Human Rights IssuesTransphobia And Discrimination
Québec transsexual wins recognition as a male
Transsexuals Protected by Human Rights Legislation
Synopsis of B. C. Human Rights Tribunal Decision, June 1999
Synopsis of B. C. Human Rights Tribunal Decision, July 1999
No more sex changes please, we're Ontarian
The violence, discrimination and hatred heaped upon differently-gendered people is an enormous wrong. This bigotry will stop only when the rest of "us" are able to accept our own gender conflicts and pinpoint our own prejudices about biological sex and social sex-roles.
— Pat Califia (1997, p. 10)
Transphobia and Genderism
Discrimination against transgendered people (and those seen to be transgressing gender rules) is pervasive in this society. Whether it is constantly being referred to as male when you are female (or female when you are male); being denied housing, employment, medical care or legal protections; or being unable to walk down the street without being insulted or assaulted, transphobia affects all aspects of life.
Transphobia is the term used to describe the prejudice and discrimination directed at people who stray from the rigid gender expectations of our society. While the term is relatively new; the oppression that it describes is not. Transphobic remarks abounded in the 1960s when men let their hair grow and are now commonly heard by lesbians who adopt a "butch" appearance.
There can be no question that gender plays a pivotal role in how this society understands itself. Turn on the television, read a magazine, go to a movie and, if nothing else is clear in the plot, you will have no difficulty distinguishing the boys from the girls. "Male or female?" is one of the first questions asked after a birth, vying only with questions about the baby's health. At the present time, it would be inconceivable for most parents’ midwives, or doctors to respond to the question sex with, "I don't know, let's wait until the baby is old enough to decide for itself."
We live in a society which is very conscious of, and invested in, gender. Determining gender (consciously or unconsciously) is one of the first things that we do when we see another person.
... When there is some ambiguity in gender cues, or when we believe we have been mistaken about a person's gender, our response is rarely ho-hum. Typical responses range from embarrassed silence to violent assaults....
Types of Discrimination
Discrimination comes in many packages. Not all of it is intentional and not all is sanctioned by the state. In some circumstances, people are unaware that they are discriminating; that is, they are not conscious of their prejudice or the effect of their behaviour. They simply have not taken into consideration the existence of transgendered people...
Unintentional discrimination against transgendered people is a common occurrence. Many people and most organizations do not even consider the existence of transgendered people, their needs or their experiences. The discrimination is unintentional because there is no intent to do an injustice: there is simply a failure to recognize that anyone is there. However, discrimination is defined by its effect, not the intention. Unintentional discrimination can be just as painful and destructive as discrimination that is intended. When shelters for survivors of domestic violence were originally established, they were developed for women. No consideration was given to the fact that the group we understood as "women" is diverse in biology and presentation. There was no intention to discriminate against transgendered women, but clearly that has been the effect.
Intentional discrimination refers to conscious discrimination that is justified by the belief that transgendered people do not belong and do not deserve equitable treatment. Intentional discrimination can take the form of placing insurmountable obstacles in people's paths; for example, requiring that SRS be completed in order to be eligible for services. This excludes the majority of transgendered women who cannot (or choose not to) undergo surgery. As Mirha-Soleil Ross (1995) stated, "This policy is politically problematic when we know that the TS women who need those shelters' services the most, are the ones who are probably the least likely to have the privileges required to get an SRS" (p. 10). The intention is to exclude all but a subset of transgendered women (who, in fact, already have the legal right to use the services)....
The complex forms of discrimination that face transgendered people are highlighted by the issue of surgery. Many transgendered people question whether or not to have surgery or take hormones; but many organizations will accept only post-op transsexuals. This means that organizations are insisting that a transgendered woman take hormones, have her penis removed, and undergo hours of electrolysis in order to be considered female and eligible for services. Yet to get surgery, transsexuals must overcome many hurdles, including living and working in their new role for one to two years prior to surgery and finding a way to pay for it. Society says that it will not tolerate them until they have had surgical alterations; and the controllers of SRS say that they will not perform surgery until society accepts them
All of this points to another type of discrimination that is especially brutal and offensive. One of our fundamental rights in this society is the right to refuse invasive surgery. While there are some exceptions (children and those considered incompetent), for the most part, we cannot compel someone to amputate a body part, even if keeping it might cause their death. Moreover, we cannot insist that a person undergo "cosmetic" surgery because we are uncomfortable with their appearance. Thus, it is a gross violation of human rights to force a group of people to have major surgery in order to receive social services, employment, housing and legal protections. Physical alterations for the comfort of others should not be a requirement for human rights protection.
Transphobia and Heterosexism/Homophobia
Transphobia is often confused with heterosexism or homophobia. Heterosexism is the umbrella term used to describe all forms of discrimination against people who are (or are assumed to be) lesbian, gay or bisexual. Heterosexism includes the promotion by individuals and institutions of the superiority of heterosexuality over same-sex relationships. Heterosexist beliefs include the assumption that everyone should be heterosexual; that everyone is heterosexual (unless known to be otherwise); and that non-heterosexuals are somehow unnatural and abnormal. Like other forms of discrimination, it is often invisible to those who are not its targets. The term homophobia is often used to describe personal forms of heterosexism (as opposed to systemic forms), such as verbal and physical abuse. However, many prefer to use the more inclusive term, heterosexism to describe all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals. There is a close relationship between heterosexism/homophobia and transphobia. For example, much homophobic name-calling is related to gender roles. Calling a man a "pansy" or a "fairy" is to call him effeminate; in their words, he is not doing his part in upholding the masculine gender standard. Gay Pride Parades are often criticized from both inside and outside the queer community because of the gender-bending that takes place with drag queens and butch dykes. "If only the boys would look like boys and the girls would look like girls," then being queer would be more acceptable to the heterosexual world. Acceptance of same-sex orientation is dependent on adherence to the rules of gender presentation.
Many assaults on gays and lesbians are directly related to their gender presentation. Women with short hair on their heads and long hair on their legs, or men wearing dresses, constitute a radical departure from acceptable gender rules. It is the appearance of gender-bending, rather than knowledge of sexual behaviours or affections, that precipitates a great deal of homophobic behaviour. Appearance is the tip-off that the person is different and "doesn't belong." Transgendered individuals are frequently subjected to homophobic reactions even if they identify as heterosexual. A transgendered woman may be attracted only to men, yet her relationships may be considered by others to be gay. Many assaults on transgendered people are homophobic in nature, as the assailant assumes that the person is gay or lesbian.
Layers of Oppression
The discrimination experienced by transgendered people is extensive. Genderism is so pervasive that it is rarely considered to be unfair treatment. Many people are unaware of their genderist assumptions and others feel justified in excluding those who are different. When transgendered people are perceived to be gay or lesbian (although they may not be), they are subjected to the full weight of heterosexism. Those who are also members of other marginalized groups suffer additional harassment, isolation and loss. For example, a person with a disability may find validation for this aspect of their identity within a cultural community of people with similar disabilities (a deaf community, for example) or within their family. Similarly, a person of colour will usually receive validation for their racial identity, and the racism they experience, within their family or cultural communities. However, transgendered people who are rejected by their families of origin are often simultaneously alienated from their cultural, ethnic and religious communities. Not only is their gender identity rejected, but they may lose validation for most fundamental aspects of who they are. Without these sources of support, they must also cope with classism, racism, ableism and ageism, etc. in mainstream society and in lesbian, gay and transgender communities.
Violence Against Transgendered People
Insufficient research has been undertaken to document the real extent of the violence experienced by transgendered people; however, preliminary research indicates that the incidence is very high. Carrie Davis, Director of Operations for GenderPac, reported in a speech in March of 1999 that almost 60% of transgendered people are victims of violence. GenderPac* is also compiling statistics on the number of transgendered people who are murdered because they are transgendered. According to their figures, currently in the United States, one transgendered person is murdered each month. It is believed that this number seriously underestimates the real level of violence because these crimes are often attributed to gay-bashing or other causes.
In a preliminary study (Gender, Violence and Resource Access Survey), 50% of the transgendered respondents reported having been raped or assaulted by a partner. Thirty-one percent of the total sample identified themselves as survivors of domestic violence, when explicitly asked (Courvant & Cook-Daniels, 1998). Of the violence and harassment that are experienced by transgendered individuals, very little is reported. This is similar to other oppressed groups and there are valid reasons for marginalized people's reluctance to report abuses. Sexual assault and domestic abuse against women are among the lowest reported crimes, in addition to having some of the lowest conviction rates. It has taken years of work by the shelter movement to get a satisfactory response from law enforcement agencies. In fact, it has taken years for domestic abuse to even be considered a crime; and yet, we still hear of women who are killed by their partners, even after the police have been involved. Just as crimes against women have been invisible, so too are crimes against transgendered people.
A transgendered person reporting a crime to the police has the added burden of "coming out" as transgendered: a difficult and possibly dangerous task, as many gays and lesbians can attest. Having done this, they must then convince the police that a crime has actually taken place.
In 1993, 20-year old Brandon Teena was unable to convince police in Nebraska that he had been raped. Two acquaintances had raped Brandon shortly after they learned that he was transgendered. The police were insulting and skeptical while taking Brandon's report. The accused were eventually called in for questioning but, even after one of them claimed the other had raped Brandon, neither was charged. A few days later, these same men murdered Brandon and two of his friends. They are both serving life sentences on first-degree murder convictions (see The Brandon Teena Story listed in Chapter 8)....
Impact of Discrimination
Regardless of the nature of the discrimination suffered, whether it is because of our sexual orientation, race, age, religion, size, ability or gender identity, discrimination erodes our dignity, our ability to participate in society as equals, and our ability to experience ourselves as fully human. Riki Anne Wilchins writes:
There is something peculiarly incestuous about trans-experience. It robs us of our bodies, our intimate moments, our sexuality, our childhood. It robs us of honesty, of open friendship, of the luxury of looking into a mirror without pain staring back at us. It means hiding from friends and family, from spouses and children, as surely as it means hiding from the police car during an evening stroll, or from that knot of laughing boys down at the corner when we go out for a coke. In the end, it is as tiring as a constant pain and as barren as the bottom of an empty well at high noon. (1997, p. 21)The impact of sustained discrimination is profound. Most transgendered people, like lesbians and members of other disadvantaged groups, grow up feeling isolated and acutely aware of being different. The constant barrage of negative messages can lead to internalized transphobia, with feelings of shame and self-hatred.
The abuse, anxiety and self-loathing instilled by genderism and transphobia permeate all aspects of a person's life. Some clinical reports suggest that over 70% of transsexuals have contemplated suicide at some point in their lives and between 17% and 20% have attempted suicide at least once. Transgendered youth report intense loneliness during adolescence and great difficulty finding acceptance or identification with mainstream youth and, often, gay and lesbian youth (Brown & Rounsley, 1996). Young transgendered heterosexuals, for example are not perceived to be so by others; and gay and lesbian transsexuals may be seen as heterosexual, though they identify with same-sex peers. The impact of growing up under the weight of discrimination can be as straight forward as knowing that you do not belong, and perhaps feeling that you do not deserve to belong.
Absence of Services
Any group faced with unrelenting discrimination will be in particular need of social services; however, as is often the case, those in greatest need have access to the fewest resources.
In 1995, Viviane Ki Namaste examined the experiences of transgendered people with health care and social services in Ontario (Namaste, 1995b). Not surprisingly, she found that transsexuals and transgenderists face a multitude of systemic barriers in these institutions and agencies. They lacked informed, safe access to hormones, were mistreated by hospital staff, were denied entry to traditional alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs and were refused access to shelters for youth, women and the homeless.
Namaste reported that very few resources exist for transgendered people with housing needs. Youth shelters were generally unsympathetic to young transgendered people; in fact, the shelters could be hostile and dangerous. Some shelters had staff members who immediately refused access to transgendered youth or made their admittance conditional on "gender appropriate" dress and behaviour. Transgendered youth were subjected to unfair treatment and blamed for the violence and the hostile attitudes of other shelter residents.
Similarly, some women's shelters refused to admit transgendered women under any circumstances, while others would offer services under specific conditions. Acceptance of transgendered women varied from shelter to shelter, making it very difficult for a transgendered survivor of violence to know where to turn.
Mirha-Soleil Ross (1995) hoped to develop a list of women's shelters that would accept and offer support to transsexual women in crisis. She surveyed 20 women's shelters in the Toronto area, from which five completed questionnaires were received. One of her questions asked if the shelter accepted transsexual women as clients. Some shelters indicated that they did, under the following circumstances:
... [T]ransgendered survivors of violence have few, if any, options available to them when they are assaulted or abused. While shelters are beginning to take notice of this issue, and some are taking a genuine interest in rectifying the situation, there is still much work to be done. Ross stated that,
the whole question of TS women in women's shelters is a perfect example of how TS's are defined, controlled and regulated by non-transsexuals, whether they be psychiatric authorities demanding that we fit their pre-conceived and prejudiced notions of gender or non-transsexual women deciding whether or not to include us and under what circumstances. (p. 10)
* GenderPac (Gender Public Advocacy Coalition) is an non-profit group composed of individuals and organizations dedicated to pursuing "gender, affectional, and racial equality" and contesting gender-based oppression (Wilchins, 1997).
Transphobia is: A reaction of fear, loathing and discriminatory treatment of people whose gender identity or gender presentation (or perceived gender or gender identity) does not match with the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgendered people, intersexuals, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are typically the targets of transphobia.
Genderism is the belief that there are, and should be, only two genders and that one's gender, or most aspects of it, are inevitably tied to biological sex.
Beliefs Based in Genderism
Examples of personal discrimination
Empathy Exercise
If your gender identity matches the sex you were assigned at birth, or if you have a conventional form of gender expression, you may have some difficulty imagining how transphobia feels when you are on the receiving end of it. You may find it interesting to try this exercise:
If you are nontransgendered...
Source:
Excerpts from: Trans Accessibility Project: Making women's shelters accessible to transgendered women. Ministry of Education and Training, Toronto, October 1999, A. Cope & J. Darke.
The transsexual has a beard and is balding but had been unable to get Quebec’s Director of Civil Status to change his legal status. As a result, his passport, driver’s licence and other papers identified him as a woman.
The plaintiff, identified as B.A., was born a female but decided to change sex at 25 and underwent hormone therapy, breast removal and a full hysterectomy.
Threatened with a lawsuit that was to begin today, the Directory of Civil Status has yielded, he said yesterday. "It’s a complete relief. It’s been two years of absolute hell for a completely ridiculous reason."
For years, he said, he had to avoid situations where he might be asked to produce identification papers — driving, going to the doctor or crossing borders — and have to explain why a male-looking person carried a woman’s papers.
At the heart of the dispute was how far a person must go before being legally classified as a man. Bureaucrats initially insisted that B.A. had to go further, first asking him for a surgical closure and removal of the vagina, and then for a phalloplasty, the surgical production of a penis.
According to Quebec Civil code, a person can have sex designation and given name changed alter having "undergone medical treatments and surgical operations involving a structural modification of the sex organs intended to change his secondary sex characteristics."
Source:
Tu Thanh Ha, Globe & Mail.
M.L. was a street worker employed on a contract basis by the Maison des Jeunes, a youth center in Montreal. In March 1992, while waiting for the renewal of his contract, M.L. informed his employer that he was a transsexual and wished to be recognized as a female worker. Despite favourable performance review, the centre’s board decided not to renew M.L.’s employment contract, as well as the contract of another youth worker. M.L. filed a complaint with the Québec Human Rights Commission against the center, its president, its treasurer, claiming that the center had discriminated against him on the basis of sex and injured his dignity, contrary to the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. A Human Rights Tribunal was appointed to hear the complaint.
The center contended that M.L.’s contract was not renewed for financial reasons out of concern for the best interests of the young people with whom M.L. worked. The centre’s Chair felt that young people might be upset by the transformation and that M.L. would no longer be able to perform his duties as a youth outreach worker. The center denied discriminating against M.L., arguing that "transsexualism" was not included in the definition of "sex" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Québec Charter.
Transsexualism Included in Word "Sex"
Like other provinces, Québec’s human rights legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Since neither the Québec nor the Canadian Charters define transsexualism, the Tribunal examined definitions from other sources. The evidence indicated that transsexualism is a belief that one is a member of the opposite sex despite all physical evidence to the contrary. Writing for the Tribunal, Chair Michèle Rivet concluded that "transsexualism is clearly a matter of sexual identity. Contrary to what some might think," she held, "it does not involve a question of sexual orientation, sexual orientation is a choice of sexual partner and not identity."
Chair Rivet concluded that sexual identity is included in the definition of ‘sex" in the Québec Charter and is, thus, a prohibited ground of discrimination. In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal relied on previous case law which has held that the term "sex" includes pregnancy and sexual orientation, at the same time referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s injunction that human rights laws be given a large and liberal interpretation. Moreover, Chair Rivet emphasized, human rights law, including the Québec Charter, is based on the principle of human dignity. Therefore, she concluded, discrimination on the ground of transsexualism is also a contravention of section 4 of the Québec Charter, which provides that everyone has the right to the safeguarding of his or her dignity.
In the end, Chair rivet reasoned: "[w]e cannot see how discrimination on the ground of transsexualism or [the sex change process] could finally be anything other than discrimination on the ground of sex."
Discrimination Established
Having found that transsexualism was a prohibited ground of discrimination, the Tribunal had little difficulty concluding that the center had discriminated against M.L. on the basis of his transsexualism. While the center argued that lack of funds was a major factor in the non-renewal of M.L.’s contract, Chair Rivet said that a discriminatory motive need not be the sole cause of an employer’s action, and the centre’s President had clearly testified that M.L.’s transsexualism was one of the reasons for his dismissal.
BFOR Not Established
Chair Rivet rejected the centre’s argument that, even if it had discriminated against M.L. on the basis of his transsexualism, being a non-transsexual was a bona fide occupational requirement for the job of youth outreach worker. In Rivet’s view, the center was unable to prove that its rule against transsexual street workers was rationally connected to the requirements of the job or that the non-renewal of M.L.’s contract was a proportional response to the situation.
The center had engaged an expert witness, a qualified psychologist and sexologist specializing in the area of sexual identity conflict in children, to prove its assertion that M.L.’s sex change could cause problems for the young people with whom he worked. This expert testified that people with "sexual identity conflicts," particularly those in the process of a sex change, could have a prejudicial influence on the healthy development of adolescents with whom they interacted, especially if these young people were themselves having social adjustment problems. He recommended that M.L. distance himself from working with the centre’s young clients.
M.L. called his own experts, who gave a contrary opinion. M.L.’s experts indicated that transsexualism is not a mental illness or a cause of pedophilia, and that M.L.’s sex change would not influence the sexual orientation of the young people with whom he worked.
Rejecting the testimony of the centre’s expert, the Tribunal criticized him for lumping together the concepts of transsexualism, homosexuality and pedophilia as "sexual identity conflicts" and characterized his opinions as biased. The centre had not proven, the Tribunal ruled, that M.L.’s transsexualism could provoke serious problems in the students with whom he worked. Accordingly, there was no excuse for the centre’s actions and M.L. deserved to be compensated.
Damages Awarded
The Québec Human Rights Tribunal, thus, upheld the claim, concluding both that transsexualism came within the definition of sex as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Charter, and that M.L. had established that his gender change was a factor in the centre’s decision not to renew his contract.
In the result, the Tribunal awarded M.L. $1,750 for the salary he would have earned if his contract were renewed, and $4,000 in damages for injury to his dignity.
M.L. AND THE QUEBEC HUMAN RIGHS COMMISSION v. MAISON DES JEUNES
Québec Human Rights Tribunal
Michèle Rivet, Tribunal Chair
Caroline Gendreau and Keder Hyppolite, Members
Phillipe Robert De Massy, Counsel for the Commission
Robert Viberg, Counsel for the Centre
July 2, 1998. (48 pages)
Source:
Human Rights and Charter Law Reporter, September/October 1998.
VANCOUVER-The B.C. Human Rights Commission applauds a decision of the separate and independent Human Rights Tribunal awarding damages to Tawni Sheridan, a transsexual woman who was denied equal access to the washroom facilities in a Victoria nightclub.
In its Jan. 8 decision released yesterday, the tribunal held that Sheridan's right to be free from discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code was denied when a bouncer at BJ's Lounge told her that she would be asked to leave if she continued to use the women's washroom. The club had a policy that only anatomically correct women were to use the women's washroom.
Deputy chief commissioner Harinder Mahil told the tribunal that the ground of "sex" can be reasonably interpreted to include transsexualism. The tribunal agreed with this position. The tribunal ruled that as transsexuals are protected on the grounds of sex and physical or mental disability, "the respondent's washroom policy discriminated against the complainant on both of these grounds...."
"The decision is an important step in confirming that transgendered people have a right to be free from discrimination under the Code," said Mahil. "The tribunal member accepted, on the evidence, that transsexuals in transition who are living as members of the desired sex should be considered to be members of that sex for the purposes of human rights legislation. The complainant was a woman at the time of the washroom incident, and therefore her choice of the women's washroom was appropriate."
B.C.'s chief commissioner, Mary-Woo Sims, is pleased with the decision. "We now have a clear, legal recognition that discrimination against a transsexual is discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as recognition that, where there is medical evidence, such discrimination may also be based on disability," said Sims. However, Sims also expressed concern that the decision will not help in a number of outstanding complaints of discrimination based on gender identity. "The commission's mandate is not simply to provide a remedy once discrimination has occurred, but also to prevent discrimination."
In January 1998, Sims made a number of recommendations for improving the protections available under the Code. "We asked the provincial government to consider adding the ground 'gender identity' to the Code," she said. "Although the tribunal's decision answers some of the concerns that led the commission to make that recommendation, it by no means guarantees an appropriate degree of protection to the highly vulnerable members of the transgendered community in British Columbia. As the tribunal member noted, society in general assumes that every individual is either a male or a female, when in fact the issue of gender is more complex. Our proposal to include a clear statement that discrimination on the basis of gender identify is prohibited will help people in B.C. understand that discrimination against transgendered people is prohibited by our legislation."
As yet, the provincial government has provided no indication about which of the recommendations made by the commission will become law.
To view a full text copy of the Tribunal Decision please see the BC Human Rights Tribunal web site at http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca
Ms. M alleged that the Vancouver Lesbian Connection (VLC) had discriminated against her regarding employment because of her sex and/or political belief; and regarding a service or facility customarily available to the public because of her sex. Ms. M is a transgendered female in transition and in fulfillment of a requirement of the Gender Identity Clinic, she attempted to join the VLC. Ms. M was refused a membership because, she was told, she had been raised "as a boy." Ms. M wrote to the VLC suggesting that they open membership to transsexual lesbians. In May 1996, the VLC did change its policy and opened membership to transgendered and bisexual women. In the fall of 1996, Ms. M began attending the VLC and became a member. She volunteered in the library, did some photocopying and faxing, and helped set up for some Fund-raising events. Ms. M essentially attended the VLC whenever it was open.
In March 1997, Ms. M contributed to a newspaper article in which she outlined her beliefs about gender. VLC board members expressed disapproval of Ms. M's comments and referred to her as "aggressive and mannish." Two weeks following this discussion of the article, a board member approached Ms. M, along with other VLC members, and insisted that she leave the VLC for improperly using the computer. Ms. M denied the accusation and insisted on an explanation but did not receive one. The next month, Ms. M received a letter from the VLC addressed to her former, masculine name. It included a GST refund cheque sent to the VLC for the complainant and a letter admonishing Ms. M for having used the VLC address. Following another exchange of letters between Ms. M and the VLC in a local periodical, Ms. M received a letter from the VLC informing her that her membership had been suspended for one year and prohibiting her from attending VLC events.
The claim of discrimination regarding employment was not supported because Ms. M was not found to have an employment relationship with the VLC. The claim for discrimination in the provision of services was upheld. The VLC was found to have treated Ms. M adversely by suspending her membership and prohibiting her from attending VLC events. Because Ms. M's use of the term "female" was contested by board members, Ms. M was characterized as "aggressive and mannish," and her GST cheque was sent under a masculine name, the VLC was found to have discriminated against Ms. M because of her sex. The VLC was ordered to cease its violation of the Code and to pay Ms. M $3,000 for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.
Ms. F alleged that her employer had discriminated against her regarding terms and conditions of her employment because of her sex and/or disability; and that her union had discriminated against her on the basis of sex and/or disability. Just prior to the hearing, her employer settled with Ms. F; hence, the union was the sole respondent in the hearing.
Ms. F is a transsexual woman who has been living as a woman since 1975. She worked as a taxi driver for 15 years and in 1993 was hired as a call-taker in the dispatch office of the same company. A complaint about Ms. F's use of the women's washroom was made to the company's general manager who relayed the complaint to the union's business representative and scheduled a meeting to discuss the issue with Ms. F. The union representative did not inform Ms. F of the meeting and decided that, because Ms. F's shop steward had made disparaging comments about her gender, another shop steward should represent Ms. F at the meeting. This chosen steward was, in fact, the person who had made the complaint against Ms. F. When Ms. F did not attend the meeting, she received a letter of reprimand from the general manager for her absence, noting that the letter would be placed on her personnel file. Ms. F then contacted the manager and, for the first time, was informed of the complaint. Ms. F wrote a letter of resignation; however, after consideration, wrote a letter retracting her resignation. On the same day she received a letter from the manager accepting her resignation.
Although the company later accepted her retraction and agreed to remove the reprimand from her personnel file, the union representative was not aware that Ms. F could return to work and there was confusion concerning the timing of her return. Ms. F did not receive any written indication from her employer that she could return to work. Ms. F wrote to her union requesting that it pursue a grievance on her behalf. The union refused to support her grievance and stated that the washroom complaint seemed "valid."
Ms. F was found to have been discriminated against on the basis of her sex and disability. She had been treated adversely through the union's repeated failure to contact her about the complaint, its "glib and dismissive" response to her reasonable questions, and its validation of the complaint made against her. Ms. F's transgendered status was a factor in that treatment. The union was ordered to pay Ms. F compensation for lost wages and $5,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.
October 3, 1998, By JEFF HARDER – Queen's Park Bureau
TORONTO – No more sex changes please, we're Ontarian.
The province's Conservative government will no longer fund high-cost sex change operations, sources told the Saturday Sun. "We feel it is not a medically necessary operation and public tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere," a senior government official said.
"The money will now be applied to cardiac surgery. The changed has been instituted (yesterday)."
In the 1997-98 budget year, taxpayers were billed $122,000 for eight sex changes. The public purse has funded 48 of the procedures in the last six years.
Conservative MPPs Marcel Beaubien and Frank Sheehan had been lobbying for an end to public funding for "lifestyle" operations. "I think we have a lot more pressing priorities," Beaubien said at a 1997 committee meeting that reviewed health spending.
"If I had a choice between sex changes and heart surgery, I think the money should go to heart surgery," Sheehan added.
Ontario's former NDP government defended subsidized sex change operations and refused to delist the service.
Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer recently delisted testicular implants, wart removals and flu vaccines. The cost-cutting moves will save $50 million a year.
Canada's Armed Forces came under heavy public fire in September after military doctors agreed to cover the $30,000 cost of a sex change for a male soldier. Defence Minister Art Eggleton defended the man's right to apply for the operation.
"If a person has a right to consideration under a provincial plan, they have a right to consideration under our plan," Eggleton said.
In Ontario, sex changes were granted only after Toronto's Clark Institute completed a psychological review. Then, the patients were sent to American or English hospitals for the necessary alterations.
For most people, gender is defined by one’s body. But that’s not correct, says John Scott Cowan, vice-principal of operations and finance at Queen’s University.
On Friday, Cowan oversaw the modification of one area of the women’s changing room at the Queen’s athletic center in order to accommodate a staff member who is in the process of changing to the gender she believes she was born to be.
People born with the physical attributes of one sex who feel themselves to belong to the other, are sometimes referred to as transgendered or transsexual. Often, people in this situation undertake hormonal or surgical therapies to change their bodies to reflect their sense of gender.
"People who are not dealing with these rights issues all the time tend to place too much emphasis on the surgical transformation, rather than what’s in the person’s head," said Cowan.
The questions around the changing room highlight issues around a variety of changing gender roles, he said.
"Take the issue of single parents with children too young to be on their own, but too old to be in a single-sex area, such as … a father with a nine-year old daughter."
Cowan said Queen’s is studying the creation of changing rooms.
Original Assumptions
"The original design assumed [changing rooms] would always be used by 18- to 20-year-olds or dual-parent families."
When the staff member in question, who was not named by Cowan, wanted to use the changing rooms, there was a period of adjustment by the staff of the athletic center.
"I spent some time discussing the issue with staff," said Cowan.
"There was a concern other women patrons wouldn’t know what the situation was and occasionally men have ended up in the women’s change room when they were not supposed to be there."
At first changing facilities were provided at a remote spot that was not convenient for the person involved. After consulting with the staff, Cowan arranged on Friday for part of the staff area in the women’s changing room to be modified with a curtain and a bolt.
"This gives [the person in question] privacy and doesn’t mean isolating her," Cowan said.
Cowan said there was legal precedent for this kind of issue, but mostly to do with washrooms, where the question of nudity does not come up.
"The real problem is not everyone is an expert and people are entitled to some training," said Cowan.
Source:
Christine Varga, Kingston Whig-Standard, March 22, 1999.
Don’t read too much into the gender-specific icons on change-room doors: the world cannot be simply divided into stick-figures and stick-figures with skirt. Not everyone entitled to use the female or male washroom fits into the traditional dichotomy of the sexes.
In Canada, the law protects the rights of people who are biologically transitioning from male to female or female to male. On Queen’s campus, the administration has taken an important step towards respecting those rights: accommodating transgendered individuals in the Physical Education Centre change-rooms. To do otherwise would be to violate the basic human rights of a group that is often misunderstood on campus and in Canadian society in general.
Some members of the Queen’s community, however, have expressed a valid concern that the policy will conflict with the need for women to feel safe in the change-rooms. The very presence of an individual with male anatomy in the women’s change-room, regardless of their stage of transitioning, will make some women uncomfortable.
While the comfort levels of women in such a private space is indeed important, it does not justify closing the door to transgendered individuals. With time and education, people will learn to respect the rights of a group that is only now becoming visible in mainstream society.
In the meantime, the Queen’s administration should continue its policy of accommodating the needs of transgendered people on campus. These efforts, which will be guided by the recommendations of the Transgendered/Transsexual Policy Group, are a progressive step towards making Queen’s a more equitable place for all people.
The existence of such a policy group is an encouraging sign that Queen’s will soon be ready to answer an even tougher question than PEC change-rooms: who can live in Chown Hall.
Source:
Queen’s Journal, April 1, 1999
Pity the poor YMCA. Christian in the most ecumenical sense of the word, the Y is among the most inclusive, community-minded civic institutions on the face of the Earth. The Y is not the sort of outfit that you think would need scrutiny from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. You would be wrong.
A couple of years ago, a citizen by the name of Michelle Josef applied for a female membership at Toronto's West End Y. She insisted on using the women's changing room. Just one catch: Although Ms. Joseph self-identifies as a woman, she is, anatomically speaking, a man. Until quite recently, her name was Bohdan Hluszko.
"I identify as a woman. I live as a woman. I am a woman," declares the statuesque green-eyed redhead. "It would be totally inappropriate for me to use the men's change room."
The Y thought about it. As much as it sympathized with Ms. Josef, it had its many anatomically female members to consider, some of whom are young girls. It decided they would be very uncomfortable sharing their facilities with Ms. Josef, and said no. It offered Ms. Josef a male membership, instead, until such time as her male member is removed by sex-change surgery.
"She wants all the rights of the person she's changing to," explains a polite official from the Y. "We respect that. But until she's made the change fully, the women's locker room is not the place she should be."
Not satisfied with this answer, Ms. Josef took her case to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It has been studying the situation for nearly two years now, during which time it has held lengthy discussions with both parties. All hope that a compromise can be reached, though it's difficult to imagine what that might be.
If this were a mere washroom case, instead of a more complex locker-room case, it would be a slam-dunk for Michelle. A few months ago, British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal ruled that anyone who says she's a woman has the right to use women's washrooms. It ordered a gay bar to fork over $2,000 to a transsexual patron for injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect after she was kicked out of the ladies'. There are no precedents yet for locker rooms. Human-rights commissions in both Ontario and British Columbia have become newly obsessed with the rights and claims of the transgendered. Why is this? Perhaps the people who work at these bodies are just fascinated by what goes on in washrooms. Or maybe, with sexism and racism on the wane, they're simply running out of other injustices to remedy.
Transgendered people have as much right as anyone else to fair treatment. And no doubt some of them aren't treated all that well. But it's prudent to keep their woes in proportion. By the most generous estimates, they make up no more than 0.002 per cent of Canada's adult population.
Nonetheless, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has declared the oppression of the transgendered to be a major issue that deserves a massive public-education campaign. Last week, it released a detailed discussion paper on the subject that is full of challenges to traditional assumptions. For example, it says the idea that all babies are born either male or female is "one of the great myths of our culture." The writer thinks this myth is deplorable, perhaps because it's only 99.995 per cent true.
Among the questions raised by the human-rights commission are these. Should we add "gender identity" to the long, long list of prohibited grounds for discrimination? Should there be a third neutral option after M and F on forms that ask you to check one? Should the pejorative term "gender dysphoria" be replaced with a more liberating term, such as "gender gifted"? How can the general public be sensitized to the differences among transsexuals, cross-dressers, intersexed individuals, drag queens, drag kings, and female impersonators? How do we eradicate the presumption of "gender essentialism," which perpetuates the doctrine of two sexes? And so on.
One senses that a decade's worth of hard work lies ahead for enterprising human-rights bureaucrats. Meantime, Ms. Josef fights bravely on. She works in the music business and, before she started her hormone treatments, she was a drummer with Prairie Oyster, a successful country-music band. When she started to pluck her eyebrows, the band cited creative differences, and let her go. She smelled discrimination, and got a tidy settlement. Now, as well as taking the Y to the Human Rights Commission, she's taking the Ontario government to court because it won't pay for sex-change surgery any more. She argues that's a violation of her human rights and the Canada Health Act. "It's very inhuman treatment to leave someone dangling, so to speak," she told me.
Source:
Margaret Wente , The Globe and Mail, Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Toronto – Oh, those zany transgendered people!
What a larf (Check One: Male, Female Or Gender Gifted – Margaret Wente, Nov. 2).
Reminds me of the good old days, when one could openly mock Jews, racial minorities, gays and the disabled.
The solution to the YMCA's conundrum (what to do with a woman sporting odd genitals) is simple: Install an enclosed changing cubicle in the locker room and an enclosed stall in the showers, and respectfully suggest to the person in question that she cover her midriff while walking between the two. Why doesn't the Y have such facilities in place already for those who, out of personal or religious sensitivity, prefer privacy?
It's said that one of the ways of determining whether a society is civilized or not is to observe how it treats its minorities. The Globe and Mail might ponder this wise adage the next time it considers running a story on the transgendered.
Human Rights Office Main Page
General Information | Policy & Procedure | Anti-Racism |
Sexual Harassment
Sexual & Gender Diversity | Stop It Program | Positive Space Program
Transgender/Transsexual Policy Group | The End to Hate Project
Important Faith Dates | Dear Jen | Human Rights Initiative Award