ANCHORAGE — Drew Phoenix was 3 years old when he realized he was born the wrong gender, and as a young girl named Ann Gordon he was quite vocal about it, even engaging in a couple of fights over it in kindergarten.
“From an early age,” he says, “if somebody would say, ‘Oh, what a cute girl,’ I would say, ‘No, I’m a boy.’”
Five decades later, the transgender man is speaking out in favor of a ballot initiative going before voters in Alaska’s largest city Tuesday that calls for equal legal protections for gay and transgender residents. Phoenix, who made the medical transition to a male six years ago, has become a public voice for the most contentious issue in the Anchorage election.
The measure has fanned passionate debate between both supporters and opponents, overshadowing even a heated mayor’s race. Proposition 5 asks whether municipal protections against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, marital status and other factors should be amended to include sexual orientation and transgender identity. Nationally, 13 states, 134 cities and counties, and the District of Columbia have discrimination laws for private entities that include protections for transgender individuals, according to figures from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Alaska has no such law.
“When it comes to interaction in the public, I should have the same equal rights as you and be protected in public accommodations and employment,” said Phoenix, who appears in an ad for One Anchorage, the group behind the initiative. Phoenix, 53, is among Anchorage residents who believe they have been discriminated against because they are gay or transgender.
Opponents — Protect Your Rights, Vote No on Prop 5 — say passage of the initiative would threaten religious freedoms, as demonstrated by cases outside Alaska where people have been sued for refusing to do business with gay people. Group chairman Jim Minnery said Anchorage already is a tolerant city and the proposed amendment to the discrimination law is unnecessary. Proponents want nothing more than affirmation of a lifestyle, he said.
If the measure passes, there would be certain exemptions, including some religious organizations and four-plexes where the owner or manager lived in one of the units. That doesn’t go far enough, according to opponents.
“We oppose any measure that would restrict individuals from operating their businesses in a way consistent with their deeply held convictions,” Minnery said. “We’re a watchman on the wall just letting the church and individuals ... become aware of the real risks.”
A new ad by the group shows a hairy-legged cartoon man in a dress presenting a job application to a cartoon day care operator named Carol while a voice-over states: “If Proposition 5 passes, it will be illegal for Carol to refuse a job to a transvestite who wants to work with toddlers.” Carol risks losing customers if she hires him, the ad states, or she would face fines or imprisonment if she doesn’t.
Under the city’s municipal code, only a person who “willfully resists, prevents, impedes or interferes” with the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission or its representatives and is convicted in court faces a fine of up to $500 or up to 30 days in jail, or both. Commission director Pam Basler said she knows of no discrimination case where that occurred.
The Protect Your Rights ads, which feature cartoon characters, have sparked outrage among Proposition 5 supporters, including former Gov. Tony Knowles, co-chair of the One Anchorage campaign. The tone of the ads has taken an ugly turn in the last days of the campaign, Knowles said at a One Anchorage press conference Tuesday. He called the ads offensive, dehumanizing and distorted.
“To those responsible for these false and hurtful ads, enough is enough. Stop it,” he said. “Take them down.”
Minnery said such demands are an assault on free speech rights and said proponents are hypocritical for slamming the depiction of a transvestite when the initiative language includes no definition for transgender.
“I think the primary concern of the other side is that it has hit a nerve of truth and they’re concerned about the effectiveness of the ads,” Minnery said.
To Phoenix, the ads are horrific. He is not a cartoon, he says, but someone who grew up trying to conform to pressures of family and others to act and dress like a female long before transgender identity entered society’s awareness and conversation. Looking back, he compares his dilemma to pushing an inflated ball under water. It can be submerged for a while, but ultimately will pop up again and again.
An ordained United Methodist minister, he was serving a church in Baltimore when he was the first transgender Methodist minister to publicly come out. The church filed internal charges against him, saying he should not be serving as a minister. Phoenix said he won the case because there was nothing listed in the church law against transgender ministers.
Later, he was ready for a fresh start and moved to Anchorage in 2008 with his girlfriend, Ellen Robertson, and now works as managing director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska.
In Anchorage, Phoenix tried to rent three different homes, but was turned down after credit checks called up his name as a female and he explained he was a transgender. With such challenges, he knows discrimination is real. Even so, he is more comfortable with himself than he was in his past life.
“I’m not the actor playing a cross-dresser in a sitcom,” he said. “I’m a real person.”
Comments (21)
Add commentWe, as Americans, have the
We, as Americans, have the right to associate, or not associate with whom ever we want.
I may not want to rent a apartment to a gay couple, & a gay landlord may not want to rent to a straight couple. So be it.
These individual decisions are not the concern of the government.
madison - what if
the tenant in question were black? Or a mixed couple?
The Exact same argument was used against them - different decade.
Leave it to
Madison to put forth the same old tired bigoted argument - one which many proponents have convinced themselves is simply a matter of their own personal "freedom" to refuse service or to "freely associate" with whomever they choose. This is the same clap-trap bigotry lauded by Senator Rand Paul, son of Representative Ron Paul (Hey, the nut doesn't fall too far from the tree folks!) when he so ineloquently voiced his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. What is alarming is the fact that bigots like this are finding more and more of a voice within the Republican party, a party which of late has been conducting a mad dash (emphasis on mad and I don't mean angry) to see who can reach the extreme right of right first. Thank God for the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, examples of what "good government" can bring to its citizens. Also, I would be remiss were I not to mention the Separation of Church and State - Double-thank-God for that one!
y'all be real people.
y'all be real people. everybody. don't ever let sum bigot or racist tell ya different.
it used 2 be that we had separate drankin' fountains for black n white. nowadayz the hate still exists, lil mo' subtle, lil mo' behind-the-scenes, but the mindset be the same. some cats just don't want certain felines kickin' in the same block. times change. they ain't changed yet. one day we all gonna look back on how we treated these real people and be disgusted wif ourselves as a society. y'all know proper we've done it before.
As a landlord
You have the right to rent to someone with good credit and a clean criminal record. Period. If you don't like it find another line of work. Start your own cult in the back woods of an unreachable island.
If we all have a right to be
If we all have a right to be treated humanely, then no one has a right to treat others inhumanely.
So some folk's rights carry
So some folk's rights carry more weight than the rights of others?
Being a free people, means we have the right to be wrong in the eyes of others.
You can not legislate acceptance, & if you try to force it, you will create a backlash.
Leave people alone to follow the dictates of their conscious, don't be such control freaks.
The differance is...
When a person is born black they have no choice what color they are. This person has a right to be who they are and to be judged based upon their "actions" within the society, as an individual, not their color. But when you say a person who "acts a certain way" is to be treated as someone who has no choice then you are stepping into a whole different arena. The similarity no longer exists.
A person born a male is by definition a male. What drives a person to convince themselves to believe they are female when they are plainly male is in the mind of that individual. If a person is persuaded that they are something that contradicts the plain and obvious then that person needs counseling to undo the harm that has been done to convince them of that error.
To simply imply that I "think" I am something other than what I obviously am is a contradiction to the facts that are irrefutable. Eliminating the use of any measurable senses we may use with any reliability to make a sure determination, they simply state; "trust me when I say...."
What we are being asked to do (in effect) is to believe what ever we are being told regardless of the overwhelming supply of the facts. Once we allow this kind of distortion in logic there is literally no end to the possible scenarios that may present themselves as "factual."
One may conclude that they are born a murderer, the reality is there, man left unchecked has an inherent propensity toward violence and without the will to restrain ones self from doing what ever feels good "to them" or even a group of "them" one may find ones self doing many things that are not within the boundaries of societies basis of "normal behavior."
Give any group with a tendency towards deviant indiscretions an inch and they will continue using their perverted doctrine of logic to press their agenda so far off the deep end that it would eventually defy any means of logic or sanity.
This person is among a few who are pressing forward an idea. They are from yet another group of people who have pressed their agenda into our society with all sorts of lies and deceptions that have now left us wondering how they ever got where they are today (the answer, you let them).
No longer "in their bedrooms" wherein they have sought the right to privacy. They having gotten the inch they cried out for and went forward to establish their true agenda. They are in no way shape or form following their desire to perform their illicit acts within the privacy of their homes. They are in our schools teaching their agenda as curriculum... I say enough!
Not wanting to associate with
Not wanting to associate with someone based on anything is up the individual. It's your right. This isn't elementary school where our kids are told everyone are our friends. We get to decide who are our friends based on whatever we want. To point a finger at those people exercising that right just makes you look unaccepting and equally bigoted.
I believe in 100% equal rights to every human period. But I'm not going to act high and mighty because someone doesn't agree with me. Live and let live isn't just for people that are different, it's for everyone including people that think differently then you.
Besides, if you think your smarter and more advanced or what not, then act like it, stop telling others they're wrong especially if they are living and letting live.
Not about being invited to dinner
I really don't see this as one group being given more rights. Or forcing people of varying belief systems to socialize. This is about letting all people and pursue happiness on an equal footing. Why should one group have a leg up above another group? If you choose to be in a business that is open to the public, that means all public, not just the ones that look like you. If you are not comfortable with that, find another business to be in. Form your own commune or private club.
This isn't middle school where you form cliques and block the halls because "they" don't dress like you, and their daddy didn't get them an iphone.
madison - again, asked but not answered
So madison, it sounds very much, ok, it sounds EXACTLY like you are saying, based on your argument - that people should be allowed to discriminate against African Americans if they want to, or people with disabilites, or interracial couples. After all, your white racist bigot who doesn't like 'tards' has rights too.......correct?
This is the logical conclusion of your argument - - - is this really what you mean? Yes or No.
private vs public
A lot of this is about private vs public. You certainly have the right to not invite anyone you don't like to your house for dinner - that's your private life. I'd say by the same token, I have the right to conversations with my doctor, and decisions about my body that I want - again, private. Inside my house.
Public is different - you can't discriminate against people who want to eat at your restaurant, ride the city bus, go to public school, apply for a job in a public business, etc. etc. Outside your house. If you open the door to the public - and operate in the public domain - public means ALL the public.
Thank you S-girl...
for the civics lesson. At recess, if I don't want to play in the sandbox with someone I don't like, that is my right, however my exercising that right involves ME leaving the sandbox area, and not the person I don't like...
.
.
Transgenders are rare.
In fact, from what I have read on the subject, genes, hormones or environmental factors may play a part. Also referred to as transsexuals, it appears in both children and adults and is recognized in the field of psychiatry by those who feel 'trapped' in the body of the wrong gender (for at least two years). Transgenders partner up with the same sex or the opposite sex. Mr. Phoenix had the opportunity to medically transform himself and from outward appearances comes across as the male persona he sees himself as.
His difficulties now seem to lie in the documentation that has followed him since his birth certificate. Personally, I believe Mr. Phoenix had genuinely felt trapped in the wrong gender, which is not to say he is attracted to the same sex. This is a recognized medical rarity and one I believe should be protected from discrimination. But before I, as a landlord or employer, am subjected to litigation it is only fair that the Court system step up to the plate and address the identity issue as it regards to documentation. If our courts fail to recognize these individual's rights in the form of not only name changes but documentation then why is the sole burden placed upon the citizenry?
swimmergirl- I am not saying
swimmergirl-
I am not saying that I, if I was a landlord, restaurant owner, etc. would discriminate against somebody because of skin color, orientation, etc.
But I do not believe that the government has the authority to force anybody to associate with somebody7 else.
Just because some one has a business/rental property does not mean they lose their rights.
If there was a restaurant in town that would not serve blond Caucasians, I would choose not to do business with that establishment, even though I am not blond, or 100% Caucasian.
It's a freedom issue.
@Madison
You are wrong, again, as usual.
Simply because you might have a business, any business operating within the state does not mean you may operate that business however you wish. Otherwise, you'd be free to hire child labor and pay them pennies/day.
There are building codes, licensing requirements, minimum wage and all that regulation which conservatives view as totally unnecessary.
But part of operating a business involves getting a business license. The business license says, in essence, "if you're going to do business in this state, your business must be in accordance with our state's rules, regulations and laws."
And parts of those laws say that a business operator won't discriminate against certain classes of people.
LGBT people experience discrimination all the time. We don't want special rights, we want equal rights. We are an identified minority with a proven history of discrimination. Your ilk views our culture as simply a lifestyle choice. We view it as being born the way we are with no choice. Who the hell would choose to be gay or transgender?!? Behavior is a choice. Sexuality is not.
And as usual, the most vocal opponents in this civil rights struggle are the bible thumpers and the conservatives. The bible thumpers base their discriminatory beliefs on some outdated book of fairy tales. Conservatives base their discrimination against gays on their deep rooted bigotry and history for opposing civil rights in general.
left handed people
Imagine this scenario:
EMPLOYER: Sorry, we don't hire left-handed people.
LEFTY: Um, why not?
EMPLOYER: We consider them deviant. They are not the norm. They are an abomination, the minority. We only hire right-handed people.
LEFTY: But, I have a stellar resume, better than anyone in here.
E: Doesn't matter to us. We simply don't like lefties. We can hire whoever we want and not hire who we don't want and we don't want lefties. This is MY business, and we consider this a freedom issue. I don't feel the government has any business forcing me to accept left-handed people in my business. I don't care about their licensing requirements or state laws. I should be able to discriminate against anyone I wish!
L: But, how did you know I was a lefty?
E: I saw it when you signed your name on the application.
L: That's not fair.
E: Look, you have two hands. Why can't you sign your application with your right hand instead of your left hand like most people?
L: I tried that, all through grade school. It never worked for me, so I use my left hand. It's not that uncommon, really. There's lots of lefties out there.
E: I view it as a lifestyle choice. Technically, if I put a gun to your head and said to sign your application with your right hand, you could do that, right?
L: Um, well, technically if you put a gun to my head, yes, I probably could.
E: There! You proved my point! Why should I hire your deviant sort simply because you choose to write with your left hand instead of your right hand?
L: Um, because I'm the best candidate for the position?
E: Not in our book. You're a minority. You're deviant. Stay away from my kids. There ought to be laws passed against people like you. You should only be allowed to marry right-handed people. You don't deserve special rights in employment, housing or any of that. Pervert! Abomination!
Change the law
Madison, it boggles the mind that you do not believe that the laws prohibiting discrimination in the public sector are fair or just, but nevertheless they do in fact exist and will never be repealed.
Madison's argument is this:
Madison's argument is this: we are all free to discriminate, so it's not an issue. If Bill hates redheads and refuses to serve them at his restaurant, redheads can start their own restaurant and exclude Bill.
The argument is faulty because it assumes every group has the same amount of power in our society.
If we discriminate, on a large scale, against transgendered people, there's not much they can do. Madison would argue that if grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations, and other essential amenities discriminate against transgendered people, they can start their own businesses to fill the gap. This is true, to some extent (but still not adequate, as evidenced by the U.S. prior to the Civil Rights Act), with large demographics, but not transgendered people. Or people with physical and/or mental disabilities. Or many other small groups.
Madison believes, despite the evidence, that the free market will solve all our problems, thus absolving him of the need to think out actual solutions.
Are men allowed to join
Are men allowed to join "Curves for Women", and if so, are they allowed to use the women's locker room?
There is a sign that you will
There is a sign that you will find in almost every private business, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason". To call a restaurant a public business is misleading at best. While it is open to the public, it is neither owned nor operated by the public. And if the proprietor chooses to tell someone that they must leave, that is their right.
Not so...
If the proprietor is asking someone to leave their business because that person is say, black for example, or transgender for example, they most certainly do not have the right to conduct business in a manner that violates the civil rights of the would-be customer. Especially if a pattern is evident. The proprietor may be summarily prosecuted under the civil rights act, and go to jail, and they may be civilly sued by the aggrieved for reparations and damages for violating those civil rights. This was the intent of the Civil RIghts Act, to prevent bigoted and racist individuals from hiding behind their "personal freedom" at the expense of another's freedom.
Not a lawyer wolfmagic2012 and
obviously, neither are you. While you are correct that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II does prohibit "discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce", no mention of trangenders or sexual orientation. So, you may be 1/2 right, assuming that the reason one was asked to leave was race, color, religion or national origin. But, that assumption ignores the possibility of other reasons. Prior customer history, bounced checks, exceedingly poor hygiene (driving away diners 3 tables away), loud vulgar language, all reasons that one might be asked to leave.