Great, great news. Not only is this requirement unfair and biased in favor of people who transition medically – not everyone does, or wants to – it also creates a problem with socioeconomic status, where those who can afford surgery are “real” and those who can’t, aren’t.
But this line in the Forbes article is a little silly:
Transgender people say they need IDs to accurately reflect their gender when they apply for jobs, travel and seek certain government services among other things.
Probably just a sloppy bit of writing, but um, everyone needs IDs that accurately reflect their gender.
This part of the article is, however, all too true:
“Birth certificates are primarily used for legal matters, not medical,” the new policy language approved by the AMA says.
Last week, New York State passed a law that states that people are not required to have surgery to change their birth certificates, so hopefully this new AMA ruling will mean other states will follow suit.
So this is cool news: a trans person and her partner were evicted from their housing, and…
More than a year later, the Justice Department followed through on filing the case, which seeks any injunction restoring the couple’s housing, barring discrimination against them, and awarding them unspecified money damages.
Transgender Equality’s director of policy Harper Jean Tobin said in an email that she was not aware of any other case in which the HUD has gone to court over anti-transgender discrimination.
“The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education recently settled an administrative complaint brought under Title IX by a transgender student in California – the case was investigated by the two departments but the settlement kept it from ever going to court,” Tobin wrote.
Although every time I read a similar story I’m still always stuck thinking about how exactly stupid it is that, as a country, it’s still okay to deny people housing (or anything else) based on their genders.
Argentina set the new standard for changes in gender markers on identity documents for trans people:
“The fact that there are no medical requirements at all — no surgery, no hormone treatment and no diagnosis — is a real game changer and completely unique in the world. It is light years ahead of the vast majority of countries, including the U.S., and significantly ahead of even the most advanced countries,” said Eisfeld, who researched the laws of the 47 countries for the Council of Europe’s human rights commission.
In the US, you can get your passport changed with a letter from a doctor but no genital surgery is required, at least. The problems arise in the different ruling of the different states, so in Texas, for insance, a trans woman is always legally male, but she can legally marry her (cis) girlfriend there. Not quite how they expected the law against transness and against same sex marriage to play out, but there you go.
I can’t say it’s precedent, as it’s happened before in Texas, but it is sad and frustrating and entirely wrong-headed.
HOUSTON — A judge was expected to void the marriage between a transgender widow and her firefighter husband who died battling a blaze and will rule in favor of the man’s mother who argued that the marriage wasn’t valid, an attorney in the case said Tuesday based on a draft of the decision.
The suit was brought by the mother of firefighter Thomas Araguz III and argued that his widow, Nikki Araguz, should not receive any death benefits. The lawsuit claimed their marriage wasn’t legal because Nikki Araguz was born a man and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7580056.html#ixzz1NMik3CMN
So frustrating. Our sympathies to Nikki Araguz.
A man whose job it was to make sure men in recovery don’t switch their urine for someone else’s got fired because he wasn’t born with a penis.
TLDEF brought the case, which has now been reported in The New York Times.
So here’s how you tell this is discrimination: if a man who had lost his penis in an accident had this job, no one would have fired him for being penis-less. If a man who had hypospadias & had to pee sitting down had this job, likewise. If a man who had a penis that required a catheter for him to pee had this job, he wouldn’t have been fired.
THUS: El’Jai Devoureau was fired for being trans. As a culture, we still haven’t worked out how wholly incorrect this “genitals at birth determine gender for a lifetime” idea is.
US District (Federal) Judge Clevert struck down a Wisconsin law prohibiting trans people from receiving drugs in prison.
In Wednesday’s order, Clevert found that the law amounts to “deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” because it denies hormone therapy without regard to those needs or doctors’ judgments. He found the law unconstitutional on its face and also in violation of the inmates’ rights to equal protection.
In other words, he made it possible for doctors to decide what is appropriate medical treatment: sanity prevails occasionally.
This is good, good news.
I can’t imagine a better way to commemorate 9/11 than by having a federal judge call out DADT for violating the First Amendment.
A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians.
Abridge no speech, indeed.
Oh, right: fascists burn books, can we get that clear already? No one else.
The St. Louis Court of Appeals reversed a previous decision that stated Brenna Lewis could not sue her employer for firing her – for being too masculine.
Citing court records, the AP reports that Cullinan prefers to wear loose-fitting clothes such as men’s button-down shirts and slacks. She has been mistaken for a man and referred to as “tomboyish,” the story says. Cullinan, meanwhile, said Lewis lacked the “Midwestern girl look” and was heard saying that Heartland staff should be pretty, especially for women working at the front desk, the AP story says, citing court records.
I hope she wins. & Honestly, I hope Cullinan loses her job for making such a dumb-ass decision.
(h/t to Courtney)
The NYT did an article about the legal issues when you’re a heterosexual couple and one of you legally changes gender. I’ve been talking about the ramifications of this stuff for so long that I failed to notice for others it might be quite a surprise, and revelatory, but it is.
Interesting comments have come in from Cara at Feministe and a young trans woman who calls herself Critical Thinking Girl. As CTG points out, it is pretty tawdry – the usual before & after photos, etc. – and when she notes:
The tone of this article is clear – Fran is a put-upon woman, with an eccentric husband. The picture they chose is also curious as it has the trans woman in the relationship holding back her wife.
As many of my regular readers already know, one of the things that drives me batshit about the media in general is the way they choose rubes to write about, instead of speaking to activists or advocates who are prepared to deal with media, or who have become allied with LGBTQ people on the issue. For those of you who are interested, here’s a talk I gave at the Law School of Penn State Dickinson last year.
Because honestly, same sex marriage recognition would make life easier for all trans people in relationships – including CTG.
Oh – and to The Times – and everyone else: it’s “transition” not “sex change.”