Wow, that's great. I wonder why I was required to send mine or show mine? I guess too that the passport people don't care what the BC says as long as you have the letter. The SS office wanted my BC though and a letter. I wonder if they would have still changed my SS if I did not have my BC changed? I think that is part of the problem, the rules seem to change based on where you live. in one SS office they might turn you down and in another they will just take the letter.

Rufus

The birth certificate requirement for a passport is standard.......so.....you're right in that it does not matter what is marked on your bc as long as you have an acceptable letter from your physician.

I already had a passport (with F on it), so I didn't even have to re-send my birth certificate.....just the new application, the old passport, and the doctor's letter.

They kept the doctor's letter, btw, as part of my file.

ETA: sorry, i just read that this statement was discussion SS cards and not passports. Maybe you were required to show a BC bécause you were never issued a passport previouslyÉ (ugh question marks!).


For anyone interested, here are some sites with more info on passports. I have to say that changing the passport (and SS) was relatively simple. We got really lucky with DL but that is quite the story.



http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/06/142922.htm

http://transequality.org/PDFs/passports_2010.pdf

http://www.tsroadmap.com/reality/passport.html

ETA:

Yes, that is the procedure my husband followed. Just sent in the old passport, application, doc letter. No BC.

Sorry missed that one underlined statement--yes, exactly--as long as you have the letter and can provide proof of citizenship (in the form of passport, BC or DL).

As far as SS--did they want an amended BC for you to get a changed SS document--(sorry question marks are messed up).

Everything but the BC (for hubby) has been relatively easy. Unfortunately, it is the BC we need the most.

I already had a passport. I was told on the phone by the passport office to send in the birth certificate. I'm not sure why I was told that if it isn't needed. I just sent in what I was told to send in. So ultimately I did not even have to send in the BC even though I was instructed too.

At the SS office I was initially refused a gender marker change even with M on my BC. I was sent away while the office worker consulted with his supervisor. The next day I got a call saying they would change it. So.... not really sure why there was an initial refusal/policy check. I read online on various sites that the SS can b etricky because the policy is worded vaguely and can sometimes be up to the office and how they are reading it. Again, this is just my experience of the whole process and the different forms and paperwork. For me, changing the BC was the easiest. It was the first thing I changed because I thought it would make it easier for me to get everything else changed. It did and it didn't.

I do think it is easier to get the DL changed if you have the SS changed first. I have read reports and have been told first hand of one situation where the DL was not changed because the SS had not been changed due to the cross checking. So I think to be on the safe side for anyone just going into this it is best to get the SS changed before going into the DL office. But who knows? I'm sure there are some who have had their DL changed before the SS.

As I said, it sometimes seems like it depends on who you talk to. I was expressly told to send in my BC even though I was amending a passport, while you were not. I think the agencies struggle with the wording in the policies. This policy had just changed when I applied for my passport, so maybe passport offices are more clear on the paperwork by now.

Rufus

Now that I think about it I'm not sure. My BC was fully changed (KY changes and does not amend). I wrote more about this above. They were more interested in the letter than the BC. I think they were comparing the wording in the letter with the policy wording. I was turned away with just the BC. So I wonder now if the SS could be changed with just a letter and no BC?

What state was your hubby born in? I won the state lottery as far as BC is concerned because Kentucky makes it pretty easy. I called first, they were great, friendly and helpful and they fully changed the BC with a letter from a surgeon. So I figured, get that first, then it should make it easier to get the rest.

Rufus

Interesting.

He was born in a Louisiana in a parish where it seems (to us) that this has never been done (we think this bécause no one has the same answer on how to accomplish the change from court house to vital records).

They do change and not amend the BC, but people suggested lawyers due to the paperwork etc. It is not a simple application with a letter--it is basically a lawsuit suing the county for a new BC. Instead of paying thousands for a a lawyer (the lawyers we contacted did not even seem that knowledgable and were hugely exp), we drew up the docs ourselves but, of course, we were given conflicting information of who and where to send and it is quite the mess...need a redo. It has been a bit of a nightmare and are taking a break from it at this point.

It does sound very complicated. I understand the need to step back from it for a while. I'm so sorry. I find it grossly unfair that it is easy for some due to accident of birth and very difficult if not impossible for others.

I have learned a lot from you though and that all other docs can be changed without a BC change. I got my BC first partly because it was easy and partly because I thought it would pave the way for changes to other docs. It is nice to know that the BC is not a requirement for the other docs. The whole process is time consuming and frustrating and I received conflicting information on a couple of occasions. I always made a point of checking the offices policies and web pages first, calling second and then applying or going to the office last. Even doing this I had to resend different or more documents because what I was told on the phone was different once the actual application was made.

Hang in there.

Rufus

Thanks to all of you for posting about your document changes. For me, I still need to change my passport and birth certificate. I had no problems in the SS Office but I went to the office in Berkeley. The young woman helping me was very pleasant and wished me all the best. The CDL, a young butchy looking woman assisted me and I think she may have been family.

I took a break from the document maze because I do know that the State of my birth offers only an amended bc. I am offended by this because I am an American citizen adult that has done this entire process with many years of thought, research and soul searching behind me before making the decision to move forward in this.

I have wondered why on a few occassions what would this country be like if they took so much time regulating people before they were allowed to reproduce? That is entirely another topic but yet another example of how our laws and policy support heterosexualism as the holy grail.

Stepping down from my soapbox now. I am feeling a bit frustrated.

Great article
 

Thanks, Mister Bent
 

The readers' comments are worth looking at too -- some positive and enlightened...others, not so much:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne..._b_805133.html

Update on Bill C-389
 

Bill C-389 has arrived at it's final vote at last. Another hour of debate will happen this Monday (February 7th, 2011) with the final vote coming on February 9th, 2011. For those who haven't been following, this bill strives to add gender expression and gender identity to the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination.

To those in Canada, this would be a good time to write your MP's again if you haven't already!

http://www.psac.com/news/2011/issues/20110202-e.shtml

And of course the crazies always gotta come out of the woodwork...more reason to gather as much support as possible: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29791

Bill C-389 Passed By House of Commons!
 

So today Bill C-389 (which endeavours to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Criminal Code and Human Rights Act) was passed by the House of Commons during its third reading.

http://www.straight.com/article-3742...-house-commons

Excellent news, there may be hope yet!

Groundbreaking Study Finds Pervasive Discrimination Against Transgender People


February 4, 2011

A new study reveals pervasive discrimination against transgender and gender-nonconforming people in a variety of fields, including education, employment, housing, health care, and more.

/snip

The study, based on the results from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), was based on responses from over 6,450 participants. The NTDS is the first large-scale national study of discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming Americans, and paints a more complete picture than any prior research to date.
Among the key findings from “Injustice at Every Turn”:
● Respondents were nearly four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, with household income of less than $10,000.
● Respondents were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the population as a whole. Half of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or other mistreatment in the workplace, and one in four were fired because of their gender identity or expression.
● While discrimination was pervasive for the entire sample, it was particularly pronounced for people of color. African-American transgender respondents fared far worse than all others in many areas studied.
● Housing discrimination was also common. 19% reported being refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity or expression. One in five respondents experienced homelessness because of their gender identity or expression.
● An astonishing 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to only 1.6% of the general population.
● Discrimination in health care and poor health outcomes were frequently experienced by respondents. 19% reported being refused care due to bias against transgender or gender-nonconforming people, with this figure even higher for respondents of color. Respondents also had over four times the national average of HIV infection.
● Harassment by law enforcement was reported by 22% of respondents and nearly half were uncomfortable seeking police assistance.
● Despite the hardships they often face, transgender and gender non-conforming persons persevere. Over 78% reported feeling more comfortable at work and their performance improving after transitioning, despite the same levels of harassment in the workplace.

U.S. Tax Court Rules in Favor of Transexual Womans Procedures being Tax Deductible
 

This is super fucking awesome!!!!

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain finally got the tax break she deserved from the IRS in 2001.

Tuesday, Federal Tax Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a transsexual woman in the landmark case of O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The favorable ruling opens the doors wide to tax equality for transgender Americans.

Citing protocol from Harry Benjamin/WPATH Standards of Care and DSM-IV, the court ruled that medical treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) qualifies as tax deductible medical care under the Internal Revenue Code.

In 2001, O'Donnabhain underwent sex reassignment surgery (SRS). She claimed the cost of surgeries, transportation and related expenses in the same tax year as a medical expense deduction under section 214, I.R.C.

The medical deduction was rejected by the IRS.

In the landmark victory won by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) the court rejected an argument by the IRS that transgender medical treatment is different than medically necessary treatment recommended by recognized medical and psychological organizations.

The U.S. Tax Court decision has huge financial ramifications for transgender Americans, opening the door to potential deductions in other related areas of transition as defined under the Standards of Care.

The Harry Benjamin Standards of Care for GID prescribe a "triadic" treatment sequence including 1) cross-gender hormone therapy to effect changes in physical appearance toward the opposite sex; 2) "real-life" experience described as a trial period of living full time in society as a member of the opposite sex and 3) sex reassignment surgery including non-genital surgical sex reassignment.

Non-genital surgical sex reassignment refers to any and all other surgical procedures of non-genital, or non-breast, sites (ie: nose, throat, chin, cheeks, hips, etc.) conducted for the purpose of effecting a more masculine appearance in a genetic female or for the purpose of effecting a more feminine appearance in a genetic male in the absence of identifiable pathology which would warrant such surgery regardless of the patient's genetic sex.

More than 80% of all transgender individuals never transition in large part due to discriminatory health care insurance practices which typically exclude treatment for gender identity disorder (GID).

The full scope of transition---gender counseling, hormone therapy, medical supervision, hair removal, genital, facial and body surgeries--can easily exceed $50,000, in some cases over $100,000.

Since "non-genital sex reassignment procedures" often are performed together as facial feminization surgery (FFS) for trans-women it's logical to extrapolate that these procedures could be in line to qualify as medically necessary tax deductions.

The court case and it's ramifications on the transgender community will be the topic of a conference call tonight at 6pm Eastern hosted by GLAD.

That is indeed awesome. Since many health benefits programs do not cover procedures and/or hormones, then at least one can write some of it off.

well and hopefully the insurance companies will be falling in line shortly here in the states!!!! see bolded part from posted article.

The United States Tax Court, in a decision reviewed by the full bench, has affirmed that medical treatments for Gender Identity Disorder (GID), including surgery and hormone therapy, are deductible medical expenses. The Court found that the Internal Revenue Service's existing position that such treatment is cosmetic in nature "is at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances that is thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence."

The case stemmed from the IRS's denial of Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's 2001 deduction of her sex reassignment surgery costs. The IRS called her surgery "cosmetic" -- like teeth whitening or hair transplants.

O'Donnabhain's journey has been a long one. She first felt conflicted about gender identity as early as age eight, and says she "lived in anguish" thereafter as a male, struggling with the sense that she was, in fact, a female. At age 52 she was diagnosed with GID and undertook a course of professionally prescribed medical treatments that resulted in the recommendation that she undergo sex reassignment surgery.

She had the surgery at age 57 and reported afterward that she finally felt a sense of comfort with her body. After being denied the deduction, she was assisted though the appeals process by legal rights organization Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). That process led to GLAD's 2007 suit in U.S. Tax Court. O'Donnabhain is now 65.

The treatment procedure O'Donnabhain undertook is the generally accepted procedure set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a group of medical doctors, psychologists and other professionals. Its pre-qualification hurdles for surgery are some of the most rigorous existing for any medical procedure.

Ironically, this lawsuit might never have happened if transgender health care was covered by medical insurance, which it generally is not. How can something that is medically necessary not be covered by insurance?

The first reason is lack of general understanding about the seriousness of GID. Without this understanding "the surgery" can seem frivolous, just one step beyond a nose job. But the medical standards are based on results over time showing that people with GID are much happier after surgical treatment. If the IRS is now convinced, one can hope health insurance companies will soon fall in line.

The second reason is that insurance companies and employers fear that covering sex reassignment surgery will "break the bank." The experience of the City and County of San Francisco shows otherwise. San Francisco started covering transgender health care for municipal employees in 2001. In 2006 San Francisco disclosed it had collected $5.6 million for the coverage and had paid out only $386,417 on 39 claims, a 93% profit. Cost is clearly not the issue.

But how was it that San Francisco was so far off? Their actuaries knew there were twenty-seven transgender municipal employees, and therefore geared up to pay for thirty-five surgeries each year. But they missed the fact that many transgender people never have surgery and those that do generally only have it once in a lifetime. Actual cost experience has been no worse than that for gall bladder removal or heart surgery.

Even if the insurance companies won't remove the restriction on their own, pressure to do so will be coming soon from employers. To score the coveted 100% on the 2012 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) of the Human Rights Campaign, an employer will need to have at least one insurance option available to all employees where transgender exclusions are removed or substantially modified to ensure coverage for transgender-specific treatment. Additionally, the CEI will require that the WPATH Standards of Care are used to determine what treatment will be considered medically necessary and not cosmetic.

So even if the IRS chooses to spend more taxpayer dollars appealing the Tax Court's decision, things are headed in a direction that might substantially reduce the number of people taking the deduction in the first place.