Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

Anti-family activists will again be pushing a transgender special rights bill at the state Capitol this year. A Mar. 16, 2006 New Haven Advocate article describes “transgendered” people as “a group that includes transsexuals, cross-dressers, drag queens, hermaphrodites and others who defy gender norms.” The article also notes that “powerful gay and lesbian advocates”–who previously avoided the “trans movement” because it contradicted the “we’re just like you” pro same-sex “marriage” campaign–now support the transgender cause.

The Hartford Business Journal has a story on this year’s bill:

But not everyone is on the same page as [transgender advocates]. Opponents believe additional legislative provides special rights and over-reaching protection to transsexuals.

Family Institute of Connecticut executive director Peter Wolfgang said his group opposes the bill because it would tie the hands of boards of educations.

“We have our concerns over very young children being exposed to gender identity confusion,” he said. “Hypothetically, imagine if your child has a second grade teacher Mr. Smith and he comes back a month later after a sex-change operation as Mrs. Smith. The board of education ought to have the right to do something.”…

That [transgender special rights] push will continue later this month as Feb. 20 has been set aside for Trans Educational Forum and Lobby Day at the state capitol. Between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., the coalition will have a forum at the legislative office building and some of its members will meet with legislators, in addition to rallying.

42 Responses to “Push for Transgender Special Rights to Begin Again”

  1. on 15 Feb 2008 at 4:44 pmDoug

    Back when Lawrence vs. Texas was being debated, then US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia predicted this would happen.

    (Some) People laughed at them.

    Doug

  2. on 15 Feb 2008 at 5:02 pmDavid

    I understand your concern when it comes to teachers in younger grades but I hardly think that it’s a “special” right not to be discriminated against.

  3. on 16 Feb 2008 at 4:54 amPeter

    An opponent named Kerri posted something in the moderation queue that I would have let through, but she gave a phony e-mail address. Folks, you have to provide a valid e-mail to make it out of the moderation queue and on to the blog. And that’s just for starters. Do check out the posts listed under the category “rules.”

  4. on 16 Feb 2008 at 8:41 amGwen Spencer

    Special Rights? How does wanting to be treated fairly and decently as a human being suddenly become special rights? How does wanting to be accepted as yourself and not have to act as something you aren’t suddenly become a “Special Right”? There are six very important words to the Pledge of Alliegence, “with liberty and justice for all”. Until everyone in this country respects and lives by these words, until everyone in this country has the same equal rights, these words are meaningless.

    As for the teacher example, I can’t believe A. Mann, obviously a nom de plume, actually used it. It has been used everytime transgender people seek equal rights.
    It’s one of the two most commonly used examples. The other one is the one used by Citizens for a Responsible Government in MD. They used the locker/bathroom problem.
    Then they went so far as to stage an incident to give their objection validation.

    Yes, I can understand the teacher question coming up. But have some commonsense folks. A teacher, any teacher has a lot more respect for their sudents, than to do such a thing during a school year. In fact, teachers I know who have transitioned have done it during summer recess.

    As for not posting a reply by an opponent just because the address is false, this is bad. If the reply would have been posted otherwise, then it should have. Nothing like censoring valid replies for absurb reasons. I can see doing so if they are filled with hate and biolent words, but not otherwise.

    As for this Kerri person not posting a valid e-mail, who can blame this person. E-address are suppose to be hidden but who knows what can happen and suddenly your online mailbox is filled with hate mail from people who disagree with you.

    Pax,
    Gwen Spencer

  5. on 16 Feb 2008 at 10:31 amDave

    I believe you’re being unfair in criticizing Peter about the requirement that contributors provide a valid email address. This requirement is hardly unique to our blog, but also true of other blogs including ostensibly neutral sites like “CT Local Politics” and even radically left-wing sites like “My Left Nutmeg”. You can’t post anonymously on these sites, either. Even though your e-mail address is not shared publicly, it is known privately to the web site administrators. The same is true of general-purpose web sites that host message boards, like Yahoo.

    There are good legal and practical reasons for requiring traceability, and this remains true no matter where your organization may happen to stand upon the political spectrum.

    Peter also did the right thing in how he handled it. He could have simply deleted the posting without making any remarks whatsoever. But he chose to take this opportunity to clarify the rules, and in doing so he continues to invite and welcome comments both pro and con. Let’s see that for what it is: a very fair-minded approach to overseeing this discussion forum.

  6. on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:16 amDave

    Why is “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) deserving of special categorization, apart from other ailments and disorders that might cause a person to be the subject of discrimination? Where are the lobbyists pressing for special rights on behalf of those afflicted with elephantiasis, bulimia, kleptomania, or any number of other conditions that might present difficulties in employment and daily living?

    Yes, every person is deserving of respect. But the problem is that laws are being proposed that selectively benefit only a very narrow group.

    We already have the “Americans with Disabilities Act” (ADA) that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of a physical or mental impairment. Unlike the proposed laws that uniquely benefit transgendered persons, this is a law that is truly fair and impartial.

    According to the American Psychiatric Association, GID is a mental disorder – listed as 302.85 in the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. Likewise the World Health organization considers GID as a mental disorder – listed as F64.0 in the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria.

    I don’t believe you legislate away the fact that sometimes a person’s behavior can be extremely unsettling to the population at large. For example, someone with Tourette’s syndrome is going to be difficult to integrate into certain job functions, no matter how well-intentioned we are in setting forth legal protections.

    Respect is a two-way street. We should act with compassion towards those who suffer with physical or mental disorders. But in providing accommodation to these disabilities, there also needs to be a suitable degree of respect for the rest of society. A transgendered person who walks into a lavatory of the opposite sex needs to understand how much they are causing discomfort to others by their actions, rather than focusing selfishly and exclusively on their own rights. This, in my view, is the problem with so much of LGBT activism – their militant and selfish attitude of entitlement, instead of approaching these questions in a respectful and cooperative way that considers the impact to others besides themselves.

  7. on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:25 amDavid

    This will be one of those rare occasions I agree with Dave. Allowing fake emails just opens the door for even more garbage emails. A real address provides a little accountablity for the writer and a little protection for the blog. A truly violent post could be reported, not that it would do much good in most cases, but the option is there. By replying the way Peter did he provided the opportunity for the person to post again, perhaps the bad email was tge result of a typo.

  8. on 16 Feb 2008 at 3:41 pmLaura

    My site deals with Transgender transsexual suicide prevention and has had 4.4 million visitors. All moderators are certified in prevention. No one but the transgendered truely understand the literal hell we live in. We have helped hundreds of thousands in suicidal crisis’s. In a survey we did on site over 50% of Transsexuals have had at least one suicide attempt by their 20th birthday. Most of these suicides and attempts were due to bigoted treatment by society. This happens daily. If it were 50% of any other group people would be outraged.

    A few days ago a 10 year old Transsexual hanged himself
    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Gender-torment-of-10yearold-Cameron.3781793.jp . This is not the first of this age. It’s a fact that thousands of us die every year. Now tell us again how we don’t need protection from bigots. 70% unemplyment isn’t high enough?

  9. on 17 Feb 2008 at 6:51 amCalyn

    A couple of points I have to dispute.

    “Family hating?”
    Most transexuals or transgenderist I have met LOVE their families. Even the few families that threw them out into the streets to die.
    The ones still with family appreciate the relationship.
    Many transexuals and cross dressers have children of their own.

    David does not think transgender people need “special rights.” and to a point, we all agree. No one SHOULD need special rights.
    Why do they need them?
    When police will not take transgender people seriously even after they have been beaten or murdered.
    When rescue workers walk away and let a patient die.
    Landlords will evict good, quiet tenants because they don’t understand them.
    Studies show transexuals who are out at work tend to have greater loyalty to the company and work harder than the average employee, yet they get fired from ignorance and fear.

    Your article shows quite a bit of ignorance and fear.
    Don’t be afraid to learn about us.
    You can’t be ‘recruted,’ and few transgender people would want anyone to suffer such a life if they had a choice.

    We are here. Like left handed people, we did not choose.
    Yes, society used to beat left handed people to make them look like right handed.
    Isn’t if time we learned not to keep making the same mistake over and over?

    Talk with us instead of at us please.

    .

  10. on 17 Feb 2008 at 12:03 pmTina Lynne

    I am a transgendered woman myself, and I have to say I can understand and to some extent even agree with those that express concerns over how to deal with the two examples mentioned, schoolteachers dealing with young kids, and/or public rest room arrangements. Rather than being anti-family as some would label me, I am very pro-people and think we need to have more compassion and empathy for each other.

    I would like to see more room for compromise on both sides. I don’t think it is a good idea in our current society (meaning it is my hope that in time society may mature) for young children to be put in a position where they might be “confused” by a transitioning teacher. But I don’t think the answer is to deny that teacher the right to make a living in his or her chosen profession either. Would it not be a more reasonable compromise to afford such a teacher the opportunity to be certified to teach at higher grade levels where being transgendered would not be confusing to kids? It would not remove all obstacles such a teacher would face in any case with current attitudes being what they are. But how would such an arrangement differ in large degree to policies for people under the ADA that are afforded options for retraining if their disability makes them unable to carry out their existing job.

    As for public bathroom issues, I have to take mild umbrage to the idea that transgendered persons selfishly use rest rooms of the opposite gender. I for one, and I am certain I am not alone, are all too well aware of how uncomfortable some people are by our presence. My goal in using a rest room is not to violate anyone else’s space, it is just to go to the bathroom! But look at the flip side of that coin. Should a transgendered woman be required to use a men’s room (or visa-versa)? Not only would that make the men in the men’s room uncomfortable as a woman strolls in, in many cases it would expose the woman to the very real threat of bodily harm or more.

    There are no simple answers to these or the many other questions that we all face. If transgendered persons seem to be a little more combative, it is just becuase we are a minority. If you look at minorities throughout history, they have generally had to figh for acceptance. Most of us would be more than happy to just live our lives if we were allowed to do so without fear of discrimnation in our jobs, our communities, our churches and everywhere else. I can’t speak for others, but I for one, don’t want special rights and will oppose anything I think overreaches equality. I just want the same things any decent human being has a right to expect.

    I think we need stop thinking so much in times of “us” and “they” and more in terms of “we”. We are all God’s children and teamwork is a wonderful thing.

  11. on 17 Feb 2008 at 4:41 pmDavid

    Calyn, David believes that equal rights are not special rights and the day may come when all enjoy them without any added protection. That day is not here, and as long there are organized groups fighting against the equal treatment of all human beings it will not be here. Please don’t confuse David with anyone else on here, we are on the same side.

  12. on 17 Feb 2008 at 9:26 pmDave

    Yeah, it can be confusing having two folks posting with nearly the same alias. But one of us was here first, as a supporter of FIC and a regular contributor to the blog. That would be me, with the socially conservative (what we like to call “pro-family”) stance, posting as “Dave”.

    Then we have our self-styled nemesis, a pro-LGBT blogger named “David”, who frequently provides commentary from the opposite end of the spectrum.

    I would argue we both believe in “equal rights for all”, but we have quite differing views about what exactly that means.

    I have to admit that I see the issue of transgendered individuals, and how to treat them with decency and respect, as a challenge that differs significantly from our typical debate about homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”. The transgendered in the great majority of cases do not have a choice, but are victims of real mental and/or physical disorders. Even ancient texts refer to hermaphrodites. And now that we understand this better from a medical perspective, we know that some people are born with an atypical combination of chromosomes. Consider the case of Barry/Caroline Cossey, now a relatively famous British fashion model, but who was born with XXY chromosome due to a malady known as “Klinefelter’s condition”. Another case to consider, which was once featured on NOVA, is the 1843 case of Levi Suydam – a resident of Salisbury, CT – whose eligibility to vote was called into question in that pre-suffragette era because of his effeminate appearance; and ultimately Levi was found to have the essential physical properties of both male and female genders. Even modern medicine cannot fully explain all the reason why, but there is nevertheless a rare minority of persons born with physically “ambiguous” gender. Beyond those with physical disorders of sex development, there are those who for seemingly inexplicable reasons cannot mentally identify with their physical gender, and who struggle greatly with this internal mental and emotional conflict.

    Nevertheless it seems that creating special legislation for this particular category of disability is a misguided notion. What we need instead is a culture in which each person is treated with dignity, regardless of the nature of any mental and/or physical disorder they may suffer.

    I know this may seem bigoted to those who see the world through the lens of pro-LGBT activism, but shouldn’t we be level-handed in our treatment of disabilities and illnesses? Why does AIDS research merit greater funding than heart disease, when it is actually the latter illness that affects more people? Why should the transgendered be categorized under the heading of legislation that applies specifically and only to them? Isn’t that perpetuating the stigmatism? We should be striving instead to curtail discrimination, and provide reasonable accommodation, on behalf of all who suffer from disability.

    Now about that phrase “reasonable accommodation”, I think we ought to stop and consider that for a moment. Reasonable does not mean that we are able to restore complete normality. Clearly some jobs remain a poor fit for a person with a disability, as a matter of practicality and not out of any malice toward that person. For example, someone who is confined to a wheelchair and unable to walk is unlikely to be able to perform jobs that require climbing and heavy lifting. Can you imagine being rescued from a burning building by a fireman in a wheelchair? The same principle may apply in a different ways depending upon the nature of one’s mental or physical disability. That doesn’t mean that suitable jobs cannot be found within the national economy. But a certain degree of pragmatism is needed.

    Let’s also understand that just as some transgendered individuals cannot help how they were born, the rest of “mainstream” society can’t help that their reactions to such individuals can be significantly influenced by the subliminal, primal and instinctive qualities that enable us to recognize gender. To the degree that a person dresses and acts outwardly as if a member of one gender, but still possesses some physical qualities that we associate – perhaps unconsciously – with the opposite gender, it is bound to cause confusion and a sense of something unsettling. We may not be able to put our finger upon the exact reason, but subtle cues that we detect (including things that no sex-change operation or hormone therapy can address, like bone structure) which contradict the person’s gender behavior can lead us to respond as if we are encountering something alien to our experience. I believe we need to understand that no legislation is going to overcome this innate response. It is simply human biology. The vast majority of us who experience normal sexuality are hard-wired to identify and respond to the opposite sex, and encounters with a transgendered person are something of a “Non sequitur” from our perspective.

    I agree it is truly sad that anyone would suffer such emotional pain, due to their inability to integrate with and function in society, that they would choose to harm themselves or commit suicide. Yet in a practical sense, the approaches that are most likely to avert such outcomes encompass psychological and/or medical intervention rather than the legislative arena.

  13. on 18 Feb 2008 at 12:51 pmWolfgang E. B.

    Peter Wolfgang is quoted in the article as saying, “Hypothetically, imagine if your child has a second grade teacher Mr. Smith and he comes back a month later after a sex-change operation as Mrs. Smith.”

    As a transsexual man (female-to-male transsexual) I find this scenario difficult to imagine. By the time Mrs. Smith gets her “sex-change operation,” or rather, genital surgery, she has been on hormone replacement therapy (testosterone blockers and estrogen) for at least a year. I would assume she also has already had laser hair removal and facial feminization surgery if she needed it. Correct me if I’m wrong, ladies.

    In short, a person doesn’t transition in a month, or even over summer vacation. Her students would have noticed a gradual change toward feminine prior to her presenting as female at work. Again, ladies, coreect me if I’m wrong.

    For us transmen, the situation is significantly different. Testosterone therapy radically transforms a female body. “Eve” is the default pattern of the human body; it is where all fetuses begin. So moving from “Eve” to “Adam” is relatively easy, whereas the reverse is much more difficult. However, the transition process for us takes about 7 years, but even the most female-appearing (before transition) transmen are being read as male by the time we develop facial hair at 4-5 years.

    Another factor is that female-bodied people can get away with wearing casual men’s attire in public and most of society thinks nothing of it. Most transmen have “cross-dressed” for years before even beginning medical transition. The only surgery we require to affect a male presentation is mastectomy/chest reconstruction. The only thing that testosterone doesn’t affect is basic skeletal structure (unless one starts taking it before the growth plates have closed), but it does cause an increase in bone mass.

    My point is that transition isn’t a mere “sex-change operation;” it is nothing short of a second puberty, and it doesn’t take place overnight.

    Dave, you sound reasonable, and you’ve made some good points. I understand that we sometimes make non-trans people uncomfortable. Heck, we sometimes make each other uncomfortable. I agree with Tina that there needs to be compromise on both sides. We do have unique legal problems that legislation needs to address though, particularly with regard to identity documents and law enforcement training.

    I realize that we can’t legislate acceptance. Legislation can, however, promote acceptance. When the government says “These people are being discriminated against and we think that is unacceptable,” it does have an impact on the way society thinks about that particular group. Conversly, when the government says, “These people don’t deserve protection from discrimination,” it legitimizes society’s unease with that group.

    President Bush vowed to veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for GLBT people on the grounds that it would create a “special class.” Yet he hasn’t made any attempt to eliminate current non-discrimination laws for race, sex, and religion. Why not? Why should these be “special classes?”

    On the brighter side though, hundreds of major corporations and smaller companies have chosen of their own accord to include us in their non-discrimination policies. Furthermore, the American Medical Association has recently issued some strongly-worded recognitions for us and the American Bar Association is currently discussing our issues with the goal of promoting greater justice for us. Public education from major media companies in the past few years has already created drastic improvements in the way society as a whole treats us.

    I live in a small, conservative midwestern town and work for a company that doesn’t even mention sexual orientation, let alone gender identity, in it’s non-discrimination policy. Yet I haven’t experienced any problems so far, either at work or out in public. So I have a lot of hope in regard to the direction things are moving.

  14. on 18 Feb 2008 at 4:13 pmDeanna Deville

    My dear Dave,

    “Why should the transgendered be categorized under the heading of legislation that applies specifically and only to them?”

    Did you not read Lauara’s post? Need I repeat her statistics?

    She didn’t even mention under-employment.

    You write very eloquently, and you write long posts. You’re also close-minded. You are certainly in denial about the realities of the transgendered experience.

    Your eloquence and long-windedness don’t make you right. Your gentle language doesn’t fool anyone who can read between the lines.

    By the way, no one is asking for legislation that applies “only to them.” You’ll need to do a little more research.

    Your question is most definitely not rhetorical, and the answers exist in the real world. You might pay attention to them. Would that be too much to ask?

    Peace, Dave. May the Lord bless you. Seriously.

    Deanna Deville

  15. on 18 Feb 2008 at 8:24 pmDave

    Deanna,

    Since you object to lengthy posts, let’s cut right to the chase.

    The proposed revisions to the law, to the exclusive benefit of the transgendered, are not necessary because all disabled persons are equally deserving of protection under the law. The transgendered are already covered by CGS 46a-51 under either (15) “physically disabled” due to a congenital impairment, or (20) “mental disability” due to a gender identity disorder that is listed within the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.

    I am opposed to laws that are unnecessary. I am opposed to elevating one type of disability above others, by enshrining it with specific statutory language. I am opposed to creating legal definitions that only serve to perpetuate stigmatism and isolation of persons as if they are a category separate from the rest of society. It’s that simple.

    The changes being put forth are too broad reaching. Yes, the transgendered do need some special statutory language in any jurisdiction to provide for the issuance of identity documents (e.g. drivers licenses, birth certificates, etc.) reflecting a gender change. But beyond that, the same protections for human rights ought to be available for all disabled persons – regardless of the underlying physical or mental disorder.

    You say “no one is asking for legislation that applies ‘only to them’”, but that is exactly what the proposed bill would do. It would insert the phrase “gender identity or expression” literally dozens of times within our statutes.

    Please don’t make the mistake so many LGBT activists do in judging the reaction of folks who don’t agree with them 100%. This isn’t an “all or nothing” question, and polarizing the debate only serves to alienate those in the center with whom you might find some common ground.

  16. on 19 Feb 2008 at 1:31 amCathii Scott

    Dave you wrote:
    “What we need instead is a culture in which each person is treated with dignity”

    Well if you float that idea with any transgendered people they would all agree. Unfortunately the real problem is a lack of understanding that isn’t likely to go away over night even with the best intentioned education campaigns. Indeed this sort of attitudinal change may take generations and what of those that are suffer discrimination on the grounds of their gender identity in the mean time? Sometimes a legislative change CAN speed the process of social change up and those laws will become unnecessary much quicker than any attitudinal change could take place.

    You wrote:
    “Why does AIDS research merit greater funding than heart disease, when it is actually the latter illness that affects more people?”

    Actually world wide there is a far greater number killed from AIDS related illness than heart disease. Besides which AIDS is a virus that is transmissible and therefore represents a much greater potential threat than heart disease which is usually brought on by human controlled factors such as being over weight, smoking, lack of exercise, old age etc…. I think you should have chosen your example more wisely if you are trying to make a point here.

    You wrote:
    “Why should the transgendered be categorized under the heading of legislation that applies specifically and only to them?”

    Why should their be legislation for any specific group? Wheel chair access is legislated for public buildings, and quite rightly so. To deny a person access to a building simply because they are in a wheel chair would be akin to you being denied the right to watch the Olympics because you are not an athlete. Hmmm bad example but you get the idea…..

    Trans* people face a totally unique set of circumstances that cisgendered people don’t. Many of those things you can’t possibly understand uless you have been in that situation, just like I, as a transsexual, don’t fully appreciate or know of all the problems that a person in a wheel chair would face on a day to day basis. There are some extremely subtle things that have a huge negative affect on a trans* persons life that I am positive you will not have even begun to consider.

    You wrote:
    “Let’s also understand that just as some transgendered individuals cannot help how they were born, the rest of “mainstream” society can’t help that their reactions to such individuals can be significantly influenced by the subliminal, primal and instinctive qualities that enable us to recognize gender.”

    Conditioned response such as the odd looks I occasionally get from people when I speak to them in my not so feminine voice usually fade very quickly to be replaced by either interest in what I am saying, argument about what I am saying, or in more cases than not by taking my money for my purchases and putting it in the till. It is not the double take that bothers me at all, hey I understand I have an unusual voice for a female and I am sure natal females that have the misfortune of having a similar voice to mine get those quizzical looks too…..

    What is the problem is when the quizzical looks turn into demands that I leave their shop, threats of violence or insults simply because I am not a natal female. Believe me these things happen and on a much more regular basis than you would think. A quick poll of some of my MtF trans* friends revealed that of 18 people, all had been verbally abused at least once in the last year, 13 had been physically assaulted when presenting as female over the course of the last ten years and 6 had been sexually assault in their life time…… The root cause of all of this was their gender identity…. and for all of this, only two people were convicted of the crimes they committed against a trans* person. I don’t know how representative of national stats that is but I think most people would find those numbers rather alarming.

    You wrote:
    “Reasonable does not mean that we are able to restore complete normality. Clearly some jobs remain a poor fit for a person with a disability, as a matter of practicality and not out of any malice toward that person.”

    It really depends on the disability you are talking about I guess (btw being trans* is not a disability) but all trans* people are more than capable of working any job at all. I am a computer programmer, my friend Leece is an interstate semi driver, Lilly is a carpenter, Marie is a carpet sales person. I am just wondering what jobs you believe that a trans* person isn’t a reasonable fit with? And how does that tie in with the astronomical unemployment rate amongst trans* people?

    I think you need to examine the subject a little deeper and then I am sure you will find that although your suggestion of attitudinal change is what ALL trans* people would love to happen, unfortunately legislation is the only real hope.

    Cathii

  17. on 19 Feb 2008 at 9:28 amDave

    Cathii,

    You wrote: “Actually world wide there is a far greater number killed from AIDS related illness than heart disease.”

    At the risk off going off-topic (since AIDS really has nothing to do with the issue of transgendered folks), I do want to briefly challenge this misstatement. As reported by the World Health Organization in 2005, cardiovascular disease resulted in 17.5 million deaths per year, and cancer resulted in 7.6 million deaths per year, on a worldwide basis. During the same time period, there were 3.1 million deaths worldwide resulting from AIDS. Moreover, as education about how to avoid the transmission of the AIDS virus (through “human controlled factors” like abstinence, martial fidelity, avoiding IV drug use, etc.) is beginning to make an impact in developing countries, we are beginning to see a decline in the illness. Researchers have remarked that they feel 2005 was the “peak year” for AIDS, and they now estimate worldwide deaths at 2.1 million for 2007.

    My original point in raising the question of disproportionate funding for medical research was to illustrate the more general principle – that we haven’t been fair and level-handed in our treatment of impairments, as shown by our society’s propensity to respond emotionally to “hot button” issues. And I believe the same underlying principle is now at play with attempts to enshrine a package of special rights for a narrowly defined group of people – the transgendered – through this appeal for support to change the law.

    You assert there is an “astronomical unemployment rate” among transgendered people, but yet demonstrate through your own recitation of examples that there are plenty of folks like this who are successfully able to perform work in a variety of careers within the national economy. To add to your examples, I’ve even heard of some transgendered people who are doctors and lawyers. So what exactly is the nature of this alleged discrimination in employment? I can only speculate, but has anyone considered the possibility that the alienation is self-inflicted by the same factors that precipitated one’s own inability to integrate with society’s expectations of gender expression. In other words, an overpowering desire to be different may be actively spilling over in unexpected ways that interfere with one’s ability to integrate with an employer’s expectations of job performance, and this lack of personal confidence and focus upon the job requirements may be what undermines their professional success. By way of comparison, there are similarly high rates of unemployment (some estimate up to 90%) among people suffering from mental illness. The problem isn’t that a particular career is a poor fit for such people, but that the erratic behavior of such persons tends to make them unsuitable for employment across a broad spectrum of jobs.

    You also mention “being trans* is not a disability” and now I believe we’re getting to the heart of the matter. This whole push for legislative change is rooted in a desire to transform public perception of the transgendered, by recasting it as a “normal” behavior rather than the physical and/or mental disorder that it is. The truth is that the transgendered already have legal protections from discrimination on the basis of disability, but activists are seeking to elevate this category as deserving of special treatment and rights above all other types of disabilities.

  18. on 19 Feb 2008 at 11:13 amTricia

    I agree with Dave’s comments in post # 12.

    There are better ways to approach this “problem” than through legislation. Through increasing public awareness and education, the problem will be lessened, if not eliminated.

    Also–as far as restrooms are concerned–more and more venues, stores, restaurants etc. have separate “accessible” restrooms that accommodate one person of either (or any) gender. Thus, as time passes there is less and less need for legislation to address this particular facet of the issue.

    I’m not sure of the latest status on a New York legislative bill (or regulation) to mandate that all restrooms can be used by anyone according to that person’s “self-identified gender” (feelings on any given day?).

    But such misguided laws are a *free pass* to enable dangerous access to children and women by pedophiles and other perverts/criminals, who could cite the law and simply state “I am a woman according to my emotions/mind/feelings.”

  19. on 19 Feb 2008 at 2:11 pmJust Jennifer

    Please be more careful in your terminology. A lot of people who are transsexual do not identify as transgender, and have no desire other than to lead normal, quiet lives as who and what they really are. After surgery they simply get on with their lives, and chances are, you would never even imagine they are transsexual. Actually, many of us are advocating a change to the term “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” to reflect the medical basis for this condition.

    Simply put, we do not care to be associated with drag queens, transvestites, and others who wish to defy gender norms. Also, you should note that hermaphrodites is an older, outdated term that refers to people who are BORN with ambiguious genitalia. They do not choose to defy gender norms. Now, that says a bit about where you are coming from, unfortunately. Being intersex (the proper term) is a birth defect, not a choice at all. While some politicize being intersex, most who have that condition do not.

    No, I am a devout Christian who was born with the birth defect of having my brain sexually differentiated at odds with my body. I struggled for years, before prayer led me to the truth. I am now a happy Christian woman, who most certainly does NOT defy gender norms.

    Again, please be a bit more careful in how you use terminology. Being a Christian requires you to be truthful, does it not?

  20. on 19 Feb 2008 at 4:01 pmDave

    Jennifer,

    It had seemed that transgendered was the most general-purpose and broad-reaching term that would describe the people for whom this proposed legislation is being advanced. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, “transgendered” means “appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member of the opposite sex”. That seems to cover folks who may have been born with outwardly ambiguous gender, folks who are born with a specific physical gender but who also desire to change it (both before and after transition through medical intervention), and folks who simply choose to cross-dress (i.e. transvestites). I agree that the term “transgendered” covers such a wide scope that it does not precisely distinguish between sub-groups, and that is why the medical profession would use specific language such as:

    – Gender Dysphoria
    – Gender Identity Disorder
    – Skoptic Syndrome
    – Disorders of Sex Development (also known as “DSD”)
    – Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
    – Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome
    – Klinefelter’s Syndrome (also known as XXY Syndrome)
    – Swyer Syndrome (also known as XY Gonadal Dysgenesis)

    While it’s true that the Benjamin Scale (named after Dr. Harry Benjamin) classifies patients according to various subtypes of gender variant behaviors, and endeavors to distinguish between “transsexualism” and “transvestism”, these terms represent the clinical language of the 1950s and 1960s. Medically speaking the term “transsexual” has been trending out of favor since the 1970s, and the most widely accepted term now used in its place is Gender Identity Disorder (as described in the DSM-IV).

    As it relates to intersex disorders, that term may arguably be usurped by DSD to make it clear that such conditions are typified by anatomy rather than by an internal sense of gender identity. And since you mention Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS), as I understand it the argument is that this condition should be viewed more properly as a congenital defect rather than a mental disorder. In layman’s terms, the contention might be described as a “glass is half empty, or half full” scenario. Those who advocate for HBS as a distinct syndrome from GID are saying that a person truly has the brain structure for a given gender, and simply has the wrong genitals. And they want to classify HBS as a biological/medical condition rather than a psychological condition, although it is unclear to me how they would set diagnostic criteria to separate HBD and GID.

    I believe my prior usage of the term “hermaphrodite” was in the correct context, as a reference to how the condition was once understood in ancient history. As the name suggests, it draws upon imagery of the Greek gods Hermes and Aphrodite, and the fact that some individuals possessed ambiguous gender while the medical science of that period could not explain the reason why.

    Without delving into this level of detail, in my previous remarks I did attempt to make it clear that there are a variety of genuine physical and mental disorders that persons may suffer in this way. And I trust that you’ll forgive the more generic terminology. It was meant not to conceal any truth, but merely to enable us to focus upon the public policy aspects of the discussion, without getting bogged down in the finer points of medicine and psychology.

    The important point in all of this is that these disorders are verifiable by licensed practitioners of medicine and psychology, and not subject to the whim of a self-diagnosing person. When the legal protections are attributable to a specific medical diagnosis, as would be the case with any other type of disability, the law is being approached in a manner that is fair and level-handed. But if the law were to be revised in a manner that enables persons to essentially “self-diagnose” without professional corroboration, by inserting the seemingly innocuous phrase “gender identity and expression”, that would be both a disservice and a very bad precedent. People suffering from these disorders need to be steered towards proper counseling and treatment. And when you set up a specially privileged category merely on the basis self-declaration to determine one’s inclusion in the classification, as opposed to objectively verifiable criteria, there are bound to be abuses of the legal system following in the wake of such action.

  21. on 19 Feb 2008 at 11:17 pmCathii Scott

    Dave I will concede the point of AIDS/Heart Disease deaths with one outstanding issue to be addressed. In many countries deaths are recorded as the final cause of death and not the underlying causes. Thus a person with AIDS can die officially from heart disease even though the cause may be directly related to their HIV status. What’s that old saying? Lies, damned lies and statistics. Never the less you are right it really doesn’t contribute to the point at hand.

    Dave wrote:
    “It had seemed that transgendered was the most general-purpose and broad-reaching term that would describe the people for whom this proposed legislation is being advanced.”

    Even though the correct medical definition of transgender does not encompass transsexuals, popular and general usage of the word does. I see little value in debating the semantics of definitions when interacting in a social arena such as this. What you meant when using the word transgender was quite clear to me and I am sure it was to most others too. When talking in medical terms I will insist on using the correct terms, such as transsexualism instead of transsexuality, but lets face it I am a computer programmer, not a doctor and this isn’t a medical board.

    Dave wrote:
    “You assert there is an “astronomical unemployment rate” among transgendered people, but yet demonstrate through your own recitation of examples that there are plenty of folks like this who are successfully able to perform work in a variety of careers within the national economy.”

    I quoted but a handful of examples to illustrate that trans* people are not limited in their abilities by their trans* status. There are many more names of trans* friends I could throw at you that are either unemployed, or under employed based solely on their trans* status. I suppose on that score I could count myself as under employed (although voluntarily) as my previous employment in a private firm I did not judge as a suitable place for transition. Far too much geek testosterone and talk of WoW et al. I am now employed by a government agency that pays me about 3/4 of my previous salary and my work load is no less nor any less complicated. Yes that choice was mine, but to be made to feel so uncomfortable as to willingly take a $30k per annum pay cut by the prevailing attitude of employees and managers, even unconsciously at my former employers (I was not out at that time) that I did not believe transition was possible there, is just one of the hidden things that I don’t think you have taken in to account.

    Dave wrote:
    “In other words, an overpowering desire to be different may be actively spilling over in unexpected ways that interfere with one’s ability to integrate with an employer’s expectations of job performance, and this lack of personal confidence and focus upon the job requirements may be what undermines their professional success.”

    That may be the case for a very few trans* people, but mostly it is the other way around. For example in many work places there is a dress code. Women must wear X and men must wear Y. What happens when an MtF trans* employee begins their RLE (real life experience) that is mandated under the standards of care before any surgeries can take place? Officially still a male, but having to lead the life of a female in order to gain that all important letter for surgery, employers can currently demand adherence to the male dress code. Now that kind of messes up the terms of the RLE. Here it is the fears of the employer infringing upon the treatment as laid down by the SOC. This is a surprisingly common scenario and it is one that currently trans* people have no protection from.

    Dave wrote:
    “By way of comparison, there are similarly high rates of unemployment (some estimate up to 90%) among people suffering from mental illness.”

    You are comparing apples with roast beef, the basic underlying issues are totally different. Why is there an insistence to bring the debate back to mental illness?

    Dave wrote:
    “This whole push for legislative change is rooted in a desire to transform public perception of the transgendered, by recasting it as a “normal” behavior rather than the physical and/or mental disorder that it is.”

    Transsexualism (GID) is currently listed in the DSM IV, but I think if you research back a little way you will find that homosexuality was also listed in the DSM but was dropped after the medical community came to the consensus that homosexuality was normal human behaviour. In fact a lot of “mental conditions” have been reassessed and consequently considered normal human behaviour. It was only a hundred or so years ago that menopause was classified as hysteria, a mental disorder, rather than the natural process that it is. In the same way there is a growing opinion that transsexualism doesn’t belong in the DSM at all and that its root causes are biological in nature. As for it being a physical disorder, yes it is, BUT being a physical disorder does not mean that it is physically impairing in anyway. A trans* person is still as capable physically and mentally, as any other ‘normal’ person and saying otherwise is actually very offensive.

    Dave wrote:
    “The truth is that the transgendered already have legal protections from discrimination on the basis of disability, but activists are seeking to elevate this category as deserving of special treatment and rights above all other types of disabilities.”

    Once again I believe that you need to re-read the legislation covering disabled people. There is no cover what so ever for trans* people in any legislation related to disability, and for a good reason…. Being trans* is NOT a disability…… Honestly your insistence to label people disabled because they are different is not only insulting but also quite ignorant of the facts. You seem to be an intelligent person, but can you not see that by your very words you are the perfect illustration as to why these laws are so necessary?

    Cathii

  22. on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:10 amJennifer

    WOW!
    Why can’t it just be a world that accepts changes. We ALL have been evolving since the begining of time. Since all of my GID issues have surfaced publicly over the last 2 months, I have begun therapy, I’ve told one of my family members, and several co-workers. The weight that I have carried over the last 30 years is now coming off. MY own tolerances have grown in just the last few months. I look at things in such a different light now.

    It would truly be a wonderful world to be in if everyone would just wake up one morning and say, “You know, these individuals are really OK, and though they look different, they still have the same heart and soul, and feelings.”

    I know dream on…..but it sure is nice to fantasize about what that would really be like!

    What it all boils down to, regardless of how educated one is on this subject, how do you really feel inside, will this make YOU happy? Thats what life is all about, individual happiness.

    Have a safe and wonderful life ALL!

    Jennifer Nicole

  23. on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:21 amDave

    My suggestion, that the human rights of transgendered persons can be protected by using the existing disability protections in state law, is in fact an avenue of legal thought that has been put forth by some notable pro-LGBT attorneys. I suggest you review the 2006 article by Jennifer L. Levi and Bennett H. Klein, “Pursuing Protection for Transgender People through Disability Laws”.

    Both of these attorneys work on behalf of GLAD. Does the fact that they’re pursuing this avenue of legal recourse change your outlook?

  24. on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:47 pmCathii Scott

    Dave has a legal precedent been set? No. Are trans* people specifically mentioned under any disability legislation? No. Ergo trans* people are NOT covered under any disability legislation. Forwarding legal conjecture via a law journey is just that, conjecture, not the law. All it suggests to me is that GLADD are looking into every avenue they can think of. With out specific legislation they have no choice but to explore even the most unlikely alternatives. I stand by my assertion that there is NO legal cover for trans* people under disability legislation. Now give me your reasons that they are and please include precedents to back your claim. Or you can admit you are wrong.

  25. on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:53 pmCathii Scott

    Argh….. I hate auto spell check!!! “law journey” in my comment above should have read “law journal” but I am sure you knew what I meant anyway.

  26. on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:08 pmCathii Scott

    Continue to dream of equality for all people Jennifer. da Vinci dreamed of machines that would fly through the air, and now we look up and see helicopters and accept them as a normal part of our life. Even the most unlikely dream can come true. Without dreams nothing worthwhile can be achieved!

    Cathii

  27. on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:26 pmDave

    Cathii,

    If you’re looking here for free legal counsel, you’re looking in the wrong place 😉

    I’m going to give you only a few examples, just to prove the point that transgendered folks can indeed be protected under ordinary provisions for disability.

    – Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems, (342 N.J. Super. 501)
    – Lie v. Sky Publishing Corporation, Superior Court of Massachusetts, No. 013117J
    – Smith v. City of Jacksonville, (Case No. 88-5451 Fla. Div. Admin. Hearings 1991)

    I believe this should be sufficient to prove the point that it is doable. Any more than these cases, though, I will have to ask you to find through your own research. I am sure the folks at GLAD will have similar casework to rely upon.

  28. on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:10 pmDave

    Cathii,

    Just a follow-up … since you’re posting from Australia, how much can we rely upon your expertise on U.S. law at the state level?

    You so easily make blanket statements about lack of precedent, and lack of being specifically mentioned in disability legislation, which are simply untrue.

    Moreover, your logic is also severely faulty – when you say that because transgender situations are not explicitly enumerated as a disability they are not covered under the law. By this reasoning, any specific disability would not be covered unless explicitly enumerated. The law is not predicated upon specific diagnoses, nor does it attempt to catalogue all possibly disabling ailments. It is designed to recognize through broad-reaching language that a wide variety of conditions may present difficulty to patients. Therefore disability in a legal sense is most often determined by the practical impact of the condition to the person, rather than the specific medical diagnosis and nomenclature.

    The law in Connecticut only enumerates two specific medical diagnoses as examples of disabling conditions – epilepsy and deafness. Yet it should be quite obvious that patients with other disabling conditions are accorded protection under these statutes! There is no need to provide an exhaustive list of ailments, because the determining factor is not the medical diagnosis but rather the total impact to the individual. Each case must be decided upon its own merits.

  29. on 21 Feb 2008 at 11:46 pmCathii Scott

    Dave

    Sorry about taking such a long time to reply, real life sometimes has a way of happening! 🙂

    This is a just a quick reply, more detailed reply to come when I get some time to myself (probably Sunday).

    The three cases you mention are not sufficient to prove anything in this circumstance. No time to explain why now, but suffice to say you have misread all the judgements. Simply because the persons involved are transsexual does not define being trans* a disability.

    Also there is no need to tell me how legislation works. Being employed by a government agency I have to read legislation, policy and regulations all the time in order to do my work efficiently.

    Cathii

    BTW I never recall saying were I am from.

  30. on 22 Feb 2008 at 8:43 amDave

    Cathii,

    Before you get your knickers tied in knots about the question of whether “trans* is a disability”, let’s remember what I really said in the context of this case law … someone’s transgendered condition *can* potentially be the basis for protection from discrimination under existing laws relating to disabilities … and, as is normal for this area of the law, each case must be decided on its own merits. Before you lash out at this reality, stop to consider that this need to prove each case individually is true no matter what type of underlying medical disability exists.

    What it seems that the LGBT activists are proposing here is to empower transgendered folks to bypass this “prove your case” step … to enable you to simply “self-declare”, and not require that the nature of your condition be professionally corroborated.

    If I said find me a case that proves X is a disability with respect to these human rights laws, at the state level, (where X is anything else besides what we are currently debating – “gender identity disorder” and the like), you would still be left with the same outcome. We could find individual cases where a person with X was deemed disabled, but that is not the same thing as a blanket declaration about X as a disabling condition.

    I understand you folks want the blanket statement, to make the process simpler. But that same level of protection is not accorded to other conditions! Hence we are left with the impression that you folks are pressing for “special” rights.

    Moreover, there is already something in Connecticut’s law that is almost as good as a blanket statement for transgendered folks. Mental disability here is legally defined in terms of the DSM. Therefore since GID and similar conditions are enumerated in the DSM, transgendered folks have an excellent start to proving their case “by the book”. In fact, they’re better off (in the sense of being able to legally show a disability) than many folks disabled due to a physical condition – since for that category there is no official catalogue of disorders referenced under the law.

    You originally asserted there is NO legal cover for transgendered people under disability legislation, and challenged me to demonstrate otherwise. I have done so, both in what I’ve written above and in the earlier case citations. Are you now ready to admit you’re wrong?

    And please do let us know when you’ve ready to comment on those cases. You so blithely dismiss them without explaining yourself. Consider the reality of these 3 cases. In “Enriquez v. West Jersey Health Systems” the appeals court agreed that gender dysphoria could possibly be considered a handicap under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, and remanded the case so that the lower court could determine whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved her diagnosis. In “Lie v.Sky Publishing Corporation” the court agreed that the plaintiff made a good case that her gender identify disorder is an impairment; and the plaintiff won her claim for disability-based discrimination in Massachusetts. And in the administrative ruling under “Smith v. City of Jacksonville”, the determination was in favor of the appellant on the question of whether transsexualism constitutes a handicap under Florida law. While it nevertheless remains true always that each person must prove their own case, these are good precedents that show judicial consideration first of the general principle of whether transsexualism (or GID, or gender dysphoria) can be deemed a handicap, and then second whether each specific plaintiff was able to individually prove their own case on its merits. If you do actually take the time to delve into the case reports, you will also find citations from other jurisdictions that are likewise favorable to the notion of transsexualism (or GID, or gender dysphoria) as a disability.

    These are among the case citations referenced by pro-LGBT attorneys who are trying to advance the notion that transgendered folks can be protected via existing disability-related statutes. So I am hardly standing alone in the wilderness on this point.

    Finally, I do apologize if I’ve confused you with someone else. It’s just that your writing reminded me of another Cathii from Perth, Australia who’s a self-described “30 something M2F pre-op transexual with a massive chip on her shoulder.” Maybe that’s someone else, but I took a guess that it might be you since Cathii (with two i’s) is such a rare spelling.

  31. on 22 Feb 2008 at 1:20 pmDave

    On the relevance of location … I want to amplify that this is not a personal issue, but one that speaks to the nature of self-governance.

    Readers of this blog should be aware that the opinions expressed here are not always representative of the interests held by citizens of the State of Connecticut … because the blog is conceivably open to input from anyone on the planet, thanks to the way that the Internet operates. Therefore we ought not to be intimidated by the number of pro-LGBT comments we receive, when many of them originate from far-flung places. When we take our stand upon the issues, we often become a lightning rod for such rebuttal. The best advice I can give is to judge the arguments on their own merits, rather than being swayed by their seeming numerosity.

    Like other Connecticut patriots who are passionate about the true source of our government’s legitimacy, arising as it does from the “consent of the governed”, I believe that our laws should be determined first and foremost from the perspective of the citizenry of our state. Outsiders may help to inform our opinion, but in the end we must choose for ourselves how we shall be governed. We do remain a sovereign state, as recognized by the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This fundamental right of self-determination is rooted deeply in our state history, going all the way back to the Fundamental Orders of the Connecticut Colony, and living onward today in our current representative form of government.

    Whether comments are made from Albany, Alaska, Albania, or Australia, the point is they are not necessarily representative of our own local interests, and may be distorting the public perception of support or opposition on any given issue.

    Discerning readers will recall how the left objected to the testimony provided by Dawn Stefanowicz during the legislative hearings on SSM, because she had traveled here from Canada to make her appearance. But in her case at least it was clear she had been invited to offer her own unique perspective on the issue, in the interest of helping to inform opinion. She never attempted to portray herself – through omission – as playing any other role within the debate.

    And yet many of our pro-LGBT visitors at the blog are silent about their true geographic location, hoping perhaps to give the false impression of a local groundswell of support for their cause. Beyond the money pouring in from out-of-state sources to Love Makes a Family, this is yet another example of how outside forces are attempting to exert influence here in Connecticut. Don’t be fooled by it.

  32. on 23 Feb 2008 at 12:54 amCathii Scott

    Dave wrote:
    “someone’s transgendered condition *can* potentially be the basis for protection from discrimination under existing laws relating to disabilities …”

    ROFL…. Dave is now doing the massive back pedal…..

    Actually what you said was:
    “The truth is that the transgendered already have legal protections from discrimination on the basis of disability”

    Thee word “have” and the words “*can* potentially” are two completely different concepts. BTW congratulations on spotting one of several errors you have made in the reading of the judgements. As I said I will perhaps have time on Sunday to fully explain as to why you are legally incorrect in your presumption that “transgendered already _have_ legal protection”.

    Dave wrote:
    “If you’re looking here for free legal counsel, you’re looking in the wrong place”

    Don’t worry Dave I won’t be calling on you for your legal expertise…… I don’t fancy ending up with a 25 year sentence for a simple traffic infringment….. 😉

    Cathii

  33. on 23 Feb 2008 at 9:44 amDave

    Cathii,

    You’re being intellectually dishonest by omission, in as much as you haven’t addressed why a blanket statement is warranted on behalf of transgendered persons. These protections on the basis of disability are always conditioned upon proving the nature of your disability, regardless of the type of medical condition that is alleged. One could just as easily cite “chronic heart failure” or “lupus” as example of potentially disabling conditions, and yet the person would still have to provide objective documentation that proves the existence of such an impairment in order to win their case. Your argument about semantics is vacuous. I suggest you address the core of the debate. Why should transgendered persons be exempted from providing objective proof of their condition? Why should the law consider a self-declaration alone as sufficient proof of eligibility?

    We could also very easily be swept up in debating the nuances of the legal systems in 50 different states. Let’s remember that within the context of this discussion thread, we started because of the proposed legislation in Connecticut. Our existing law already provides that mental disability is considered based upon the definitions of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Show a diagnosis listed in the DSM and it’s ironclad under this statute that you have a disability that is protected from discrimination. Gender identity disorder is listed in the DSM. Transvestic fetishism is listed in the DSM. And the list goes on. Therefore a transgendered person who has professional corroboration of their condition in relation to the DSM listing can prove their eligibility for protection under these statutes. That is the underlying foundation that I was trying to explain to you in earlier posts.

    What would truly be illuminating is if anyone could show a legal precedent in Connecticut where a transgendered person attempted to bring a case under these statutes, on the basis of disability, and was denied. If someone could provide such an example, then perhaps we could better understand the justification of why you seek to modify the law.

  34. on 23 Feb 2008 at 8:46 pmDave

    I’m still looking for any Connecticut case law that might show a transgendered person was denied protection on the basis of an alleged mental disability. But I haven’t found one yet.

    The only in-state case cited by the Commission on Human Rights and Disabilities (CHRO) was “Conway v. City of Hartford”. As mentioned in the recent CHRO “John/Jane Doe” ruling, “Conway” recognized that transsexuals may properly pursue claims of discrimination based on mental disorder. Yet CHRO declined in its own ruling to formally address this question of whether transsexualism is a mental disorder – which one would think is much more obvious given the nature of the DSM, the statutory language, etc. – and they chose instead to focus their energies on creating their own interpretation relating to the question of “sex discrimination”, despite the conflict with this prior court ruling. In fact, Judge Hale had ruled in “Conway” that Connecticut’s prohibition against harassment on the basis of sex did not extend to transsexuals.

    If the law provides an avenue of relief (via protection on the basis of mental disability), and claimants do not avail themselves of this existing law, what are we to make of this conundrum?

    In addition, have you noticed how the advocates of this proposed change to our law are portraying this as if it’s already “settled law” (based upon the CHRO ruling) and that enacting it now is mere formality? As any good civics student will know, the executive branch does not get to make law; it is there to enforce it. And particularly in this case, where the judicial branch appears to hold the opposite viewpoint in the one case that addressed the question of “sex discrimination”, it is hardly a “settled” matter. The legislative branch ought to reach its own independent conclusion in this matter … in a manner that it is representative of the will of the people, rather than acceding to “politically correct” LGBT activism.

  35. on 08 Mar 2008 at 9:40 amDavid

    “Discerning readers will recall how the left objected to the testimony provided by Dawn Stefanowicz during the legislative hearings on SSM, because she had traveled here from Canada to make her appearance. But in her case at least it was clear she had been invited to offer her own unique perspective on the issue, in the interest of helping to inform opinion.”

    I know this is an aside to main subject of this article, though strangely it is posted under SSM, but since Dave brought up Ms. Stefanowicz I’ll take a chance and comment on it. I don’t speak for the “left” but my issue with her testimony and her book is that it is usually not presented as “her unique perspective” but is used to suggest that children of LGBT parents will have hideous, abused childhoods. Her story is horrible and it is good to see that she has survived and found healing but it is no more indicative of the general nature of same-sex families than are the thousands of stories we read about abused children of heterosexual families. The same is true of the stories of Jesse (can’t remember his last name), the boy who was brutally tortured and killed by two gay S&M freaks and the story of Mary (again, last name escapes me), the woman who was murdered by a gay man because he claimed she was “harrassing” him. In each case these situations are used by the “right” to codemn all LGBT people as twisted and dangerous. I guess intellectual dishonesty occurs all along the political spectrum eh?

  36. on 08 Mar 2008 at 9:43 amDavid

    Oh, and yes, though their stories were not as widely broadcasted as Matthew Shepards I do believe that 1) they are just as offensive and 2) I should know their last names. My only defense is that currently I sometimes forget the next word in the sentence that I am speaking or writing. 🙂

  37. on 10 Mar 2008 at 3:54 pmDave

    David,

    I believe you were thinking of Jesse Dirkhising and Mary Stachowicz. These cases illustrate, as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said, “how politically corrupt the whole concept of hate crime legislation really is.” Isn’t the murder of any person equally reprehensible?

    But we’re straying far afield from the purpose of this thread, which was to discuss the transgender special rights bill. My point, which you’ve conveniently dodged, is that – while public opinion may be informed by input from outsiders – ultimately it is we citizens of Connecticut who must choose for ourselves how we shall be governed.

    And still we have no response to the more fundamental point I raised earlier:

    If the law provides an avenue of relief (via protection on the basis of mental disability), and claimants do not avail themselves of this existing law, what are we to make of this conundrum?

    In light of this, claims of alleged injustice seem to ring hollow.

  38. on 25 Mar 2008 at 4:59 pmTricia

    Did you read about the transgendered “man,” in Oregon, who is 5 months pregnant? His wife, Nancy, “is not able to have children.” What chaos these people inflict upon society.

    http://www.nbc30.com/health/15702121/detail.html

    Can you imagine the dilemmas for the hospital personnel, with birth certificate, etc., to say nothing of the problems for the baby girl this couple are expecting?

    Her mommy is presumably going to be her “adoptive” mother, and her daddy is going to be her “real mommy?”

  39. on 07 Jul 2008 at 12:57 pmDeanna Deville

    Dave, you wrote, “The truth is that the transgendered already have legal protections from discrimination on the basis of disability…”

    Until you can cite the particular law, and the case law supporting it, I will contend that:

    No, we don’t.

    Besides, we’re not disabled. Wherever did you get that idea? Google Diane Schroer.

    Peace, Dave.

    Deanna Deville

  40. on 07 Jul 2008 at 2:30 pmDave

    Deanna,

    I cited the particular law in comment #15 above. And, as I mentioned in comment #23 above, this legal angle is taken quite serious by pro-LGBT attorneys. Moreover there were example cases cited in comment #27 above. Finally, as I mentioned in comment #34 above, as it relates to Connecticut there was a specific ruling which recognized that transsexuals may properly pursue claims of discrimination based on mental disorder.

    Now you come back to this thread, more than 4 months later, and pretend like none of this was discussed? Moreover, did you happen to notice that HB 5723 died when the CT legislature adjourned in May 2008? Lawlor and McDonald may have supported it, but that doesn’t mean the rest of Connecticut does. The proposed law was unnecessary, and the state legislature properly recognized that it had more important business to consider.

    One may or may not choose to personally label oneself as disabled, but it is a verifiable fact that medical professionals categorize “Gender Identity Disorder” as a mental disorder. While the science of psychology recognizes that denial can be a useful defense mechanism for someone who has difficulty coping with reality, it isn’t realistic to expect the rest of society to join in such a distorted viewpoint. It should therefore be no surprise that legislators will tend to trust the view of medical professionals over the self-diagnosis of patients.

  41. on 11 Aug 2008 at 1:15 pmDave Calyn

    Transgendered-homosexual whatever you call it. It’s not normal, however that is the choice the individual to act out on their own behalf. In others views though, no one has to feel guilty over their own religious, moral or personal convictions or disposition on that others choice.
    No one should force you into a position of reasoning, but one should be able to look at the consequences that go with following their own lifestyle or beliefs. In my thoughts if a lifestyle or a belief starts to have negative effects on the individual, or society on a whole, such as death, disease and disruption of function nuclear families it’s wrong, BUT although I have the right to tell you it is wrong, you have the right to decide for yourself, but if you turn around and start saying society has to accept you and be tolerant of your behavior that is where you are wrong.
    You cannot force your lifestyle acceptance on me, or anyone.
    They age old saying goes, live and let live, but which way is the sign post facing? And what effect will your lifestyle have on society as a whole? The prime goal is who are you thinking about? Is it yourself and your warped desires? Or is it others and the outlook on civilization as we know it.

    When it comes to the color of a man or women, or their ethnic background that can’t be changed and if they are not accepted it can be racism and that is wrong, however, if it is a lifestyle, then it is just that a lifestyle and that person can; with help, change their behavior.

    I am by no means a perfect man, and if I claim to be I am a liar, but what sets me straight is I know it is not about me, nor my desires, nor all about my grand dream of what reality should be. I take it all with a grain of salt, looking at both religion, and the history of the human race as my guide in life.

    Tolerance shouldn’t be taught, it should be shown by the others righteous character and this should be center to how we think, act and react.

    Dave Calyn

  42. on 22 Feb 2009 at 7:14 pmklm

    This isn’t a matter of special rights. It’s a matter of being allowed to have a job, eat in a restaurant, shop at a store, have a credit card, stay in a hotel, take out a mortgage and, yes, use public restrooms.

    These non-discrimination protections are the same that protect anyone from discrimination based on their religion. But, there’s usually a loophole allowing religious organizations to reject transgender people. So in most of the country, people can use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against trans people, but trans people cannot then discriminate against these same people based on their religion.

    Also, these protections do not allow trans people to use facilities where nudity is unavoidable, such as locker rooms and public showers.

    Little kids generally have no trouble with someone changing gender, as long as their parents don’t teach them that it’s cause for alarm. Sometimes, the children of trans people who transition when their kids are teens or adults are upset, because they feel their parent has been dishonest to them. Less fear and discrimination against trans people would allow people to be more honest about who they are.

    And “normal” really just means what’s common. Red hair isn’t “normal”, being left-handed isn’t “normal.” Being a Lithuanian-American isn’t “normal.” Does anyone argue that it should be legal to discriminate against such people?

Leave a Reply