Based on your sexual orientation or gender identity
I have an email from the Human Rights Campaign. They tell a story about a gay man in Nebraska who was passive-aggressively fired from his part-time job at a wine store after his boyfriend came to visit. They want more stories to share.
Stories like Luke’s remind me why we cannot stop fighting.
They are the backbone of HRC’s mission. They are the reason that we are relentlessly advocating to pass comprehensive non-discrimination legislation. And they are also how we change hearts and minds, and inspire others to become advocates for equality.
If you have faced discrimination based on your sexual orientation or gender identity, or if you know someone who has, we want to know about it. Please take a minute to share your story with HRC. We promise to do everything in our power to support you and ensure that it NEVER happens again.
I’m wondering what they mean by “gender identity” there. I’m guessing it refers to trans people? The orientation part is for lesbians and gays, and the gender identity part is for trans people?
But then, does that mean that only trans people have gender identity? What is gender identity, exactly?
The terminology seems to be changing quite fast, and the penalty for getting it wrong can be ferocious. This can make things tricky.
I suppose gender identity only refers to trans people like the way race is only ever used to refer to non-white people.
Although, if that’s the case, then how cis gender do you have to be in order to not be discriminated against due to your gender presentation? If one drop of black blood makes you black, how much non-feminine behaviour makes a woman not a “real” woman?
I suppose discrimination towards non-gender conforming people is really a manifestation of homophobia. My daughter, who is knowledgeable in all things, as only a 16 yr old can be, assures me that is the case.
“But then, does that mean that only trans people have gender identity?”
Well, no, I don’t read it that way at all. Do only lesbians and gays have sexual orientation? Clearly what they are (perhaps clumsily) getting at is discrimination based on orientation/identity that is counter to prevailing norms.
I don’t disagree, however, about the perils of innocently misusing terminology. Which is why I’ve never commented here before.
BTW did you read way down the comments here
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/08/05/glad/
to find this?
“Reasonable people think that if you disagree with them it means you have bad judgement.
Zealots think that if you disagree with them it means you are a bad person.”
I think the problem here is Zealotry in that sense.
The zealot might have the correct opinion & is wrong only in jumping to the view that the person disagreeing with him/her/it is a bad person.
A further nuance to note is that if one side in a debate keeps using logical fallacies & ‘facts’ that have been shown to not be facts, a reasonable person can suspect motives worse than being honestly mistaken.
That’s the sort of thing I’m wondering about. Lots of people are discriminated against for not being genderly correct enough.
It appears from a brief search that the New York schools policy gets it right:
http://srlp.org/resources/fact-sheet-transgender-gender-nonconforming-youth-school/
The definitions of protected behavior aren’t specific to trans people:
“New York City and State law protects students’ right to be free from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity or because some aspect of their appearance or behavior does not match stereotypes associated with their gender identity or their sex assigned at birth.”
“For example, it is against the law to refuse to allow a student to attend school and related events and activities because that student is wearing clothes that are too ‘girlish’ or ‘boyish’. This is true regardless of the gender identity or the assigned birth sex of the student.”
One aspect of the NY policy I don’t love is the reference to “nonconforming” people or behavior, with its implication that those whose dress and behavior are more congruent with existing stereotypes are conforming to roles or stereotypes. I can’t think of a better term, but I don’t think any term is necessarily needed. The two quotes I gave get the point across without resorting to such a label.
By the way, I imagine the broad NY policy and the like would never have come about were it not for trans activism.
Oh – evidently, the NY policy is in keeping with last year’s guidance from the DOE that Title IX nondiscrimination policy covers trans and “gender nonconforming” people:
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/archives/10249
It’s a shame that it seems generally to be presented as more specific to trans people when it’s really a policy that potentially affects everyone. As it should.
When it comes to establishing policies or laws, it does nobody good to focus on identity. I think the problem could be solved by referring to “gender stereotypes” (though maybe there is a better term) rather than “gender identity.” That is universally applicable to any person and any gender-based discriminatory intent, and it has the added benefit of putting the focus back on the intent of the person who is discriminating rather than raising questions about what role the person’s internal identity played. With “gender stereotypes,” it wouldn’t matter how the victim of discrimination identifies, only what the person doing the discriminating perceived and intended.
Courts usually take ambiguous language to protect the largest group possible.
So if a ciswoman was fired for being a woman, it would be illegal. If she was fired for acting too feminine, it would be illegal. If a cisman was fired for being a man, it would be illegal. If he was fired for being too masculine, it would be illegal. I can’t see a reasonable way to read it as applying only to trans.
Salty Current @ #9: It’s interesting that we just had our mandatory annual Title IX training at work this week (I am a college teacher) and in a 3 hour training session, NO MENTION was made of gender identity. The impression given was that it dealt with not discriminating based on sex (he and she – always he first) but nothing else. No mention of LGBTQ at all. This was in a small rural city in the middle of the United States, so maybe they assume there are no LGBTQ people in the community, because we are “wholesome”. To be fair, I am unaware of any openly trans- individuals here, but we definitely have gay and lesbian citizens. They get rocks thrown at them if they are seen standing in their yard; the ‘good’ citizens of the town want them to go away.
Of course not. Any more than saying “It is illegal to discriminate based on race” means “only black people have race.”
They probably are thinking *primarily* of trans people, because by and large trans people get the worst of that sort of prejudice. But it does have wider applicability to “gender nonconforming” cis people. In addition, there are genderfluid people, and those who identify with both, neither, or go back and forth.
Jennifer @ 9 –
I think that wording would be much better. With gender stereotypes I know what they’re talking about; with gender identity I’m not at all sure.
Stacy @ 12 –
Well you say “of course” but then you go on to say what they are probably thinking of. I don’t think it’s at all of course, which is why I asked about it.
I’ve gathered my thoughts (somewhat) and put them in a post:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2015/08/title-ix-covers-trans-and-gender.html
That’s really sad. It’s certainly not in accordance with the DOE guidance. The guidance is very explicit that it protects trans people and behavior/characteristics that don’t accord with stereotypes. I point to the part of the guidance about LGB people in my post. In effect, it seems that Title IX can’t protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation because that’s not part of its mandate. But the guidance says that discrimination against LGB people is prohibited by Title IX insofar as it ‘s based on sex stereotypes, and that the inclusion of discrimination based on sexual orientation doesn’t cancel this out. So they seem to be encouraging institutions to recognize and pursue anti-discrimination/harassment/violence actions on this ground. Which is extremely interesting in that it recognizes that homophobia is often (if not always) rooted in an attempt to enforce these categories.
The guidance itself is smart and fascinating, and I think much more significant than people realize.
A cis woman discriminated against for being a woman, is that a case of discrimination based on gender identity? I think most would say no, but I would like to hear the argument. What of a trans woman, who successfully “passes,” and is discriminated against as a woman. Gender identity discrimination, or plain old gender discrimination?
Which brings another question to my mind. Does a “passing” trans person have cis privilege, similar to how a bi person can have straight privilege, based on how others perceive them?
No, it isn’t. There’s discrimination based on gender identity that isn’t about someone’s characteristics or behavior being in accordance with stereotypes. “I’m a woman.” “No you’re not – that’s not what it says on your birth certificate.” Nothing to do with stereotypes.
And as the Title IX guidance shows, it’s not an either-or situation.
It might help to think about it in terms of the nature of the discrimination rather than the specific target (and to avoid the language of “passing”):
– A school denies fair athletic opportunities to girls. Traditional sex discrimination; applies to all girls, cis and trans.
– A teacher refuses to use a girl’s name or pronouns because she was AMAB. Identity discrimination; applies to trans girls.
– A coach harasses athletes he perceives as “effeminate” and denies them opportunities. Stereotype discrimination; can apply to anyone.
All should be prohibited. There can of course be a mixture of motives, and some discrimination can be of more than one type. Most interesting in my view is the recognition that discrimination based on sexual orientation is often combined with (or a form of) stereotype discrimination.
Me above: “But the guidance says that discrimination against LGB people is prohibited by Title IX insofar as it ‘s based on sex stereotypes, and that the inclusion of discrimination based on sexual orientation doesn’t cancel this out.”
I didn’t express that well. I quote the text from the guidance at my post. What it says is that, while Title IX doesn’t prohibit discrimination based exclusively on sexual orientation, discrimination against LGB people is prohibited under Title IX if it’s stereotype-based. So discrimination against a gay boy for being “effeminate,” for example, is prohibited, and this is true even if the stereotype-based discrimination is combined with discrimination based on his sexual orientation.
From what I’ve read, trans men gain at least some male privilege. So it seems to me that if you face discrimination which could be avoided if you transition to male, you are facing discrimination based on your gender identity .
Maybe I’m just having a disagreement with the word usage. I understand discrimination against trans people as something separate from gender discrimination, but it just seems to me that if you identify as a woman and someone discriminated against you as a woman, that’s discrimination based on your gender identity.
Since you brought up gender stereotype discrimination, isn’t discrimination against trans people a form of gender stereotype discrimination? Discrimination occurs according to the discriminating persons perception, not according to the reality of the situation. So when someone refuses to use a trans woman’s preferred pronoun or the name she was took, it’s not because she’s trans per se, it’s that the person perceives her to be a man, and men shouldn’t be using female pronouns or names, or calling themselves a woman.
Can you think of an example of trans discrimination that couldn’t rightfully be considered gender stereotype discrimination?
Or a problem with the basic concepts. I really thought my examples above were clear enough.
This is too broad a reading of “based on your gender identity.” There is a difference between discriminating against you as a woman and refusing to recognize your identification as a woman and treat you accordingly. If someone refuses to accept that you’re a woman, they can’t really discriminate against you as a woman. Honestly, I don’t think this is all that complicated. You seem determined to shoehorn everything into the language of stereotypes and identity.
So the person doesn’t accept her gender identity. Everything flows from that, whether it involves stereotypes or not. (“Boys don’t use girls’ bathrooms” isn’t a stereotype but a rule.) That isn’t to say that there couldn’t be cases of stereotype discrimination involving names or pronouns, but the case I described, even as you in turn framed it, was fundamentally about the refusal of someone’s claimed identity.
I don’t think example I gave above could rightfully be considered that, but here are a few more: a trans woman isn’t allowed to use the women’s bathroom; a trans girl isn’t allowed to play on the girls’ soccer team; a trans boy is assaulted for being trans and assailed with anti-trans slurs; a school provides materials to students that portray trans people as evil or violent;…
This suggests a really strange understanding of what transitioning is. Trans men are men (or boys) before they transition – they don’t “transition to male,” but bring things in line with their identity.
I’m trying to understand your viewpoint here. A woman named Jane applies for a job at a research firm. Her resume is passed over for a man named Jack, despite her being better qualified for the job, because the hiring manager feels women are a distraction in the lab environment.
Clear-cut gender discrimination, I would say. In fact, I think it’d be safe to say, “most everyone would say”.
But am I to understand that you are confused as to whether it really is gender discrimation? That you’re inclined to withhold labeling it as such, barring knowledge of the crucial detail: what Jane’s genitals looked like at birth, decades ago? If it turned out that Jane was actually assigned female at birth, would you also need to know a bit about Jack’s genitals before making the call?
Well I’m done when people start telling me I don’t understand basic concepts. Thank you for the response.
I’ll expand on my last comment, because my bare bones way of speaking is often taken as rudeness.
I understand the basic concepts, I was trying to discuss nuanced concepts, which is where my understanding may be lacking. I have no interest in a discussion where people try to school me on basic concepts, which is why I announced I’m done.
However, I recognize that you spent time and effort responding to me, so I felt it rude to not acknowledge your response. My thank you was not meant to be sarcastic or passive aggressive.
This is actually something I’m getting a lot, and I’m finding it immensely frustrating. (Not getting it here, but in general.) I want to talk about some of the nuances of the way trans issues are presented by some trans activists and some allies. When I try to do that I often get incredibly patronizing lectures on the ABCs.
Erica:
Honestly, I’m not sure what’s going on – you made an argument and then became attached to it, you have some unstated political position, you’re not thinking this through, or something else entirely.
I do see what you’re getting at broadly. I think the part of the DOE guidance that talks about the overlap or blurring between homophobic and stereotype-based discrimination points to some of the nuances. I also dislike presentations that focus exclusively on identity or offer a misleading notion of “nonconformity.”
But I also don’t think trying to press everything into a single mold that essentially erases the specific forms of discrimination faced by trans people (by eliminating identity-based discrimination by making everything about stereotypes, or by subsuming everything under identity-based discrimination) serves the purpose of introducing nuances. We can talk about nuances without doing this.
***
Ophelia:
I agree – it’s incredibly annoying.
I do think there are important distinctions to be made not only between different groups but between trans activists in general and, say, some mainstream organizations, people or groups getting the most media coverage, trans activists as related by third parties, self-appointed ally spokesbloggers, those we might be attending to at any moment, internet assholes, and so on.
As I’ve said, some people I’ve only recently learned are trans have been among the strongest feminist voices I’ve seen online. I would love to see everyone come from a place of charity and empathy and respect.
…So we can argue heatedly.
Is that too much to ask?
What’s going on is exactly what I said. I said I was done, so you can stop speculating about my ulterior motives.
OK. I apologize for the “basic concepts” remark. When you asked for another example, I started to suspect you were trolling, and responded more hostilely than I ordinarily would have.
Also, I did understand what you were getting at in the first paragraph of #21 above. It’s funny and coincidental – in response to Harald Hanche-Olsen’s comment here, I was going to make a joke about how he should be glad it wasn’t a worker at Ellis Island in the last century because that would now be their family name, but then discovered that this was actually a myth. But the most interesting thing I learned was the story of Frank Woodhull, which seems so on point.
What I think you were saying is that because women could technically change their bodies and appearance to identify outwardly as men, those who don’t are being penalized for our gender identity. What I was suggesting is that identity is an internal thing. I could technically undertake the same steps trans people do when they transition, and could be outwardly identified as a man, but that wouldn’t mean I myself identified as a man.
Again, I was suspicious that you were trolling – deliberately trying to suggest that trans people’s identification is superficial. Which is why my responses were somewhat snippy and angry.