Autumn Sandeen protesting Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Despite the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the military still does not allow people who are transgender to serve. Still, many people only transition after they’ve completed their service, creating complications for their continued receipt of benefits. Now, the Pentagon has recognized its first gender change for a military veteran and established a process — albeit a bit burdensome one — for future trans vets to do the same.

Blogger and activist Autumn Sandeen was informed earlier this month that the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) has been updated to show her gender as female. Department of Defense spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen provided the following statement to BuzzFeed:

For the last several years, the Department has made requested changes to gender in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS) for military retirees. A gender change in DEERS may be accomplished by the retiree presenting the following documents:

- A letter from the doctor who performed the surgery, documenting completion of a gender reassignment surgery
- A court order, legally changing the gender in accordance with applicable state law
- An original birth certificate
- A document, reflecting the sponsor’s name and if applicable, gender following completion of the gender reassignment procedure for a spouse

The Department will not change a gender in DEERS if it results in a loss of benefits to the spouse of the retired member due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The last point is noteworthy, in that the military is committed to making sure retirees receive spousal benefits without conflicting with the limitations of DOMA.

Still, as Sandeen points out on her own post, the hurdles for the gender change are somewhat extensive. The requirement that a trans person complete gender reassignment surgery is problematic because not all trans people want to get such surgery — particularly given sterilization is a consequence — and many cannot afford it. Further, the required birth certificate change is simply not allowed in all states.

Clearly, there are still many changes that need to made to allow trans people full inclusion in military service and the associated benefits, but this is a step in the right direction.

Reacting to yesterday’s historic passage of marriage equality, Nicole Theis, president of the Delaware Family Policy Council, told the Dover News Journal that the idea of gender is somehow under attack because of the advance of LGBT equality:

Nicole Theis, president of the Delaware Family Policy Council, said changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will have broad, untold consequences for society.

“It won’t stop here. Making marriage genderless changes the way government views parents. You can expect all government’s forms to reflect this. You can also expect further attacks on gender, probably even this session,” she said, alluding to a proposal that has not yet been filed that would extend nondiscrimination laws to cover transgender individuals.

Theis isn’t entirely wrong. Gender is a socially-constructed phenomenon, and thus it is pliable. Given how many consequences it has for society — particularly ongoing inequity for women and oppression of LGBT people — there is considerable impetus to dissect gender so that it can be better understood. Conservatives like Theis argue that gender norms are important and should be maintained — that fathers should be masculine and mothers should be feminine and these gender roles impact their parenting ability. But research on parenting doesn’t bear this out at all; in fact, there is nothing to suggest that the children of same-sex couples have any different understanding of gender than anyone else.

Further, attempting to reinforce gender norms through the law isn’t going to change whether people are transgender. Protecting transgender people from discrimination doesn’t increase how many people are transgender any more than not protecting transgender people will decrease how many people are transgender. The question underlying all LGBT issues is whether everybody should have the same opportunity to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if they are members of sexual or gender minorities. This means expanding how society understands and interacts gender instead of clinging to narrow prescriptions of the past. It’s just unfortunate that Theis sees this progress as an “attack.”

A group opposed to allowing gay Boy Scouts — “On My Honor” — has issued an open letter from its only apparent member, John Stemberger, urging opposition to the proposed change, which would allow gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders. Among the ten arguments are offensive lies and stereotypes about gay people, as well as arguments that aren’t even substantively relevant:

1. Allowing Gay Scouts But Not Leaders Is Inconsistent

This argument is actually valid, making it one of the weakest presented in the letter, because it supports an inclusive policy for all Scouts and leaders, not a continuation of the ban. The only inconsistency in the membership policy is that it excludes people who are gay (and atheist). On My Honor may even be correct that the inconsistency “will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit,” but that is the fault of the Boy Scouts of America for trying to cling to some form of discrimination.

2. Boy-On-Boy Sexual Contact Will Increase

This argument conflates sexual orientation with sexual behavior, while promulgating the myth that people who are gay are predatory. The implication is that gay teenagers should never even be allowed to go camping because they’re a threat to their straight friends. Such fear-mongering serves only to further demonize the gay community.

3. All Troops Will Have to ‘Facilitate Open Homosexuality’

This isn’t a new argument; it’s merely a complaint derived from a desire to discriminate.

4. So Many Will Leave In Protest That The Scouts Will Collapse

If “tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts” leave the BSA, as On My Honor suggests they will, it’s an insult to the very integrity of the program to begin with. Rather than supporting the many values and lessons the Scouts stand for, these individuals will prove their only reason for participation in the Scouts was because the organization is anti-gay.

5. Parents Will Lose Their Right To Shield Their Kids From Learning About Gay People

Like argument #2, this claim relies on the false assumption that being gay automatically makes an individual somehow more “sexual.” Having gay Scouts will not increase the level of discussion about sex anymore than having straight Scouts does. Even a “17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda” would honor the Scouts’ commitment to improving society by being helpful, friendly, courteous — and particularly brave.

6. The Scouts Are Caving To Pressure From Society

On My Honor is disappointed that it was just last year that the Scouts decided that banning gay Scouts was “the absolute best policy,” but now “BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family.” When that decision was made, the Scouts refused to explain it, likely because there is no sensible justification for it. Since then, the organization has lost the corporate sponsorship of Intel, UPS, and Merck, so it’s not surprising  its leaders became less attached to a policy they couldn’t even defend.

7. Units Who Don’t Comply Will Be Legally Vulnerable

Like argument #1, this concern simply reveals the inconsistency of allowing gay Scouts but not leaders. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of BSA’s policy in 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that the BSA engages in “expressive association.” If that expression is applied inconsistently, it would no longer define — or protect — the organization. This argument is simply a redundant concern that units will no longer be able to get away with discrimination.

8. The Policy Will Allow ‘Transgendered Girls’ In the BSA

First of all, transgender girls would probably be more interested in the Girl Scouts, which they’re actually welcome to join. Contrary to On My Honor’s fears, gender identity has nothing to do with sexuality whatsoever. Transgender boys should be allowed to join the Boy Scouts, but that form of inclusion is not addressed by this policy. The language “sexual preference” in the proposed change is disappointing, but only because it’s inaccurate nomenclature for sexual orientation.

9. Language In The Resolution Is Merely Symbolic

On My Honor seems to think it’s consequential that the “whereas” statements that justify the resolution will not be part of the policy once it’s approved. It apparently has no qualms about putting forth its own symbolic arguments.

10. Many In the Scouting Family Support Discrimination

On My Honor conveniently ignores the most recent survey that specifically addressed the policy on gay Scouts to cite an older survey with less supportive results. Still, trying to argue a “moral” point from a claim of popularity compromises what moral integrity the position even has.

It’s unclear if On My Honor represents anybody other than its founder, John Stemberger. Nevertheless, other anti-gay organizations like the Family Research Council are supporting his efforts. Through this open letter, he has shown not only a lack of understanding but a significant antipathy for the gay community. Scouts For Equality called the letter, “a new low,” but arguably this is the same low the Scouts’ policy has perpetuated for years.

Last week, the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation, Division of Insurance issued a bulletin clarifying key protections for transgender Vermonters in health insurance. The bulletin clarifies that Vermont law prohibits gender identity discrimination in health coverage, including through the use of exclusions limiting benefits for medically necessary services provided to transgender people.

The bulletin prohibits health insurers doing business in Vermont from unfairly excluding coverage for the care that transgender people need. The bulletin specifically states that:

• Medical necessity remains the fundamental standard of care and legal requirement for treatment provided to transgender people.
• Insurers cannot exclude coverage for medically necessary health care services for transgender people, including transition-related surgeries and other care provided for gender dysphoria and related conditions.
• Plans offered through Vermont’s Health Benefits Exchange are covered by the bulletin.

The bulletin also recognizes that the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in any health program receiving federal funds or by an entity established under the ACA, including Health Insurance Marketplaces.

Vermont joins a growing number of states, Including California, Colorado, Oregon, and the District of Columbia, in recognizing that removing unfair discrimination from health insurance does not raise costs, and is invaluable in helping transgender people lead healthy and authentic lives. Similar antidiscrimination policies are supported by expert medical bodies who say that the care provided to transgender people, including transition-related health care, is medically necessary for many patients.

Read the full bulletin and the FAQ.

Andrew Cray is a Policy Analyst for LGBT Progress.

The Philadelphia City Council passed a groundbreaking new bill advancing LGBT equality today with a sweeping 14-3 vote. Here are a few of the bill’s provisions:

• Businesses that offer employee health plans that include same-sex partners will receive a tax credit incentive.
• The city’s health care plan can not discriminate against non-union transgender city employees.
• There is also now a Transgender Health Tax Credit to allow companies to cover healthcare needs specific to people who are transgender.
• City buildings are now required to provide gender-neutral restrooms.
• The city’s nondiscrimination law now protects sexual orientation and gender identity, including public accommodations.

These simple changes will ensure that LGBT people have equal access to health services and the other benefits offered by the city. The comprehensive bill and the support it received will serve as a valuable role model for other cities to enact similar protections.

The National Organization for Marriage is very concerned about an anti-bullying lesson that took place at a middle school in Red Hook, New York. Students from Bard College talked to the middle schoolers about the existence of LGBT people, including identities such as “pansexual” and “genderqueer,” and roleplayed how to say no when asked for a kiss. According to NOM, this is a “terrible example” of the consequences of marriage equality, a point it made in three separate emails on Tuesday: one about Delaware, one about Rhode Island, and another for fundraising:

My friend, this is what’s at stake: our right to raise our children with our values, free from indoctrination into alternative “lifestyles” under the guise of “anti-bullying,” “tolerance” and “gender identity.” [...]

Politicians never forthrightly tell citizens that their daughters could be encouraged at school to kiss another girl or that their sons should always carry a condom. They don’t tell you that second graders can be taught about same-sex “marriage” in class, or that the existence of gay “marriage” would be used by a lesbian sex-ed teacher in Massachusetts to instruct her students in the details of having lesbian sex. And they don’t tell you about all the people who are sued or punished for refusing to go along with a gay “marriage” regime and who hold firm for traditional marriage.

It’s an agenda pushed by a set of people who truly believe that anyone who stands up for the simple truth that marriage is between a man and a woman because children have a right to both a mother and a father is a bigot and must be treated as such under the law. And as such, the law must be brought to bear to “correct” our hateful thinking and ensure that this “hatred” is not passed along to our children.

NOM is trying to defend forced ignorance. It doesn’t want children to learn that some of their classmates might have same-sex parents. It doesn’t want them to learn that some people have sexual orientations that aren’t heterosexual or gender identities that are not cisgender. And the fact that NOM refers to all of these identities as “lifestyles” suggests that they don’t want young people to have even the most basic understanding of the LGBT community. That deficit of knowledge is exactly what perpetuates the epidemic of anti-LGBT bullying in schools.

By obsessing over this non-story being driven by a few conservative parents, NOM once again confirms that its agenda is not limited to the issue of same-sex marriage. Indeed, they want families to fear LGBT people and the thought that their children might learn such a community exists — or that they might identify with it.

A transgender woman from New York was visiting Georgia last week when she was arrested for indecent exposure for allegedly exposing her breasts. However, once Ashley Del Valle, who has lived as a woman for two decades, arrived at police facilities, she was determined to be “technically a male” because of her genitalia and she was held in isolated cells in a facility that houses men. Roy Harris, Deputy Chief of the jail, admitted misgendering her, continuing to inaccurately use male pronouns to describe her:

HARRIS: First off, Ashley is still a man. I think he’s had some surgery, breast implants. But technically he is still a male which poses a problem. We do have a policy in place. Typically we put them in isolation. We do take particular caution with inmates such as this. We’re a nationally accredited jail and have a policy for this.

According to Del Valle, deputies referred to her as “thing,” “brotha,” and “nigga” and other male inmates harassed her throughout her visit:

DEL VALLE: They didn’t know where to put me. The young men there were out of control. They kept beating on my cell. It was pure torture. [...] I felt like I just wasn’t being treated like a human being.

She was held for three days before family members paid $3,500 to bail her out.

Though Del Valle was kept in a private cell, the fact that she was still surrounded by men still made her vulnerable to harassment. An isolation cell can also be a different form of torture, depriving an individual of any social contact. Whatever transgender policy the jail supposedly has, misgendering her and endangering her in such ways did not prioritize her safety nor convey even the most basic respect for her identity.

A McDonald’s franchise in Seattle, Washington provides a perfect example of how easy it is to make sure transgender customers feel safe using the restaurant’s restrooms. A policy posted on bathroom doors reads the following:

We respect the rights of all customers and employees. We believe all people must have access to safe and dignified bathroom facilities regardless of their gender identity or expression. Therefore, the following policy has been adopted for this restaurant at 1530 3rd Avenue.

Employees and customers may use any restroom that corresponds with and is based upon the gender identity they publicly and exclusively assert or express.

We are committed to the principals (sic) of non-discrimination as provided by Washington Law.

The notice has apparently been posted or at least in effect since Washington’s nondiscrimination law passed in 2006, but has gained new public attention due to a posting on Reddit this week. Protections for transgender people are causing concern in numerous other states. A trans woman was banned from a grocery store in neighbor-state Idaho simply for using the appropriate restroom there. A Republican state representative in Michigan is campaigning against a local nondiscrimination ordinance, suggesting warning signs should be posted in bathrooms trans people might use. And Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh (R) is trying to protect businesses who might discriminate against transgender people.

Ally Robledo

An Idaho Rosauers grocery store has filed trespassing charges against transgender woman Ally Robledo, banning her from ever shopping there. Her violation, according to Lewiston, Idaho Police Captain Roger Lanier, was “urinating while standing up”:

LANIER: The store security officer said he had been dealing with a problem over a couple days with the person going into the women’s restroom and urinating while standing up. [...] A male subject who was using the female restroom, and that made some women customers uncomfortable because of the appearance that a male was using their restroom.

The store employees didn’t want any further problems, and they chose to exercise their right to trespass this individual from the business. Anyone who owns or controls their property can make that decision.

Indeed, Idaho is one of 37 states that does not offer nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity in public accommodations, and state law entitles the owner of a property to deny access to anybody.

Robledo, who is 25, explained that when she was in school, she would be harassed in the men’s room:

ROBLEDO: When I did use the males (restroom) there would be people that would harass me in school. I would feel really embarrassed and there were times when I found myself in a lot of dangerous situations. [...] I’m a female trapped in a man’s body. It’s natural for me to go to the ladies’ room. Getting the no trespassing order for a public restroom was really painful.

Lanier said it wasn’t the police’s job to figure out “what makes a transgender.”

Robledo’s plight parallels an attempt by Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R) to ensure businesses can similarly ban trans people from using bathroom and locker room facilities. He fears that young girls will be traumatized if they happen to see a trans woman’s body in a changing area. Similarly, Michigan state Rep. Tom McMillin (R) believes that restrooms that might be used by transgender people should be marked with warning signs.

Meanwhile, transgender people are just trying to buy groceries and go to gyms like everybody else.

The city of Royal Oak, Michigan was on track to become the 22nd city in the state to establish LGBT nondiscrimination protections, but that measure is now being challenged at the ballot through a citywide referendum. State House Rep. Tom McMillin (R) issued a news release explaining why he thinks the protections would “violate the privacy rights of women and children”:

MCMILLIN: Why the city would want to force places like schools, businesses and fitness centers to allow men to use a women’s restroom or locker room – and allow boys to access girl’s restrooms and locker rooms in schools, is beyond me.

It certainly violates the privacy rights of women and children. At the very least, the council should have also included a requirement for warning signs on women’s and girl’s public restroom and locker room doors saying that women and girls may be confronted there by men who think they are women.

Like Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R), McMillin seems to be afraid that women and children might see a transgender woman’s penis. But transgender women are not “men who think they are women,” they are women. They are not predators, nor does anybody need to be warned that they might be in the same space. Indeed, McMillin seems to have little concern for transgender people’s same right to privacy or for their basic dignity and safety to use a gender-appropriate facility.

McMillin’s statement also claimed that requiring Christians not to discriminate against LGBT people is tantamount to “bullying”:

MCMILLIN: The discrimination and coercion this ordinance supports — that a Christian photographer or baker must, if asked, offer their services to a so-called ‘gay wedding’ or face a $500 per day fine is wrong… Bullying Christians is wrong, too.

Tom McMillin has previously said that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and a “choice” that people have “come out of.” In 2011, he proposed a bill to ban any Michigan municipality from extending LGBT nondiscrimination protections.