In a few recent posts I have mentioned that Obama supports legal protections that would extend to "cross-dressers" and a whole bunch of other behaviors. I get the usual gaseous emanations about how I "made it up..right wing plot to make BO look bad bla bla ". As usual though the record shows BO does in fact support legal protection for "gender identity expression". Not just "gender" mind you - "expression" is the key word.
Not even Barney Frank supported laws that would force recognition of gender identity expression - not even Barney Frank.
First this from BO's site:
"Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/civil_rights/
So there it is - "gender identity expression"
Laws protecting such behavior would mean protections for things like cross-dressing and
allowing people to use the restrooms and dressing rooms they prefer - these are things the trans agitators want. Barney Frank mentioned this as a reason he could not support gender identity expression as a civil right protected by the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (EDNA) .
It's easy to see where the trans agitators want to go by looking at school and employment guidelines in California from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center (Yale University Initiative for Public Interest Law being a sponsor)
Restroom accessibility:
"All employees have a right to safe and appropriate restroom facilities. This includes the
right to use a restroom that corresponds to the employee?s gender identity, regardless of
the employee?s sex assigned at birth. No other employee?s privacy rights are
compromised by such a policy."
Dress Codes
"California state law explicitly prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to dress in a manner suitable for that employee?s gender identity. While the most efficient way to avoid liability on this issue is to do away with all dress codes based on gender, any employer who does enforce gender based dress codes must do so in a non-discriminatory manner. This means not only allowing a transgender woman (for instance) to dress the same as other women, but that her compliance with such a dress code cannot be judged more harshly than the compliance of non-transgender women".
Sex segregated job assignments:
AB 196 does not prohibit an employer from making job assignments based on sex so
long as those assignments are otherwise in compliance with state law. However, in most
cases, transgender employees must be classified and assigned in a manner consistent with
their gender identity. (in other words an employer can give jobs based on being a man but if a woman says she is a man she must be included - this is mental illness)
http://transgenderlawcenter.or...1%20-%20full%20doc.pdf
Places have already been sued for not allowing trans peeps and cross-dressers access to the restrooms and dressing rooms they want.
"Loehmann?s settles human rights complaint with transgender woman"
http://www.chelseanow.com/cn_2...mannssettleshuman.html
Keep in mind now GID or gender identity disorder is still in the DSM as the disorder it is
http://www.mhsanctuary.com/gender/dsm.htm
BO would elevate a disorder to a protected status and force employers and schools to jump through very bizarre hoops ( its no wonder jobs go to China with junk like this)
BO is most radical supporter of gender identity expression - a reason the sex alphabet obsessives (GLBTQXYZ) made him the candidate over Shrillary.
"He also vowed to work towards passing the ?strongest possible bill? to help the LGBT community and claimed to be probably the most vocal presidential candidate on gay issues to the general audience in history."
"The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
Keep in mind a lot of the behavior protections use terms like "real or perceived" - as in a persons real or perceived gender identity and expression
"?It?s time to live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. Let?s enact federal civil rights legislation to outlaw hate crimes and protect workers against discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity or expression."
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid55553.asp
Of course Obama perverts the meaning of the "founding promise" of the US to mean 99.9 percent of population needs its rights compromised for cross-dressers and such. Its weird man...very very weird
Not even Barney Frank supported laws that would force recognition of gender identity expression - not even Barney Frank.
First this from BO's site:
"Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression."
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/civil_rights/
So there it is - "gender identity expression"
Laws protecting such behavior would mean protections for things like cross-dressing and
allowing people to use the restrooms and dressing rooms they prefer - these are things the trans agitators want. Barney Frank mentioned this as a reason he could not support gender identity expression as a civil right protected by the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (EDNA) .
It's easy to see where the trans agitators want to go by looking at school and employment guidelines in California from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center (Yale University Initiative for Public Interest Law being a sponsor)
Restroom accessibility:
"All employees have a right to safe and appropriate restroom facilities. This includes the
right to use a restroom that corresponds to the employee?s gender identity, regardless of
the employee?s sex assigned at birth. No other employee?s privacy rights are
compromised by such a policy."
Dress Codes
"California state law explicitly prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to dress in a manner suitable for that employee?s gender identity. While the most efficient way to avoid liability on this issue is to do away with all dress codes based on gender, any employer who does enforce gender based dress codes must do so in a non-discriminatory manner. This means not only allowing a transgender woman (for instance) to dress the same as other women, but that her compliance with such a dress code cannot be judged more harshly than the compliance of non-transgender women".
Sex segregated job assignments:
AB 196 does not prohibit an employer from making job assignments based on sex so
long as those assignments are otherwise in compliance with state law. However, in most
cases, transgender employees must be classified and assigned in a manner consistent with
their gender identity. (in other words an employer can give jobs based on being a man but if a woman says she is a man she must be included - this is mental illness)
http://transgenderlawcenter.or...1%20-%20full%20doc.pdf
Places have already been sued for not allowing trans peeps and cross-dressers access to the restrooms and dressing rooms they want.
"Loehmann?s settles human rights complaint with transgender woman"
http://www.chelseanow.com/cn_2...mannssettleshuman.html
Keep in mind now GID or gender identity disorder is still in the DSM as the disorder it is
http://www.mhsanctuary.com/gender/dsm.htm
BO would elevate a disorder to a protected status and force employers and schools to jump through very bizarre hoops ( its no wonder jobs go to China with junk like this)
BO is most radical supporter of gender identity expression - a reason the sex alphabet obsessives (GLBTQXYZ) made him the candidate over Shrillary.
"He also vowed to work towards passing the ?strongest possible bill? to help the LGBT community and claimed to be probably the most vocal presidential candidate on gay issues to the general audience in history."
"The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf
Keep in mind a lot of the behavior protections use terms like "real or perceived" - as in a persons real or perceived gender identity and expression
"?It?s time to live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. Let?s enact federal civil rights legislation to outlaw hate crimes and protect workers against discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity or expression."
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid55553.asp
Of course Obama perverts the meaning of the "founding promise" of the US to mean 99.9 percent of population needs its rights compromised for cross-dressers and such. Its weird man...very very weird
Facebook
Twitter