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

We're in the middle of the worst recession in our lifetimes. The state of Maryland is hanging at a 7.2 percent unemployment rate. And one Maryland employer has found a silver lining in the desperation of his countrymen: The potential for hiring a total babe.

Last week, an area job seeker alerted me to this Craigslist ad for an office assistant job at a Rockville, Md. automotive repair company. Necessary qualifications: Sexy "gal" who knows how to "take direction." Unessential: Actual knowledge of cars.

Here's the ad (it's since been flagged for removal):

I am seeking an attractive self motivated, mature, detail oriented female with good computer and telephone skills to help me run my business. This is a full time position with full company benefits. Knowledge of the Automotive Repair business is a plus, but not essential to performing the requirements of this position, however a good sense of humor is. I need a gal that is confident with her sexuality and does not mind working around a bunch of guys. This is a very fast paced business so I need a gal that can think fast on her feet take a proper message and take direction and do what is needed of her. This job is not for everyone, I need a gal that can interact well with the general public and handle a large volume of incomming calls on a day to day basis. A good clear voice and good communication skills are essential to this position. Reply with resume and photo if available to this post, I like to have a face to go with a name. If you think you can keep up with me and our work environment then I want to hear from you.

Seeing as this job ad alone blatantly defies Montgomery County human rights law, which specifies (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you cannot exclusively hire hot chicks on the basis of their glamor shots. This employer better hope his new hire isn't too confident in her sexuality. She may just end up suing his ass.

When Omar Miskinyar opened 14th Street NW nightlife spot Policy earlier this year, he invested in the unexpected. Inside the sprawling restaurant, bar, and lounge, ornate chandeliers hang below exposed pipes and ducts. Graffiti by artist Andrew Funk blazes across the tasteful taupe walls. Cherry-red patent-leather booths ring a bar with a wall of flat-screen televisions. And rather than pants vs. triangle, “ladies” vs. “gents,” or “Barbie” vs. “Ken,” the doors to the restrooms are marked with a pair of swirled Plexiglas exclamation points. One is blue, the other is pink. They’re the size of human beings.

Human beings, however, do not always fit the color scheme. That raises something of a grammatical problem for Miskinyar: Policy’s subtly gendered punctuation may be inconsistent with a little-known provision of D.C. human rights law.

Since 2006, the D.C. Human Rights Act has protected transgender men and women from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations—including restrooms. Since public bathrooms are traditionally gender-specific, gender nonconforming clientele have faced harassment, attack, and even arrest for picking the “wrong” gendered stall. Restaurants with multi-stall bathrooms segregated by gender can work to eliminate discrimination by ensuring that even when rooms are marked for ladies or gentlemen, they’re free of harassment for the spot’s gender-variant pissers.

Miskinyar says he would be happy to open his pink and blue doors to a unisex flow. “We’re in a predominantly gay neighborhood, so why not?” he says. “When it gets busy, the restrooms are effectively unisex anyway—everyone just goes straight to the first open stall.” But restaurants equipped with single-stall restrooms, like Policy, are required to go a bit further in ending discrimination—they must eliminate the gendered bathroom sign entirely. According to the regulations, “All entities covered under the Act with single-occupancy restroom facilities shall use gender-neutral signage for those facilities (for example, by replacing signs that indicate ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ with signs that say ‘Restroom’).”

That solution wouldn’t be painless for Miskinyar—his four gender-specific bathroom doors came at $3,000 a pop. But Miskinyar’s exclamation marks aren’t out the door yet—a suggestive color scheme may not be explicit enough to count as discrimination. “I wouldn’t think we’d have to change the doors,” says Miskinyar. “The color is all in how you perceive it.” Since this is the first year that D.C.’s Office of Human Rights has attempted to enforce the rule, agency reps say that subtly gendered signs—like Policy’s—may fall into a legal gray area.

While local business owners and the OHR may disagree over forced redecoration, the unisex single stall is a welcome fixture for two groups that have clashed over toilet turf: transgender activists, and the people who refuse to share a restroom with them.
Last month, the D.C. Trans Coalition launched its “Pee in Peace” campaign to raise awareness about the three-year-old restroom requirements in local accommodations. For the DCTC, “Peeing in Peace” means navigating the bathroom line “without having to worry whether someone is going to assault or arrest us for using the ‘wrong’ one.”

Campaign member Sadie Baker says that Policy isn’t alone in its gender-specific display. The campaign is compiling a list of locations that are currently non-compliant with the single-stall requirement but could easily follow the law by changing a few signs; OHR plans to contact each to ensure they get in line. DCTC found a number of repeat offenders in national chain toilets—your Starbucks, your Chipotles, your Caribou Coffees. Independent discriminators include local fixtures like Asylum, Marvin, the Wonderland Ballroom, and Café Asia. “The problem, I believe, is that no one knows about it,” says Baker. “Our campaign is first focused on nicely reminding people of the law. Then, if they refuse to comply within 30 60 days, we’ll look into filing a discrimination complaint,” she says.

Last year, the Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government launched its own awareness campaign over transgender bathroom use: the “Not My Shower” initiative. Ruth Jacobs, the group’s president, says the campaign is meant to publicize the flip-side of transgender rights—privacy infringement for “normal people.” “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?” says Jacobs. “We need to be able to retain the right to speak up about men in our bathrooms without being labeled bigots.” Jacobs does, however, approve of the gender-neutral single-stall. “That sounds like a reasonable compromise that doesn’t cause any problems for anybody, and that’s a fine thing to do,” she says.

Most restroom users aren’t as concerned with the genitalia of their stall-mates, but many are still skittish about going unisex. Forget accepting a transgender person—local diners are rarely tolerant of a non-gender-specific room.

One online reviewer found Muse Lounge’s unisex stall “creepy”: “The club itself is grimey, small and the oh-so-creepy unisex bathrooms. Yuck. I think every time I went to the restroom there was a couple in there fighting,” they wrote. Another blamed Sticky Rice’s unisex setup for a lack of cleanliness: “This place evidence #452982 why unisex bathrooms do not work,” the reviewer wrote. “There are 2 here to share. They were both a mess. Paper towels on the dirty, fluid ridden floor, along with what I can only assume came out of someone’s nose in one of the sinks.” And the unisex single-stall at U Street NW gay bar Nellie’s squeezed some homophobia out of one female bathroom-goer: “there is no girls bathroom vs boys bathroom. Everyone shares,” she wrote. “Which kind of sucks waiting in line with a bunch of divas.”

And though Café Asia subtly marks its line of men’s and women’s single stalls with gendered figures, one reviewer was so put off by the proximity of the sexes that he experienced performance anxiety: “I was stuck, lost and very confused when I went to the bathroom and this lady followed me back there and when into the stall next to me.…to the point where I couldn’t even use the bathroom. So upon leaving this very disturbing bathroom experience, I[t] was explained by my waiter that it was a unisex bathroom. WOW.”

At divier destinations with single stalls, a unisex switch won’t do much to lower the esteem of an already low-grade rest stop. Swankier locales, however, have more invested in their delineation between his-and-hers. At Busboys and Poets, a couple of whimsical tiled mosaics mark off the bathrooms. At the 9:30 Club, a toy mermaid and merman stand guard outside their respective johns. As trivial as it seems, a well-executed gendered bathroom sign can still carry cultural cachet—why else spend $3,000 on a giant exclamation mark?

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

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.

If passed, Maryland would join thirteen other states and the District of Columbia in protecting transgender citizens. The D.C. Human Rights Act was amended to add protections for "gender identity and expression" in 2006, but District institutions are still ironing out the hick-ups.

Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, a national group known as PFOX, last week announced it was “suing” the D.C. Office of Human Rights to overturn a decision that ex-gays do not belong to a protected category under the city’s Human Rights Act.

Well, that depends by what you mean by "suing." According to Chibarro, "An office spokesperson called the PFOX announcement inaccurate, though, and noted the group filed a petition, not a lawsuit, before the D.C. Superior Court to appeal the 2005 decision."

PFOX fired back, calling the petition “a lawsuit of sorts.”

The fake lawsuit "stems from a decision to dismiss a complaint that PFOX filed against the National Education Association," which said that the NEA "discriminated against “ex-gays” as a class by denying a PFOX application to maintain an exhibit booth during a 2003 NEA convention."