Trans news and pictures review

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Risa

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

  Maria_Belen

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Carie

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Lana

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Bev

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Civil-rights protection OK'd for transgender individuals
By Sharon Pian Chan

Seattle Times staff reporter

Transgender individuals will now enjoy the same civil-rights protections as other minorities under legislation passed by the Metropolitan King County Council Monday.

The council added gender identity to laws already prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation, sex, race and religion.

The legislation will protect transsexuals, transvestites and any other individuals with a gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth.

"It's going to make employers aware of discrimination," said supporter Smitty Petersen. "People generally don't do things if there are consequences."

The council's action would protect the county's sexual minorities if an initiative proposed by Tim Eyman makes it on the fall ballot and overturns the state's gay-rights measure, which passed in January. Voters would decide this fall if enough signatures are gathered to place it on the ballot.

Five Democrat council members — Larry Phillips, Bob Ferguson, Larry Gossett and Dow Constantine from Seattle and Julia Patterson from SeaTac — voted in favor. Republican council members Kathy Lambert of Redmond, Pete von Reichbauer from Federal Way, and Jane Hague and Reagan Dunn, both from Bellevue, voted against it.

King County Executive Ron Sims first introduced the legislation more than a year ago but could not find enough support on the county council.

Before the vote, Patterson said that arguments against the measure ranged from "this will be hard on business" to "we shouldn't force landlords to rent to certain people."

"The same arguments were made 40 years ago," Patterson said. "It wasn't right to discriminate based on race, and it isn't right to discriminate based on gender identity. It's not right and it's cruel."

Lambert said she rejected the measure because the law was poorly written.




"It's not written clearly, regardless of what it's about," Lambert said. "It's not a homophobic kind of thing."

The council voted after listening to testimony from several citizens, most of whom supported the proposed law.

Roxanne Skelly, a software developer and transgender woman, said, "I've found it difficult to get even average-paying work" after her transition. "When I go to the restroom, the decision for which door I go into, is that up for debate?" She said concerns faced by transgender individuals range from discrimination at hospitals to treatment from police officers.

A pastor from Cavalry Church West Seattle, Randall Leskovar, spoke against the measure. "By this definition, a male teacher in a kindergarten class could come in dressed as a woman, and there would be no discipline," he said. "In my view, that's lunacy."

The ordinance standardizes the rules applying to discrimination cases. Complainants may take cases to court without first pursuing a county civil-rights complaint, and the county Office of Civil Rights would have subpoena powers.

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Jamie

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Karen

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Janira

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Johanna

[unclebarnes]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Beautiful girl but her nipples look cross-eyed 

I'd still let her brutalize my ass with her cock 

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Duchess

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Transgender case against Library of Congress advances


An employment discrimination lawsuit brought by a transgender Army veteran against the Library of Congress can go forward, a federal court ruled on Friday. In the case of Diane Schroer, the court found that sex may not be "a cut-and-dried matter of chromosomes," ruling that federal protections against sex discrimination may also protect transgender people who are discriminated against based on their gender identity.

"I couldn't understand how the country that I had risked my life for could believe that it was OK to rescind its job offer to me solely because I'm transgender," said Schroer, a 25-year veteran. "Today's decision begins to restore my faith in our government."

Schroer filed the lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union on June 2, 2005. After retiring from the military, Schroer, who had been handpicked to head up a classified national security operation while serving as an Airborne Ranger–qualified Special Forces officer, applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst. Soon thereafter she was offered the job, which she accepted immediately. Prior to starting work, Schroer took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and thought it would be easier for everyone if she simply started work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn't a "good fit" for the Library of Congress.

In rejecting the government's argument that discrimination against transgender people is not sex discrimination, the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia noted "the factual complexities that underlie human sexual identity. These complexities stem from real variations in how the different components of biological sexuality—chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, and neurological—interact with each other and in turn with social, psychological, and legal conceptions of gender."

The court held that given these complexities, it may be that federal law prohibits discrimination against transgender people because it is a form of sex discrimination. The court will rule on that question in the case after evidence about the nature of gender and gender identity is developed. "Today the court sent a very clear message to employers everywhere that transgender discrimination won't be tolerated in the workplace," said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project.

The lawsuit charges that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination in the workplace. The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case claiming that transgender people are not covered under Title VII. Today the court rejected those claims, and the case will now proceed to trial. (The Advocate)

[zzuts]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

the first 2 ladies are HOT

[docdjv]

Re: Trans news and pictures review

Annette