Nashville Passes Gender Identity Law- More to Follow?
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Nashville became the latest city to add "sexual orientation" and gender identity to its non-discrimination policy Sept. 15 but left the two controversial terms undefined, and critics charged the ordinance only opens the city up to more far-reaching laws affirming homosexuality.
The new law passed the metro council 24-15 and applies only to metro employees -- and thus all public schools -- in the areas of hiring, promoting and firing. It is believed to be the first law of its kind in any Tennessee city. It sailed through the council six years after members defeated a similar version by one vote. That 2003 version, though, did not include the phrase "gender identity," a term so fluid that it presumably could protect, for instance, public school teachers who decide to crossdress.
Supporters of the proposal declined to define the terms, and in an analysis of the proposal wrote, "While the ordinance does not include any specific definitions for 'sexual orientation' or 'gender identity,' the courts have held that these terms are of common usage and are not impermissibly vague."
Tim Tracey, an attorney with the conservative legal organization Alliance Defense Fund, called the lack of definitions a "huge problem."
"It's punting," he told Baptist Press. "It's saying, 'Well, I'll let the court fill it with whatever meaning it wants.'"
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization, says gender identity "refers to a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as male or female, which may or may not correspond to the person's body or designated sex at birth." HRC defines sexual orientation as "an individual's physical and/or emotional attraction to the same and/or opposite gender." The latter term includes bisexuality, homosexuality and heterosexuality.
The American Psychiatric Association actually considers some people who are struggling with their gender identity to have a disorder. Protesters at this year's APA meeting asked the organization to reclassify gender identity disorder (GID) so it is not labeled a disorder.
"It is very peculiar for a city to be protecting what is a designated, recognized psychological disorder," Tracey said.
Councilwoman Megan Barry, the ordinance's main sponsor, said the issue simply was about doing what is fair.
"I believe that all employees deserve protection, and it's my responsibility as a council member to make sure that happens," she told The Tennessean daily newspaper.
Tracey, though, argued that adding sexual orientation and gender identity to non-discrimination policies is fraught with problems.
"Sexual orientation and gender identity, those are by nature malleable concepts, because gender identity is this notion that I can self-identify, I can pick what gender I am. And sexual orientation is, by its nature, changeable," he said. "They're trying to put things that are behavior on par with what we know are immutable concepts like race and gender. That's problematic. When a government -- whether it's a city or a state -- places something new in a non-discrimination policy, it's saying, 'This is something that is good, that we need to protect and that we should be promoting as a society.'"
Supporters of the law say it's but the first step in what they hope will be further advances for the homosexual movement. The next step could be broadening the law to cover private employers or granting marriage-like benefits to partners of metro homosexual employees. Tracey said the law's supporters now have their "foot in the door."
"People think, 'Well, it's not necessarily that big of a deal just to put this in a non-discrimination law.' But when you look at a state like Vermont, you can go back and look what bills are passed and when, and there's a progression from hate crimes laws or non-discrimination laws to civil unions to same-sex marriage," Tracy said. "It's a progression. It really does start with something that may seem benign."
Nashville and Davidson County voters tend to lean Democratic, although they are far from culturally liberal. In 2006 a statewide constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman passed in the county, 68-32 percent.
Voting for the ordinance were Tim Garrett, Megan Barry, Ronnie Steine, Jerry Maynard, Lonnell Matthews Jr., Frank Harrison, Walter Hunt, Pam Murray, Mike Jameson, Erik Cole, Karen Bennett, Darren Jernigan, Anna Page, Sandra Moore, Kristine LaLonde, Erica Gilmore, Buddy Baker, Edith Langster, Emily Evans, Jason Holleman, Sean McGuire, Greg Adkins, Carter Todd and Bo Mitchell.
Voting against the ordinance were Charlie Tygard, Michael Craddock, Jim Forkum, Rip Ryman, Jim Gotto, Carl Burch, Bruce Stanley, Phil Claiborne, Eric Crafton, Randy Foster, Duane Dominy, Jim Hodge, Parker Toler, Sam Coleman and Robert Duvall.

if they are transgender, it isnt cross dressning
Glad to hear they're on the right track in Nashville. About time.
And Gender Identity is not, in itself, a disorder. The only disorder is when someone is uncertain about their gender identity and is dysphoric about it. Don't try to paint sexual orientation and gender identity as "sicknesses."
is thinking this progressively, but it is refreshing since we in Tennessee seem to be at the end of the line for most of social changes and corrections. And I also agree that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same nor an illness.
I would contend that the overwhelming majority of people with gender identity concerns would feature undue distress from it and thus almost all of them would qualify under the features of a mental disorder (irregular mental development + undue distress / discontent). I don't see how you could feel born as the wrong sex and not suffer a great deal of distress about it. I'm sure over time you learn to accept it (although I'm sure you struggle with it to some degree forever); but I'd conjecture it is an overwhelming minority who just accept their gender identity problems without any significant distress about it. I don't have statistics for this, but I'm just imagining if I had a gender identity issue how I would respond.
Also, I really hate the politicization of the psychology / psychiatry movement. I mean, people seem to forget that you must show mental distress in combination with some abnormal sexual or gender problem to be classified as a disorder. People always say that the AMA removed from its DSM " homosexuality " but that isn't really true at all. They just refined it for clinical use to only apply to those who's sexual orientation is causing them significant mental distress.
Oh, and I hope these Christians zealot stop the outrage in Tennessee. If they don't, who knows what could happened. Their might be such terrible things as less public discrimination, greater acceptance, further legal rights. I can only imagine how angry god with be with this, he'll probably send a bunch of tornado's. Hopefully Pat Roberson will be their to inform us which ones are from god and which ones are just random events of nature.
Right, but the point is, it is not sexual orientation OR gender identity which is classified as a "disorder." The disorder is the "dysphoria" experienced by the person in relation to his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
I would imagine that something similar could be said about women who are 6-feet tall. They might or might not experience internal conflicts about their height and their difficulties finding men to date who are taller than themselves. Their height -- 6-feet -- is taller than most women, but most probably not a "disorder" in any clinical sense of the word. But if they experience dysphoria surrounding the issues they face as very tall women, the dysphoria, itself, could be classified as a disorder.
As to your third paragraph, above, Amen.
Dysphoria in and of itself is not a disorder. It's one of many criteria that must be met to be classified as a mental disorder. My contention was that people who complain about things like Gender Identity Disorder fail to realize that having gender issues is not in and of itself enough to meet the qualification, so they aren't suggesting that gender identity issues is a mental disorder. My second contention was that even though this is true, I believe the overwhelming majority would meet the classification anyway. If I had gender issues, I would have significant mental distress about it. I don't understand how you could not, feeling born the incorrect gender must be a terrible experience and I have sympathy for those people. I'd imagine nearly 100% of them feel significant mental distress about it for a good portion of their lives (in particular, adolescence) if not all of it in varying degrees of severity.
I understand the height analogy, but I don't think most people that are abnormally tall would fit the standard met for mental distress in a psychological context; as I feel that many people with gender issues would.
It's not a bigotry or condemnation of people who suffer from gender identity concerns. To me, it only just seems logical that they would suffer tremendous mental anguish over it. Your gender defines who you are in so many ways and to have a discrepancy between your mental gender and your anatomical gender must be incredulously difficult to deal with. Not only do you experience huge stigma from society (I think if people took time to think about it, they would be far more sympathetic), but they have to experience the internal struggle with themselves. I can only imagine how difficult that is too deal with.
I don't think we are in disagreement at all, caelum. I recognize that those whose gender identities do not match their outward physical appearance generally suffer a great deal of anguish over many years of their lives. No question.
My only concern is that the distinction be made (and I know that you understand it, so I'm not making it for your benefit, in particular) that anything about their condition which qualifies as a "mental disorder" is not "because they're crazy and think they are the wrong gender, and need to have their brains fixed so that they realize they are the gender their body looks like." I think this is what many people think of when they think of "Gender Identity Disorder." Whereas in fact, the "cure" for GID is often undergoing procedures to make their body more closely align to what their brain is telling them is their correct gender, or, short of that, coming to a point of being comfortable with "living between" genders and having no specific identification to one or the other gender at all.
It is most certainly a very tough issue, and not one that is helped by the uninformed passing judgment upon those who experience it, or obsessing about who might be in the bathroom stall next to them, or what that person's genitalia might look like.
Your comments are thoughtful, empathetic and objective. I wish more people thought about these issues at that level.