In the wake of another San Antonio police officer being busted for sexually assaulting a transwoman, the 'Po-Po's Are Always Right' crowd have been trying to spin their way out of this latest mess and defend the officer.
In the comment threads of the story they are already trying to invoke the Duke Rape case and quoting a line in the Peter J. Holley story which states 'the complainant, authorities say is a prostitute'.
Excuse me? Have any evidence to back that up, or as usual did you believe every word the po-po's said?
One of the things that people of color are painfully aware of is that we know police departments have a cadre of less than honorable police officers who will lie, cheat, steal, fabricate evidence and are racist, homophobic and transphobic.
It also makes it hard on the officers who are honorable and interpret protecting and serving the public to mean EVERY segment of the community.
So it stands to reason that unless there is evidence out there that backs up that statement, just because the 'authorities' say a person is a prostitute doesn't necessarily make them one.
Far too many times transwomen of color are profiled as sex workers by police even if they aren't.
Police also use 'prostitution' as a catch all charge to arrest transpeople who are simply minding their own business, then once they are in custody take that time to harass them or worse.
One of the things tat has irritated me about the lack of action on ENDA is watching other countries pass laws banning TBLG discrimination while the so-called leading democracy on the planet can't do the right thing and pass employment discrimination bans.
On February 4 the Albanian parliament passed with a unanimous 71-0 vote banning discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The law's language guarantees every person "equality before the law and equal protection by law; equality of opportunities and possibilities to exercise rights, enjoy freedoms and take part in public life; and effective protection from discrimination and from every form of conduct that encourages discrimination."
The law also covers employment, housing, provision of goods and services, education and access to public places. It also specifically mentions health care, banking, transportation, entertainment and social protection.
41 year old Donzell Francis' one man sexual assault crime wave aimed at San Francisco area transwomen came to an end when he was convicted and sentenced to serve the maximum 17 years and 8 months in state prison.
DNA evidence obtained in the assault on Lena H. possibly links him to the rapes of three other transwomen and the murder of 27 year old transwoman Ruby Ordenana
This was the same Ruby Ordenana that banned in Britain hatemonger Michael Weiner, oops Savage disrespected on his radio show.
According to SFWeekly.com a jury convicted Francis in December 2009 of forcible oral copulation, robbery, assault, and causing great bodily injury to Lena H., a transgender sex worker he picked up in the Tenderloin on September 10, 2007.
He offered her a ride, and after she got in his truck was taken to an alley instead where the brutal rape and assault took place. She noted the license plate number on his truck after he drove away with her clothes and purse in his possession after the brutal sexual assault.
Lena ran home, alerted police, and went to the hospital to be treated for an abrasion across her hairline, bruising and swelling to the face, tenderness in the neck, and hemorrhages in her eyes possibly due to Francis strangling her.
The doctors swabbed Lena's mouth and hands during her sexual assault examination and found semen. The DNA from that semen matched that of Donzell Francis and was linked to three additional cases of sexual assaults on transgender women and the rape and murder of Ruby Ordenana.
An SFPD spokesperson conceded that a DNA sample recovered from Ordenana's body had gone untested for more than two years due to lab backlogs while the other transgender women were assaulted.
No charges have yet been filed in those cases, but this time let's hope and pray SFPD has gotten a dangerous sexual predator off the streets for good and that justice will finally been served in Ruby Ordenana's case.
After a heated discussion full of the usual Republican lies and scare tactics, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors voted on January 5 in favor of adding language to the county’s equal employment opportunity policy not permitting the government to base its hiring or firing practices on someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“It’s the right thing to do,” said Supervisor Stevens Miller (D-Dulles), the maker of the motion, explaining he heard from several members of the community on the matter and thought it was time to include the language in county policy.
After learning his proposal would not be welcomed by all of his fellow board members, he added: “It’s a shame anyone would put energy into resisting this.”
Before the vote, Loudoun’s EEO policy made no mention of sexual preference, but only said the county did not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, age or disability. Also, it was learned during the meeting that the county has never received a complaint on the language not being part of the policy, and that sexual orientation was already not considered in employment matters, though it was not spelled out.
The 6-2-1 vote split along political lines, with the most outspoken conservative on the board, Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling), voicing his opposition the loudest, accusing Miller of “sneaking” in the proposal without public input.
“Cross-dressing rights: that’s what we're talking about at this meeting,” Delgaudio said, his voice rising as he gestured toward Miller. “This would put men who wear dresses in county bathrooms without public notice!”
He went out to accuse Miller of having a liberal agenda, while saying that his proposal was a “kick in the teeth” to "moral people."
“This is freaky. This is bizarre. This is fruity!” he concluded.
A proposal by Delgaudio to schedule a public hearing on the matter was rejected.
Supervisor Lori Waters (R-Broad Run), who called the matter politically driven, also voted against Miller’s proposal, citing a ruling in 2007 by former Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore that the Fairfax County school board needed permission from state lawmakers to enact a similar policy.
“This issue needs some additional review and exploration,” she said. “You are inviting lawsuits unless you have firm, legal footing.”
In 2006, Gov. Tim Kaine (D) made an executive order barring state agencies from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.
Waters said she wanted the county to first consult with Virginia’s incoming conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli (R) before proceeding. That request was also rejected by a majority of the board.
Chairman Scott York (I-At large) was the only board member to abstain from the vote, explaining that the matter was never an issue until Miller brought it up. “It was a waste of 20 minutes,” he said of the discussion.
As for the proposal’s backers, many said the change is evidence that Loudoun is open to everyone.
“We are sending a message today that discrimination will not be tolerated in the Loudoun County government,” said Supervisor Andrea McGimsey (D-Potomac).
Board Vice Chairman Susan Klimeck Buckley (D-Sugarland Run) said the change puts on paper what is already happening—that no one is being turned away for the company they keep.
“This codifies existing practice,” she said. “We already don’t discriminate. We are just putting words to it.”
I talked about a bill last year designed to help protect GLBT prisoners that passed in the California Assembly and the California Senate, but was vetoed by the Governator.
I was advised by Jay Davis of Equality California that the bill, AB 633 was recently reintroduced for this session and on January 12 passed by a unanimous 6-0 vote in the California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
AB 633 is sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and was introduced by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). The bill is designed to prevent violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the state prison system. The bill was vetoed by the Governor last year but was recently reintroduced.
“We must put an end to the brutal assaults LGBT prisoners so often face,” EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors said. “Passing this bill would be an important step toward preventing violence against LGBT prisoners and ensuring they have access to the same safeguards under the law as other inmates. We have already started discussions with the Governor's office about why this bill is needed and why the current procedures are not working. We are hopeful he will reconsider his position and sign the bill if it passes this year.”
According to a study by UC Irvine commissioned by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 69 percent of transgender inmates report sexual victimization while incarcerated.
It's not just a California problem. Abuse of transgender prisoners happens across the country and around the world to the point where trans prisoners have to be segregated for their own protection. In Italy a transgender only prison was just opened in the town of Pozzale.
By amending the Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Act (SADEA) of 2005 to include self-reported safety concerns related to sexual orientation and gender identity on the list of factors for consideration when classifying and housing prisoners, the legislation promotes safety for and prevents assaults against LGBT people in the prison system. The list of factors currently includes age, type of offense and prior time served.
"All people deserve basic protections — including those serving time in our state prisons," Assemblymember Ammiano said. "No prisoner should fear for his or her life or be the target of abuse because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity."
The bill originally developed following a Senate Public Safety Committee meeting held in San Francisco in December 2008 and is chaired by Senator and former Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles). The meeting, which was sponsored by EQCA along with Just Detention International, the Transgender Law Center, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender, Gender Variant and Intersex Justice Project, exposed the dire issues facing LGBT people in California prisons in order to produce concrete solutions. The LGBT Prisoner Safety Act is an important step toward ensuring the safety of this highly vulnerable population.
Let's hope the bill fares better in this California legislative session than it did last year and actually becomes law.
TransGriot Note: This a guest post from the remarkable Renee of Womanist Musings.
Maria Benita Santamaria was sentenced to prison after she was arrested with ten pounds of meth. Clearly, this is against the law, however; she did not deserve to be tortured, sentenced to a men's prison and denied medical care. Her story is not unique, in fact the prison industrial complex is not equipped properly to house transgender criminals.
Maria had been on hormones for two years at the time of the arrest and therefore placing her in a male prison qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. The state has a responsibility to protect inmates from violence and a trans woman in a male prison faces an increased risk of violence and therefore they are often placed in solitary confinement.
Maria was placed in solitary confinement where she was denied hormone treatments and thus began to grow facial hair. According to the Washington Examiner she was even referred to as “it”. She was treated no differently than any other person in solitary confinement, despite doing nothing to earn this treatment other than being a trans woman. She was placed on lockdown 23 hours a day and allowed a shower once every three days.
The following is an excerpt from an interview with CSC's Craig Haney, a psychologist who's an expert on long-term solitary confinement.
First let me note that solitary confinement has historically been a part of torture protocols. It was well-documented in South Africa. It's been used to torture prisoners of war.
There are a couple reasons why solitary confinement is typically used. One is that it's a very painful experience. People experience isolation panic. They have a difficult time psychologically coping with the experience of being completely alone.
In addition, solitary confinement imposes conditions of social and perceptual stimulus deprivation. Often it's the deprivation of activity, the deprivation of cognitive stimulation, that some people find to be painful and frightening.
Some of them lose their grasp of their identity. Who we are, and how we function in the world around us, is very much nested in our relation to other people. Over a long period of time, solitary confinement undermines one's sense of self. It undermines your ability to register and regulate emotion. The appropriateness of what you're thinking and feeling is difficult to index, because we're so dependent on contact with others for that feedback. And for some people, it becomes a struggle to maintain sanity.
That leads to the other reason why solitary is so often a part of torture protocols. When people's sense of themselves is placed in jeopardy, they are more malleable and easily manipulated. In a certain sense, solitary confinement is thought to enhance the effectiveness of other torture techniques.
The prison industrial complex is overburdened and the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Once someone is imprisoned, often the larger society fails to recognize their humanity and they are subject to treatment that is abominable. If the person in question is part of an already socially marginalized group, the negligence and cruelty often escalates. After six months in solitary, daily being misgendered, and denied medical treatment, is it any wonder that Maria Benita Santamaria contemplated suicide?
I talked a few months ago about Canadian MP Bill Siksay filing a private member's bill May 15 that would add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of protected classes in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.
Well, thanks to the action alert from Mercedes Allen, it looks like the legislative process is finally beginning to percolate around MP Siksay's Bill C-389 and it is about to come up for debate.
NDP Party critic on Canadian Heritage, housing and Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual issues Bill Siksay is one of the few openly gay members of the Canadian Parliament and has represented the diverse Burnaby-Douglas riding in the Vancouver, BC area since 2004.
This is also the third attempt he's made to get Bill C-389 passed.
If C-389 passes, this would be a groundbreaking legislative win for our north of the border trans cousins.
As MP Siksay stated during the first reading of Bill C-389:
The bill will add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code sections regarding hate crimes and sentencing provisions, providing explicit protection for transgender and transsexual Canadians from discrimination in all areas of federal jurisdiction.
Transsexual and transgender Canadians face significant prejudice in their daily lives. Whether it is job discrimination, access to housing and public services, especially health care, problems with identity documents, difficulties with law enforcement officials, a high suicide rate, or the increased likelihood that they will be victims of violence, the situation of transsexual and transgender people demands our attention.
The bill would give transsexual and transgender Canadians direct access to the protections provided for in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code of Canada that they so urgently need.
I look forward to seeing the bill debated this fall in the next round of private members' business. Given that transgender and transsexual folks are members of our families, our friends, our co-workers, and our neighbours, I hope this measure will find support in all corners of the House.
If you live in the 'Great White North', time to get busy writing, e-mailing or calling your MP and respectfully asking them to support C-389. This is an 'all hands on deck' project that the entire Canadian TBLG community and their allies can and should enthusiastically get behind as well.
And don't stop with just the MP's. Write the party leaders as well such as the Liberals Michael Ignatieff, the NDP's Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May of the Green Party.
And if you happen to be a Conservative with progressive leanings, write the 'Sweater Vest' as well. After all, he is the Prime Minister.
Mercedes also noted that since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and much of the leadership ranks hail from conservative Alberta, it will be critically important for GLBT Albertans to make sure they make their voices heard with their MP's about their support for the passage of C-389.
Here's a link to the NDP Party website to get you started. If you don't know who your MP is, here's the link to the Canadian Parliament website in which all you'll have to do is type in your postal code to discover who your MP is.
As I continue to point out, the fight for transgender rights is a worldwide struggle. Any positive success anywhere on the planet helps me and my peeps in the States and other locales. It's why I'm very interested in what transpires in Canada with Bill C-389.
While we transgender Americans and our allies will pretty much be on the sidelines in cheerleader mode for this one, in light of the fact that ENDA is still awaiting action on this side of the border, we'll be extremely interested observers as the potentially historic C-389 bill makes its way through Parliament.
We'll also be praying that the third time is indeed the charm in terms of this bill becoming law in the Great White North.
New York Governor David Paterson is at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York City today to announce and sign an executive order extending anti discrimination protections to transgender state employees.
The order applies only to state employees who work under the authority of the executive branch and it does not apply to anyone in the private sector.
A number of cities in New York State, including Buffalo, Albany, Rochester and New York City, already prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.
There have been several attempts to pass comprehensive legislation to outlaw discrimination based on gender identity called the Gender Expression Non Discrimination Act or GENDA, but so far they have been unsuccessful.
GENDA has already passed the New York State Assembly but awaits action in the New York State Senate.
It's a nice first step, but the New York State Senate needs to do the right thing and pass GENDA. Thank you Governor Paterson for doing so.
NBJC applauds the 11-to-2 passage of marriage equality legislation by the Washington D.C. City Council late this afternoon. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has said he will sign the legislation into law.
“The families of our LGBT sisters and brothers deserve the same rights and protections as any others, and this legislation absolutely strengthens families,” said NBJC Executive Director Sharon J. Lettman. “We celebrate this victory along with all those who have worked to ensure that civil rights in our nation's capital apply to everyone.”
This legislation makes Washington D.C. the nation's first southern jurisdiction to pass marriage equality legislation. D.C. already recognizes marriages performed in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont, each of which passed laws supporting marriage equality earlier this year.
****
The National Black Justice Coalition (www.NBJC.org) is a civil rights organization dedicated to empowering Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Its mission is to end racism and homophobia. NBJC envisions a world where all people are fully empowered to participate safely, openly and honestly in family, faith and community, regardless of race, gender-identity, or sexual orientation.
As I figured would happen, the Republican led effort to cut off federal funding to ACORN was ruled unconstitutional yesterday in federal court.
US District Judge Nina Gershon handed them a legal victory by issuing a preliminary injunction against the government. Judge Gershon said it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds that were cut off as the result of a punitive law that passed and took effect October 1.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that named the US federal government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants. that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."
Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.
"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."
"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is an organization that advocates for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country.
Right wing critics and media pundits say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities and have relentlessly attacked the organization.
ACORN has been dogged by right wing allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement and been used by the Republicans to portray Democrats as corrupt.
It has been a goal of the conservative movement to kill ACORN, and the laws provisions were designed by its Republican sponsors to specifically single out the organization. It was extended on October 31 and was set to either expire or be extended again on December 18.
Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. Judge Gershon said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."
Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.
One of the things that's a recurring theme amongst transpeople no matter where we reside is job discrimination.
While some areas have tried to rectify the problem with local ordinances prohibiting such discrimination, there are wide swaths of the country in which we are not protected form the ignorance and bigotry of people when we seek employment and are subjected to outright disrespect when we do apply.
And too many times, it is transpeople of color who shoulder much of the trans discrimination burden, with the Zikerria Bellamy case in Florida only being the latest example of it.
If you peruse the TransGriot archives and the archives of other trans blogs you'll find various stories of transpeople being denied employment.
I followed the story of Izza Lopez back home who was hired by River Oaks Imaging, then had the job offer rescinded when the employer found out she was trans.
Rochelle Evans tells in her Dallas Voice interview of her attempts to find work being met with blatant discrimination in Fort Worth. That should hopefully lessen for her now that Fort Worth's anti-discrimination ordinance now covers trans people.
But the larger point is that as human beings trans people need food, clothing, shelter and health care. We have to have money to get that, and as people who wish to avoid entanglements with law enforcement for obvious reasons, we wish to get that cash through legitimate means.
So that leads me to pose this question once again. It's one the transgender community and our allies are impatiently waiting for an answer to from our lawmakers and the business community.
How can transpeople contribute to society if you won't hire us?
The Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a discrimination complaint today with the Florida Department of Human Relations against an Orlando McDonald's restaurant for refusing to hire 17-year-old transwoman Zikerria Bellamy.
On July 10, 2009, Zikerria applied online for a position as a Shift Manager or Crew Leader at McDonald's. On July 28, after managers at McDonald’s learned that Zikerria is transgender, she received the following transphobic voicemail message from one of the managers:
Needless to say Zikerria wasn't hired by the Mickey D's in question.
As matter of fact, why protect that Mickey D's? Let the whole world know the location of the Orlando McDonald's restaurant that serves up trans discrimination with its fries and shakes so it can be properly protested.
I'm damned sure not lovin' this.
But this is a prime example of why ENDA needs to be passed ASAP, not delayed. It has been delayed long enough.
Few protections exist for transgender people who experience employment discrimination. In 38 states, there is no law protecting transgender people from being fired because of who they are. Federal law similarly offers no job protection for transgender people.
Too many times African-American transwomen such as Zikerria and other transwomen of color bear the brunt of the job discrimination the community faces.
Time for the trans community and our allies to start calling Capitol Hill and pestering congressmembers just like we did in 2007 after we were cut out of ENDA.
And here's the number to call Congress and get you started: 202-224-3121
Fortunately for Zikerria and other Florida transpeople, while no law explicitly addresses discrimination based on gender identity, administrative agencies in Florida have ruled that transgender people are protected by the Florida Human Rights Act’s prohibitions on sex and disability discrimination. The Competitive Workforce Bill, which would add gender identity and sexual orientation to the Florida Civil Rights Act, was introduced in the Florida legislature on November 20.
We can't be productive members of society if we can't get a job, much less stay employed in the first place because of somebody's naked transphobia.
May TLDEF be successful in getting justice for Zikerria and sending the message once again that discrimination against transpeople is bad for business.
I know Zoe and the rest of my transpeeps in Cleveland are on Cloud Nine today after their city council passed a transgender civil rights law by a unanimous 21-0 vote.
The law bans discrimination in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity. Cleveland's anti-discrimination law already includes sexual orientation, age, race and religion.
What might prove problematic is a last-minute amendment that excludes shared showers, locker rooms and restrooms.
The legislation was sponsored by openly gay and outgoing Council member Joe Santiago, who introduced the bill in August. Unfortunately Santiago lost his bid for a second term in September.
Cleveland now joins other Ohio cities such as Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and the Cleveland suburbs of Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights in protecting its transgender residents against discrimination.
On the surface, allowing petition drives to force referendums and recall votes on unpopular decisions sounds like a great idea. When used wisely, it allows citizens to force votes on questionable governmental deals, horrible policies, overturn specious laws and sweetheart deals.
But unfortunately, far too often over the last twenty years the right wing has been using the referendum process to do preemptive strikes to curtail GLBT civil rights or overturn passed civil rights laws for marginalized groups it doesn't like.
If the abuse of referenda were as prevalent back in the day as it is now, Jim Crow segregation would still be around and women wouldn't be voting.
So what do we do about the situation? As I've said before, the best defense is a good offense. The right wingers aren't the only people who can propose referendum and ballot initiatives.
So I propose we get them to spend money fighting a progressive ballot initiative. It would contain language that would ban the practice of putting people's civil rights up for a majority vote.
You know something, why stop at a ballot initiative or state constitutional amendment? How about having it ensconced in the United States Constitution as well?
What it would do would kill any future attempts at putting amendments on the ballot that have the effect of the majority voting to take away civil rights granted to protect a minority group.
And conservafools, y'all can hate on the idea all you want, but 2050 is coming sooner than you think, and you know what they say about karma.
It's past time for a constitutional amendment that would ban the practice of putting people's civil rights up for a majority vote
I mentioned Sierra Broussard's case in twoposts a few months ago. Since the trial was scheduled to start tomorrow, I was curious to see what had transpired in the suit she filed since I last wrote about it.
This story from the Post-Crescent notes there has been a settlement reached in this case.
The 28 year old biracial transwoman appeared in Outagamie County Court on October 23 in her civil lawsuit against Concepts Unlimited Inc., which does business as the Park Central nightclub.
Broussard said she was twice denied entrance to the nightclub complex and said an employee told her if she "used either bathroom it would cause confusion for the other patrons," and that she should go to a club that caters to "her kind."
Broussard's attorney, Eric Pitsch of Appleton, said the agreement includes a judgment against Concepts Unlimited, but he is not allowed under the deal to discuss its specifics. He did state that the agreement was reached before an upcoming hearing about evidence. "I was preparing the case for trial," Pitsch said.
The judgment dismissed claims against Concepts Unlimited owners Charles A. and Lynn McCarrell, who were named in the original civil complaint.
"I feel more relief than anything," Broussard said. "I plan to take this one more step and use it as an educational tool, educate people on bias and let people know they can't discriminate."
I find it interesting that all this BS started because of the faux hysteria and concern whipped up by haters about what bathroom I or any transperson should use.
It's very simple.
If you're a transwoman, you use the women's restroom. If you're a transman, you use the men's one.
Now Wisconsin GL peeps, here's a question for you?
When are y'all gonna get around to coming back for the trans community and adding transpeople to the non-discrimination law you passed for yourselves and cut us out of back in 1982?
Hopefully, the civil suit settlement sends the message that discrimination against transpeople isn't cool.
But what will emphatically send that message is for the Wisconsin legislature to add transpeople to the existing anti-discrimination law.
Thanks to my sis Leona Lo, I heard about this Hong Kong case.
Trans people in South Korea, Singapore, Japan, parts of Europe and even parts of mainland China have the right to get married and do. You would think that Hong Kong would also follow suit because it was ruled by Britain for 156 years until it reverted back to Chinese control in 1997.
Nope.
Despite its worldwide image as a modern, cosmopolitan city, Hong Kong is a largely traditional and conservative society where GLBT groups inside and outside of it often complain of intolerance, harassment and discrimination.
Thanks to growing 'Christian' fundamentalism in Hong Kong, it's getting worse for transpeople. Like everywhere else on the planet, the Hong Kong fundies have targeted transpeople as their 'Great Satan' to organize and rally against.
A twentysomething post operative transwoman is gearing up for a Hong Kong High Court battle to marry her boyfriend. She was told the reason she cannot do so is because Hong Kong law only recognizes marriages between a couple born as male and female.
Hong Kong transpeople can change their identity cards and school certificates to reflect their gender identity and be recognized as such, but do not have the right to marry someone of their birth gender.
And there's the rub. Someone in the Registry of Marriages has failed to note the simple fact that a transwoman, be she pre, post or non operative is a woman, period.
That means she does have the right to get married to any man, cis or transgender and this is NOT a same gender marriage.
In a landmark care in Hong Kong, a judicial review of the adverse ruling by the Registrar of Marriages is being conducted.
The transwoman in question has requested anonymity as she fights this ruling. and her attorney, Michael Vidler, said his client had undergone SRS within the past five years after years of gender therapy.
He told Wednesday's South China Morning Post that she was now "pleased to be a woman" and was in a stable relationship with her boyfriend.
The registrar's decision had "disregarded the gender therapy, ignored the reassignment surgery and deprived transsexuals of their human rights," Vidler told the newspaper.
A hearing was expected to take place in the next two weeks to set a date for a full hearing into the case.
But it's a travesty she's having to fight so hard just to marry the person she loves.
After a marathon session in front of a packed chamber, the Fort Worth City Council voted 6-3 to expand the city's anti-discrimination ordinance to cover transgender people. The ordinance already prevented discrimination based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
Much of the debate centered on the broader proposals of which some of them the Fort Worth City Council has already tacitly approved.
City staffers will be trained to respectfully interface with the TBLG community, and the Fort Worth Police Department has appointed a liaison to the community.
Other recommendations such as offering domestic-partner benefits and expanding the city health insurance plan to cover gender reassignment procedures are being studied.
"We believe, as you do, that we should respect each other," said Jon Nelson of Fairness Fort Worth. "The foundation of these recommendations isn’t preferential treatment, it’s equal treatment."
"Being a transgender person has nothing to do with a person’s ability to do their job," Victoria Van Fleet said.
I was not shocked by the outcome. Dallas has had TBLG protections on the books for several years now. Fort Worth has a sizable TBLG population despite its fundie rep.
Civic leaders were serious about passing this in the wake of the contentious Rainbow Room raid. I've also chronicled one Fort Worth transperson's struggle with discrimination, but her story isn't unique in Cowtown.
It may be a surprise to you readers, but as I told you peeps, my birth state is progressive in the cities, but regressive in the rural areas. East Texas is another matter that will take a post to explain.
Congratulations Fort Worth! This segues nicely into my next thought that is directed to the politicos in my hometown.
Now Houston, if Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin can do this, what's stopping the largest city in the state from stepping up to the plate and protecting all transpeople residing in Houston not employed by the city from discrimination?
In the wake of a highly publicized Fort Worth Police Department and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission raid on the Rainbow Lounge that took place June 28, a task force was formed to look into the complaints that arose from that contentious raid.
Five people were arrested for public intoxication in that raid and one patron was taken to the hospital with a serious head injury. Complaints poured in about the use of excessive force during the raid as well as accusations that the Fort Worth police and the TABC targeted the bar because of its GLBT clientele.
The commission released its recommendations November 3 for giving Fort Worth's GLBT residents better access and equal treatment at City Hall.
Those recommendations are:
■ Extending the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance to include gender expression. A vote on the recommendation is scheduled for Tuesday.
■ Training for all city employees and elected officials on dealing with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Police, fire and front-line customer service representatives will be trained within two years.
■ Extending domestic partner benefits, shared pensions and family leave for gay and lesbian city employees.
■ Including a company’s record on domestic partner benefits when considering city tax breaks.
■ Including sex-change surgery in city health insurance coverage.
■ Posting nondiscrimination language on job notices, including a letter to police recruits.
■ Establishing support groups for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.
■ Holding educational fairs and using public events and media to increase awareness of the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.
■ Pushing for state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
According to a Fort Worth Star Telegram article, Fort Worth council members appeared to favor most of the proposals. Councilman Joel Burns, who is gay, said, "I think everyone on this council wants to demonstrate that we’re committed to protect the full rights of everyone in our city."
Fort Worth City Manager Dale Fisseler concurred with the recommendations, although he asked for time to research the financial impact of some, such as the pension and healthcare changes.
The Fort Worth City Council will meet at 5 PM CST tomorrow to vote on those recommendations.
Kelli Busey of Planet Transgender is asking all GLBT people in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area show up for this critical meeting because the haters definitely will.
Fort Worth back in the day was headquarters for several televangelists, and still has a fundamentalist streak running through it despite being the home of Texas Christian University.
The Forces of Intolerance have mobilized in an attempt to shut GLBT people out of City Hall and do a replay of this summer's nekulturny town hall behavior.
Their mission is to browbeat and either intimidate the Fort Worth City Council into voting against the recommendations or tabling it to give them more time to stir crap up and bring out of town reinforcements in.
It's up to you peeps who are drum majors for justice to stop them, stand up to the bullies and give the Fort Worth City Council the opportunity to hopefully hand them another embarrassing defeat.
The good news just keeps on coming for the transgender community. A New York State appellate court on October 21 struck down a lower court requirement that transgender people seeking to change their names provide medical evidence of their need for the name change.
The case concerned Olin Winn-Ritzenberg, a 23 year old trans man who attempted to change his name earlier this year.
His name change petition was denied by the lower court because he had failed to provide a letter from a doctor, therapist or social worker establishing his need to change his name.
When he was told by a New York court clerk he had to show a note from his doctor detailing his "need" to change his name, he contacted the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund for help.
The appellate court wrote,
"[t]here is no sound basis in law or policy to engraft upon the statutory provisions an additional requirement that a transgendered-petitioner present medical substantiation for the desired name change." The court's decision sends a powerful message that transgender people must be treated equally and that they cannot be subjected to different legal requirements than everyone else. People’s names are fundamental to their identities. This decision confirms that each one of us has the right to be known by a name we choose. That decision can’t be second-guessed by doctors, therapists or anyone else simply because someone is transgender.
Upon learning of the ruling, Olin said in a statement, "This means that I can finally change my name and move forward with my life. My gender transition has been a very personal journey, and no one is in a better position to decide that I need to change my name than I am."
Thanks once again to TLDEF for being fierce advocates for our legal rights.
In the wake of another San Antonio police officer being busted for sexually assaulting a transwoman, the 'Po-Po's Are Always Right' crowd have been trying to spin their way out of this latest mess and defend the officer. 
