GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

I'll restate my comment i think.

"People aren't interested in fairness, unless they're treated unfairly (in the negative sense, for those of you who are pedantic)"

As someone who was fired from her job in 1985 for transitioning, I must disagree. Frank sharpened the divide between transpeople and our detractors, his self-serving act to (A) advance ENDA at that time and then (B) create a separate bill that did pass, only strengthened the position of those who believe the "T" should be tossed aside. I was 27 when I felt my first employment discrimination; I just turned 50. Unlike some who've amassed a lot of money prior to transitioning, I've built my small nest egg entirely from a job I was blessed not to have been fired from when I retransitioned in 1989. In this economy, no job is safe. How patient should I be?

I believe it is medically feasible for a person who was born male to carry a fetus to maturity and give birth by Ceasarian section. Ectopic pregnancies are not uncommon among female humans, where a fertilized egg fails to be implanted on wall of the uterus. In some cases of abdominal ectopic pregnancies, the fetus has managed to develop normally and survive the medical procedures necessary to deliver it.

Of course, experimenting with ectopic implantation of a fetus into even a willing individual would be ethically appalling at this point. I think medical science is a long way from developing a safe and reliable procedure, but male pregnancy may indeed become an option in the not-too-distant future.

From Catch-22, when Chief White Halfoat is complaining to Yossarian about the persecution of his tribe:

"Racial prejudice is a terrible thing, Yossarian. It really is. It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop or spic." Chief White Halfoat nodded slowly with conviction.

I see it differently. Nothing was going to pass unless both the house and senate passed veto proof bills and that wasn't gunna happen. Frank unintentionally exposed the hypocrisies and weakened the position of those who believe in rights for some groups but not others. I think the bill that ultimately passes should be broadened not narrowed. It should state that discrimination is illegal against any citizen and then go on to name race, religion, gender identity etc. That way someone forgotten can seek recourse if say they are a member of a gas guzzling car minority and their employer is an electric car fanatic. Maybe a better example is a smoker who is fired for smoking while not at work. That is btw a real example. It has happened. Give me a break. The rationale that it is for the persons own good is hollow as is the medical cost argument. If that is allowed to stand a cost argument can be used against any group by an employer who wants to assert one.

Race, religion, sex, etc. are already covered under Title VII. The whole point to ENDA to add LGBT to those Federal protections. FYI, even the gay-only Barney Bill wasn't passed with a veto-proof majority. HR 2015 should never have been introduced when it was, at least until this transgender-issue hearing had been done, but Frank and the HRC were more interested in scoring points with the wealthy gay men — a constituency that is historically against us — who contribute the lion's share to both. The fact that Pelosi and Frank were both scheduled to be honored at HRC dinners just after 2015 was brought to the floor is pretty clear evidence it was a political stunt, one that neither the HRC nor Frank counted on backfiring so badly, with 300+ LGBT organizations condemning our betrayal.

I think we are saying similar things using different words. FYI (as you are fond of saying) as we go into the new administration we and all other groups who suffer discrimination are stronger than last year and hopefully a new president will sign a bill so we won't need it to be veto proof. Lets leave no one behind. Basic rights should apply to everyone. Yes I know darn well who is covered already. Do you think any group should be left out?

Apparently not. Title VII covers race, color, creed, religion, national origin and sex. The Americans with Disabilities Act (which specifically excludes us) covered another huge segment. I know that, having lived 12500 years ago it's tough keeping up with current events, but LGBT is the final frontier, honey.


As far as your example of gas-guzzling car owners discriminated against by Prius-owning bosses, that's too ridiculous of an example to even debate. The essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of people based on matters that aren't a matter of choice, that are beyond control. Nobody (knowingly) gets to pick what race, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity they are born with, so these are the most important to cover.

You always say the nicest things. I believe Barney did us a big favor. I know you may not agree and will probably try to denigrate something in this post. I have grown quite fond of your feeble (in my opinion) attempts. Go ahead. Take your shot.

I can't think of very many transwomen who do agree. But let's see, shall we?