Banned for being transsexual

[fireheart17]

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/s...he-trans051013

So a male-to-female transsexual (not sure whether she was pre or post-op at the time) decides to apply for college to study nursing. College in question is a Christian college. They had no problem accepting her (with honours!) until they discovered that she happened to previously be a man.

Her application was denied, but the reason? According to them, she engaged in fraud by marking her documents as female and they believed she was concealing her identity.

Unsurprisingly she filed a lawsuit with the help of a lawyer and the college has tried to claim religious freedom. Yeah...that's not going to get far.

My thoughts:

Where in the Bible does it say anything about hating transsexuals? Also, people clearly need to get their heads out of their asses since transsexual =/= gay.

Also, before anyone argues "religious freedom" or some other line, bear in mind that the college receives public funding.

Thankfully the comments have some SANE idiots for once.

[RedRoseSpiral]

This quote sums it up for me:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

[LewisLegion]

My cousin and a couple of very good friends of mine are trans. So, this understandably gets my hackles up.

If she was post-op and had gone through the legal paperwork and name change, they don't have a leg to stand on. Legally she is considered by the government to be female, physically she is considered by her body parts to be female, so no fraud.

If she's pre-op but has done the hormones and lives as a woman, and is under the care of a psychiatrist in order to prepare for full surgical transition...they don't have a leg to stand on. If they receive public money they have to follow non-discrimination laws. She did not misrepresent herself, she IS female, and her psychiatrist (ANY psychiatrist, really) can tell them that. Her biology just hasn't been corrected yet.

In order to really prove fraud, they would have to prove that she identifies as male, and lived her life as a male, ONLY claiming on her application that she's female in order to bluff her way into the college. She would not be under any psychiatrists care and not have any medical history of hormone treatment or a diagnosis of dimorphism. Then they should rightly have done what they did. Doesn't sound like that's the case here.

That's what wingnuts don't realize about the whole trans-bathroom/ locker-room situations. They say that any man could just claim to be transgender and they'd have to let him into the girl's facilities, or any woman could do the same to get into the men's facilities. No. It doesn't work that way. There are ways to actually verify if someone is actually transgender or if they're just bluffing so they can go oogle members of the opposite sex (which, as a woman, I've been in many women's bathrooms and locker rooms, and I can't say as I have actually seen anything of any women sharing the facilties with me. There are privacy stalls. It's not like women are just wandering around the restrooms naked.

Unfortunately I forsee the best case happening here is that she sues, wins the case, and the college either has to allow her to attend or they have to pay her off. I say unfortunately because it's going to drag through the court, and the wingnuts are gonna get all up in arms about their religious liberties and such, as was said before.

And you're right, Fireheart. The bible says nothing about hating transexuals. Leviticus does mention that men should not wear women's raiment and women should not wear men's raiment, but to me that smacks more of transvestitsm (NOT the same thing) than transgender, and it is in Leviticus which makes it just about as relevant to today's society as not eating seafood or wearing mixed fabrics.

I've noticed most places have far less of a problem if the transgender individual in question is FTM rather than MTF, just like they have less of a problem with lesbians than with gay men. I really, really hate that double standard.

[Hyena Dandy]

Where in the Bible does it say anything about hating transsexuals? Also, people clearly need to get their heads out of their asses since transsexual =/= gay.

It doesn't, really. Even Pat Robertson doesn't have a problem with it. You don't need to be some far-out liberal Christian in order to be okay with it.

[Andara Bledin]

... and it is in Leviticus which makes it just about as relevant to today's society as not eating seafood or wearing mixed fabrics.

Don't forget cutting your hair.

I'm peeved that the vitriolic bigots are going to get their say. Again. But at least this should be a fairly open and shut case. So long as she identifies as female and is known as female, that she was born with male genitalia is irrelevant.

[smileyeagle1021]

LewisLegion, you made the point that they have to obey anti-discrimination laws... unfortunately, most states don't have laws that classify discrimination against transgendered persons as being real discrimination.

[Panacea]

Transsexuals are not a protected group under federal or most state laws, so that won't work.

However, the college is claiming fraud, and that's not so if she has the paperwork to back up the gender change. I don't see the college winning this one.

You know, I don't think most churches (Christian) have really thought out trans sexualism. They probably lump it in with homosexuality, not understanding the difference between sexuality identity and gender identity.

[fireheart17]

And you're right, Fireheart. The bible says nothing about hating transexuals. Leviticus does mention that men should not wear women's raiment and women should not wear men's raiment, but to me that smacks more of transvestitsm (NOT the same thing) than transgender, and it is in Leviticus which makes it just about as relevant to today's society as not eating seafood or wearing mixed fabrics.

I've noticed most places have far less of a problem if the transgender individual in question is FTM rather than MTF, just like they have less of a problem with lesbians than with gay men. I really, really hate that double standard.

Speaking of Leviticus, so many people I know have claimed that they no longer have to follow the rules of Leviticus because it's Old Testament (as opposed to New Testament), but then continue to cite Leviticus for their reason to hate homosexuals. (There are other passages that are anti-gay, but one of those passages also suggests that gossipers and boasters shall go to hell )

As for the "less of an issue" thing, I suspect there are two reasons behind the double standard (doesn't make it ok though):

-it is easier to pass yourself off as male with a slightly feminine looking face, rather than passing off as female with a slightly masculine face.

-the assumption that transvestism and transsexualism are the same thing and that the man dressing as a woman wants to get some action in the toilets.

[Panacea]

The Old Testament is important, because it is the religious background of Jesus. He came to fulfill prophecies, which is also why it is important . . . it's the backstory of the faith.

But once he fulfilled those prophecies (as Christians believe he did), then things changed. Man entered a new covenant with God that replaced the old.

Most Christians can't articulate this, or explain the reasons why. They just say "cuz" and cherry pick from Leviticus without really understanding what it is they're reading from (the rules for the priestly order in Judaism).

I get so frustrated with people obsessed with enforcing rules on other people, while disobeying other rules. We are all sinners; worry about your own sins, not others.

[Kheldarson]

Most Christians can't articulate this, or explain the reasons why. They just say "cuz" and cherry pick from Leviticus without really understanding what it is they're reading from (the rules for the priestly order in Judaism).

Rules for a semi-nomadic society to insure a strong culture and survival rate. The rules of kosher? Stuff you don't eat in the desert because you can't cook it or preserver it well enough to eat it safely. Rules about sex? How to insure genetic viability and maintain established familial lines. Most of them aren't even remotely necessary anymore (as pointed out in Acts actually...)

Only thing I got on the OP is whether or not they're private or public. If they're private, then don't they get greater say in who they get to accept or not, for whatever reason? Not that I support their reason at all, just asking.

[hinakiba777]

In the event that she wins the court case, is she still planning to attend the university? If I was facing that level of discrimination, I do not think I would want to attend such an institution. I certainly wouldn't give them money.

Still if she's a legally recognized female, they don't have a leg to stand on with their fraud claims.

Also, in reference to the Leviticus thing, I have seen so many people with tattoos of the passages that talk about homosexuality and all I can think is "Leviticus 19:28 says you aren't supposed to get tattoos." It's just so funny for me every time I see it. Once I saw a guy who had both passages (Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13) tattooed on their forearm with the passage numbers. I started laughing so hard that all my friends noticed, and I had to explain it to them. I mean the no tattoos part is right between the two parts about sexuality, and you have a tattoo quoting the thing about sexuality. It's HILARIOUS! Honestly, I think that just the words Leviticus 19:28 would make a great ironic tattoo.

[Panacea]

Only thing I got on the OP is whether or not they're private or public. If they're private, then don't they get greater say in who they get to accept or not, for whatever reason? Not that I support their reason at all, just asking.

The school in question is a private college, so they can set a lot of their own rules and as long as they don't break discrimination laws they can do what they want. LGBT is not a protected class in most states, so many institutions and people can legally discriminate against them.

However, this school is in California, where being LGBT is a protected class. So they didn't initially go the religious reason route, because that is blatantly discriminatory. They've claimed fraud, because the defendant didn't tell them she was born male. Legally, she didn't have to; her documentation shows her new gender. So I don't know that the case will get very far. They're now claiming a religious exemption, and I think a judge will see right through them.

In the event that she wins the court case, is she still planning to attend the university? If I was facing that level of discrimination, I do not think I would want to attend such an institution. I certainly wouldn't give them money.

The original article didn't say if she still wanted to go to nursing school there. Since this happened awhile ago, I'm sure she's been accepted somewhere else and is in the process of completing a program. And I agree; I would not want to attend that university nor give them any money after being treated that way.

Also, in reference to the Leviticus thing, I have seen so many people with tattoos of the passages that talk about homosexuality and all I can think is "Leviticus 19:28 says you aren't supposed to get tattoos."

Wow. I've never seen anyone with a tattoo like that, but you're right it is the height of irony that people quoting Leviticus forget that part.

I don't know what it is about these people that they don't understand this: if you're going to claim Leviticus is valid, then the whole thing must be valid. If you don't want to quit eating shellfish, then quote Romans.

Of course, the problem with Romans is that it is much more vauge, considering Paul was talking about something completely different. Which is why the Bible thumpers like Leviticus; it makes no bones about what the subject is.