Why the T in LGBT is here to stay | Salon
An excellent explanation why certain gay people need to get a clue when it comes to why transgendered people need to be part of ENDA...
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Dallas Voice :: Casino denies access to Dallas trans woman
Dallas Voice :: Casino denies access to Dallas trans woman
A local transgender woman who recently was denied access to a Louisiana casino is claiming discrimination.
But representatives from the casino and the state’s Gaming Control Board said establishments can bar people from entering if photos on their identifications don’t match their appearances.
Jody Pleasant, 31, of Dallas has been living as a woman for five years. On June 3, Pleasant, her male lover and two gay male friends went to Boomtown Casino & Hotel in Bossier City, La.
However, because Pleasant’s ID indicates that she’s male, the man working the door wouldn’t let her in, she said.
“He said if you’re a man, then you have to look like a man to come into our casino,” Pleasant said. “We were just dismissed, totally. It was a blatant display of discrimination to me.”
Pleasant, as a female impersonator whose stage name is Kandy, is unable to get her ID changed because she has not undergone transition surgery and Texas has no gender-marker law. However, she said on the day in question, she was not dressed “provocatively” and looked similar to the photo on her ID.
To add insult to injury, Pleasant said, the man working the door required her to stand in front of his podium where she was mocked by other entering guests. She said she waited there for 10 minutes for a manager, who confirmed she would not be allowed in.
“They were all staring and pointing, and it was just a very demeaning situation to me,” Pleasant said.
Pleasant said it’s the first time she’s had an issue with her ID not matching her appearance, including at airports.
In response to the incident, Pleasant said she sent the casino a certified letter and called a another manager but received no apology. She said she also has contacted Lambda Legal. After being denied access to Boomtown, Pleasant and her friends went to another casino and were allowed in with no problem.
Max Mills, director of casino operations for Boomtown, indicated that the state’s gaming control act requires establishments to ensure that appearances match IDs to prevent access by people such as those who are underage.
“We have to be black and white, by the book. Either the person’s ID is representative of how they look or it isn’t,” Mills said. “We want everybody on the boat [casino], but then again if the gaming act says something, we have to follow it scrupulously.”
Mills denied that discrimination was behind the decision, adding that many LGBT people patronize the casino.
“I’m sure it was a very embarrassing situation, and I feel bad about that,” he said. “Hopefully our guys had tact and had a certain amount of good manners and appropriate language and so forth.”
A spokesman for the gaming commission, who asked not to be identified, was unable to cite a specific section of the lengthy act that could be interpreted to require that appearances match IDs. However, he also said the act gives casinos the leeway to set their own policies.
“Any business operator can exclude certain people based on their own judgments and rules,” the spokesman said.
Paul Scott, executive director of Equality Texas, said it’s unlikely Pleasant would be able to change the gender marker on her driver’s license until she has undergone transition surgery. Even then, she would have to take the matter to court, where the change may or may not be approved depending on the judge.
A comprehensive gender-marker bill was introduced in this year’s legislative session but failed to make it out of committee, Scott said. The bill would have allowed people to change their birth certificates, names and driver’s licenses with affidavits from doctors saying they are undergoing transition surgery.
“The Department Of Motor Vehicles, they want acceptable ID, so there’s not any opposition from the department itself. It’s more so just coming up with a set, definitive policy that’s covered by state law,” said Scott, adding that advocates have been working on the issue for roughly a decade. “It’s a matter of getting the Legislature educated.”
E-mail wright@dallasvoice.com
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition August 3, 2007
A local transgender woman who recently was denied access to a Louisiana casino is claiming discrimination.
But representatives from the casino and the state’s Gaming Control Board said establishments can bar people from entering if photos on their identifications don’t match their appearances.
Jody Pleasant, 31, of Dallas has been living as a woman for five years. On June 3, Pleasant, her male lover and two gay male friends went to Boomtown Casino & Hotel in Bossier City, La.
However, because Pleasant’s ID indicates that she’s male, the man working the door wouldn’t let her in, she said.
“He said if you’re a man, then you have to look like a man to come into our casino,” Pleasant said. “We were just dismissed, totally. It was a blatant display of discrimination to me.”
Pleasant, as a female impersonator whose stage name is Kandy, is unable to get her ID changed because she has not undergone transition surgery and Texas has no gender-marker law. However, she said on the day in question, she was not dressed “provocatively” and looked similar to the photo on her ID.
To add insult to injury, Pleasant said, the man working the door required her to stand in front of his podium where she was mocked by other entering guests. She said she waited there for 10 minutes for a manager, who confirmed she would not be allowed in.
“They were all staring and pointing, and it was just a very demeaning situation to me,” Pleasant said.
Pleasant said it’s the first time she’s had an issue with her ID not matching her appearance, including at airports.
In response to the incident, Pleasant said she sent the casino a certified letter and called a another manager but received no apology. She said she also has contacted Lambda Legal. After being denied access to Boomtown, Pleasant and her friends went to another casino and were allowed in with no problem.
Max Mills, director of casino operations for Boomtown, indicated that the state’s gaming control act requires establishments to ensure that appearances match IDs to prevent access by people such as those who are underage.
“We have to be black and white, by the book. Either the person’s ID is representative of how they look or it isn’t,” Mills said. “We want everybody on the boat [casino], but then again if the gaming act says something, we have to follow it scrupulously.”
Mills denied that discrimination was behind the decision, adding that many LGBT people patronize the casino.
“I’m sure it was a very embarrassing situation, and I feel bad about that,” he said. “Hopefully our guys had tact and had a certain amount of good manners and appropriate language and so forth.”
A spokesman for the gaming commission, who asked not to be identified, was unable to cite a specific section of the lengthy act that could be interpreted to require that appearances match IDs. However, he also said the act gives casinos the leeway to set their own policies.
“Any business operator can exclude certain people based on their own judgments and rules,” the spokesman said.
Paul Scott, executive director of Equality Texas, said it’s unlikely Pleasant would be able to change the gender marker on her driver’s license until she has undergone transition surgery. Even then, she would have to take the matter to court, where the change may or may not be approved depending on the judge.
A comprehensive gender-marker bill was introduced in this year’s legislative session but failed to make it out of committee, Scott said. The bill would have allowed people to change their birth certificates, names and driver’s licenses with affidavits from doctors saying they are undergoing transition surgery.
“The Department Of Motor Vehicles, they want acceptable ID, so there’s not any opposition from the department itself. It’s more so just coming up with a set, definitive policy that’s covered by state law,” said Scott, adding that advocates have been working on the issue for roughly a decade. “It’s a matter of getting the Legislature educated.”
E-mail wright@dallasvoice.com
This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition August 3, 2007
© Copyright by DallasVoice.com
Friday, May 25, 2007
Sex change doctor guilty of misconduct | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Sex change doctor guilty of misconduct | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Sex change doctor guilty of misconduct
David Batty
Friday May 25 2007
The Guardian
The UK's best-known expert on transsexualism was today found guilty of serious professional misconduct for rushing five patients into sex-changing treatments, but avoided being struck off.
The General Medical Council ruled that Russell Reid, who retired last year, could only return to work under strict conditions imposed for the next 12 months that mean he can only work under strict supervision.
He must provide the GMC with a record of his treatments of any patients with gender identity disorders such as transsexualism every three months.
The disciplinary panel ruled that Dr Reid must no longer prescribe patients with sex-changing hormones at the first appointment, nor without a firm diagnosis that they are transsexual or a proper psychiatric assessment.
The panel determined that the consultant psychiatrist was too quick to provide patients with hormones and to refer them for genital surgery.
"The panel considers that the seriousness of your misconduct lies in your lack of caution in initiating hormonal and surgical gender reassignment treatment in these patients without more careful and through investigation and assessment," said John Shaw, the panel chairman.
"The panel therefore determined that your misconduct was serious, and that you are guilty of serious professional misconduct."
Mr Shaw said Patient D, who mistakenly believed she was transsexual as a result of suffering from manic depression, only narrowly avoid an "unnecessary mastectomy" as a result of Dr Reid ignoring the second opinion of another psychiatrist that treatment should proceed with caution.
The panel chairman added that Patient C, a convicted paedophile, was still uncertain about his gender identity after having a sex change. The male-to-female transsexual has returned to living as a man and wants surgery to try to reverse his gender reassignment.
Mr Shaw said that although patients B, E and F remained in their reassigned gender roles and appeared not to have suffered harm, Dr Reid's treatment of them "fell well short of the standard of care to which [they] were entitled."
But the panel decided against striking Dr Reid off or suspending him because it did not consider "it would be in the public interest to deprive the [transsexual community] of an experienced and otherwise well-respected doctor."
Mr Shaw said: "[The panel] determined that it would be proportionate and sufficient, in the public interest as well as your own interest if you were to return to practice under strict conditions."
Speaking afterwards, Dr James Barrett, one of four NHS psychiatrists who brought the complaints against Dr Reid, said: "I'm pleased that it was felt that it amounted to serious professional misconduct. And I'm pleased that conditions to his practice were imposed for a year that mean he will operate in line with good practice."
But a former patient of Dr Reid, not involved in the GMC case, said she was "disgusted" with the verdict.
Claudia, who regrets changing sex, is one of six former patients bringing a separate legal claim for damages against Dr Reid. She said the decision not to strike Dr Reid off was "absolutely scandalous".
"I'm deeply disappointed with the GMC ruling," she said. "If this had been about another group of people - not transsexuals - I think there would have been a much tougher sentence. Everything that has been taken from me - both physically and in the broadest human sense - can never be recovered."
However, Charles Kane, another former patient of Dr Reid, said he was glad the "kind-hearted" psychiatrist was not struck off.
Mr Kane, who complained to the GMC about Dr Reid but did not participate in the hearing, said: "I am happy with the verdict because with these conditions he cannot really treat anybody else the way he treated me."
Mr Kane had surgery to reverse his sex change in 2004. "I really believe that Dr Reid and the general public should view gender reassignment and sex change very seriously and this is a warning to doctors and patients not to rush into it," he said.
However, he added: "I think generally he [Dr Reid] is a kind-hearted doctor and he didn't really mean to be malicious to the patient. Most of the patients came here to support him because of this quality in him. He is a caring, almost father-figure."
The ruling came after a three-year investigation into Dr Reid, who the GMC earlier this week said had treated the five patients inappropriately, against their best interests and contrary to international guidelines on the treatment of transsexuals.
The disciplinary panel said he had provided the patients with hormones and referred them for genital surgery without an adequate assessment of their health or proof that they were transsexuals.
He was found to have repeatedly breached guidelines set by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, regarded as the minimum standards for the treatment of transsexuals.
Despite the verdict, Dr Reid continues to command wide support in the transsexual community, many of whom regard him as their saviour. A blog set up by his supporters attracted more than 250 messages in his defence.
Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited
Sex change doctor guilty of misconduct
David Batty
Friday May 25 2007
The Guardian
The UK's best-known expert on transsexualism was today found guilty of serious professional misconduct for rushing five patients into sex-changing treatments, but avoided being struck off.
The General Medical Council ruled that Russell Reid, who retired last year, could only return to work under strict conditions imposed for the next 12 months that mean he can only work under strict supervision.
He must provide the GMC with a record of his treatments of any patients with gender identity disorders such as transsexualism every three months.
The disciplinary panel ruled that Dr Reid must no longer prescribe patients with sex-changing hormones at the first appointment, nor without a firm diagnosis that they are transsexual or a proper psychiatric assessment.
The panel determined that the consultant psychiatrist was too quick to provide patients with hormones and to refer them for genital surgery.
"The panel considers that the seriousness of your misconduct lies in your lack of caution in initiating hormonal and surgical gender reassignment treatment in these patients without more careful and through investigation and assessment," said John Shaw, the panel chairman.
"The panel therefore determined that your misconduct was serious, and that you are guilty of serious professional misconduct."
Mr Shaw said Patient D, who mistakenly believed she was transsexual as a result of suffering from manic depression, only narrowly avoid an "unnecessary mastectomy" as a result of Dr Reid ignoring the second opinion of another psychiatrist that treatment should proceed with caution.
The panel chairman added that Patient C, a convicted paedophile, was still uncertain about his gender identity after having a sex change. The male-to-female transsexual has returned to living as a man and wants surgery to try to reverse his gender reassignment.
Mr Shaw said that although patients B, E and F remained in their reassigned gender roles and appeared not to have suffered harm, Dr Reid's treatment of them "fell well short of the standard of care to which [they] were entitled."
But the panel decided against striking Dr Reid off or suspending him because it did not consider "it would be in the public interest to deprive the [transsexual community] of an experienced and otherwise well-respected doctor."
Mr Shaw said: "[The panel] determined that it would be proportionate and sufficient, in the public interest as well as your own interest if you were to return to practice under strict conditions."
Speaking afterwards, Dr James Barrett, one of four NHS psychiatrists who brought the complaints against Dr Reid, said: "I'm pleased that it was felt that it amounted to serious professional misconduct. And I'm pleased that conditions to his practice were imposed for a year that mean he will operate in line with good practice."
But a former patient of Dr Reid, not involved in the GMC case, said she was "disgusted" with the verdict.
Claudia, who regrets changing sex, is one of six former patients bringing a separate legal claim for damages against Dr Reid. She said the decision not to strike Dr Reid off was "absolutely scandalous".
"I'm deeply disappointed with the GMC ruling," she said. "If this had been about another group of people - not transsexuals - I think there would have been a much tougher sentence. Everything that has been taken from me - both physically and in the broadest human sense - can never be recovered."
However, Charles Kane, another former patient of Dr Reid, said he was glad the "kind-hearted" psychiatrist was not struck off.
Mr Kane, who complained to the GMC about Dr Reid but did not participate in the hearing, said: "I am happy with the verdict because with these conditions he cannot really treat anybody else the way he treated me."
Mr Kane had surgery to reverse his sex change in 2004. "I really believe that Dr Reid and the general public should view gender reassignment and sex change very seriously and this is a warning to doctors and patients not to rush into it," he said.
However, he added: "I think generally he [Dr Reid] is a kind-hearted doctor and he didn't really mean to be malicious to the patient. Most of the patients came here to support him because of this quality in him. He is a caring, almost father-figure."
The ruling came after a three-year investigation into Dr Reid, who the GMC earlier this week said had treated the five patients inappropriately, against their best interests and contrary to international guidelines on the treatment of transsexuals.
The disciplinary panel said he had provided the patients with hormones and referred them for genital surgery without an adequate assessment of their health or proof that they were transsexuals.
He was found to have repeatedly breached guidelines set by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, regarded as the minimum standards for the treatment of transsexuals.
Despite the verdict, Dr Reid continues to command wide support in the transsexual community, many of whom regard him as their saviour. A blog set up by his supporters attracted more than 250 messages in his defence.
Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)