Well, TS Separatists have warned us for years that progress will never be seen under the rubric of the transgender borg. The time has come for me to admit that the Separatists were right about it all! I’m so ashamed! After all of this time and effort… we’ve changed nothing… nada. We’ve made no progress at all! They were right all along!
Just kidding! The Separatists have been and continue to be proven wrong about just about every single meme they’ve hysterically pushed. The newest blow to Separatist prognostications of doom is that – as of today – it’s now “illegal” for HUD-funded shelters, loan officers and housing providers to discriminate against “transgender” people. Isn’t that just a huge bummer for the Separatists? Even worse, HUD is now asserting that “transgender” people are covered under national fair housing laws which prohibit discrimination based upon “sex!”
Slide from HUD powerpoint
All of this is on top of the fact that the EEOC is now protecting “transgender” people under Title VII protections, the VA moved to ensure that all “transgender” vets received care and now allow “transgender” folks to change their sex on their records with a simple letter – no court order needed and we can’t forget that we can also deduct transition costs from our taxes again!
HUD Website
I should also note that on the same day that trans HUD protections went into effect, the AP reported that President Obama was cared for – for a few years as a child – by a non-op transgender woman:
AP News
It’s not a good day to be a Separatists. It’s almost as if it’s come to light that all of that hyperbole, bullying and fear mongering was just a lot of hot air. Imagine that!
cross-posted from Ehipassiko
[…] Cristan, who are the “separatists” that would be mad that this passed? I want to know so I can call them mean names. BTW, you deal with “facts” so I imagine you have a list who have condemned this. http://www.transadvocate.com/crowing-over-progress.htm […]
I read it, it sidesteps the fact that Tronetti v TLC Healthnet FORCED them to recognize that transsexuals actually have a sex. Yes, prior to Tronetti, the OFFICIAL and written position of the EEOC was transsexuals did not have an actual sex and therefore were not covered under Title VII. Of course they don't want to admit that now, surprise surprise. Once again you haven't a freakin' clue do you? I was in these battles as they happened when you were still hiding in your bedroom playing dress up. They were honest enough to include Tronetti in the list of cases but notice they avoided going there.
Aren't there any buried transsexual women for Cristan to assimilate?
BTW, Tronetti also FORCED them to use Ulane and Price Waterhouse. You should read that decision. When writing an amicus curiea they are hardly going to argue points they no longer are allowed, by court decision, to hold. Clearly you have zero understanding of how the law works.
LOL…I replied from FB and it ends up here.
Further, since sense you still don't get it, they ALSO included the adverse decision of Winn Dixie without citing it specifically telegraphing clearly that this position applies ONLY to medical transitions and NOT crossdressers. That's why it's included.
Moreover, I never see any positive from Cristan and the rest of them in the Washington, DC halls that I walk — including those at HUD and EEOC.
You do know that I'm not in Washington… don't you?
So… I'm guessing that…
"All of this is on top of the fact that the EEOC is now protecting “transgender” people under Title VII protections, the VA moved to ensure that all “transgender” vets received care and now allow “transgender” folks to change their sex on their records with a simple letter – no court order needed and we can’t forget that we can also deduct transition costs from our taxes again!"
… is "nothing good" in your book. If that's so, I don't know what you're talking about and moreover, I'm not confident that – with regard to this particular topic – you know what you're talking about either.
Cristan Williams Have a good day in the Houston area. What you think of me matters little.
The EEOC is covering those undergoing medical transition. Prior to Tronetti v TLC Healthnet, it did not do so and required you to sue them before you could sue the offending employer. All filed complaints, including one I filed, were automatically circular filed by directive. Tronetti v TLC was SPECIFICALLY about medical transition but that decision has been totally ignored by the trans community. That case, btw, was filed by a medically intersexed woman who could have used the ADA instead but chose deliberately to use medical supervised transition instead. So once again you are misrepresenting facts Cristan, this EEOC change of heart had nothing to do with the efforts of transgenders, it was brought about by a woman of history.
Moreover, I never see any positive presence and/or results from Cristan and the rest of them in the Washington, DC halls that I walk — including those at HUD and the EEOC.
Which is exactly why HUD cites title VII as being protective of all tans folk. Stupid HUD… they should have just called you up and you could have set those US attorneys straight! I mean, you totally cleared it all up! I don't know why I even bothered to allow the EEOC to speak for themselves:
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is charged by Congress with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seg. This case presents the question whether, under Title VII, disparate treatment of an employee because she is transgender is discrimination "because of sex." Given the Commission's enforcement interest in the resolution of this question, we offer our views to the Court.
It is the position of the EEOC that disparate treatment of an employee because he or she is transgender is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII. *****This is so for at least two reasons: (1) under the reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), discrimination against a transgender individual because he or she does not conform to gender norms or stereotypes is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII;***** and (2) following the reasoning in Schroer v. Billington, 577 F.Supp.2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008), discrimination because an individual intends to change, is changing, or has changed his or her sex — including by changing aspects of his or her biological sex or gender expression — is likewise prohibited by Title VII. Further, in this case, the record evidence presents a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Defendant Freedom Buick GMC, Inc. ("Freedom") violated Title VII by firing Plaintiff Alex Pacheco ("Pacheco") "because of … sex."'
So they misrepresented their own position when they claimed that BOTH "discrimination against a transgender individual because he or she does not conform to gender norms or stereotypes is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII" AND the medical transition aspect was the basis for their interpretation of discrimination or you misrepresented the EEOC's position.
[ So once again you are misrepresenting facts Cristan, this EEOC change of heart had nothing to do with the efforts of transgenders, it was brought about by a woman of history.]
Yup… you totally PWN'd me there. I obviously misrepresented that the EEOC's position was focused on more than just medical transitioning trans folk.
In case you spoke about the EEOC's position before actually reading the EEOC's position (which I linking in the post), here it is again: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pacheco-vs-Freedom-Buick-Brief.pdf
Cristan Williams We at TS-Si have argued that point for many years. The real issue has been effective enforcement and preemptive regulatory actions. Btw, I have never bothered to argue that TG Activism doesn't get things done, merely that it has obstructed policies that would ensure vital and medicaly necessary treatment for people born transsexual. I support civil rights for everyone, including crossdressers and other TGs.
Gha! Sorry! I didn't connect the name with who you are. I'll butt out of this conversation.
Thank you again for taking the time to talk a few weeks ago!
hurray! equal=equal!
Equal = equal, where have I heard that before?
Who are these "separatists" that would be upset over something like this passing? I want to go call them mean names. Cristan, Your uhum…"facts" are showing again. This was a huge victory.
Well, it is time for me to climb out of the rabbit-hole. I have some real life to attend to. Later …
These idiots can't even keep track of the bullshit they are selling. This is great. Sex protections are for SEX. Transgender people can ACCESS them.
Cathy Brennan Since you ignored my last post…
"As noted above, Price Waterhouse makes clear that Title VII does not simply prohibit discrimination based on biological aspects of sex, but also discrimination on the basis of gender-related stereotypes. See 290 U.S. at 251; see also Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1201 ("sex" "encompasses both sex – that is, the biological differences between men and women – and gender"). And second, in Oncale, in ruling that same-sex harassment is actionable, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the notion that Title VII only proscribes types of discrimination specifically contemplated by Congress. 523 U.S. at 79-80 (explaining that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil [they were passed to combat] to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed").
In short, as the Ninth Circuit noted when it repudiated its earlier decision in Holloway, "[t]he initial approach taken in cases such as Holloway has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse." Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1201-02; see also Smith, 378 F.3d at 572¬73 (reasoning that Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" Ulane, Sommers, and Holloway). It thus is now well-established that a plaintiff's transgender does not provide a basis for excluding him or her from Title VII's protections. See Smith, 378 F.3d at 574-75 (under Price Waterhouse, "a label, such as `transsexual' is not fatal to a sex discrimination claim where the victim has suffered discrimination because of … gender non-conformity"); see also Schroer, 577 F.Supp.2d at 308 (discrimination on the basis of a change in sex is discrimination "because of … sex")."
– The EEOC
So, as far as definitions go, the EEOC seems to have a different take on Title VII "sex" than you do, no?
Sex matters. This is better than that made up fantasy gender identity bullshit.
Why does this person think we give a flying fuck what she thinks. The door's over that way hon.
"Thus under Price Waterhouse, and in light of the clear weight of authority from lower courts applying its holding and rationale, it is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII to discharge a transgender employee because he or she does not conform to the gender norms or stereotypes to which an employer expects or prefers the employee to conform." – EEOC
http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pacheco-vs-Freedom-Buick-Brief.pdf
Oh, and while you're scrambling to put words into the EEOC's mouth, please post a list of just 10 real-world examples where protections against discrimination based upon gender identity and expression allowed abusers to circumvent laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance.
Thanks!
Cristan Williams You are wrapping TGism in the EEOC flag as though they are the same thing. I have worked on those issues since 1962, so be careful there.
Cristan Williams READ THE DEFINITION. THE DEFINITION IS THE PROBLEM. THE DEFINITION CODIFIES SEX STEREOTYPES. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE A WOMAN BECAUSE YOU WEAR A DRESS? THAT'S RIDICKULOUS.
Misty Scott I COULD GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT YOU THINK. ASSUME I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU.
Sharon Sinéad Gaughan No, I'm directly quoting what the EEOC itself asserts.
Cathy Brennan [ DO YOU THINK YOU ARE A WOMAN BECAUSE YOU WEAR A DRESS? ] No, I think I'm a woman because my brain-based sex produces a female gender identity. Do you not agree that we all have a subjective experience of our sex and that this core experience is influenced by brain development?
"As noted above, Price Waterhouse makes clear that Title VII does not simply prohibit discrimination based on biological aspects of sex, but also discrimination on the basis of gender-related stereotypes. See 290 U.S. at 251; see also Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1201 ("sex" "encompasses both sex – that is, the biological differences between men and women – and gender"). And second, in Oncale, in ruling that same-sex harassment is actionable, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the notion that Title VII only proscribes types of discrimination specifically contemplated by Congress. 523 U.S. at 79-80 (explaining that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil [they were passed to combat] to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed").
In short, as the Ninth Circuit noted when it repudiated its earlier decision in Holloway, "[t]he initial approach taken in cases such as Holloway has been overruled by the logic and language of Price Waterhouse." Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1201-02; see also Smith, 378 F.3d at 572¬73 (reasoning that Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" Ulane, Sommers, and Holloway). It thus is now well-established that a plaintiff's transgender does not provide a basis for excluding him or her from Title VII's protections. See Smith, 378 F.3d at 574-75 (under Price Waterhouse, "a label, such as `transsexual' is not fatal to a sex discrimination claim where the victim has suffered discrimination because of … gender non-conformity"); see also Schroer, 577 F.Supp.2d at 308 (discrimination on the basis of a change in sex is discrimination "because of … sex")."
So, as far as definitions go, the EEOC seems to have a different take on Title VII than you do, no?
It’ll never work.
Only about 40% of the population now covered. Best to just ask these be repealed. So – how many laws passed using just the separatist approach and people to be covered?
Type of jurisdiction
Number
States:
16 + DC
Cities and counties:
143
Total
160
Year
Jurisdiction
2011
State of Nevada
State of Connecticut
State of Massachusettes
Susquehanna Township, PA
2009
Nashville, Tennessee
Kalamazoo, MI
2008
Broward, FL
Columbia, SC
Detroit, MI
Gainesville, FL
Hamtramck, MI
Kansas City, MO
Oxford, OH
2007
State of Colorado
State of Iowa
Lake Worth, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Palm Beach County, FL
State of Oregon
Saugatuck, MI
State of Vermont
West Palm Beach, FL
2006
Bloomington, IN
Cincinnati, OH
Easton, PA<
Ferndale, MI
Hillsboro, OR
Johnson County, IA
King County, WA
Lansdowne, PA
Lansing, MI
State of New Jersey
Swarthmore, PA
State of Washington
West Chester, PA
2005
Gulfport, FL
State of Hawaii*
State of Illinois
Indianapolis, IN
Lincoln City, OR
State of Maine
Northampton, MA
Washington, DC
2004
Albany, NY
Austin, TX
Beaverton, OR
Bend, OR
Burien, WA
Oakland, CA
Miami Beach, FL
Tompkins County, NY
2003
State of California
State of New Mexico
Carbondale, IL
Covington, KY
El Paso, TX
Ithaca, NY
Key West, FL
Lake Oswego, OR
Monroe Co., FL
Oakland, CA
Peoria, IL
San Diego, CA
Scranton, PA
Springfield, IL
University City, MO
2002
Allentown, PA
Baltimore, MD
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Chicago, IL
Cook County, IL
Dallas, TX
Decatur, IL
East Lansing, MI
Erie County, PA
New Hope, PA
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Salem, OR
Tacoma, WA
2001
Denver, CO
Huntington Woods, MI
Multnomah Co., OR
State of Rhode Island
Rochester, NY
Suffolk County, NY
2000
Atlanta, GA
Boulder, CO
DeKalb, IL
Madison, WI
Portland, OR
1999
Ann Arbor, MI
Jefferson County, KY
Lexington-Fayette Co., KY
Louisville, KY
Tucson, AZ
1998
Benton County, OR
Santa Cruz County, CA
New Orleans, LA
Toledo, OH
West Hollywood, CA
York, PA
1997
Cambridge, MA
Evanston, IL
Olympia, WA
Pittsburgh, PA
Ypsilanti, MI
1996
Iowa City, IA
1994
Grand Rapids, MI
San Francisco, CA
1993
State of Minnesota
1992
Santa Cruz, CA
1990
St. Paul, MN
1986
Seattle, WA
1983
Harrisburg, PA
1979
Los Angeles, CA.
Urbana, IL
1977
Champaign, IL
1975
Minneapolis, MN