Last month Australia made a significant change on their passport application forms; there are now three options for “gender” – M, F and X. 

When your passport doesn’t reflect what you look like – when your listed gender doesn’t match who you  are – it can be, in the words of Senator Louise Pratt, “very distressing, highly  inconvenient and frankly sometimes dangerous.”

This is a human rights victory for transgender and intersex individuals in Australia, even moreso because sex reassignment surgery is not required to use the “x” option.

Imagine the relief of being able to mark X and being able to move through customs like everyone else instead of being grilled about why your passport says you are male, but you look female (or vice versa). For people who have experienced greater scrutiny at customs for other reasons (like race, or real/perceived ethnic origin or religion for example – especially since 9/11) you will understand what this can mean.

Hooray for Australia! Change happens when people start to “get it” – and even moreso (and faster) when people in power “get it”.

Senator Louise Pratt’s partner is transgender. This gives her an inside view into the barriers that transgender and intersex individuals face – barriers that those of us who are not transgender or intersex may have no idea even exist. Because of her experience, her position and her conviction, Australia has change!

It’s a small change, one that doesn’t impact cisgender people at all. There is still an “M” and an “F” to choose from. Australia has simply added another option – to recognize that not all realities are the same, and to make travelling more equitable and safe.

See more.

Copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder
author, speaker and facilitator on issues of diversity and inclusion

Thanks to the politicians, the debate rages - is it a hand-out or is it increasing access? (and don't get me started on the difference between "foreign workers" a la Tim Hudak and immigrants looking for work).

Listening to Q this morning on CBC, I heard an interesting interview with 2 successful business owners, who also happen to be immigrants to Canada. Because I was driving, I couldn't write down their names and the podcast isn't available yet - but I'll attach it next time. Both guests had different perspectives, but both agreed that any program must focus on helping new immigrants get their first job in their field.

Where they differed greatly was on whether business incentives were reducing barriers or giving an unfair advantage. What it came down to was stigma versus equity. One perspective suggested being seen as having been given the job because of the incentive only (which was referred to as a quota system); the other suggested the incentive was acknowledging and reducing the barriers that immigrants face in being able to work in their field.

I can see both sides of the arguement - what it comes down to, for me, is how any program is set up.

Quotas for the sake of quotas are a bad idea. Always. They breed resentment and can compromise the quality of work. But leveling the playing field? That's different. If you put a program in place (as one of the gentlemen suggested) that provides incentives for companies to hire qualified (that's the key word) new immigrants for a first job in their field that they may otherwise not get for reasons of bias, discrimination, or just plain ignorance - well, that's not a quota system to me. That is an effort to cut through the systemic discrimination that continues to take care of the dominant group, and keeps qualified people from work they can do well.

It's amazing to me how quickly we bristle at the thought that the system, as it is now, may be unfair.

See more.

copyright 2011 Annemarie Shrouder

Equity is often a hard concept to grasp because we usually equate fairness with treating everyone the same. But equity asks us to look at the situation and the differences, and then take these into consideration in order to really be fair.
Case in point:
A friend of mine has a visually impaired person staying with her for the day. On a whim, she checked his airline ticket and discovered his name has been spelled incorrectly. Obviously that would have caused some trouble tomorrow had he arrived at the airport with this particular ticket.
The change fee for such an error at American Airlines - even though the travel agent made the error - is $150.00 USD.
Which causes me to ask:
If the customer cannot see, and the travel agent makes an error he cannot check, why is he being charged a change fee?
In my mind, this is a perfect time to act equitably and waive the fee.
But alas, this was not the case.
We still have some work to do...

see more.
(c) 2011 Annemarie Shrouder