TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
For those who haven't heard it, the White House has rescinded the toilet protection that the Obama administration enabled.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/22/transgender-...
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
What Does This Mean
I would love to hear from those more educated in this issue than me. What does this mean to Trans rights?
Does this stop the current supreme court case in its tracks? the one that would have decided if transgender bathrooms are a civil rights issue?
I've listened to the talking heads and have not been able to form an opinion.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Not entirely sure
Think it basically let the decisions go back to the local municipalities, instead of federal. More of a case-by-case, like it was before.
~Taylor Ryan
My muse suffers from insomnia, and it keeps me up at night.
What it means and how it impacts us......
The Obama administration had pushed the issue through the use of funding primarily, by stating that Title IX guaranteed equal treatment of the sexes in public schools. They held that forcing transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponded with their birth gender, as opposed to their actual perceived gender, was tantamount to sex descrimination under Title IX, and therefor was in violation of Federal Code.
This would require all educational institutions that received federal funding to provide for the use of the proper bathroom according to perceived gender for all students, or not only would they be subject to a law suit, but also would lose all federal funding.
The federal government was also stating that the individual states did not have the right to dictate bathroom policy, nor did individual communities or school districts. The federal government has now reversed it's opinion under the Trump administration and stated that this is an issue that falls on the states and local communities/school boards to decide. They have even dredged up the old States Rights argument - apparently Donald Trump doesn't recall the Civil War.
Under the current administration, the federal government has removed all support for ongoing or pending court cases regarding transgender bathroom rights, including at the Supreme Court.
This may yet be decided once and for all by the Supreme Court, and hopefully in our favor.
At this point in time, I would recommend that anyone who can takes the time and effort to change their birth certificate. Luckily, I was born in California and can do so.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Your last point there
Your last point there is going to be germane to the court cases; under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, courts have consistently struck down laws that discriminate between arbitrary classes of people like who can or cannot get their birth certificate changed.
Good summation.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Thank you!
I greatly appreciate the comment.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
unfortunately
most states still require surgery for this, which leaves children out. i wish it was possible, but i dont know of any state, except maybe CA in their new allowances they are proposing.
Teresa L.
Would Changing the Birth Cert Be a Hardship?
According to a website I checked my state requires a court order to change the birth certificate. This would seem to be a problem in areas where judges are ultra conservative. What's your opinion?
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I'm not sure about your state.......
But I live in NY. In NY, as in CA, the requirement is for a medical doctor to complete a statement (in the proper format and containing proscribed information - this can be found on the internet) stating that you are in their care and receiving the appropriate clinical treatment for transitioning from one gender to the other.
I did get this easily from my endocrinologist, but I also had to go to a local court to have my name legally changed. This required the submission by my lawyer of the proper documentation, and then required that the name change be published in the local newspaper. Once the newspaper had supplied the court with certified proof of publication, the court granted my name change and issued me a certified letter stating the change of name. It should be noted that in many states a change of gender is considered a name change, but not in NY. The name change in NY is a separate issue and does not include a change in your gender of record. You can be called Amanda and still be classified as M.
By providing both letters, I was able to have my driver's license changed to reflect female and my new name. I was also able to update my SS card and records, as well as my passport through the federal government. I am even now awaiting the corrected birth certificate from the state of California which also required a copy of both letters. This has taken some five (5) months, a great deal of patience on my part, and about $400.00. Court costs were roughly $250.00 (lawyer included), about $25 for my license, $110.00 for my passport, and $19.00 for my birth certificate.
Money well spent as far as I am concerned. Of course this does not include however many certified copies you may have to pay for from the court, and no, they are not free.
The requirements vary by state, but several organizations can help you to determine what your state requires and even allows. Lambda Legal is a good resource, and there are many more on line.
I hope this helps, and I wish you luck. Just remember to apply some patience - it isn't my biggest virtue, but I am learning it.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
in conservative AZ
i did name and gender change at the same time. no issue, surprisingly enough.
i dont think you can change your BC even in california without the court order, but i have been getting bureaucratic crap from them, WITH one, all the paper work etc, and they require the form do be on THEIR special paper so you have to order it each time you redo it, i gave up after twice, and got my passport card instead.
Teresa L.
Re What Does This Mean
Removed. I saw a response further down that was better than what I was saying about this issue.
what i believe it means
Despite what some have claimed, the original letter was JUST the government giving guidance to schools/districts (some of whom had asked for it, publicly and they sent it to ALL schools for universal application, even though there are NO hard line "you will do this and this" just basic general guidelines) on how to be compliant with Title VII & IX as they pertain to trans students. this was NOT creating law, or interpreting law, the courts, MULTIPLE times have said that they are valid for use with trans persons. they put in penalties that COULD be used if schools were NOT compliant with the laws, Title VII & IX. THAT is all this letter "created". that is all the Trump admin will be able to reverse, the threat of penalties, thats it. the LAW and precedents are STILL THERE, and valid according to the Judiciary, the PROPER venue of review for this, NOT trump, NOT the states.
Now they can pass an amendment to make this quite clear, but they wont, they are trying to strip us of protections, not codify them. while he has NOT done anything DIRECTLY himself, he put in power people who ARE doing things, and NOT stopping them. he is their DIRECT boss, unless the states, the courts and congress, so he is just as responsible as if he wrote and signed them himself.
Teresa L.
Tough subject
That some people are disturbed about the access of transgender folk to the bathroom of their choice is clear. It's just as clear that restricting bathroom access on the basis of what it says on a birth certificate is unfair because birth certificates were never intended to be used that way and the identification of sex may not be accurate on such a document, let alone whether physical sex should be the sole criteria.
The Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law is the basis of most civil rights cases having to do with discrimination. Does that apply here? It's up to the courts to decide that.
That's my view.
Politics is always a touchy subject here because this site exists for TG Fiction. It's not a political site, the blogs are an optional feature intended to promote discussion of things relevant to the main purpose of the site. So, this is relevant but it is not central and as long as posts on this thread are friendly and civil, they can stay up.
An earlier attempt at discussion of this very topic started out with name-calling and had to be removed because it was disruptive and unfriendly. The idea that this removal was censorship has also been blogged about but has been demoted from the front page because it is unfriendly and clearly intended to be disruptive. The discussion can continue as long as it stays reasonably civil.
The Terms of Service here are clearly stated right on the front page: A Friendly Place to Read, Write and Discuss TG Fiction.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Well, rationality is rationality.
If people just look at some subjects rationally(results-based with the effect on our economy) rather than emotionally(or in a very narrow profit-sense without externalities) in some "controversial subjects"(I don't need to name them as I think most Americans know the subjects of which I speak) then things would be better for everyone except those who live in a fantasy.
Even a Sociopath should be able to see that a happy member of society is a more productive member of society and therefore puts more cash in their pocket.
the courts HAVE decided, over and over
that trans are covered under Title VII & IX, for housing, employment etc. including children is NOT a stretch. now they might require a letter (as most schools i have checked into require) to be given that status and access, some require HRT for a period, like for athletes.
only SCUTUS can make it final though so i hope it works out right for Gavin Grimm
Teresa L.
After reading the Guardian article
It appears that the removal of the law has done nothing to set back or degrade or change the rights of transgendered. They are still covered as they always have been under federal sexual discrimination laws. It also seems to have placed the responsibility of the school to stop bullying and sexual discrimination in the school.
While I was also one that applauded the law being passed, without reading more about it at the time. What I am reading now is that the new law that was so controversial, only reiterated existing laws that were already on the books and actually could have caused more problems for transgendered since it took the responsibility away from school administrators that should have always been working to stop the bullying to begin with.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
It should be noted that there was no new law......
Simply a directive regarding the application of an existing code.
The change has not been the removal of any laws, but the removal of that interpretation by the current administration. Keep in mind that only Congress can make or change laws, not the President.
The Obama administration had on several occasions used federal code to promote transgender rights. As an example, they required equal treatment for gender identity for employment at any federal agency, and at any private employer doing business with the federal government. This qualifies as the proper application of policy by the Executive Branch of the government, and is not a new law, but rather the use of an existing law.
The example in question here was the interpretation of the Title IX code, which guarantees equal treatment of both sexes in public schools, or any educational institution which receives federal funding. Originally, this was intended to equalize the opportunities for girls and women in athletics and other extra-curricular activities - especially in those schools which showed a distinct preference in spending on boys athletics (football being the classic example). The Obama administration, through the Department of Education, issued a finding that expanded the scope of Title IX to include bathrooms. This was done by stating that discrimination based on gender identity was the same as discrimination based on sex.
Many of the court cases in question revolve around individuals suing a school district or state, either based on not allowing transgender students to use the restroom of their identified gender - or in several cases just the opposite. A school district being sued by a parent/parents who are "protecting" their daughter from those terrible transgender people who wish to attack them in the bathroom.
In those cases, the court case will move forward - but the federal government has informed the courts that the current administration feels that the individual states or districts have the right to decide policy without input from the Feds. The case pending for the Supreme Court falls into this group.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
except several courts have ALREADY made that determination,
NOT obama's administration. they may have taken it to INCLUDE children (after all, just because you a black child, doesnt mean the CRA doesnt apply to you, does it?) here are several cases in point
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/lgbt_examples_decisi...
Teresa L.
I agree with Erin on this.
I agree with Erin on this. The question is before the Supreme Court, I rather feel that the Federal Government should refrain from interfering with the rights of the individual states. Hopefully the courts will recognize that TG's ,students in particular, need protection from harassment, and violence.
I think the Administration is letting the courts decide on the issue, and not overstepping the 3rd house of our government, the Court.
Karen
Normally I would agree.....
But as this is a case of Human Rights, and not States Rights, I do not.
If we look at the Equal Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, it was federal intervention which finally moved that forward. If we extrapolate forward, would you feel different if George Wallace was standing on the steps of the local high school barring transgender students from attending instead of barring blacks?
Human Rights are, or should be, universal and not dictated by individual school districts or states.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
except
the STATES are NOT the arbiters of civil/human rights, or we would still have black segregation, women would not have the vote etc at least in many southern states, as well as a number of norther midwestern ones.
civil rights have ALWAYS been in the purview of the federal government and the constitution. states are specifically NOT allowed to infringe on those rights as established by the constitution, bill of rights, and other amendments, not to mention just plain laws, which is why we have so many lawsuits against most of these state laws, voter id, trans etc.
Teresa L.
Administration support...
Does not effect settled or ongoing cases.
“Rescinding the guidance does not change the rights of students under Title IX [the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education and activities],” Chase Strangio, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote on Tuesday. “Trans students are protected from discrimination by federal law and the administration can’t change that.”
That argument is the subject of a forthcoming supreme court case. On 28 March, lawyers for Gavin Grimm, a Virginia high school student, will contend that federal laws against sex discrimination extend to bias against transgender people. Grimm claims his school is discriminating against him by refusing to allow him access to the boys’ bathroom.
Several federal appeals courts have already ruled that discriminating against transgender people based on their gender identity is a violation of federal law. In 2016, the fourth circuit court of appeals ruled in Grimm’s favor.
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
Absolutely.....
And as previously stated, hopefully that court case will end this issue once and for all.
Unfortunately though, I have the feeling it will not. It will simply incite more people as did the Equal Rights moves of some five (5) decades ago. Let's just hope it doesn't take federal troops escorting transgender students to school and into the bathroom to finally put this to rest.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
discrimination against trans students
is not a matter of states rights anymore than racial discrimination is.
Hugs and Bright Blessings,
Renee
Absolutely!
Very true.
D
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
Birth Certificate as Protection
I have been working on this for over a month and frankly get too burdened with fear to complete the work. There seems to be two packets of forms which need completing for California and both do not actually contain the forms I need, so it may dictate two more packets of forms. I believe I have all the supporting documents and the price is minimal, either $23 or $46. I've considered a drive to Sacramento if that will help sort it all out. It is 580 miles for me and then there is the cost of a motel for ? number of days.
Right now, I can not work on it because I have a house guest until Tuesday.
Very tense.
Gwen
Actually it is fairly simple......
But confusing. There are two packets of forms, but only one needs to be completed.
D. Eden
“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”
Dum Vivimus, Vivamus
So simple it's confusing?
I assume that you are in California then? When my house guest leaves, would you mind answering questions about it for me?
Gwen
a 3rd option?
Transgenderism is treated as a 3rd gender in many asain countries, and have thier own bathroom. This is the method i prefer, im sure many here wont agree with that but this is just my opinion. Here in the states i think one of the biggest issues is with pre-op trans', mothers would prefer thier 3 year old girls not catch sight of male genitilia in a public restroom. While the vast majority of the community wouldn't think of doing something so heinous as flash a little girl, we'd use the stall do our buisness and get out. However the possibility of a really rotton apple standing up with the door open giving it a good old fashioned shake while some kid looked on cannot be ignored. This more than anything is what is going through the minds of the people i think.
It is in my opinion that we should either have a 3rd restroom, or use the one corresponding to the genitilia you current posses. post-op? use the womens, pre-op? use the mens. Yeah i know im gonna take a bit of heat over that one, but that's how i feel about it.
Really?
By your logic since most transmasculine do NOT have bottom surgery they should use the ladies room then.
3rd gender bathrooms in asia?
While I can't say I have been to a lot of the asian countries I have been to a few. It's been a very long time since I was there but when I was in Japan there were no Men and Women's restrooms. All restrooms were unisex the large ones had urinals on one wall, sinks on the opposite wall and stalls on the back wall. The ultra small ones were no more than an outhouse with three walls and a roof, NO DOOR, and the hole in the floor toilet that was common back then for the country.
We the willing, led by the unsure. Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
We are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
Bathrooms in Japan
It was 2007, and I was on a bunch of psych medications, but I think I remember going into a bathroom with both men and women in there. It seemed that there was just a bunch of holes in the floor with low walls separating them.
Japan is the only Asian country?
ehh why does everyone assume im talking about Japan?, i mean Laos, Thailand,.. im told the Phillipians. Bangladesh, and Burma have them as well. Think they call them Hijra's or something like that.
Though i *did* go to Japan back in 96, and they dont share that way of thinking far as i know. Most bathrooms were single, lockabel, unisex bathrooms with a toilet...though i did see one or two that were just a hole in the floor that people squat over. There were quite a few Mens and women's restrooms as well, fully modernized and complete with a french budhae' or however ya spell it.
LoL but i was right when i said my opinion wasnt going to be very popular :P
Edit: did a little googling and found this... " Nepal, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have all legally recognized the existence of a third gender "
Sure
But it looks like you have no response to transmasculine folks then.
Lucky me I guess
My late husband, god rest his soul, was able to change my BC just after 2009 here in TX. HE got a letter from my endocrinologist and was able to change my name via court ruling. That allowed me to get a new drivers licence which with those and several supporting affidavits my husband and lawyer, he was mine So I thank the lord that he loved me so much, but it did take several many months. I have not checked recently, but for us Texans for at least a while the system worked for us..
opinor ergo sum
Charlotte Van Goethem