Advance Indiana lashses out at Garrison
Famed radio talk show host Greg Garrison recently addressed Proposal 622 on his show, leading Advance Indiana to write:
Garrison repeatedly lambasted the HRO as the legal recognition of the “homosexual lifestyle” and “acts of sodomy,” ignoring the conclusion reached by every major medical organization in the nation that sexual orientation and gender identity are genetically or biologically determined.
Advance Indiana is reaching here because no where near “every major medical organization in the nation” has concluded that way. In fact, no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. But all of that is beside the point, which is the legal implications of Indy’s new law. Because the law bars discrimination on “gender identity” grounds, the definition of the phrase is important. Garrison raised the isssue as one which could permit cross-dressing in the workplace, leading Advance Indiana to opine:
…Garrison completely exposed his complete ignorance of “gender identity”, believing that cross-dressing and gender identity are synonymous.
But Garrison’s “complete ignorance” seems to be well founded. The law defines “gender identity” as the following:
Gender identity means an individual having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior different from those characteristics traditionally associated with the individual’s assigned sex at birth.
A plain reading would seem to suggest that this encompasses cross-dressing, and case law seems to have concluded the same. Several cases note that crossdressing is a leading symptom of “Gender Identity Disorder.” In Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. (WL 31098541), for example, crossdressing was used to diagnose the plaintiff as having Gender Identity Disorder.
Psychology Today reinforces the notion that, although the two are not synonymous, cross-dressing is significant evidence of gender identity differences. What this means, practically speaking, is that an employee who decides to cross-dress and is subsequently fired for those actions may have grounds to sue under Proposal 622, just as Garrison suggested.
