Gender Identity and gender expression should be protected by Human Rights Act: Siksay

While it's true that transsexuals are in a tiny minority, at what point do you decide a minority is too small to worry about? .01%, .1%, 10%, larger, smaller? Also, Gender Identity is established between the third trimester of pregnancy to 8 months of life, so it's something you are born with. Dressing like a Goth isn't something you're born with, it's something you choose. I don't think employers should discriminate based on clothing style, hair length, or any superficial thing like that, but at least "style" is not a fundamental element of your being, as is transsexuality. I bet virtually all transsexuals would choose not to be transsexual if they had the power and they are not "choosing" a lifestyle to "Stick it to the Man", but trying to get through life playing the hand which they were dealt. Should society punish them for the way they were born?
The clothing issue, "Man in a dress" thing, is held up as being where the choice comes in. Society says "these weird guys can choose to wear normal clothes if they want to fit in, but obviously they are just strange people, so screw them." That is missing the point of being a transsexual entirely. A Male to Female transsexual, has the mind, temperament and soul (if you belief in that sort of thing) of a woman, they just don't have a body that coincides with that reality. Wearing the socially acceptable attire of the opposite sex is merely an expression of their inner self, just as a woman born with the correct body wears female attire to coincide with her inner self. A normal man wearing woman's clothes may be considered strange, but transsexuals are not normal men, they are women who basically have a birth defect that can be somewhat mitigated with medical intervention and social transition.
A group of people that cross the gender line are the source of much gossip and derision. They are hard to understand and therefore threatening and something to be shunned. There are also not many of them, so it's ok to pick on transsexuals. It seems to me that a group that is small in numbers, horrifying to the general public, misunderstood, considered inferior and dangerous, and born that way is the very definition of a group that is discriminated against and needs protection under the Charter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:[b]Is one obese person murdered every month for being overweight?[/b]

---

I assume you're referring to the often-quoted claim by Riki Anne Wilchins, a prominent American trans-activist. However, she was talking about the U.S., not Canada. Even if you accept her claim at face value, the Canadian rate would probably be a tenth of that; and given the level of violence generally in the "Excited States", I bet even one per year would be an overestimate.

By the way, the Jewish people are not specifically mentioned "as a group", either in the Charter or the HRA. Religion as a whole is protected, and Jews derive their protection as part of that larger group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:[b]It's not about group rights, it's about the every person's right to freedom from discrimination.[/b]

---

Absolutely, and if I were amending the HRA, I would take the same approach. It begins with a guarantee that "every individual" is protected from discrimination. For greater certainty it then lists certain minorities [i]in particular[/i], but protection is not limited to those groups. That allows the courts to "read in" protections for sexual orientation, transgender, obesity and anything else that might become the basis for unfair treatment of individuals.

The Human Rights Act, by contrast, simply says:

quote:

---

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

---

And that's it. If you're not among one of those named groups, then as far as the HRA is concerned you have no human rights. Presumably you can still fall back on your Charter rights, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission (which is a creature of the HRA) cannot help you.

IANAL, but I would imagine that if an HR representative told you that you were being turned down for a promotion because you have big ears, you'd have the option of grieving that discrimination.

On the other hand, if they said nothing and simply passed you over, you'd probably have a hard time getting anyone to start a full-scale inquiry based on your belief that it was all about your ears.

I don't think that the list of protected entities should be interpreted as a "free-for-all" or "open season" on any entities not listed.

For the love of god. This isn't about clothing. This is about people being discriminated against because of the gender they identify as.

People have been refused jobs or fired for their gender identity.

People have been refused service or entry at establishments for their gender identity.

People have been left to die by emergency personnel for their gender identity.

But all some people want to talk about is what they wear to the workplace. It's disgusting and shameful to equate your personal wardrobe dilemmas to the extreme discrimination faced by trans people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
[b]For the love of god. This isn't about clothing. This is about people being discriminated against because of the gender they identify as.
People have been refused jobs or fired for their gender identity.
People have been refused service or entry at establishments for their gender identity.
People have been left to die by emergency personnel for their gender identity.[/b]

---

(You made that last one up, right? When/where was a transsexual "left to die by emergency personnel"?)

Let me ask again: if it's not about clothing and/or related aspects of appearance, then what? How exactly would it happen that a person could be refused jobs or refused entry at establishments because of their inner conflicts over sexual identity? How would anyone know?

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
[b]Actually, no. I was referring to the story of Tyra Hunter.[/b]

---

Well, if there are no Canadian examples, then I guess a ten year old American one will have to do. But it does illustrate my point nicely: there was no need for any special protection in law for transsexuals in order for Tyra's mother to win a $2.8 million judgement against the city of Washington, D.C.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Webb:
[b]...How exactly would it happen that a person could be refused jobs or refused entry at establishments because of their inner conflicts over sexual identity? How would anyone know?[/b]

---

Eeek! What a disturbingly obtuse post! How would they know someone is a transsexual? Uhm, maybe they have had the SRS but don't pass all that well and have to face the world treating them as a man in drag. Maybe they are trying to get employment as a woman, but all their references and experience are from pre-transition days. Maybe someone does a Google search on them and discovers their secret and tells everybody at work. Maybe they were romantically interested in someone and told them about their history and it ended badly with the man outing them to everyone to make himself feel more manly. Maybe they are in the early stages of transition and are transitioning on the job (for which you can be fired immediately ). The fact that discrimination exists forces the transsexual to quit their job, move cities and hide their past, forever living in fear of it's discovery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publius:
[b] ... Certainly, my boss would not be pleased were I to show up to give a major presentation to a client wearing a dress, earings, lip-stick, etc. as opposed to a suit and tie... To say that no matter how you identify, if you have a penis, you should be wearing pants?
[/b]

---

Transition is not as cut and dry as, "either you have had SRS or you haven't". There is a two year period of "Real life test" before SRS is allowed. What about the transsexuals in transition? They still have male genitalia, but are taking hormones, may have had some surgery, are seeing a psychiatrist and an endroconologist, by your post, tough! they should still be wearing pants because they have a penis.
Your comment about how would it be if you showed up to work in a dress with lipstick and earings just reeks of transphobia and paints a mental picture of something sick and bizarre. If you had struggled with Gender Dysphoria since you were about 4, had battled with yourself for years about what was wrong, went to a psychiatrist and did a battery of tests, had blood work done, attended group sessions, informed your family, agonized for weeks over how to tell your employer, gone through the embarassement of your gender being the subject of watercooler gossip, told everyone that you were going to come in tomorrow dressed in female attire, THEN come in in a dress, with lipstick and earings that would have been a more realistic picture.
Transsexualism is very misunderstood and scary to the general public as was so aptly showed by these posts....sheesh!

If you would abstain from voting on human rights protection because it isn't broad enough, would you also have abstained from the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act? Race? Sex? The establishment of the Act itself?

Would you have voted against giving women the right to vote in 1918, because many other groups were still disenfranchised?

I just don't understand why you would fight [i]against[/i] human rights protection instead of fighting to [i]expand[/i] human rights protection.

quote:

---

What would be wrong with amending the HRA to match the Charter -- to guarantee fair and equal treatment to all individuals, and in particular to whatever groups you care to name?

---

Perhaps if you had brought this suggestion to Bill Siksay when he was holding public consultations, your concerns would have been addressed. If you don't want to be involved in the process, don't complain when the end result isn't what you liked.

[b]pennyw:[/b] [i]"How would they know someone is a transsexual? ... Maybe they are trying to get employment as a woman, but all their references and experience are from pre-transition days."[/i]
Point taken, Penny. Thanks for your response. I still believe that most discrimination would be based on physical appearance, but you're right that there would be instances even for transsexuals whose appearance doesn't give them away.

[b]spatrioter:[/b] [i]"If you would abstain from voting on human rights protection because it isn't broad enough, would you also have abstained from the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act? Race? Sex? The establishment of the Act itself?
Would you have voted against giving women the right to vote in 1918, because many other groups were still disenfranchised?"[/i]
Sex, race and age are categories that affect most or all Canadians, and so are obvious examples to be mentioned "in particular". Sexual orientation affects fewer people, but I have no problem with it being specified since it has been a hot topic for decades now, and because it seems that a significant number of Canadians still think that it's okay to deny them equality.

On the other hand, most Canadians will probably live their whole lives without being confronted by the phenomenon of transsexuality. I see very little purpose in making it a national issue; in fact, there is a risk that by forcing such a confrontation we may actually be provoking hostility where none currently exists.

[b]jeff house:[/b] [i]"I would say the main disadvantage to using an open-ended Charter provision for the determination of discrimination is that it becomes entirely judge-made law. I don't object, but some do, as the legislature is bypassed."[/i]
Those who object to "judge-made law" are almost always objecting to the result, not the process. There would be just as much opposition, if not more, to specific legislated protection of transsexuals as there would be to a series of court precedents establishing the same principles.

My answer to those objections is to invite them to propose specific legislation declaring that transsexuals are [i]not[/i] entitled to equality, and see how far that gets them. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Ron, I don't understand why it makes a difference whether a transsexual is discriminated against for appearance or someone finding out? That's like saying discrimination against say someone who is black is ok if they look like it, but not ok if you find out they look white, but actually have black parent(s).

I think the main problem people have with your argumentation is that you equate gender identity with wearing certain clothes, when it encompasses much more than that.

But addressing what you said, the difference is that discrimination based on a person's attire is equally applied to everyone. Discrimination based on gender identity targets a specific, identifiable group.

There is a difference between having a uniform dress code for everyone, and having a dress code which only applies to some people.

Bill Siksay has [url=http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/06/062006cants.htm]revived[/url] this private member's bill, which died on the order paper before the last election.

I'm pessimistic about whether MPs, like Canadians as a whole, are as accepting of transgender as they now are of homosexuality -- I suspect they're a bit further behind on the former topic. But this'll be an interesting test of how far we've progressed.

And given that most people simply don't know that much about gender identity / expression, this may be a situation where constituents educating their MPs on the matter could help some MPs to realize that this move is necessary.

I know I'm piping in a bit late but I read this thread a few days ago and some of the comments have been bothering me since.

"Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that clothing and related attributes of appearance are about the only characteristics of transexuals that might make them a prone to discrimination."

As others have said, equating fashion choices with one's gender expression/identity totally minimizes what trans people actually do have to go through on a routine basis when seeking or accepting employment, not to mention in their day to day lives. There seems to be a misconception that trans people are really just men in dresses or your average drag queen. That is not the case. Gender dysphoria is a recognized psychological diagnosis which oftentimes has physiological manifestations as well; there's been significant research about certain parts of the brain being very different among trans and non-trans patients. Pursuing a transition from one sex to the other can be a long, difficult, emotionally and physically draining process that can leave one without family, friends, work, etc. It's not a matter of waking up one morning and deciding to throw on a dress rather than a suit.

"For clarification, does that mean that a man who identifies as female should be able to wear a dress to the office? Should he/she be able to use the women's washrooms?"

It means that yes, someone who was born male but identifies as female should be able to wear a dress to the office (though let's not buy into the stereotype that all mtfs wear dresses and makeup, k?), and yes, she should be able to use the women's washrooms. You say that your female coworkers wouldn't be happy about seeing you in their washroom, but you're not a trans woman, you're a man. Someone undergoing a transition from male to female is not a man... it's exactly that, a transition. Sex reassignment.

"Certainly, my boss would not be pleased were I to show up to give a major presentation to a client wearing a dress, earings, lip-stick, etc. as opposed to a suit and tie."

Again, transsexuality is not about fashion dilemmas. When a trans person transitions on the job, HR is almost always involved and there's usually some kind of formal meeting where the issue of other employees is handled. I've not heard a single story of a trans person simply waltzing into work one morning and announcing that they've had a sex change and y'all better respect it. That kind of thing can get you fired -- that's what this whole debate about the HRA is about. Like transitioning itself, doing it on the job is also a long process that's not undertaken lightly.

"Let me ask again: if it's not about clothing and/or related aspects of appearance, then what? How exactly would it happen that a person could be refused jobs or refused entry at establishments because of their inner conflicts over sexual identity? How would anyone know?"

There's a long paper trail involved with transitioning, not to mention that people generally remember something like a sex change and gossip about it like crazy. People who transition usually change their names and many change (or try to change) their legal sex. This takes about 8 months, during which time the trans person is in a state of legal limbo. How do you apply for a job when your name is different than what it says on your birth certificate? How do you get medical coverage when you're a man with ovaries or a woman with a prostate gland? Who do you use as references when you got fired from your last job when you came out and when all your previous work/volunteer experience is under another name? What about your paycheque, who's that made out to? How do you explain why you can't/won't go swimming at the company retreat, or why you have to carry needles around with you when you go on business trips? These are all situations that making finding employment and/or transitioning on the job very difficult and none of that has to do with appearance.

"On the other hand, most Canadians will probably live their whole lives without being confronted by the phenomenon of transsexuality."

Or so you think. Transsexuals have parents, friends, religious communities, partners, children, neighbours, doctors et cetera too. For all this focus on appearance and dress, what people seem to miss is that there are a LOT of gender variant people out there who blend in with the 'rest' of society and wouldn't merit a second glance from even the most gender-policing individuals out there. Simply, unless every single person you meet tells you that they are/aren't trans, you have no way of knowing what their status is and are just assuming. Furthermore, quantitative studies of transsexuals are highly unreliable as the traditional criteria for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is structured in an extremely narrow way that excludes all but those who have the most standard of narratives. I can name over 30 Canadian trans people off the top of my head and I have very limited involvement in meat-space trans communities.

I would encourage people to check out this pdf file about non-trans or gender normative privilege before making generalizations and judgments about trans people: [url=http://multiculturalcenter.osu.edu/Posts/Documents/115_5.PDF]http://mult...

[ 30 June 2006: Message edited by: ejs ]

Farces,

It does depend on the province. Ontario used to cover it until Mike Harris cut it (this is currently before a human rights tribunal), while Alberta still covers it (although there is a strict gatekeeping process). Of course, much of this depends on the person's legal sex -- for example, a female-to-male (ftm) trans person who has been on hormone therapy and had chest reconstruction surgery can legally change their sex to M, but if they do so then OHIP won't cover any kind of gynecological care like a hysterectomy or pelvic exam. So in that case, unless they can afford to pay out of pocket, they've got to remain legally female despite living in all other senses as a man.

Surprisingly, the Canadian military actually pays for SRS and all related expenses for its staff. If I remember correctly Romeo Dallaire was either involved in crafting that policy, or was a very vocal proponent of it.

I don't exactly diagree with you, Dana, but discrimination and prejudice isn't only meted out by the state. And when it *does* come to the state, specifically imprisonment, trans people have a very high likelihood of spending time incarcerated. The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, an American transgender law collective, estimates that as many as 65% of trans women have spent time in state custody (factor in class and race dynamics and I bet it goes waaaay up). In Canada most evidence is anecdotal (as is so often the case with marginalized communities) but I would wager a guess that trans people also spend more time in prison than non-trans people.

Also, in terms of regulating substances, many trans people resort to black market hormones when they can't access them through preferred channels. Testosterone specifically is high up there on the controlled substances list.

I write all this as someone who does quite enjoy the substances of which you speak, btw.