It's raining. Hard. And I can't do what I planned to for today.
So I guess I'll once again don my cultural confoundment cape and try to figure out what is going on. But first, my standard caveat. I'm an outsider who grew up very very far from the United States. I'm often baffled by what I see in the news. I may be wrong. And no-one needs to agree with me.
Very well, then... here goes...
The Housing and Urban Development proposal instructs shelters to try to identify trans women by height, facial hair, and Adam’s apples.OK... Terrible!!! But....
A proposed Housing and Urban Development rule would allow federally funded homeless shelters to judge a person’s physical characteristics, such as height and facial hair, in determining whether they belong in a women’s or men’s shelterI'm confused... So which is it? Are they
instructing them to do so? Or
allowing them to do so? Hmmmmm....
The proposed rule, first announced by HUD in a press release issued on July 1, would essentially reverse the Obama-era rule that required homeless shelters to house trans people according to their gender identity. Why doesn't the article define the criteria used for verifying the person's
"gender identity." What are they?
While the new rule would bar shelters from excluding people based on their transgender status, it would also allow shelters to ignore a person’s gender identity — and instead house them according to their assigned sex at birth or their legal sex. In other words, a trans woman can’t be turned away from a shelter for being trans, but she can be forced to go to a men’s shelter.Again, the article omits to define the criteria for determining the person's
"transgender status." What are they?
Anyway... To be
forced to go to a men's shelter
does sound very serious... I certainly would prefer sleeping in an alley or on a bench. Absolutely hideous!!!
Perhaps the link provided may provide more information...
The proposed rule modifications also better accommodate religious beliefs of shelter providers. For example, such policies could be based on biological sex, sex as identified on official government identification, or the current rule’s mandate of self-identified gender identity.Hmmm... So, if a shelter run by a religious organization has a single sex policy, then criteria other than
"gender identity" may be used to determine eligibility to use that shelter. Such as government ID. Or biological sex. But they're
not instructed to
do so. But... wait...?
Religious beliefs of provider? May? Actually, to me that makes some sense. If someone who loves cats founds a private cat shelter, isn't it up to him to decide whether the animal offered is a cat or dog? Based on looks, pedigree or DNA sample? Or whatever criteria he chooses...
But... I'm even more puzzled. Once again, if
"gender identity?" were to be the sole criterion, what are the criteria whereby the staff should determine each person's
"gender identity?" Would a lightning realization that
one is transgender be enough? Or would one need to have e.g. a psychiatrist's letter attesting to it?
No... it can't be a psychiatrist's letter since the APA views
transgender as
a non-medical term. Ugh. So, what, then? A therapist's letter?
But let's read on...
All shelters serving a specific sex must provide people who they do not accommodate with information about other shelters in the area that can meet their needs. Similarly, if a shelter elects in its policy to accommodate persons whose gender identity is different from their sex, persons who have concerns with being housed with persons of a different biological sex, such concerned persons must be provided a referral to a facility whose policy is based on biological sex.Ah... Wow!
The parts I highlighted seem pretty significant.
So,
if a single sex shelter
does allow people in based on their
"gender identity" and there are other users whom this makes uncomfortable, it is
they who feel uncomfortable that must be guided to a shelter that does not allow entry based on that criterion.
It's not unilateral then. And... I
didn't see any mention of sending
gender identity proclaiming supplicants to a
men's shelter like the article intimates. I wonder where that came from...
Rather the rule would seem to say they must be sent to a facility
that can meet their needs. Given the above, the proposed situation would appear to be:
Shelters that
don't accept
"gender identity" as the criterion for admittance must guide such suppliants to a shelter that
does accept that criterion.
Shelters that
do accept
"gender identity" as the criterion for admittance must guide anyone whom such clients makes uncomfortable to a facility that does meet
her needs. I.e. one that
does not accept
"gender identity" as the sole criterion.
Were this not the case, then I guess universal acceptance of
"gender identity" would grant special rights to those who are admitted based on it that would obligate the providers to always ignore any discomfort caused to any other users of the facility.
I still don't understand how they were supposed to verify people's gender identity...
...but, be that as it may, unlike the article claims, the HUD link seems to say no-one would
force me to go to a men's shelter based on my height after all.
Rather, the provider would be obligated to guide me to a shelter that accepts "gender identity" (whatever that is) as a ticket for admittance...
Or perhaps even allow me to sleep in an alley, should I so wish.
Yay!
Edit: Grammar, clarity
