Syndication
Get Used to More Davids Becoming Dianes
Only Human
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Kathleen Peratis
More in Forward ForumYou have to hand it to Rep. Barney Frank, the man knows how to empathize. In the first-ever congressional hearing on workplace discrimination against transgender people, held by the House in late June in an Education and Labor subcommittee, Frank said he understands what it means to be trapped in the wrong body — because that is what happens when his legislation gets bogged down over in the Senate.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender — or LGBT, for short — press called the congressional hearing on gender identity discrimination “historic” and “groundbreaking.” The mainstream media pretty much ignored it, but the issue is worth keeping an eye on.
Same-sex marriage is on its way to becoming ho-hum, but here comes the next blade of the family-values windmill, ready to whap us. Trans people are rising up.
Even LGBT professionals were surprised that the hearing was called. Last fall the House passed a bill providing job protection for gay people (sexual orientation) only after language that would have also protected trans people (gender identity) was deleted. Most of the LGBT community opposed the bill until trans protection was restored.
Frank himself was in the doghouse with the movement for having supported it in its non-inclusive form. (Frank’s efforts in bringing about the June hearing might well have had an element of teshuvah.)
But let’s back up a bit.
Question: Who are trans people?
Answer: People whose “gender identity and anatomical sex conflict,” a good — though unduly limited — working definition offered by hearing-witness Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the other (besides Frank) openly gay congressperson. (A more nuanced definition would refer to the range of transgressions of societal expectations regarding “gender appropriate” behavior.)
Trans people may or may not seek to change their anatomy. According to some, hormones and surgery are decisions that may have more to do with class — and ability to pay for the treatments — than with gender identity. And some trans people find the male/female dichotomy too limiting and choose not to identify with any gender at all, presenting themselves in a deliberately ambiguous manner.
Question: What is the difference between trans people and gay people?
Answer: Trans people may or may not be gay; one’s gender identity is quite independent of one’s sexual orientation. Gender identification is about how one sees one’s self; sexual orientation refers to the gender of one’s object of desire.
Another difference: Gay people pretty much continue to be gay. But, say, a male to female trans person who “fully” transitions — meaning hormones, surgery, new identity papers including even a corrected birth certificate (both extremely hard to get and extremely hard to live without) — may regard herself as no longer “trans” at all, but simply female.
Trans people — and gay people, too, for that matter — have no explicit protection against discrimination under federal law, though there are (poorly enforced) protections under some state and local laws and pursuant to some voluntarily-adopted workplace rules. Trans people everywhere have harrowing stories to tell; they worry about their safety just crossing the street.
The discrimination against them in employment is appalling. For example, one of the witnesses at the congressional hearing, Diane Schroer, was offered a job at the Library of Congress as a senior terrorism research analyst. The job would have required a great deal of interaction with Congress on highly classified matters, something for which Schroer was impressively qualified.
She applied while she was still “David,” and after accepting the library’s offer, informed the hiring officer that she was transitioning and would be reporting for work as Diane. She also showed the officer a photo of herself as Diane.
The hiring officer freaked out and withdrew the offer, saying later in deposition testimony that Schroer looked like a man in a dress. The offer was withdrawn, the officer said, because “no congressperson would ever be able to take Schroer seriously.” (It is a bit of irony that trans women seem to be far more likely to wear a dress than are anatomically born women.)
Despite slam-dunk evidence of discrimination, in this case the government has refused to back down, relying instead on the legal argument that no federal law protects trans people from such discrimination. But the judge in the Schroer case, James Robertson of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., opined in a preliminary opinion in 2006: “Discrimination against transsexuals because they are transsexuals is ‘literally’ discrimination ‘because of sex.’” The case goes to trial on August 8.
Two things: First, Schroer has gotten the penultimate laugh. The congresspeople on the subcommittee took her very seriously. In fact, they were rapt during her testimony.
Second, to me, she does kind of look like a man in a dress. And, be honest, that makes most of us very uncomfortable.
But, again, Barney Frank had the best line of the day: “You are going to get used to them.”
Of course we will, and that will make all the difference. In an excellent New York Times piece last month on the Supreme Court, Linda Greenhouse said the court’s watershed 2003 gay rights decision, Lawrence v. Texas, “was paved, I have no doubt, by the justices’ experience of knowing gay men and women in their personal and professional life.” So it should be with trans people.
But we are a long way from that. Although there may be as many as 3 million trans people in the United States, according to the National Center For Transgender Equality, a Washington-based advocacy organization, we don’t see them at work or in the media or in public life — there are only three “out” trans office holders in the entire United States, and no sitting judges at any level.
If you came in late on other civil rights struggles, you are just in time for this one. It may seem implausible now, but rest assured, we will get used to it. For the sake of some 3 million of our neighbors and family members, the sooner the better.
Kathleen Peratis, a partner at the New York law firm Outten & Golden, is a board member emerita of Human Rights Watch.
Comments
First, THANK YOU to the Forward and Kathleen Peratis for addressing this timely and important issue. Second, I appreciate Ms. Peratis's comment concerning the title - and relieved to learn that it was not her doing. It is quite disappointing that the Forward took such a well thought out and powerful column and tainted it with such a disrespectful title.
I thank Ms. Peratis for her article and disassociation with the title, which although find offensive is relatively mild and milquetoast compared to the banal sensationalism which seems to be the "norm" for mainstream media reporting on transgender people.
The hearings were historic and much credit should go to Congressman Rob Andrews NJ-1 who chaired the subcommittee and actually ran the hearings. Andrews had the benefit and experience of working with transgender political activists in NJ where transgender employment protections were added in 2006 in a bi-partisan landslide 102-8.
The legislation was in fact non controversial, although when first introduced many liberal icons would not embrace it because they thought it would fail.
We marketed the bill as a high form of Tzedakah, by hepping rid of the societal stigma and basically giving Transpeople the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and their families.
A grandparent, member of a NJ public commission, 25 year trustee of a Conservative synagogue, and a transperson who was present at the hearings.
Agree about the title - surely Deborah rather than Diane?
Joking aside, we can be too precious about trifles. Yes, it was unfortunate, even disrespectful, but we have more important things to worry about. I, with many others, am giving what help I can to a Colorado transwoman bashed and left for dead 4 months ago. She has some brain damage from an attack that used the same Modus Operandi as resulted in the death of another Colorado transwoman recently.
Lives are being lost every week. That puts things into perspective.
This article, regardless of title, is one more step that will eventually put a stop the myriad injustices we face - the lynchings, the murders, the assaults, the rapes, and the denial of basic human rights. Thanks, Kathleen.
As a transgender person, I thank you for this article. Very well written and informative for the general public.
In an overall excellent article I do find it troubling that a couple of comments made were the typical "talking dog" type. I'm a feminist woman of trans/intersexed history myself and can assure you I wear dresses about as often as you do, pretty much not all that often. I've been placed in "guess the tranny" situations many times over the years, I was never picked as the "tranny", always it was a woman of non trans background. You are already used to us, you just don't realize it because most of us who actually transitioned to women are just that. You chatted with us in the checkout line at Walmart yesterday. You may have had one of us wait on you at the resturant. We met you at the PTA. We do not announce our presence as a rule but if asked, almost never deny our backgrounds, why should we. You don't ask because you don't notice any difference in us.......that only comes if you know beforehand ironically. It is then we are scanned for any sign of residual "maleness", and guess what, you can find that in almost any woman.
Ok, so the article was relatively well written, but unfortunately poorly researched.
<a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/transgender_candidate_for_judge/Content?oid=736961">http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/transgender_candidate_for_judge/Content?oid=736961</a> <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/victoriakolakowski">http://www.linkedin.com/in/victoriakolakowski</a> <a href="http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1507">http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1507</a> <a href="http://www.aboutcecilia.com/lgbt/ca%E2%80%99s-first-openly-transgender-administrative-law-judge-to-be-sworn-in/2007/01/">http://www.aboutcecilia.com/lgbt/ca%E2%80%99s-first-openly-transgender-administrative-law-judge-to-be-sworn-in/2007/01/</a>
Were all quickly found with the search string 'Transgender Judge' and then searching her name.
Sorry about the formatting, try this:
<a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/transgender_candidate_for_judge/Content?oid=736961">http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/transgender_candidate_for_judge/Content?oid=736961</a> <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/victoriakolakowski">http://www.linkedin.com/in/victoriakolakowski</a> <a href="http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1507">http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1507</a> <a href="http://www.aboutcecilia.com/lgbt/ca%E2%80%99s-first-openly-transgender-administrative-law-judge-to-be-sworn">http://www.aboutcecilia.com/lgbt/ca%E2%80%99s-first-openly-transgender-administrative-law-judge-to-be-sworn</a>-
Or perhaps Kathleen knows the difference between a judge and an Administrative Law Judge - indeed, even the second article you reference acknowledges that Victoria Kolakowski is s presently a PUC judge [ALJ], but "may well be the first transgender judge in history if elected." However, she was not.
ALJs (or PUC judges) are typically presiding officers at an administrative hearing. ALJs do not sit as a law judge, and the power is essentially one of recommendation. ALJs are officers of an administrative agency who hear claims or disputes that arise under the rules or authority of that agency. The ALJ is part of the executive branch of government, not judicial.
It was clearly well researched and compassionately written.
Of course these issues are more complex than could possibly be addressed in 900 words. I dare you to try.
Kudos for an excellent and sensitively written article.
Dear Kathleen, We've met socially through Richard and Noleen Goldstone. As a grandmother of a transgender person, I applaud you on writing such a well informed and sensitive article on the subject.
Great article, for a start. What I find interesting is that when people talk about/write about trans issues & discrimination one area is seldomly spoken of - female to male transexuals. Are male to females covered more because they start out as "male"? Or is it that FTM's may "pass" easier in the general public??
I find the title of this column offensive. It models exactly the trivializing attitudes towards trans people that the column condemns. I dissociate myself from this title.