Should the Transgendered be a protected minority?
“Men are men and women are women!
That’s the way it is, that’s the way it always has been and
that’s the way it always will be.” This
simple, commonly used phrase says it all or so it seems to the vast majority
of people. What if though, just
what if that was not all there was to it?
What if it were much more complex than that?
In the elaborate interactions that we call life it is much more
intricate than just these two polar opposites.
There are groups of people who do not fit into one of these
standardized categories. There
are Transvestites (TV), Transgendered (TG), Intersexed (IS), and others.
Another term for TG’s is Transsexual
and is the one that most people have heard used. TG’s are considered a fringe group in many issues simply
because the numbers of people with this condition are not known.
Much of society does not want to deal with TG’s as they challenge the
basic assumptions of many about gender. Gays,
Lesbians, and Bisexuals were ignored and invisible to mainstream society for a
long time as they challenged the ideas about relationships.
With diligent lobbying and political efforts, they were awarded status
as a protected minority. This has
helped them to resolve many of their unique issues and be recognized as
contributing members of society. With
the success of this, comes the crucial question of, Should the Transgendered
be recognized as a protected minority group?
Significance
There are many complex legal, moral, medical, and sociological issues
involved in the offering of protected status to any group, let alone one that
challenges gender assumptions. The
most significant impact would be the overall change that would be made to
society in order to convert it from the bipolar, two gendered society into one
that encompasses more genders. This
would involve teaching tolerance, changes to every record that tracks gender
(just about every thing we fill out asks about gender, but not sexual
orientation), and defining new terminology and pronouns since the bipolar ones
would not be applicable. Many
religions would have to change their religious doctrines akin to what was done
for homosexual rights. “The
woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put
on a woman’s garment” (Prentiss 172).
The medical establishment would need to be educated in the issues and
health problems unique to TG’s. Much
of the work in the TG medical field is considered to be on the fringe and
consequently exists underground. Protected
status would allow this to move to being more mainstream and provide access to
resources and materials currently not available.
TG’s directly confront society’s morals by their life choices and
show a need for change in the moral structure of that society.
“And when our sense of other’s gender identity is disrupted or
dislodged, we can become anxious, even violent. Many transsexuals are murdered or attacked every year”
(Kimmel 104). Perhaps the most
recent and well-known episode is the story of Brandon Teena, made into movie
called Boys Don't Cry. Violence
directed at TG’s includes beating, raping, torturing, harassment, isolation,
and outright discrimination (HRC). Any
moral being should be mortified that this kind of treatment is happening to
any person. When the knowledge of
these kinds of attacks happened to the Gay and Lesbian community the level of
indignation of the general populace increased.
This led to the moral changes that allowed Gay and Lesbians to gain
protected status.
There would have to be changes to the laws, and court verdicts would
have to be overturned. This will
require that judges, juries, legislatures and lawyers be educated in the legal
nuances pertaining to TG’s. These
things would have to occur to provide the protected minority status to the
TG’s as historically most of them have ruled against TG’s. The current laws and court decisions are the results of a
system trying to be as fair as possible, while the TG’s are still in a legal
gray area. As with Homosexuals it
would not provide a fix to the problems faced by the TG community, but it
would provide some legal recourse (Sims 5).
As a TG woman, I have to deal with these issues everyday so there is a
vast significance of this topic to my personal life. I have had my experiences with the violence that society
directs at TG people and have turned political activist to try and remedy
this. I can see how protected
status for TG’s can lead to solutions for these problems.
On the other hand, I can also see how better education of people and
enforcement of the current system of laws can provide the same benefits.
Definition of Terms
This topic has many confusing and technical terms and definitions and
any discussion of it must include them. They
are defined here in order to alleviate confusion and ensure there is the same
understanding of a term. A
transvestite or cross-dresser is a person who adopts the dress and often the
behavior typical of the opposite sex especially for purposes of emotional or
sexual gratification (Merriam-Webster). The
term intersexual refers to someone who has intermediate sexual
characters between a typical male and a typical female (Merriam-Webster).
A hermaphrodite is an animal or plant having both male and female
reproductive organs (Merriam-Webster). Transsexuals
(TS’s) are people with a psychological urge to belong to the opposite sex
that may be carried to the point of undergoing surgery to modify the sex
organs to mimic the opposite sex (Merriam-Webster).
Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is the condition of Transsexualism
(Prentiss 171). Transgender
or gender variants are those exhibiting the appearance and behavioral
characteristics of the opposite sex (Merriam-Webster).
The term homosexual refers to someone of a gender, relating to, or
characterized by a tendency for direct sexual desire toward another of the
same sex (Merriam-Webster).
Invisibility or passable is being unambiguously perceived as the gender
the TG identifies with (Mildred Brown 135).
Many support groups are in the forefront of the campaigns for equal
treatment. These include the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which is a bipartisan organization for equality
based on sexual orientation and gender expression (HRC).
American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER) includes active, reserve and
veteran service members for equal rights and treatment for all present and
former members of the U.S. Armed Forces (AVER). Transgender Law and Policy Institute (TLPI) is a group of
experts working on law and policy initiatives for transgender equality (TLPI).
Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG) offers
support, education, and advocacy to secure equal civil rights (PFLAG).
The International Bill of Gender Rights (IBGR) strives to express
fundamental human and civil rights from a gender perspective (Feinberg 165). The International Conference on Transgender Law and
Employment Policy, Inc. (ICTLEP) is dedicated to legal rights, employment, and
policy for transgendered persons (Feinberg 172).
The TG community affects various other organizations. These include the American Psychiatric Association (APA),
which is recognized worldwide as the voice and conscience of modern psychiatry
(APA). The Harry Benjamin
International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) works for the
understanding and treatment of gender identity disorders (HBIGDA).
The Authorities which refers to any person within an official capacity
and includes, but is not limited to, firefighters, police, paramedics, civil
servants, and health care providers. Religious
Fundamentalists, which are the hard line fundamentalists within any religion
and includes, but is not limited to, the Christian Coalition (CC),
Christianity Today (CT), Jerry
Falwell Ministries (JFM), Senator Jessie Helms, Senator Trent Lott, Attorney
General John Ashcroft, National Association for Research and Therapy for
Homosexuality (NARTH), Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), and Feminist Author
Mary Daly.
Secondary Issues
Several secondary issues surface in discussions of this topic that will
be briefly touched on here, but not discussed in any depth. A secondary issue is the overall cost in money, time, and
effort required to grant this status. The
side against granting the protected status points out the costs of educating
the populace on TG issues. They
point out the court costs associated with the trials that would have to happen
(TVC). Oversight committees and
investigators charged with protecting TG’s would have to be put in place.
The side for protected status refutes these claims by saying that the
apparent costs are deceptive accounting.
The proponents point out that most of these things are already in place
due to the homosexuals having protected status.
They say it would be an easy matter to expand the oversight committees,
investigators and conflict resolution methods for homosexuals to include the
TG’s so the only real cost is the training needed for TG specific issues.
They include the time to draft the laws and court decision in this,
since they can also be expanded to incorporate TG issues(Kirk 47).
Another concern to providing the protected status is, who would get to
make the decisions on this? By
default, this would involve the legislature and the leaders of both sides of
the issue, those for and against protected status.
It would eventually involve all the voters since they would use their
votes to either support / defeat the ballot or to elect representatives to the
legislature that represent their ideas on this issue.
A concern that is often brought up by those concerned with morality is
the sexual orientation of TG’s. Gender
identity and gender status are distinct from sexual desire for a man or woman.
It is Western cultures obsession with the genitalia as markers of all
three that cause the problems (Lorber 86).
This is very evident in the fact that TG’s come in all sexual
orientations before and after surgery. If
the genitalia were the determining factor for desire then sex reassignment
surgery (SRS) would result in heterosexual postoperative TG’s.
Assumptions
The most fundamental assumption that many people have is that they know
all about TG issues based on what they have seen in movies, TV shows or the
news. This would be the main
sources of information for most people and is incomplete at best.
Those that may have more knowledge on the subject tend to have done
research only to prove an ideological, political or religious point.
The people who support the protected status tend to assume the
best-case scenario for the effects of the overall changes.
They think that getting the status will automatically and overnight fix
all their woes. They also think
that it is easy to introduce a law and have it passed quickly.
The people opposed to granting status often believe the worst-case
scenario is what will happen. Many
people tend to think of TG’s as perverts akin to pedophiles, incestuous
people, child molesters, or voyeurs. Religiously
many see TG’s as going against God, since God does not make mistakes. They believe that it is inherently evil and against the
course of things as decided by God. Many
politicians see TG’s as an outside, unpopular fringe group.
They tend to want to be re-elected, and to upset their constituents by
supporting protected status would not accomplish this.
Both groups of people do make common assumptions in their arguments.
The first is that they think the other side is closed-minded and
intolerant. They assume the other
side should be able to see things from their point of view.
I personally assume that many people are unmotivated to pursue research
into an area, which does not immediately concern them.
I think that many people are apathetic if there is no salience of the
issue to them. I believe that
people do not want to put forth effort just for the sake of knowledge; they
have to get something out of it. I
assume many people believe they have never met, know or dealt with a TG
person. I tend to think that
people will polarize if forced to face an issue, with no room for a middle
ground. I believe that people do
not like what is different in a way they cannot empathize with.
I think that many people have no empathy with TG persons so they are
not tolerant or accepting. I
assume that those with the least empathy commit violent acts against TG’s
and have some sort of rationalization that they are actually being good.
History
TV’s have existed in society since ancient times.
Some later examples are Joan of Arc, Native American Berdaches and Two
Spirits, Napoleonic soldiers, African shamans, American Civil War soldiers,
and others. (Feinberg 21 – 48). TG’s
have probably been around for the same length of time, but due to
technological constraints in the medical fields they could not do anything
other than cross-dress. “The
first medically authorized SRS (transsexual surgery) is believed to have been
performed in Germany in the early 1920s” (Docter 7).
These early attempts at understanding were not well known outside of a
small European area. This changed
drastically in 1952 when Christine Jorgensen became a media sensation (Feinbloom
27). Christine Jorgensen was a
young decorated World War II veteran. After
following the guidelines, of the time, for treatment she went to Denmark and
had SRS performed (Mildred Brown 27). In 1966, Dr. Harry Benjamin published his groundbreaking book
of Transsexual research (Mildred Brown 28).
Dr. Benjamin was one of the preeminent doctors, who quickly realized
the significance of a TG diagnosis. In
1969, he setup an institute for research and to help those afflicted with GID.
He also formulated the Guidelines, which are still in use today, for
treatment of those with GID (HBIGDA). With
the growing wealth of information on the subject, more people afflicted with
GID were coming forth to seek treatment.
As there was a need for them, more doctors entered into the field and
conducted research.
On
June 27, 1969, the Stonewall riots occurred starting the Gay Rights Movement,
of which TG’s were a part. The Stonewall Inn, a
popular Greenwich Village gay bar, was raided by the New York Police
Department. The crowds in the bar, tired of the brutality and harassment
decided to fight back. This led to a series of clashes with police over the course
of the next several days. This is
heralded as the beginning of the public Gay Rights Movement. Before the Stonewall riots there was no allowable public
expression of their sexuality. The philosophy became one of visibility
to challenge the stereotypes and myths (Garnets 3).
The
Religious Fundamentalists soon began decrying the morality of thwarting
God’s will with such medicine and the evils of Homosexuality.
Many employers and politicians, afraid of the power and wealth of the
Religious Fundamentalists, sided with them.
Some medical doctors and the APA believed that GID was a natural
phenomenon and not a perversion (APA). The
TG’s, supported by the APA and some medical doctors, opposed the Religious
Fundamentalist.
In the mid 1970’s a retired ophthalmologist and semi-pro tennis
player went through SRS to become Renee Richards, the professional tennis
player. She became a sensation
when the sporting authorities banned her from competing, claiming she was male
and that gave her an advantage. She
went to court to be legally recognized as a woman.
The courts ruled that SRS did constitute the right to be recognized as
the surgically constructed gender. This
set a very important precedent for TS’s and TG’s in general (TLPI).
The federal government finally removed homosexuality as grounds for
dismissal from federal jobs around the same time (Lewis 1).
The HBIGDA continued to do research and publish their findings as more
patients came forth identifying with GID.
They began advocating that TG’s were normal people caught in a
difficult situation through an accident of birth.
The Religious Fundamentalists began a campaign for society to reject
TG’s as immoral. They began to
lose some of their power base as their rhetoric alienated some of the more
moderate members. Their power and
wealth still caused most employers and politicians to side with them out of
fear of retribution (Feinberg 17). In
addition to the APA and some MD’s, a few employers and politicians began to
side with the TG’s through the Gay Rights Movement.
In the 1980’s, the Lesbian Rights Movement split off from the
Feminist Movement. The TG’s
were involved in the Lesbian Rights Movement and elected to stay with them.
TG’s were coming more widely into the public consciousness, though
TG’s were still viewed by many to be perverts.
Several Pop music stars, like Boy George, Anne Lennox, the Human League
and others, helped, by crossing the gender lines.
There were many movies made that dealt with or touched on TG issues,
such as Second Serve, Ranma ½, Crocodile Dundee, and
others. There were popular
mainstream books that dealt with TG’s, like The Silence of the Lambs,
Better Than Chocolate, Ranma ½, and others.
The Religious Fundamentalists had driven off enough of their power base
that they became a splinter group and no longer directed the course of
mainstream religion. They still
opposed the TG’s on a morality viewpoint, but some of the mainstream
religious groups began to accept Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered
(GLBT) people. They realized that
TG’s are not a perverted group, rather a group of people caught in bad
circumstances. Many politicians
began to look at the TG issues and did not see many activists, due to the
invisibility of TG’s. There
were apparently more opponents from the Religious Fundamentalists so they
concluded TG’s were an unpopular fringe group and sided with Religious
Fundamentalists. Many employers
began to fear the ever-present lawsuits and costs of diversity in the work
place and began to oppose TG activists. The
TG’s failed to gain many supporters during this time, and the AIDS epidemic
was decimating the Gay and Lesbian supporters they had.
In the 1990’s, there were numerous landmark events that pushed TG
issues to the forefront of society. The
Internet had matured to the point of being useful, and this fostered the
sharing of research on TG’s that had not been as accessible before. Medical technology had advanced in many fronts, the most
dramatic of which was the ability to see inside a living brain.
Dr. Joy Shaffer and the Dutch Institute of Gender, working
independently, began to find evidence of a biological cause for TG’s.
“More recently, researchers found that the brains of male
transsexuals more closely resembled the brains of women than heterosexual,
‘normal’ men” (Kimmel 35). As
the surgical techniques continued to get better, the results became almost
indistinguishable from natural anatomy. There
were many popular mainstream movies made during this time that challenged the
assumptions that many people had held about GID, such as Boys Don't Cry,
The Crying Game, The Silence of the Lambs, Hedwig and the
Angry Inch, Better Than Chocolate, and others.
With
this push to the forefront has come some problems as people make judgments
based on insufficient knowledge. There
have been some high profile murders from hate, including Brandon Teena (Feinberg
132). In addition, there has also
been a spate of violence directed at TG’s (PFLAG).
There has been discrimination and harassment in employment (Prentiss
175). To combat the hatred many
support groups were formed, such as AVER, TLPI, PFLAG, HRC, ITCLEP,
Transgendered Menace, and others. These support groups used the Internet to
unite widely scattered TG’s and build a support base to challenge the
invisibility of TG’s. After the
murder of Mathew Shepard in Wyoming, they realized that limited legislation
was not the answer. Minorities
are a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and
often subjected to differential treatment (Merriam-Webster).
Since there is evidence of a biological cause for TG’s and a definite
difference in treatment, the support groups decided that they should push for
protected minority status. This
would allow for inclusion of crimes based on gender identity as hate crimes.
It would provide fair treatment in housing and employment with the
current legislation that covers minority groups. AVER, TLPI, and ITCLEP have used lobbying methods to try to
influence politicians this is the correct route. At the same time HRC, Lambda Legal, Transgender Legal, TLPI
and PFLAG have pursued legal cases to push this agenda in the legal system.
These include: Joann Brandon V. County of Richardson, Nebraska, The
International Bill of Gender Rights VS. the Cider House Rules, Goodwin V. UK
Government, Gardner vs Kansas, Littleton vs Prange, Ulane v. Eastern Airlines,
Schwenk v. Hartford, Doe v. Yunits, Enriquez, M.D. v. West Jersey Health
Systems (TLPI, Frye).
The
Religious Fundamentalists have toned down their rhetoric somewhat and regained
some of the power base they had lost in the 80’s.
They soon began pushing the issue as one of if you are not with us you
are with them, and they are immoral. This
has prevented many of the employers and politicians from publicly offering
support to the TG’s. Some
politicians and employers, swayed by the arguments of the TG support groups
began to support them. The real
gains for the TG’s during this time were the support groups and becoming the
focus in the groups they had been behind the scenes of before – the Lesbian
and Gay Rights groups.
In 2000 and 2001, some politicians have become more accepting of
TG’s, and they realized that there are more of them than originally thought.
This is due to the lobbying efforts of the support groups shredding the
veil of invisibility. In an effort to thwart the political efforts of the TG’s,
the Religious Fundamentalists have turned to the courts. They still have much influence in the conservative judiciary,
and this has lead to legal complications for TG’s in many areas.
In one San Antonio, Texas case a TG woman who had been married, with
his prior knowledge, to a man for 7 years had her right to sue denied based on
chromosomes not biologic constructs. After
her husband died, she filed a wrongful death suit; the trial judge dismissed
her claim. The Texas 4th Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge.
The Texas Supreme Court denied petition for review on May 18, 2000.
The United States Supreme Court denied the writ on October 2, 2000
(Littleton). Many courts across
the US have used this ruling to define gender as chromosomal instead of
anatomical. The Religious
Fundamentalists have sued some employers that have non-TG discrimination
policies based on the moral stance they have long held.
The lawsuits claim that having TG people in the work center causes a
hostile work environment that is unhealthy for the Traditionalist.
The targets of these lawsuits tend to be large companies such as IBM,
Amazon.com, Wal-Mart and others. The
TG’s still have many of their supporters, but some politicians and
employers, fearing the cost of lawsuits and the power of the resurgent
Religious Fundamentalists, have backed away from them (TVC).
Parties to the Controversy
There are numerous obvious parties to this issue, and there are some
that are not so obvious. These
include, but are not limited to TG’s, as well as some doctors, lawyers,
judges, government officials, civil servants, health care providers, and
employers. It includes employees,
citizens, religious leaders and psychologists as well.
TG’s do not want to be special; they just want the same rights,
guaranteed by the Constitution, that everyone else has.
Many politicians and religious leaders want to ensure it is the correct
thing to do and will not give in to a fringe group. Most employers want to be fair, but not have to be afraid of
every group that whines for protected status.
Each side claims there is only one proposed solution that will work.
From the TG side only full recognition, as a protected minority will
suffice. Some religious leaders
believe this will lead to a further degradation of society’s moral fiber.
The Religious Fundamentalists believe in Traditional Morality as
defined in the scriptures. Most
politicians are reluctant to propose something that may be unnecessary, but if
evidence and voter support were there, they would allow protected status.
Employers want to provide equality in the workplace that does not cost
them money every time a fringe group bands together.
The opposing sides have to lobby for or against the protected minority
status, as this determination must come from the legislative bodies.
Those who support making TG’s a protected minority group value the
individual / constitutional rights of a group of people, the ability to seek
redress and justice when the lines are crossed, the accountability of those
that willfully cross those lines, and equality of treatment.
A more detailed look at each of these values, in respect to the parties
that hold them, will be taken.
Opponents Views
There are many reasons used as to why TG’s should not be a protected
minority. One position taken,
usually by the Religious Fundamentalist, is that recognizing such a perversion
will lead to the further degradation of society.
Their main argument is that God created man and woman as is. For a person to artificially change between them is against
God (TVC). Since it is against
God and God’s will then it is an evil act and only sinners commit acts of
evil. They argue that for society
to recognize and legitimize such a perversion is a sign that the morals of
society are sliding downhill.
A second group includes a number of employers who have two main
arguments against such recognition for TG’s.
The first argument is the cost of implementing protection for a new
minority. This is an amalgamation
of physical, emotional, and intangible costs.
These include: the rewriting and redistributing of the company’s
policies and procedures, policing of the policies and procedures, dispute
resolution, auxiliary training for Human Resources and Management, Affirmative
Action and Equal Opportunity. There
is concern about having to provide special latrine facilities or
accommodations. In public service
jobs, there is the potential for lost business.
If a customer sees the TG person, recognizes him or her as a TG, and
takes their business elsewhere. These
costs are a major consideration in a profit-oriented society.
The second argument, used by many employers, is the possibility of
disruption of the work environment. These
include intangible costs such as employee friction, refusal to work with the
TG person, disciplinary action, standards of dress and appearance, over
leniency to the TG, hostility to the TG, and other personnel issues. Even if the special accommodations in the restroom do not
cost money, there is still the issue of perceived voyeurism by other employees
(Mildred Brown 160). Concern is
usually expressed for the medical coverage, care and treatment for TG’s.
Customers may refuse to interact with a known TG causing some employees
to have very little work, while others are over worked.
There is the possibility of creating a situation, through the mechanics
of big business, which is untenable to both parties.
To illustrate this point let us suppose there is a business, which is
owned by some Male-to-Female (MTF) TS’s, that makes a
certain type of widgets. The
military then needs to order a very large quantity of these widgets for some
project on which it is working. The
military then solicits bids from firms that can meet this demand.
The military rules are such that if all things are equal they must
select firstly from minority owned businesses, then women owned businesses.
If the TG’s are a protected minority, they meet both of these
qualifications and must be selected if the proposals are equal.
There military would be very unhappy with the TG’s and their life
choices. The TG’s do not like
the military’s anti gay / gender different policies, which are a hindrance
to those that can and will serve as proven in international law (AVER).
International laws allowing homosexuals to serve in the military are
based on the Smith and Lustig-Prean cases from Britain (Sanders 2).
This will create a very unstable relationship that would not thrive, as
it should. Businesses do not want
to have to worry about these things every time a group of people get together
and classify themselves with a label.
Some politicians argue that this is a proposal made by an unpopular,
fringe group with very few members. One
goal of most politicians is to be re-elected to the same or higher office.
This requires a bigger percentage of voters than their opponents get in
the elections. This is not likely
to happen if they alienate a large section of their constituents.
The Religious Fundamentalist threatens politicians with such a vote
loss if they cross the moral and ethical boundaries their religion dictates.
Senator Jesse Helms has quickly amended several Bills that would have
provided TG protection after this was pointed out to him (Kay
Brown). Election campaigns consume a lot of money in a very short
order. The primary source of
funding, for most politicians, is from the corporate sector. Businesses are going to support the politician that is in
their best interest. A businesses
best interest is in making the maximum amount of money without too much
interference from the government. New
legislation requires new policies and procedures and the training to deal with
it. This can be very costly to a
business and will cost a politician monetary funds from the affected
businesses. To keep from
alienating the source of their election funds, politicians will not propose
“frivolous” legislation.
Proponents Views
There are just as many arguments to support offering TG’s protected
minority status. The
position taken by many moderate religious groups is that God intended for this
and we should not question his ways. There
are numerous religious institutions and schools that offer GLBT support
groups. St. Edwards University is
one, among many, that does so. These
moderates do not see this as the issue of morals, which the Religious
Fundamentalists claim it is. They
realize that groups of people do not have morals; rather it is each person in
that group that has them. Since
the Gay Rights Movement, Crime statistics show there are more likely to be
perversion problems with straight people than with the TG’s.
Some employers have analyzed the costs of offering the protected status
to the TG’s and found out that there really are not that many additional
expenses. The training,
regulations and policies, oversight functions (those that police the
policies), and dispute arbitration already exist due to the Gay Rights
Movement. Special latrine
arrangements usually are not needed as educating the other employees, about TG
issues, helps them realize TG’s are not affecting Transgenderism to be
voyeuristic. Currently if
employee concern is still high then many companies mandate a particular
latrine to be used by the TG and anyone else not bothered by them.
Sometimes companies will mandate a TG employee hang a placard on the
latrine door when they are using the facilities (Kirk 136).
Many of the employers have noticed their TG employees are completely
passable (that is other people can not tell by interacting with them).
This invisibility is with other employees who are around the TG for a
long time. During a brief
interaction with a customer, the odds of the customer noticing are very slim.
The only true cost in offering the status is the problems with existing
employees that will not accept TG people.
There are people who have quit jobs in order to not work with a TG
person so the company loses their investment in that employee.
This is outweighed by the dedication and loyalty a TG person has to a
company that is willing to work with them.
Most politicians are in office to do what they think is right, within
their moral and ethical principles, for their constituents. Taking, what they feel to be the correct course of action,
involves making choices that may cost a politician voters or funds.
“To hate injustice and stand on righteousness is a difficult thing”
(Tsunetomo, 25). Some politicians have discovered that the threats of vote
loss are usually just idle ones, and the amount of funds lost is relatively
minor. Usually what is lost from
the opponents of an issue is made up from the proponents and their supporters.
The politicians that have taken the time to meet with TG’s have
discovered there is a larger population than they originally thought (NGLTF).
This is because of a paradox involving the invisibility or passability
inherent in the TG lifestyle. Success
for TG’s is measured in the ability to pass or blend into ones identified
gender. Being politically active
turns the public eye on a person and most TG’s does not desire this.
Overall, TG’s are more often the victims of violence, harassment and
discrimination than any other group. Tomsen
illustrates a reason for this when discussing how a person who was normal in
every other respect killed a TG female. “However it seems that the critical
element of his rage against the deceased concerned the issue of public
feminine appearance” (Tomsen 10). Inclusion
as a protected minority would allow such crimes to be treated as hate crimes.
This would invoke greater punishment and a higher chance of holding the
perpetrator accountable. There would be greater public awareness of TG’s and the
difficulties they face everyday. People
would be more educated, and this would erase a large amount of the harassment
and discrimination that is currently allowed.
Value Judgments
The primary value of the Religious Fundamentalists is concern over
society’s morals and ethics. This
includes, but is not limited to, the CC, CT, JFM, Senator Jessie Helms,
Senator Trent Lott, Attorney General John Ashcroft, NARTH, TVC, and Author
Mary Daly. They believe that not
only are TG’s immoral themselves, but they are debasing society with their
request. Most political opponents
value their chances at being reelected. They
do not want to lose a major source of funding by offending businesses, thus
losing campaign funds, nor do they wish to lose votes by outraging the
Religious Fundamentalists. The
opposed employers tend to value their profit margin and do not want the cost
associated with another minority group.
Religious proponents value morality and realize that TG’s are just as
moral as any other group. They
value diversity, as well, and accept TG’s the way they are.
Political proponents value fairness and equality of treatment for all.
They know they may lose money and / or votes, but they value their
ethics and morals above being reelected.
Employers value their profits. They
know there is vast potential and talent in the TG community that does not
depend on how a person looks. They
usually do not care, within certain standards, what a person looks like as
long as they make the business money.
TG’s value justice, freedom, and the civil rights everyone else gets.
They want to have a means of redress for violence committed to them
because of being TG. They want the freedom to live their lives as they choose
without having to look over their shoulders in paranoia for their entire
lives. They want freedom from
having to seek psychologist, police, and judicial permission to be who they
are. They want the same civil
rights that any other person in the US has and nothing more (TLPI). They do not want to be harassed, fired or ignored by the
authorities because of the way that they are.
Position and Justification
After the amount of research and information digested in preparing this
paper, I have come to believe that TG’s should be given the protected
minority status. TG’s should
have the same opportunities and rights that everyone else has.
I do not believe this is likely to happen unless protected status is
offered.
Religious opponents argue that society’s morals are declining and
that this just further illustrates the fall.
They argue that transgender groups are targeting our children at school
through the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN) groups (TVC).
A question to ask of them is how many acts of moral degradation
(murders, rapes, thefts, beatings and the like) can they name that have been
committed by TG’s and how many by non-TG’s?
Employer opponents will argue about the expense of having to
accommodate another minority group. It
can be demonstrated that there is not that great of a cost.
Since the Gay Rights Movement the infrastructure is already in place to
accommodate the TG’s. The
responsibilities of the various offices would need to be expanded some, but
that is all. This cost has
already been borne once with Gay Rights, and it is a minor cost compared to
the dignity of a group of people.
Political opponents claim that this is an unpopular, fringe group
whining to get their way. This
perception is due to the invisibility paradox of the TG community itself. The better a TG blends into the roles of their identified
gender the more invisible they are. A
successful TG is perceived to be a genetic member of that gender and not be
noticeable in any way. This
precludes the political activism and unity that other groups exhibit.
Many TG’s will not step into the political arena and have the
public’s eye upon them due to the high incidence of negative effects on
those that do (Taylor 4). Scrutiny
by the public can lead to many negative reactions from uneducated or
prejudicial people. Feminist
Author Mary Daly claims that TS’s want to undermine and divide the Women’s
Movement as agents of the patriarchy (Carolyn).
This limits the number of TG activists to a few very dedicated
individuals. This then creates
the impression of a small number of proponents against a much larger group of
opponents. I think it will take
protected status to counteract the fear of the negative reactions to get many
TG’s to be visible to the public.
I based my judgment on three pillars of the Kantian ethical theory and
will use them to defend it. The
three main arguments I will be using are the categorical imperative, the
principle of ends, and the principle of autonomy.
The summation of the categorical imperative is act when you can agree
to it becoming a universal law (IEP). The
categorical imperative, states that all those who oppose providing TG’s
protected status should abide having the same laws, or lack thereof, TG’s
have applied to them. The Religious Fundamentalists argue it is a degradation of
morals in society to support this course of action.
Before a referendum on removing legal protections based on sexual
orientation and gender identity, the Miami Dade chapter of the Christian
Coalition said, "If decent, law-abiding citizens fail to unite against
[these] corrupt elements, Miami-Dade County will become a cesspool of poverty
and decay." (Christianity Today). I
will argue that the Fundamentalists of each religion views the other religions
as abhorrent and immoral. Further,
I will state that there are many special privileges that religions in our
country get which are not available to the TG community.
What will happen if we take religion from the list of motives on the
Hate Crimes legislation? What if we removed all references to religion from
discrimination in the Fair Housing and Employment Acts?
Would Religious Fundamentalists like it if there were no serious
investigations into crimes committed against them? The answers to these questions are obvious.
During the referendum on removing legal protection based on sexual
orientation and gender identity, the leaders of the Miami Christian Coalition
were arrested for vote fraud and forging names.
"This is the work of the homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual
mafia that wants to destroy our families and take away the right of every Dade
County citizen to vote" (Christianity Today).
I will say that the Religious Fundamentalists are not willing to have
their views expanded to a universality that includes them.
Some employers do not want the cost of another minority group to affect
their profit margin. I will argue
that since the majority of the jobs are in the hands of the few employers,
they themselves can be classified as a minority.
I would argue that as a minority they do have a political agenda and
use Political Action Committees (PACs) to push that agenda.
In Michigan, the Women’s Festival is pushing a “woman born / woman
only” platform to define woman as only those born that way (Carolyn).
They do not balk at the expenses associated with pushing their agenda,
but do so when TG status is brought up. This
indicates an unwillingness to have a universal rule that impacts them.
Many opposing politicians view TG’s as an unpopular fringe group that
should be kept out of mainstream society.
I will argue that many politicians are not popular, nor are they
mainstream Americana. Politicians
spend their time with other politicians, business heads, lobbyists and others
that are not the common person. They
tend to make speeches to large audiences, debate for the TV and radio
broadcasts in front of select panels, make news briefings to crowds of
reporters and perhaps shake a million hands on the campaign trail.
These actions show that they are not connected to the common person
they claim to represent. They set
their own salaries and are some of the most affluent people in the US. They live in wealthy enclaves and have many of the finer
things in life. Most have no
connection with the poor or middle class people they represent. Many politicians think they are better than the poor or
middle class people are. They
often make decisions based on who gave them the largest campaign donations or
who has the most voters, and not what is best for their constituents.
These things tend to make them unpopular with the average person.
They would not like a universal law that excluded unpopular fringe
groups, especially since they themselves are one, from having a political
voice.
The principle of ends states that one should not use others as a means
to an end, but rather as a end in themselves (IEP).
For groups to deny TG’s protected status merely to increase their
power, wealth, prestige or advance their agenda and not look at what is best
for the TG community is a violation of this Kantian law. The Religious Fundamentalists orate against offering TG’s
protected status, but there is almost never any mention of religious
prohibition against it. There is
some pointing to the Bible, the Torah, the Talmud, the Quran, the Upanishads,
and many others as the source of Gods edicts against TG’s.
This is due to the edicts being a human interpretation of a vague
passage from long ago. However,
in every one of these texts there are passages that promote accepting
diversity and supporting TG’s. Most
of the oration tends to be along the lines of this is wrong so give us more
money or power to defeat it. In
discussing the Miami Dade Christian Coalition leaders being arrested, for vote
fraud, the GLBT community was described as militant extremists. “The extremists behind these arrests are truly enemies of
the people and democracy” (Christianity Today).
This leads to problems for TG’s since people will then claim they are
merely being devout in their religion.
Employers who oppose giving TG’s protected status do so out of the
eagerness of safeguarding their own profits and not the best result for the TG
community. By decrying the cost
of adding another minority, they are able to get more economic power.
Two side effects point to this gain of power.
One is the total control over the TG’s that the employers have.
TG employees must be very obedient or they will be fired with no
recourse. The other is that the
higher the profit a company makes, the more money it passes on to the managers
in the form of bonuses. This
income tied directly to the profits leads many managers to look for every
possible way to avoid spending increases.
In doing so they have more influence by saying a change is an
unbearable cost to the business. The
business will usually then elect not to make the change.
They further this argument by suggesting that any group that can band
together and label itself will then want the same status.
Thus they justify using the TG’s to further their own power, finances
and agenda.
Opposing
politicians often play upon the fears of the anti-TG groups to gain money and
votes to stay in office. They
play upon the fear that a liberal will get into office and allow the TG’s to
have protected status. They will
use the perversion connotation that those uneducated about TG’s worry about.
Feminist Author Mary Daly goes as far as describing TG’s as
“Frankenstein’s Monsters” (Kay
Brown). While Author Janice Reed
claims that, all TS’s rape women by reducing the female form to an artifact
that can be surgically created (Stone). There
is some adaptation of the domino theory used to gain religious votes.
Oftentimes they will defame the morals and ethics of the TG community
based on a few bad examples. This
is often easy in a community where the lesser of the worst choices is still
frowned upon by the Religious Fundamentalists, and when another politician
attacks them in the same manner (it is called mudslinging) they get very
hostile. Using the TG community
for personal gain and not trying to do what is best for the TG’s, shows that
the opposing politicians are violating the principle of ends.
The principle of autonomy concludes that if every rational being were
making a universal law, to cover a particular situation, then they would all
come up with the exact same law (IEP). If
all rational beings came up with the exact same universal law concerning
TG’s that would be one thing, but since they are varied, far different ones
this law is violated. If the
Religious Fundamentalists were to sit all of its members down to formulate a
policy on TG’s it would have as many different policies as members.
There would be a consensus after debate, but it would not be an
autonomous one. Not all of the
members would signify that diversity is a bad thing.
Many of them would not condone beating, raping, murdering, harassment,
discrimination, and violence directed at a particular person.
Most would say a person should be allowed to live their life the way
they choose.
Ask an employer what makes the perfect employee, and there will be many
similarities in the description. There
will not be any two that are exactly the same as the jobs are very different.
Taking a vague approximation of the generic employee one will find that
the primary focus of employers is have employees that make them money.
Looks very rarely play a determination in whether or not the company
makes money, nor should they in most jobs.
In the jobs where looks do matter, no two employers will have the same
criteria for how a person should look.
Politicians will define government as an executive body that passes
laws that are fair to the majority. They
must have a keen insight into human nature to be effective at their jobs.
With this insight, politicians realize that people are not always fair
to those that are different. TG’s
are different and live a different life style than many people.
If politicians were to sit down and try to come up with a means of
ensuring fair treatment for TG’s, they would each come up with the
conclusion that the best way is to offer the protected minority status.
Conclusion
I value fairness, equality, honor, dignity, and ethics. I considered all of these during my research on this issue.
I believe that TG’s should be a protected minority because they
should have the same opportunities and rights that everyone else has.
I do not think that this will happen unless this status is offered. I believe that the dignity of TG’s override any fear we may
have of them and the possible harm they might do.
I think that society should be ashamed of the dishonorable way we treat
TG’s and allow them to be treated. For
in all things, we must perform them with the honor and dignity accorded to the
situation (Tsunetomo, 57). I have
used the Kantian philosophy, consisting of the categorical imperative, the
principle of autonomy and the principle of ends, to defend my conclusion.
First, this vindicates the compassion and moral duty of society to help
its individual members. The
Religious Fundamentalists would not accept status equal to what the TG’s
have. They have many special privileges they diligently hold onto
that would be lost by having the same status as TG’s.
TG’s, as a group, are easy targets because often they must make
choices, to survive, that are viewed negatively by society. The Religious Fundamentalists use this to further their own
agenda, power and wealth. The
Religious Fundamentalist could not all independently agree that providing the
status to TG’s is the wrong thing to do.
Second, it is not another unpopular fringe group whining because they
have not gotten their way. It is
estimated that there are hundreds of thousands TG’s and many more allies and
supporters (Mildred Brown 9). Politicians
have not considered themselves a minority, but if they did they would not
consent to being treated the same way TG’s are.
Some try to use TG’s as a way to get more votes and money from
opponents. They do this by
decrying all the horrible things that will happen if they are not reelected.
In spite of opinion polls showing 83% of Americans support TS people,
Attorney General John Ashcroft opposes them and claims it is for god and the
will of the people (NGLTF). Politicians,
working independently, would decide that the only way to ensure the fair
treatment of TG’s is to offer minority status.
Finally, employers complaining about the cost of another minority would
not hesitate at the expenses if they were to be recognized as a minority.
Employers value profit and if they can find a way to keep profits high,
they will not hesitate to do so, even at the expense of a group of people.
In an autonomous fashion, employers would not be able to say that looks
affect the bottom line.
Our judgments come from our experiences and belief system.
Our beliefs are based on our ethics and morals.
Being hampered in the ability to make sound moral judgments can make
life problematic. Kantian theory
is one way to help with this, but there are other moral theories a person
could choose to use. Part of the
purpose of this paper is to get the reader to approach questions from a moral
perspective. This will educate a
person and alleviate reactions based on emotion.
The rest of the purpose of this paper is to supply the reader with
information for and against providing TG minority status.
Should
the Transgendered be recognized as a protected minority group?
From a moral perspective, is your answer different at the end of this
paper than it was at the beginning?
Works Cited
APA. American Psychiatric
Association. Online (2001).
8 September 2002. http://www.psych.org/.
AVER.
American Veterans for Equal Rights, Inc.
Online (2002). 17
September 2002. http://www.glbva.org/.
Brown,
Kay. TransHistory.Org:
Transsexual, Transgender, and Intersex History.
Online (1997 - 2001). 10
November 2002. http://www.transhistory.org/.
Brown,
Mildred L and Chloe Ann Rousley. True
Selves: Understanding Transsexualism – For Families, Friends, Coworkers, and
Helping Professionals. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1996.
Carolyn.
"Politicizing Gender: Moving toward revolutionary gender politics"
Online (2002). 10 November 2002. http://www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/lr/sp001714/gender.html
Christianity
Today International. Christianity Today Magazine.
Online (1994 - 2002). 11
November 2002. http://www.christianitytoday.com/.
Docter,
Richard F. Transvestites and
Transsexuals: Toward a Theory of Cross-Gender Behavior.
New York: Plenum Press,
1988.
Feinberg,
Leslie. Transgender Warriors.
Boston: Beacon Press,
1996.
Feinbloom,
Deborah Heller. Transvestites
and Transsexuals: Mixed Views. Delacorte
Press, 1976.
Frye,
Phyllis Randolph. TransgenderLegal.com. Online
(2001). 19 November 2002.
http://transgenderlegal.com/.
Garnets,
Linda D. and Anthony R D’Augelli. “Empowering
lesbian and gay communities: a call for collaboration with community
psychology” American Journal of Community Psychology.
22(August 1994): 447 - 71. InfoTrac.
Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin.
07 October 2002. http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
HBIGDA. Harry Benjamin
International Gender Dysphoria Association.
Online. 21 September 2002.
http://www.hbigda.org/.
HRC.
Human Rights Campaign. Online (2002).
7 September 2002. http://www.hrc.org/.
IEP.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online (2002).
15 October 2002. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/.
Kimmel,
Michael S. The Gendered
Society. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Kirk,
Sheila M.D. and Martine Rothblatt, J.D. Medical,
Legal & Workplace Issues for the Transsexual.
Blawnox, PA: Together Lifeworks, 1995.
Lewis,
Gregory B. “Barriers to
security clearances for gay men and lesbians: fear of blackmail or fear of
homosexuals?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
11(October 2001): 539 - 58.
InfoTrac. Scarborough-Phillips
Library, Austin. 07 October 2002.
http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
Littleton,
Christie Lee. "The Christie Lee Littleton Story." Online (2002). 14
September 2002. http://christielee.net/main1.htm.
Lorber,
Judith. Paradoxes of Gender.
New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1994.
Merriam-Webster.
"The Language Center." Merriam Webster Online (2002).
15 September 2002. http://www.m-w.com/.
NGLTF.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Online
(2002). 11 November 2002.
http://www.ngltf.org/.
PFLAG.
Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays.
Online. 18 September 2002. http://www.pflag.org/.
Prentiss,
Courtney and Richard McAnulty. “Gender
Identity Disorder in the Workplace.” Rpt.
in The Psychology of Sex, Gender and Jobs:
Issues and Solutions. Ed.
Diamant, Louis and Jo Ann Lee. London:
Praeger, 2002.
Sanders,
Douglas. “Human rights and
sexual orientation in international law” International Journal of Public
Administration. 25 (January
2002): 13 - 45. InfoTrac.
Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin.
07 October 2002. http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
Sims,
Mary-Woo. “Human rights issues
in British Columbia” International Journal of Public Administration.
25 (January 2002): 83 - 90.
InfoTrac. Scarborough-Phillips
Library, Austin. 07 October 2002.
http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
Stone,
Sandy. "THE "EMPIRE" STRIKES BACK: A POSTTRANSSEXUAL MANIFESTO." Online (1993).
10 November 2002. http://sandystone.com/empire-strikes-back.
Taylor,
Verta and Nicole C. Raeburn. “Identity
politics as high-risk activism: career consequences for lesbian, gay and
bisexual sociologists” Social Problems.
42 (May 1995): 252 - 74.
InfoTrac. Scarborough-Phillips
Library, Austin. 07 October 2002.
http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
TLPI.
Transgender Law and Policy Institute. Online (2002).
20 September 2002. http://www.transgenderlaw.org/.
Tomsen,
Stephen and Gail Mason. “Engendering
homophobia: violence, sexuality and gender conformity” Journal of
Sociology. 37(September
2001): 257 - 75. InfoTrac.
Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin.
07 October 2002. http://infotrac.galegroup..com/itweb/seu_main.
Tsunetomo,
Yamamoto. Hagakure The Book of
the Samurai. Tokyo and New
York: Kodansha International,
1989.
TVC.
Traditional Values Coalition. Online (2001 - 2002).
09 November 2002. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/.
