Tina M. Carr, a transsexual Unitarian Universalist, lost a lawsuit for employment discrimination against North Shore Long Island Jewish Health Systems, Inc. Carr, who has an externship with the hospital, claimed the hospital told her not to return to her externship. Carr surmised this was because she was in the UU church and was transsexual. As proof of discrimination, she overheard a person say that “he-shes . . . and the gays will need to answer to Jesus some day.” The court found that this single remark, standing alone, was not sufficient to raise a claim of discrimination.
A federal court in New York threw out several claims in a lawsuit filed by a group of transgender people that they were denied health care because New York failed to fully fund the treatment of gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria under the Medicaid program, including refusing surgery for those under 18. The plaintiffs argued that because federal law provides that “an individual shall not … be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health program or activity” that receives federal funding on the basis of certain criteria, including sex, an exclusion banning minors from receiving treatment violated the law. The court disagreed, noting that the youth exclusion drew distinctions on the basis of age, not sex, and therefore did not violate federal law.
James Hamlett claims he was fired from Newark Public Schools after he transitioned to “Christine.” Oddly, he transitioned in 1983, and acted in a variety of capacities for decades as Christine, including a special program for pregnant girls, guidance counselor and attendance supervisor in the district’s central office. Hamlett was fired after he had to be fingerprinted for a new position, which turned up criminal convictions for shoplifting and marijuana possession. According to a news account, Hamlett claims that the convictions “were related to behavior changes as a result of medical and hormonal treatments she was undergoing to prepare for her reassignment surgery.” Hamlett argued that the fingerprinting was “unfair.”
The lawsuit represents a trend among transgender people, who sometimes argue that anything they did prior to transition should not somehow count in their post-transition lives. The case of Donna/Doug Perry is probably the most egregious example of this. Perry murdered three women “as a man,” but discounted his responsibility for the crimes when he “transitioned.”
BART (California) police have become one of the first police departments in the country to implement a specific policy governing interactions with transgender individuals. No specific problem or complaint spurred the creation of the new policy, but police officials decided to create the policy in an effort to strengthen the department’s relationship with the community, according to BART.
Tameeka Roberts, a lesbian, sued her employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), for violations of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code §§ 8–502(a), et seq. (“NYCHRL”). She claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sexual orientation, and that she was retaliated against for complaining about this demeaning treatment. A jury found in favor of Roberts on both counts. The jury awarded to Roberts $25,000 in compensatory damages on each of her two claims, and an additional $25,000 in punitive damages on each claim. The total judgment was $100,000, plus costs. UPS moved (1) to set aside the jury verdict; (2) for judgment of dismissal or a new trial; or, in the alternative, (3) for reduction of compensatory damages; and (4) striking of punitive damages. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied all motions.
We congratulate Roberts on her victory!
The Laramie City Council approved a local anti-discrimination ordinance. It voted 7-2 in favor of the measure that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, employment and access to public facilities such as restaurants. The law does not cover “distinctly private” places of public accommodation, which intends to preserve women-only space.
Laramie is, of course, where Matthew Shepard was murdered by two men, a defining moment in the modern era of Gay rights.
As we reported earlier, Congressman David N. Cicilline and 165 other elected officials are sponsoring the Equality Act, which is being hailed as a bill for “equality” for GLBT people.
Unfortunately, that “equality” comes at the expense of Women & Girls. Specifically, the Equality Act will allow Gender Identity to override Sex in employment settings. This is particularly important for Women & Girls, as there are numerous instances in which we may prefer a Female employee. For example, any security guard situation where a pat-down is required; Women & Girls will not have the right to object to a Male who identifies as a Woman doing the pat down if this law passes.
“(2) by striking ‘‘employment.’’ and inserting ‘‘employment, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.’’
So you, Women & Girls, will not have the right to say “no” if a Male who identifies as a Woman interacts with you, because this person’s employer would get sued if the employer agreed with your “No.”
Additionally, the Equality Act would override ALL state laws that allow rational discrimination in public accommodations based on sex. In other words, many states (and municipalities) ban discrimination in public accommodations, but make an exception for public accommodations for which there is an expectation of privacy.
‘‘(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.’’
This means that Women & Girls will have NO BASIS to claim a right to privacy in spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This means Colleen Francis was right, the Planet Fitness guy is a-ok, and Christopher Hambrook had every right to be in shelter (where he later sexually assaulted Women).
The Transgender Movement is the only movement in the history of the civil rights movement that advanced its own rights by trampling on the rights of another oppressed group.
Congressman David N. Cicilline has introduced the Equality Act, which will codify sex stereotypes into law as a protected characteristic called “gender identity.” “Gender identity” is defined as “the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
The Equality Act does NOT define “gender,” and this definition of “gender identity” is only understood in the context of a sexist culture that associates certain traits with “being a woman” or “being a man.” It is shameful that Cicilline is promoting a conservative agenda under the guise of “helping” Women and Girls, as Women and Girls have been the primary victims of “gender identity” laws.
A judge has ordered the parents of a kindergartener to allow their son to pick his own clothes after his gender identity became the flashpoint of a bitter custody fight. The child’s parents — whose names are under a publication ban to protect the identity of their son — are separated and disagreed about whether their son, who turns five this month, identified as a girl or a boy. The Oakville mother believed her son identified as a girl and would often send him to school dressed in stereotypically feminine clothing. The mother also used the pronoun “she” to describe her son. The father, who lives in Burlington, believes his son was a “normal boy” who was being forced to act like a girl by his mother. He dressed his son like a boy, even holding a bonfire to burn his son’s girl clothes (at the child’s request, he contends).
In Murray v. U.S. Bureau of Prisoners, a court said a transgender woman’s rights were not violated when she was placed in segregation on several occasions. Some of the times she was placed in segregation were to protect her and other times were to discipline her for refusing to wear the bra they ordered her to wear. The court said that it was proper for the prison to put her in segregation for these reasons and ruled against her.