Chris, I’ll Say It Again: You’re Wrong

September 22, 2007 ·

xmas gift crain

With a vote coming soon on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, I’d like to revisit something Chris Crain said a while back in his post “A trans activist tees off on ENDA” that was in reference to my post “You Can Still Fire Me“. At his blog he said:

The EEOC says exactly what I said: “existing federal civil rights laws have already been interpreted by SOME JUDGES to protect trans workers.”
Is it every judge? No. Would adding “gender identity” to ENDA ensure protection? Absolutely. But my point was that, under current case law, at least SOME judges interpret Title VII to protect transgender people.

But what do the courts say? On September 20, 2007 the United States Court of Appeals – Tenth Circuit ruled on Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority. They said:

“Etsitty may not claim protection under Title VII based upon her transsexuality per se. Rather, Etsitty’s claim must rest entirely on the Price Waterhouse theory of protection as a man who fails to conform to sex stereotypes. “

Chris argues that:

“But my point was that, under current case law, at least SOME judges interpret Title VII to protect transgender people.”

But the court clearly states this is not so:

“Although this court has not previously considered whether transsexuals are protected class under Title VII, other circuits to specifically address the issue ave consistently held they are not. See Ulane v. E. Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081, 084 (7th Cir. 1984); Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 667 F.2d 748, 749-50 (8th ir. 1982); Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F.2d 659, 662-63 (9th Cir. 977). In Ulane, the Seventh Circuit explained that the definition of sex should be given its ‘common and traditional interpretation’ for purposes of interpreting Title VII. 742 F.2d at 1086. Based on this traditional definition, the court held the statute’s prohibition on sex discrimination means only that it is ‘unlawful to discriminate against women because they are women and men because they are men.’ Id. at 1085. Because the plaintiff in Ulane could show only that she was discriminated against as a transsexual, rather than as a woman or a man, the court concluded Title VII could provide no protection.”

If this was simply Chris Crain’s feeling alone, I’d let it go. I don’t expect him to admit he’s wrong. But it’s important to point this out because other people share his views about excluding transgender people in ENDA.

Next Post

With "Defenders" Like This...

Alice Dreger Destroys Academic Freedom in Order to Save It It is an old adage that “crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.” This appears to be the thinking behind Alice Dreger’s latest attempt to stifle criticism of…
Read
Previous Post

Nothing Says Patriot Like Hiding... Your Children

That ever popular bastion of Jesus freedom, WorldNetDaily, is hiding a Transgender Partriot! In their "Letter of the Week" they showcase the anonymous patriot. She starts out by saying "First, before I begin, I just want to let you know…
Read
Random Post

Tranny: An Evidence-Based Review

Discourse surrounding the term tranny has become more than a little heated. In fact, a RuPaul Drag Race runner-up enacted the mock execution of a trans woman named Parker Molloy for the apparent crime of asking that folks not be so casual…
Read
Random Post

(Re)Introducing inclusive Radical Feminism

The TransAdvocate is pleased to announce the launch of a new program aimed at making a decades-old intersectional trans, intersex and genderqueer inclusive radical feminism more accessible. The TransAdvocate, in partnership with the Transgender Archive, launched The Conversations Project on…
Read
Random Post

The Primary Is Over, My Passion Is Not

For those that are working on a political campaign, the day after the election feels like a balloon that suddenly loses all it's air. Win or lose, the day after is always a time to rest and take stock of…
Read
Random Post

Equality=Bathroom Bills=Rape: Reality Check

Protections will allow men to dress as women “… in order to perpetrate crimes of homicide, rape, robbery assault…” Sound familiar? It sounds like the arguments of TS Separatism and Religious Fundamentalists, doesn’t it? Actually, this quote is 40 years old and comes…
Read
  1. The moment the word — SOME — appears in any discussion of legal implications, you’re talking the proverbial slippery slope. Why settle for such a gray reading of the law? Why not advocate for legal certainty, or at least for what passes for certainty in the world of law? I don’t get why someone would settle for — SOME!

  2. The moment the word — SOME — appears in any discussion of legal implications, you’re talking the proverbial slippery slope. Why settle for such a gray reading of the law? Why not advocate for legal certainty, or at least for what passes for certainty in the world of law? I don’t get why someone would settle for — SOME!