Monthly Archives: May 2011
Transgender children have specific needs!
Transgender children have specific needs
Founder of Trans Youth Family Allies speaks in Troy
By Crystal A. Proxmire
Originally printed 5/19/2011 (Issue 1920 – Between The Lines News)
Shir Tikva in Troy welcomed Kim Pearson of Trans Youth Family Allies on May 3 for a presentation on recognizing and helping transgender youth.
The Arizona mother of three has been a strong voice for transgender children since her youngest child revealed himself to be an affirmed male five years ago. She spoke about what she’s learned as a transgender parent and as the co-founder of TYFA, which has helped more than 300 families nationwide.
“You cannot take what you know about transgender adults and downsize it to transgender children,” Pearson began. Although some transgender adults might be able to say they “feel like they are born in the wrong body,” young children don’t express themselves in those terms, she said. “They’re not confused about their gender identity. They know who they are. They are confused why other people don’t get it.”
Pearson and volunteers around the country step in to provide resources for parents with gender variant children. They help facilitate discussion with school districts that may not know how to properly respect a transgender child’s rights. They provide legal, medical and counseling referrals, and they work to educate the public and the media.
Another key aspect of TYFA’s work is educating the public about how to respect children who do not meet society’s expectations for gender expression.
Pearson explained that even among men and among women there are varying levels of femininity and masculinity – a continuum, she said. People are likely to be punished if they express themselves too far from what the “gender rules” are.
Children who have a gender that is different from their biological sex often get frustrated, Person told the audience. Some even try to hurt themselves by attempting to remove their genitals – which they see as the cause of their problems. “This situation comes up over and over again,” she said.
Pearson encouraged people to be more open-minded and aware of the ways they may enforce gender stereotypes. “The rules are socially constructed. If you don’t buy into this then the rules change. When you stay quiet things stay the same.”
Pearson and Shannon Garcia of Holland, Mich., formed TYFA together. The nonprofit will open its first brick and mortar office in Los Angeles soon.
For more resources about gender variant youth, visit the TYFA website athttp://www.imatyfa.org.
Bill Seeking to Expand Transgender Rights Could Be Harmful to the State
Bill Seeking to Expand Transgender Rights Could Be Harmful to the State
By Chris O’Brien
May 23, 2011
While the state grappled with a multibillion-dollar budget crisis, some state legislators, including Sen. Beth Bye of West Harford, Reps. Holder-Winfield of New Haven and Geoff Luxenberg of Manchester want to allow men to use women’s restrooms. Their bill, intends to extend the current protections for housing, workplace and other facets of life to those who are confused on whether they are male or female. The bill is misguided and I think most legislators are just as confused as the public is on this topic.
Transgendered people suffer from Sexual Identity Disorder, a problem recognized by the American Psychological Association and listed in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM-IV (4th Edition) is the medical authority on brain and behavior disorders. The manual lists the symptoms and suggested treatment for problems ranging from sleep walking, ADD, Alzheimer’s and bulimia to severe depression, PTSD, and schizophrenia. Twenty-two sexual disorders alone are listed, however, only one is targeted for the treatment by legislators in Connecticut. Having some of these sexual disorders would disqualify one from obtaining a job involving children or in public safety, such as a prison guard. This begs the question, why prohibit ‘discrimination’ against only this one classification and not other people with mental health problems?
Sufferers of Sexual Identity Disorder are described as ‘having discontent with the biological sex they were born with.’ A person who is transgendered actively wishes to be accepted as and live as a member of the opposite sex. It should be made clear that the definition is not given to someone with questionable or mixed biological anatomy. Hence, it is strictly a disorder of the mental state of the brain.
First of all, the General Assembly should avoid considering this bill because it is a medical condition. Transgendered people go through great lengths to ‘correct’ the biology they were born with so it conforms to their mental state. This means hormonal therapy and often surgery and years of psychological counseling. When something is wrong with your body, you don’t declare it ‘normal’. And you don’t seek surgery for something that is normal either. So then why do elected leaders like Mrs. Luxenberg, Holder-Winfield and Ms. Bye want to pass this bill to normalize these abnormal behaviors?
If passed, the ramifications would be felt throughout society. In a compassionate way, the General Assembly needs to reject this law. If we normalized the abnormal psychology of transgendered people, there is no incentive for them to get help. Advocates for the law who spoke at a March public hearing say that sexual identity disorder begins around age 10 or 12. If the law were passed, we would need to accommodate them from high school onward. Let’s say you are the parent of a female field hockey player. Would you accept the fact that a 16-year-old adolescent boy wants to join the team AND insist on changing and showering with your daughter because he believes he is a girl?
Or if you are in a public place and see a man from walking into a female restroom at a mall. Today, a security officer would be expected to stop and investigate the man and his motivation for walking into the restroom. If this bill passes, however the security guard and mall could be sued for discrimination. Police would have disincentives to investigate such a complaint. Transgendered prison workers with this problem could not be weeded out even if they were helping other sexual offenders. Speaking of prisons, would a transgendered person go to a male or female prison? Does this all sound backwards?
Schizophrenics often feel most ‘normal’ when they don’t take their medications. Yet, they realize they should when their behavior becomes anti-social. People with other disorders are often provided with help when necessary. Yet, if this bill were passed – essentially normalizing sexual disorders as race or religion – there would be no incentive for them to get help. This puts society at risk, and diminishes the need for sufferers to seek treatment, ultimately harming the sufferers themselves.
Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of CT was one of only three people to oppose this bill at a daytime public hearing in Hartford because almost no one knew about it. While dozens of trans-gendered people testified about how adolescent behavior should be accommodated instead of corrected, Peter Wolfgang saw the harm to our state: “This would be a direct assault on the right to privacy,” he told the Judiciary Committee. I would add that it would harm those who most need help. Sometimes the best way to love someone is to say no. Contact your legislator and urge them to vote “no” on HB 6599.
Transgender Rural Californians Face Hate Crimes
Transgender Rural Californians Face Hate Crimes
Sandra Hinojosa, a transgender woman, shares her story of tribulation and triumph as an agricultural worker
Sandra Hinojosa was raised along with her 10 siblings by her single mother. A native of Santiago, a small town in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico, her mother “washed other people’s clothes, made tortillas to sell, and sold dinner at night,” says Sandra. ““It was she that helped us move forward. But none of us went to high school.”
Like most immigrants, Sandra arrived to the United States looking for work and new opportunities. A little over ten years ago she moved to Gonzalez, a rural town 20 minutes outside of Salinas, California, and found work as an agricultural worker with the help of her older sister. “My first job was cutting lettuce,” she says, “I worked 8 years for the same company.” It is also around this time, that Sandra began transitioning from male to female, with the support of her family and friends.
At work Sandra proved herself to be an exemplary worker and was promoted to the position of manager, overseeing a little over 100 employees. While it seemed as though Sandra had finally earned the opportunity she had been looking for, her success couldn’t protect her from transphobia in the work place. Although the vast majority of the workers she oversaw liked her, she quickly realized not everyone shared similar sentiment. Her supervisors would often direct homophobic or transphobic slurs at her. The abuse, however, eventually escalated into violence.
“There was a man who was my assistant manager. This man began beating my partner, who also worked in the packing company. Once, he hit my partner from behind and bathed him in blood.”
The day following the attack, Sandra was removed from her post as manager and returned to the main floor. “I felt that they were trying to pressure me into leaving the job because they would make me complete tasks that normally take two or three people.” Since it was a temporary job, Sandra stayed on and endured the abuse until the very end. After her stint at the packing company finished, she went to The Citizenship Project who referred her to the Center for Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). She shared her story with the CRLA attorney and ultimately brought and won the civil case against the company.
Sandra’s story, although remarkable, is not unique. Workplace discrimination and transgender unemployment continue to be major obstacles, and hate crimes in the state and throughout the nation are on the rise. In 2008, there were 1,397 reported hate crimes in California alone with over 20% of those directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LBGT) people. Yet transgender people are more susceptible to discrimination in the work place. Last year, the Transgender Law Center issued statewide survey findings where two-thirds (67%) of the transgender (male to female and female to male) people surveyed reported some form of workplace harassment or discrimination directly related to their gender identity. But an accurate number of hate crimes and discrimination in rural California doesn’t exist because often they go unreported and because the total number of LGBT people living in rural communities is unknown.
“In California, there are more than 800,000 agriculture workers,” says Lisa Cisneros, CRLA attorney. “But we don’t know how many of them identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. The truth is that LGBT people live everywhere, but rural areas are more conservative.
Cisneros, who also leads Proyecto Poderoso, a joint project of CRLA and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), has helped many LGBT identified individuals in need of for legal advice and assistance. Proyecto Poderoso focuses on educating and empowering LGBT people in rural communities. Last January, Proyecto Poderoso hosted a conference, “Orgullo y Poder Latino,” in Fresno, California that had an attendance of over 100 participants from through the state.
“The ideal would be to choose where we live, with whom we live, and where we work. The reality is that poor people depend on the work provided by agricultural and packaging companies. These folk live in devastating poverty. For them, it is very difficult to avoid homophobia and trans-phobia because of the lack of economic independence.”
People.com Editor Comes Out as Transgender
People.com Editor Comes Out as Transgender
Janet Mock is an editor at People.com, a popular blogger, co-host of the podcast The Missing Piece, and the author of a new memoir in which she’ll share another piece of her story – her journey to come out as a transgender woman. She told her story to writer Kierna Mayo for a very personal and touching article published by Marie Claire.
After high school graduation, many of my classmates were throwing big graduation parties and buying new cars. Those kids went looking for good times and great memories, but I was desperately searching for one thing only: a chance to be in the right body for the first time in my entire life.
(…)
Two weeks after the surgery, I was in class at the University of Hawaii, finally focusing on something other than my gender. Four years later, I left Hawaii, a beautiful, confident woman armed with a journalism degree and bound for graduate school and a career in New York City.
Janet talks about how she decided to tell her story on the latest episode of her podcast, and she has created a video for the It Gets Better project talking about her life.
Janet’s story should be an inspiration to parents and young people around the world, and we applaud and thank her for sharing it with all of us. Hopefully she inspires more LGBT people to tell their stories.
HRC: A Note on Transitioning
Transgender Visibility Guide: A Note on Transitioning
It’s important to remember that “transgender” is a broad term describing many different people who express gender in many different ways, each as authentically as the next.
For many transgender people, the process of transitioning, and the period of time when a person changes from living in one gender to living in another, is when we feel most exposed and the decision to disclose becomes most critical to our lives.
Transitioning does not always involve medical treatment. By dressing in preferred-gender clothing, changing their bodies through exercise, adjusting mannerisms and speech patterns or requesting that friends and family address them with preferred names and pronouns, transgender people can use non-medical options to live their gender identities or expressions.
Others who transition pursue medical treatment — hormone therapy, surgery or both — to align their bodies with the gender they know themselves to be.
In many parts of the world, the accepted clinical guidelines for those who undertake medical transition are known as the Standards of Care. These standards are developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH (formerly known as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association), a widely recognized professional organization devoted to the understanding and treatment of gender identity disorders. Information on the WPATH Standards of Care can be found at www.wpath.org.
Another increasingly common treatment protocol is known as Informed Consent. Through this protocol, transgender people are made aware of the effects of medical treatment and then asked to provide consent, much like with other medical procedures. Some doctors supervise medical transitions through a combination of both protocols.
Regardless of how a person lives his or her gender identity, transitioning can be a very public “outing.” It involves disclosing to family, friends, employers and healthcare providers. For most transgender people, transitioning by its very nature is not something that can be hidden from everyone.
When it comes to transitioning, a broad range of medical personnel — from psychologists or psychiatrists to surgeons, endocrinologists and/or voice therapists — may be consulted. If possible, it’s very helpful to find healthcare professionals in your geographic area who are experienced in serving transgender patients. If there are no such providers in your area, an open-minded provider who is willing to learn about the specific health needs of transgender people and who is willing to speak with more experienced providers may be sufficient.
Questions for Healthcare Providers:
- Have you treated transgender patients in the past?
- Do you understand hormone regimens appropriate for transgender patients?
- What treatment protocol do you follow for transitions?
Remember: Do your research first. Even doctors who have had transgender patients in the past may not be experts on transitioning. Many websites and advocacy groups can offer guidance on medical transitioning. It’s key to be your own health advocate.
While this guide is primarily for transgender people who are in the early stages of disclosure, some of us may confront the issue again after transitioning, among new friends, family and co-workers. Some transgender people choose to lead “stealth” lives. While they may or may not disclose their transgender status to healthcare professionals, they either do not discuss or are very selective in disclosing their transition or gender assigned at birth with others.
Other transgender people find that being more open about their lives and stories can be safe and affirming, as many lesbian, gay and bisexual people do.
Some even choose to speak out publicly about being transgender, becoming advocates for other transgender people by sharing their stories in media interviews or by speaking to students at local colleges and universities or to business and community groups.
Justice For Angie Zapata
Man guilty of hate crime, first-degree murder in transgender slaying
A Colorado judge sentences Allen Andrade to life in prison for killing Angie Zapata. Gay, lesbian and transsexual groups hail the landmark verdict.
A Colorado man who says he bludgeoned his date to death out of rage and shock after discovering she was biologically male was convicted Wednesday of first-degree murder and a hate crime.
Jurors deliberated about two hours before finding Allen Ray Andrade, 32, guilty of killing Angie Zapata, 18, of Greeley last July. District Judge Marcelo Kopcow swiftly sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of parole — the state’s mandatory sentence for first-degree murder Zapata, a transsexual, had dressed as female for much of her life, her family said. The case was among the first uses of a hate-crimes statute that protects transgendered people.
The victim’s mother, Maria Zapata, told the judge before sentencing: “It’s been so hard, so hard for my family and myself. . . . I lost something, somebody so precious.”
But she said Andrade could never take away “the love and the memories my family and I have of my baby — my beautiful, beautiful baby.”
Gay, lesbian and transsexual groups hailed the jury’s decision.
“Today’s verdict was about justice for Angie Zapata, although no verdict will ever be able to heal the tragic loss experienced by Angie’s family,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “The past few months have offered Greeley residents, as well as people throughout Colorado and across the nation, an opportunity to better understand transgender lives and the horrifying reality of anti-transgender violence.”
Activists noted that the conviction occurred in a conservative, largely rural county.
“Finally, a rural county sheriff and prosecutor step up to the plate,” said Kate Bowman of the Gender Identity Center of Colorado. “That’s got to make people think it’s time to do something.”
Bowman is among those who advocate a federal hate-crimes statute. A bill introduced in Congress this year would give the federal government the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes in which the victim was selected because of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Colorado is one of 11 states with hate-crimes laws that protect transgendered people. In California, a similar high-profile case involved Gwen Araujo, 17, of Newark, who was beaten and strangled in 2002 after two men with whom she’d had sex learned she was biologically male. They were convicted of second-degree murder, but not of a hate crime.
Justice For Lateisha Green
Conviction in shooting death of transgender woman
The manslaughter and hate crime verdict and Congress’ recent moves to expand hate crime law bolster activists’ hopes that the country will become more understanding of transgender people.
A New York man who shot and killed a transgender woman last year was convicted Friday of first-degree manslaughter and a hate crime — a conviction hailed by advocates seeking greater protections for transgender people.
Dwight DeLee, 20, of Syracuse, faces 10 to 25 years in prison for killing Lateisha “Teish” Green, 22, outside a house party in November.
In April, a man was convicted of first-degree murder and a hate crime in the death of a transgender teen in Colorado. And on Thursday, the Senate approved legislation to extend federal hate crimes protections to those attacked because of their sexuality, gender, disability or gender identity. The House passed a similar bill in April.
These moves, along with President Obama’s declaration that June was Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, suggest that the government is embracing a more comprehensive understanding of gender identity, activists say. And that, they hope, will help the rest of the country become more accepting of differences.
“The great thing is these [developments] are not just about hate crimes,” said Mara Keisling, the director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “They’re about transgender people, and about gender in general. This is about educating the public.”
For transgender people, their sense of gender identity does not match their birth-assigned sex.
Lateisha Green was such a person.
Green was born and raised in Syracuse as Moses Cannon, a boy. At age 16, Green came out as transgender and began living as a girl, Lateisha. She faced bullies and threats at school but had a supportive family, said Michael Silverman, director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, which has worked closely with Green’s family.
Last year, on an unusually warm November night, Green and her brother, Mark Cannon, drove to a small house party. When they arrived, several guests started yelling slurs about Green’s sexuality, witnesses later testified. Green was sitting with her brother in their car outside the house when DeLee walked up, raised a .22-caliber rifle, and fired a single shot.
After her death, Green’s family pushed prosecutors to bring hate crime charges.
New York, like more than half of the nation’s states, has hate-crime statutes that include protections based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity.
Sex Reassignment Surgery SRS When things go wrong
Filed By:
Amy Hunter
Sometimes, things go wrong with the surgery.
It has many names and many acronyms, SRS, GRS, GCS-Sex Reassignment Surgery. Whatever you call it, it is an irrevocable commitment and irreversible step should you choose to take it.
Male to female (MtF) transpeople talk about it a lot. You know: Are you, or aren’t you? Is she pre-op, or post-op? Who did yours? Whom are you going to have do yours? We talk about it a lot, except…when things go wrong. Then–we don’t say much at all. In fact, we won’t talk about it publicly, but it happens. We cover it up as if we should be ashamed. We feel damaged.
Something odd ensues, much like forty or fifty years ago. Back then, people spoke in hushed tones, if at all about the family member, colleague, or friend who had certain illnesses-the “C word”-only whispered. Many times this lack of openness about such matters led directly to preventable consequences–even deaths.
We need to talk about healthcare for the transgender individual and I want to talk–openly about my experience–about what can happen when things go wrong with SRS.
After the jump– a story.
I Knew There Were Risks
While death is an unlikely result of complications from sex reassignment surgery, things can and do go wrong with the procedure. Even the most skilled of surgeons are, after all, human and as with any surgery, there are risks.
The information packet sent to me from my surgeon’s office listed the possible things that could go wrong. I had read extensively about what my body would have done to it after Propofol sent me to a dreamless sleep. Everything I found on the internet listed possible complications. One was a worst-case scenario, but the websites always mentioned it last and even then, it happened so seldom, most said, that it was a risk hardly worth mentioning.
My pre-operative appointment, a scant two hours before I signed the waiver, was brief. The surgeon asked a few questions, looked me over, pronounced me suitable for surgery and added that I had enough tissue for good depth. Almost as an afterthought, she said we needed to go over “this stuff”. We got to that last, not worth mentioning but still possible, worst-case scenario thing. Of course, it needed to be brought up but in almost four hundred surgeries “it had only happened just once, so we don’t worry about it”. I didn’t.
Just before I walked into the surgical suite, I signed the waiver.
I slumped to the floor of the shower that morning in Trinidad Colorado, water and reality raining down on me. Bewilderment and terror replaced hope, which swirled toward the drain along with the feces and the blood. Emergency surgeries there, four more at home in Kalamazoo and another in Denver have all failed.
Chronic pain, heavy narcotics addiction, and bouts of deep depression are the hushed legacies I have battled. Left with a possibly permanent colostomy and a painful, fibrous lump between my legs where a vagina should be, it is nearly impossible not to revisit the devastation daily. It is now two and a half years later.
The infrastructure of a natal male body is not the same as a natal female. The male pubic bone is lower and in my body, tipped somewhat, making it hard for my surgeon to get the geometry just right. In my case, there probably wasn’t really quite enough space to allow for the proper thickness of septum between the new vaginal wall and the rectal wall.
A slight tear in my colon from a retractor, was all that was necessary to compromise an otherwise flawless procedure. I had developed a rectal-vaginal fistula. This problem happens to natal women too, often as a complication from difficult childbirth or certain cancers. Frankly, the success rate for repairing the defect in natal women is not good either. It often takes multiple surgeries for them too. What makes it even harder for the transwoman?
The Endemic Problems In Transsexual Healthcare
My story–and my surgeon’s– illuminate important problems endemic to healthcare for the transgender and specifically, the transsexual person.
- Lack of access– Discrimination by doctors and hospitals and inability to get insurance or pay outright makes it difficult, if not impossible, for many transgender people to access care – primary or specialized.
- Lack of knowledge– Documentation of protocols for care of patients undergoing transition is severely limited. Additionally, techniques for remedial care of complications are not well developed; instead, procedures designed for amelioration of fistulae in natal females are used.
- Lack of training– There exist no specialized courses of study or teaching hospitals for SRS surgeons.
- Lack of experience– While some surgeons learn techniques from other doctors already performing SRS, there are no residencies for those wishing to become SRS surgeons.
- Lack of inter-disciplinary collaboration– Ignorance, discrimination and arrogance on the part of specialists often block those needing specialized post-SRS care.
In 2008 both the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association issued white papers – policy statements calling for equal and fair access to healthcare for the transgender community. Both organizations recognized lack of access to health care as a growing crisis among transgender people.
Significantly, however, while both bodies asked the insurance industry to remove discriminatory blocks for transpeople, neither the APA nor the AMA asked for better training and documentation of skills. Neither organization called for unilateral coverage of transition related care and procedures. The APA resolution reads thus (emphasis mine):
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary treatments;
And the AMA:
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender identity disorder as recommended by the patient’s physician.)
Ok, pretty strong statements, right? Look again and in particular, consider the italics. The APA resolution makes one BIG assumption-that you will be able to be “appropriately evaluated” , this requires you to have found and be able to pay for a psychologist, assuming of course, that you want to be evaluated. The AMA resolution assumes much the same thing; that you have a physician and that he or she is willing to make such recommendations, if, in fact, they are so qualified.
Whom Should I Go See When No One Will See Me?
I am associated with a LGBT resource center so, I get calls for things like, “Who is a trans-friendly electrologist” but the most frequent call I get is “My family doctor won’t prescribe me hormones. Whom should I see?”
To my knowledge, there are only two therapists in this area who take transgender clients, neither is a clinical psychologist who can render a surgical readiness opinion for SRS. There are one or two primary care physicians in the area who will prescribe hormones but, after hearing stories of one of them prescribing the exact same regimen for every patient, I am more than reluctant to send people to him. The nearest endocrinologist who takes transgender patients is ninety minutes from here. My own primary care doctor, admittedly, has no knowledge of how to dose a transwoman either pre-operatively or, post-operatively. He has left it up to me to tell him.
There is no curriculum, no specialization, no residency, and no board certification for SRS surgeons. No medical texts detail the procedures. Most SRS surgeons have followed in the footsteps of pioneers.
In my doctor’s case, the pioneer was legendary Colorado surgeon, Stanley Biber M.D. whose compassion for a social worker led him to develop the most celebrated sex reassignment practice in the States. The surgeon who did my SRS learned from him and took over his practice when he retired. Soon, she began refining his technique and developing and teaching her own. Today, she routinely performs SRS as many as two hundred times a year.
There are surgeons who want to do SRS-who have trained under doctors as mine did, but find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a facility that will grant privileges for SRS. Often, these surgeons may have the technical skills for SRS-urology, gynecological and plastic surgery, but hospitals will not grant access because there is no accredited course of specialization or board certification.
This may not be all bad. While there are a few new surgeons doing SRS every year, are they really getting the training necessary to accomplish not just the surgery itself but, adequate follow-up care too? Again, no curriculum, no specialized course of study, no board certification, but perhaps more significantly, certainly for the patient, there is no roadmap for what to do when things go wrong.
My Surgeon Doesn’t Know How to Fix It
Then, seemingly, neither does anyone else. My SRS surgeon attempted to fix the two-inch tear in my colon while I was still there, the repair failed in less than twelve hours. Next, a colon-rectal surgeon was found in the nearest large city and brought in to look at me. He aborted his attempt to repair the defect and instead, performed a full colostomy.
I flew home to Michigan with a bag attached to my abdomen and thick pads between my legs to soak up the blood.
A local colon-rectal surgeon, persuaded to see me by my primary care physician, was upbeat. Each time I went into surgery with him he would encourage me, saying “this time we’ll get it”. Coming out of surgery, my spouse Cindy would hear from him how well it went and that he was “optimistic this time” the closure would take and a new defect would not open up.
Another surgeon who has had some success with other fistula patients seemed promising, but eight months later, under the pressure of a barium test, that repair too, failed.
I have had stitch-overs, mucosal flap advancements, and pelvic floor muscle mobilization; each new approach diminishes what viable tissue I have for another attempt. I have tried to go into every surgery with a realistic outlook; multiple failures however, become difficult to bear.
Still, I am one of the fortunate ones with this complication; I stand a chance, albeit small, for an eventually favorable outcome. Many transwoman are not able to find a colon-rectal surgeon who is willing to work on a transperson, much less “someone else’s problem”, nor do all of us have the means.
Even if you are fortunate enough to locate a doctor–and in my case, privileged to have insurance and financial means to cover remedial procedures, then there is still only a slim chance for alleviation of this humiliating and debilitating condition. One surgeon, out of frustration no doubt, finally washed his hands of me saying, “well, you did this to yourself”.
Losing the Patient
I am not writing this to slam the physician who did my SRS. Far from it, she is a dear friend. We have shared much together, laughing, and holding each other; the two of us have grappled for footing. We have cried together, and yes, yelled at each other. She is an icon in the transgender community and heroine to many transsexuals. She is also perhaps the most accomplished of the few surgeons doing primary SRS in the United States.
However, even a surgeon as accomplished as mine cannot overcome obstacles that she has no training for and little experience resolving. There are unseen and unsaid barriers that come into play when someone with complications from SRS must seek treatment aside from their original surgeon.
As I mentioned before, most surgeons just do not want to deal with what they may perceive to be another doctor’s mistakes, if they are willing to look at you at all. A person would be hard pressed to get a doctor to admit that they are closed-minded, yet there are many doctors who simply will not work on-or treat a transsexual.
My surgeon has told me, and has repeated often, that she would see me through this. I believe she has tried, but somewhere in the mix of discrimination, ego, and fear, the patient has been lost.
First Transgender Presidential Appointee Fears Being Labeled ‘Token’
For Amanda Simpson, believed to be America’s first openly transgenderpresidential appointee, the job she starts Tuesday in the U.S. Commerce Department is an honor and the culmination of a career dedicated to understanding military technology.
But what gnaws at her, she says, is the fear of being labeled a token who was hired because of her sexual identity rather than on her merits.
“Being the first sucks,” she told ABC News.com. “I’d rather not be the first but someone has to be first, or among the first. I think I’m experienced and very well qualified to deal with anything that might show up because I’ve broken barriers at lots of other places and I always win people over with who I am and what I can do.”
Simpson has been named senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, a job in which she will monitor the exports of U.S. weapons technology.
She has 30 years in the industry but can’t escape the feeling that some will see her appointment as a political maneuver.
“[There will be] questions like: Is this a token? Are you here to do a job or just to fill a quota or appease other people? In that regard it makes it a bit more difficult,” she said. “I’m sure I will have to do and intend to do a far superior job than any other person. But I’m sure I will always be second guessed.”
“The Human Rights Campaign believes this appointment represents meaningful progress for the LGBT community, in particular, transgender Americans who have faced significant and well documented discrimination in the workplace. As the first transgender person appointed by the president, Amanda is not only eminently qualified for her new position in the Department of Commerce, but she is also a trailblazer for equality,” spokesman Trevor Thompson said in a statement.
Obama’s appointment of Simpson is being hailed by groups such as the Human Rights Campaign — which endorsed Obama but condemned his support of the Defense of Marriage Act while other gay rights groups are taking a more measured approach.
Though careful to say Simpson’s appointment was not merely a bone thrown to the gay and transgender community, Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the administration needed to do more to protect the rights of transgender people.
“There is certainly not enough being done by either the administration or Congress,” said Keisling. “It is frustrating as hell things work as they work, and more needs to get done.
“This was not an appointment because they have to fill a transgender spot. This is a real serious technical policy position and the job matches her resume. Her being transgender had nothing to do with getting that job,” said Keisling.
Simpson sat on the NCTE board of directors for three years.
Though transgender advocates believe Simpson’s gender identity had no role in her hiring, conservative groups claim it was a political move.
“Simpson’s nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female ‘transgender’ activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support,” Monica Schleicher, spokeswoman for Christian group Focus on the Family, said in statement.
“Efforts to promote ‘transgenderism’ in public policy deconstruct one of the most fundamental concepts known to mankind. It renders gender, the most basic organization of social systems, completely meaningless. In doing so, activists like Simpson are asking the rest of society to radically reorder the ways in which the culture makes reasonable and rational accommodation for the two genders,” she said.
A former test pilot, Simpson worked in the aerospace and defense industries for 30 years, mostly at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Ariz. She holds degrees in physics, engineering, and business.
Simpson told ABCNews.com that much of her work will involve “licensing and enforcement for exports” of military technology.
In 2004, she was named by the YWCA as one of their “Women on the Move,” and in the same year, she won the Democratic nomination to the Arizona state House of Representatives. She lost in the general election.
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.
ENDA has been introduced in every Congress, except the 109th, since 1994, albeit without gender identity protections, but gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party broke twelve years of Republican Congressional rule in the 2006 midterm elections. However, some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion, and dropped it from the bill, which passed and subsequently died in the Senate. LGBT advocacy organizations were divided over support of the changed bill.
In 2009, on the heels of the 2008 elections that strengthened the Democratic majority, and after the debacle of the 2007 ENDA divisions, only a transgender-inclusive ENDA was introduced by House representative Barney Frank. Frank reintroduced the bill in 2011. Shortly thereafter, the bill was introduced in the Senate by Jeff Merkley.
President Barack Obama supports the bill’s passage; former President George W. Bush threatened to veto the measure.
Evidence Discrimination based on sexual orientation occurs at a similar rate as sex and race at 4.7 per 10,000, as compared to discrimination based on sex at 5.4 and race at 6.5. In states that have discrimination policies in place, LGB complaints are equivalent to the number of complaints filed based on sex and less than the number of complaints filed based on race.
Evidence of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
The Williams Institute estimates the number of LGBT employees as follows: 7 million private sector employees, 1 million state and local employees, and 200,000 employees of the federal government. Thirty percent of state and local LGBT employees live in California and New York. In comparison, LGB people make up only one half of one percent of state and local employees in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming combined. This suggests that the need for policy to address discrimination may vary across the country. Surveys which seek to document discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity are often conducted with a pool of self identified LGBT people, making it difficult to ascertain the impact of this type of discrimination on non-LGBT individuals.
Transgender people may experience higher rates of discrimination that the LGB population. A survey of transgender and gender non-conforming people Conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found 90 percent of respondents experienced harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it. In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate 15 to 57 percent.
It is unclear whether LGBT individuals earn more or less than the general population. In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 38 percent of LGBT people report incomes less than $35,000,compared to 33 of all US adults over age 18. Some organizations believe that no such gap exists, and that LGBT people may in fact have higher incomes than non-LGBT families. The American Family Association (AFA) argues that homosexuals as a class enjoy privileged, rather than disadvantaged economic and cultural positions in society and that their household income is above average.
Existing law
State law
Current U.S. LGBT employment discrimination laws.
All employment:
State employment:
Animation showing the evolution of US LGBT civil rights policies
Wisconsin was the first state to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, in 1982, while Minnesota was the first state to ban employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have policies that protect against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in the public and private sector. An additional eight states — Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin — have state laws that protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation only.
Five states have an executive order, administrative order, or personnel regulation prohibiting discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Delaware,Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public employment only. An additional five states prohibit discrimination against public employees based on sexual orientation only: Alaska, Arizona, Missouri , Montana and Ohio. Ohio previously included gender identity, Governor Kasich let this executive order expire in January 2011.
Fifteen other states have laws that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons.
Local law
A number of cities and counties have implemented non-discrimination laws. As of April 27, 2011, at least 137 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity for both public and private employees. By and large, these city and county laws exist in states that already have a statewide non-discrimination policy for sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, this is not true in all cases. The following localities have local laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the absence of a comparable state law:
- Florida: County of Broward, City of Dunedin, City of Gainesville, City of Gulfport, City of Key West, City of Lake Worth, County of Leon, City of Miami Beach, City of Oakland Park, County of Palm Beach, City of Tampa, and City of West Palm Beach
- Georgia: City of Atlanta and City of Decatur
- Indiana: City of Bloomington, City of Indianapolis, County of Marion and County of Monroe
- Louisiana: City of New Orleans
- South Carolina: City of Charleston and City of Columbia
- Texas: City of Austin, City of Dallas, County of Dallas, City of El Paso and City of Fort Worth
- Utah: City of Logan, City of Park City, City of Salt Lake, County of Salt Lake, County of Summit and City of West Valley
Federal employees
As with other employers in most states, there is no federal statute addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the federal government. However, in 1998, the administration of President Bill Clinton interpreted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, prohibiting federal government workplace discrimination “on the basis of conduct not related to job performance”, as meaning sexual orientation [as a factor not related to job performance], and issued an executive order to more strongly cover the executive branch, over which the President has more control. In 2009 Barack Obama did the same for gender identity. However, remedies pursued under this law are limited.
Existing workplace policies
Many large companies already provide equal rights and benefits to their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, as measured by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) through their Corporate Equality Index. The 2011 report found that 337 large companies received a 100% rating. These businesses employ a total of over 8.3 million full-time U.S. workers. When the Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index was first utilized in 2002, 13 companies were rated 100 percent. Additionally, each year, corporations send thousands of employees to the Out & Equal Regional Summit, a conference that intends to create a more inclusive work environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Furthermore, there are workplace resources for how allies can create a more inclusive work environment, including programs available through PFLAG and the Out & Equal publication, Allies at Work, by David M. Hall.
Widespread adoption of private workplace policies may be motivated by good business sense, the Williams Institute suggests. It’s conclusion is based on a set of studies that show that lesbians and gay men who have come out at work report lower levels of anxiety, less conflict between work and personal life, greater job satisfaction, more sharing of employers’ goals, higher levels of satisfaction with their co-workers, more self-esteem, and better physical health.
Current version provisions
The current version of the bill under consideration in Congress would prohibit private employers with more than 15 employees from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Religious organizations are provided a special exception to this protection, similar to the principles of the Civil Rights Act. Non-profit membership-only clubs (except labor unions) are likewise not bound to this rule.
The bill defines that service in the military is not “employment” and thus it does not affect the don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) policy of the United States military. DADT was repealed by the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act of 2010, signed by President Barack Obama on December 22, 2010. DADT will remain in place until President Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that repeal will not harm military readiness, followed by a 60-day waiting period. On April 8, 2011, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations reported to the House Armed Services Committee that “Our training is going very well.” “In those areas that we detected that there may be some areas of moderate risk…it is not at the level that we had originally forecasted.” The training may be completed as early as June 2011.
Legislative progress
103rd through 108th Congresses
While the first bill on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination was introduced in Congress in 1974, the first bill using the current title of “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” was introduced in 1994. It failed in 1994 and 1995, though by 1996, missed passage in the Senate by a 49-50 vote. Versions of ENDA introduced in the 103rd through 108th Congresses did not include provisions that protect transgender people from discrimination.
109th Congress
ENDA was not introduced in the 109th Congress.
110th Congress
In the 110th United States Congress there were two versions of the bill:
- H.R. 2015, introduced on April 24, 2007 by Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce, does include gender identity within its protections; and
- H.R. 3685, introduced by Representative Frank on September 27, 2007 and passed by the Education and Labor Committee on October 18, does not include gender identity within its scope. On November 7, 2007, H.R. 3685 was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 235 to 184 (14 members did not vote).
Under both versions, the bill provided employment protections similar to those of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the employment section is also known as “Title VII”), but specifically directed to gay, lesbian, bisexual (and under HR 2015, transgender) employees. The bills were different from Title VII in that they contained exemptions concerning employer dress codes.
H.R. 2015 does contain provisions that protect transgender people from discrimination, including a specific definition of gender identity, as well as exemptions for employer dress codes and locker rooms . The bill defines gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” The bill also specifically allowed employers to require adherence “to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”
After H.R. 2015 died in committee, Frank proposed a new bill, H.R. 3685, that contained only prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination, excluding gender identity. Some LGBT activist organizations responded by refusing to support H.R. 3685. This version was protested against by many LGBT rights organizations in the United States, with the exception of theHuman Rights Campaign.
Many have claimed that excluding transgender people would undermine the underlying principle of ENDA, which is that fairness is a fundamental American principle. In addition, failure to include gender identity/expression will weaken the protection for the portion of the gay population that needs it most: gender non-conforming gays, who are discriminated against in greater numbers than their gender-conforming compatriots[citation needed]. The courts would narrowly interpret a sexual-orientation-only ENDA as not covering anti-gay discrimination that stems from gender expression. Those favoring exclusion counter that it will ease the process of passing some changes in civil rights.
111th Congress
House
The Washington Blade reported on June 17, 2009 that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) had announced plans to introduce an ENDA bill (H.R. 2981) that includes gender identity in June 2009, with original cosponsors slated to include 4 Republicans. The lead Republican cosponsor is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
On June 24, 2009, Rep. Barney Frank introduced H.R. 3017 to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Advocate reported that “the 2009 Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) has 114 original cosponsors, up from 62 cosponsors for the trans-inclusive bill of 2007.” Republican Main Street Partnership members Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Castle (R-DE), Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), Judy Biggert (R-IL), and Leonard Lance (R-NJ) were among the original cosponsors. Earlier in June Frank had introducedH.R. 2981 for the same purpose. H.R. 3017 was referred to the House Education and Labor Committee; a hearing was held before the committee on September 23, 2009 but no further action was taken.
At the end of the 111th Congress, H.R. 3017 had 203 cosponsors in the House.
Senate
The Washington Blade reported on August 5, 2009 that Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced an ENDA bill (S. 1584) that included gender identity, with 38 original cosponsors including Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Chris Dodd (D-CT), according to a statement released by Merkley’s office. Sen. Merkley was quoted by The Advocateas noting that while he has yet to consult with others, “[i]t’s certainly possible that this could be passed by year’s end, though the [congressional] schedule is very crowded.”
Blue Oregon, a progressive Oregon blog, commented on the suitability of Sen. Merkley to be lead sponsor of ENDA, noting that as Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives Merkley had successfully guided Oregon’s state version of ENDA, the Oregon Equality Act, to become law.
As of March 13, 2010, S. 1584 had 45 co-sponsors and was pending before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. A hearing was held before the committee on November 5, 2009.
112th Congress
On April 6, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank introduced an ENDA bill (H.R. 1397) to the 112th Congress House of Representatives to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill had 111 original cosponsors, compared to 203 cosponsors at the conclusion of the 111th Congress.
On April 14, 2011, Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced an ENDA bill (S. 811) to the 112th Congress Senate. The bill had 39 original cosponsors.
Arguments in favor of ENDA
Most proponents of the law[who?] intend it to address cases where gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees have been discriminated against by their employers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, these employees are unable to find protection in the courts because sexual orientation is not considered to be a suspect class by the federal courts and by many U.S. states. Proponents argue that such a law is appropriate in light of the United States Constitution‘s guarantees of equal protection and due process to all. Advocates argue that homosexuality is not a “choice” but a personal identity, a claim supported by the American Psychology Association (APA), and that all working people have a right to be judged by the quality of their work performance and not by completely unrelated factors. According to a study published in 2001 by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, reports of discrimination based on sexual orientation are roughly equal to those on race or gender. The APA also states that there is significant discrimination against homosexuals in the workforce. There are also studies showing that local anti-discrimination laws are ineffective, and federal law is needed.
Cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office from 2002 show that the EEOC estimated that their complaint caseload would rise by only 5 to 7%. Assessments of the impact of comparable state policies also show a minimal impact on caseload. Regarding constitutionality, the act incorporates language similar to that of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has consistently been upheld by the courts.
Arguments in opposition of ENDA
Gay people as a “protected class”
Opponents of ENDA sometimes argue that gay people should not be considered a “protected class of employees” by law. However, ENDA would not protect “homosexuals” as a class; rather, the law would ban discrimination in employment based on any sexual orientation (including heterosexual orientation). Consumer surveys show that self-identified gay individuals likely have higher incomes than the average US household, and ENDA opponents argue that many gay people hold positions of cultural influence as well. The conservative Christian organization American Family Association‘s (AFA) Journal concluded in 2007 that there was “no real problem of discrimination against homosexuals.” Additionally, AFA is concerned about how non-discrimination laws impact religious organizations. The organization cites a lack of clarity around whether the narrow exemption would apply to support staff and lay employees in addition to churches and clergy.
Transgender protection
The Traditional Values Coalition bases its argument against additional legal protections for gender identity on fears that it will have a negative impact on school children, claiming that ENDA would threaten a stable and supportive learning environment. A non-discrimination policy would eliminate schools’ ability to discriminate against transgender teachers. Likewise, the Traditional Values Coalition is concerned that parents are not being adequately informed of the presence of transgender teachers in their children’s classrooms. It argues that children should not be “subjected to [a transgendered] man’s [sic] bizarre sexual transformation,” as it claims transgender individuals are “seriously mentally disturbed.” The Traditional Values Coalition argues that individuals cannot change their sex, even with surgery, and do not believe it is possible to successfully transition from one sex to another.
History
The “United ENDA” coalition protests the removal of gender identity from the 2007 bill at San Francisco City Hall.
On May 14, 1974, the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch introduced H.R. 14752, the “Gay Rights Bill.” The bill would have added “sexual orientation” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In the early 1990s, a new strategy emerged. Rather than trying to obtain all of the rights in the Civil Rights Act, the legislative efforts focused on employment rights, and the “Equality Act” was renamed the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” (H.R. 4636/S.2238) and introduced by Rep.Gerry Studds on June 23, 1994. [Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 2d Session, 140 Cong. Rec. E 1311; Vol. 140 No. 81 (June 23, 1994).] The legislation failed in 1994 and 1995. In 1996, the bill came within one vote passage in the Senate and was not voted on in the House, its success perhaps spurred by backlash from the recently passed DOMA, the “Defense of Marriage Act” that permitted the states and mandated the federal government to ignore same sex marriages from other states. HRC sets out the timeline of ENDA introductions.
Transgender inclusion in ENDA
The inclusion of transgender employees in ENDA has long been debated in the LGBT community. One argument is that transgender individuals are already covered under existing laws prohibiting employment based on gender stereotypes.
In 1999, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force became the first LGBT civil rights organization to stop work on ENDA because of its lack of transgender-inclusion. From 1999 to 2007, it has worked to build a LGBT community consensus to only support a trans-inclusive bill, and participated in redrafting the fully trans-inclusive version for the 110th Congress. ENDA now enjoys the unequivocal support of a large coalition of civil rights, labor and religious organizations. In August 2004, the Human Rights Campaign – anLGBT organization that is among the primary lobbyists for the bill – announced that it will only support passage of ENDA if it included gender identity protections as well. However, in November 2007, it reneged on its stance and supported a non-inclusive ENDA instead. A 2004 article by Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force discusses this.
Legislative history
| Congress | Short title | Bill number(s) | Gender identity included? | Date introduced | Sponsor(s) | # of cosponsors | Latest status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 112th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act | H.R. 1397 | Yes | April 6, 2011 | Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | 133 | Referred to the Education and the Workforce, House Administration, Oversight and Government Reform, and Judiciary committees. |
| S. 811 | Yes | April 14, 2011 | Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) | 39 | Referred to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee. | ||
| 111th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 | H.R. 3017 | Yes | June 24, 2009 | Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | 203 | Referred to the Judiciary, House Administration, Education and Labor, and Oversight and Government Reform committees. Hearings held September 23, 2009 in Education and Labor committee. |
| H.R. 2981 | Yes | June 19, 2009 | Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | 12 | Referred to the House Judiciary Committee | ||
| S. 1584 | Yes | August 5, 2009 | Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) | 45 | Referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearings held November 5, 2009. | ||
| 110th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 | H.R. 2015 | Yes | April 24, 2007 | Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | 184 | Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties |
| H.R. 3681 | No | September 27, 2007 | Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | 9 | Passed the House (235-184), died in the Senate | ||
| 108th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2003 | H.R. 3285 | No | October 8, 2003 | Rep.Christopher Shays (R-CT) | 180 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| S. 1705 | No | October 2, 2003 | Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) | 43 | Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | ||
| 107th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001 | H.R. 2692 | No | July 31, 2001 | Rep.Christopher Shays (R-CT) | 193 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| S. 1284 | No | July 31, 2001 | Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) | 44 | Died in the Senate | ||
| 106th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999 | H.R. 2355 | No | June 24, 1999 | Rep.Christopher Shays (R-CT) | 173 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| S. 1276 | No | June 24, 1999 | Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) | 36 | Died in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | ||
| 105th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 | H.R. 1858 | No | June 10, 1997 | Rep.Christopher Shays (R-CT) | 140 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations |
| S. 869 | No | June 10, 1997 | Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) | 34 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources | ||
| 104th Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1995 | H.R. 1863 | No | June 15, 1995 | Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) | 142 | Died in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution |
| S. 932 | No | June 15, 1995 | Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) | 30 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources | ||
| S. 2056 | No | September 5, 1996 | Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) | 3 | Failed in Senate (49-50) | ||
| 103rd Congress | Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994 | H.R. 4636 | No | June 23, 1994 | Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) | 137 | Died in the House Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights |
| S. 2238 | No | July 29, 1994 | Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) | 30 | Died in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources |
The Power Of Trans 