Over
the past couple of weeks there has been some news about the rights of
transgender people. The first story is the same old story of what bathroom a
transgender person should use. Last year the University of Pittsburg expelled a
transgender student for using the men’s locker room because his identification still
showed him as female. In February, of this year, the Anti-Discriminatory Policies
Committee unanimously ruled that there should be a policy that protects the
rights of transgender students to use the restrooms of their identified gender.
On March 20 the University of Pittsburg ignored this recommendation and created
a policy that transgender people have to use the restroom that matches with
their birth certificate. The only response as to why the adoption of this policy
is from the vice chancellor of public affairs, that faculty and students can
use the bathroom of “his or her declared gender identity after he or she has
obtained a birth certificate designating the declared gender." The policy sacrifices
the safety of the transgender person in order to make uninformed people feel
better about their on gender identity. This policy reinforces the idea that being
cisgender is superior to being transgender by making cisgender seen as “real”
and transgender as being “fake or artificial.” It also ignores the fact that it
is very expensive to change ones gender marker. In many states it requires a
surgery. It also ignores the fact that many transgender people do not want to
change their bodies. One of the faculty member’s at the University of Pittsburg,
Emilia Lombardi, a transgender woman that has worked at the university since
2003, has made it clear she will continue to use the women’s room because of
safety.
The
next story takes place in Minnesota. In 2010, a transgender woman was dropped
from her husband’s insurance because the insurance company claimed that a
marriage between a man and a transwoman violates the Defense of Marriage Act. The
insurance company also had a counter-claim of $80,000 because the insurance
company felt that they were defrauded by the couple. There have been several
cases like this over the past few years but this is the first one were the
transgender person actually won!
Christine
Radtke started transitioning back in the mid 1980’s and had gender reassignment
surgery in 2003. The couple was married in 2005. The insurance’s argument was
that since Christine was born male, her marriage was actually a same-sex couple
not an opposite-sex couple. Chief Judge Michael J. Davis’s ruling, in his own
words: “The Plan was unambiguously written to allow all persons who are legal
spouses under Minnesota law to be eligible family dependents. The Fund’s role
was to ascertain Minnesota law. It was not the Fund’s role to impose its own
definitions of gender and marriage upon its participants. In this case, the
Fund ignored all evidence of the State of Minnesota’s view of Plaintiff’s sex
and marital status. The Fund’s decision was not only wrong, under a de novo
review, it was a flagrant violation of its duty under any standard of review.
In sum, the Fund erred when it terminated Plaintiff’s participation as an
eligible family dependent. The Fund’s termination of Ms. Radtke is reversed and
she is reinstated as a participant as of April 19, 2010.” The Fund was also
ordered to pay the couple all medical expenses incurred since April 19, 2010.
While
I am pleased with the way this case turned out I find it disturbing that policy
makers are consistently making laws and policies that attack LGBTQ people and
the only ones, in the government, that are fighting for Queer rights are
Federal judges. Many people attack judicial activism but when our Legislative
branch ignores us where are we supposed to go?
Article
sources
University
of Pittsburg Gender policy
Marriage
Case overview
The Decision
of the marriage case:
CHRISTINE ALISEN RADTKE vs. MISCELLANEOUS
DRIVERS & HELPERS
UNION
LOCAL #638 HEALTH, WELFARE, EYE & DENTAL FUND
No comments:
Post a Comment