still gets her paycheck.  So, all is well – for all who actually [...]

  25. Hello there , thank you for that time you applied to compose this post! Its awesome to understand anything about tranny

  26. dentedbluemercedes says:

    This time last year, I was pessimistic that we’d see trans protections (Canada) in my lifetime. Now, well, there’s a reasonable chance, though still a lot of things that could go wrong.

    ENDA, OTOH, I thought would see passage in 2010, and it’s been disappointment after disappointment.

    You’re right to expect the worst if they’re not releasing the language. If they’re not willing to cover gender identity and gender expression unequivocally, then they’re only doing half the job, and every exception is going to leave people falling between the cracks. Why the f– can’t legislators leave the details to the courts, instead of trying to legislate against irrational fictions?

    That said, “exterminate” is a bit over the top. I don’t know that we need to overdo it in order to express that this issue is important.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I agree with you re: concern over the use of hyperbole. However, here it was, in the words of Sheriff Buford T. Justice, “an attention-getter.”

      It also was, in political terms, closer to accurate than you might think. Between the ‘post-transsexual’ ultra-queer theorists who have far too much say in current LGBT circles and the way in which courts have eviscerated existing trans civil rights legislation in favor of giving employers the de facto right to decide whether trans women are actually women or not, the existing landscape is pretty toxic; what the Quisling was going to sign off on ‘in the name of trans people’ was going to make it worse and seal it in federal statutory stone.

  27. Robyn Webb, CTS says:

    Has anyone asked Diego Sanchez which bathroom he uses at the Capitol building?

  28. sdyue says:

    ““They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.””
    “Actually, that last bit is rea(s)onable.”

    How reasonable???
    I have trans-male friends that are full-beard capable, but least likely to be ‘conformed’ genitally ever as their surgical options by far are more complex and cost beyond most’ reach; more so than for trans-females. And so-called conforming surgery is strictly a non-must option for all of us T-folk.

    SS

  29. [...] trans-apartheid standard – will see the connection between Brennand and Hungerford and St. Barney: From Roll Call: [T]he whip count on ENDA, which Obama also backs, is entering its fifth week. The [...]

  30. Intimate says:

    Intimate…

    [...]Bill to Exterminate Trans Women On Course to Pass « ENDAblog[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: