Talk:Employment Non-Discrimination Act (U.S.)

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Transgender identity


I edited your comments a bit to fit in more with our style. To comply with our policy on references, I do think we really need to find some external sources for this analysis of the bill (and find someone we can link to who makes the criticism about how the bill authors prefer to leave the question to the courts in order to get votes), but I've left the content up for now. Please understand that our reason for this is to make sure no one has to "take my word for it" but can know where information that is presented here comes from. You might find it useful to see the Open Congress search page on "Employment Non-Discrimination Act", which links to many blog posts and news articles on the act and can probably provide you with more information and sources to link to. Feel free to leave a message for me on my talk page or at Conoremail.png if you would like to discuss this further or if I can be of any help. Also, this discussion page is a good place to post notes, etc., on the development of the article. I've pasted your original post below. Cheers! --Conor Kenny 15:21, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

ENDA's definition of gender identity, as written, appears to apply only to those person diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) [Transsexuality/Harry Benjamin Syndrome] who are under medical treatment and protocols and in the process of transitioning or have transitioned to the opposite anatomical sex. The bill implies that the transition is permanent and the concurrent legal changes [gender marker on legal identification, name, government records, etc.], thus excluding part time cross dressers and weekend transgenderists who normally keep their legal identity and name separate from their gender dressing.
I anticipate any number of cases going before the courts that will attempt to stretch the gender identity categorization to include the entire transgender umbrella (cross-dressers, men in dresses, those who switch back and forth between gender presentations as it suits them [a woman today, a man tomorrow]) and insistance on entry into women's restrooms dependent solely on the clothes being worn at that moment.
As many women use public bathrooms to adjust their initimate clothing and (in the case of the Pentagon) as dressing rooms to change from exercise gear to office apparel, the proposed laws definition of a dressing facility will also need to be addressed by the courts.
The overlying problem with the bill is that there is no attempt to specifically define what is meant by gender identity, preferring to leave the definition fuzzy, perhaps feeling that a specific definition would exclude some support groups and, subsequently, votes in the next election. It is much easier to blame the courts for their interpetation of laws than to write the law correctly in the first place.

--Lisajain 12:52, 17 June 2007 (EDT)