A Simple Suggestion

I would like to put forward a simple suggestion that would simplify the issue of a so-called inclusive ENDA. A provision should be added that would include the following provisions:

1. Full non-discrimination protection would extend only to those who are legitimately transitioning to the other sex. That is, it would apply only to pre-op and post-op transsexuals. No so-called "non-ops" or other variants of transgender would receive full protection.
2. Full protection would mean that they are allowed, for the purposes of the real life test, to present as the target sex, and with the exception of situations that involve inevitable nudity, would be accorded the full protection of the law.
3. Anyone else would only be protected with regards to behavior that is not job related. That is, crossdressers would not be allowed to crossdress unless their employer has no problem with it. The same would apply to non-ops, and such. If you are not surgery tracked, you present as your birth sex if that is what your employer says.
4. To prevent people from simply lying about their situation, the law would also include a provision stating that any and all health plans would have to include coverage for transsexual surgery. If a person does not complete such surgery within a reasonable period of time, and cannot present compelling evidence that there is a medical contradiction, and that they are actively making efforts to remedy the situation if possible (i.e. a diabetic who needs to lower their blood sugar) then they would be deemed to no longer be in transition and their level of legal protection would revert to that afforded crossdressers.

Of course, such a law would be controversial, and it would be vigorously opposed by the Religious Right...but it would do several things to end certain conflicts. It would eliminate the issue of how to deal with crossdressers. Under the current proposed law, they may not even receive this much protection since the law does not include "gender expression." And, it would serve to end the conflict between transsexuals and the rest. Transsexuals would be recognized as needing protection for their transition, and the rest would not be allowed to impose their behavior on people.

Yes, I realize it is probably a silly idea, but it does serve to prove a simple point. The gender fascists want to use transsexuals to get their way. They want to make people think that they simply want to protect people who have a medical issue and who want to correct what is, in effect, a birth defect. But, what they really want is protection for chosen behavior, which is something no law has ever done before. And no, don't give me the argument that protections for religion does that. That is simply absurd.

No, my proposal would expose them for the frauds that they are, as they would never accept such a law, even as they pretend it is really what they want,

Missing the point...

Anyone who spends any time observing transgender extremists knows that they have a singular obsession with bathrooms. One of their persistent demands is free access based solely on a person's claimed state of mind at any particular moment. In another words, if you say, for the period of time that one wishes to enter a bathroom that is not consistent with your physical sex, you only have to say that your mental gender is appropriate and barge on in.

This point was brought home by a post by lead gender fascist "Autummn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend. Sandeen is having a major hissy fit because the Society for Human Resource Management has come out in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) but does not include "gender identity" in its endorsement. This is their statement from their FAQ on the topic:

While most SHRM members who participated in the development of our sexual orientation statement believed people should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity, there was universal concern expressed over the process to accommodate individuals in transgender situations. Since these accommodation challenges raised so many concerns among supporters and opponents alike, “gender identity” was not included in the SHRM statement.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me. I can certainly think of a number of issues that might arise in accomodating the wide range of behaviors that are covered by the transgender label. Remember, this law will also apply to people who are not in transition, but who might claim some issue with gender identity. Apparently Sandeen can see only one issue:

I'm guessing their apparent fretting about the "challenges" that businesses could have trying to "accommodate" gender variant/trans people is code for saying that they're worrying about gender variant/trans people using workplace restrooms -- why give direct voice to their biased prejudgments and illiberality when one can use code words and phrases instead?

Nevermind that all sorts of issues come up that have nothing to do with bathrooms. Issues like how to accomodate crossdressers who demand the right to express their feminine side whenever the mood strikes them. Imagine the effect on the workplace when you are never sure if one of the staff is going to show up as "John" or "Mary" on any given day. Worse, imagine that such a person is a postion where he has to deal with the public! What about having to deal with an employee who is militantly gender queer, whose appearance and behavior is totally disruptive.

No, bathrooms are not the sole issue for those who have to deal with transgender employees, or even the most important. But for those like Sandeen, they are a nice smoke screen to hide behind.

The Library of Congress Case...

The "transgender" community is thrilled, as well they might be, over the decision handed down by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Diane J. Schroer vs. James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress. Unfortunately, while this case represents, at least for the moment, a great victory for the transgender, it has the potential to turn out to be a horrible case for those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome.


First off, the case can, and may very likely will, be overturned on appeal. Schroer's case is not a particularly strong one, and the Library of Congress raised some issues that, while perhaps not valid in fact, are not invalid in principle. That is, the LOC can argue that they were not really acting out of prejudice, but out of genuine concern, and a higher court may well accept that reasoning.


Schroer is a classic example of transgender, not HBS. Schroer had a long and successful career as a male. There is no evidence in Schoer's past to show any signs of HBS, or even of gender identity disorder prior to the decision, rather late in life, to transtion. Schroer is another man who has decided to retire as a woman.

Now, not everyone with HBS will transition early in life. Some will, usually because of family or religion, delay transition. For others, it was simply a lack of resources (30 years ago, it was a lot harder to find a qualified therapist if you lived in much of the country). And in many cases, people might well have been mislead by the information that was available to them at the time. I do believe that 30 years in the future, late transition among those with HBS will be almost unheard of. But one thing that is characteristic of those with HBS who transition late is a lifetime of issues related to their condition. They are likely to have led absolutely miserable lives. Someone who is forced, for whatever reason, to endure life with a brain that is at odds with their body is not going to have had a happy existence. And that unhappiness is going to affect all areas of their life.


Unfortunately, when someone like Schroer comes along, it raises troubling questions about what is really going on. By all accounts, Schroer had an outstanding and successful career in the military. And not just the military, but as a member of the Special Forces, i.e. a Green Beret. This is one of the most elite units of the U.S. Army. It should be noted that women have never been allowed to joint the Special Forces. This is an area of the military that is strictly limited to men. Schoer apparently had no trouble fitting into this group, which is notorious for being hard to join. Currently, those wishing to become Green Berets have to go through three levels of training. The first, includes advanced infantry and Airborne. After that, only 35% make it through the second round, and then only 20% of those make it through the third round. That seems to present pretty good evidence that Schroer was not the least bit troubled by the supposed disconnect between his body and his brain.


And that presents the major problem with this case. Here is a person who clearly made a choice to "become" a woman. There is virtually no hope of actually arguing that Schoer suffers from any sort of medical condition that was present from birth. That means that a discrimination case that could easily negatively impact people with HBS, not because it actually involves an HBS person, but because the transgender activists insist on dragging us under their "umbrella," a case which could, quite easily, make it to the Supreme Court, is based on behavior, not an intrinsic trait. And such a case could easily result in a precedent that discrmination based on the "behavior" of being "transgender." which would be broadly, and incorrectly interpreted, becoming the law of the land.

And this is typical of the transgender mindset. They would rather go down in glorious defeat, taking HBS people with them, than actually make some progress for those they claim to include. It is simply not acceptable that people who have had surgery can change their birth certificates. The law must allow anyone to claim to be a different sex. It isn't good enough if a law prevents people for being fired for what they do on their own time, men must be allowed to show up in dresses when the mood strikes them. They push for the ridiculous, and laws that might actually accomplish some good never make it past the point of being a joke.

Some of the reasons the LOC gave for not hiring Schoer are not remotely legitimate. But when they raised the question of how Schoer's transition might affect the ability to testify before Congress, they brought up a legitimate question. And again, this points up a problem with the transgender mindset. Clearly, Schoer does not really want to be a "woman," but desires to be a transgender person instead. Being in such a public situation, where his past would be a major issue, and would lead to the possibility of regular publicity, would be be horrifying for an HBS person. There would be no chance of being taken seriously as a woman. Why anyone would seek such a situation is beyond me.

But such is the world of the transgender.