From: Pam's House Blend

What We Can Do to Fix the Damage
I'm not into blogging and thus don't know how to post a new item on this website. On Thursday, I sent the following e-mail to Autumn, hoping she would post it for me.
Before getting to that e-mail, I want to note that Diane Schroer is a dream plaintiff for a lawyer. If you saw her on 20/20, she has an excellent persona, presents extremely well (she doesn't exude a guy-in-a-dress image), and is very articulate. More importantly, the way the facts played out, there is absolutely no doubt why she isn't presently employed at the LofC. You couldn't pray for a better fact pattern. What you would have prayed for was to have her living in one of the states with a law with a law barring gender identity discrimination.
It is interesting that this "after the fact" legislative history is precisely the type of legislative history that the conservative block on the US Supreme Court don't like. Nonetheless, they will also give Title VII a non-expansive reading and read "sex" extremely literally and narrowly.
The legislative history that worried me in the past was the Americans With Disabilities Act, with two sections of the law saying "transvestites" aren't covered, one section saying "transsexuals" aren't covered (with a limited exception for gender identity disorders), and another section saying "homosexuals" aren't covered.
****
Hi Autumn, Two news items passed through my inbox today [Thursday]. The first, with a positive sounding subject line, was a press release from the ACLU, advising that federal Judge Robertson issued his second opinion in Diane Schroer's lawsuit against the Librarian of Congress. See http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/32896prs20071128.html. As you know, the ACLU is representing Diane. I immediately went to read Judge Robertson's opinion, wherein he again decided that Diane's case should not be dismissed and should proceed forward toward trial. See http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file132_32894.pdf. While it is great to see that the Court is allowing Diane's lawsuit to proceed, it is sad to see that the judge's decision was negatively impacted by the recent jettisoning of gender identity from the ENDA bill. The ACLU's press release understandably didn't mention the damage done to our community. Let me explain. In Judge Robertson's first opinion, issued 20 months ago (see http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file95_24842.pdf), he laid out a novel theory that "sexual identity" (which, IMHO, is not the best way to refer to gender identity, though the judge did also refer to gender dysphoria) is part-and-parcel of the concept of "sex" as that word is used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a positive development because I believe the the other theory used to protect "trans" people under Title VII -- "sex stereotyping" under the Price Waterhouse line of cases -- doesn't hold water in the case of gender identity. [This is because the employer isn't going to hire any "transsexuals", whether male or female.] I think it does hold water in the case of gender expression. In his opinion issued yesterday, Judge Robertson indicated that his conviction regarding his novel reading of Title VII in his first summary judgment opinion was weakened by the new legislative history emanating from Congress with respect to ENDA over the last few months. See pages 9 to 10 in his second opinion. We have only the HRC to blame for this. They committed to a trans-inclusive ENDA, having made a calculated decision. I was not in agreement with HRC's 2004 decision because I felt a trans-free ENDA had far better chance of moving through Congress and, pragmatically, I'd like to see 95% of the LGBT community protected sooner than none at all for several more years. Like it or not, trans people are the Willie Horton of today's hatemongers. When the House had hearings on ENDA a few months ago, HRC didn't present a single witness who has personally dealt with gender dysphoria. So much for trying to make a case for a trans-inclusive ENDA. Because of HRC's lack of moral courage, we have ended up with the clearly foreseeable fallout that has begun to appear, as evidenced in Judge Robertson's latest opinion. HRC has put trans people, especially folks with gender dysphoria, in a worse position than they were before. The second item I read today is the interesting article "Transforming Coverage: Transgender issues get greater respect -- but anatomy remains destiny", by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3216. As the article notes, and as reflected on this blog, there has been a major, positive shift in media portrayals of trans people. We still have, as the article notes and we all know all-to-well, the prurient interest in the "sex change operation", which seems to be a fixation of Larry King. As we move beyond the current ENDA debate, I'd like to suggest that we can better improve the dialogue of discourse, and our chances of procuring state and federal legal protections for trans people, if we start to use language that better reflects who people with gender dysphoria are and the journey they travel. Let's start with jettisoning the word "transsexual". To many, it is just as pejorative as the term "transvestite". In our community, we don't use the word transvestite anymore. More importantly, what does "sexual" have to do with gender dysphoria? Nothing. It is not pc to use the word "homosexual"; yet "sexual" does have a fair degree to do with sexual orientation! Here again, HRC (as well as other groups) does us a disservice. HRC stays 100 miles away from the word "homosexual", but will easily use the word "transsexual". Of course Larry King is fixated on genitalia and sexual functioning! We give credence to this because we don't distance ourselves from "transsexual". I don't want to read another article or see another HRC video that says someone had a "sex change operation". For most, the operation isn't what decides our sex and gender. We were born with a birth condition that deviated from the norm and some may have corrective surgery, no different from other corrective surgeries many people have to fix so-called "birth defects". In reality, we all are born with some sort of "variability in sex development". (I still can't figure out why some intersex folks now want to have their medical condition called a "disorder of sex development". I don't care for "gender identity disorder"!) If we buy into the concept that there is a norm that is perfection (e.g., blue-eyed blond), then we undermine our fight for the right to be who we are and to express ourselves accordingly. Call the surgery what it is: "genital reconstructive surgery" (GRS). Not sex or gender reassignment surgery. GRS is a 100% accurate description of the surgery. Moreover, it eliminates the belief that one has to have a sex-change operation in order be gender-affirmed. And stop calling folks "MtFs" and "MtFs". These folks are simply (and, in some cases, finally) accepting who they have always been. As Leah Zicari sings:
This is me
This is who I am
This is where I come from
And who I've always been
In reality we aren't transversing (the "trans" in "transsexual") anything. We are merely affirming who we are. So let's use terminology consistent with this reality (if, in fact, we so need to define ourselves): "gender affirmed females" and "gender affirmed males", who go through "a process of gender affirmation" (not a "transition"). Critics tell me that the average person won't understand these positive words of affirmation. Some might not, but in time they will. My experience has been 99% positive. I have yet to meet a single person who didn't understand what I was saying in a conversation when I used these words. Indeed, using words of affirmation allows you to open a conversation in a positive way, without the otherwise immediate image that comes to mind if you start the conversation with words such as "transsexual" and "sex change operation". If you haven't tried this new language, go ahead and try using these words when you are explaining gender dysphoria to someone who doesn't know you. I'm sure you will see how more positive the conversation will be. And in time, people will be less confused about gender identity and less likely to ask "well, isn't gender dysphoria a type of (or the same as) sexual orientation?" If all of us start to use words of affirmation, in time major newspapers and magazines will update their style manuals and their writers will start to use the words as well.
Take care Autumn! Christine