Via Advocate.com and Philadelphia Gay News comes some really disgusting employment discrimination news. Kate Lynn Blatt, a trans woman, was let go from her temp position at Sapa Industrial Extrusions under dubious circumstances: allegedly because she was not healthy enough to complete the job, but it sounds like the real reason was her use of the womens locker room. Manpower Inc., the staffing services agency that placed her at Sapa, told Blatt she would have to supply a picture of her genitalia as a condition of continued employment.
Irene Kudziela, branch manager of Manpower's Pottsville office, allegedly told Blatt that a letter from her surgeon documenting her gender-reassignment surgery -- along with a photograph of her genital area -- would be necessary before she could return to Sapa. ...Blatt filed bias complaints against Sapa and Manpower with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, alleging wrongful discharge based on sex and disability. She said her disability is gender dysphoria.
There is so much wrong with this situation. It speaks to the intense dehumanization of trans folks that Manpower did not recognize how absurd and awful it was to request a picture of Blatt's genitalia. I am especially struck by the notion that seeing someone's crotch is how we determine their gender. The most sexually active person, hell even an OB/GYN, sees the genitalia of only a tiny fraction of the people they interact with. Yet we go around gendering other people all the time. There are many places gender happens - how we dress, vocal inflection, clothing, makeup, posture, the list goes on - and none of them are essential or superior to other markers. What is most important is how someone self identifies, not what's between their legs.
Blatt deserves mad props for filing suit. It's exhausting work having to defend your very humanity and right to basic dignity. Yet more evidence that we need to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Trans woman sues after former employer requests picture of her genitals.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15567
I'd love to donate to her legal fund.
What exactly is wrong with her using the women's locker room anyway? It can't be that they're afraid she's lusting after/sexually harassing the other women (an antiquated notion used by those against gays in the military), or else wouldn't they try to ban lesbians from using the locker room as well?
It's just ridiculous. Because she was once a man she must be some horny devil who wants to see naked ladies. Whether it's in the eyes of the women who are in the locker room with her or the management who see it as a potential problem, this is disgusting and awful.
I think the bigger question is why do we have separate locker rooms to begin with.
And under this company's definition it's because people shouldn't see the opposite sex's genitalia....regardless of sexual orientation.
I think it may be based in concerns about safety, not modesty. Concern about sexual assault. To be honest, I feel safer having segregated bathrooms and changing rooms even though I know that the existence of such causes discrimination against my trans friends. Selfishness? Hypocrisy? Sex essentialism? Buying into hysteria about stranger-rape when acquaintance-rape is much more common? Yes, yes, yes, and yes: all of the above.
That doesn't change the fact that a co-ed changing room would make me feel vulnerable.
Now before people get mad at me, I am not saying that what Manpower did is OK. It is clearly not acceptable to demand that an employee provide pictures of their genitalia under any circumstances, and certainly not as a condition for keeping the job. What happened is an incredibly heinous violation and it really speaks to the lack of privacy that trans people face and that cis people can take for granted. I certainly support a trans inclusive employment non-discrimination act, and I think that, frankly, us cis women are going to have to get over some of our fears.
I am just trying to say that I don't think comparing transwomen to lesbians is really an appropriate way to get at what is going on here. Lesbians can lust after you, and yes they can assault you, but it is a lot more complicated and happens a lot less frequently than male-on-female sexual assault.
I am just trying to say that I don't think comparing transwomen to lesbians
I'm a trans woman and a lesbian, and this whole last paragraph is just.... ugh.
Lemme see:
1) transwomen= trans women
2) transsexuality and lesbianism are not mutually exclusive
3) is this a penis thing? 'Cause we've pretty much been there before. People go into locker rooms to change clothes, women who have penises often aren't interested in showing them off, after years of female hormones, women's penises often don't work that way, i can't think of a single example of a trans woman assaulting another woman in a locker room, i can think of examples of men who have broken into women's locker rooms, despite the signs, yadda yadda yadda
4) thanks for bringing up the trope of homosexuals as sexual predators in locker rooms.
In conclusion: no, just no.
1. I'm sorry. I take it the addition of the space is to emphasize the "woman" part? I will change the way I write the word.
2. You're right, I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that trans women could not be lesbians.
3. Yes it is a penis thing, but I was talking about cis male penises. I think for society to be trans inclusive we would have to do away with sex segregated bathrooms and changing rooms completely, which would involve allowing cis men into spaces that are currently limited to cis women and, in fortunate circumstances, trans women. Otherwise trans women are going to have to "prove" themselves, which should not be necessary.
4. I wasn't bringing it up, I was responding to it. Waitscratchthat brought it up. The point I was trying to make was about the potential of heterosexual cis men as sexual predators in locker rooms. The reason I even mentioned that lesbians could sexually assault you was because I was expecting somebody to point out that heterosexual cis men aren't the only people capable of sexual assault.
I'm sorry. I am trying. I wouldn't have said anything out of fear of making feministing an environment that is hostile to trans people, but I thought that an important point about how Manpower was probably thinking was being missed.
Sorry, I'm a bit snappy this morning myself-- I've had a long week. The space in trans XXXXX is to emphasize that trans is an adjective. Perhaps more than anything, I had issues with your syntax, which may have been a language (or blog) issue-- I've had plenty of things come out wrong myself. In any case, I'm with you and alice-paul. I don't necessarily think that unisex facilities are the answer.
Oh, I totally understand where you're coming from. I've done it on feministing tons of times. A lot can get lost in writing. Thanks for the information, by the way.
If you say transwomen you are making transwomen into their own category distinct from women, but if you specifically use trans as an adjective, the fact that trans women are women is clearly communicated. That makes sense to me and I will remember it. :)
I was away from the computer for a couple of hours and missed this conversation thread or I would have stopped it sooner. In case others feel the need to chime in though: don't. We have done the gender segregated facilities derail way too many times at Feministing. This one will not go on any longer.
I agree that it is a safety issue.
However, your "claim" to be cisgendered cannot be taken at face value.
Please submit two letters from OB/GYNs describing the exact configuration of your genitalia, along with attestation as to the presence or absence of signs of genital reconstruction or other surgeries. These must be from medical practitioners certified to practice in Australia.
I'm not asking for anything that hasn't been required of me by Government departments.
Similar requirements are in force in all states of the USA in order to get a passport, birth certificate or other ID.
Should your documentation be deemed satisfactory, you may be allowed to use a female restroom.
It's a safety issue.
Well, I do find it important to have separate locker rooms and bathrooms. As an assault survivor, I wouldn't feel safe in a facility with cis men. At all, simple as that. But transwomen, of course, should NOT be excluded from women's spaces.
Having said that, I think the most important issue here is the demand for a photograph. Unbelievable and appalling. Hope she wins.
This is basically what I was trying to say, but I messed it up. Oh well.
I'm with Alice-Paul. I do not wish to have to change in a co-ed locker room. It would make me profoundly uncomfortable for many reasons. Of course, trans women are female, so they should be allowed to change in women's locker room.
Joan
In other words, we should treat transwomen as women with extra large clits?
(I'm not saying this to be rude, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.)
Similar, I would imagine as a cis woman, how a trans man wants his vagina regarded. I imagine, once again as an outsider, that it depends upon the audience. Is this a close friend? A lower? Why is a random coworker working themselves up over how they think of my genitals? Or someone on a message board? I think it comes from a perspective of "fit in my world view and experience" that is demanded a lot from trans people, similar to "so then are you a lesbian? or straight?" There isn't a straight-up answer and I do not think there should be. In a way it smacks of demanding that physical match up with gender in a way that could be harmful for trans persons who may like their anatomy the way it is but still identify as a trans.
You should treat them as people, whose genitals are none of your business. Just like you do with everyone else who isn't your sexual partner, or your patient (if you're a doctor). You wouldn't ask a cis woman coworker (or probably even wonder) what size her clit is, or what her labia look like, or whether she'd had a hysterectomy, so don't ask a trans woman any similar thing. It's not your concern.
And if you happen to be intimate enough with a trans person that you know about the state of their genitals, you can ask them how they regard their genitals, because it's not going to be the same for each trans person.
I'm with Rhoanna- treat them as people. Trans women (and trans men) should be able to use the locker room facilities that agrees with their gender identity, just as you are are to use the facilities that agrees with your gender identity. The only difference is cis gendered person are privileged enough to have been born with genitals matching the gender they identify with.
Joan
Thanks Joan and company. :)
This is not only transphobia it is transmisogny. It has become so common in our culture that often times it is treated like a joke while in the meantime it has real world effects like poverty due to job discrimination or even murder as in the case of Angie Zapata. It is disgusting and must end.
I hope she sues. It makes me nauseous to imagine being in that situation. Thinking it's OK to ask an employee, ANY EMPLOYEE, for a picture of their genitals as a condition of employment? What planet are these people on?
Ugh, this is disgusting. I posted the contact info for Manpower over at my space if anyone is interested.
The only thing that makes me chuckle from this sad situation is that the firm who hired her is called Manpower.
Good for her for filing suit... this looks like a pretty clear case for her to win, no?
What the flying fuck. That's extremely sick and I hope that Kudziela person gets fired, or at least reprimanded.
I also hope her claim is upheld, but unfortunately it appears her chances may not be that strong. She didn't actually file a lawsuit in court, but filed a claim of bias with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, a state agency that enforces PA's Human Relations Act, a state law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, disability and familial status. Upon looking at the Commission's web site, it's not clear to me whether transgender discrimination would be included in the prohibition agauinst discrimination on the basis of "sex". I note that in March of this year, the Commissions's Chair urged the PA legislature to pass an amendment to the legislation to include prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation, gender identity and
expression." It's also unclear whether the Commission recognizes gender dysphoria as meeting the legislative definition of "disability." Unfortunately, the courts have repeatedly ruled that gender dysphoria is not a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Transsexuality is specifically excluded from the definition of "disability" under the American with Disabilities Act. However, some states, e.g., Connecticut, have held that GID is a "disability" for purposes of their statutes banning discrimination based on that basis.
Yeah, heads will have to roll for this one. Here's hoping Blatt gets a big settlement to drive the point home.
*scream and other exclamations of RAGE*
There is NO reason to demand an employee to give them a photo of their genitals. Trans or not, that is f-u-c-k-e-d up. I hope they come to work with a bunch of rioters greeting them.
Wow. This is just another example of how much more needs to be done to protect the rights of all human beings. For more info on this subject, please see:
Asylum Pitfalls May Await the Transgender Applicant:
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009summer/2009summer_Neilson.php
and
Trans Health Care Is A Life and Death Matter:
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009summer/2009summer_Bader.php
This made my jaw drop.
It's exhausting work having to defend your very humanity and right to basic dignity.
This!
I've been putting the word out here in Victoria, B.C. about Katherine Johnson, a transwoman currently being held in a men's correctional facility in B.C. She's been repeatedly sexually assaulted. Corrections Canada will not tranfer her to a woman's correctional facility until she has had a penectomy, which they are delaying making their decision on. According to them, she cannot be identified as a woman until she has GRS, even though she is a woman. http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Female+killer+imprisoned+body/1888719/story.html
Oh, I feel like I should correct myself.
I'm a ciswoman and I think it comes across as me appropriating the experiences of transwomen. I meant to agree with Jos about transwomen and men having to constantly fight to have their rights recognized, as well as educate people who have the privilege of not needing to question that privilege.
Jenshine, FWIW, I didn't see your first statement as appropriating other folks' experiences. In any case, kudos for working on the Katherine Johnson case.
Thanks, eastsidekate!
Yeah, there can't be any possible reason to segregate locker rooms. I don't get it.
"Yet more evidence that we need to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA."
I agree, but in your opinion is it better to hold out for a trans-inclusive law if that means forfeiting ENDA for the foreseeable future? That seems to be the situation in MN. Obviously both breaking the coalition and advancing the rights of some by giving up on the rights of others, and failing to effectively promote the rights of anyone are both objectionable options.
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/9956970/IAAF-asks-for-gender-test-on-runner-Semenya?GT1=39002
I just read this gem and am left wondering WTF.