* HUD claims that transgender people are protected against housing discrimination via the Fair Housing Act's prohibition against "gender discrimination"—even though the law doesn't specifically list gender identity discrimination as prohibited.

* Mark Gower, a 26-year-old dancer at SW strip club Secrets, was found dead in his apartment last week.

* The Washington Post conducted a four-month investigation into the career of former Manassas schoolteacher Kevin Ricks, a man the paper says "moved from one teaching job to the next over nearly 30 years, navigating the nation's public and private school systems undetected, evading traps designed to catch him"—and racking up molestation allegations along the way.

* Carolyn Hax on the etiquette of outing your gay ex-husband.

* DC Center plans discussion on body image issues among gay, bisexual, and trans men.

* Susannah Breslin on sexual assault games:

To promote the release of Bret Easton Ellis' new novel, Imperial Bedrooms, a digital creative agency in London created an online game that encourages players to virtually manipulate a young woman. If you play the game right — encourage her, get her drunk, get her high — you'll score a blow job, and then you can brag to your friends about a job well done by posting your "high" score to the social networking site of your choice. So, is this social commentary, or marketing misogyny?

Two years ago, Roberta, a 59-year-old Arlington County resident, reported to Virginia Hospital Center for a breast-cancer screening. “There’s a man here to have a mammogram!” a clinician announced across the room when she arrived for her appointment.

Roberta is not a man—she’s a transgender woman who began publicly transitioning from male to female six years ago. And like any woman, she requires regular mammograms for the breasts she developed through hormone therapy. “Technically, they know what they’re doing, and they’re really, really good,” Roberta says of the hospital’s staff. But when it comes to treating transgender patients with care, “they’re clueless.”

Last month, the Human Rights Campaign released its 2010 Healthcare Equality Index in an attempt at providing healthcare providers a clue. The report surveyed 16 Washington-area hospitals on their patient anti-discrimination policies, looking for explicit mentions of sexual orientation and gender identity. While eight local hospitals’ policies explicitly recognize the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual patients, none mention gender identity or expression—in other words, a commitment to respecting patients like Roberta.

Which means going to the hospital—rarely a particularly pleasant experience—often produces an overlay of uncertainty and anxiety for transgender patients. Without a firm policy in place, the care transgender patients receive often comes down to chance; a caregiver who’s familiar with transgender issues may treat patients perfectly fine, but if they encounter the wrong employee, problems can ensue. Even, sometimes, within the same hospital.

Take the case of Washington Hospital Center, one of the local hospitals to include sexual orientation—but not gender identity—in its nondiscrimination policy. Last October, Stacey Roberts cut open her left pointer finger while slicing fruit. So she headed to the District hospital’s emergency room, where she received a bandage from a nurse—and a transphobic attitude at check-out. The employee who completed Roberts’ hospital visit “repeatedly insisted on calling me ‘sir,’” she says. “For each question he asked me, he blatantly added the term ‘sir’ at the end.”

Roberts—who says she was “dressed very feminine, in a dress”—listened to the man address her as the incorrect gender half a dozen times before requesting that he modify his language. “I didn’t even ask him to call me by feminine pronouns,” says Roberts. “I just asked him to stop gratuitously calling me sir.” The employee refused. Though Roberts identifies as female, and began presenting a feminine gender expression years ago, she has yet to secure a legal name and gender change. And until the government officially recognizes Roberts as a woman, the clerk claimed, he’s “legally required” to treat Roberts as the gender listed on her identifying documents. (That’s news to local LGBT activists.)

That same month, another District transgender woman checked into Washington Hospital Center following a suicide attempt. After swallowing “a lot of pills,” she was rushed by friends to the hospital, where she spent several days in the mental-health ward. “I’ve had really negative experiences at other hospitals in the area,” says the woman. So once she regained consciousness at Washington Hospital Center, “I was really surprised—pleasantly surprised—that everyone was super-respectful.” The woman says hospital staff had “no problem” identifying her as female and providing her trans-specific healthcare throughout her stay. Despite the mental-health ward’s highly regimented routine, “they let me go to the bathroom at certain times on my own to deal with trans-related stuff,” says the 31-year-old, who asked to remain anonymous due to the nature of her treatment. Staff was also quick to prescribe the hormone medication she takes daily. “The treatment I got there was really important,” she says. “If I’d had a negative experience there, it would have made everything a lot worse.”

Those two wildly different experiences stem from a hospital with a confused LGBT anti-discrimination policy. According to a Washington Hospital Center representative, the institution “has long observed a broad policy of nondiscrimination and is committed to providing care to all those with an emergent need, without regard to any status protected by law.” But once the policy gets into specifics, it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the LGBT community. “With respect to Washington Hospital Center’s nondiscrimination policy, we are in the process of revising it to enhance our current reference to sexual orientation to include the more specific reference to gender identity or expression,” the hospital said in a statement, adding that “staff education will accompany implementation to ensure all patients are treated in a sensitive manner.”

Except gender identity or expression is not a “more specific” reference to sexual orientation. Roberts, for example, is a transgender woman who also happens to be a lesbian—and those two identities are not one and the same.

In a few weeks, Washington Hospital Center’s policies will, technically, be in compliance with the HRC’s expectations. “In the Healthcare Equality Index survey, we asked for specific language—explicit language that policies were inclusive of LGBT families,” says Tom Sullivan, deputy director for the Human Rights Campaign Family Project. But improved written policies might not translate into actual improvements in care. “I don’t think there’s a correlation between having protections for gender identity and actually providing trans-specific and trans-friendly healthcare,” says a local man who prefers the term “trans” to “transgender,” and has had several negative experiences at local hospitals.

A couple of years ago, the 20-something—who wished to remain anonymous—sought treatment at Sibley Memorial Hospital for possible appendicitis. When he arrived, he disclosed his trans status to his doctor for medical reasons. “I explained to the doctor that I’m FTM and what that means,” he says. “She had no clue what was going on. It’s one thing to not know about trans-specific healthcare, but it’s another to be so ignorant that you say things that are medically impossible. She asked me when I had my uterus implanted.” Other hospital personnel expressed disbelief that the bearded man standing before them was trans. “People were just visibly shocked,” he says. “And they were open about that shock. They said, ‘Oh my god. Really?’ In a medical situation where you’re disclosing all kinds of information, that’s not a response that’s ever appropriate.”

Sibley maintains that it has policies on the books meant to protect transgender patients against such affronts. Sheliah Roy, director of public relations and marketing for the hospital, notes that its patients’ bill of rights includes the right to “receive hospital services without discrimination on the basis of any factor to which discrimination is prohibited by law.” Because discrimination based on gender identity has been prohibited in D.C. since 2007, Sibley’s policy technically covers transgender patients. Transgender patients at hospitals in Maryland and Virginia don’t benefit from similar legal protections.

“Every time I go to the hospital,” Roberta says, “I have to give ‘Trans 101’ to everyone I meet.” Unless hospitals write coherent guidelines and provide training on their own, that responsibility may keep falling on patients.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign published its 2010 Healthcare Equality Index, which rates the policies of hospitals around the U.S. on their efforts at LGBT inclusion. This year, the HRC determined that all D.C.-area hospitals it surveyed failed its preliminary test: They don't mention sexual orientation and gender identity in their patient anti-discrimination policies. But for hospitals inside the District line, at least, discriminating on the basis of either of those factors is against the law. So how specific does a hospital non-discrimination policy need to be?

Yesterday, a rep from D.C.'s Sibley Hospital wrote in to argue that its patients non-discrimination policy implicitly covers both sexual orientation and gender identity, so it was wrong for the HRC to flunk them. Sheliah Roy, Director of Public Relations & Marketing for the hospital, notes that hospital policy gives patients the right to "receive Hospital services without discrimination on the basis of any factor to which discrimination is prohibited by law." She adds that the hospital's visitation policy is gender-neutral. It reads: "New fathers or significant others are welcome at any time if the patient has a private room in the Family Centered Care Unit."

Again, District of Columbia's Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. So what's the problem?

One possibility: Employees and patients may not be aware of all the  types of discrimination the D.C. Human Rights Act actually prohibits. The act outlaws discrimination based on nearly 20 factors—"actual or perceived" race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business.

Tom Sullivan, Deputy Director for the Human Rights Campaign Family Project, argues that specificity is key to ensuring that hospitals are actually committed to following each part of that law—and that patients know it. "In the Healthcare Equality Index survey, we asked for specific language—explicit language that policies were inclusive of LGBT families," says Sullivan. "That's not to say that if a hospital does not have that language, LGBT patients will always have bad experiences there. Sibley is a very good hospital. But nationally, we've found that there's enough discrimination against LGBT patients in healthcare to warrant very specific language in the patient's bill of rights to say that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people will not be discriminated against."

According to the HRC, the Joint Commission—an organization that "accredits and certifies more than 17,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States"—concurs on that point. The HRC says that "The Joint Commission—the largest organization that accredits hospitals nationwide—has announced that, in the future, all hospitals in America will need to have a non-discrimination policy for LGBT patients on their books."

Photo via brykmantra, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The Human Rights Campaign has released its 2010 Healthcare Equality Index, which rates healthcare providers on their policies toward the LGBT community. The HRC's press release was not impressed. It kicks off: "new healthcare equality analysis from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation found that no healthcare facilities in the Washington, D.C., metro area reviewed for the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) 2010 have fully inclusive non-discrimination policies for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people."

Let's see how our local hospitals stacked up:

Six hospitals included in the survey—Washington Hospital Center, Sibley Memorial Hospital, Howard University Hospital, Providence Hospital, the MedStar-Georgetown Medical Center, and the George Washington University Hospital—are located in the District of Columbia. Of those, only three have a patient non-discrimination policy that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation; zero have a policy that mentions gender identity. The D.C. Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, but since the act is not always easily enforceable, it's important for hospitals to be committed to eliminating these illegal forms of discrimination internally.

Five hospitals surveyed—Washington Adventist Hospital, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Doctors Community Hospital, Suburban Hospital, and Holy Cross Hospital—are located in Maryland. Only two prohibit discrimination against patients based on sexual orientation; again, none include gender identity in their policies. Maryland prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, but a bill to add "gender identity and expression" to the list died last year.

Five more hospitals—Reston Hospital Center, Inova Fair Oaks Hospital, Inova Mount Vernon Hospital, Virginia Hospital Center, and Inova Alexandria Hospital—are located in Virginia. Oh, Virginia. Virginia's Human Rights law does not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The George Washington University was the only local hospital to voluntarily participate in the study, so the HRC has a little bit more data on the hospital's visitation policy, its LGBT training, and its employment non-discrimination policy. Results were mixed:

Today, the G.W. Hospital issued a press release patting itself on the back for throwing the HRC some info. (Gotta start somewhere). While Chief Operating Officer Kimberly Russo admitted "there is more we can do," she also clarified that the hospital's "liberal visitation policy extends the same rights to gay and lesbian partners as are granted to married spouses or heterosexual couples."

Photo of the George Washington University Hospital by NCinDC, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

"Science."

For this edition of Sexist Comments of the Week, I cede the floor to my honorable colleague from Ontario, Chanda. Chanda really knows what the eff she's talking about when it comes to sexism in the sciences, so she's the perfect person to respond to the male scientist who reported being 'rankled' by a dinner for women scientists. Take it away Chanda:

[I'm] a woman in science, and actually what upset me about this email is that it reminds me of a time when the undergrads were asking for a women-only pizza dinner in the physics department, and some of the women grad students opposed it saying that it was discrimination against the men. Now that I’m finishing grad school, I’ve seen a lot of that. Many of the women who decide to stick around in this bullshit atmosphere are either people who manage to bury their heads in their asses or people who are so afraid of being on the outs with the men that they will sell their sisters down the river.

. . . Not to mention in a physics department that it’s possible that you have a specific situation you want to discuss and the aggressor is in the room.

I could fill a book with stories about women who were afraid to speak up because the repercussions for their career were too enormous. Creating safe, private spaces with people who are allies by experience is very important. You might argue that some men might want to be allies, but it is also the case that men sometimes claim to be allies when they actually aren’t. In the case of women, some of them don’t want to be allies. That’s fine. They generally just don’t show up.

The reason you want to hold an official event, as opposed to a private one like the ones we have at the institute where I work, is because the department’s endorsement sends a message about the department’s attitude toward these issues. That they recognize women are having these experiences and that they support their every effort to find ways to not only challenge but also simply cope with them. That kind of messaging alone can go a long way toward challenging department culture. If the chair of the department or other people in positions of power are saying, “I endorse women having these events,” you’re probably going to be a lot more careful about what you say and do, realizing that you can’t just get away with overt and maybe even covert sexism.

. . . calling it discrimination is a misnomer that belies the reality of the situation and also the reason that events like this exist. This kind of stuff is there to level an imbalanced playing field. It is simply nonsensical to call methods that are used to counteract the effects of discrimination, discrimination. These kinds of things are very small spaces that are arduously carved out so that women and minorities have a chance.

Photo via Bennett 4 Senate, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

On a department-wide email list for all post-docs, I received an invitation to an event that was not addressed to me. The email was addressed only to women; it invited women to attend a women's scientific society dinner held on the university campus. I understood that I was excluded from the event because of my gender.

This email traffic and the event itself are so far into my post-doc one of the only instances where I have felt discriminated against; this certainly isn't the norm. It would be easy enough for me to ignore this single incident, I suppose, but nonetheless it's rankled me. To me it seems like an example of a disconnect between the ideals of a discrimination-free workplace and the practices that supposedly further this ideal.

To me, this seems like an example of the disconnect between a dude who has never noticed discrimination in science before and the, oh, two whole hours that his voice won't be explicitly privileged in the academy. FSP replies: "I wish I could say that my only experience with 'discrimination' was not being invited to an event like this." [Thanks to Geek Feminism Blog for the tip].

"Is the mayor saying that ex-gays who apply for ceremonial certificates or D.C. government jobs will be refused because of their sexual orientation?" -Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), on the admission from Mayor Adrian Fenty's office that a certificate "appreciating" PFOX was a "staff error."

A new study from University of Connecticut researchers Stephenie Chaudoir and Diane Quinn suggests that simply being a bystander to sexism is enough to inspire women to report higher identification with women as a group, and heightened feelings of negativity toward men. The effects of this "bystander sexism" help to explain how a cat-call targeted at one woman can work to demean all of us.

In the study, the researchers asked 114 female college students to watch one of two videos and imagine themselves as a witness to the scene that unfolds. In the first version, a man approaches a woman and says, "Hey Kelly, your boobs look great in that shirt!" In the second, the man greets the woman by saying, "Hey Kelly, what's up?" Study participants then completed a survey designed to show how strongly they identify themselves with women as a group, how much anger and fear they feel toward men as a group, and how likely they are to be prompted to either "move against" or "move away" from men in general.

The result? Even though women only graded the "boobs" comment as a "moderately prejudiced" thing to say, women who witnessed the harassment were more likely to identify as women, feel anger toward men, and express the desire to "move away" from men.

The fact that street harassment tends to divide men and women as classes is no secret. Women who have experienced street harassment often report coping by responding with wariness to all strange men, in order to fend off possible future harassment. And men express frustration that they can't approach a woman in a way they perceive as non-harassing—whether it's to ask for directions or deliver a compliment—without being regarded as a potential offender. But the defensive strategy is often made necessary by the frequency of such harassment; Chaudoir and Quinn note that  "42% of U.S. female college students [report] that they are the direct targets of cat-calls at least once a month." And this casual sexism has serious effects on its victims: "the experience of street harassment is directly related to greater preoccupation with physical appearance and body shame, and is indirectly related to heightened fears of rape for U.S. undergraduate women."

What the new study reveals is that harassment also has serious effects on women who are not victims—and men who are not harassers. "It makes sense that if women feel like they have been discriminated against, or that specific men are engaging in sexist behaviors that can harm them, they’re going to be on high alert in the future from other men, even if those men have no intent of participating in the discrimination," says Chaudoir. For the men, "our data do speak to this unfortunate predicament where men who are not harassers and men who are not doing anything wrong end up being painted in the eyes of women, at least for some period of time, in a negative way," Chaudoir says. "For men who are doing nothing wrong, these [harassers] may be shaping the ways that they’re being perceived as well."

Despite the depressingly divisive results here, this study shows that men and women alike have an investment in working to eliminate sexual harassment. As Chaudoir and Quinn's work demonstrates, harassment against women often occurs in public and in view of plenty of bystanders, male and female. We all have the opportunity to make it clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

A recent Craigslist advertisement for a vacant Mount Pleasant bedroom—“$770 1 Bedroom in a 6Br, 3 story Bro Palace-America”—has been making its way around the Internets. The ad, which was posted earlier this month (it's since been removed), seeks a "bro of epic broportions" to join a couple an unknown quantity of bros who "like to party hard and bang chicks even harder" in taking up residence in this "Temple to Broseidon."

In honor of my former colleague and housing guru Ruth Samuelson, I thought I'd detail all the possible ways this self-described "brahacracy" could be violating fair housing laws, which require that no roommate-seeker show “a limitation to the ordinary reader." In other words, broheim can't reveal a preference based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, or education level. How does this ad discriminate? Let me count the ways:

Gender: 3,856 Urban Dictionary users agree: The term "bro" refers exclusively to men. Those who don't qualify as the most bro-y of bros (or "a complete brohemouth") are instructed to not even proceed in reading the ad:

WARNING: If you are not a complete Brohemouth, do not read this ad. The awesome of this house will make your face melt like Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Sexual orientation: The bro in question must be down to "bang chicks"—and hard!

The bros in this house like to party hard and bang chicks even harder.

Nationality: The ad expresses distaste for both Russian and Chinese culture:

If you hate China and Russia winning any Olympic medal and shed a bro-tear when Phelps won his 8th gold medal, join the club.

. . . and a preference for American:

RamBros love America.

Age:  While bros of every generation could have "recently banged a chick born in the 90’s," the ad implies a preference for bros who routinely couple with women of this age group:

Having recently banged a chick born in the 90’s is a plus. If it was doggy and you didn’t call her ever again…BRO-FIVE!

Surely, there must be many more facets of bro discrimination hidden in this bad boy. Submit your finds in the comments.

Photo via JoelZimmer, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

If you think it's possible that you have been discriminated against in the District of Columbia in housing, public accommodation, or employment, head over to the D.C. Office of Human Rights' free clinic at the DC Center next week for advice on filing a discrimination complaint. Details after the jump.

Location:

The DC Center
1810 14th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 682-2245

Time:

Wed., February 17th
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

and Wed., March 10th
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

Eligibility: In order to file a complaint, the discrimination must have occurred sometime in the past year within the District of Columbia. According to Fight HIV In D.C., you can file a discrimination complaint in D.C. based on any of the following criteria:

- HIV status

- disability

- sexual orientation

- gender identity or expression

- race

- religion

- national origin

- sex

- age

- personal appearance

- political affiliation

- family responsibilities

- familial status

- matriculation

- marital status

- source of income

- place of residence or business

Yesterday, Feminist Law Professors drew my attention to the Miami Daily Business Review's "Rodent" column, a weekly anonymous rant written by various members of the legal community. The latest missive, "Lady Lawyers Should Dress the Part," warns female attorneys that they may be sabotaging their careers with overly sexy business attire. Actually, I think it's more likely that the conveniently anonymous Rodent, who spouts off platitudes like "women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls," is the force that's keeping women down in the workplace.

According to the Rodent, otherwise capable female lawyers are ruining their chances at being taken seriously by forgoing pantyhose, wearing heels, and revealing their cleavage:

Women who dress like Barbie dolls get treated like Barbie dolls. I know a lawyer who is in her mid-30s. She is stunning—tall, long blonde Lady Godiva hair and a body that would make a porn star jealous. This woman also happens to be a crackerjack lawyer. But she dresses to emphasize her looks, not her mind; as a result, her career seems to have stalled. Though she is an extremely bright woman, no one sees past the stilettos and low-cut blouses.

The vermin continues:

Clients tend not to hire women who look like hookers unless they hire them as hookers. Don’t show your “girls” at work unless you are looking for a one-night stand.

All right, let's hear one more:

I knew an associate who wore shoes that looked like she was a bridesmaid. She was a good lawyer, but there was a real disconnect between those gold sandals and the notion that she wanted to go the distance as a lawyer. She didn’t, and the shoes were a tip-off.

The Rodent's theories are convenient: The lawyer who looks like a porn star stumbled because her shoes are too high. The lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid is not serious about her job because her shoes are too strappy. The lawyer who looks like a hooker is not successful because her breasts are too prominent. Beyond the offensiveness of grouping female professionals into categories like Barbie, porn star, hooker, and bridesmaid, the Rodent appears to be going to great lengths to deny the obvious. Perhaps the lawyer who looks like a "porn star" is devalued because people think she's too attractive to be smart, not because she dresses like a Barbie. The lawyer who wears anything other than a turtleneck is devalued because she's got boobs, not because she dresses like a hooker. And the lawyer who looks like a bridesmaid, whose strappy shoes are a "tip-off" that she's not a serious lawyer? That sounds like a pretty insane explanation for a career misstep to me.

The Rodent, of course, is attempting to explain away a more offensive aspect of the legal profession: women are consistently partnered and paid less than men are. A commenter on Feminist Law Professors draws the obvious comparison between devaluing a woman's work based on her attire to outright sexual harassment. She writes that men have informed her of the harassment rule: “If she’s going to dress like trash, then she’s going to get treated like trash.”

Blaming a woman's clothing choices for her professional failure is simply a strategy for selectively discounting women without being called on your sexism. All you have to do is project your biases on to "her choices," and you can discriminate away.

This becomes clear when the Rodent gets specific about what aspects of a woman's appearance are unacceptable. Interestingly, several of the Rodent's tips are not specific to female lawyers. "A tattoo that shows is NEVER appropriate when you are a female attorney," the Rodent writes—as if face tattoos are generally accepted among lady litigators' male co-workers. The Rodent then offers up a weak defense for focusing on lady ink—women sag. "I promise you that once you are a woman of a certain age, your skin will lose elasticity, and that cute Asian saying . . . simply won’t look good when it’s sagging."

Many of the Rodent's recommendations are inconsistent. According to the Rodent, "Frumpy is the opposite end of the spectrum, and I see a lot of that these days, too. Looking like an unmade bed—wrinkled clothes, no makeup, dirty hair—doesn’t inspire much confidence either." Apparently, femininity-enhancing attire like heels are unacceptable, but makeup is required. The anonymous ranter also points to Condoleezza Rice as an acceptable style icon, even though Rice hardly shied away from figure-hugging, sexy-heeled outfits in her tenure as Secretary of State.

The lesson we can learn from this is that the standards regulating female appearance are largely arbitrary, and are designed that way to keep the door open for criticism. Men may either be labeled "sloppy" or "professional," but women must also navigate between being "frumpy," "professional," and "overly attractive." And since the "too sexy" meter can often be set off by simply looking like a woman, not dressing like one—having breasts, hips, legs, and a waist—hitting the right note can be a lot more difficult than learning to knot a neck-tie.

Feminist Law Professors' Bridget Crawford concurs with the Rodent on some points:

I myself am on record against visible toes in the office, so I am inclined to agree with the Rodent on this topic. . . . Displays of exaggerated female sexuality (cleavage, heels, etc.) are tools that some women attempt to use to their benefit. Kathleen Bergin explains this in her article Sexualized Advocacy and the Ascendant Feminist Backlash Against Female Lawyers . . . the Rodent reminds us that the same tools can be used against women, too.

I agree that this double standard—be attractive, but not too sexy—is used against women in the workplace. But I disagree with the Rodent's conclusion that the solution to workplace sexism is for women to modify their behavior by buttoning up and trashing the sandals. Apparently, no matter what a lady lawyer wears, there will be some vermin waiting on the sidelines to tell her it's not appropriate.

Photo by markusram, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Morning, everyone. So, you know how members of your community—your boss, a police officer, officials from South Africa's track and field federation—will occasionally pull you aside and suggest, politely, that your entire existence up to this point has been a complete fraud, and everything you've ever done has been targeted at destroying the very moral fiber of society, and would you please show your genitals to everyone?

No? That's never happened to you? Weird, because it seems like whenever a transgender or gender variant person tries to do their thing—go to work, run fast, or steal a really hot, expensive dress—they're invariably labeled a "fraud" (okay, maybe the last one is a fraud, but not in the way you'd think!). Their gender identity is reduced to some hair-brained scheme to invade The Opposite Sex and oppress it by refusing to flash their possibly variant genitals, stealing all their gold medals, or . . . just confusing people a little bit. This has been happening A LOT lately:

Exhibit A: That star female runner isn't just quick as a whip. She also might be a liar, a cheat, and a pervert . . . if complicated and ultimately bullshit gender testing reveals that she's a man!

Exhibit B: That female employee isn't just trying to get a paycheck. She's also trying to sneak in the women's locker room . . . to change, and stuff! And what if she has a penis? Hand over the photos!

Exhibit C: That "cross-dressing" shoplifting suspect isn't just trying to steal a killer $2,400 Chanel dress. She's also trying to dupe the cops by wearing dresses while she steals dresses to conceal her true identity . . . a man!

This whole trans panic trend is out of control, you guys. And I think it's time for a Sexist Beatdown. Join the incomprable Sady of Tiger Beatdown as we talk Juwanna Mann, our own personal gender test, and why we've never been asked to include 8-by-10 glossies of our vaginas with a job application.

SADY: hello!

AMANDA: hi!

SADY: first of all: i think we should be required to discuss and/or disclose the precise details of our tender bits before being allowed to have this conversation.OH NO WAIT THAT IS HORRIBLE.

AMANDA: ok, because i have some photos, if everyone thinks that's necessary

SADY: right. well, as a person, i cannot be comfortable unless i know the precise details of everyone elses' swimsuit areas at all times.

AMANDA: and you, as a ladybusiness blogger, surely had to undergo the proper tests as part of the job application.

SADY: i am only shocked that i was not required to disclose it at ALL former places of employment. there i was! doing light filing! and nobody knew how my genitals were shaped! but, in retrospect, as I am a cis woman with a fairly girly gender presentation and most people gender me as female when I walk into the room VAGINA PHOTOS OR NO, perhaps i should not be shocked. perhaps – PERHAPS? – it would only have mattered if my gender presentation and/or body shape did not adhere to some elusive "norm!"

AMANDA: yeah, or if you did manly things for a living—like ran extremely quickly and had rock hard abs. can we talk about this situation first? because i think it's really interesting

SADY: yes! i believe that we should!

AMANDA: so ... here is a group of women who are a lot stronger and faster and ripped and everything than most men in the world. i mean, obviously, there are going to be aspects of their gender which are going to be perceived as more masculine. and so—the very complicated, weeks-long test they're conducting to decide aside—how do you determine what is too masculine for a female sport? the very reason these women are successful is because their bodies are exceptional

SADY: right! like, basically they called for the test because she was TOO GOOD AT SPORTS, right?

AMANDA: and who knows what gender variant aspects of all bodies will turn up after weeks of mysterious testing?

SADY: exactly. and no matter what the totally humiliating and invasive "gender test" she is forced to take concludes (my gender test: pronoun = she, person = lady), the fact is that someone saw her excel at a traditionally masculine thing and concluded on that basis she was gender-suspect.

AMANDA: yeah and the WEIRD thing was, the suspect thing was that she IMPROVED too much. she had run before and was so-so and now she's amazing ... it's not she just burst masculinely onto the scene and stole all the titles. so if she were in men's sports, she'd be undergoing steroids testing right now, probably

SADY: right! like, if someone gets THAT much better THAT much more quickly, my thought is drugs. their thought is, basically, the plot of "juwanna mann."

AMANDA: i wouldn't be surprised if they tested her for drugs and then were like, hmm ... well, maybe she's a man.

SADY: what is interesting to me is this quote: ""If there's a problem and it turns out that there's been a fraud ... that someone has changed sex, then obviously it would be much easier to strip results," Davies added. "However, if it's a natural thing and the athlete has always thought she's a woman or been a woman, it's not exactly cheating." l like, being trans now constitutes FRAUD? SRSLY?

AMANDA: haha that quote is amazing. davies obviously has no idea what davies is talking about! it's natural if she's always thought she's been a woman ... which is clearly something that will be conclusively decided in our sophisticated medical testing period, somehow. thank you.

SADY: yeah, exactly. and don't a whole buttload of trans women say that they... have always known they are ladies? this conception of transness as a DELIBERATE FRAUD undertaken for the purpose of running real fast and winning some races is what blows my mind. like, considering how fucking complicated and inconvenient it would be to ALWAYS have to live in a gender not your own, i severely doubt people would undertake it just so that they could run in the (assumed to be not-that-great) women's division! like, to be a trans woman and to have to live as a dude instead of a lady would be similarly inconvenient, i am thinking!

AMANDA: i know, like when in the history of sports has a male athlete said "i'd rather get gold in the women's division than bronze in the men's" if someone offered the women's trophy as a consolation prize, he would probably choke someone.

SADY: but it reminds me of that story you posted about the lady-clothes thief who pulled off all of "his" heists whilst "disguised" as a lady.

AMANDA: and yet, the fraud narrative consistently arises with trans athletes. yes. yes. the very best part of that story was that this suspect, who is pretty obviously a trans woman, was pegged by the police as a devious cross-dresser who was only wearing women's clothing to dupe the police while ... stealing women's clothing and so the police, at the end, when they arrested the "man" (still in women's clothing) got to run to the press and say, See! We figured it out! We broke the devious thief's lady-clothes code! We have discovered that the dress thief was ... a man! when really, they probably would have found their suspect a lot easier had they known a goddamn thing

SADY: yeah, precisely. the thing that strikes one, looking at the "fraud" narratives people cook up to explain the existence of trans (or suspected to be trans!) people is that they are WILE E. COYOTE LIKE IN THEIR CONVOLUTIONS AND LACK OF COMMON SENSE.

AMANDA: haha yes. like trans men are all applying their moustaches with permanent glue and then wielding their comical trans anvil in the hopes of getting a better salary at their jobs because they're dudes now.

SADY: right? and, like, who does not realize that being outed as trans or gender non-conforming is actually WAY MORE DANGEROUS than shoplifting? WHY WOULD YOU TAKE ON THIS INCREDIBLY STIGMATIZED DANGEROUS IDENTITY for the purpose of lifting a skirt from a mall?

AMANDA: apparently members of the police and media who seem to not even understand that trans people exist! and i understand that to some people this is a new and uncomfortable thing, but there's really no excuse, because every trans activist i've spoken to is always extremely patient and thorough in explaining all the issues and intricacies to people who are out of the loop.

SADY: it's seriously alarming to me, this basic lack of knowledge. it's like somebody who sees a squirrel and is like "what be this small and furry man? behold! he is as tiny as a homunculus! what magic doth he possess to shrink himself to this size? WHAT IS HE PLANNING, THIS FURRY NUT-SEEKING WIZARD?"

AMANDA: is the nut wizard in a dress? because ... i think the cops might be looking for it.

SADY: OH NO. from now on, i will view all people in dresses as potential thieves. i myself am in a dress at this very moment! WHAT AM I HIDING????

AMANDA: i am too. my god. well ... i know i'm hiding my genitalia. i'm turning myself in.

SADY: well, there you have it! deceiver! all HONEST people show their genitalia AT ALL TIMES! oh, no, that is crazy sex predators that i am thinking of.

AMANDA: in conclusion, i just looked up juwanna mann on imdb, and these are the relevant plot keywords:

* Basketball
* Cross Dressing
* Beautiful Woman
* Hit In Crotch
* Male Nudity
* The Star Spangled Banner
* Character Name In Title

and it only has 4.1 stars!

it seemingly has everything.

SADY: that's a darn shame.

Photo via JuwannaMann.com

Allegations of Discrimination at Tastee Diner, Silver Spring MD from Tastee Diner on Vimeo.

Yesterday, Aiyi’nah Ford and Torian Brown staged a gay rights protest at Silver Spring's Tastee Diner after being ejected from the restaurant, they say, for girlfriend-on-girlfriend hugging. Now, Tastee Diner has responded to Ford and Brown's discrimination claim by posting a security video of the couple on the Internet. The video is . . . blurry.

"On August 12, a couple sat just inside the front door of the Tastee Diner in Silver Spring, Maryland, and with their bodies pressed up against each other, engaged in behavior that is normally considered inappropriate regardless of gender or sexual orientation," the video claims. "This video is a short version showing one burying her face in the other's breasts. The couple was asked to tone it down, but responded angrily, so they were asked to leave."

See those two faceless, dark-gray round things there, in the middle of this beautiful 4:CAM4 shot? Those are Ford and Brown's heads. Allegedly. Watch as they bobble frighteningly close to one another! Observe how one dark-gray round thing appears to be dangerously lower than the other—even approaching breast (or is it shoulder?) level! Shield your eyes as an older male employee approaches the scene . . . and watches it!

Well. Now that the evidence is all in, I think we can all agree that whatever whoever those people are are doing, it needs to be "toned down." And I'm sure Tastee Diner would say that about any gender or sexual orientation of faceless dark-gray round thing that entered its establishment.

Now that out-of-state same-sex marriages are officially recognized in the District of Columbia, we can all finally behold the full testimony of Oxon Hill Minister Leroy Swailes, who attempted to shut down the legislation with an anti-gay tour de force. Arguments include: the positivity of discrimination; the missing link between homosexuality and bestiality; how gays will destroy the world by dismantling the process of photosynthesis [via Pandagon].

The highlights from the transcript after the jump:

* "Now when I, when I was growing up here sex was only between a male and female. Now it’s between Adam and Adam Eve and Eve which I can’t understand."

* "If a man get with another man a woman get with another man. That’s it it’s inhuman."

* "Cause discrimination’s a negative and a positive. Me as a black men when they discriminated against me I came out of my mother’s womb like I didn’t have a choice. That was a negative discrimination. If you discriminate against a homosexual that’s a positive. Why? Cause of the children."

* "And you’re going to look in the eyes of a child and you’re going to tell a child that sex is between Adam and Adam Eve and Eve. You become a pedophile."

* "These books here. These books here. When they talk about King and King. And this and this Prince (unintelligible) Prince is a pedophile book. This book here that says Heather and Heather is a pedophile book. Pedophalia. Pha-Phaillia."

* "Everybody should have human rights but you have to be human."

* "That’s just like oxygen comes from plants. It goes up into the air. It mix with molecules with others in the air. It comes down hit Mother Earth. When they penetrate inserts Mother Earth we have what? What. We have life. Homosexuality’d destroy us."

* "The same sex. Which is a form of bestiality. Why is it a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender. If you put two men together they have four legs and two penises and still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality. That’s what we’re accepting here. If you put Adam Eve and Eve together two vaginas are still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality."

* "We have to separate it. And when you separate something you’re discrimination. If I put a glass of water here and a glass of poison, which one you’re gonna choose? You’re gonna choose the water. That’s discrimination. If you put a heterosexual girl here and a homosexual girl here I’m going choose a heterosexual. That’s discrimination."

They're just waiting for it to die.

This happened last year, too: The bill was proposed, testimony was heard, no vote was called. Lawmakers cite the bill's "controversy" in wanting to make sure everything is Goldlilocks on the bill before they make a decision. I think they're just a bunch of pussies. Reports WTOP:

The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has had several scheduled votes on the bill this year, but chairman Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery, said committee members keep requesting he delay votes.

"It's very controversial and people have lots of questions," Frosh said, explaining that committee members have worried about definitions of terms used in the bill and how it would be applied. The measure also has not been voted on in the House Health and Government Operations Committee, chaired by Baltimore City Delegate Peter Hammen.

Equality Maryland calls the legislature on its bullshit:

Activists say they are frustrated lawmakers won't take a stand on legislation that exists in 13 states and many local jurisdictions, including Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

"In our current economic state, it seems the legislature would want to do anything possible to make sure people maintain jobs and housing right now," said Kate Runyon, director of gay and transgender rights group Equality Maryland.

If the legislature ever gets its shit together and fucking votes on the bill, it will likely gain the Governor's support.

Transgender people do have Gov. Martin O'Malley on their side, however. O'Malley signed the Baltimore city anti-discrimination measure into law when he was mayor, and submitted written testimony in support of Madaleno's bill.

"We must continue to work toward a legal and social environment in which all Marylanders enjoy the same guarantees of freedom and individual rights on which our State and country were founded," O'Malley wrote.

Just vote on it already.

When Mitch Graffeo entered Dupont’s Fab Lounge shortly before closing on Feb. 28, he hadn’t been to a lesbian club in more than a decade. Graffeo, 40, was only stopping in to pick up a friend, 29-year-old Jamie, at the conclusion of the gay bar’s weekly lesbian night. Graffeo and Jamie, both transgender men, were two of only a handful of men in a club full of women. As the lights went up, a group of women took a sudden interest in Jamie. Slim and boyish, Jamie had only recently begun to transition from female to male, and they wanted to know what he was.

Graffeo watched the women surround Jamie. “They were grabbing him, saying, ‘What are you, a boy or a girl?’” Graffeo says. “They were very interested and excited, grabbing his crotch and his chest,” says Graffeo. When Jamie asked the women to leave him alone, they closed in tight around him. Jamie “wiggled his way out,” and the two men funneled toward the door with the rest of the last-call crowd.

Once outside, one of the women refused to let her curiosity subside. “She jumped on his back a bit and put him in a headlock,” says Graffeo. Then, she reopened the line of questioning. “She was saying, ‘What are you, come on, tell me, what the fuck,’” Graffeo says. Jamie wiggled out again. The woman persisted.

When Graffeo stepped between them, the woman “tried to punch around” him. Graffeo pulled out his cell phone and announced he was calling the police. The woman grabbed the phone from his hand and used it to pound Graffeo in the head and neck. “She said, ‘You’re not calling anybody,’” Graffeo says. Meanwhile, “a second gal was just pummeling Jamie, hitting him on his head, his neck, his arms.” Soon, a car pulled up, and the women jumped inside. Jamie was left with bruises and a concussion. A week later, “he’s still purple,” says Graffeo. “He’s not black and blue, he’s purple all over.”

Graffeo had good reason to skip out on lesbian bars over the past decade—he hasn’t identified as a lesbian since he underwent his physical transition to male almost seven years ago. Jamie, on the other hand, only recently began the shift between outward identities—and social groups. To the group of women who attacked the pair, Jamie was a lesbian on his way to becoming a heterosexual man, and a prime target for ridicule. Graffeo, who is readily recognizable as male, was just a heterosexual man who got in the way.

The many transgender men who identified with the lesbian community before living as heterosexual men are introduced to a range of societal prejudices. As women, they are discriminated against for their masculinity. As transitioning men, they are harassed for their androgyny. But when society finally accepts them as men, they can be afforded social privilege. Last year, the B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy published a study that found that post-transition, transgender men ended up earning more in the workplace, while transgender women saw their earnings fall by almost a third.

“From my experience—and I know a lot of trans guys who say this—it is pretty easy for us to slip into society, as easy as that type of thing can be,” says Graffeo. “And we hear that criticism a lot. But never has anybody ever said they transitioned in order to improve their status in life. That’s just how it happens sometimes.”

The social shift can breed resentment in the circles trans men leave behind. Rebecca Trinite, 27, a graduate student who raised the incident for discussion on local blog the New Gay, says the sentiment is a familiar one. “I think there is a general discomfort with gender ambiguity in any sense—especially with transitioning,” she says. “There are some women who think that trans men are trying to gain some type of privilege by becoming men, and there’s a big misunderstanding and ignorance there.” Trinite says she posted Graffeo’s and Jamie’s story in order to “let community members know that this sort of behavior was unacceptable.” A Washington Blade story on the attack was met with less constructive criticism. Wrote one commenter: “If you are so ashamed of being gay that you have to change your gender so that you can be ‘straight’ then why not go to ‘straight’ clubs? If you no longer identify as gay then why continue going to gay clubs? Lesbians are attracted to other women, not men who used to be women.”

Before transgender men can enjoy resentment over their male privilege, they sometimes endure more classic anti-gay harassment. Jamie, a man who looked too much like a woman for his assailant’s taste, fits the typical victim profile of violence against the GLBT community; Graffeo now passes as masculine enough to escape a hate-motivated beating. According to Chris Farris, co-founder of Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, “the attack on Jamie was a hate crime. From my communications with Mitch, the case on him was probably not,” he says. “A hate crime is based on whether the motivation behind the attack is based on a victim’s actual or perceived inclusion in a protected group. The attackers probably assumed that [Graffeo] was not trans, so his assault was probably not motivated by any antipathy against the trans community. That doesn’t mean they weren’t attacking him for being a man, or because they perceived him as heterosexual, but that’s too soon to say.”

The scenario is unlikely. In 2007, the FBI recorded 690 bias-motivated assaults based on sexual orientation nationwide. Of that number, 422 were committed against gay men, 85 were against lesbians, and only eight were against heterosexuals. Though the FBI does not collect data on assaults based on gender expression, Farris says that in D.C., violence against gay women and transgender individuals is more likely to slip under the media and activist radar. “Most of the victims that have come to our attention and reached out to GLOV have been gay men,” he says. “GLOV has no way of knowing who a victim is unless we see a name in print or unless someone contacts us directly.”

But the skewed data do not mean that GLBT women are less likely than their male counterparts to be the victims of violence. Less sensational forms of violence within the community—domestic violence, verbal abuse, prostitution, and institutionalized discrimination—are more likely to affect gay or transgender women, and less likely to be reported in the newspaper.

Nobody knows the double standard better than Graffeo. Before transitioning, Graffeo says he endured 33 years of gender discrimination—as a woman. “I had a lot of experience with people being prejudiced against me because I was female,” says Graffeo. “I was told I wouldn’t be hired because they thought I was going to run off and get pregnant. I was denied loan applications for a house because I was female,” he says.

The discrimination began in childhood—“nobody likes a little girl who doesn’t act like a little girl”—and lasted up until seven years ago, when he transitioned with the full support of his co-workers and social circle. At that point, Graffeo re-applied for the home loan “with a male name and worse credit,” and was accepted. “Women are just given the raw end of the deal,” he says.

The Fab Lounge incident marks the first time that activists and media outlets have shown an interest in harassment he’s faced. “When I transitioned, I really didn’t change, but the world changed toward me,” says Graffeo. “I’m not particularly privileged now. Nobody’s throwing money at me. But the world does not dislike me anymore,” he says. “Now, I’m not expected to be a female, so people are satisfied with my behavior. It’s a bit boring and anticlimactic, when it’s all over.”

Photo by Charles Steck

Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government have come up with a pithy little campaign to oppose those pushing to end discrimination against transgender citizens in the state: "Not My Shower."

The Maryland state senate has proposed legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on "gender identity" in employment, housing, and public accommodation.

Hell, no, not in their shower! Dr. Ruth Jacobs, head of the MCRG, explains the real intent of the law: "to give special rights to men who want to dress like women," allowing them access to women's restrooms and—gasp—public showers. Because making sure that people who choose to clean themselves in public are comfortable being naked in front of strangers is clearly more important than eliminating discrimination in employment and housing for all citizens.

The "Not My Shower" campaigners continue: "With the bill’s vague wording, all an adult male has to do to gain legal access to facilities normally reserved for women and girls is to indicate, verbally or non-verbally, that he has a sense of being female at the moment." Ugh. Men who would put on dresses in order to scam on naked ladies do not need the help of anti-discrimination laws to follow their creepy molestation dreams. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TRANSGENDER, and—

Let's pause here for a second. Who do you think is put at the most risk by the shower situation, REALLY?

- Those women and girls who were born male, identify clearly as female, and and are currently being forced to shower alongside groups of dudes who think they look feminine enough to harrass;

- Whining Republican ladies who surreptitiously inspect other women's genitals in the gym shower to make sure the other ladies' vaginas are vagina-looking enough to shower alongside them;

- Us all, who must endure lengthy discussions about who may access public showers that, strangely enough, nobody was clamoring to access before. If you're so scared of being naked in public, wear a bathing suit for Christ's sake.

Read the full text of the proposed bill here.

Photo by AlmazUK.

14 men in the top positions? Looks like Dell would be killing it in the Manliest Workplace Competition!