Suggestions Regarding Transgender Rights

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Thursday I am having lunch with a woman who is trying to pull together a corporate policy on Transgender rights in the workplace. She and the corporation she works for have already figured out that they need to have a policy because under Portland, Oregon's employment rights ordinances LGBT persons are a protected class. However, they're not sure what she go into it.

The only two things that come to mind are the bathroom issues and loosening up the dress code so it isn't prescriptive (no shorts unless upper management says otherwise for a specific purpose, for instance) and replace it with a general professional appearance: neat, clean and appropriate to one's position and customer contact. I also pointed out that they need to get top management and all the other layers of management up to speed and a comfortable, reliable process for coming out.

What else can you all think of?

I am certainly open to private emails on this, but I think it will work better if you respond to the forum so we can feed on one another's ideas and we have an archive for the next person who has to work on this challenge.

[Sinned]

This is just a thought or two on dress code.

The terms ".... neat, clean and appropriate ...." are not specific enough as one person's idea would be different from another's. My employers specify, for example a knee-length skirt or trousers without linking these to either sex. Try to word the code in such a way that freedom is given but would disallow micro-mini skirts for example or revealing tops. If dress down days are allowed then the relaxed rules should be given. It's difficult to get a good consensus as, for example, banning shorts could compromise comfort in hot weather. And then there are shorts that are really long and shorts that hardly cover the derriere. Some people will take it to extremes.

Now bathrooms you seem to have a problem with over there as another thread exemplifies. I'll leave that to you Westerners.

[partlyscot]

Firstly, some members may have issues with this discussion because they don't see wearing a skirt or whatever as having anything to do with being transgender.

Which is fine, but there are going to be some people who do have a connection between their clothing choices and whether or not they are trans. My own opinion for myself, is that by some definitions, for some reasons that I wear skirts, I do fall under that umbrella, but I don't feel that attitude myself. I think that may be one reason I have had no issues with my employer. <shrug> I'll take it. I don't see discussing this aspect as being a problem. It is not meant to imply, or infer, that any guy in a skirt is gay, trans, or martian.

In your position, I would advise reaching out to other company contacts, and maybe local advocacy groups for copies of policies in place in comparable companies. They may feel they have to follow certain legal frameworks for the actual printed policy, but I would suggest they include a common sense paragraph encouraging anyone with concerns, (from either viewpoint) to contact HR early to seek reasonable compromises and work rounds. Often a simple explanation is all that is necessary. I find that an early question can defuse a lot of situations without having to enact draconian policies that no-one feels happy with. It might be interesting to ask their attitude to someone like myself, who they may regard as trans, but does not identify as such. Would they still have no issue with me wearing a suitable skirt instead of pants?

[skirted_in_SF]

I think Dennis is on the right path by suggesting pants or skirted garment without reference to the sex/gender of the wearer. Pants can include shorts, skirted garments includes dresses. Then there is the problem of length. Many women, and some of us, wear skirts with hems from above the knee to well above the knee. I understand some schools (in the US anyway) specify fingertip length when standing, which is quite short. Perhaps in a work environment the length for skirts and shorts could be x inches/centimeters below fingertip length. The devil would be in determining what x should be.
I don't see any reason to bring up gender identity after making it clear that any acceptable garment may be worn by any gender.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful responses.
To help you navigate the confusion, about two years ago the City Council made LGBT a protected class. The first 3 initials got handled pretty by the major corporation I'm temping for. The last one is proving to be more difficult and apparently part of the difficulty is other local companies don't seem to have policies that cover transgenders. Most of don't particularly identify with being transgendered, but as you pointed out if we restrain our mouths we'll find we probably fit the legal definition and even if we don't, who would want to slip hairs so finely.
I like the idea of saying as far as clothing goes, if women can wear it than so can men and vice versa, as if they don't already. That should simplify that.
I think bathrooms could be a minefield with crossdressers. Another challenge will be establishing protocols for coming out and boundaries. For instance, on their days en femme, should crossdressers still go by their given name or their pseudonyms and if it's to be the latter, does that include with customers?
Is crossdressing and fashion freedom only to be allowed if you don't interface directly w/ customers.

[Sinned]

As far as naming there has been an item on application forms as well as first name, middle name and surname an item for the name by which you want to be called, which may be different from any of your names. I am sometimes tempted to put Sinned in there but then that is a username and its use would probably backfire on me. The name Michael is an example as the person may want to be known as either Mike, Mick, Mikey, Micky, Mitch or something completely different, such as Michelle. With customers companies that use a name badge have the advantage as the name could just be changed on it.

As for coming out, I presume that there would be some fairly serious discussions with HR, which would cover this issue. Some may contemplate a formal announcement company-wide but some may wish a low-key affair with local teams being informed, if at all. Some may just want to start wearing whatever clothing suits their mood at that time and have personal discussions with colleagues.

So in terms of which bathroom to use this should be part of these discussions and how to handle this with colleagues. Here I don't feel that you could even start to lay down any hard rules as each situation would be different. But the colleagues affected by a change of bathroom use must know BEFORE the change happens. You don't want Bert suddenly appearing in the Ladies loo wearing a dress now without any prior notification as the other Ladies would be at best surprised and worst very upset.

[Tor]

On the whole, I think all the media attention is perhaps part good, and certainly part half the problem. I have read the story of someone who we would definitely call a crossdresser who goes out in public. She said that in the older days, dressed up en femme, she would just use the women's restrooms and nothing was made of it. Now, it feels entirely different, and much more worrisome an issue. As Dennis mentioned, it is perhaps a little trickier with well known folk than with strangers. If there are customers involved, do they use the same bathrooms or do staff have separate bathrooms? If the latter, than I would tend to make clear a general presumption that people use the bathroom of their primary identity, ignoring the presentation of the day.

I would also recommend writing policy for clothes based on relative body measurements only. "Necklines shall be no more than 3" below the V of the collarbone" would be prudish on a 6'3" woman (if you can find one), but might be threatening indecency on a petite 5' woman.

Also, perhaps unwritten (or only in the job manuals of the actual enforcers), enforcement of minimum length skirts, for example, should be somewhat more lenient for the very tall than the very short. This because it can be hard for the very tall to find something that works from the tall sizing, while the short are taking up the petite version of the same skirt to reach the minimum permissible length.

All that being said, it seems to be almost a rule that rules only work with black and white, and fail miserably when shades of grey are involved.

[Uncle Al]

As to "Length" of skirts or shorts, I'ld use the phrase 'Mid-Knee length'.
This would allow for the various differences in height of employees.

In a customer service area(one-on-one) I would recommend a
'business-casual'(no coat & tie) attitude. No jeans or denim material
unless that is the product you're selling/promoting.

Personally, I don't want a sales-person to look, and act, like he/she has
a board stuck up his behind. If the sales-person has a 'casual' appearance,
that he/she is confident about the product, his/her mannerisms will reflect
that confidence to the customer, removing the concept of 'high-pressure sales'.

Point to consider..........Most of the "bathroom" talk is about the MTF.
What about the FTM person That person should have the same 'right' to
use the facilities that they identify with as the MTF does. One of my lodge
members is MTF and uses the facilities that she identifies with.
Seems like the "bathroom" talk is one-sided in this respect.

A simple solution - only build bathrooms with commodes and stalls.
Each person would have their own 'private' area to do his/her 'business'.


Sorry if I seem to ramble - my mind is trying to cover too many 'areas'
at the same time.

Uncle Al

[Tor]

On bathroom talk being one-sided: probably, but I suspect there are two reasons at work here. First, there is the issue of physical safety. Overblown, I'm sure, but AIUI, on average men are stronger than women, and the rape risk is pretty much one-sided. Given that, the MTF is where there is an issue, while the FTM makes the call as to his own safety in the men's room, and no one really gets to complain about him using the women's room until then.

Second, the predominance of MTF direction changes. I suspect that is a combination of social factors and environmental toxins (estrogen-mimics), especially in the foetus and early infancy. According to my reading, the (simplified) difference in development between male and female as a foetus is down to comparatively small differences in hormones, hopefully governed accurately by the chromosomal bio-marker. Anyone have ready to hand the number of transsexual cases where the chromosomal sex is a mismatch with the physical birth sex, and how that compares to the general population?

Hmmm... after writing the last bit above, it looks like it suggests that we should see a predominance of FTM, which doesn't match the real world. Then again, if it might not be so difficult to change the physical with hormones, it is no great leap to suggest that changing the mind's gender is easier still - which would explain what we see perfectly well.

[crfriend]

Point to consider..........Most of the "bathroom" talk is about the MTF. What about the FTM person That person should have the same 'right' to
use the facilities that they identify with as the MTF does. One of my lodge members is MTF and uses the facilities that she identifies with. Seems like the "bathroom" talk is one-sided in this respect.

It's slanted towards the Puritan mentality because that's what still drives much of the government. You've either got outright Puritans like we have in Massachusetts where nothing's changed since the 1680s or you've got the Southern Baptist Convention driving things. It's wholly idiotic.

As far as where I work, it's hilarious in a way. We have a FTM individual who uses the men's room. Nobody cares. It's an utter hoot, however, with that one in the stall wearing all-up male garb and me using the urinal with the front hem of my skirt hiked up to clear the "plumbing". And both of us are perfectly modest. Look on the funny side of things.

A simple solution - only build bathrooms with commodes and stalls. Each person would have their own 'private' area to do his/her 'business'.

Urinals have the advantage of using a heck of a lot less water than the pot. That's important around here since we're in the midst of a drought. Likewise, California.

[pelmut]

On bathroom talk being one-sided: probably, but I suspect there are two reasons at work here. First, there is the issue of physical safety. Overblown, I'm sure, but AIUI, on average men are stronger than women, and the rape risk is pretty much one-sided. Given that, the MTF is where there is an issue...

A man wanting to commit rape could find lots of easier ways to do it than dressing himself as a woman and entering a space full of real women who would gang together at the slightest sign of trouble.

In the U.K. (and probably in the U.S. too) there must be hundreds of transwomen using ladies toilets every day without the slightest problem or risk to other women. I have only heard of one recent case of trouble in a ladies toilet, that was where a man was caught spying and tried to excuse himself by claiming he was 'trans'. One or two other incidents have been reported, but on investigation they turned out to be cases where the transwoman was attacked, not where she was the aggressor.

Anyone have ready to hand the number of transsexual cases where the chromosomal sex is a mismatch with the physical birth sex, and how that compares to the general population?

When I tried to research that a year ago, some sources gave figures as high as 1.3%, depending on what level of mismatch you included; that doesn't mean that all those people are 'out' and transitioning. In 2009 the Gender Identity Research and Education Society published a study funded by the Home Office, they estimate the number of trans people in the U.K. to be about 0.6%

‘The adults who present emerge from a large reservoir of transgender people, who experience some degree of gender variance. They may number 300,000, a prevalence of 600 per 100,000, of whom 80% were assigned as boys at birth. However, the number would be nearly 500,000, if the gender balance among transgender people is equal. Service providers and employers need to be aware of this large group, who, whether or not they present for medical treatment, may still experience discrimination and be vulnerable to bullying and hate crime.’

Reed, B., Rhodes, S., Schofield, P. and Wylie, K (2009) Gender Variance in the UK: Prevalence, Incidence, Growth and Geographic Distribution Gender Identity Research in Education Society

Hmmm... after writing the last bit above, it looks like it suggests that we should see a predominance of FTM, which doesn't match the real world. Then again, if it might not be so difficult to change the physical with hormones, it is no great leap to suggest that changing the mind's gender is easier still - which would explain what we see perfectly well.

FtM is often more difficult to spot than MtF - but transmen with relatively mild dysphoria may find they can adopt masculine ways without the need to physically transition far easier than transwomen can adopt feminine ways whilst still retaining a male-looking body.

[Tor]

pelmut, I agree that the risk is overblown and a public toilet isn't a very good place to stir up trouble of that sort. I also suspect that it most cases where a man might try something with a reasonable chance of getting away with it there would be no need to dress up as a woman. Anyone who tries such a thing deserves to receive in return more violence than he can enjoy.

In reconsidering my question on chromosome/sex mismatch, what I was really thinking was "in what percentage of trans* folk, especially those transitioning, is there an clearly identifiable physical mismatch of some sort? Second, how much greater is this percentage than in the non-trans* folk?"

It looks like this information may not exist for the simple reason that it is relatively hard to produce, and the studies on the general population are rare at best. It still seems the question should sit in the thinking cap of people involved in trans* issues.

FtM is often more difficult to spot than MtF - but transmen with relatively mild dysphoria may find they can adopt masculine ways without the need to physically transition far easier than transwomen can adopt feminine ways whilst still retaining a male-looking body.

I do seriously wonder how many men end up transitioning because the box men are put in by society is too small. I know a man who, despite finding that considering the implications of being a woman almost made his skin crawl, got as far as asking the question of himself.

[pelmut]

In reconsidering my question on chromosome/sex mismatch, what I was really thinking was "in what percentage of trans* folk, especially those transitioning, is there an clearly identifiable physical mismatch of some sort? Second, how much greater is this percentage than in the non-trans* folk?"

I'm not sure I have understood the question correctly, are you asking how many trans people have been found to have physical body development that does not match their chromosomes? I suspect the answer to this will be very few, as chromosomes are the main factor in the differentiation of the gonads and the gonads then influence the physical development which follows.

A number of babies are born with ambiguous genitals and some of these are the result of chromosomal abnormalities, but in order to perpetuate the 'binary myth' these must be incorrectly labelled male or female (by law, in the U.K.). At least the medical profession is having second thoughts about automatically using surgery to 'put them right' since a few bad mistakes have come to light.

[Caultron]

...I also suspect that it most cases where a man might try something with a reasonable chance of getting away with it there would be no need to dress up as a woman...

This is obviously true. The idea of a man dressing as a woman as a means to enter women's restrooms and rape little girls is ludicrous.

It's simply a flimsy excuse for moralists to harass transgender people.

[Tor]

I'm not sure I have understood the question correctly, are you asking how many trans people have been found to have physical body development that does not match their chromosomes?

That was my first question, but I figured out before my second post that that had to be very small. What I had in mind when I first posed the question was more, "What percentage of people with an identifiable physical mismatch (which gets into definitions already, I realize) fall under the category of trans*?"

It seems very likely from what I've read that this group is heavily over-represented among trans* folk, but I would be curious to know just how much. If it really is significant, then the next question is "What causes the physical mismatch and why? Could this same or a similar process be at work in causing trans*?"

This is obviously true. The idea of a man dressing as a woman as a means to enter women's restrooms and rape little girls is ludicrous.

It's simply a flimsy excuse for moralists to harass transgender people.

Perhaps this argument is once looked at logically, but there is the question of women's comfort, and there are women who do find the idea of random men in their bathroom uncomfortable - and their perception of when a man becomes a woman may not match the trans* person's perception. Trans*-folk's rights are important, but remember that all rights are important.