![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
pikake.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
trans"Tampa council grants protections to transgender people"
By Janet Zink, Times Staff Writer
Posted: Nov 05, 2009 02:04 PM
TAMPA — The City Council on Thursday gave unanimous preliminary approval to expanding its human rights ordinance to protect transgender people from discrimination.
But does that mean cross-dressers are protected, too?
Specifically, the ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of "gender identity and expression."
"Is it today that I'm sitting next to Albert and tomorrow I'm sitting next to Alice?" asked council member Charlie Miranda.
If someone has a sex-change operation, they should be protected, he said.
"I just want to be perfectly clear. I'm not looking to see that same person change over and change back on a daily basis," Miranda said. "That would be disruptive."
Council Chairman Tom Scott echoed his sentiments.
"The issue is about discrimination, not cross-dressing," he said.
Both Miranda and Scott voted in favor of the proposed ordinance after City Attorney Chip Fletcher assured them that it isn't meant to protect the occasional cross-dresser. On Thursday morning, Joseph Caetano cast the lone "no" in the 6-1 vote. He changed his vote later in the day, saying that he didn't want to discriminate against anyone.
On Thursday morning, Caetano tried to amend the ordinance to explicitly say it wouldn't protect cross-dressers.
"If a gentleman dresses up as a woman, does he have a right to go into a ladies restroom? I think this is going to create a lot of problems," Caetano said.
Other council members rejected the amendment, saying cross-dressing would not pose a major problem in the workplace.
"It might add a little interest to the day," said council member Mary Mulhern. "I'm fine with the ordinance the way it is, and I don't think we should add more discrimination into it."
Council member John Dingfelder agreed.
"It's government's role to be sure there's no discrimination against anybody, whether they're Tom, Theresa or back and forth," he said.
The council decided to broaden the ordinance at the request of the city's Human Rights Board.
"The council has taken a very good stand today," board chairman Philip Dinkins said.
Dinkins said he believes the ordinance protects cross-dressers. Because sexual reassignment surgery is expensive and requires a great deal of support, more superficial means are the only way for some people to be true to their inner selves, he said.
"If someone cross-dresses because they feel they are of a different gender, that's perfectly fine," he said. If a man "wants to put on a dress and that's who they feel they really are, let them do it. I don't understand the disruption."
Janet Zink can be reached at jzink@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3401.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/tampa-council-grants-protections-to-transgender-people/1049660
a few thoughts of my own:
- the title is misleading, because this was just a preliminary vote.
- so much of the article makes me want to *headdesk*
- the whole "crossdresser vs. transgender" false dichotomy is completely ridiculous on so many levels.
~so much of the banter from some of the council folks seems to be centered around this completely privileged position which just might set up trans* folks up for further scrutiny of their bodies in the name of "non-discrimination."
~who gets to decide whether one is "truly" trans* or just trying to cause a disruption or whatever? [just for clarity's sake, I am referencing charlie miranda's words here.]
~what would happen to people who are transgender and personally ID with a M or F label but are not considered to be "passing" by employees?
~etc...
- so many of the comments make me want to *headdesk* as well
a few [more positive] thoughts of my own:
- YAY! my favorite city council persons were among the ones who countered the derailing points about "cross-dressers" and what not.
- john dingfelder, one of those council folks, is running for county commissioner in 2010. last night, he told me that if gets voted in, he will be a solid ally in helping overturn the current county-wide ban on gay book displays in libraries. double YAY!
- despite the ignorance of some of those folks ... there was only only ONE dissenting vote! that's pretty damn exciting, eh?
...what's new with local news where you all live?
By Janet Zink, Times Staff Writer
Posted: Nov 05, 2009 02:04 PM
TAMPA — The City Council on Thursday gave unanimous preliminary approval to expanding its human rights ordinance to protect transgender people from discrimination.
But does that mean cross-dressers are protected, too?
Specifically, the ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of "gender identity and expression."
"Is it today that I'm sitting next to Albert and tomorrow I'm sitting next to Alice?" asked council member Charlie Miranda.
If someone has a sex-change operation, they should be protected, he said.
"I just want to be perfectly clear. I'm not looking to see that same person change over and change back on a daily basis," Miranda said. "That would be disruptive."
Council Chairman Tom Scott echoed his sentiments.
"The issue is about discrimination, not cross-dressing," he said.
Both Miranda and Scott voted in favor of the proposed ordinance after City Attorney Chip Fletcher assured them that it isn't meant to protect the occasional cross-dresser. On Thursday morning, Joseph Caetano cast the lone "no" in the 6-1 vote. He changed his vote later in the day, saying that he didn't want to discriminate against anyone.
On Thursday morning, Caetano tried to amend the ordinance to explicitly say it wouldn't protect cross-dressers.
"If a gentleman dresses up as a woman, does he have a right to go into a ladies restroom? I think this is going to create a lot of problems," Caetano said.
Other council members rejected the amendment, saying cross-dressing would not pose a major problem in the workplace.
"It might add a little interest to the day," said council member Mary Mulhern. "I'm fine with the ordinance the way it is, and I don't think we should add more discrimination into it."
Council member John Dingfelder agreed.
"It's government's role to be sure there's no discrimination against anybody, whether they're Tom, Theresa or back and forth," he said.
The council decided to broaden the ordinance at the request of the city's Human Rights Board.
"The council has taken a very good stand today," board chairman Philip Dinkins said.
Dinkins said he believes the ordinance protects cross-dressers. Because sexual reassignment surgery is expensive and requires a great deal of support, more superficial means are the only way for some people to be true to their inner selves, he said.
"If someone cross-dresses because they feel they are of a different gender, that's perfectly fine," he said. If a man "wants to put on a dress and that's who they feel they really are, let them do it. I don't understand the disruption."
Janet Zink can be reached at jzink@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3401.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/tampa-council-grants-protections-to-transgender-people/1049660
a few thoughts of my own:
- the title is misleading, because this was just a preliminary vote.
- so much of the article makes me want to *headdesk*
- the whole "crossdresser vs. transgender" false dichotomy is completely ridiculous on so many levels.
~so much of the banter from some of the council folks seems to be centered around this completely privileged position which just might set up trans* folks up for further scrutiny of their bodies in the name of "non-discrimination."
~who gets to decide whether one is "truly" trans* or just trying to cause a disruption or whatever? [just for clarity's sake, I am referencing charlie miranda's words here.]
~what would happen to people who are transgender and personally ID with a M or F label but are not considered to be "passing" by employees?
~etc...
- so many of the comments make me want to *headdesk* as well
a few [more positive] thoughts of my own:
- YAY! my favorite city council persons were among the ones who countered the derailing points about "cross-dressers" and what not.
- john dingfelder, one of those council folks, is running for county commissioner in 2010. last night, he told me that if gets voted in, he will be a solid ally in helping overturn the current county-wide ban on gay book displays in libraries. double YAY!
- despite the ignorance of some of those folks ... there was only only ONE dissenting vote! that's pretty damn exciting, eh?
...what's new with local news where you all live?
