Loading ...Advance Indiana lashses out at Garrison
Famed radio talk show host Greg Garrison recently addressed Proposal 622 on his show, leading Advance Indiana to write:
Garrison repeatedly lambasted the HRO as the legal recognition of the “homosexual lifestyle” and “acts of sodomy,” ignoring the conclusion reached by every major medical organization in the nation that sexual orientation and gender identity are genetically or biologically determined.
Advance Indiana is reaching here because no where near “every major medical organization in the nation” has concluded that way. In fact, no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. But all of that is beside the point, which is the legal implications of Indy’s new law. Because the law bars discrimination on “gender identity” grounds, the definition of the phrase is important. Garrison raised the isssue as one which could permit cross-dressing in the workplace, leading Advance Indiana to opine:
…Garrison completely exposed his complete ignorance of “gender identity”, believing that cross-dressing and gender identity are synonymous.
But Garrison’s “complete ignorance” seems to be well founded. The law defines “gender identity” as the following:
Gender identity means an individual having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior different from those characteristics traditionally associated with the individual’s assigned sex at birth.
A plain reading would seem to suggest that this encompasses cross-dressing, and case law seems to have concluded the same. Several cases note that crossdressing is a leading symptom of “Gender Identity Disorder.” In Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. (WL 31098541), for example, crossdressing was used to diagnose the plaintiff as having Gender Identity Disorder.
Psychology Today reinforces the notion that, although the two are not synonymous, cross-dressing is significant evidence of gender identity differences. What this means, practically speaking, is that an employee who decides to cross-dress and is subsequently fired for those actions may have grounds to sue under Proposal 622, just as Garrison suggested.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:51 am
When Fort Wayne City Council members were considering the ordinance that passed here, they were told it would be merely symbolic. Because the state does not have sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination statutes, cities can’t really enforce such a definition, either. I think other cities with their own sexual-orientation ordinances are operating under the same assumption. But the Indy ordinance does include sanctions. Is this a case where the rules are different for Indianapolis than for other cities in the state?
December 21st, 2005 at 9:56 am
Having not devled into the municipal/state particulars of this particular statute, I’d feel safe guessing that’s the case. In a large number of areas - consolidation being one of them - Indianapolis is given a different set of rules than the rest of the state. So it’s fair to guess that that’s the case here as well.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:18 am
Josh–
I’m glad to see you’re reading Advance Indiana. I understand you think very highly of Greg Garrison, but I think you did great disservice to your readers by omitting the anti-gay bigoted rhetoric which accompanied his remarks.
On the issue of gender identity, you omitted some important points from the pscyhology article you reference. Such as the following: “Identity issues may manifest in a variety of different ways. For example, some people with normal genitals and secondary sex characteristics of one gender privately identify more with the other gender. Some may cross-dress, and some may actually seek sex-change surgery. Others are born with ambiguous genitalia, which can raise identity issues.”
Moreover, as the Oiler case points out-it was the medically diagnosed condition of gender identity disorder which strengthened the complainant’s case. He just didn’t feel like dressing up as a woman one day and show up at work that way and start using the women’s bathroom as Garrison would have you believe.
The fact that children are born and the doctor has to tell mom and dad, “Would you like a boy or girl” instead of saying, “It’s a Boy” or “It’s a Girl” should tell you something. I would really urge you to sit down and talk to some of these individuals one on and one so you can better understand and appreciate who they are.
The fact is everyone is not born with perfectly male or female organs and absolute association with only one sexual orientation. In your ideal world, they would be. But the reality is something quite different. People of fundamentalist Christian views like yourself once urged that any children born mentally retarded or with other birth defects were the children of Satan and should be put to death. Of course, we now know that not to be the case.
I also noticed that you conveniently omitted Garrison’s claim that the constitution did not protect intimate same sex, which he likes to call “sodomy”–another one of those words the Bible thumpers obsessively use to make you feel all icky and sinful. He apparently didn’t read the Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy laws as violation of a person’s right to due process under the 14th Amendment.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:19 pm
I omitted one very important point. You asserted, as did Garrison, that an employee could their employee if they are fired for “cross-dressing.” The HRO provides no private right of action. The employee may file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Board to seek redress. They don’t get a second crack at the bat if they don’t like the outcome as they do under the federal EEOC and state civil rights laws. The employers, however, can ask a court to review an outcome with which it is not satisfied. The truth is that it is a very weak law written from a pro-employer perspective.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:22 pm
The word “sue” is missing from my second sentence if you had difficulty comprehending my thought.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:56 am
I understand you think very highly of Greg Garrison, but I think you did great disservice to your readers by omitting the anti-gay bigoted rhetoric which accompanied his remarks.
To begin with, you know nothing about what I think of Greg Garrison. Here I addressed only his arguments, so what I do or do not think of Garrison is both unknown and irrelevant. You make broad, sweeping assumptions about my beliefs when you do not know them.
You go on to write extensively about Garrison’s remarks regarding homosexuality in general. But this is a side show intended to distract from the issue at hand - does Proposal 622 sanction cross-dressing in the workplace?
As I note, court cases have held that cross-dressing is sufficient evidence of gender identity differences. I do not doubt that there are more indicators of differences, as you have noted, but the important point here is that courts do not require all of these differences to prove gender identity differences. As such, a cross-dresser that is fired for cross-dressing sufficiently meets the requirements of the law to file a complaint under its provisions.
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Josh,
You still don’t understand the difference between a transgender person the HRO seeks to protect and a cross-dresser. A transgender person transitions, with the assistance of medical doctors, psychiatrists and counselors from one gender to another. Eventually, they will become a person of the other gender, both psychologically and physically. A cross-dresser, on the other hand, simply likes dressing up like a person of the other gender to satisfy a personal fetish or to perform for entertainment value. These individuals live out their lives according to their sexual orientation, in most cases, they are straight men, whose lives are otherwise no different than any other straight man, except they occasionally like cross-dressing. These men don’t show up to work in drag. In fact, they typically hide this side of their life from other people. All of the examples Garrison and his calls cited involved transgender persons. The cases to which you refer, while they may reference cross-dressing, that term is only properly used at the beginning of the process of transitioning from one gender to another–before the person’s physical characteristics have been completely changed to a person of the other gender.
I am not surprised that you or Garrison don’t understand this distinction. I myself didn’t understand it until I had a transgender client who was discriminated in the workplace explain it all to me, and then I took the time to read and learn more about it.
Believe me, transgender persons don’t like being confused with cross-dressers. You might say for those people it is a choice. For transgender persons, the drastic steps they take are the only way they can mentally live inside their bodies.