pm a out
decemtiei l. 2000 •
F ire- G rilled H an ger S teak '
became the first Oregon transsexual to file a
complaint of discrimination with the Bureau of
Labor and Industries.
I was the first Oregon transsexual to have
my complaint of discrimination investigated
by BOLI and the first to have a finding of rea
sonable cause issued in my favor. I also was
one of the transsexuals who testified to the
Legislature in 1997 when our recently won
statewide civil rights protection came under
attack.
D ean K otula
Dorchester,
Mass.
You call this protection?
To the E ditor :
As it’s currently worded, Portland’s pro
posed ordinance prohibiting discrimination
on the basis of gender identity promises to be
less than effective— and even harmful— to
some of us.
Unlike ordinances adopted here in the
Pacific Northwest by Benton County, Olympia
and Seattle, Portland’s proposal doesn’t specif
ically include transsexuals, transvestites or
transgenders by direct reference. Consequent
ly, any assertions the proposed language is
based on Seattle’s ordinance ignore the fact
that Seattle’s clear and unequivocal references
to transpeople have been deleted from Port
land’s ordinance.
Portland’s current prohibition against dis
crimination on the basis of sexual orientation
leaves nothing to chance—so in addition to a
reference to “sexual orientation,” city ordi
nance specifically refers to “male or female
homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.”
Transpeople deserve the same careful inclusion
that other sexual minorities enjoy—so trans
sexuals, transgenders and cross-dressers should
be specifically referred to in Portland’s ordi
nance in addition to the proposed definition of
“gender identity” as “a person’s actual or per
ceived sex, including a person’s identity,
appearance or behavior, whether or not that
identity, appearance or behavior is different
from that traditionally associated with the per
son’s sex at birth.”
Even more troubling is the fact that Portland
proposes “protection” markedly weaker than the
dozens of U.S. cities that have implemented
clear and unequivocal civil rights protections for
transsexuals and other transpeople. Portland’s
current proposal is filled with exclusions not
seen in any other ordinance or statute with
which I am acquainted—and I have literally
dozens on file.
Portland’s proposal would subject transsexu
als such as myself to an unprecedented require
ment to produce documents to gain admittance
to certain public accommodations. Portland’s
proposal also provides grounds for completely
excluding us from public accommodations we
now can enjoy.
For example, Portland’s proposed prohibi
tion of discrimination specifically does not
apply to “policies or regulations involving com
petitive sports and sports-related records.”
Although post-operative transsexuals now fully
can participate— as their new sex— in an
employer’s co-ed or same-sex softball teams,
Portland’s proposed ordinance provides a legal
basis for excluding us.
The same goes for the city’s own recreation
programs. Even the neighborhood bowling alley
would have grounds for excluding us from a
league should the proposed ordinance be adopt
ed as it now reads.
Portland’s unique ordinance also proposes
not to invalidate or restrict “policies regard
ing the use of gender-specific facilities where
public nudity is involved that require formal
documentation that an individual is transi
tioned in order to use a facility of their new
gender,” and the ordinance defines such doc
umentation as “a court order establishing a
n o tc ib le s
change of sex, letter from a reputable surgeon
verifying the performance of sex reassignment
surgical procedures, passport or birth certifi
cate.” So instead of relying upon my Oregon
driver’s license for identification as I do now,
under Portland’s proposed ordinance I could
be denied access to locker rooms unless I pre
sent my birth certificate or the decades-old
letter from my surgeon attesting to my sex-
reassignment surgery.
And just exactly what does the proposed
ordinance mean 'Ey “gender-specific facilities
where public nudity is involved” ? Could I be
required to present a passport just to use a mul-
tistalled womens restroom? And if a department
store customer doesn’t think I look sufficiently
female, will I have to produce a “court order
establishing change of sex” just to access the
women’s dressing rooms?
Another exclusion from the proposed ordi
nance’s “protection” pertains to “policies or
regulations involving sex-segregated housing
for persons under the age of 25.” With the
increasing availability of sex-reassignment
surgery, there are young post-operative trans
sexuals who currently can be admitted to
same-sex college dormitories who could be
legally turned away under Portland’s proposed
ordinance.
If Benton County— home to Oregon State
University— didn’t see any need to exclude
dormitories from its law’s prohibition of dis
crimination, why should Portland? And given
that Portland doesn’t consider sexual orienta
tion grounds for excluding young gays and les
bians from college dormitories, then why
should Portland now propose that young post
operative transsexuals be subjected to such
discrimination?
Many of the other exclusions cited in Port
land’s proposed civil rights protections are rife
with similar problems— problems that cities and
counties across the United States never have
encountered and consequently never felt the
need to address. Like the Oregon Citizens
Alliance’s recent “Student Protection Act,”
Portland’s proposed ordinance seems to be a
solution in search of a problem.
It is possible to extend civil rights protec
tions to cross-dressers and other transgen
ders— as well as strengthen protections for
pre-operative transsexuals— without under
mining the existing rights of post-operative
transsexuals. To do so, Portland must be will
ing to follow the example set by cities and
counties— particularly here in the Pacific
Northwest— that already have taken a con
cise and unequivocal stand in support of trans
people’s civil rights.
The best of intentions are insufficient to
provide the best civil rights protections. We
also must trust the accumulated wisdom and
experience of governments that have set the
standards we should aspire to exceed rather
than retreat from.
$5
«o
£
GQ
M argaret D eirdre O ’H artigan
Portland
ju s t r P T ^ ^ H
W ilci,,,e8
S )
^
to the editor
Letters must be
^
accompanied bv a phone number
for verification purposes.
Anonymous letters and letters
without sufficient contact information
will not be published.
c o r r e c tio n
What’s better than 69? 70! Darcelle became Portland’s most fabulous septuagenarian Nov. 16
In the Nov. 17 “Diversions,” Ain’t Misbe
havin’ director William Earl Ray was misidenti-
fied. Just Out regrets the error.
BRIDGEPORT
W ALE HOUSE f
3632 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
www.hridgeporthrew.com