Is Affirmatively Stating That You Are A Woman and Expecting to be Recognized as a Woman an Act of “Expression” or “Behavior”?

If so, then if you’re a transsexual woman, then you’re not covered by HB235 AT ALL!

Recall, on this final day of the Maryland Legislature’s 2011 session, how the operative definition of “gender identity” has changed – from this:

“GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY, APPEARANCE, EXPRESSION, OR BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.

to this:

(E) “GENDER IDENTITY” MEANS A GENDER–RELATED IDENTITY, OR APPEARANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S ASSIGNED SEX AT BIRTH.

For a more visual depiction of the acceptable-to-‘Equality’-Maryland evisceration, we have an image snap from the amended bill:

Identity or appearance, but not expression or behavior. 

Hmmmm…..

So, lets see…

You’re a post-transition, transsexual woman.  You have a birth certificate and a driver’s license which recognizes you as a woman. 

That’s your identity.

That’s covered.

With or without showing those pieces of identification to your employer, you ask to be recognized as a woman.

That’s expression.

That’s not covered.

You’re fired.

Send a ‘thank you’ note to ‘Equality’ Maryland.

Oh…

Think that the niceties of actually being recognized as a woman (for MTFs) or a man (for FTMs) within the parameters of work is just something picky that could only be dreamed up by a transsexual woman lawyer who does not trust Maryland’s gay elite who weren’t affected by the exclusion of trans people a decade ago and won’t be affected by the fucking-over of trans people via HB235?

Think again:

April 11, 2011 – Last Friday, TLDEF filed a lawsuit on behalf of a transgender man who was fired from a male-only job solely because he is transgender.  This is the first lawsuit to challenge the firing of a transgender person from a job where being male or female is a job qualification.  We broke the story in today’s New York Times.

In June 2010, defendant Urban Treatment Associates LLC, based in Camden, New Jersey, hired plaintiff El’Jai Devoureau (large photo) as a urine monitor for men. His job responsibilities included monitoring male outpatients as they provided urine samples for drug testing. On his second day of work, Urban Treatment was told that Mr. Devoureau had transitioned from female to male and fired him on the spot.

The lawsuit challenges Urban Treatment’s termination of Mr. Devoureau as a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which protects transgender people from employment discrimination.  In filings before the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, Urban Treatment claimed Mr. Devoureau was not male and therefore not qualified for the job.

But in Maryland under HB235, he could have been fired – or never hired – just for expressing that he’s a man or, even worse, behaving like a man.

Good thing that trans people in Maryland would also have access to homeless shelters under HB235, eh?

Oh…

That was another bullshit claim of HB235’s gay supporters that isn’t borne out by the language of the bill, analogous statutes or relevant case law – but, I forgot…

The very same trans people who were excluded from the gay-manufactured, gay-only rights law of 2001 – and, in turn, have no right of redress when discriminated against when seeking employment at Maryland law firms – “bear responsibility” to prove up the viability the insane legal theories put forth in 2001 by Maryland’s gay elite and, presumably,  will “bear responsibility” to give cover to the morons of 2011 who still claim that homeless shelters will absotively be covered by HB235.

I’m sure that some trans woman attorney who gets a job at a Maryland law firm – by not expressing her identity as a woman and, even more importantly, by not behaving like a woman – will be get right on that.

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 Responses to Is Affirmatively Stating That You Are A Woman and Expecting to be Recognized as a Woman an Act of “Expression” or “Behavior”?

  1. If I understand the Sen Frosh amendment in the Judicial Committee’s second reading and vote, the definition changed to this:

    “Gender identity means a persistent, bona fide, gender related identity and the manifestation of that identity in gender related appearance, regardless of the individual’s assigned gender at birth.”

    That is what the Senate may vote on today, and if approved, needs to be revoted on by the House.

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

%d bloggers like this: