Complex questions surround state's handling of transgender inmates
There are about 1,700 inmates at Auburn Correctional Facility, of whom 1,698 or so are indisputably men.
Then there are Jessica Marie Brooks and Leslieann Marie Manning.
They are part of the small population of transgender inmates in New York prisons. Both say they’re receiving hormone therapy, and the physical changes are subtle but apparent.
…
Brooks and Manning say there is at least one other transgender person at Auburn, and more in other state prisons. That leads to two pertinent questions for New York state taxpayers: is gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, an actual affliction? And if so, is the state obligated to pay for treatment?
On the first question, experts agree that transgender people do indeed have a legitimate medical condition.
Gender dysphoria is recognized by the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association and is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an authoritative resource published by the American Psychiatric Association.
“Gender dysphoria is a medical condition, not a lifestyle choice. … It’s not something anybody would choose,” said Randi Ettner, chairwoman of World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s committee on incarcerated persons. “I think the layperson doesn’t understand this is a lifelong medical condition, most likely something the individual is born with, and that there is no cure for it.”
…
For Ettner and other transgender advocates, the legal implication for inmates is clear: the state has an obligation to pay to treat all medical diagnoses, including hormone therapy, electrolysis and sexual reassignment surgery for people who require them.
“The principle has to be that to the extent that we pay for health care for people in incarceration, then everyone who’s incarcerated should be treated the same way and all medically necessary care should be provided,” said Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York City. “We shouldn’t be targeting one small subset of incarcerated individuals and saying, ‘We don’t want to provide you care because we don’t like who you are.’”
State Sen. Michael Nozzolio, chairman of the Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections committee, disagreed, calling hormone therapy and other accommodations for transgender inmates “optional medical care.”
“I’ve long believed this is an inappropriate expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars,” he said. Hormone therapy costs about $100 a month and gender reassignment surgery is much more expensive.
Nozzolio annually sponsors a bill that would require inmates to make a co-pay for all medical care. It has never passed the Democrat-controlled state Assembly.
States have taken different approaches to treating transgender inmates. Most allow for some medical care with a proper diagnosis; the only complete ban, in Wisconsin, was struck down in federal court last August.
The New York Department of Corrections and Community Services formally recognizes gender identity disorder as a legitimate affliction and has a policy of maintaining hormone therapy for inmates who were diagnosed prior to their entry into custody.
Inmates who were diagnosed after their entry into custody can also begin hormone therapy with a diagnosis from a specialist and the approval of the department’s chief medical officer.
Both Brooks and Manning accused the prison administration of throwing up barriers to treatment, and both had to sue for the hormones they now receive.
Manning first requested hormones in 2002, then sued the state in 2005 and eventually received treatment starting in 2009. In the meantime, she stopped taking her anti-HIV medication and attempted to remove her testicles with a rubber band, according to court papers.
In 2004, Brooks challenged the state’s former policy that barred hormone therapy for new diagnoses and briefly gained national notoriety after a U.S. District Court judge sided with her. That decision was later overturned, and it was not until last June — more than a decade after her first request — that she started on treatment.
“You’ve got to fight for everything in here,” she said.
Both Brooks and Manning say they are currently receiving estrogen boosters and androgen blockers after having been diagnosed as gender dysphoric by an outside specialist.
Manning had to wait seven years, Brooks 11, and both said they are not receiving the dosage their doctors recommended, but the medications are having an effect.
…
Beyond access to medical care, the two transgender inmates both complained of verbal harassment and abuse from correctional officers at Auburn and elsewhere in the prison system. They gave specific examples of homophobic slurs and destruction of property like feminine undergarments.
“Some of (the officers) are more tolerant or accepting, and some of them might not like me, but they’re professional in their job,” Brooks said. “And some of them …are biased, prejudiced, everything’s just piling down on you and they don’t care. They just hate, and they’re comfortable with it.”
Their claims are corroborated by a 2007 report from the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, an advocacy and legal center for transgendered people that represented both Brooks and Manning in their lawsuits. It lists numerous complaints by transgendered inmates including multiple daily strip searches and having persistent reports of rape go ignored.
Brooks and Manning have filed only one formal complaint, according to DOCCS records. That came in 2002 when Manning accused an officer of calling her a homosexual.
Manning also has a grievance pending now after DOCCS’ chief medical officer in Albany denied her endocrinologist’s prescription for a bra, saying her breasts weren’t full enough to warrant one.
“They try to do everything they can to deny that you’re trying to be female,” Manning said. “There’s a couple of officers up there that will call you a fag, call you homosexual, say other nasty things. It’s just continual harassment.”
DOCCS does not have targeted transgender sensitivity training for its officers, but spokesman Peter Cutler said there are behavioral standards for all staff.
“We expect all of our staff, security and civilian, to perform their duties in a professional manner, which includes the fair and appropriate treatment of inmates,” he wrote in an email. “We have a variety of training programs for staff where sensitivity to inmates’ needs is emphasized.”
Morgan Hook, a spokesman for the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, assailed the Sylvia Rivera report as “unsubstantiated” because the inmates quoted in it did not give their names.
As for the specific claims from Brooks and Manning, he said NYSCOPBA and DOCCS take them seriously.
“Inmates are absolutely entitled to their rights - and NYSCOPBA members swear an oath to protect those rights,” Hook wrote in an email “Further, inmates should never be subjected to violence or harassment. … (But) this depiction of Auburn is uninformed at best, and dangerously misleading at worst.”
…
(via transqueery)
Source: transfeminism
Violence Against Women Act now includes LGBT protections
The Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 measure working against violence and providing funding for victims, has been modified to include protections for LGBT people and immigrants.
Senate Democrats added provisions to the act that would help gay and trans* victims of violence and help immigrant victims in matters pertaining to visas. Some Republicans have protested the changes, not surprising considering the current debates over women’s issues and contraception in politics, though many support them.
“Protecting women against violence shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” Democratic senator Patty Murray of Washington said on the Senate floor Thursday.
Assuming (and hoping) these changes stick, this is a really huge move. Domestic violence doesn’t always get the attention it deserves in terms of policy, and this should help.
Source: gaywrites
Dallas Community College District Votes to Add Trans Protections
LBGT activists celebrate in Dallas
During their monthly meeting Tuesday, trustees of the Dallas County Community College District voted to amend their nondiscrimination policies to include protections for gender identity and expression.
The Dallas Voice reports that of the three policies amended, two covered students and one protected employees.
At the meeting, five people spoke on behalf of the issue, after which district board chair Jerry Prater said, “We have gotten your message loud and clear.”
The Dallas district is Texas’s third community college to add protections for transgender people.
Read the full article here.
Puerto Rico’s lawmakers to exclude LGBTQ persons from hate crime protections
The Puerto Rican Senate has approved an amendment to the island’s penal code that would strip protections for LGBTQ persons in the hate crime statues.
LGBTQ persons were not the only affected group of citizens as lawmakers also voted to remove protections for ethnicity and religious beliefs as well. The lower house is expected to vote on the amended penal code that would eliminate sexual orientation, gender identity and expression as soon as this week in a special session called by the island’s Republican Governor Luis Fortuño.
In a press conference Sunday, lawmakers Representative Héctor Ferrer and Senator Eduardo Bhatia joined with LGBTq Equality Rights and activists criticizing the amendment to the penal code’s hate crimes provisions:
“To eliminate these groups as protected categories is to invite the commission of hate crimes in Puerto Rico,” said Ferrer, as Vocero reported on Dec. 4 “It is a setback in the country’s public policy.”
“In an advanced society, this is dangerous for society,” added Bhatia, as Primera Hora reported.
Click the link above to read the full article.
She Who Loves The Rain: Most Americans Think LGBT People Already Have Employment Protections — They Don’t!
Think you know about LGBT employment protections?
Take this quiz and see how much you know.
A new poll from the Center for American Progress shows that 9 out of 10 voters think there is a federal law protecting LGBT people from workplace discrimination. They’re wrong. The poll found that 73 percent of voters do support such protections, including strong support from Catholics (74 percent), senior citizens (61 percent), and even people with unfavorable attitudes toward gay people (50 percent). Unfortunately, in most states the protections don’t exist, and levels of discrimination and harassment are high.
As many as 43 percent of LGB people and a staggering 90 percent of transgender people have experienced workplace mistreatment. Another column from CAP shares some of the personal stories of individuals who had these negative experiences and the consequences that come with, such as the fact that gay men earn 10-32 percent less than their heterosexual peers (PDF). Meanwhile, transgender individuals are twice as likely to be unemployed and four times as likely to be living in poverty (PDF).
If support for protections is so strong and people think they already exist, it’s peculiar that employment protection bills face such challenges in getting passed. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been introduced for decades now without passing. Just last week, non-discrimination protections in Connecticut got a very transphobic pushback. Equality opponents raise alarm over these bills, focusing on nuanced details and promoting untrue fears. This new polling suggests that the number of people actually concerned about offering these protections is near-negligible. Legislators need to begin listening to the stories of those truthfully affected by discrimination instead of the absurd cries of a small pocket of extremists.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/02/234952/most-americans-think-lgbt-people-already-have-employment-protections-%E2%80%94-they-dont/
Source: she-who-loves-the-rain
ACLU: President Obama: Restore Civil Rights Protections!
Seventy years ago this week, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered all federal agencies to “include in all defense contracts hereafter negotiated by them a provision obligating the contractor not to discriminate against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin.” This was the first action taken by the government to promote equal opportunity in the workplace for all Americans, and such fair employment protections were later expanded to include all government contracts and have been strengthened by nearly every president since.
President George W. Bush, however, rolled back one of these longstanding protections. In 2002, he signed an executive order that exempted religious organizations that contract with the government from the nondiscrimination requirements. Now, the government says these organizations can hire or fire for government-funded jobs based on an employee’s religion. President Bush justified this executive order as removing the barrier to funding faith-based initiatives.
This means that religious organizations that contract with the government can, when hiring for government-funded jobs, ask not only what faith tradition you follow (or if you even have one), but what your specific religious beliefs are. It also goes beyond just questions about religion. If you are pregnant, these religious government contractors could ask if you are married. They could ask you if your spouse got his or her previous marriage annulled in accordance with religious practices. And they could ask what you think about homosexuality.
How are these questions relevant to providing goods and services under a contract to the government? The answer: they’re not. Qualified candidates for a government-funded job should not be told they won’t be hired because of their answers to one of these questions. It’s way past time to end government-funded hiring discrimination.
Yet, this civil rights rollback is surprisingly still in place. President Obama has done nothing to restore the civil rights protections that had been in place from 1941 until 2002. This, despite a clear promise he made on the campaign trail in 2008, to reverse the policies permitting hiring discrimination by religious groups for government-funded jobs.
On June 21, the ACLU, along with 51 other organizations, sent a letter to the president asking him to restore this key civil rights protection. Later that same day, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) hosted a briefing with members of Congress and key civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, African American Ministers In Action, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, to honor an important civil rights milestone on fair employment protections and to bring much needed attention to a regression in these protections.
In our letter, we urged President Obama to honor the 70th anniversary of the civil rights milestone by restoring the protections President Bush took away.
Ask President Obama to do away with this unjust policy. Tax-funded hiring discrimination should never be acceptable in the American workplace.
Learn more about discrimination in hiring: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Sen. Al Franken introduces Student Non-Discrimination Act for LGBT students
GLSEN applauds today’s introduction of the Student Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate by Senator Al Franken and 22 cosponsors as an important step toward ensuring that all students are valued and respected and can learn in an environment free from harassment and discrimination.
The Senate version is a companion bill to H.R. 4530, introduced by Rep. Jared Polis in the House early this year, which would prohibit discrimination in schools on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Rep. Polis’s bill currently has the support of over 100 representatives.
