Angela has been an activist for the transgender community is some form or another for the last 42 years. Some of our community’s activists weren’t even born then. She has been on the board of NTAC, It’s Time, North Carolina and the several other organizations too numberous to mention. Currently, she serves as the Vice President of the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) and is one of its Co-Founders. Also, Angela is one of my closest friends.

“Our Opposition Testifies Against Us”

Before I report on the opposition, I need to mention the testimony of Dr. Bill Hendricks of the Dow Chemical Company, who was a witness from the corporate sector. He addressed the hiring of Transgender employees and Dow’s perspective about what has happened to them.

During his testimony, I could not help but think of the work that is being done all over the country today in corporations and businesses to broaden their HR policies to include Transgender people. I specifically want to mention the work done along those lines by Donna Rose and Jamison Green, who felt compelled to “draw the line” when it came to what we used to call “biting the apple.” They recruited the favor of many HR executives in their work on behalf of our community.

I appreciate a company like Dow and many others being inclusive. I also know that they are obtaining loyal, hard working and intelligent employees in the process, people who also really appreciate their jobs.

With 48,000 employees, working in 150 countries across the world, I was rather set back to hear that they have only experienced one person transitioning. I could not help but wonder about that single employee who transitioned at Dow since 2005. That would be two and a half years, give or take a few months. I may be stepping on a few toes here in saying that it is strange for a company of 48,000 employees to have only one Transgender person who they know about, when they probably have hundreds of Transgender people working for them. I heard this perspective echoed throughout the hearing. Most people feel that the only real Transgender people who are discriminated against are those who wish to transition on the job. This assumption is ridiculous.

(Break)

Dr. Hendricks read from a script, so I am not sure how the body of his address was put together or how much input Transgender groups made in coaching him. But, I feel that they missed an important point and an important opportunity for a major corporation to state that they know they have hundreds of Transgender employees and that they would not fire them if did come out. Dow would go on record as protecting their job also, even if their employee did not want to transition. In fact, I would have liked to have seen that one person who transitioned at Dow speak for her company at the hearing. Perhaps these are a few things that people might think about at the next hearing.

One of the things that bothered me about this testimony is that it came from a corporation. I would have liked to have seen a representative from the Labor and Union sectors testify. Perhaps, someone who would speak for the vast majority of Trans people, who work below the corporate level every day might make a compelling statement. I would have liked to have heard if they have had any problems with the Transgender workforce who were lucky enough to have jobs in the trucking, construction, transportation, medical and law enforcement sectors. I would also have liked to hear them testify as the ability of the common workforce to adapt to our situation.

Now we move on to the opponents at the hearing, the first of which is JC Miller, a lawyer and partner at the firm of Thompson Hine.

I find it a good thing to look for statements in the opposition’s testimony which provide hard evidence of the way they plan their attacks, especially the legal attacks instead of the moral ones used by people like James Dobson and his fascist tribe. Ms. Miller’s testimony gave us many directions as to where the legal attacks will come from. I think that when listening to her clear testimony, we hear their important need to emphasize “fears”, if not “great fears.” That was the seed she was paid to sow.

However, we will see the primary legal attack fall into the category of “definitions.” Who are Transgender people legally? What constitutes a Transgender person to those who aren’t sure and even some who think they’re sure in our community? As she put it, “There will be problems with language and definitions.”

We all know about this slippery slope of clearly defining and putting us into boxes to break us down and play one against the other. It may come in the form of, “Well you TS’s are OK but we don’t know about these part time dressers or those drag queens.” We know that this is coming and will be thrown up as a fear just as often as the bathroom issue is. Sadly, we already have people in our own community buying into this way of thinking.

This also points to the fact that we are all in this together and we need to stay together on the issue of gender expression and identity. My friends on the Hopi reservation in Arizona have identified 32 different genders in their society. Perhaps Ms. Miller might like to find out how they define those 32 genders before she calls for the need to do the same thing about the entire Transgender Community. The Hopis seem to have worked well with them for over 10,000+ years

I am not sure about her statement regarding mannerisms. I would assume that any reference to mannerisms would include protection for effeminate males and masculine females who may not identify as being Transgender. That being the case, she tried to limit the discussion to one type of Transgender person and eliminate protections for others.

Ms. Miller moved on to “shared facilities.” A groan was heard from the audience. Her references to “carving out” a section of the legislation that will especially talk about rest rooms told a lot about her thought process. Their hot button issue of the bathrooms was debunked by Shannon Minter, showing strong evidence that this “straw man issue” had a lot of history to prove this was really a non-issue. If they can accomplish anything in rewording ENDA, it would be to “carved out” areas to provide special exemptions for religious organizations and small businesses, all to further excuse certain parties from having to deal with Transgender people in the workplace. Barney Frank has already bent to their will on this issue in both versions of ENDA.

We have given away too much already in the legislation negotiated by Barney Frank and HRC. Like Donna Rose and Jamison Green, it’s time to draw the line in the sand and not give any more ground. Next year, if the Democrats win, I hope the talk about ENDA becomes, “What are you going to put back in the legislation instead of taking more things out?” This again can refer back to the opposition’s need for definitions so they can create additional targets to “carve out” more of us.

Ms. Miller also brought up a “huge problem of notification”. Are you kidding me? Will an employer have to accept the transition of an employee one day and immediately start construction on a new set of rest room facilities the next day? This is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard.

Ms. Miller should have turned directly to her right and asked Dr. Lawrence if that was what Dow had to do. Or she could have gone to any of the over 300 companies that have inclusive policies and have Transgender employees to ask them if they had proper notification and what happened immediately after.

Another point brought up was jurisdictional problems. The opposition wants Congress people to make sure that they pass federal legislation to not back efforts in the states to pass their inclusive laws. My big question on this is, “Why can’t we chew gum and walk at the same time?” It also reminds me of one of my other favorite sayings, “We have to fight on all fronts.”

Ms. Miller called in the reserves by bringing up “prevailing costs” even though she did not mention what they might be or what she referred to. She finally ended with the specter of “frivolous lawsuits” from things like looking through key holes in the rest rooms. Now that was really reaching. Ms. Miller’s testimony might be summarized as the introduction of “fears” to deny people of their rights. But never the less, it was informative in learning about some of their arguments.

The testimony of the next witness, Mr. Glen Lavy, Sr. Council for the Alliance Defense Fund actually made my skin crawl. It was like listening to someone arguing against the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I felt amused by Mr. Lavy’s fear of sitting in a room full of Transgender people and affirmed my belief that Transgender people have a power and presence that can literally make people like Lavy writhe in anger and fear. Of course Lavy sat directly next to Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, who looked at him directly as he made his address. She had that look she got when people didn’t shut up and listen to her when she ran the Southern Comfort Conference. I think an intimidating look might be the expression that came to mind. Being a religious righter, Mr. Lavy had entered into his version of the The Twilight Zone and his presentation sounded like it.

Every point of Mr. Lavy’s testimony against us was so laden with fear that one by one, each point could have been defeated and torn to shreds by almost any Transgender person with even a little experience.

His position on employment rights for Trans people, violating the rights of employers was preposterous and absurd. Only outdone by his next statement that employers not having any means of knowing an employee’s views.

Then Lavy launched into this comparison of race and gender which left me astounded. Apparently he thinks that all Transgender people are passable and out to fool employers and make them all look like fools after they pop the big news about who they are. His argument would make you think that back before the Civil Rights Act that if an employer were to hire a light skinned African American who may have passed as white, would they have had the right to fire that person for not telling them that they were not actually white?

After that, Mr. Lavy stated that religion is not protected under Title 7, so why should Transgender people in the workplace be protected? It certainly takes a “sharp” legal mind to come up with that excuse, seeing as that freedom of religion was addressed by the founding fathers in the Constitution already. Chairman Rob Andrews took Mr. Lavy to task during the questioning phase, absolutely cutting him to shreds and leaving him speechless, defenseless and looking as stupid and prejudicial as his specious arguments.

Mr. Lavy’s flimsy statements then moved to our old friend, the bathroom issue.

We could all go on forever about the bathroom issue and we all know that this was going to be brought up somewhere in the opposition testimony, if not in more than one place. It was inevitable. His first shot across the bow was that employers cannot accommodate the rest room needs of Transgender people. My answer to that is that architects cannot seem to accommodate the bathroom needs of people who are not Transgender.

As a contractor, I know that there are certain spaces inside of every building which architects, planners and employers consider “bad space.” The bathroom ranks right up there in the category of “bad space” along with janitor’s closet and mechanical rooms. If employers had any sense – and some already do – they would probably prefer to have a single unisex bathroom, which would cut down on 50% of the construction cost for bathrooms in every project budget.

However, since we all are familiar with this argument and grow tired of it, we can finally end Mr. Lavy’s testimony with his statement (fairy tale) about a fictitious transgender bus driver in Utah whose major problem was finding a bathroom on her changing bus route because she does not have a permanent route. Mr. Lavy expected this to be a strong supportive example in his favor and I hate to pop his bubble, but this should be traceable for anyone who wants to waste the time looking for this bus driver in the Transgender community.

A lot of things made me mad about Mr. Lavy’s testimony, but the one thing that really made me incensed was that someone like James Dobson did not have the intestinal fortitude to face Congress himself. Perhaps he felt that it was below him. But I would certainly have liked to see him subjected to the same cross examination that Lavy got from the Chair after all the witnesses made their statements. In fact, Dobson is too afraid to show up at such a hearing because he knows that he would be made to look in public exactly like what he is, a pompous, arrogant, self righteous, right wing, radical, conservative, nut case. All we will hear is his constant rants from a distance.

Video clips from the Hearing here.

Audio of the entire Hearing here.

Next: Congress comes out to the Transgender Community – Part 4

“Final testimonies and Summary of the Hearings”

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force map, 40 states have some form of law or amendment that limits marriage to a man and a woman.  California recently declared their law unconstitutional, so that leaves 39 others.  Out of the remaining states and the District of Columbia, California and Massachusetts have full marriage equality, four have civil unions and four others plus DC recognizes same-sex couples in other ways.

The heart of all of the laws, decisions and amendments we see the statement, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”  From the very first time I heard that statement, I had to ask, “What constitutes a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’?”  There are no legal definitions for these two words, and as we will see, the dictionary definitions don’t provide much help.  No matter how you wish to define man and woman, there will always be exceptions to those definitions, shooting holes into the anti-same-sex laws and amendments.

(Break)

Before I get started, many transgender and intersex leaders would rather I keep quiet about the lack of definitions for man and woman.  Their point is that if the opposition wants to put a legal definition on them, they would more than likely pick the worst possible definition.  Their concerns have validity.  But, with the changing political climate, we may get to see some of those laws and amendments overturned.  A definition becomes less of an issue.

First, let’s look at the dictionary definitions of man and woman, taken from the dictionary.com.  We already see the laws against same-sex marriage starting to unravel.  There are 15 different definitions for “man” and six for “woman.”  I like #2 for man, “A human regardless of sex or age; a person.”  If a marriage is suppose to be between a man and a woman, and a man is a “. . . human regardless of sex . . .” then how can ban same-“sex” marriage?  I doubt bringing this up to a marriage license clerk would change anything, but it sure begs a chance to question the law.

Also notice the definitions from man and woman are strongly attached to the words “male” and “female.”  For “male,” the person has to produce “spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.”  If a man cannot do this, does it mean he is no longer male, thus no longer a man?  You also see on the # 2 definition, “Virile; manly.”  You have a situation where one word defines another and visa-versa.  It doesn’t seem right to do that.

If you look at the definition of “female,” you also see, “Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.”  We can ask the same question we asked for the male definition.  “If a woman can no longer produce ova or bear children, is she no longer considered female, thus no longer a woman?”  Based on reading this, I come to the conclusion that there is no clear-cut, solid definition for male, female, man or woman in the dictionary.  How can they continue to limit marriage to a man and a woman?  But, there’s more.

Let’s talk about the physical differences between men/males and woman/females.  It’s generally accepted that women have ovaries to produce eggs and breasts to feed the young.  They have a vagina that is designed to take the male’s penis in order to receive sperm to fertilize the eggs.  A male/man has a penis and testes to produce sperm, usually rougher skin, more aggressive personalities, more hair and a different brain structure.

The problem is that humans don’t come in neatly arranged physical packages as described above.  Physical anomalies abound.  According to the Intersex Society of North America, one in every 100 births in the world are people whose bodies differ from standard male or female in one form or another.  If you look through the various issues listed on that page, you will see that it is a combination of visible and internal differences, to sex chromosome differences.

Portions of the population are born with genitalia that make it difficult for doctors to determine the person’s sex.  For the longest time, doctors decided what sex to assign the child, but they had a 50/50 chance of being right.  Today, the American Pediatric Association has modified that procedure to take into account what the child identifies when they get older and make proper surgical decisions at that time.

Making the wrong decision on what sex a person should grow up to be is drastically demonstrated in the “John/Joan” case of David Reimer.  David and his twin brother both had been circumcised after birth, but because the doctor was using an inappropriate procedure, he burned off David’s penis.  The well-known psychologist, John Money, at Johns Hopkins University suggests they could make David a girl and raise him as one.

This didn’t work and David grew up realizing something is wrong with his life.  He found out later what the problems stemmed from and lived the rest of his life, until he committed suicide on May 4, 2004.  David was 38.  This shows that gender identity is in the brain and what parts the body was born with makes no difference.  It’s another flaw in trying to define man and woman.

One of the chromosome conditions is called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or AIS, which occurs in approximately 1 in 20,000 individuals.  Those with AIS are female-bodied individuals who have XY sex chromosome.  There are also male-bodied individuals who have XX chromosome, which can be caused by various conditions.  In this area, there is a lot of overlapping of issues facing these individuals, which can include Progestin Induced Virilization, Swyer Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, and Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

On this page from About.com :Biology for Sex Chromosomes Abnormalities, you can see on the chart six other sex chromosome patterns besides the “normal” XX and XY.  If you notice, these are assigned a particular gender, but the physical traits can blur the person’s presentation.  So, what “sex” are they really?

I also discovered that in the future, there may no longer be a Y chromosome.  In the research done by Dr Jennifer Graves, Research School Biological Sciences, ANU, Canberra, Australia called “Human Sex Chromosomes and the Future of Men,” she says, “The human Y chromosome is running out of time. At the rate it is degrading, it will loseWeight Exercise its last 45 genes in just 10 million years, even taking complicating factors into account.”  We won’t see it, but I thought it was an interesting piece to bring up.

The case of “Littleton vs. Prange” was a prime example of what can happen when the courts make a decision based on they think a person has for sex chromosomes.  In this well-known case, Christie Lee Littleton’s husband of seven years, Jonathan went into the hospital for what was suppose to be a non-life-threatening issue, but ended up dying.  After a time of grieving, Littleton decided to sue for wrongful death.

In the course of the trial, the defending lawyers discovered that Littleton had been born with male body parts, and even though she had received all the necessary procedures to be considered a female in the State of Texas, three of the judges assumed she was not really a woman because of her chromosomes.  But, throughout the entire trial, they never once checked what sex chromosomes Littleton or her husband had.  If Christie didn’t have XY chromosomes, then the case could have been thrown out.

Because of this decision, in the ten counties that this local district court covers, birth certificates will not be changed for transsexuals who have had SRS.  However, a post-op trans woman can marry a non-trans woman or a trans man can marry a non-trans man and it would be considered legal.  By doing this, it means the trans person would have to identify as their birth sex for the marriage to be considered legal.  I wouldn’t consider changing my identity just to get married.  Thanks to California, I don’t need to.

The other problem in using chromosomes as the way to determine a person’s sex is the cost.  It can be from $600 to $900 to have a person’s sex chromosomes checked.  Can you imagine if a state defined man and woman by their chromosomes what a financial burden it would be on couples wanting to get married.  Many couples wouldn’t be able to afford the cost.  And, I can just see a loving religious right couple getting their chromosomes checked, only to find out they both have XX.  You can bet they would be screaming about dropping the amendment they fought so hard to pass.

The next way man and woman can be defined is by what is on their birth certificate.  However, there are several ways that this is not 100% possible either.  Many Americans cannot get access to a birth certificate because of natural disasters that destroyed the place they were stored at, long before a state could transfer them to computers.  Some people in rural areas may not have ever had one issued.  Many naturalized citizens cannot get a birth certificate from the country they were born in for various reasons.  Also, I have heard that some people were issued a birth certificate that didn’t have a sex one it, some because of the genitalia situation.

In 46 states and the District of Columbia, a person can get their birth certificate changed after receiving a form of sex altering surgery.  Idaho, Ohio and Tennessee and parts of Texas are the exception. This usually means a Phalloplasty or Metoidioplasty for trans men and Sex Reassignment/Gender Reassignment Surgery for trans women.  However, it can also be changed in most of those states when a trans woman gets an orchiectomy, or the trans man gets top surgery or a hysterectomy.  If the letter is worded correctly, the state will more than likely change the birth certificate.  For more detailed state-by-state information on the procedure in your state or Canadian Provinces, visit Dr. Becky Allison’s page for instructions.

As we can see, the different ways to try and define “man” or “woman” all have flaws and exceptions making it difficult to create a legal definition that would cover every human in the country.  If the various states picked one definition to try and keep same-sex people from getting married, they would cause problems for many opposite sex couples and create loopholes that same-sex couples could take advantage of.

This means that we are stuck with laws that are based on undefined terms, keeping same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as opposite-sex couples.  If anyone were to push the issue, then the end result would cause more problems then it would fix.  One of the biggest problems would be to invalidate legally married transsexuals, like Christie Lee Littleton, and hundreds of others who stayed married after one person in the marriage changed their sex.  We would be damned if we did, but we remain damned because we don’t.