Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Discussion of fashion elements and looks that are traditionally considered somewhat "femme" but are presented in a masculine context. This is NOT about transvestism or crossdressing.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

I haven't read the text of the law yet, but I would not be overly surprised to see some details in there somewhere that stipulate that the law only applies if you identify in certain ways. We do not have a forward-looking judicial branch here.


Carl, it's a Supreme Court decision not a law. And as they go, fairly short; 27 pages for the decision, the rest of the 100 pages are the dissent. The decision was written by a Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, who, in the tradition of his mentor, Antonin Scalia, considers himself a textualist. That is, the court went back to what the words of the law in question say.

The law in question is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (I got the title wrong in my earlier post) covers employment discrimination so the standard he applied is "except for sex." So, it doesn't come down to, for instance, 'If women are allowed to wear pants on the job, men are allowed to wear skirts;' the ruling says, 'If women are allowed wear skirts on the job, so are men.'

I throw in that nuance to suggest that if, as a matter of safety or uniform, a company says all employees are to wear pants; then so it shall be. But they can't say only women may wear skirts.

As to identifying oneself as anything other than a human being and an employee, I would be surprised if there was anything of the sort in this ruling because one of the things textualists insist on is not rewriting laws -- that's Congress's job. They also stress simplicity. And in 1964 no one had yet cooked up our current alphabet soup of gender identities. So, even though I haven't read the ruling, I'd say you probably DON'T need to label yourself (I'm sorry I hadn't thought my statement through in my earlier post through.) to wear a skirt or dress to work.

Strictly as a matter of practicalities I would suggest two things: 1) give your supervisor a heads-up before you take the plunge, because they're categorically allergic to surprises and 2) if your employer has a diversity policy, have one of its gender identity labels that you're comfortable with handy, just in case you get questioned about it being within company policy. If your company policy has you covered, why get into a debate about current events? These days most supervisors aren't terribly concerned about what their employees wear to work, just so long as it's appropriate to the environment, but none of them like pains in the neck.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5016
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by moonshadow »

Well, I am just tickled to death that I no longer have to fret over being seen on social media, out and about, etc with a skirt on, on my OWN TIME and worry with being fired..

It's nice to know that this is no longer something I have to consider IN ANY STATE, with regards to employment opportunity. I shall continue to exercise good judgment in the appropriateness of my attire. There likely will never be a day where will interview in a skirt... but once hired and past the probationary period... company picnics?... Sure, why not!? :cheers:
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4262
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Sinned »

Whilst I am pleased that you appear to be becoming more civilised over there :lol: I noted that Trump wasn't best pleased about the decision. I also see that he's reversed the health protections for transgender individuals in your country. So one step forward, one step backward.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
Ralph
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Ralph »

Sinned wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:56 pm
I also see that he's reversed the health protections for transgender individuals in your country. So one step forward, one step backward.
Sinned, I introduced that topic a few days ago when it was announced. There seems to be some uncertainty over just how much damage Trump did with that ruling. My transgender friends are terrified that it means they can legally be denied care from any of their standard providers, but from what I've read of the law (before and after Trump's reversal) it sounds like it is focused specifically on whether or not healthcare providers are required to provide gender reassignment treatments if they are personally unwilling to support those treatments.

If that's truly the limit to what Trump did, I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. Compelling someone to perform surgery or psychological support for a process they disapprove of is just asking for trouble, and it's not like there is a dearth of physicians willing to take on that kind of work.

At the risk of suggesting a "slippery slope" fallacy, there are people who for whatever reason believe their lives would be better if they were missing a few body parts. They seek out surgeons willing to amputate a limb, for example. Should medical professionals be legally required to perform the requested amputations of healthy limbs even if they find the concept repugnant?

I'm not trying to equate the two (at least not intentionally), and I don't have a preconceived notion of what is the right answer. I'm looking for boundaries as to what is ethical, what should be mandatory, etc.
Ralph!
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by pelmut »

Ralph wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:09 pm
...
I'm not trying to equate the two (at least not intentionally), and I don't have a preconceived notion of what is the right answer. I'm looking for boundaries as to what is ethical, what should be mandatory, etc.
I think its a question of what does the least damage.  If someone has body parts that lead to their authentic personality being rejected by society and they are being driven to suicide because of that, amputating the unwanted parts is the least-bad option.  The medical side of the process is so specialised that a doctor who objects to it is unlikely to ever find themself in the position of having to do it.

With regard to juveniles and hormones, the decision not to intervene in a transgender puberty is actually a decision to force the child to go through a puberty that causes them immense distress and could ruin the rest of their life.  Puberty blockers are the least-bad option for delaying the decision until the child is mature enough to realise the full implications of it.  A doctor who refuses puberty blockers on 'ethical' grounds is actually behaving unethically and harming the child by a failure to act.

There are so many unique situations in medicine, that anything mandatory is going to be wrong a lot of the time.  That is why only the most general rules are mandatory and doctors are allowed to use their judgement in the individual cases.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Sinned wrote:
Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:56 pm
Whilst I am pleased that you appear to be becoming more civilised over there :lol: I noted that Trump wasn't best pleased about the decision. I also see that he's reversed the health protections for transgender individuals in your country. So one step forward, one step backward.
When we Yankees first revolted, I understand the area granted by the Treaty of Paris was considered the crown jewel of the British Empire. This is one of those times that you should be grateful that you didn't succeed in taking back that crown jewel in 1812.

You're correct that the Friday before the Supreme Court decision Trump promulgated rules allowing discrimination in providing health care to LGBTQ patients. Because the Affordable Care Act explicitly forbids such discrimination, those rules had little chance of standing up to a legal challenge. I saw in one news report that the rule might have had a provision nullifying it if the employment discrimination case failed in the Supreme Court. Another said that the wording of the employment decision was broad enough that it may already be nullified.

In short, the fate of Friday's rule is still up in the air.

And here when I taught Introduction to Business Law I told my students that the legal system was designed to ensure that the law is certain.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
Shilo
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 pm
Location: NW UK

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Shilo »

I have lived my life believing in the premise of the 18th century lexicographer Dr Johnson “ The law is a ass”!
:roll:
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5016
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by moonshadow »

Dave, what are your thoughts on the possibility of congress simply repealing and replacing the 64 law with one that once again excludes LGBTQ people? Because I can tell you, if Trump wins another term and we vote in Republicans in the congress, I can certainly see that happening...

I don't think this is over by a long shot.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

by moonshadow » Sat Jun 20, 2020 4:26 am

Dave, what are your thoughts on the possibility of congress simply repealing and replacing the 64 law with one that once again excludes LGBTQ people? Because I can tell you, if Trump wins another term and we vote in Republicans in the congress, I can certainly see that happening...

I don't think this is over by a long shot.
Wow! I have to hand it to you Moonshadow, you sure know how to ask a question!

My short answer is that right now the election is Joe Biden’s to lose and he’s a much more experienced politician than Donald Trump so the scenario you paint is unlikely.

Secondly, rewriting the 1964 Civil Rights in the manner you are suggesting would require flying in the face of the will of 70-80% of the American electorate. That sounds difficult, but as your question suggests, not as difficult as it sounds. Our legislative branch has ignored the will of a similar percentage of the electorate on basic firearms safety measures. For decades. So, ignoring the overwhelming majority of the electorate isn’t as hard nor as politically costly as it sounds.

More difficult would be working around the Supreme Court decision. But not impossible.

In sum, the nightmare scenario you outlined is a long shot, at best, but again not impossible.

Your final concern, that this isn’t over, on the other hand, is right on point. In Oregon, LGBTQ individuals have been protected by law from employment discrimination for the last 13 years and transgendered men and women are still discriminated against. Having a law on the books but getting it enforced and fully accepted is quite another.

It seems to me that the best thing that all of us who enjoy skirts can do is to drag ourselves out of the closet and openly wear skirts. Everywhere. Work, school, church, grocery shopping, medical appointments. Everywhere.

We American MIS’s need to normalize men wearing skirts before public opinion turns. Once we’re an accepted, everyday element of the landscape, our legal protections will be untouchable. If we don’t, the proverbial worm of public opinion could turn before we know it.

Or as Al Pacino was wont to say in Stand Up Guys, “It’s time to either kick a** or chew gum!” To which Christopher Walken would say, “And I just ran out of gum!” Even if you have gum, ditch it!

If you’re a little scared by what I’m saying, that just proves you’re human.

So, just do it!
Last edited by Pdxfashionpioneer on Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Lost in the shuffle of what Monday's Supreme Court ruling meant was the question of what was the effect of Friday's regulations on medical care for LGBTQ individuals. It's a Duesy!*

A provision of the Affordable Care Act explicitly forbids discrimination against LGBTQ persons in the provision of medical care. After it passed, the Dept. of Health & Human Services wrote regulations implementing that provision. For whatever reason, Donald Trump tasked the Dept. of HHS with writing regulations rescinding that provision.

If you said, "They can't do that, it's in contravention of the law!" Legally, you're absolutely right, practically speaking they can. And it stands until someone successfully fights it in court. Probably all the way to the Supreme Court. As we've seen in the case that was settled Monday that is a long, drawn out, expensive, taxing and frustrating process. In Trump's political calculus, that's irrelevant. By the time the Supreme Court rules, Donald J. will be out of office and in the meantime, he'll have scored the desired dollop of political points with the homophobic portion of his base.

So, no, those rules don't just cover Sexual Alinement Surgery; it applies to any kind of medical care for any kind of condition. Would such a flagrant disregard for the Hippocratic oath occur? Consider this, the doctor who discovered blood typing, which was the finding that made safe, reliable blood transfusions possible, died of the injuries of a car accident. It turns out that the accident occurred in the South and the nearest hospital only treated whites. When he arrived there, they refused any treatment at all. By the time he got to a hospital that treated blacks, it was too late.

Clearly, there are practical consequences to those Trump Administration rules. They don't represent the will of the people. And there are consequences of the ultimate kind.


*Historically correct spelling. The expression was coined after the Auburn motor company bought Duesenberg and gave Augie free rein to build the cars he'd always wanted to. These things were classic 1930's luxury cars that had to weigh well over 2 tons, maybe 3, but could still top 100 mph in 2nd gear. So, when one rolled down the street, it made quite the sight and inspired an admiring exclamation, "It's a Duesy!" In time, it came to be an American slang expression for anything that was in a class by itself. For better or worse.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Moonshadow asked about an exception for religious reasons and I meant to address that.

I just saw an article stating that last Monday's ruling did not explicitly grant such an exception. Consequently, exceptions like the Hobby Lobby ruling were not provided by this ruling.

That said, written into the 1964 Act was an exception for religious institutions and direct affiliates such as denominational schools. If they have a doctrinal prohibition against a behavior, they can refuse employment to practitioners of that behavior.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5016
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by moonshadow »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:32 am
That said, written into the 1964 Act was an exception for religious institutions and direct affiliates such as denominational schools. If they have a doctrinal prohibition against a behavior, they can refuse employment to practitioners of that behavior.
Honestly I think that's a pretty fair compromise.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4262
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by Sinned »

Well, Dave, you ( as in the population ) have a truly screwed up situation there. I'm glad that I live over here where most ( but not all ) treatments are provided by the NHS free of charge, no matter how complex. There are certain ones such as SRS that may not or cosmetic surgery such as boob implants may not be and they would be private and chargeable. The irony is that even though private medical the operations may still be done in NHS facilities. But issues such as treatment for trans people just wouldn't occur. If it's serious and needs to be done then it will be irrespective of the gender or sexuality of the patient. Of course our NHS gets abused by tourists who come over on holiday and unfortunately need treatment while they are here and non-nationals ( can one say "foreigners" and more? ) may take advantage. Non-nationals may be invoiced for the treatment but how many actually pay once they are back in their own country?

Incidentally I've just had a tooth extracted and am still in some discomfort ( ouch! ). Dental work is an anomaly to the above. I'm an NHS patient but it still cost me £62.10 to have it done. So NHS and chargeable but then there is the private dental sector too which costs more. Eyecare is probably another. The NHS subsidises certain glasses frames and lenses but mostly glasses have to be paid for.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by pelmut »

Sinned wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:32 pm
... I'm glad that I live over here where most ( but not all ) treatments are provided by the NHS free of charge, no matter how complex. There are certain ones such as SRS that may not ...
SRS is available on the NHS, but the waiting lists are years long.  Anyone who can afford it is advised to go private and many people travel to hospitals abroad, where the cost is lower.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
skirted84
Active Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: Has the attention on transgendered individuals helped us?

Post by skirted84 »

I can only speak for the situation in Scotland and broadly the UK, but the transgender debate has become toxic to put it mildly. Regrettably experience over the years has shown there is little acceptance of a man openly wearing 'womens' clothes as a man, and more sinisterly was thought to frighten children. A few years ago there was growing acceptance you can identify as the opposite gender but in practise that means presenting AS that gender. Makeup, extra hair, female name and roughly dressing as a women your age in the same context would. Some take female hormones and have cosmetic surgery to be more convincing as women, a step I haven't taken. A particular fraught debate is use of public toilets, there is no law over here but it is frowned on if you're recognised as a man in the female room.

Even a tartan kilt is noteworthy pretty much anywhere here, and only expected in certain events like weddings, football or rugby, highland games etc.

Overall no it has not helped the freestyle man at all and I've seen scarcely acceptance of it outside the "trans umbrella", including non binary/gender nonconforming/queer all swept up under this banner. The vitriol being pedalled against women with reasonable concerns about unfettered access for men to previously female spaces and services is a stain on all who are seen under the broader trans category, including the more traditional "transsexuals" that have a full medical transition and quietly get on with life, down to the simple man comfortable wearing skirts.
Post Reply