I don’t know how people have the time to get upset about all the things they get upset about, but once again, we’ve got people worrying about non-issues, as if we’ve actually solved all the real problems in the world and have to dig up stuff to keep us shocked and offended.
First of all, we’re apparently still requiring a peek in the pants in order to see who qualifies for certain jobs. I was hoping that maybe the travesty that happened to Kate Lynn Blatt when her employer demanded photos of her genitalia in order for her to continue her employment was just an isolated incident. But apparently not.
Even though El’Jai Devoureau has identified as male all his life – and has the necessary paperwork to prove his male identity – the fact that he was assigned female at birth was enough to cause him to lose his job at a drug treatment center in New Jersey, a state that has job discrimination protections based on gender identity and expression.
It seems that Mr. Devoureau was fired when, after it was discovered that he was trans, he refused to answer his supervisor’s questions about any surgeries he had undergone. With the help of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF), he responded to his dismissal by filing a lawsuit, which The New York Times says could be groundbreaking in determining the legal definition of who is or is not a man. (Read Dr. Jillian T. Weiss’ information on the case at The Bilerico Project.)
I hope the suit also examines the legality of an employer asking an employee about his or her genitals. If genitalia was a condition of employment, Mr. Devoureau should have been asked to drop his drawers during his initial interview. If not, then it should not be an issue now.
The only time that it might be acceptable to ask an employee about his or her genitalia is a) if a particular type of genitalia is required to perform a particular job duty (perhaps real-life male or female condom testing?) or b) if everyone employed by a particular company is asked the same question – but there better be a damn good reason why a company would ask its employees for that information.
Regardless, Mr. Devoureau was not hired because of his genitalia, nor should he be fired because of them. I hope his lawsuit settles things once and for all. Gender identity protections mean nothing if we continue to be judged by our genitals and if we continue to be asked about them by employers.
And then there’s the panic over pink toenails in a J. Crew ad.
The right-wing gender police are all abuzz about a J. Crew ad that depicts a young boy – designer Jenna Lyons’ son, Beckett – with pink polish on his toenails. Really, people, get a hobby. The kid is going to be fine. This whole “pink is for girls” thing is completely cultural.
According to Wikipedia (and several other sources), pink was considered by many to be a “masculine” color in the early 20th-century United States, and blue was considered a “feminine” color. Supposedly, this changed around World War II. Different cultures have a variety of designations for color, so the pink thing doesn’t add up to anything but nonsense.
As far as nail polish goes, lots of little kids like to wear polish and face paint and all kinds of colorful decorations. Again, which paints and polishes are appropriate for men and women, boys and girls, is cultural. It’s not, as Dr. Keith Ablow insists in a Fox News editorial condemning Lyons and J. Crew, dictated by a “creative Force in the universe.”
And Erin Brown of the conservative Culture and Media Institute makes sure to mention, in the first paragraph of her rant against the ad, that J. Crew is a favorite store of Michelle Obama – as if Mrs. Obama had any connection at all to the ad. If you’re somehow attempting to link this to the Obamas, I think you’re stretching there, Erin.
Regardless, people, just stop worrying – about other people’s bodies, about how other people are raising their kids, about other people in general. After the real problems going on around us are solved, if you still don’t have a life, then you can start fretting over what’s in other people’s pants and underneath their socks. In the meantime, find something constructive to do.
Thoughts?
(Photo of El’Jai Devoureau associated with TLDEF press release)
I look forward to El Jai winning his case & his (former) manager crawling out from under the rock that she’s been living under.
As far as the J Crew ad…….yawn.
My sentiments exactly.
I’m really rooting for El’Jai Devoureau to win his case. It’s insane that he has to file suit in the first place in a state like New Jersey which supposedly has laws to protect us, so he needs to win it in order to show that these laws work and will protect any others who may find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. He’s brave to go public with this and I, for one, am grateful for people like him who make the sacrifice bunts so we can all score. Go, El’Jai! Go Jersey, do the right thing!
Regarding the JCrew ad, I was heartened to see so many positive “who cares, just let the kid be” comments on the news site where I read about it – comments by non LGBT people, that is. Maybe people ARE becoming more open-minded in this country after all.
I hadn’t seen the story on Kate Lynn Blatt before, so thanks for linking it. Whatever happened to that case – any idea?
I don’t know what happened with Kate Lynn Blatt. If anyone out there knows, please clue us in. Thanks!
I do wonder a little if the j crew thing would still be ‘an issue’ if the boy was painting his nails blue…?
As far as I recall no one said anything negative when David beckham launched a male make up range…?
Ooh, good point. I wonder if it’s the color or the polish that’s really causing the controversy. The whole thing is so stupid and the Internet is completely abuzz with it.
Gosh if an employer did want to inspect the genitals of all employees as a condition during hiring I certainly think the applicants should also be shown the genitals of their prospective employer, starting with the chairman of the board. Or maybe a new web ap for some sort of pictorial national genital registry would work. We could call it crotchbook and maybe make billions.
OMG, that’s hilarious. And I totally agree. If you have to know what’s in someone’s pants to hire them, then the workers should also know what their bosses are toting around.
Heh. If they’re going to sweat so much about what’s in peoples’ pants, then just wait until they discover kinky people. Vibrators, tattoos, jewelry, piercings, rubber undies, chastity belts, thumbtacks, jellyfish… somehow I think just regular penises and vaginas are going to seem kind of boring, when that happens.
I was too lazy to read the WIKI article, so maybe you know already : The pink/blue change seems to have happened when a diaper producer made a mistake somewhen around the 1920s, and people just imitated the new girl=pink, boy=blue rule, like with Santa who suddenly turned from brown to red because of Coke.
Before that, light blue was seen as chaste, the colour of the Virgin Mary, and red and pink as energetic, thus masculine. It was also the colour of the adult Jesus. It shows just *how* cultural and flimsy these things are.
“Or maybe a new web ap for some sort of pictorial national genital registry would work. We could call it crotchbook and maybe make billions.”
I’m afraid it’s actually existing already, guys, it’s called gay dating web sites.
I didn’t know about the diaper thing. I didn’t even know about the Santa thing. Thanks for the info.
I was about to do a blog recount of both of those articles, but it seems you beat me to it, and with a good point too.
What I really still don’t get is how some people spend a considerable amount of THEIR time and THEIR effort poking around in our business and making OUR lives miserable. I mean, it’s only logical that I am informed and involved in transgender news, and get into uproar when something like this happens. Duh, it affects me directly. But for those on the other side of the debate – what’s it to them? How does this affect them in any way? How will this have any direct impact on their lives? I am utterly baffled.
Sorry about the rant :S
Don’t apologize. The rant is great. You should still do your blog post, too. Everyone has a different take or a different way of saying things.
@ Maddox: “But for those on the other side of the debate – what’s it to them? How does this affect them in any way? How will this have any direct impact on their lives?”
That’s a very good question, and I think people react that way because finding out about the existence of trans people or of people with variant genitalia effects them directly. For the last 5o years or so, they have been systematically lied to, by telling them that there are only 2 sexes and no variants (other cultures or past centuries knew about these facts of life). All knowledge about it has been turned into top secret stuff, so that when I heard about intersexuality as a teen, I thought it was fiction. That’s how it is for most people. It’s like they found out in their 30s that unicorns exist. It shakes up their whole perception of the world and nature.
If something so profound is different than what they were told, maybe others things are different too? And what does that say about their own gender and sex?
Think of Gallileo- the fact that the earth goes around the sun had no “real” direct effect on people’s lives. But still there was a huge uproar, and the pope forbit to talk about it. Poeple were persecuted for printing books about a scientific fact.
When people realize they can’t ignore this new truth, they often get obsessed by it and want to know everything, but not in a happy curious way, but in an angry, threatened way. It sucks, but I think we are not the only ones who are effected by that type of reaction.
It will only get better when we have become boring.
I find it interesting about the transguy in New Jersey. Recently, on a segment of ABC News’ “What Would You Do?” they featrured a scenerio about a dad bringing his young son into a toy store and the son wanted a Barbie doll. They use actors to do these stories and place them into real places ans see how the people around deal with the situations. They have no idea that these are actors. Well, this story was filmed IN New Jersey! And the people in the store give the dad a real hard time and told him to lay off his son – if he wanted a Barbie, so what.
On this same show, they did another scene where a dad came into the store with his young son – this time wearing a dress as well as wanting the Barbie doll. Same thing, people didn’t really care and gave the dad a hard time over it. This too, was filmed in New Jersey!
Hey, I like that “Crotchbook”! Yeah, if the employees had to show their genitals, tell the interviewer and boss, “After you!!!!” I hope the trans guy wins his case – people need to know that there are teeth in the laws enacted to protect us. After a few hefty lawsuits, the bigots should lose the taste for bigotry in a real hurry when it hits them hard in the pocketbook!
OMG!!!!!! They really wanted him to drop his pants??? OMG!!!!!!! REALLY!!!!!!!! I am absolutely stund!!!!!! Could you just imagine the tension in that room when they told him to drop his pants???!!!! That is absolutely unbelievable!!! I am so indignant right now!!!
I hope he gets a HUGE!!!!! Settlement over this. And to think someone won a suit against McDonald’s over hot coffee.
If he doesn’t win this, then that is the last straw for me. Off to Canada I will go, no better yet, Sweden!
I just can’t believe something likes this has occurred in our country. Then again, why am I not surprised. It is our country that has right wing bigots yelling “You Liar” at our president during a speech. What the hell has happen to decorum in this country? The understanding that there are just some lines that do not get crossed. Exposing one’s genitals to your employer upon demand sure is one of those lines.
I hope this story get so blown out of proportion that maybe, just damn maybe the Republicans will see just how damn far out of line they have become. A huge black eye on the Conservatives. Maybe, please let this be the story that finally opens this countries eyes to the load of poop they have been fed by the right wing.
Seriously indignant in Arkansas right now.
I don’t think they actually wanted him to drop his pants – I was exaggerating – but they wanted to know what was in them. His supervisor asked him what surgeries he had with regard to his transition. Just like Kate Lynn Blatt’s employer wanted a photo of her genitals. This would not be acceptable with any other employee. It would not be acceptable to talk about genitalia in any way with an employee – but there seems to be some idea that it’s okay with trans people. I am really interested in this lawsuit. If he wins, it could have some far-reaching ramifications – I hope.
I know this is bad of me, but please, please, please, let this get as big as the “Scopes Trial” or “OJ”. I would love to hear all the legal arguments in the courtroom on this.
I read the times article and I see they have filed under three claims. Sex discrimination, gender identity discrimination and disability. I am betting when push comes to shove on this, it will be the disability claim that wins out. It is the way to end this debate, without truly answering the question and it will keep us, transgenders, still in a position with lesser power.
Just my analysis. I hope it doesn’t end that way, but I think the odds will be in that favor.
Still, unbelievable, they asked him to drop his pants!!!!
“…I see they have filed under three claims. Sex discrimination, gender identity discrimination and disability. I am betting when push comes to shove on this, it will be the disability claim that wins out.”
I am betting on the gender discrimination since this is a “what defines a man” issue (since it is not ‘Gasp’ a penis). Are they going to legally argue that since he was born with a vag that he has a disability?? That would be interesting….Hm a medical handicap instead of a mental one and there goes the (incorrect) method of diagnosing us as having a disorder-Yay! and then WPATH could go pound sand too.
(sorry I was dreaming there for a minute.)
I look forward to watching this unfold.
Okay, so not really dropping his pants, but the strength of the insult is just as strong asking him to reveal his surgical history.
While it seems to me that Mr. Devoureau has a good chance of winning, given the laws in New Jersey, I don’t necessarily see the publicity that comes from this suit as a good thing for advancing trans rights.
The scary monster in the closet threat of trans folk is that they are interested in invading bathrooms and lockerrooms and otherwise inserting themselves in places that allow them to “perv” on everyone else.
The job involved here was to watch people pee, as part of a drug testing regimen. It’s a perfectly “acceptable” job, and someone has to do it, but let’s not lie here: it’s a job that involves seeing the genitalia of OTHER people at the core. It’s easy for those of us who understand gender identity to say why it shouldn’t matter what Mr. Devoureau’s genitals look like, but for someone on the fence about trans rights and who doesn’t quite “get” gender identity, you’re asking them to understand that Mr. Devoureau is fine staring at OTHER people’s genitalia, without revealing his own.
To anyone who suggests that it is humiliating for Mr. Devoureau to have to drop his pants (and it is), ask yourself: what if you are the one who has to drop YOUR pants to pee in front of him?
You can be sure that if Mr. Devoureau wins, this will be trumpeted as the next step toward allowing a hypothetical “Ms. Devoureau” (who is labeled a pervert and transvestite) as being allowed to see naked women too.
I wholeheartedly believe that the law is on Mr. Devoureau’s side, and I understand this case as being as much about race and class as it is gender identity. I’m just too much of a cynic to think that a victory in this case will be beneficial to a larger agenda of trans rights in employment.
Well this job may be unique in some ways, but what about doctors and nurses? They certainly see their patients’ bodies without having to reveal their own. I think it all comes back to the general impression that as trans people, we are hiding or are lying about ourselves. Succumbing to the fear by submitting to this kind of inquiry is absurd, regardless of the job at stake. I agree to some extent that a victory in this case will not likely change public opinion on trans people, but a victory for privacy would certainly be a victory for trans rights.
There is only one job in the world where you should have to show your genitals at an interview and that’s as a porn star or stripper but since that flaunting your genitals around anyway either on film or on a stage is actually part of the job it would seem that might be the only instance it would be reasonable.
As for employers needing to understand the magical rainbow genitals of trans people there is a simple solution: Google. I heard someone say: I ain’t no genius but I knows how to use the Google.
If understanding trans genitals is akin to seeing a unicorn then by all means do some google research. Pretty soon we’ll be able to say the same as cis gender people: You’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all.
“If understanding trans genitals is akin to seeing a unicorn then by all means do some google research. Pretty soon we’ll be able to say the same as cis gender people: You’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all.”
Lol, I like that.
For anyone interested in the J. Crew story, Jon Stewart had some really good things to say: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-13-2011/toemageddon-2011—this-little-piggy-went-to-hell
Good blog post, Matt.