I spoke with the LGBT Legislative Aid in his office in DC and he said that his was a totally false rumor. He supports a fully inclusive ENDA, that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and TRANSGRENDER people from employment discrimination, which includes crossdressers, pre-op, non-op, post op, intersex, genderqueer and classical transsexuals, whether they want protection or not.
Now, like the diehard gender fascist that he is, Mr. Helms once against ignores the wishes of classic transsexuals who do not identify as transgender, rubs our noses in it, and then goes on to assert that this "protection" will be forced on us whether we like it or not.
As I said, this is gender fascism in action. Because of his stupid remark, I now actively oppose an inclusive ENDA. The law that Mr. Helms desires is harmful to women, including post-op classic transsexuals and survivors of HBS. If Mr. Helms has his way, women will lose any right to privacy from men like him.
Let me be clear. I have no problem with ENDA protecting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I object to a law that will protect men who wish to engage in the behavior of crossdressing like Mr. Helms. I object to a law that will force women to share the bathroom with such men. I object to a law that will force employers to allow me to dress as women when the mood strikes them. And I object to a law that will effectively remove legal distinctions between the sexes and redefine sex as being what one wants it to be.
I would also support a law that protects post-ops and, that would provide very narrowly defined protections for pre-ops. Anyone who is discovered to have abused said law by lying about their plans for surgery would be subject to prosecution.
.jpg)
6 comments:
I see your point Jennifer. But, we cannot deny that there are no-op trans people. Not cross dressers but people who have not had the complete surgury but who live permenently 24/7 as women/men. 24/7. These people whether you agree that they are "classic" or not need protection too. Don't they?
I agree that there are those who choose to take on a gender role that is contrary to their actual gender identity. These are the ones you refer to by the oxymoron "non-op." They are simply full time cross dressers. They are making a choice, and if we start protecting choices where do we stop? So no, they might feel that they need protection, but they have no legal basis to expect it.
I'm sorry, but I do not support the idea that someone can simply choose their sex on a whim. Transsexuals or preferably those with HBS are born with that condition. That is a traditional basis for legal protection. Chosen behavior is not. No, the only people who should have legal protections are those who are legitimately diagnosed as transsexual or HBS, who are actually progressing towards surgery.
Stupidity over at PHB
Mister Sandeen opened mouth and whined when he got an honest answer from a classical TS.
Yes, that happens an awful lot lately.
UGH, i'm so sick of feminists like you. i do not believe that all people need to have surgery to change their GENDER - a social role, different than SEX, which refers to biological organs.
why do you, as a cis woman, get to decide who is "trans enough"? trans- communities face enough stigma without "feminists" like you trying to fracture and break it apart.
shame on you. go back to the 70s.
First off, "Hannah," I am not a feminist. Far from it. Second, you cannot change your gender. You can change your gender expression, but your gender, or better, your brain's sexual differentiation is set at birth. That is part of the problem with "transgender," it is a load of crap. No, gender is not socially constructed. It is as inherent as biological sex. You can play dress up, and pretend, but you will never really be a woman if you were not born one. And if you were born one, you will want to correct your body to match your brain,
Post a Comment