The way I see it is that Connecticut law is finally legitimizing the value of transition. I am one who feels that gender identity and gender expression are two totally different things. The medical diagnosis requirement demonstrates that lawmakers are wanting consistency. We saw this in Maryland, Maine and Connecticut. The two hot points in all of these states were around workplace transition and sex segregated public accommodations. Gender identity brings into play some new territory that other civil or medical rights just simply does not cover, where it comes to segregated public accommodations.
If you read Cathy Brennan’s writings, you will see that it is not a complete war against transsexuals. If anything, she is advocating access to public accommodations for those who have a verified medical need to be there (e.g. following the standards of care).
Myself, I accept law where gender identity and gender expression are separated. Gender identity is a medical issue and is demonstrated by following a standard of care recognized by the medical community. Despite some critics, that does NOT mean gender confirming surgery but someone must be going through a transition process where eligibility for surgery is one possible part. The point is simple, crossdressing men will full sex drives are demanding access to private spaces under the guise of “civil rights” and “equality”. I still see restroom access as more of a public health issue.
Gender expression is the social issue around the dressing and behaving more feminine or more masculine that what is expected of your assigned gender at birth. There is no medical diagnosis element to it.
While I don’t agree with gender identity “and expression” being lumped into a single definition, the Connecticut law is the best written so far. I do feel that the definition goes too far in certain non-controversial issues such as housing and non-segregated public accommodation. This is why I feel the definitions should be separate.
Michiko Ota commented on the diary post Carolinas: Now is a good time to fight hate speech on the radio by Michiko Ota.
By filing informal objections and for those in the listening areas, filing Petitions to Deny, you are using a government process that is put into place that not too many people take advantage of. While the dribble that AFA puts on the air can be deemed as protected speech under the First Amendment, these filings [...]
Michiko Ota wrote a new diary post: Carolinas: Now is a good time to fight hate speech on the radio
Once every 8 years, AM and FM broadcast radio licenses come up for renewal. After a broadcast licensee files their renewal application, there is a period of time when the station broadcasts messages over the air to inform that a renewal application has been filed. You may have heard these messages in the past on [...]
Michiko Ota commented on the blog post My Primary Care Says I’m Recovering Well From My Orchi
Autumn, congrats on the surgery. I hope all goes well.