A combination of factors can explain the current political environment. There has been an increase in media attention to transgender issues in the past year. And there has been a grassroots movement that has been spearheaded by transgender individuals for equality in the workplace. The internet has made a world of difference in people’s access to information. So the transgender community is in a much better position now than it was just ten years ago.

Author Vanessa Sheridan has a new book out called The Complete Guide to Transgender in the Workplace to help businesses get up to speed so that their employment practices are in compliance with the ENDA. Sheridan says that she was inspired to write the book because she wanted to reach a wide audience with her writing. “This book is immensely important because an inclusive ENDA means that every business must be open to hiring and retaining transgender employees. When ENDA becomes law, companies will have to at least consider the issue, whether they want to or not.”

Sheridan explains that her book will help companies become proactive on the issue. The book includes some basic introductory chapters to help employers understand what transgender means, but it also has suggestions for drafting company employment policies, as well as sample training materials.

One of the primary issues that employers will have to consider if ENDA becomes the law of the land is the great bathroom debate. Everybody pees. However, transgender people often have to debate with themselves about whether or not they should use a public restroom. Transgender individuals often hold it in, rather than risk getting assaulted in a restroom. Either way, bathroom access can present serious health issues, and the great bathroom debate needs to be resolved. According to Sheridan, there are two potential solutions:

• All employees should use the restroom designated for the gender that they are presenting, or
• Unisex bathrooms should be available

There are also chapters about coming out as transgender in the workplace, both for the transgender worker and for their coworkers and employer.  Not surprisingly, Sheridan advices that the best thing you can do when someone comes out to you as transgender is to use the correct pronouns.

The Complete Guide to Transgender in the Workplace is an awesome resource. It has helpful information for people who are unfamiliar with transgender issues, but it’s also a useful tool for those of us who know about transgender issues but want to do more as an ally. It’s such a great book that we’re giving away a copy here on Queercents. Leave us a comment about why you can benefit from this book and how you intend to put the information into practice, and we’ll send you a free copy courtesy of ABC-CLIO Publishers.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, HR 3017, is pending in the House of Representatives, and has the public support of 164 Members of Congress. Another 40 are likely to vote yes, but have not yet made their support of the bill public, as far as we know. This makes a total of 204 in the yes column. 218 are needed for a majority in the House. Passage is likely, but we’re not yet clearly there as of today. You can get the specifics on our spreadsheet. If you’re in one of the swing districts (highlighted in yellow), call your Representative. (There is a link to contact info on the spreadsheet on the top right.)

The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate. Our estimates suggest there are currently 58 likely yes votes, and there are a few Democrats whose support is unclear, and a few fair-minded Republicans who may be willing to cross party lines in favor of job equality. You can get the specifics on our Senate spreadsheet.

Legislation will probably be introduced in the Senate soon, and we will want to ask our Senators to co-sponsor the legislation when that happens. Hearings will probably held in the House in early fall, featuring testimony for and against the bill, followed by a vote in the House, if party leaders determine there are enough “yes” votes for passage. If and when passed in the House, the bill will hopefully go to the Senate for a vote shortly thereafter. Whether or not it gets to a floor vote depends again on party leaders determining that there are enough yes votes for passage. If and when passed in the Senate, it will go to President Obama for signature.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
The most effective means of ensuring there are enough “yes” votes for passage is meeting with your legislator in your home district during the August recess. Of course we’re all busy with other things, but if you want them to say “yes,” you must say “yes.” You can sign up for a meeting here.

Telephone calls from people in the legislator’s district are the next most effective means. You can find contact info for unconfirmed US Reps here, and contact info for unconfirmed US Senators here Full contact info can be found at www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/.

You should put your legislators’ phone numbers on speed dial, and make friends with the office aides. Call early and often. Put information about your legislators’ position on our Wall at Inclusive ENDA so we can update the spreadsheets.

Acting together, we have made great strides toward passage. I believe that ENDA will pass, if we continue to be smart and targeted in expressing our support to our legislators by means of meetings and phone calls.

Thank you for your work in supporting an inclusive ENDA.

To get daily updates, join the Inclusive ENDA Facebook group, and sign up for the Legislator of the Day e-mail alerts.

This link will allow you to email a legislator who is undecided on ENDA, and tell him or her of your support for HR 3017, an inclusive ENDA that protects both sexual orientation and gender identity from job discrimination.

So without further ado, here is TODAY’S LEGISLATOR OF THE DAY: * * * drum roll please * * *

Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana

Rep. Ellsworth is a Blue Dog Democrat, but he voted for ENDA in 07. He’s undecided on this year’s ENDA bill, HR 3017. Please let him know why an inclusive ENDA, protecting both sexual orientation and gender identity, is important to you and yours.

Email: http://bit.ly/P1KTB

Tel: 202-225-4636

I’m not going to give you a script, because otherwise these letters will be disregarded as astroturf. You just tell ‘em in your own words why HR 3017 (ENDA) is important to you and yours, if it is.

Who is Rep. Brad Ellsworth?
According to Wikipedia, John Bradley Ellsworth, born September 11, 1958, is the Democratic congressman for Indiana’s 8th congressional district. The district is located in the southwestern portion of the state, and includes Evansville and Terre Haute. In 2006, he defeated the Republican incumbent by 61% to 39% and in 2008 defeated the Republican candidate 65% to 35%. He opposes abortion, gun control and illegal immigration, and is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of socially conservative Democrats. He has become close friends with Heath Shuler, a fellow conservative freshman Democrat from North Carolina.

Ellsworth (and Shuler) recently voted against the Hate Crimes bill that included sexual orientation and gender identity.

From this, one might conclude that Ellsworth would not vote for HR 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, and in supposing so, one would be quite, quite wrong.

Rep. Ellsworth voted for ENDA in 2007, whereas his friend Rep. Shuler voted against. So he’s not quite so bluish as some of the other Blue Dogs.

According to Wikipedia, he has a BA in Sociology and an MA in Criminology. He started his career in the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department. Over the next 23 years, he held every merit rank, and was twice decorated for heroism in the line of duty. While serving in the Department, Brad Ellsworth instituted the first Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program in the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation. He later attended and graduated from the FBI National Academy.

He ran for Sheriff in 1998 and won by a large margin. He was unopposed running for a second term. In 2005 he announced his intention to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for Indiana’s 8th Congressional District, which was held by six-term incumbent John Hostettler.

The rest is history.

ENDA has an excellent chance of becoming US law this year, if the grassroots gets smart and gets targeted. The House is almost there, with 200 Representatives having taken a public position in favor, and 60 more likely yeses out there, bringing us well over the 218 needed for passage. The Senate is going to be more of a firefight because of the larger and more split constituencies that they represent, but there are probably (I emphasize probably) more than the 60 needed to preclude a filibuster. ENDA is also the greatest good for the most people, for it will have a direct impact on a larger segment of the LGBT community than any of the issues on our plate. Most of us work, and far fewer are hate crime victims, serve in the military, or want to get married.

The right to discriminate against us is the right to keep us unemployed and underemployed and marginalize both our economic and personal lives. Furthermore, the House is very, very close to a clear and public majority on ENDA, and the Senate now has the power to shut down any filibuster after the seating of Senator Franken, with probably enough votes to do it.

The House has a majority of votes in favor of ENDA, even though not all the cards are yet on the table. The question on the House side is whether the more weak-kneed of the Representatives will cave at crunch time, when the whip count occurs in preparation for the vote in the Fall. But House districts are generally more unified politically than states. Senators must satisfy an entire state full of people, usually one-third liberal, one-third conservative and one-third totally undecided at any given time. The question on the Senate side is a little different. The question there is whether there is sufficient political will in the first place. This is what we are seeing with the Hate Crimes bill, which most recently has been attached by the Senate Democratic leadership to a defense authorization bill that President Obama vowed to veto because it requires spending on very expensive and very useless fighter jets. If the Senate really wanted the Hate Crimes bill, they would face it head on. They can’t because it will expose too many Senators to a no-win position: support the gays and face withering fire from the conservative and many undecideds, or oppose the gays and face withering fire from the liberals and many undecideds. So they attach it to a defense authorization bill, and that provides cover for Senators no matter what they do.

The key is going to be meeting with Representatives and Senators during the August recess, when they have time to meet with constituents in their local districts. Legislators control their own calendars, instead of the insane marching drumbeat that happens when Congress is in session.

A meeting is so much more powerful than an email or a phone call. Emails and phone calls get marked down as numbers on a list, if they get marked down at all. They help, but much less than meetings.

Face to face meetings are what really make the difference for an undecided legislator. Think about yourself, and take some issue that you don’t know a whole lot about, but are being asked to vote on.

Let’s take as an example the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009. Pretty exciting, eh? It establishes a cleanup fund for reclamation of old mines by subjecting production of minerals from any mining claim to royalties and fees. Is it a good idea? Do we need this? Is this addressing a major problem or is it some legislator paying back a debt to a constituent on an issue no one else cares about? Is it going to drive marginal businesses under?

I don’t know, I don’t really care, and you probably don’t either.

Which of these scenarios are most likely to get you to support the bill?

1) Your aide tells you some emails came in supporting the bill.
2) Your receptionist says you got some phone calls supporting the bill.
3) You meet with three constituents who vote in your district, nice people all of them, and they tell you how mine-damaged land is a major problem for them, and why this Act is needed to improve the quality of their lives. Each of them tells a story about what it’s like living with these abandoned mines and why it’s bad.

I don’t know about you, but I’d go with number 3.

Now, number 3 doesn’t happen all that often. Why? Because, in fact, most people are too busy with their lives to stop and take the effort to set up a meeting and go and pitch their legislators. It’s also a bit frightening. What will I say? How will they react? Will I be rejected? So a meeting of legislators with ordinary constituents happens once in a blue moon. Oh, the corporate constituents and the lobbying groups and the nonprofits are in there every day. But an ordinary person who experiences discrimination? Rarely.

That’s got to change.

The Inclusive ENDA Facebook campaign is sponsoring a sign up page that will arrange for meetings with your legislators in August. You can click here to sign up for those August meetings with your Senators and Representatives.

Cross-posted at: Feminists For Choice

“He is proud of his decision and grateful for the support and respect that has already been shown by his loved ones,” Bragman said. “It is Chaz’s hope that his choice to transition will open the hearts and minds of the public regarding this issue, just as his ‘coming out’ did nearly 20 years ago.”

Here’s a smattering of news clips on the announcement:

• Associated Press
• Fox News
• Huffington Post
• NY Daily News
• CNN

Here at Queercents we have lots of great information on transgender finances, transgender financial discrimination, and how to pay for sexual reassigment surgery from the very people living this experience every day.  It’ll be interesting to see how celebrity status does or does not impact Chaz’s experience.  Stay tuned as I’m sure our writers will be all over it.

Photo: Amazon.com Cover of Bono’s book.

Representative Barney Frank stated in an interview in the Washington Blade this week that ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a proposed federal law that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, will be re-introduced in the coming months.  The “gender identity” provision would protect employees from discrimination based on non-conformity to gendered stereotypes of identity and expression. In the last introduction of the bill in 2007, “gender identity” was originally included, but was later removed into a separate bill because it appeared to some in Congress that there was insufficient support for its inclusion. This move was very controversial within the LGBT community.  Ultimately, the split ENDA bill containing only sexual orientation (referred to by some wags as “SPLENDA”) won the vote in the House, but the gender identity-only bill was not brought to the floor.  The Senate did not bring either bill to its floor either.

The section of the article discussing ENDA is available by clicking here.

In a hopeful sign, Congressman Frank said he expects congressional hearings on ENDA before the measure sees a vote because lawmakers must still be educated on the bill’s gender identity provisions. This suggests that Congressional Democrats are now more committed to the necessary education efforts than at the time of the last introduction. While hearings were held on the issue of “gender identity” last time, they were held only after “gender identity” protection was stripped from the bill. While there is more momentum behind an inclusive ENDA now, the education piece is still crucial.

If education is what they want, they education is what they’re going to get. I’ve started a campaign via Facebook called Inclusive ENDA, along with Pam Spaulding of Pams House Blend, Bil Browning of Bilerico.com, and Waymon Hudson of Bilerico Florida.  This is a campaign focusing particularly on those Members of Congress who need more information on why an inclusive ENDA is important. The vision of the group is to spread the message of inclusion to all of Congress, particularly those most in need of hearing this message, and to educate them about why sexual orientation and gender identity protection is important for all people — straight or gay or transgender.

We started the group Friday night.  We’re now over 1,000 members strong.

Please join us by clicking here. Here is what we are asking you to do:

Please contact your US Representative today by calling the U.S. Capitol at 202-224-3121. Give the operator your zip code and ask for your Representative. Ask your Rep’s office whether he or she has a position on an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and explain that means both sexual orientation and gender identity. Ask whether the position is definitely yes, probably yes, undecided, probably no or definitely no. Anything other than yes or no should go in the “undecided” category. Then, post it on the Wall at Inclusive ENDA (click here for the link), where it will be transferred to spreadsheets showing the position of all U.S. Representatives and Senators.

Do the same for your Senators.

Our next steps after this will be to contact those in the undecided columns and help to educate them about the importance of an inclusive ENDA.

Give the transgender community some sugar, honey, and keep SPLENDA out of the House.

It seems to me that we Transgendered, as a group, are not overly prosperous.  Oh, I know that some of us are, but they seem to be the exceptions.

She goes on to relate some stories about the economic hardships of various transgendered people she has known – hardships that come about because certain people shun the transgendered. In the stories, their employers fire them or refuse to promote them. Then she states that society “uses money as a weapon against the transgendered”:

Think about it.  Money is the perfect weapon.  You can’t exist in this world of ours without it.  And to get it you have to work.  Deny access to work, you deny access to money.

At first I assumed she was speaking figuratively. I soon discovered she wasn’t. First she cites Marx and then attempts to use historical references to support her thesis:

If Marx is right (and I think he is) those in control of the society would, of necessity, use money to control the others.

Let’s look at history.

In ancient Rome the Patrician class used money to control the Plebian class (which was vastly larger and potentially dangerous).  Keep them poor.  Give them the bare means for subsistence (bread) and distraction to keep them occupied (circuses).

Here, her confusion becomes apparent.

What is money?

Let’s start with Wikipedia:

Money is used as an intermediary for trade, in order to avoid the inefficiencies of a barter system, which are sometimes referred to as the ‘double coincidence of wants problem’. Such usage is termed a medium of exchange.

Money may also be used as a store of value, although whether our fiat currency system allows such a usage is highly debatable. The important point here is that money is a tool used to trade wealth. It provides an easy way to exchange what you have produced for what others have produced.

This point is critical – the whole reason for money to exist is trade. If you want what someone has produced, you offer them an amount of money representing the amount of your own labor you are willing to trade for that item. This is a completely voluntary relationship. If you don’t want what they have to trade, then you don’t trade your money to them. If they think their goods are worth more than the amount you’re willing to trade, they refuse to sell to you. The transaction does not occur unless both parties agree to it voluntarily.

What is a weapon?

Back to Wikipedia:

A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack or defense incombat

A weapon is what someone uses when they don’t care to come to a mutual agreement. When someone wants the fruits of your labor without having to convince you to trade it voluntarily, that’s when they use a weapon. A weapon is used to physically harm you so that you hand over your money or the fruits of your labor against your will.

Money only comes into existence once a society has reached a certain level of civilization. Weapons, on the other hand, have been used by brutes since at least prehistoric times. They’ve been used to take food or land from others, to rape, and to kill. Weapons are used to apply physical force, which is the opposite of voluntary trade.

What is power?

Now let’s return to Ashley’s first history reference. She asserts that in ancient Rome, the Patrician class used money to control the Plebeian class by keeping them poor. So it sounds like the Patricians just refused to trade with the Plebeians, and that’s how they kept them poor? They just refused to hire them for work or buy goods from them? Not quite.

The Patrician class was able to keep the Plebeians poor by exercising political power. Only Patricians were allowed to run for political office, so the entire Roman Senate was Patrician. Initially, Plebeians were not even allowed to know the laws being enforced against them.

Clearly, money was not the tool of control – it was political power. The nature of political power is the power of physical force. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force to achieve its ends. This was the weapon used to keep the Plebeians poor.

Now let’s continue with Ashley’s other examples:

What was the Spanish Inquisition really about?  It was about purging the wealthy Spanish Jewish class from the nation (and stripping them of their wealth to boot).

So was money the ‘weapon’ used to achieve the Spanish Inquisition? Of course not. They didn’t pay the Jews to leave, and if they had you could hardly call money a weapon. The government set up a way to legally torture and kill them – with real weapons. Once again, political power – physical force – was the tool used to take their wealth.

The Spanish conquest of South America?  It was about enslaving an entire people (talk about marginalizing) so they could steal their gold and silver.

This is another example of a government using ‘legal’ physical force against a group of people. Money was the object, but not the weapon.

The colonization of North America?  That was about stealing an entire continent from the Native Americans.  (To them, the land was the wealth.)  And then, to control them, they were herded onto barren reservations and left with no skills or opportunities to survive or prosper in this strange new world that had replaced theirs.

Ashley continues making the same mistake over and over again. Stealing is an act of force. It’s the opposite of trading. The settlers didn’t get the land by refusing to trade with the Native Americans – they used physical force to drive them off of it, with the backing of a government.

Every new minority immigrant group that ever came to this country?  Forced to take all the menial low-paying jobs nobody else will do.  (My God! There goes the neighborhood!)

That almost seems kind. These days we seem to want to throw immigrants right back out of the country. In any case, a menial low-paying job is appropriate for an immigrant who has no skills, but even a skilled immigrant can have trouble getting a good job thanks to all the laws that have been passed to make it harder for them – laws that make licenses, certifications, degrees, etc, from other countries worthless here. This is, again, political power at work.

And then there’s the most heinous, calculated, blood-chilling and cynical example of all: the Nazis and the Holocaust they perpetrated against an entire people.  They methodically passed laws denying German Jews access to work and stripping them of their financial assets.

Exactly! Here Ashley hits the nail on the head without even realizing it. The Nazis used the government’s monopoly on physical force to take the wealth of the Jews, and eventually to march them into gas chambers. The weapon being used here is physical force – and not just physical force on an individual level, but the legalized force of government coercion.

Money is not a weapon; it is a tool of voluntary trade.

The difference should be obvious at this point. If you’re still confused, try to imagine using money to force someone to do something. Now imagine using a gun to do so. See the difference?

So what exactly is Ashley complaining about? She is complaining that some people refuse to enter into voluntary trades with the transgendered (refuse to hire them). This is certainly true, but it is not the same as using physical force against them. This is where the line is drawn between freedom and tyranny.

Refusing to enter into trades with people we disapprove of is something free people do every day. For instance, I wouldn’t use a dating site that grudgingly accepts gays after having lawsuits filed against them. I might avoid businesses owned by Mormons or companies who don’t offer same-sex benefits. It is my right as a free individual to choose who I will and won’t associate with. They are free to live their lives as they see fit, and I am free to live mine as I see fit, without either of us exerting physical force against the other. This is the nature of individual freedom.

Meanwhile, many groups use the government to take my money against my will. Through the wonders of government coercion, I fund all sorts of businesses, charities, projects, schools, and wars I disagree with. If I don’t pay for them, people with guns come and take me to jail. Some people are thrown in jail just for smoking marijuana, or trading sex for money, or any number of other victimless crimes that only involve two adults engaged in voluntary trade. This is the nature of tyranny.

I would certainly encourage Ashley and any other transgendered to put themselves out there and convince people to hire them by making rational arguments, changing minds, and setting a good example. Even better, start your own businesses and compete with the bastards that wouldn’t hire you.

But don’t confuse the exercising of freedom with the exercising of political power. If you can’t tell freedom from tyranny, you’re likely to trade the former for the latter. We have precious little freedom left as it is.

—-
Bill posts at the gaycapitalist.com, a blog about politics, economics, philosophy, and more.

Photo credit: stock.xchng.

1. Why was The Transgender Job Bank founded?
In 2007 I attended the Southern Comfort Conference. Joe Solmonese, the President of HRC was invited to give the keynote address at a banquet attended by 800+ transgender people, many of them leaders in our community. He talked about how HRC was 100% behind trans people and would never accept a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which was currently being debated in Congress. A short two weeks later it was reported that HRC had begun to actively lobby AGAINST the transgender inclusive version of ENDA going so far as to use what they call their Congressional Scorecard to threaten members of congress to either vote against the inclusive version of ENDA or be given a bad score.

The LGBT community responded in an unprecedented manner condemning HRC’s actions. Some Congresspeople also stood with us against the discriminatory legislation despite the fact that they were later to receive a bad scorecard from HRC.

The Transgender Job Bank was founded in response to those events. I feel that transgender people should not rely on LGBT advocates to speak for them or to push forward a trans specific agenda. It’s my opinion that although many LBG advocacy organizations include ‘transgender’ in their mission, transgender issues are not a priority. While we are absolutely supportive of lesbian, bi-sexual and gay issues, TJobBank was created to address transgender specific needs in the workplace.

In many cases, transgender people find it impossible to ‘closet’ ourselves. We’re frequently ‘outed’ based on our appearance, our voices and our history. Unlike LBG people, a background check can ‘out’ us. In a large part, we’re sitting ducks. Trans workplace issues are trans specific and require specific focus. We believe that everyone deserves the chance to earn a living.

2. How many clients do you serve each year?
In our seven months of operation, we have had 12,140 unique visitors to our site and 514,313 hits. These numbers don’t include repeat visitors.

3. How can an employer post a job listing to your site?
Posting an opportunity to our site is very easy. No account is required. Simply fill out our online form with the job information and a contact email address and submit – that’s all there is to it. All contacts are kept confidential.

Candidate applications are sent via the website. Both prospective employers and candidates have the ability to remain anonymous if they should choose to do so. Privacy is our number one concern.

4. How does T Job Bank screen employers?
The first time an employment opportunity is placed into our system, it is automatically sent to a staff member for review. If the ad is approved, any listings made using the same employer’s contact email are automatically posted going forward. There is also a link on the site for candidates to notify us of invalid postings.

5. Do you have any requirements that they have an inclusive nondiscrimination or anti-harassment policy?
All employers who post to our site, by the act of doing so are considered trans inclusive. We do not check for written policies, however by posting opportunities to our site, a prospective employer will expect applications from transgender candidates.

6. Are there other factors you use to determine if an employer is trans inclusive?
Corporations listed on the HRC Corporate Equality Index as being 100% inclusive are assumed by the HRC to be trans inclusive although they are not validated as such. This is NOT the case at TJobBank.

Those same corporations are personally invited to post opportunities on TJobBank. To date, there has been one job posted by any of the corporations on the CEI, a job for a cook in Los Angeles posted by Sodexho. It should be noted that this particular opportunity received more applications than any other job ever posted on TJobBank, by far.

We’ve also invited members of UnitedEnda to post opportunities and many have done so.

7. What would you say are a few of the top policy issues the Obama administration will face in order to live up to his campaign promises of representing the transgender community?
President Obama has promised to support the passage of a unified ENDA. The White House website states that Barack Obama believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. We would like him to fulfill this promise.

Obama’s transition team’s EEO policy protects gender identity. We would like to see those protections expanded to the entire US government and would like the Obama administration to drive those changes.

It’s understood that the state of the economy and fighting two wars will take precedence in the beginning stages of the Obama administration. We do however hope that these issues will be addressed within the first term of this administration.

————–
Thanks so much for your time, Jillian. And thanks for providing this amazing resource for our community.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that. It’s the fifth sentence in the Declaration of Independence. It’s my favorite sentence in one of my favorite documents. It is also the most important sentence in the entire document. It is both the Founding Father’s explanation of, and justification for, committing high treason.

In much less eloquent early 21st century English here’s what it means:

If a wrong exists in society, it is not just the right of the people to act to correct the wrong; it is their moral and ethical obligation to do so.

Based on some of the comments to my last piece, what I am going to say next may come as a surprise to some: I don’t write about money. I write about something more important.

Money is only a symptom, one of many, of the bigger problem: the way in which our Euro-centric society treats the Transgendered.

Some have accused me of self pity. That could not be farther from the truth. I am far happier now than I have ever been.

Although it is true that Craig was financially better off than Ashley, I continue to be able to live the comfortable upper middle class life style that I have always lived, even in this challenging economy.

Some have suggested that I focus my writings on what is good and right about being Transgendered.

That would be a waste of time. Right is right. Right requires no action.

Wrong, on the other hand, requires action.

This isn’t about money.

It’s about wrong and the need to act against it.

If you own your own business or make your living through the Internet, great, if that is how you wish to make your living.

If it is not, if you are forced to do so because you cannot find employment in your chosen field because you are Transgendered, that is discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong. Action is required to correct the wrong.

It was suggested that an internet job was ideal because it didn’t matter what color your skin is or what religion you practice. The fact that this was mentioned indicates that society has forced the writer to consider the implications of both of these factors.

That is coercion, the power of the many oppressing the rights of the few. That is an abridgment of an individual’s liberty, one of the inalienable rights the Declaration of Independence so eloquently defends.

Coercion is wrong. Action is required to correct the wrong.

Some have asked if the journeys of M to F’s and F to M’s are significantly different from one another. My experience and those of my friends tell me yes.

In spite of years and years of progress, this is still largely a male-centric society. When it looks at a male to female Transsexual it does so with confusion. It wonders: why would a man want to give up being a man – to be a woman? I’ve actually been asked that question (more than once).

Conversely, when society looks at a female to male Transsexual it does so with no confusion. It thinks: of course “she” wants to be a “he.” Who wouldn’t? I have F to M friends who have had that conversation with people on more than one occasion.

That is sexism.

Sexism is wrong. Action is required to correct the wrong.

To focus on the good and ignore the wrong you must make an accommodation with the status quo. To make an accommodation with the status quo requires a tacit acceptance of the status quo. A tacit acceptance of the status quo helps to perpetuate the status quo.

The status quo is wrong. Action is required to correct the wrong.

This isn’t about money. It’s about wrong and acting to correct the wrong.

Susan, in response to your question asking how you can help, I have this to say:

Any action is better than inaction.

Thank you for wanting to act. Thank you for understanding. Thank you for “getting it.”

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.” -Gandhi

Photo credit: stock.xchng.

As a queer-identified person with a transgender wife, there is absolutely no question that we have sometimes felt the sting of discrimination. There have been times when we’ve been rejected by family members, or by people we thought were our friends. There have been times when we’ve questioned whether the reason we didn’t land a particular job or were laid off had more to do with who we were than our qualifications, skill level, or the current economy. There is no question that the life of a transperson is often difficult, but our experiences have shown that it’s not as bad as some people think.

Recently, Ashley posted several articles that outlined the difficulties she and other transfolk have encountered in finding employment, health insurance and appropriate health care. While I certainly don’t want to minimize her experiences or the experiences of others, we’ve found that it is possible, and not that difficult, to find decent employment, insurance and health care.

We’ve all heard the horror stories. We see them on the Internet, in the newspaper and even occasionally on television. We know bad things happen to good people, and those are the stories that make the evening news. Stories of happy, quiet and content transpeople who transition and make successes of their new lives rarely make headlines. They just disappear into the larger society and move on.

How do I know about these people? It’s because we and our friends are part of that group.

My wife and I started our own business eight years ago. The company we’d been working for suddenly downsized, and we found ourselves unemployed. What seemed like a disaster turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise. Our former employer, who was getting out of a particular line of business, gifted us their largest client. We walked out the door with a small severance package, health insurance through COBRA, and a client that had enough work to keep us busy for several months. Although the first few years were tough, and we definitely made less money than we had previously, it wasn’t because we were queer. Starting a new business almost always means a cut in pay until the business is established.

As soon as we formally started our business, we inquired about health insurance. Our agent told us that most insurance companies need to see that a business has been operational for at least a year before they are willing to issue a group policy, so we took advantage of our COBRA coverage until our business could qualify on its own. As soon as we could, we transferred to the new policy, and were both immediately covered. The fact that my wife was trans seemed to be a non-issue, as she had transitioned on the job with a previous employer and her eligibility for health insurance coverage transferred with her.

As for health care, we’ve had some amazingly positive experiences. When my wife left the big city and moved over 250 miles to live with me, she initially kept her primary care physician, because she was very experienced in trans health issues. The commute quickly became difficult so I went in search of a new doctor. We picked a small clinic near our home, and I made an initial appointment. While I was there, I asked the doctor if we could speak “off the record.” When he seemed willing, I told him about my wife and her medical needs, and asked if he would be willing to see her. He agreed, and was amazingly supportive and helpful, despite not having any prior experience with transgender medicine. A number of years later, my wife ended up in the hospital needing emergency surgery, and the staff was mostly friendly, courteous, respectful and helpful. They made sure that paperwork was filled out correctly so that we had no insurance billing problems.

In all honesty, I don’t think that our experience has been unique. Even though we live in a relatively small town, we know of six transpeople. All of them have had successful and productive lives before, during and after transition. Two became successful lawyers after transition, one is currently in law school, one more transitioned on the job while working in law enforcement and later retired, one was a retired college professor, and another worked as a technician for a local utility company. Of this group, only one (the technician) had significant problems on the job, but many of her difficulties were exacerbated by her often angry and negative response to those problems.

When my wife transitioned on the job at a large technology corporation, she was scared, but she approached the situation with a positive and empowered attitude. She was open and willing to do whatever self-advocacy she needed to do in order to make the process as easy as possible for everyone. Sure there were the usual discussions about bathrooms, pronouns and the one person who missed the memo and was terribly confused when “he” returned from vacation as a she, but in the main her experience was positive. It took a certain amount of careful planning and preparation, but it all worked out very well in the end. When she resigned to move in with me, her employer expressed considerable regret that she was leaving.

As much as it would be easy to say that being able to “pass,” or blend in flawlessly in your chosen gender, is the key to a successful life, in my experience that’s not always the case. Some of our friends pass very well, others do not. In our group, the most successful are those with the most education, life experience and skills. Even those without fancy college degrees are doing well. Our friend who retired from law enforcement, who also happens to have the double whammy of being extremely tall and transitioning very late in life, now works in a managerial position with a local publishing company. Despite her relative lack of education as compared to the lawyers in our group, she has a job that she loves and is able to afford her own home, a new car, and all the trappings of a middle class life.

As for my wife’s ability to pass, she falls somewhat in the middle of the road. Some people she meets will never question that she is anything other than authentically female and would be surprised to learn otherwise. Others figure it out almost immediately and quickly ask questions. We only volunteer information to our closest friends, but when asked a direct question, we answer honestly. Even so, it seems the majority of our clients have been more interested in the results we can bring to the table, rather than asking embarrassing questions about our lifestyle.

I think the key to post-transition success has more to do with attitude than anything else. In our circle of friends, the happiest and most successful are the folks who were the happiest and most successful before their transition. Their positive, optimistic and empowered attitudes carried them through the most difficult parts of their lives, and enabled them to advocate for themselves effectively.

While I will agree that money does equate to power inasmuch as it applies to being able to buy the things we want and need, I don’t believe for one second that the cards are completely and irrevocably stacked against trans men and women. The opportunities are out there, but it takes considerable preparation and planning beforehand. Transitioning at the lowest point in life, with no emergency fund and no backup plan probably isn’t wise. Likewise, if you live in the middle of a conservative bible-belt town, you might be well served by moving to California and establishing yourself before you take the leap.

Trite though it may seem, I think we often make our own reality. And, just like in real estate, location matters.

Photo credit: stock.xchng