A bathroom bill is the common name for a piece of legislation that denies or restricts access to public facilities (usually specifically restrooms) to transgender people. These bills mandate that, rather than using those services and facilities that match their gender identity, individuals use the services and facilities that correspond to their sex as assigned at birth.
Perhaps the most famous Bathroom Bill, this was partially repealed in March 2017. Read more about it here.
Alabama Senate Bill 1"This bill would establish the Alabama Privacy Act to impose requirements on any person or entity that maintains public rest rooms, bathrooms, or changing facilities regarding privacy and the gender of the persons admitted."
Anchorage, Alaska: Prop 1To be voted on in April of 2018, a yes vote is a vote in favor of restricting access to facilities on the basis of sex at birth rather than gender identity. Full text here.
Florida HB583"requires that use of single-sex public facilities be restricted to persons of sex for which facility is designated; prohibits knowingly & willfully entering single-sex public facility designated for or restricted to persons of other sex; provides criminal penalties; provides private cause of action against violators; provides exemptions; provides applicability with respect to other laws; provides for preemption."
Died in Committee in April, 2015.
Kentucky HB 326"An act relating to student accommodations in distinctly private facilities."
Minnesota HF 41(for full text, click on version list)
"A public school student restroom, locker room, changing room, and shower room accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for the exclusive use by students of the male sex only or by students of the female sex only."
Missouri SB 98"This act requires that all school restrooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms accessible for use by multiple students shall be designated for and used by male or female students only. The act provides for the best available accommodations for students who assert that his or her gender is different from his or her biological sex. Such accommodations shall include but not be limited to single-stall restrooms, access to unisex restrooms, or controlled use of faculty restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms.
This act is similar to HB 745 (2017) and identical to SB 720 (2016)."
Nevada AB 375"AN ACT relating to education; providing certain requirements for school facilities that are designated for use by persons of one biological sex; and providing other matters properly relating thereto."
South Carolina H3012"A local government or other political subdivision in this State may not enact local laws, ordinances, orders, or other regulations that require a place of public accommodation or a private club or other establishment, not in fact open to the general public, to allow a person to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility regardless of the person's biological sex. A local law, ordinance, order, or other regulation enacted by a local government to require a person to use a multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility designated for his biological sex is not a violation of this chapter and does not constitute discrimination based upon a protected category."
Tennessee HB 1488"To defend a local education agency (LEA) or an LEA's employees, in an employee's individual or official capacity, upon the LEA or employee's formal request in writing, in any court or administrative tribunal arising out of an LEA or employee's adoption of a policy or practice designed to protect the privacy of students from exposure to others of the opposite biological sex in situations where students may be in various states of undress by requiring all students, faculty, and staff to utilize the restroom, locker room, or other facility that corresponds to that individual's biological sex."
Texas SB6 (and SB3)SB6 would restrict the use of bathrooms, changing facilities, etc. based on sex as listed on birth Certificate, while
Virginia HB 781"Restroom facilities; use of facilities in public buildings or schools, definition of biological sex."
Washington HB 1011This bill would prevent transgender individuals from using a bathroom of their gender identity unless they have had sex-reassignment surgery, and would prevent local municipalities from enacting ordinances contradicting the directive.
Restrictions on access to facilities based on sex assigned at birth experienced a resurgence after some protections for trans students that allowed them to use facilities based on their gender identity were rolled back. This has resulted in headlines like "transgender student separated during safety drill" and has impacted the quality of life of trans students nationwide.
Blood Bans refer to prohibitions on donations of blood or tissue for transplants from men who have sex with men (MSM) and their partners of other genders. Many view donation restrictions as homophobic and based on stereotypes rather than valid medical concerns since donations are rigorously tested for viruses such as HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. The FDA takes gender as self-identified and self-reported, but these bans are further complicated by gender identity which in America must be reported as either male or female.
Banning Queer Blood by Jeffrey A. BennettIn Banning Queer Blood, Jeffrey Bennett frames blood donation as a performance of civic identity closely linked to the meaning of citizenship. However, with the advent of AIDS came the notion of blood donation as a potentially dangerous process. Bennett argues that the Food and Drug Administration, by employing images that specifically depict gay men as contagious, has categorized gay men as a menace to the nation. The FDA's ban on blood donation by gay men remains in effect and serves to propagate the social misconceptions about gay men that circulate within both the straight and gay communities today. Bennett explores the role of scientific research cited by these banned-blood policies and its disquieting relationship to government agencies, including the FDA. Bennett draws parallels between the FDA's position on homosexuality and the historical precedents of discrimination by government agencies against racial minorities. The author concludes by describing the resistance posed by queer donors, who either lie in order to donate blood or protest discrimination at donation sites, and by calling for these prejudiced policies to be abolished.
In December of 2015 the FDA lifted its 32 year ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood, but some restrictions remain in place. Under the new regulations, gay or bisexual men must have abstained from oral or anal sex with another man for at least a year before donating blood.
The ban on blood donation on men who have sex with men: time to rethink and reassess an outdated policyDuring the 1980s the HIV/AIDS epidemic outbreak occurred. Due to the high prevalence of the disease on men who had sex with men (MSM) a lifetime ban on blood donations on men who had sex with men (MSM) was implemented. In the recent years, organizations like the European Union (EU) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have established new guidelines introducing the term of “risky sexual behavior” without any reference to the sex orientation of the potential donor, however many countries are hesitant to review the ban on men who had sex with men (MSM). Given the lack of screening methods for HIV back in the '80s the ban on men who had sex with men seemed like the only choice in order to limit the disease. However, nowadays the screening methods have advanced and the possibility of a transfusion related HIV infection is extremely low. Many countries, considering the new data available, have reformed their policies and moved from the lifetime ban to 5-year and 1-year deferrals but only a fraction of countries have adopted the guidelines for the “risky sexual behavior” assessment. The ban that forbid men who have sex with men from donating blood was implemented more than 30 years ago. During the '80s, the epidemiology was different and it seems not only hypocritical but also naïve to rely on guidelines that are far outdated and old-fashioned. The medical community has a duty to secure safe blood for every person who might need it, let us not waste safe potential donors and stigmatize them by focusing on outdated policies.
"Blood Mirror is a sculpture created with 59 blood donations from gay, bisexual, and transgender men, that advocates for equality and protests the FDA’s stigmatizing and discriminatory blood ban." See the Visual AIDS event page for information on current exhibitions. Visual AIDS utilizes art to fight AIDS by provoking dialogue, supporting HIV+ artists, and preserving a legacy, because AIDS is not over.
DODD 1332.14 "Enlisted Administrative Separations" (Jan 28, 1982) describes when a member of the armed forces can be discharged on the grounds of homosexuality, specifically section H. It was updated on Dec. 21, 1993. Public Law 103-160, commonly known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 contains section 571 titled "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces" which was signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. DODD 1304.26 updates Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction to include the "Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct," which became known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This directive, which is a policy and not a law, went into effect on Feb. 28, 1994. Public Law 111-321 was signed Dec. 22, 2010 and struck the law banning homosexuality in the armed forces, which negated the need for Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"A non-partisan, non-profit, legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to bringing about full LGBT equality to America's military and ending all forms of discrimination and harassment of military personnel on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Palm Center resulted in the availability of data on the discharge of military members by base and job category.
The End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell by J. Ford Huffman (Editor); Tammy S. Schultz (Editor); Marine Corps University Press Staff (Editor)Featuring 4 reports and 25 personal essays from diverse voices--both straight and gay--representing U.S. Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force veterans and service members, this anthology examines the impact of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and its repeal on 20 September 2011 in order to benefit policy makers, historians, researchers, and general readers. Topics include lessons from foreign militaries, serving while openly gay, women at war, returning to duty, marching forward after repeal, and support for the committed same-sex partners and families of gay service members.
On Jan. 22, 2019, the Supreme court denied requests for review of three lower court decision on the ban on transgender people serving in the military. Trump v. Jane Doe 2 came up from the District Court of the District of Columbia, Trump v. Karnoski came up from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Trump v. Stockman came up from the District Court for the Central District of California. This clears the way for the policy to go into effect while litigation continues.
"Courage comes in many forms. Retired Army Col. Grethe Cammermeyer — nurse, Vietnam veteran, Bronze Star recipient and civil rights champion — mustered yet another form of courage to disclose that she was a lesbian, even though it meant she would lose her job in the military."
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
When these conversations are reduced to genitalia and sex characteristics, intersex people are erased from the conversation. This document from the United Nations Office of the High Commission of Human Rights is a very useful resource.
During the Lavender Scare of the 1950s, thousands of federal employees lost their jobs because of their sexuality. Bound up in the better known Red Scare, this wave of repression was fueled by anti-Communism and the new power placed in congressional investigation committees.
From the Summer 2016 (48, 2) issue of Prologue, the Quarterly of the National Archives and Records Administration.
The Lavender Scare by David K. JohnsonThe McCarthy era is generally considered the worst period of political repression in recent American history. But while the famous question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" resonated in the halls of Congress, security officials were posing another question at least as frequently, if more discreetly: "Information has come to the attention of the Civil Service Commission that you are a homosexual. What comment do you care to make?" Historian David K. Johnson here relates the frightening, untold story of how, during the Cold War, homosexuals were considered as dangerous a threat to national security as Communists. Charges that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were havens for homosexuals proved a potent political weapon, sparking a "Lavender Scare" more vehement and long-lasting than McCarthy's Red Scare. Relying on newly declassified documents, years of research in the records of the National Archives and the FBI, and interviews with former civil servants, Johnson recreates the vibrant gay subculture that flourished in New Deal-era Washington and takes us inside the security interrogation rooms where thousands of Americans were questioned about their sex lives. The homosexual purges ended promising careers, ruined lives, and pushed many to suicide. But, as Johnson also shows, the purges brought victims together to protest their treatment, helping launch a new civil rights struggle. The Lavender Scare shatters the myth that homosexuality has only recently become a national political issue, changing the way we think about both the McCarthy era and the origins of the gay rights movement. And perhaps just as importantly, this book is a cautionary tale, reminding us of how acts taken by the government in the name of "national security" during the Cold War resulted in the infringement of the civil liberties of thousands of Americans.
Publication Date: 2004-01-01
When will my turn come? : the Civil Service purges and the construction of a gay security risk in the Cold War United States, 1945-1955 by Clay Andrew PoupartIn the 1940s and 1950s, the United States was gripped by an intense anxiety about its national security. While primarily triggered by the external threat of the Soviet Union, this anxiety was especially centred on internal threats, real and imagined. Most previous studies have focused on the so-called "Red Scare," the hunt for Communists and other political undesirables. This was accompanied by a parallel "Lavender Scare," an assault on homosexuality in American culture, especially public service. Homosexuality had been grounds for dismissal from the Civil Service since the 19th century, but Cold War anxiety about gays in government became so great that some in the press began referring to it as a "Panic on the Potomac." Fear of sexual subversion became so integrated into the larger national security obsession that, by 1955, fully 1 in every 5 American workers was subject to a combination of loyalty and security restrictions, related to both political and "moral" categories of unsuitability. Yet this episode has remained a largely forgotten footnote in American Cold War experience.
The homophobia that characterized the early Cold War was new, more intense, and unique to that moment in history. Full-scale investigations and purges of suspected gays from the Civil Service began in 1950, but possessed deeper roots in the politics and culture of the era. They were stimulated by a combination of Cold War anxiety, post-war conservatism, and a changing conception of the nature of homosexuality. The effects of the purges would include not only widespread dismissals and intensified repression of gays and lesbians, but also the emergence of gay activism and the concept of a distinct gay minority. The evolving nature of gay identity, especially self-identity, is ultimately central to the thesis topic. This thesis is one of a small, but growing number of works that attempt to comprehensively examine the origins, characteristics, and impacts of the Lavender Scare. It draws on a wide range of sources, including the most recent specialized studies and the best available primary sources, including archival materials, first-hand recollections of events, and newly declassified government documents.
Publication Date: 2005
The Lavender Scare: Gays and lesbians in the federal civil service, 1945–1975 by David Sherry JohnsonThis dissertation examines the Lavender Scare, the widespread McCarthy-era fear that large numbers of homosexuals had infiltrated the federal government and posed a threat to national security. Though lacking a single substantiated case of espionage to support it, the Lavender Scare resulted in the firing of thousands of gay and lesbian civil servants. Erupting as a public controversy during McCarthy's attack on the State Department in February 1950, the purges of gays and lesbians spread to the entire executive branch and became institutionalized within the apparatus of the national security state. The loyalty/security system established under the Truman administration and significantly expanded in the Eisenhower administration shifted its focus from political loyalty to issues of character, morality and suitability, with homosexuality as one of its principal targets. Exploring how notions of sexual deviance became associated with communism and bureaucracy in Cold War political culture, I argue that the demonization of politically and sexually deviant civil servants was part of a broader attack on New Deal government programs and the bureaucrats who administered them. Initiated as part of a partisan political attempt to demonize the Roosevelt-Truman administrations, the Lavender Scare resonated with a wider public anxious about the rising power of Washington bureaucrats and an increasingly visible gay subculture. The dissertation shows how the national security state served to stigmatize sexual as well as political deviancy and thereby bolster traditional gender norms and family structure as a bulwark against Communist aggression. It suggests how the Cold War was perceived as a moral crusade as much as a political one—a struggle against atheistic Communism, immorality, and sexual perversion at home and abroad. Examining how the purges affected and were affected by gay men and lesbians in the nation's capital, it shows how the purges encouraged the formation of an organized political opposition, which by the 1970s succeeded in ending the twenty-five year federal civil service exclusion of gay men and lesbians.
Responding to a request from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Secretary of State Kerry issued this apology for the persecution of State Department and Foreign Service officers who were gay during the Lavender Scare era. Internationally, Justin Trudeau issued a similar apology that you can watch or read here. In the UK, the the so called Nicolson Bill to disregard convictions for sexual offenses since abolished received royal assent in January of 2017.
Wikipedia keeps an up-to-date category of LGBT politicians in the US. Per Wikipedia's Note: "This category may inappropriately label persons. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people."
The Seattle Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Commission advises the Mayor, Council and departments about issues of concern affecting the LGBTQ community, recommend policies and legislation, bring the LGBTQ communities and the larger Seattle community together through long-ranged projects, and ensure that City departments fairly and equitably address issues affecting and involving Seattle's LGBTQ communities as individuals and as a protected class afforded accessibility and inclusion to the services of the City of Seattle.