NYS Assembly passes GENDA

From the Empire State Pride Agenda:

The New York State Assembly has passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) for the third time. The Pride Agenda thanks the Assembly for once again taking a stand in support of transgender rights. We will post the final vote tally on “The Agenda” blog tomorrow.

Now, it’s time for the Senate to act! The Pride Agenda will be launching a GENDA Call-In Day to Senators statewide next week. Click here to tell your friends to sign up for our Action Alerts today so that they will hear from us next week when it’s time to take action!
The Pride Agenda just released the following statement regarding the Assembly’s passage of GENDA:

Today the New York State Assembly voted by an overwhelming bipartisan margin to amend the state’s human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections based upon gender identity and expression. The bill (A.5710), known as the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), bans discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, credit and public accommodations. It also expands the state’s hate crimes law to explicitly include crimes against transgender people. The Assembly has now passed the bill by large bipartisan margins the past three years; Governor Paterson has also said he will sign GENDA into law should the Legislature send it to him.

“Transgender New Yorkers shouldn’t have to live in fear that they lack basic protections and could lose their job or be denied a lease on an apartment or service in a restaurant just because of who they are,” said Interim Executive Director Joe Tarver. “In passing this bill, the Assembly continues to demonstrate its leadership on civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) New Yorkers. We thank Assemblymember Richard Gottfried for his sponsorship and support of this bill, as well as the Assemblymembers who voted to pass it.”

“The State Senate remains the only obstacle to passing GENDA. It is now time for the Senate to follow the Assembly’s lead and end discrimination against transgender New Yorkers once and for all by passing GENDA,” said Tarver. “Transgender New Yorkers can’t—and shouldn’t have to—wait any longer.”

Transgender people face severe discrimination in New York. A 2009 needs assessment of New York State’s LGBT community conducted for the Pride Agenda found that 20.7% of transgender New Yorkers have incomes of under $10,000 a year, and one-third are or have been homeless at one time; 28.4% have experienced a physical or sexual assault motivated by transphobic or homophobic violence that was serious enough to require medical care.

Twelve states and the District of Columbia have comprehensive laws banning discrimination based upon gender identity and expression, covering public and private sector employment as well as other areas of everyday life. Eight additional states including New York have executive orders covering public employees only.

According to a March 2008 Global Strategy poll, 78 percent of registered New York voters support passing a bill to protect transgender people. This support is strong across the state, including upstate (74%), New York City (79%) and the downstate suburbs (82%); and among Democrats (86%), Republicans (67%) and Independent voters (78%) alike.

Gender Normative

I had a student tell me of a new terminology that seems to be making the rounds: gender normative privilege, which would be, of course, the privilege of normative gender over non-normative ones.

It may be the excellent response I have been looking for to contend with the way cisgender often seems to mean transphobic to some. What I’ve noticed is that this cissexual has “dyke” yelled at her out of car windows and my lovely partner does not. It’s nice to have a word for her being normal, despite being trans, and me being odd, despite being cis.

Of course the idea of gender normativity isn’t new, nor is the idea of normative genders being privileged over non-normative ones. What is new is the idea that it further complicates that whole cis/trans binary I dislike so much.

DSM V Preview

For those of you who are following the DSM revision controversy as it unfolds, here is a recently launched website by the Association for Women in Psychology Committee on Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis, spearheaded by Paula Caplan. It takes on the problems with a number of categories, including Gender Identity Disorder, Parental Alienation Syndrome, and Female Sexual Dysfunction.

Some highlights of the upcoming DSM V:

[1] The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-5 make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder.

This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on.

and

Transvestic Disorder
A. Over a period of at least six months, in a male, recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, or sexual behaviors involving cross?dressing. [11]
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if: [12]
With Fetishism (Sexually Aroused by Fabrics, Materials, or Garments)
With Autogynephilia (Sexually Aroused by Thought or Image of Self as Female)

and

302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults
Gender Incongruence (in Adolescents or Adults) [1]
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2* or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]
1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]

2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17]

3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender

4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

Subtypes
With a disorder of sex development
Without a disorder of sex development
[14, 15, 16, 19]

and

For the adult criteria, we propose, on a preliminary basis, the requirement of only 2 indicators. This is based on a preliminary secondary data analysis of 154 adolescent and adults patients with GID compared to 684 controls (Deogracias et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2010). From a 27-item dimensional measure of gender dysphoria, the Gender Identity/Gender Dysphoria Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults (GIDYQ), we extracted five items that correspond to the proposed A2-A6 indicators (we could not extract a corresponding item for A1). Each item was rated on a 5-point response scale, ranging from Never to Always, with the past 12 months as the time frame. For the current analysis, we coded a symptom as present if the participant endorsed one of the two most extreme response options (frequently or always) and as absent if the participant endorsed one of the three other options (never, rarely, sometimes). This yielded a true positive rate of 94.2% and a false positive rate of 0.7%. Because the wording of the items on the GIDYQ is not identical to the wording of the proposed indicators, further validational work will be required during field trials.

Continue reading “DSM V Preview”

US Tax Court Rules GID Expenses Deductible

From TaxProf Blog:

In a long-awaited decision, a fractured (8-5-3) Tax Court today ruled in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. No. 4 (Feb. 2, 2010), that male-to-female gender reassignment surgery qualifies as a deductible medical expense under § 213, reversing the IRS’s position in Chief Counsel Advice 200603025.  The 8-judge majority held that:

  • TP’s gender identity disorder is a “disease” within the meaning of  § 213(d)(1)(A) & (9)(B).
  • TP’s hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery were for the treatment of disease within the meaning of  § 213(d)(1)(A) & (9)(B), and thus not “cosmetic surgery” excluded from the definition of deductible “medical care” by § 213(d)(9)(A).
  • TP’s breast augmentation surgery was directed at improving her appearance did not meaningfully promote the proper function of her body or treat disease within the meaning of § 213(d)(9)(B), and thus was “cosmetic surgery” excluded from the definition of deductible “medical care” by § 213(d)(9)(A).

Judge Gale wrote the 69-page majority opinion, joined by Judges Cohen, Colvin. Marvel, Morrison, Paris, Thornton, and Wherry.  Judge Halperin (12 pages), Judge Holmes (joined by Judge Goeke) (23 pages), and Judge Goeke (joined by Judge Holmes) (6 pages) wrote separate concurring opinions.  Judge Foley (joined by Judges Gustafson, Kroupa, Vasquez, and Wells) (8 pages) and Judge Gustafson (joined by Judges Foley, Kroupa, Vasquez, and Wells) (21 pages) wrote separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Amazing news. GLAD is having a community conference call with the attorneys who worked on the case, and NCTE is supporting the call. For more info on how to participate, check after the break.

Continue reading “US Tax Court Rules GID Expenses Deductible”

Nepal

I’ve always wanted to see Nepal, and it seems now I’ve got an additional reason to go:

The traditionally conservative country’s Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersex are natural persons irrespective of their masculine and feminine gender and they have the right to exercise their rights and live an independent life in society.”  Nepali homosexuals are afforded all of the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and Nepal has even offered a “third sex” option for its national ID cards.  Gay and gay-friendly clubs now abound in Kathmandu and the Blue Diamond Society keeps the gay, lesbian, and transgendered community appraised of relevant information with a brightly-colored and cheerful website.

(thanks to Cris for the link)

Transgender College Athletes

An interesting article from Inside College Ed on trans athletes at the college level states:

For the most part, athletic teams at high schools and colleges are segregated by sex and divided into men’s and women’s teams. For transgender students, determining on which gender’s team, if any, they will be allowed to play can be a difficult process fraught with misconceptions, ignorance and discrimination. Few high school or collegiate athletic programs, administrators or coaches are prepared to address a transgender student’s interest in participating in athletics in a systematic, fair and effective manner. Few athletes have been given the information that would prepare them to participate on a team with a teammate whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.


From the NYS Pride Agenda

GENDA could pass this winter – take action now!

Last week when we wrote to you about the Senate marriage vote, we told you we’d be reaching out again soon about our plans for 2010. Today, we’re updating you on our legislative priority for this winter: to pass the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).

GENDA would amend the state’s human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections based upon gender identity and expression, providing crucial civil rights protections for transgender New Yorkers by banning discrimination in housing, employment, credit, public accommodations, and other areas of everyday life. It would also add gender identity and expression to the state’s bias crime laws to help protect transgender people from violence. Last month, Governor Paterson signed an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and expression for state employees—but our work isn’t over until ALL New Yorkers are protected by a comprehensive law banning discrimination against transgender people.

We need you to take action NOW. With just two phone calls to Senators, you can help us win:

1. Call Senator Tom Duane, lead sponsor of GENDA, at (518) 455-2451. Ask Senator Duane to bring the bill to the floor for a vote in February.

2. Call your own Senator to tell them that you expect them to bring GENDA to the floor and vote in support of it. You can find your State Senator’s Albany phone number here.

Here are some talking points for your calls:

1. Remember to tell your Senator the number of the GENDA bill (S.2406).

2. Ask your Senator to vote for GENDA, and if you are able to attend a legislative meeting, ask to meet with him or her to discuss the urgency of passing this bill right away.

3. Tell them about the urgent need for GENDA:

  • Due to difficulty with job discrimination, one-fifth of transgender New Yorkers have incomes below $10,000 a year.
  • 28% of transgender New Yorkers have experienced a serious physical or sexual assault motivated by hate.

4.  Remind them that GENDA enjoys broad support statewide, including:

  • 78% of New York voters
  • Unions representing 2.1 million working New Yorkers
  • 30 Fortune 500 companies based in cities like Rochester, Corning, New York City and White Plains
  • 547 clergy and lay leaders representing over 20 different denominations

Continue reading “From the NYS Pride Agenda”