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

Earlier this month, we examined how D.C.-area hospitals fared in the Human Rights Campaign's 2010 Healthcare Equality Index, which rates hospitals on their policy toward LGBT patients (they all failed). Then, we spoke to HRC's Tom Sullivan, who explained the Equality Index's high standards. Now, Sum of Change has produced an in-depth video—including interviews with both Sullivan and Ellen Kahn of the HRC's Family Project—which explains all aspects of the index, why it's important, and why more facilities will be coming into compliance in the future. Let's hope D.C.-area hospitals are listening.

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

The Westboro Baptist Church, proud owner of godhatesfags.com, is hitting up the Equality March in Washington D.C. this weekend, Joe My God reports. If the church's nonsensical picket schedule can be believed, Fred Phelps and friends will be hitting up three D.C. locations in one big anti-gay tour: The D.C. Jewish Community Center, the Annual HRC National Dinner, and the National Equality March. See what Phelps and the gang have planned for their protests, after the jump. Spoiler alert: Antichrist Obama is gonna be there!

Protest: Queer Simchat Torah Celebration

Date: Saturday, October 10, 5:30 to 6 p.m.

Location: D.C. Jewish Community Center, 1529 16th Street NW

Commentary: "Jews Killed Jesus, and love fags, go figure," the schedule reads. "Antichrist Obama, who loves fags way more than you Jewish dummies, is going to be in DC. He is speaking at the fag event, but not for you Jews. Get the message?!"

—

Protest: HRC National Dinner

Date: Saturday, October 10, 6:15 to 7 p.m.

Location: Washington Convention Center, 809 Mt. Vernon Place NW

Commentary: "Obama Hates You dumb fags," the schedule reads. "He is going to use your money and your resources and then when he shows himself for what he is, he will merely destroy you along with the rest of this nation of self-loathing hypocrites. . . . But more to the point, God has done this thing. You have so enraged Him that he has sent you this creature to be your ruler."

—

Protest: National Equality March

Date: Sunday, October 11, 10 to 11 a.m.

Location: Between 15th and I Street and the Capitol Building.

Commentary: "You are not equal with God, Silly," the schedule reads. "What, oh WHAT are you going to do when Obama has completely destroyed this nation's economy by the hand of a Sovereign God? You know what kind of money it takes to keep up those various facades! That is going to be some funny, scary stuff."

Photo by k763

Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government is a conservative group which opposes gender identity protections in the state. The group's president, Ruth Jacobs, says stuff like: "“If somebody with an opposite body part is allowed in to a ladies’ restroom—a guy who has a penis, who could put his penis inside my vagina—what am I to do?” The group's recent written materials, too, strike that special blend of horror, humor, and confusion.

Horrific: In a recent flier, the group refers to Human Rights Campaign staffer Allyson Robinson—a transgender female—as a "male transsexual." I'm beginning to think that these people just indiscriminately pick a gender, tack on a trans term, and run with it:

Funny: The flier then attempted to point supporters to the group's anti-transgender Web site, notmyshower.com—but accidentally sent readers to notmyshower.net:

Hey, I wonder what notmyshower.net is all about?

Would you rather spend an evening wading through right-wing materials on the sanctity of traditional bathroom arrangements, or a German party casino? Downloaden!

—
Confusing: As Jim Kennedy points out at Teach the Facts, this bill was passed a year ago. Live in the now!

Tomorrow, the U.S. House will vote on HR 1913, the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." Also known as the "Matthew Shepard Act," it would add the categories of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability to federal hate crime legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign is urging you to voice your support of the bill to Congress. Others want you to contact Congress, too—to protest the "un-American" bill with the sole aim of "punishing wrong beliefs about homosexuality" that "could lead to the criminalization of the Biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere."

Oh, bills—they "could" always "lead" places.

[youtube:v=4AzLrn5JVIo]

The Human Rights Campaign has released a report detailing the ad's inaccuracies, which is great. But the HRC has outdone itself this time by tracking down the audition reels of actors stumbling over ridiculous NOM lines like "the clouds are dark and the winds are strong, and I'm afraid." The auditions are after the jump.

Insider tip: The actress in "Audition 3" is unbelievable.

Auditions For Marriage Lie Ad, Part 1 from Joe Smoe on Vimeo.

Auditions For Marriage Lie Ad, Part 2 from Joe Smoe on Vimeo.

UPDATE: The original auditions have been pulled off Youtube. Vimeo picked them up, allowing us all to continue to laugh at unsuspecting actors duped into stumbling over ridiculous anti-gay rhetoric. Thanks, Vimeo!

UPDATE 2: Vimeo's pulled them, too. Citizen bloggers are downloading their own copies at keepvid.com and reposting them on youtube until they, too, are pulled. I'll try my best to keep this site updated with watchable videos.

Craig Schniderman, Food & Friends (described above): $382,200
Joe Solomese, Human Rights Campaign: $338,400
Chuck Wolfe, The Victory Fund: $220,000
Donald Blanchon, Whitman-Walker Clinic: $170,000
Mara Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equality: $82,321
Dyana Mason, Equality Virginia: $59,000

On being an in-demand activist:

I’m busy! Gay, gay, gay all the time. I didn’t know it was gonna be thus much work! Geez! Every day, ‘This is something gay, can you do this?' I’ll be there! …And I keep saying gay. I haven’t got all the correct terminology down. So many women come up to me, hard-core lesbians: “Wanda! You gotta stop saying gay! You’re a lesbian!…you’re not gay! Men are gay! You’re a lesbian, you’re a woman!” I’m like calm down dyke I just started this!

On gay marriage opponents:

It’s just amazing to me how people get involved in something that doesn’t concern them. You know, if they would just mind their own damned business…The economy’s all messed up, it’s all about the economy right now. And think of all that money they’re losing (from) gay weddings. Wouldn’t you love to have some of that gay wedding money?

On gay marriage:
“It’s just a relationship. It’s just two people who love each other, just trying to deal with each other and get through life together, that’s all. Just trying to build something together. Relationships are all the same. You’ve got one person who likes to talk a lot and the other person who pretends to listen.”
On Republicans:
“Talk about evil people, they’re just nasty! (Rush Limbaugh) saying, ‘I want the president to fail!’ What kind of bullshit is that? He thinks screw everybody else. Screw everybody, I just want to win! That’s treason, right? I’m like, ‘Let’s not close Guantanamo (Bay), send Rush Limbaugh’s big ass over there! He’s a terrorist!’”
On aging:
“It ain’t fun getting old. It’s not. I don’t consider myself old it’s just little things that happen that people don’t tell you about. The bladder ain’t what it used to be. I used to carry an extra pair of panties in my purse back in the day in case I got lucky. Now it’s in case I sneeze!”

The media's short-shrifting of gay inaugural events didn't stop at Rev. Gene Robinson's untelevised prayer at Sunday's Lincoln Memorial concert, says AMERICAblog's John Aravosis.

"There seemed to be a dearth of coverage about the gay and lesbian side of the inaugural festivities. Our readers reported that a number of networks oddly cut away from the inaugural parade the moment the gay band showed up," he writes.* "And not much mention of the gay ball the Human Rights Campaign held Tuesday night."

Ben Finzel, who reviewed the HRC event for Gay.com, filed a similar gripe with what he refers to as the "so-called 'mainstream' press"; he called the coverage of the event a "seeming press blackout."

Washington City Paper, for one, did not attend the HRC's star-studded fete (Melissa Etheridge, Cyndi Lauper, and Rufus Wainwright performed)—not that we were invited. Stretched pretty thin during the four-day inaugural gauntlet, this paper's GLBT after-hours coverage amounted to a couple scenes from the People's Inaugural GLBT Gayla, held last Sunday night at the Historical Society.

But was the press biased in its lack of extensive coverage of Tuesday's HRC ball? I'm not sure how the HRC coverage stacks up against that of all the other mainstream balls, but when it comes down to it, I can't really care too much. After all, it was just a party on a night of a thousand parties, and one that President Obama was unlikely to be attending (his dance card was pretty full that night). Sure, I would have loved to hear Lauper serenade Barack and Michelle with "At Last," too. But arguing that your ball didn't get enough recognition on Tuesday sounds like sour grapes. It's a party. Just dress up, get a little drunk, listen to Melissa, then get up on Wednesday and get ready to fight real injustice.

* Not locally, it seems: Metro Weekly has footage of Fox 5's announcement of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association as they pass President Obama in the inaugural parade.

Photo by DDFic.

Welcome to the final bracket of the Manliest Workplace in D.C. Competition! Well, well, it's sure been a wild ride, hasn't it, what with the whatsits in the Union bracket and the whosits in Government (Relive the glory of the full 64-workplace bracket here). This week: Advocacy groups compete for final D.C. do-man-ation!

Get it?

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: There's nothing manlier than Human, am I right ladies? Or am I wrong? I've culled the top positions from the HRC's staff chart, along with its four D.C.-based board members, to find out. Let's go to the standings!

President Joe Solmonese (Male, 10 points)
Managing Director Susanne Salkind (Female, ZERO)
Board Member Kim Allman (Female, ZERO)
Board Member Marjorie Chorlins (Female, ZERO)
Board Member John Isa (Male, 6 points)
Board Member Mary Snider (Female, ZERO)
Ctr. for the Study of Equality Manager Ché Juan Gonzales Tabisola (Male, 4 points)
Senior Communications Manager Michael Cole (Male, 3 points)
Assoc. Dir. for Diversity Donna Payne (Female, ZERO)
Assoc. Dir. for Diversity Allyson Robinson (Female, ZERO)

With 23 out of a possible 55, the HRC is mannish at best. But maybe—just maybe—that's enough to pull an underdog, Cinderella, half-court at the buzzer victory in the advocacy bracket which, let's face it, is pathetically girly next to say, the Teamsters.

—

EMILY'S LIST: This D.C.-based advocacy org. supports pro-choice women in politics. You know what that means: As a traditionally female workplace, EMILY's List qualifies for the Sexist's Affirmative Action clause, earning it an instant extra ten points atop its surely pathetic man standing. A hasty once-over of the org. chart could only locate five top staff, so I've doubled the score and added the bonus. Let's get this over with:

President and Founder Ellen R. Malcolm (Female, ZERO)
Executive Director Ellen Moran (Female, ZERO)
Chief of Staff Britt Cocanour (Female, ZERO)
WOMEN VOTE! Director Maren Hesla (Female, ZERO)
Political Director Jonathan Parker (Male, 6 points)

With 22 points (6*2 + 10) out of a possible 55, EMILY's List registers a few cracks in D.C.'s glass ceiling, but it just barely falls to the mighty HRC. Tomorrow: Will the American Conservative Union prove manlier than HIPS (also a traditionally female workplace)? Only HR knows for sure!

Photo by the wonderfully comprehensive NCinDC.

Today, the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign will release a letter to President-elect Barack Obama strongly backing her. The catch: The group last week backed Rep. Linda Sanchez for the post.

“You would have received our letter in support of Representative Sánchez’s candidacy for Secretary of Labor last week,” HRC President Joe Solmonese writes, asking for a mulligan.

If nominated—and confirmed—Maxwell would be the first openly gay U.S. presidential cabinet member.

* Juicy Campus has hit George Washington University. How do G.W. gossips compare to Georgetown's finest? So far, Juciy Campus' G.W. page seems to have a lot more nonsense on it. That's a good thing, writes Travis of G.W. student blog The Colonialist: "I spent the weekend surfing the site a lot, putting up things about myself and my roommates. I’d like to openly admit to writing all 10 of the comments calling The GW Patriot racist. I’d be willing to bet that 80% of the posts on the site are done with the same innocent prank attitude. It’s a playground."

* The New Gay blogger inspired, depressed by gay couples. TNG's Jon surveyed the scene at the annual HRC fundraiser on Saturday: "Men were holding hands, women were kissing, and partners were snuggling up and laughing together at their tables," Jon laments. "This is all wonderful of course, but it served as an in-your-face reminder that I’m currently partner-less."

* Sex blogger dude Roissy in D.C. says the recession will mean better sex:

If a protracted and deep recession leads to the average woman cutting costs at the supermarket and steering clear of the high calorie packaged foodstuffs, it could mean more slender women and, consequently, better sex. . . . Hard times bring “hard” times.

Hmm. Maybe it will also teach Roissy a lesson in economics.

* Local blogger Jimbo makes an appearance at Maryland Renaissance Festival, hears best catcall ever: "Oooh, gurl, he's dressed up like an evil sex sorceror."

* Before the presidential face-offs resume tonight, let's remember just how far we've come since last Thursday's veep debates. Thanks to The Guardian's Michelle Goldberg for highlighting Palin's most nonsensical non-answer:

Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? ... My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Shit, is it possible to just place a [sic] around an entire quote? Or to have one floating over her head every time she speaks? Get on it, magic Jesus.

Photo by dumbonyc, in mourning of last night's re-run of Gossip Girl. –XOXO, The Sexist