NY Criminalizes Calling A Man "He", And A Woman "She"

Lesbian Human Rights Commissioner Carmelyn P. Malalis, who previously pushed sending out spies in order to entrap religious people for violating anti discrimination laws, issued new Guidelines this week that fine employers (up to $250,000) for referring to transsexuals by their real sex and other such evils.


Bolding particularity evil parts of the new guidelines, and highlighting some of our additional comments

GENDER IDENTITY/GENDER EXPRESSION: LEGAL ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE

New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23)

The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) prohibits discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and housing. It also prohibits discriminatory harassment and bias-based profiling by law enforcement. The NYCHRL, pursuant to the 2005 Civil Rights Restoration Act, must be construed “independently from similar or identical provisions of New York state or federal statutes,” such that “similarly worded provisions of federal and state civil rights laws [are] a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.” 1
The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) is the City agency charged with enforcing the NYCHRL. Individuals interested in vindicating their rights under the NYCHRL can choose to file a complaint with the Commission’s Law Enforcement Bureau within one (1) year of the discriminatory act or file a complaint in New York State Supreme Court within three (3) years of the discriminatory act.
The NYCHRL prohibits unlawful discrimination in public accommodations, housing and employment on the basis of gender. Gender is defined as one’s “actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.” 2 This document serves as the Commission’s legal enforcement guidance of the NYCHRL’s protections as they apply to discrimination based on gender, and gender identity and gender expression, which constitute gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. This document is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of all forms of gender-based discrimination claims under the NYCHRL.
I. LEGISLATIVE INTENT
In 2002, the New York City Council passed the Transgender Rights Bill to expand the scope of the gender-based protections guaranteed under the NYCHRL, and ensure protection for people whose “gender and self-image do not fully accord with the legal sex assigned to them at birth.” 3 The City’s intent in amending the law was to make explicit that the law prohibits discrimination against transgender people.4 The legislative history reflects that transgender people face frequent and severe discrimination such that protection from discrimination is “very often a matter of life and death.” 5 Recognizing the profoundly debilitating impact of gender-based discrimination on transgender and other gender non-conforming individuals, the amendment makes clear that “gender-based discrimination – including, but not limited to, discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived sex, and discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression – constitutes a violation of the City’s Human Rights Law.” 6
II. DEFINITIONS
These definitions are intended to help people understand the following guidance as well as their rights and responsibilities under the NYCHRL.
Cisgender: an adjective denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex, i.e, someone who is not transgender. in short we now have a special word for normal like we are the ones with the problem
Gender Identity: one’s internal deeply-held sense of one’s gender which may be the same or different from one’s sex assigned at birth. One’s gender identity may be male, female, neither or both, e.g., non-binary. Everyone has a gender identity. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation.
Gender Expression: the representation of gender as expressed through, for example, one’s name, choice of pronouns, clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, or body characteristics. Gender expression may not be distinctively male or female and may not conform to traditional gender-based stereotypes assigned to specific gender identities.
Gender: an individual’s actual or perceived sex, gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned at birth.
Gender Non-Conforming: an adjective sometimes used to describe someone whose gender expression differs from traditional gender-based stereotypes. Not all gender non-conforming people are transgender. Conversely, not all transgender people are gender non-conforming.
Intersex: a term used to refer to a person whose reproductive or sexual anatomy and/or chromosomal pattern does not fit typical definitions of male or female. There are many different medical diagnoses or conditions that an intersex person may have.  isn't linking normal people with confused people bigotry?
Sex: a combination of bodily characteristics including chromosomes, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity. Most people are assigned male or female at birth based on the appearance of their external genitalia.
Transgender: an adjective used to describe someone whose gender identity or expression is not typically associated with the sex assigned at birth. It can be used to describe people with a broad range of identity or expression. Someone who identifies their gender as androgynous, gender queer, non-binary, gender non-conforming, MTF (male to female), or FTM (female to male) may also consider themselves to be transgender.
III. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW’S PROHIBITIONS ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Gender discrimination under the NYCHRL includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and transgender status. 7 The definition of gender also encompasses discrimination against someone for being intersex. Under the NYCHRL, gender discrimination can be based on one’s perceived or actual gender identity, which may or may not conform to one’s sex assigned at birth, or on the ways in which one expresses gender, such as through appearance or communication style. Gender discrimination is prohibited in employment, housing, public accommodations, discriminatory harassment, and bias-based profiling by police and exists whenever there is disparate treatment of an individual on account of gender. When an individual is treated “less well than others on account of their gender,” 8 that is gender discrimination under the NYCHRL.
Harassment motivated by gender is a form of discrimination. Gender-based harassment can be a single or isolated incident of disparate treatment or repeated acts or behavior. Disparate treatment can manifest in harassment when the incident or behavior creates an environment or reflects or fosters a culture or atmosphere of sex stereotyping, degradation, humiliation, bias, or objectification. Under the NYCHRL, gender-based harassment covers a broad range of conduct and occurs generally when an individual is treated less well on account of their gender. While the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is relevant to damages, the existence of differential treatment based on gender is sufficient under the NYCHRL to constitute a claim of harassment. Gender-based harassment can include unwanted sexual advances or requests for sexual favors; however, the harassment does not have to be sexual in nature. For example, refusal to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title may constitute unlawful gender-based harassment. Comments, unwanted touching, gestures, jokes, or pictures that target an individual based on gender constitute gender-based harassment.

Unlawful gender-based discrimination is prohibited in the following areas:
Employment: It is unlawful to refuse to hire, promote, or fire an individual because of a person’s actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. It is also unlawful to set different terms and conditions of employment because of an employee’s gender. Examples of terms and conditions of employment include work assignments, employee benefits, and keeping the workplace free from harassment.
Public Accommodations: It is unlawful for providers of public accommodations, their employees, or their agents to deny any person, or communicate intent to deny, the services, advantages, facilities or privileges of a public accommodation directly or indirectly because of their actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. Simply put, it is unlawful to deny any person full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation because of gender.

Housing: It is unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing to someone because of their actual or perceived gender, including actual or perceived status as a transgender person. It is unlawful to withhold from any person full and equal enjoyment of a housing accommodation because of their gender. 9

1. Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun
The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.
Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. can we call them "IT"? 10 Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.
All people, including employees, tenants, customers, and participants in programs, have the right to use their preferred name regardless of whether they have identification in that name or have obtained a court-ordered name change, except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government). Asking someone their preferred gender pronoun and preferred name is not a violation of the NYCHRL.

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John. 11

d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their preferred gender pronoun is so that no individual is singled out for such questions and by updating their systems to allow all individuals to self-identify their names and genders. They should not limit the options for identification to male and female only.
2. Refusing To Allow Individuals To Utilize Single-Sex Facilities and Programs Consistent with Their Gender
The NYCHRL requires that individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification. The law does not require entities to make existing bathrooms all-gender or construct additional restrooms. Covered entities that have single-occupancy restrooms should make clear that they can be used by people of all genders. 12
Some people, including, for example, customers, other program participants, tenants, or employees, may object to sharing a facility or participating in a program with a transgender or gender non-conforming person. Such objections are not a lawful reason to deny access to that transgender or gender non-conforming individual.

Examples of Violations
a. Prohibiting an individual from using a particular program or facility because they do not conform to sex stereotypes. For example, a women’s shelter may not turn away a woman because she looks too masculine nor may a men’s shelter deny service to a man because he does not look masculine enough.
b. Prohibiting a transgender or gender non-conforming person from using the single-sex program or facility consistent with their gender identity or expression. For example, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to prohibit a transgender woman from using the women’s bathroom.
c. Requiring a transgender or gender non-conforming individual to provide proof of their gender in order to access the appropriate single-sex program or facility.

d. Requiring an individual to provide identification with a particular sex or gender marker in order to access the single-sex program or facility corresponding to their gender.

e. Barring someone from a program or facility out of concern that a transgender or gender non-conforming person will make others uncomfortable.

f. Forcing a transgender or gender non-conforming person to use the single-occupancy restroom.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL, by, wherever possible, providing single-occupancy restrooms and providing private space within multi-user facilities for anyone who has privacy concerns. Covered entities may accommodate an individual’s request to use a single-occupancy restroom because of their gender. For example, an individual who is non-binary or who is in the process of transitioning may wish to use a single-occupancy restroom. As noted above, however, it is unlawful to require an individual to use a single-occupancy restroom because they are transgender or gender non-conforming. Covered entities should create policies to ensure that all individuals are allowed to access the single-sex facility consistent with their gender identity or expression and train all employees, but particularly all managers and employees who have contact with members of the public, on compliance with the policy, and their obligation under the NYCHRL to provide non-discriminatory access to single-sex facilities including for transgender and gender non-conforming people. Covered entities should post a sign in all single-sex facilities that states, “Under New York City Law, all individuals have the right to use the single-sex facility consistent with their gender identity or expression.” Covered entities may adopt policies or codes of conduct for single-sex facilities delineating acceptable behavior for the use of the facilities that are not themselves discriminatory and do not single out transgender or gender non-conforming people.
An individual’s assessment of their own safety should be a primary consideration. Covered entities should offer opportunities for people to come to them if they have safety concerns and should establish a corresponding safety plan if needed. For example, if a transgender resident requests assignment to a facility corresponding to their sex assigned at birth instead of a placement corresponding to their gender identity, that request should be honored.  how about the reverse?

3. Sex Stereotyping
Discrimination based on an individual’s failure to conform to sex stereotypes is a form of gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. Sex stereotypes are widely-held over-simplified expectations about how people of a particular sex or gender should be or how they should act. They include expectations of how an individual represents or communicates gender to others, such as behavior, clothing, hairstyle, activities, voice, mannerisms, or body characteristics. Sex stereotypes also relate to the roles or behaviors assigned to those who identify as male or female. Covered entities may not require individuals to conform to stereotypical norms of masculinity or femininity. The law also recognizes that unlawful sex stereotyping often manifests itself as anti-gay epithets, or attributing a particular sexual orientation to individuals who do not conform to sex stereotypes.
Examples of Violations
a. Using anti-gay epithets when speaking to or about an individual based on their non-conformity with gender norms.
b. Overlooking a female employee for a promotion because her behavior does not conform to the employer’s notion of how a female should behave at work.

c. Enforcing a policy in which men may not wear jewelry or make-up at work.
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by training all staff on creating and maintaining an environment free from sex stereotyping.
4. Imposing Different Uniforms or Grooming Standards Based on Sex or Gender
Under the NYCHRL, employers and covered entities may not require dress codes or uniforms, or apply grooming or appearance standards, that impose different requirements for individuals based on sex or gender. Under federal law, differing standards based on sex or gender are permitted so long as they do not impose an undue burden, an evidentiary standard that the plaintiff must prove. Differences that have been perceived by courts to be slight or that do not impose significantly greater burdens based on gender have generally been permitted; for example, courts have upheld requirements that female bartenders wear makeup, or that male servers wear ties. 13 While some courts have found uniforms and grooming standards that perpetuate sex stereotypes impermissible in extreme cases – for example, where an employer required only female employers to wear an overtly sexualized uniform 14 – courts have generally upheld such standards when courts deem them innocuous or based in long-held, traditional gender norms.
In keeping with the requirements of the Restoration Act of 2005, the NYCHRL looks to these cases as a floor rather than a ceiling, and to that end, does not require a showing that different uniform or grooming standards create an unequal burden or disparate effect to qualify as gender discrimination. Under the NYCHRL, the fact that the grooming standard or dress code differentiates based on gender is sufficient for it to be considered discriminatory, even if perceived by some as harmless. Holding individuals to different grooming or uniform standards based on gender serves no legitimate non-discriminatory purpose and reinforces a culture of sex stereotypes and accepted cultural norms based on gender expression and identity.

The variability of expressions associated with gender and gender norms contrast vastly across culture, age, community, personality, style, and sense of self. Placing the burden on individuals to justify their gender identity or expression and demonstrate why a particular distinction makes them uncomfortable or does not conform to their gender expression would serve to reinforce the traditional notion of gender that our law has disavowed. Differing standards based on gender will always be rooted in gender norms and stereotypes, even when they may be perceived by some as innocuous. When an individual is treated differently because of their gender and required to conform to a specific standard assigned to their gender, that is gender discrimination regardless of intent, and that is not permissible under the NYCHRL.
Employers and covered entities are entitled to enforce a dress code, or require specific grooming or appearance standards; however it must be done without imposing restrictions or requirements specific to gender or sex. It will not be a defense that an employer or covered entity is catering to the preferences of their customers or clients.

Examples of Violations
a. Maintaining grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to individuals who identify as men or women or which have gender-based distinctions. For example, requiring different uniforms for men and women, or requiring that female bartenders wear makeup.

b. Requiring employees of one gender to wear a uniform specific to that gender.
c. Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewelry or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair. Requiring all servers, for example, to always have long hair tied back in a ponytail or away from their face is not a violation unless it is applied unequally based on gender.

d. Permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.

e. Requiring all men to wear ties in order to dine at a restaurant.

Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating gender-neutral dress codes and grooming standards. so a man should be allowed to wear a skirt? For example, a covered entity may require individuals to either wear their hair short or pulled back from the face or require that workers must wear either a pantsuit or a skirt suit. Covered entities may provide different uniform options that are culturally typically male and typically female. For example, an employer that provides uniform shirts may provide a shirt that is more typical of a woman’s blouse and another that is looser fitting in a style more typical of a man’s button down shirt. It would be unlawful, however, to require an employee to wear one style over another.
5. Providing Employee Benefits that Discriminate Based on Gender
The NYCHRL prohibits covered entities from offering employee benefits that discriminate on the basis of gender. To comply with the law, entities must offer benefits equally to all employees regardless of gender. Employee benefit plans that are covered by, and in compliance with, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and applicable federal anti-discrimination laws are also in compliance with the NYCHRL. 15
It is unlawful for an employer to provide health benefit plans that deny or exclude services on the basis of gender. To be non-discriminatory with respect to gender, health benefit plans must cover transgender care, also known as transition-related care or gender-affirming care.  So not only are you required to hire a man who thinks he's a woman, but you are also required to pay for his operation  In no case, however, will an employer that has selected a non-discriminatory plan be liable for the denial of coverage of a particular medical procedure by an insurance company, even when that denial may constitute discrimination on the basis of gender.
Transgender care is medically necessary, effective, and even life-saving for many transgender people. Transgender care includes a range of treatments, including, for example, hormone replacement therapy, voice training, or surgery. What a particular individual will seek differs according to their needs and overall health. Some insurance plans categorically exclude transgender care from coverage. Federal law requires self-insured plans governed by the Affordable Care Act to cover medically necessary transition-related care and New York State law requires fully-insured New York plans to do the same. 16

Examples of Violations
a. Employers offering health benefits to the opposite-sex spouses of employees, but not same-sex spouses.  forcing you to accept the "marriage"
b. Employers offering health benefits that do not cover care when an individual’s sex assigned at birth or gender otherwise recorded in a medical record or insurance plan is different from the one to which health services are ordinarily or exclusively available. For example, offering benefits that cover prostate cancer screening for cisgender men but not for transgender women.

c. Employers offering health benefits that categorically exclude from coverage, or limit coverage for, health services related to gender transition.

d. Employers offering any other employee benefits that discriminate on the basis of gender. For example, offering a stipend for child care to female but not male employees.
Covered entities may avoid violations under the NYCHRL by reviewing their existing health benefit plans, and if they do not already, provide an option that includes comprehensive coverage for transgender people. Employers should take care to select plans that follow recognized professional standards or medical care for transgender individuals, for example, the standards of care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Because there are few health care providers currently performing certain transition-related and/or gender-affirming care, employers should consider selecting plans that do not prohibit, place limits on, or have significantly higher co-pays or low reimbursements rates for out-of-network care.

6. Considering Gender When Evaluating Requests for Accommodations
The NYCHRL prohibits covered entities from considering gender when evaluating requests for accommodations for disabilities, or other requests for changes to the terms and conditions of one’s employment, participation in a program, or use of a public accommodation, which may include additional medical or personal leave or schedule changes. 17 When a covered entity grants leave or time off of work to employees for medical or health reasons, it shall treat leave requests to address medical or health care needs related to an individual’s gender identity in the same manner as requests for all other medical conditions. Covered entities shall provide reasonable accommodations to individuals undergoing gender transition, including medical leave for medical and counseling appointments, surgery and recovery from gender affirming procedures, surgeries and treatments as they would for any other medical condition.
Examples of Violations
a. An employer who has a policy of routinely granting unpaid medical leave upon request to individuals who have been working for the employer for over a year, who refuses to honor that policy when the request is made by a transgender individual.

b. When an employer or covered entity permits a reasonable accommodation for a cisgender woman seeking reconstructive breast surgery deemed medically necessary but refuses that same accommodation when requested by a transgender woman undergoing the same medically necessary surgery.  medically necessary?

c. Requesting medical documentation to verify leave time from transgender employees or participants, but not cisgender employees or participants.
d. Determining the retention and accrual of benefits, such as seniority, retirement, and pension rights, during personal or medical leave periods for employees based on gender.

Employers may avoid violations under the NYCHRL by creating internal procedures to evaluate all requests for accommodations in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
7. Engaging in Discriminatory Harassment
The NYCHRL prohibits discriminatory harassment or violence motivated by a person’s actual or perceived gender identity or expression that attempts to interfere with, or actually interferes with, the free exercise of a legal right. Discriminatory harassment includes violence, the threat of violence, a pattern of threatening verbal harassment, the use of force, intimidation or coercion, defacing or damaging real property and cyberbullying. For example, a tenant assaulting or threatening to assault a neighbor because of her gender expression, in addition to committing a crime, is also violating the NYCHRL.

8. Engaging in Retaliation
The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation against an individual for opposing discrimination or requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability based on gender identity or expression. Opposing discrimination includes, but is not limited to, making an internal complaint about discrimination, making an external complaint of discrimination to the Commission or another government agency, or participating in an investigation of discrimination. An action taken against an individual that is reasonably likely to deter them from engaging in such activities is considered unlawful retaliation. The action need not rise to the level of a final action or a materially adverse change to the terms and conditions of employment, housing, or participation in a program to be retaliatory under the NYCHRL. When an individual opposes what they believe in good faith to be unlawful discrimination, it is unlawful to retaliate against the individual even if the conduct they opposed is not ultimately determined to violate the NYCHRL.

Examples of Violations
a. Repeatedly assigning an individual to work the least desirable shifts contrary to the normal practice of rotating those shifts equally among staff after the individual makes an internal complaint of discrimination.
b. Demoting or firing an individual who has filed a complaint with the Commission or has filed their own case in civil court.
c. Failing to grant accommodations for an individual otherwise not required under the law but that are routinely provided by the employer after the individual was interviewed as a witness in a coworker’s case alleging discrimination.

d. Refusing to advance a program participant to the next stage of the program despite their successful completion of the previous stage because the participant raised concerns about unequal treatment.
Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by implementing internal anti-discrimination policies to educate employees, tenants, and program participants of their rights and obligations under the NYCHRL with respect to gender identity and expression and regularly train staff on these issues. so now the main purpose of a job is propaganda Covered entities should create procedures for employees, tenants, and program participants to internally report violations of the law without fear of adverse action and train those in supervisory capacities on how to handle those claims when they witness discrimination or instances are reported to them by subordinates. Covered entities that engage with the public should implement a policy for interacting with the public in a respectful, non-discriminatory manner consistent with the NYCHRL, respecting gender diversity, and ensuring that members of the public do not face discrimination, including with respect to single-sex programs and facilities.

IV. PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
* The severity of the particular violation;
* The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
* The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue; and
* The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies.


__________________________________________________
1 Local Law No. 85 (2005); see also N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130 (“The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed.”)
2 Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C Admin. Code § 8-102(23).
3 Id.
4 Report of the Governmental Affairs Division, Committee on General Welfare, Intro. No. 24, to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to gender-based discrimination (April 24, 2002) accessible through http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Legislation.aspx.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23).
8 Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 872 N.Y.S.2d 27, 39 (App. Div. 2009)
9 Protections on the basis of gender under the NYCHRL are subject to the same limitations as all other protected categories. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-102(5); 8-107(5)(a)(4)(1),(2); 8-107(4)(b).
10 Ze and hir are popular gender-free pronouns preferred by some transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals.
11 Where covered entities regularly request a form of identification from members of the public for a legitimate business reason, requesting a form of identification from transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals is not unlawful. Just as is the case for many cisgender individuals, many transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals’ appearances may not appear the same as what is represented on their photo identification. Covered entities may use a form of identification to corroborate an individual’s identification, but may not subject a transgender or gender non-conforming individual to a higher level of scrutiny than any other person presenting a form of identification.
12 A single-occupancy restroom is a room with a single toilet, walls, a sink, and a door.
13 See, e.g., Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004) aff’d on reh’g, 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (granting summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that requiring female bartenders to wear makeup placed greater burden on women than on men); Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1977) (finding that a requirement that male employees wear ties was not sex discrimination under Title VII because it was not overly burdensome to its employees); Barker v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 549 F.2d 400, 401 (6th Cir. 1977) (holding that “employer grooming codes requiring different hair lengths for men and women bear such a negligible relation to the purposes of Title VII that we cannot conclude they were a target of the Act.”); Longo v. Carlisle DeCoppet & Co., 537 F.2d 685 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that requiring short hair on men and not on women does not violate Title VII).
14 EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 F. Supp. 599, 608-09 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), supplementing decision, 521 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).
15 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(e)(i).
16 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (2010); N.Y. Dep’t. of Fin. Serv., Insurance Circular Letter No. 7 on Health Insurance Coverage for the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria (Dec. 2014). The Commission does not have jurisdiction to enforce these laws.
17 While it is not the focus of this guidance, transgender individuals may have additional rights under Section 8-107(15) of the NYCHRL, including the right to reasonable accommodations. Some transgender people have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which is a disability within the meaning of the NYCHRL. As with any disability, covered entities must make reasonable accommodations for individuals with gender dysphoria.

 link to the document

Bill Sponsored In NY, Preventing Judge From Taking Sex "Change" Operation In Account, In A Custody Battle

The insane Greenwich Village/Upper West Side, Senator Brad Hoylman sponsored this bill!

Introduced  by  Sen. HOYLMAN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
  printed to be committed to the Committee on Children and Families

AN ACT to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to  the  custody
  of children

  THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Section 240 of the domestic relations  law  is  amended  by
adding a new subdivision 6 to read as follows:
  6.  IN  ANY  CASE  INVOLVING  THE  CUSTODY OF THE CHILD, WHEN MAKING A
DETERMINATION AS TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, THE JUDGE SHALL NOT
PROHIBIT A PARENT FROM UNDERGOING GENDER REASSIGNMENT AS A CONDITION  OF
RECEIVING CUSTODY.
  S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

NYC Allows A Mother To Call Herself A "Male" On New Birth Certificates

Next we'll ban the word mother?

Birth certificates ask parents if ‘woman giving birth’ is female

No, that’s not a typo.

A city Health Department form for new parents requesting birth certificates asks the “woman giving birth” if she’s male or female.

Along with routine questions — mother’s maiden name, mother’s legal name, mother’s Social Security number — is a gender question that has raised a few eyebrows.

And just in case the inquiry is not clear, the birth-certificate request provides a convenient check box and asks the question in capital letters. “What is your DATE OF BIRTH, current AGE and SEX?” the form asks in the section clearly marked “Mother/Parent (Woman Giving Birth).”

“To be clear, it is possible for a person who has given birth to a child to identify as male,” said Susan Sommer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.

Sommer said that given various transgender stages, there is room for the person who gives birth to check the male box.

Not to leave the father out, the form asks dads the same question and gives them the same check-box options. Only there’s no “giving birth” notation in that section.

While the “sex” question might baffle some new parents, "experts" said the birth certificate form was created several years ago and was born out of the "marriage" "equality" movement.

Until a change in the form was made, married gay and lesbian couples had to go to court to secure their names on birth certificates, a legal hurdle that blocked parental rights that most people took for granted.

Then-Gov. David Paterson allowed for the change in 2008 across the state everywhere but in New York City, which keeps its own vital statistics and sets its own rules for them.

City officials reviewed their policy and made a similar change in 2009.

“A form that is respectful and doesn’t make assumptions about sex or gender of people parenting children is fine to me,” Sommer said.

A DOH spokesman was unavailable for comment.

Advocates encourage same-sex "couples" to adopt because doing so gives them extra legal protection. But the birth-certificate provision can clarify parental rights in situations ranging from a hospital nursery to a school registrar’s office, Sommer said.

(NY Post)

link to entire birth certificate

Cuomo Orders All Insurance Companies To Cover Sex "Change" Operations

Insurers in New York Must Cover Gender Reassignment Surgery, Cuomo who the "Orthodox" Jewish community just voted for  Says

Lee Albertorio felt like a man trapped in a woman’s body. After serving in the Air Force, she began taking hormones, which deepened heris voice and made heris physique more masculine.

SHe changed heris passport to reflect that heris was posing as a male, and last year she decided to have a mastectomy, known as top surgery. But heris insurance company told heris the operation was cosmetic and refused to cover it, she said Wednesday.

Now Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo YMS who won the "Orthodox" Jewish vote in almost every single Jewish ED is warning insurance companies that they will no longer be allowed to deny gender reassignment surgery or other treatment to change a person’s gender, like hormone therapy, if a doctor has deemed that treatment "medically necessary".

In a letter being sent to insurance companies this week, the governor said that because state law requires insurance coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders, people who are found to have a psychological mismatch between their birth sex and their internal sense of gender are entitled to expensive insurance coverage for treatments related to that condition, called gender dysphoria. making everyone else's premiums rise significantly

“An issuer of a policy that includes coverage for mental health conditions may not exclude coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria,” the governor’s letter says.

“That would change everything — I mean that sounds very good,” Mrs. Albertorio said excitedly when told of the governor’s order.

The rule makes New York the ninth state to require the coverage, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group, said on Wednesday. The others are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, according to the group. Washington, D.C., also mandates it.

The group said that most insurance policies currently exclude coverage for transgender treatment, and at best include it as a more expensive rider to a standard plan.

“This is an absolute sea change in the way that insurance for transgender people will cover their health care needs,” Michael Silverman, executive director of the fund, said. “This essentially opens up an entire world of treatment for transgender people that was closed to them previously.”
Leslie Moran, a spokeswoman for the New York Health Plan Association, the trade association for most health plans across New York State, said the industry did not object to having to cover gender dysphoria.

But she said the industry was concerned that the governor’s order could raise costs in the new year that are going to be transferred over to you that were not contemplated during the recent round of rate-setting. And she said companies were concerned that the policy would open the door for other services that people might seek, claiming they were medically necessary for mental health reasons.

“It sets a precedent,” Ms. Moran said.

Benjamin M. Lawsky, the state’s superintendent of financial services, which regulates insurance, said he would “be very surprised” if the change led to a noticeable after all an extra few dollars a month is not that noticeable and "doesn't" add up rise in insurance premiums, because the number of transgender people would be such a small part of the insurance pool.

“It will further solidify the rights of a group that probably weren’t always being treated as equal to everybody else, and that’s sort of fundamental to our system,” Mr. Lawsky said.

The new policy comes as the state is trying to negotiate a settlement in a class-action lawsuit seeking Medicaid coverage for sex-change treatments, and advocates said they hoped it was a signal that the state was going to approve that coverage as well. Mr. Lawsky said that State Senator Brad Hoylman YMS, a Manhattan Democrat, had brought the issue to his attention in June, by pointing out that several other states had barred insurance companies from excluding gender-change treatment.

At that time, a review board of the United States Department of Health and Human Services had just ruled that transgender people could no longer be automatically denied coverage for sex reassignment surgeries under Medicare, reversing a policy in place since 1981.

Mr. Hoylman said this week that he knew people who had had to scrape together money from fund-raisers to pay for their gender reassignment surgery. “Nobody should be in that position in order to embrace such a fundamental aspect of their personhood,” he said.

Mr. Hoylman said he was hoping the governor’s directive signaled that the political climate was right to pass a “transgender civil rights act” in the state, guaranteeing that transgender people would not suffer discrimination in other areas like housing and forcing them into all Jewish Stores, and allowing men into women's bathrooms and the like.

Mrs. Albertorio, 30, a program coordinator at a nonprofit agency, wanted the top surgery so badly that she paid for it using $6,500 in loans and credit card payments. To complete heris transition will cost at least $50,000, which for heris is “pretty out of reach and therefore is going to be transferred to you”.

(NYT) highlight portions our additions

Letter that was sent out forcing theses changes

Cuomo's official statement (highlighted portion is necessary additions)
Department of Financial Services Notifies Insurance Industry That Medically Necessary Treatment For Gender Dysphoria Cannot be Denied



Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that regulatory guidance has been issued to help ensure that transgender New Yorkers have equal access to commercial health insurance coverage. The Department of Financial Services (DFS) today sent industry guidance to all New York insurers stating that they may not deny medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria – a condition when a person's gender at birth is contrary to the one with which they identify.

“Respecting the rights and dignity of all New Yorkers is paramount unless your religious,” Governor Cuomo said. “By taking this action, we are ensuring that principle rightfully extends to transgender people across our state and continuing New York’s legacy as a progressive leader for the nation. I urge other states to follow our example on this issue, because "discriminating" against people on the basis of their gender identity simply should not be tolerated.”

Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, said, “We hope this action sends a powerful message that "discrimination" against transgender people will not be tolerated. Transgender New Yorkers deserve the same access to "essential" health care as every other New Yorker. We especially thank Senator Brad Hoylman for working with us on this matter and for his steadfast leadership on LGBT rights and assisted murder.”

Senator Brad Hoylman said, “I commend Governor Cuomo and Superintendent Lawsky for ending "discrimination" in health insurance in New York based on gender identity or expression. Moving forward, health insurance providers must cover treatments related to gender transition, which is regarded as medically necessary by leading professional medical organizations for many transgender people. Today’s announcement is "important" to the health and well-being of transgender New Yorkers and I’m honored to have worked with them on this "important" issue.”

Alphonso David, Deputy Secretary and Counsel for Civil Rights said, “The regulatory guidance issued by the Department of Financial Service today is yet another step forward towards the never ending progressive goal of a progressive utopia by Governor Cuomo and the administration to remove long-standing, systemic barriers to "equality". The guidance will help ensure that transgender New Yorkers have "equal" access to coverage in the private marketplace. The Governor is committed to, consistent with law, continuing efforts to modernize New York State’s policies and practices to guarantee "fair" treatment for all New Yorkers by making us all pay to humor someone's insanity.”

An insurer retains the right to review gender dysphoria treatment for medical necessity purposes, as it may do with any benefit covered under a health insurance policy. But, as with any covered benefit, any such review in a gender dysphoria treatment case must be performed with the full range of appeal rights set forth in Article 49 of both the Insurance Law and the Public Health Law.

A consumer whose gender dysphoria treatment has been denied has the right to file an internal appeal of the denial with the insurer. Information on filing an internal appeal is provided on the notice of the denial that an insurer is required to provide to the consumer. If an insurer denies the treatment on internal appeal, the consumer has the right to file an external appeal with an independent external appeal agent who will make their own medical necessity determination. Information on filing an external appeal can be found here.

School District Ordered To Pay $75,000 For Refusing To Allow Boy In Girls Bathroom

District ordered to pay transgender student $75K

ORONO, Maine (AP) — A Maine court has awarded the family of a transgender boy who thinks he's a "girl"  $75,000 in a settlement of her discrimination lawsuit against a school district where administrators made "he"r use a staff, not student, bathroom.

Nicole Maines won her lawsuit against the Orono school district in January before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that the school district violated the Maine Human Rights Act. It was the first time a state high court in the U.S. concluded that a "transgender" person should use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify.

A lower court awarded her the financial settlement last week. It will go to the Maines family, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and Berman Simmons, a Portland law firm that represented Maines, said GLAD spokeswoman Carisa Cunningham.

The Penobscot County Superior order, dated Nov. 25, represents the conclusion of the court case that began in 2009 when the Maines family and the Maine Human Rights Commission sued the school district. The order prohibits the district from "refusing access by transgender students to school restrooms that are consistent with their gender psychosis identity."

School administrators across the country are grappling with the issue.

Nicole, now 17, is a biological male who "identified" as a girl beginning at age 2.

Nicole was using the girls' bathroom in her elementary school until the grandfather of a fifth-grade boy complained to administrators. The Orono school district determined that she should use a staff bathroom, but "her" parents said that amounted to "discrimination".

(AP) highlights our additions

Man Who Thinks He's A Woman Sues To Be Allowed Into Women's Sports Competition

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A transgender woman in Northern California has sued the company behind the popular CrossFit workouts for refusing to let "her" compete in the female division of its annual fitness competitions.

The lawsuit brought Thursday by Chloie Jonsson, 34, accuses CrossFit Inc. of violating "her" rights under a California law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Jonsson's complaint says she was born male but has been living as a woman since she was a teenager and underwent sex reassignment surgery eight years ago. The surgery, coupled with the female hormones she takes, satisfied the state's requirements for her to be recognized as female on her birth certificate and other official documents.

Her lawyer, Waukeen McCoy, said Jonsson, who works as a personal trainer and is an avid CrossFit practitioner, first spoke to company representatives about "her" background a year ago after a teammate learned that participants in the Reebok CrossFit Games were required to register according to their gender at birth.

"They said she has an advantage over "other" women because of the sex she was born with, and that is completely "un"true, scientifically," McCoy said, noting that the International Olympic Committee and other sports governing bodies allow athletes who have undergone surgery, taken hormones and secured legal recognition to compete in the category that corresponds to their affirmed "gender".

CrossFit's general counsel, Dale Saran, would not comment on the lawsuit, which seeks $2.5 million in damages. Saran directed The Associated Press to a CrossFit online discussion board, where he posted that Jonsson had never supplied medical documents to back up "her" assertion that she was a "woman". He also dismissed McCoy's suggestion that transgender athletes are engaged in a struggle as valid as the one black baseball players waged to be accepted in the major leagues.

"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women," Saran wrote in a letter to McCoy that's linked to the discussion board. "That Chloie may have felt herself emotionally, and very conscientiously, to be a woman in her heart, and that "she" ultimately underwent the legal and other surgical procedures to carry that out, cannot change that reality."

Saran said CrossFit may create a separate division for transgender athletes if enough step forward to compete.

"Our decision has nothing to do with 'ignorance' or being bigots - it has to do with a very real understanding of the human genome, of fundamental biology, that you are either intentionally ignoring or missed in high school," he said.

CrossFit is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but its founder, Greg Glassman, launched it in Santa Cruz, Calif. in the late 1990s. The company has 7,000 affiliate gyms around the world where classes offer an intense, military-style mix of weight-lifting, core conditioning and cardio exercises, according to its website.

Individuals and teams compete every year in the timed CrossFit Games to determine who can complete the most repetitions of various exercises.
(AP)

Massachusetts Court Says Photographing Up A Womans Skirt Is Legal

(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Wednesday that it is not illegal to secretly photograph underneath a person's clothing -- a practice known as "upskirting" -- prompting one prosecutor to call for a revision of state law.

The high court ruled that the practice did not violate the law because the women who were photographed while riding Boston public transportation were not nude or partially nude.

"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," wrote Justice Margot Botsford of the state Supreme Judicial Court.

CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said the law has not caught up to technology and called it an assault on a woman's right to privacy.

"I think the courts got it wrong," Hostin said. "The spirit of the law makes it clear it is about the person's privacy."

The ruling stems from the case against Michael Robertson, 32, who was arrested in 2010 and accused of using his cell phone to take pictures and record video up the skirts and dresses of women on the trolley, according to court documents.

Two separate complaints were filed against Robertson with the transit police. Authorities then staged "a decoy operation" to catch Robertson, who was eventually arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity. Police observed him point a cell phone video camera up the dress of a female officer, court documents state.

Wednesday's ruling reversed a previous decision by a lower court, which had denied a motion by Robertson seeking the dismissal of the case, said a statement from the Suffolk County district attorney's office.

"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.

The ruling that state law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA."

Prosecutors had argued that the current statute, which prohibits secretly photographing or videotaping a person who is "nude or partially nude," includes upskirting, according to documents.

But Robertson's lawyers argued that the female passenger on the trolley was not "nude or partially nude" and was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, according to court documents.

"Every person, male or female, has a right to privacy beneath his or her own clothing," Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said in a statement Wednesday. "If the statute as written doesn't protect that privacy, then I'm urging the Legislature to act rapidly and adjust it so it does."

Robertson's lawyer, Michelle Menken, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Robertson faced misdemeanor charges punishable by up to two and half years in prison.

(CNN)

10 years ago these same geniuses allowed same gender "marriage"

House Speaker Robert DeLeo said this afternoon that the Legislature would immediately begin looking at ways of closing the loophole in the law.

“The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law. The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today’s technology immediately,” DeLeo said in a statement.

(Boston.com)

Cory Booker Implies That Not Allowing Same Gender "Marriage" Is Like Communism

Remember to VOTE AGAINST Cory Booker this Wendsday, for senate!

Insane Headline Of the Year: Not Everyone Who Has An Abortion Is A Woman

Anybody who actually understands this article and is not fighting modern day liberalism and it's promoters (liberal candidates) is a RASHA GAMUR!

The "War on Women" isn't just a war on women. Trans men and gender-non-conforming people are losing their rights too, and we need to rework how we frame these "women's issues."

The last month has been particularly brutal for abortion rights activists and women's health advocates, as state after state has proposed and/or passed various bills that restrict abortion access and undermine abortion care. In response, there has been a re-energized reproductive rights movement, with many across the nation stating that they "Stand With Texas Women" or "Stand With North Carolina Women." But in this response, abortion rights activists have overlooked and dismissed a very important reality: Not everyone who has an abortion is a woman.

Abortion is so often framed as a women's issue by both those who advocate for abortion rights and those who seek to dismiss abortion as frivolous. And for abortion rights, a movement that took root in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this makes sense. Prior to a deeper understanding and problematizing of gender and the way that it works, in our social construction, only women had abortions because only women could get pregnant. But in 2013, we should know better, and we need to do better.

At this crucial moment for reproductive freedom and abortion access, the abortion rights movement stands at yet another crossroads: How do we adequately address and include those who have abortions but are not women?

We must acknowledge and come to terms with the implicit cissexism in assuming that only women have abortions. Trans men have abortions. People who do not identify as women have abortions. They deserve to be represented in our advocacy and activist framework. Honestly, I am guilty of perpetuating that harmful myth, both in my rhetoric and framing. I often frame abortion restrictions as misogynistic attacks meant to control women's reproductive lives, and that is true. But abortion restrictions also affect the lives of people who aren't women, and they hinder trans men and gender-non-conforming people and others who were Designated Female at Birth (DFAB) from accessing abortion care, as well.

"Stand with Ohio Women" and the "War on Women" may be great rallying cries, but they also very clearly reiterate the notion that abortion is both solely a women's issue and that only women have abortions. This can make those in the trans community feel excluded, and it can deter them from both seeking the abortion care they may need or becoming actively involved in abortion rights advocacy.




Leading the way on becoming more gender inclusive around the issue of abortion is the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF), which recently agreed to shift its mission statement and values to reflect more gender inclusive language. NYAAF also created a Gender Inclusive Task Force to reach out to the LGBTQ communities and inform them that NYAAF helps fund abortions for all people, not just women. They state:

We want to make sure that NYAAF isn't just working toward every woman's right to access affordable abortion care, but every person's right, regardless of their gender. We realized that embracing gender inclusivity is about more than not assuming the gender pronouns that our callers use or replacing 'woman' with 'people' everywhere on our website. Becoming gender inclusive is an important part of our values as an organization.

More abortion rights and abortion care organizations need to follow suit with NYAAF. But individual activists can take action on a smaller level, even without the official sanctioning of nonprofits and advocacy organizations. We can begin by listening.

NYAAF "Values"

Ellen, who identifies as transgenderqueer, notes that "the best thing [cisgender] allies can do is to be receptive to criticism and ask trans people for alternatives. When you do this, it shows that you're listening and aware that your choice of language makes an impact." As Ellen also highlighted, trans people often feel that they are a burden to cisgender (which means your gender identity is the same as the sex with which you were born) abortion rights activists when they call out the problematic and exclusionary language upon which we rely.
Beyond that, we should begin to accept and grapple with, on individual and community levels, what it means to frame abortion as a women's issue and why we continue to be so reluctant or unable to be more gender inclusive. This requires effort, yes, but it is essential to our work and to a deeper understanding that reproductive justice does not only apply to women, but to all people. All people who need an abortion should be able to access one, and that does not solely apply to women.

I agree that restricting abortion rights is a misogynistic attempt to control women's reproductive lives and undermine women's reproductive autonomy. I firmly believe that misogyny lies at the heart of restricting abortion rights. But I also acknowledge that the misogyny of restricting abortion rights applies to trans* people, too. It affects a trans man who needs an abortion in North Dakota just as much as it does a cisgender woman in Texas. As Ellen so poignantly said, "this abortion debate is about agency, about choice and about attacks on our bodies," and that includes those who are not women.

So yes, I stand with women. I also stand with trans men and gender-non-conforming people. Do you?
Here is a helpful glossary of trans, genderqueer, and queer terms.
(truth-out)