Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Hello Again ....

“Back in black. I hit the sack.
It’s been too long I'm glad to be back.
Yes I'm let loose from the noose
That's kept me hanging about.
I keep looking at the sky 'cause it's gettin' me high.
Forget the hearse 'cause I'll never die
I got nine lives, cat's eyes,
Usin' every one of them and running wild
‘Cause I’m back.” — Back In Black, AC/DC



Yes, it has been awhile ….

First my apologies to those following my blog. There are a couple reasons I’ve been dormant this past year.

One reason was good news reasons: I began dating and have found love. Sid Maxwell and I have been a serious item since early April last year, after he and his ex split up. Sid is one of my former-members from the now-defunct Texas Assn. for Transsexual Support (TATS) from back in the late 90’s (yes, he’s a trans man). And while he did drop out and go stealth for most of the past decade, he was at least a little involved in trans activism of sorts.

In the late 90’s, there was only one chapter of PFLAG in America that refused to add trans members or families of trans folks to their mission, and that chapter was right here in Houston. There was bad blood going back some years between members and previous trans activists (which I won’t go into here). However, I was bound to change that and comprised a panel presentation to the members and board of Houston’s PFLAG. Sid Maxwell was the lone trans man on the panel I moderated. And as postscript, we won them over and got a unanimous vote to change the local to match the national inclusion after that Sept. 1999 panel.

The second and more pertinent reason I self-imposed silence had to do with politics. In early spring of last year I began to hear the messaging efforts surrounding the 2009-introduced ENDA bill. In a nutshell: the bloggers (with their criticisms) were going to sink the bill (ENDA) and end up being the reason it would fail on Capitol Hill. Essentially it was preemptive diversion of blame from the parties heavily involved in the bill’s process to the outside folks panning the process from the outside.

This messaging effort was virtually the same wording as what was used in 2007. Replace the word “bloggers” with NTAC and you have a mirror image of the 2007 discreditation effort immediately before Barney Frank actually did what we in NTAC were warning about. This time, however, the message wasn’t originating from Mara Keisling and NCTE, but instead from HRC’s and Barney Frank’s folks. Eerily same messaging from two directions, two years apart.

I saw the handwriting on the wall. Rather than play into the snare they set for me, I decided to do the opposite and not give them any words to turn around and use as artillery against me. Zero.

I spent the better portion of a month up on the Hill immediately following 2009’s inauguration day ensuring I got all our freshmen up to speed on “Trans” and was the first person those offices saw from the Trans community. In fact, I even let some of these Trans HRC/Barney folks know which offices in the Senate needed more work and educating and shared other notes from office visits with them. And so … once they wanted us out of the dialogue, what did the silence accomplish? Ab-so-freaking-lutely nothing. Silence gives them (whichever party) a "free pass" and gives those imposed-upon nothing but heartburn, frustration and nothing else.

We had enough votes in the House to vote ENDA through with trans inclusion in the last congressional session – one with super-majorities of Dems in the House and a brief period of the same in the Senate. And again, just as in 2007 with Mara Keisling’s attempts, they can’t finger me for doing anything untoward regarding their efforts. All we got was wholly screwed over.

Moral: never be silent in order to be polite or to keep decorum. Speak out, speak loudly and never cease!

Initially I planned on writing this at New Years, but as fate would have it, I enjoyed a series of Windows crashes with my video card, and then finally a totally loss of use thanks to my motherboard issues and simultaneous loss of income. For now, though, I have a temporary fix.

So this blogger / activist / lobbyist is now reactivating and now has a question to the NCTE’s, the HRC’s, the NGLTF’s and the Barney Frank’s of our political world: what the F#@^% happened to employment non discrimination???!!!

And don't even think of pointing your fingers at me.

“Lucy, you have some ‘splaining to do.” — Desi Arnaz as Ricky Ricardo on ‘I Love Lucy’

Sunday, January 10, 2010

First Video Blog for Transpolitical

“ If you can afford a pretty expansive media room, you can afford what I spent in the hospital.” — Rush Limbaugh after leaving a hospital stay in Hawaii

A New Year and a New Decade ... and I decided to try something new. It's my attempt at a VLog (video blog, whatever). It's too cold here in the house (I don't use heat) to type at the moment -- too much to say, too many cold days without end.

Basically it sucks, but it's better than nothing!

Monday, December 14, 2009

Reflections On A Historic Campaign

"Tonight is a night for all the activists." — Rick Hurt (aka: Rainbo De Klown)



In many ways, this election cycle for Annise Parker's latest candidacy has been very familiar. It's also been very different as well.

Just as the last two times Annise has run for her first shot at a new office, I've been long-term unemployed, there's been family strife and stress to deal with on the side, severe depression set in and there was a sore need of finding a diversion to keep me focused and not obsessing on my own hell. It even rained on me again and soaked me to the bone on election night eve. It's certainly coincidental, but not something I'd ever want to plan (especially getting rained on in December).



Cold dark weather, holidays, the isolation and feeling out of synch with the rest of the world on this whole "seasonal happiness" also add to the malaise. It's not something I'd recommend to anyone, but it does seem oddly comforting in that it produces political wins, strange as that sounds.

And after it got dark and the blockwalking we were doing became impossible, I spent the last hour plus where I was first assigned to work the polls: John Reagan High School in the Heights.

Unlike 1997, I didn't have a dozen friends and relatives die in a six month span during election season this time (too intense). The election also worked much smoother with a larger influx of volunteers and actual paid staff. Election eve was so smooth that I felt guilty leaving to drop off signs at polling places before 10pm! And of course the election, though pulling close near the end, wasn't as stressful as the first one which seemed as if everything was riding on it.

Even my time at Reagan was low impact as they closed off the other three gates and had all voters, and all card pushers, at the one main gate into the school gym. (Back when we had all four gates open, that location required lots of energy to run back and forth across the schoolyard to catch voters trying to avoid the main gate.) It actually removed the challenge of that location. Obviously I burned off zero calories working Reagan this time, but then I'm getting older too....

What little resources we had in the old days and how stressed we were at getting everything organized correctly was now a well-oiled machine moving like clockwork. There were multiple coordinators with various pieces of the tasks instead of one volunteer coordinator and one field general. It was amazing how simple it looked this time. I was a bit envious.



Financing was a big difference this time as well, which accounted for that easier process. At the post-election celebration, about a dozen folks walked around with the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund pins and even Chuck Wolfe, their executive director, was onstage with Annise during her victory acceptance.

However, it also seemed like homecoming week being back at the campaign. So many of the old volunteer stalwarts I used to pester on the telephone to come in and help back in the days were back again, 12 years later. It was great seeing Peggy Smith again, and blockwalking with Annise's best friend, Cicely Wynne, on major thoroughfares in Meyerland during rush hours.

It was great seeing the '97 TV ad guru Cindy Rindy (her official name now that she's married, although she goes by her maiden name Miller to avoid being called Cindy Rindy.) We chatted, laughed and reminisced about raising baby squirrels during the '97 campaign.


At the victory party, even more of the familiar faces from '97 that I hadn't seen for so long: former Parker staffers Kathy Elek and Terence O'Neil, former city council candidate Mary Ann Young, former Women's Caucus member and judicial candidate Mary Kay Green, and one of the other former Team Parker members, Patrick McIlvain. I even got a quick wave with Cong. Sheila Jackson Lee who was holding court with a throng of animated supporters as I was leaving.

Things like this are the blessed diversions that help prop the spirit up during dark times.



Obviously media was everywhere. This was a history-setting day for lesbians and gays across the nation. Peggy Smith and I even showed up on a live CNN feed (unbeknownst to us) at the victory party. Thank goodness I brought my signs along from the polling place as eye-catching props.

Besides Victory Fund, it seemed a number of folks were in from out of town to catch a ride on the Parker phenomenon. You see the best and sometimes (especially at the victory) the most unctuous aspects of politics in full display. One of the men I blockwalked with (an older gay gentleman) showed up to volunteer right before dark on election night for his first time. He asked me if I'd ever met Annise (and I gave him my history going back 12 years). Then he had the audacity to ask me "does she remember you and did she do anything for you after election?" along with other questions of how one gets an insider track with someone like Annise.

In response I gave him a flip answer: "she gave me one of her cats" (true). Not knowing if he had contributed or not, I held my tongue; but I felt like telling him this isn't a quid pro quo game that johnny-come-latelys can buy into on the cheap. Other than asking for trans inclusion on the city employees' non discrimination, I'd never asked for anything personally ... and I guess you could say I got what I asked for.

It just drove home the reminder that political stardom is like a lit spotlight to moths at night. Opportunists abound.

Catching up with some of my old-time friends at the party, one noted there were a lot more gays and lesbians in attendance at the runoff victory party than attended the general election party. Admittedly, I didn't attend the general party either.

Another noted that during Gene Locke's concession speech, the "diversity" onstage with him looked anything but. It was a pretty homogenous group. But for the fact that they were virtually all African-American instead of virtually all white, it could have been a Republican victory party. Indeed, Annise's had a very nice pastiche of all cross-sections, obviously heavier on gay/lesbian but still a very sizable contingent of straight as well as seemingly every ethnicity.

An old friend from the Houston Gay/Lesbian Political Caucus days, Rick Hurt (aka: Rainbo De Klown) and a couple others commented that he was surprised the party was held in a small room of the George R. Brown, instead of one of the larger rooms. It just made it intimate and more crowded looking. He also kept repeating that "this is a night for the activists."

Maybe it was a night for activists. Annise started off as an activist. Many of the longtime Team Parker folks have been perennial activists. And it also allowed this activist a night of basking in the warmth of victory's afterglow, watching the ebullience on Annise and her family's faces as they stood onstage, seeing the pride and excitement (and maybe even a bit of inspiration) in the faces of every lesbian and gay person in the room that night. It's fun getting to see people finally achieving their dream. It's also a nice little vicarious thrill, even if for a moment.

After the victory speech, Rainbo and I went to the Montrose to check out the victory street party. It wasn't. The street was blocked off, but there was no one out there as it was chilly and damp. They were all in the bars — essentially a typical bar night. Nothing there for me.

Other thoughts that hit me during and after the victory was how many people were congratulating me; not just trans, but gay and lesbian – even Grant Martin – as well. Surely I was quick to return it to Grant, as it is directly his and Annise's leadership to this victory. But to the Trans Community I'll remind how infuriated we've been throughout the years when gay and lesbian groups like HRC, GLAAD, NGLTF, et. al. co-opt or capitalize on our issues and efforts. We should not be doing the same in reverse, regardless of whether they do it. Take the moral high ground.

This is rightly the gay and lesbian community's victory and not a time for Trans people to be in the spotlight taking bows or grandstanding. Our efforts were a part of what helped them achieve their goal.

Which brings up the issue of the next bit of history to work on: Trans people in office. It's easy for us to make a decision to run, but putting this desire to reality by being elected is another thing altogether.

In her speech to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Annise noted that she got elected "with gay money, transgender volunteers and black voters." We should work on attracting the black or straight voters. But with Trans money?!? And then who would we attract as volunteers – intersex? And Trans people still have the image problem (even within some segments of the lesbian and gay community, much less straight) and zero media presence to combat this. Even T employment in politics is rare, so how easy would it be for us to be elected? This is a discussion we in the Trans community need to have: how do we make what is a virtual impossibility a reality?

Nevertheless I'm very pleased for Houston's gay and lesbian community and especially for Annise and Kathy. Of course Annise has her work cut out for her in the years to come. We've got budget constraints, sales tax revenue that's dropping like a rock, home values that are stagnant at best with the foreclosures popping up and a lot of people dealing with major hardships.

As a Club For Growth lobbyist mentioned to me, Houston's attracted all these Fortune 500 corporations because it's a place they can locate, pay their people low wages and yet their employees can still have a good quality of life due to low costs on most everything (except utilities). While that's true, even Houston's companies have been shipping our "low waged" jobs to even lower waged countries across the globe, like all other locales in the country. Unlike these other cities, though, Houston's wage-earners are much more vulnerable inasmuch as the low wage base means there's typically little to nothing saved up in order to weather the hard times. And Texas is renown for ensuring there are virtually no safety nets at all.

None of this bodes well. And Annise's victory speech acknowledged that there's many Houstonians in rather dire economic straits. She'll have her work cut out for her. But as she also mentioned in her speech, she intends to be there for all Houstonians. This writer sure prays it's so. It can't come too quickly!



"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage" — Anais Nin

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Historic Houston Elects A History-Making Mayor

"Tonight ... the voters of Houston have opened the door to history." — Mayor-Elect Annise Parker at her acceptance speech on election night.


And so it is done.

History was set on December 12, 2009 with the election of Annise Parker as our next Mayor. Not only is this a red-letter day in lesbian and gay history for Houston or Texas, but indeed this is a truly momentous victory for America's lesbian and gay community.

The gay and lesbian community worked feverishly to get her elected. Campaign Consultant and Manager Grant Martin (who joined Team Parker the year I did in 1997) conceived the gameplan way back then, stuck to it and ensured it was implemented and masterfully executed this year.



And of course Annise herself did everything she needed to do to deftly show what was once a skeptical Houston that a lesbian (or even a gay man) could indeed be just as skilled as any other political candidate or elected official.

It wasn't some "knee-jerk" decision of "liberal guilt" that got the first out gay or lesbian elected to the top spot in a top-ten American city. This was here in Houston: home to the Bush family, where Dick Cheney ruled the roost at the corporate headquarters here for Halliburton/KBR, the region where Kay Bailey Hutchison grew up and where Tom DeLay hammered his way through Congress and even trained his own acolyte, John Culberson. This was done in a two-fisted, blue collar, refinery-laden monster city renown for having the largest rodeo in the U.S.

Annise Parker was elected by showing Houston that she was just as human as anybody else, just as committed and caring as anybody else and just as competent as anybody else ... and maybe just a little bit more so. She also demonstrated to Houston and to Texas that "gay" or "lesbian" does not have to automatically be threatening or feared. She came across as just a regular everyday professional woman from Houston.

Make no mistake, Annise certainly has the skillset to do the job after six years as City Controller and six on city council. But it also shouldn't be discounted that Annise humanized herself and the image of gays and lesbians throughout the city. Even in red-meat, fire-breathing, rednecked Republican Texas, being "gay" is no longer an automatic death-knell for any job or any career.



Annise has long made efforts to reach out to all communities in Houston, and she is truly putting out the message that she is everyone's mayor. As she mentioned in her victory speech at Riva's Restaurant back in 1997 when she was first elected to city council: "I wasn't elected to be the city councilmember for gay and lesbian Houstonians. I was elected to be the city councilmember for ALL Houstonians.

It's something she takes very seriously. She's reached out to every ethnic community in this, the third most diverse city in the U.S. She's reached out to unions and to high-powered corporate leaders. She's reached out to Republicans and has also never shirked from the fact that she's openly lesbian and fully supports her GLBT community.

In an interview with Open Left during the run for this year's mayoral campaign, Annise noted: "in that campaign 12 years ago, I was told by members of the GLBT community, "well, if you have open transgender people as campaign volunteers or if you have identifiable openly gay people out pushing cards for you or representing you at public events, you'll never get elected." My response was, "well, then what would be the point?" and I immediately went out and my volunteer coordinator was transgender, my office manager was a flamboyantly gay man."

Even in the latter stages of the campaign, when her runoff opponent Gene Locke recognized he was losing the election and resorted to desperation passes in attempt to win, Annise stuck with Grant's gameplan: avoid the mudslinging, avoid compromising principle and hammer the opposition on the issues.



Watching Annise onstage with her partner Kathy Hubbard and her adopted children, it was a watershed moment. It seemed both surreal and appropriate that this was happening here in Houston. Kathy was literally beatific. Annise was dignified, but you could see the pride beaming through.

Even though I've met and visited with both of the last two mayors of Houston, it's also nice to finally have a Mayor who instantly knows me on a first-name basis! That's something Trans people don't get very often down here in the Bible belt ....

And before I forget — a heartfelt congratulations to the Lesbian and Gay community here and throughout the U.S. As Annise mentioned in her victory speech (and a sentiment I also agree on): "I know what this win means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office."

For the Lesbian community, and I'm sure for the Gay community as well, that glass ceiling has now officially been shattered. Savor this historic occasion and enjoy!

"We have a responsibility to live as openly as we can and to bring our full selves to everything we do, and begin to change hearts and minds." — Houston City Controller Annise Parker in an interview for Open Left Blog.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Hate Crimes: A Long Time Coming And A Long Struggle Ahead

[Note: this is a reprint from a requested project at Pam's House Blend]

"It's been a long time comin'
It's goin' to be a long time gone." — Long Time Gone, Crosby Stills Nash & Young



It’s been a long time coming. The historic passage of hate crimes legislation and signature into law by the President signals the very first federal law covering trans people in America. My emotions, though, are mixed: ebullience, wistfulness, solemnity, sadness

To have this finally pass, and to have it inclusive of trans people, is a major victory. Since 1997, I’ve been consistently taking time, shelling out money and visiting offices all over Washington DC and Austin – and even once in Annapolis this year – in attempt to get even this, the most elemental protection, passed with coverage for us all. With this official passage last week, all the memories of where we’ve all collectively been working to achieve what’s finally reality – seemingly against all odds – come streaming in.

In 1999 I had the opportunity to pull in the most critical component of what would eventually be the key to eventual passage of the James Byrd Hate Crimes Bill in Texas two years later. Taking two of my gay friends on their very first lobbying visit to show them how to parry and effectively argue our case, we landed the support of Rep. Warren Chisum, long-known as an arch-conservative, lightning rod author for the most heinous anti-GLBT legislation. His support brought in other crucial moderate GOP co-sponsors and votes and also provided cover for blue dog Dems as well. Our only responsibility was to change the wording to “sexual preference” and “gender non-conformity.”

It was a victory I was pleased to help along, but a hollow one personally. In 2001, gender non-conformity was refused inclusion in the bill (with a promise made to me that if we didn’t fight this and let this pass, they’d “come back for us” the next session). The bill passed, I held my tongue, but they never “came back” for us. Even this year, while in Austin, I visited with Rep. Chisum again a couple times. He chastised me with reminder that he didn’t want to revisit this bill again. However, he was ready once again to support. I’ll always remember the bravery of those like Rep. Garnet Coleman, author of 2009’s expansion bill in Texas, and the initial co-sponsors like Rep. Rafael Anchia and Rep. Alma Allen, as well as conservative Rep. Chisum and at least one other longtime Republican friend who were ready to bravely support and push this. The bill died in committee after testimony, but these unsung heroes deserve mention.

Memories of victims past stream back. Meeting one of our homeless trans girls in Houston mere months before she was shot and killed in the Montrose sticks in my mind: would this law have helped solve her murder and bring some solace? Seeing the abject, stoic sadness in the faces of the family of Terrianne Summers as I attempted to hold my own emotions in check while eulogizing my activist protégée, knowing her murder is also still unsolved with no justice.

Even in the cases where the murderers were caught, there’s only a little solace for the victims’ families past. Random memories. Watching the silent tears stream down the solemn face of Paula Mitchell at the Cortez, Colorado vigil in 2001 for her murdered child F.C. Listening to the sobs of Sylvia Guerrero over the phone in 2002, recalling her precious Gwen and how callously her body was dumped and buried, not long after Fred Phelps had found out Sylvia’s address and viciously protested in front of her home. Sitting alongside Queen Washington as she recounted for a reporter covering NTAC’s 2004 Lobby Day how her baby, Stephanie Thomas, was riddled with bullets a mere block from her home. Hearing the broken-hearted story from Sakia Gunn’s mother about the shoddy treatment from Newark authorities and community leaders and later seeing it first-hand in 2004 when our march from West Orange into Newark had only six white faces – four NTAC members and two local PFLAG parents – and was briefly refused entry into the city by police even after organizers had received permits. Hugging an activist friend, Ethan St. Pierre, who was shaken and teary-eyed after having making his very first speech in Boston recounting his aunt, trans woman Deborah Forte, being brutally murdered and having to go to the morgue to identify her body. There’s no way to adequately relate experiencing this.

I still recall vividly the long battles and the acrimony over the years of merely having trans people covered by hate crimes. Struggling with conservatives just as we did with the Human Rights Campaign or the Anti-Defamation League for protection. Vehemently arguing with Mara Keisling and Lisa Mottet at the 2003 IFGE convention as they agreed with HRC and ACLU lawyers, and tried to convince me, that “gender” would include “gender identity” due to congressional intent. Less than six month later, finding out first-hand from our own local District Attorney’s office that they didn’t “give a damn about,” nor had the time nor budget to research what congressional intent was as they were following the letter of the law as written in Texas, and nothing beyond.

Even something as indirect as political campaigning paid off. Being an Obama delegate won me few friends in the GLBT community during the primaries. From my lobbying experience though, I knew Hillary Clinton’s fondness for incrementalism and lack of knowledge on trans people just as well as I knew Obama’s full-scope approach to rights. Trans folks, including myself, fought hard during the campaign up to the national convention and all the way up until election day. That night, 1000 miles from home in battleground Dayton, Ohio, I knew we’d finally won our rights to be included when Ohio was called for Obama and later when it became official that President Barack Obama would soon occupy the White House.

We were branded as pariahs, had our characters impugned and reputations ruined for standing firm on trans inclusion. It was worth it. We now have what we set out to achieve: coverage, rights, recognition. Finally, federally, we’re now human.

The Hate Crimes Bill is a watershed symbolic victory for Trans Americans. But beyond the symbolism, we remain vigilant. It’s an important first-step, but not the final goal.

"You've got to speak out against the madness,
You've got to speak your mind, if you dare.
But don't – no don't now try to get yourself elected...." — Long Time Gone, Crosby Stills Nash & Young

Friday, July 17, 2009

Syracuse Sucks If You're Trans And Murdered

"It's just one of those days
When you don't wanna wake up!
Everything is fucked, everybody sucks!" — Break Stuff, Limp Bizkit


How furious am I today? Let me count the ways ....

On second thought, no. Who's listening? Precious few. Yeah, cumulative things get to be a rabid bear when they're piled atop each other and compounded. Starting off the day fighting doesn't help. Nice sticky heat with none of the forecasted "cooling rain" magnifies it. Then losing water (my precious lifeline to cooling off!) for a good portion of the day added a topper to that.

But the news forthcoming wasn't anything pleasing. Quite disquieting actually – some of it, downright infuriating. As they say down here in Texas, it was enough to piss off the dead. First was word that the overwhelmingly democratic U.S. Senate, in its infinite wisdom, decided it would be a good thing to add the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act onto S. 1390: the Dept. of Defense spending bill replete with funding for F-22 fighters which are wasted spending and which Pres. Barack Obama has already vowed to veto if it makes it to his desk!

That's right. Democrats are helping kill off the trans-inclusive Hate Crimes bill in the Senate by sending a veto-ready bill for signature! And that, of course, is if it makes it past a Conference Committee with a joint-session membership (and manages to maintain all the aspects of the current Hate Crimes bill.) If something goes awry and gets cut out and passed in joint session, it goes from there to the President.

Then another headline caught my eye: "Sex-changer's suit claims bias against Parks Department." It was a headline from the New York Daily News (think FOX News in a newspaper format). Now the writer, Jose Martinez, did actually stick to the guidelines, mostly avoiding pronouns, and once referring to "her." But the screaming headline and later referencing that she had not had "a sex-change operation" lets you know where this is going.

The plantiff Chanel Birden wasn't helping her own case either, something her attorney Derek Smith should've monitored and didn't. As a result, the Daily News writer didn't focus much on the slurs and insults she was receiving and filing grievances about before her firing from the mail clerk position at New York's Central Park. Instead, the writer highlighted quotes from her self-describing herself as being "a gorgeous woman" and how she "would always go to work looking very glamorous" and similar responses. Sure, it wasn't officially out of bounds. But it's still predatory journalism looking to caricature and dismiss trans women who don't know better while sublimely covering his own tracks.

"The trans community always seems to have a knack for finding a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." — trans activist, Cathy Platine


Then I got the bombshell. Lateisha Green's murderer, Dwight DeLee, received his verdict in a Syracuse Courthouse. He was found innocent of second degree murder. He was convicted of first degree manslaughter. The jury determined that after DeLee had lobbed invective and epithets at Lateisha Green sitting in her brother's car, after he'd gone into the house to retrieve his rifle, and after lobbing a few more epithets and leveling the gun at point blank range into the car and shooting Teish, that he'd intended to only "seriously injure" her but had no intentions of killing her. Manslaughter, not a murder.

Any other victim killed in such a manner would expect their killer to receive a murder sentence. Ah, but Teish was murdered while Trans! And further, as my homegirl Monica Roberts would say, she was murdered while Black and Trans! As we read between the lines of this logic, it helps validate the killer's motivations. Why, having a trans person outside near his house practically requires one to go in their house and retrieve their rifle ... pop off a warning shot in their direction from a few feet away, just to make sure you don't have to fear for your life from the transsexual menace!

Certainly any average citizen in Syracuse would understand that threat, that fear! It's palpable!

Reality time: essentially this verdict actually foists some of the blame on the victim. That's right! The good people of Syracuse decided that being Trans, Lateisha Green should've known she's partially to blame for being attacked! It's kinda like women being partially to blame for being raped, Asian store owners being partially at fault for getting robbed in their stores, unarmed black men being partially understood to have been shot by police because of their potential threat – or even white men being partially culpable for getting shot while driving through a minority neighborhood! Everyone should know that's coming, and certainly expect that those who commit these crimes aren't to be fully blamed for it!

At least, that's the logic in Syracuse.

There were a number of statements in the press to note the verdict: "Today's verdict brings justice for Lateisha Green, but it can never heal the immense loss her family has experienced," said Jarrett Barrios, incoming President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

"This verdict sends a strong message that hate violence will not be condoned. How many more like Lateisha Green must spill blood before our society says no to harassment, no to discrimination and no to violence against transgender people? ... {J]ustice was served today." said Rea Carey, Exec. Dir. of National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)

A measure of justice, perhaps. But was absolute justice served? Is Manslaughter a strong message? It must be noted that neither Carey nor Barrios are Trans. Point of fact, only one of the statements put out yesterday on the DeLee verdict by the organizations was from a trans organization (TLDEF - the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund), but the statement was from their non-trans executive director.

Oddly, the lone trans person responding from any major org was from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who tacked on a trans voice to Exec. Dir. Joe Solmonese's statement. "I am relieved to see Lateisha’s killer brought to justice," said Allyson Robinson, HRC Associate Director of Diversity.

Both IFGE and NCTE remaining silent on this is odd. And to think that NTAC was criticized for putting out press and "drawing attention to ourselves." So leaving the attention to non-T voices and orgs is better?

Either we just don't pay attention to the details any more, or maybe it's just gotten so bad that any conviction more than simple assault of a person who murders a trans woman is a victory. Maybe it's me and all the other Trans folk around the country who are pissed at this lesser treatment by the court that are out of step?

Or maybe this is just a great way to put out a message that's consistent, celebratory and assures that there's no dissension: ensure that there's message control.

One has to wonder how the Gay & Lesbian community would react to this? If Matthew Shepard's murder drew a manslaughter conviction with a maximum 25 year sentence, would Judy Shepard feel this was justice served? If it were the Trans community declaring before press that such as sentence was justice, would the Gay & Lesbian community agree with our statements and consider it closed?

Or if not, would they speak out? After watching their responses in recent months, I believe I already know that answer.

“Compromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.” English writer, Gilbert K. Chesterton

"If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation." former First Lady to the 2nd U.S. President, Abigail Smith Adams

Friday, July 10, 2009

The Massachusetts Model


"In this month of July, as we have just celebrated the Fourth of July and our Independence Day and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we ... are reminded that the phrase, “All Men are Created Equal,” at the time really referred to only certain men, and at the time, only certain men who owned property. Much has clearly changed in this country since 1776. As our country grew, our population grew, and our Bill of Rights and the interpretation of them included a rational and evolving sense of what liberty and justice and equality for all meant." — Mass. Atty. Gen, Martha Coakley in July 8, 2009 press conference.

The year was 1989. Massachusetts passed a state law on non discrimination covering sexual orientation, giving gay and lesbian state residents protections in the workplace against unfair treatment, hiring or firing practices. Being one of the early states to enact it statewide, they were among the vanguard of the progressives.

Since that day twenty years earlier, more legislation has since been enacted covering the state's gay and lesbian residents: Adoption (1993), Hate Crimes (2002), School Bullying (2002), Marriage for in-state couples (2004) and for out-of-state couples (2008). They've also had not one, but two elected officials who were gay – Gerry Studds (1972-1997) and Barney Frank (1981-current). So-called the "most liberal state in the Union", Massachusetts had done well by its gay and lesbian residents.

Taking this into consideration, let's also take a look at the progress of Trans rights in this "most liberal state." By default, Massachusetts' Trans residents have the right to marry per the 2004 edict. Additionally by default, other non-Mass. Trans citizens may now marry there per the 2008 law. In 2009, Trans people saw the first trans-specific law passed: the right to have the new gender marker listed on their drivers license.

And that's about it currently. There's a current non discrimination bill to cover trans folks some two decades later which will go to hearings soon. Of course the same bill also went to hearings in 2007. Hopefully it passes now, but it's still a coin flip.

Twenty years after their initial rights victory, five years after winning the first-in-the-country same-sex marriage rights, and even a year after winning those rights in Mass. for same-sex couples from other states, the Trans rights push is in its early toddling steps. This in the "most liberal state" in the Union. It's a point that even the Big Gay Man on the Hill, Barney Frank, has used in his own defense to deflect crticism when he himself got cold feet on Trans inclusion in non discrimination bills.

Earlier this year MassEquality, the state's prominent LGBT advocate, made tacit promises of finally devoting attention to Trans rights in the state with its Trans rights org counterparts, Mass. Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC). Not long after, they plastered a photo of one of the Trans community's prominent Trans men, giving instructions for folks to contact them on info for Trans equality!

Shortly and subtly thereafter, they then start edging away from working on Trans issues in the state and focused more prominence on helping their neighboring states' marriage equality rights fights! They apparently discovered what Trans organizations have known for many years: big gay and lesbian money pours in on gay and lesbian issues, and magically evaporates when it's Trans issues. There's nothing sexy about Trans issues to gay and lesbian America, no pressing humanitarian (read: big media face time) need for involvement, nothing much to be gained for them personally. Why engage? Maybe another pressing G&L need may arise in the future? Perhaps divorce rights will be the next big ticket item on the agenda?

And if not, hey! There's always plenty of vacation spots to visit....

"I started looking at small companies that were running a sort of virtual reality cottage industry .... that's your dream of what it's going to be." — musician, Thomas Dolby

Of course, once all the rights for sexual orientation on their potential wish list are attained and there's nothing else left, why not give new up-and-coming gay and lesbian leaders a shot by ... coming back and getting those hapless trannies their rights! You continue keeping the org in place and keep the name recognition going! There's certainly no real urgency from a sexual orientation standpoint. They can give more young gays and lesbians an opportunity to develop leadership skills. (Something Trans people don't really need – after all, what are they going to do with them?) It spotlights again the talents and abilities of the gay and lesbian young leaders (something Trans folk have never really had, and frankly in their estimation don't need.)

It also keeps the reins firmly in gay and lesbian hands. You don't want to give trannies the keys to the bank 'cause Lord only knows how they could screw that up if given chance!

And if by chance they manage to win rights for their hapless gender-confused charges, all the better! It does so at low cost, gives these individuals a badge of honor and some pride in accomplishment, keeps the Trans community beholden to the gay and lesbian leaders and helps assuage some of that old "incrementalist" gay guilt and may help bury the legacy (which really needs sanitizing in order to look attractive in the historical annals).

To paraphrase the old adage, why teach a man to fish or give him access to fishing when you can simply just give him a fiah that you catch? Then he gets fed only at your convenience, and best of all helps keep the cottage industry under control! There's nothing like a captive audience to drum up business! If they must bring into their fold a Trans person, make sure they are agreeable and will help aggressively market the paradigm of LG first, then B, then T. A good Trans marketer in LGBT orgs can be an excellent public relations tool and adds the dual benefit of providing "cover" with the Trans and curious straight community folks.

And if they're crafty enough, they can stretch this out for quite some time and make a nice career of it! It's not like Trans people aren't familiar with the concept of gatekeepers.

After all, only a fool would give away the business secrets that make their business a success. When did Coca-Cola or Col. Sanders ever give away their secret recipes? Answer: never! It's why they're a success story for the ages!

Of course once all is acheived in Massachusetts, as we've seen, why not export this model to the other states? After all: "there's more education needed on Transgender issues ... they don't know who you are." And with any luck by these incisively-minded G&L leaders, they likely never will in our lifetimes!

As the Big Gay Man on the Hill loves to point out on progressive issues: as goes Massachusetts, thus follows the rest of the nation.

If you're Trans, you better pray, meditate like hell or scream bloody murder that it doesn't!

"The notion that you don't protect most people if you don't protect them all – that's never worked." — Rep. Barney Frank on ENDA in 2007

Friday, June 19, 2009

Legislative Chatter On The Eve Of Pride: Will We Be Equal?


"Part of the problem, frankly, is with the transgender community and some of those who put that in the forefront, because they didn’t lobby. The only time they started lobbying is when we said ‘You know what, we don’t have the votes for this, we gotta to do it partially.’ Then they began lobbying the Democrats that were supportive. I’ve never seen a worse job of lobbying. For years, literally years, I have been begging them to start talking to people about this, and have said you, look, have political problems here, I wish we didn’t but we do, and you have to deal with them." — Cong. Barney Frank in 2007

As we converge on New York City next week for the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall (and others partake in their own cities' Pride celebrations), word comes out that the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) will be reintroduced to coincide with the occasion. This is tailor-made timing to induce good vibes to soothe over the raw feelings and disastrous previous sessions' disarray and fracturing of the community. How successful the community repairs will be leaves me naturally skeptical, but we'll see how they conduct themselves this time.

We've mostly heard the wording will stay similar to the original HR 2015 (the inclusive ENDA originally submitted before we were ditched and HR 3685 eventually passed. There has been at least a bit of a murmur from one contact that "there's talk of the language changing this time," but that's yet to be independently confirmed anywhere else.

There's one thing we can bet the house on. Trans folks most in need of such legislation, the outsiders and unequivocal backers of inclusive legislation, those not of the HRC ilk will be nowhere in sight or earshot of the negotiation table (much less participating). Yes, it'll be "trust us" yet again ... y'all know the modus operandi by now.

It's good timing for Rep. Barney Frank and HRC to submit this next week. In fact it couldn't be better. The Gay and Lesbian community will undoubtedly be overjoyed. There's a possibility trans people may also celebrate it equally. Maybe.

Until we see it we don't know what we'll be dealing with. Therein lies another reason the bill is timed well for Ol' Barn' and HRC: we'll be busy partying our butts off per their estimation, giving them a bit of cover in the off chance it was needed.

And as we've already seen, just because a bill drops in one version doesn't mean it's going to stay that version or that it'll not be switched yet again.

The House won't be the big worry this time unless we see a replay of Ol' Barn' and the backroom boys making a deal about abandoning trans due to the dreaded "toilet issue" (as in, "which one?") We hopefully confronted that adequately in lobbying this past May: all they have to do is look at NTAC's Lobby Packet cover to see what it is the conservatives are truly asking for – something I don't think they intended.

The worry on ENDA will be the Senate stripping out the trans inclusive language (or stonewalling it altogether.)

On a more uplifting note, the Hate Crimes Bill should be making it to the Senate vote any time now. In this case, we should have the votes to pass it. The only caveat is it's been attached to a Tourism Bill (whatever that's about). This means there will have to be a conference committee revisitation from a joint committee of Senate and House. Prospects are good, but anything can happen in a conference committee. The downside (if any) is if it gets stripped there, it goes on to the President for signature and we have no ability to affect it at that point.

If I had to put money down on it though, I'd say there are better odds on it passing inclusively as the President has already asked for the bill and checked it's progress.

Meanwhile on the DOMA brief from the Dept. of Justice, I've been watching the rhetoric and heat flying around. It's true that the head of the DOJ is President Obama's doing, but I'm sure that there's not been a massive purge of all former DOJ employees from the Bush years, nor is it the President's responsibility to micromanage the department. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder wasn't exactly known for his "bleeding-heart liberal" credentials, save for the likes of Rush Limbaugh or other extremists. Ultimately they do their job and the President reviews, but doesn't necessarily have obligation to second-guess everything.

That said, it seems some of the immediate blasts may have been more than just premature, but from a position of not even reading the brief in the first place! Originally even Cong. Barney Frank took initial umbrage, then stepped back from his initial statements by admitting he hadn't read the brief and was relying on oral arguments!

While that is a black eye on Ol' Barn', he actually came clean and admitted! That's a refreshing bit of honesty, and I've got to give Rep. Frank credit there.

Much of this seems deriven from John Aravosis' Americablog and possibly references to Charles Socarides' article, and its initial read (if indeed it was read) on the DOJ brief. Lawdork blog had the following to say (http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/chairman-frank-and-aravosiss-misstatements/)

Soon thereafter, John Aravosis published a piece that just went round the bound. I have tried to keep my blog as forward-looking as possible, but it’s clear that Aravosis’s heavy popularity at his blog and media contacts have allowed his false statements about what the filing means to push the debate into the twisted, contorted view he is giving it.

The two main problems that I have with Aravosis’s coverage are:

(1) His continued misstatements regarding whether Justice should have filed a brief in this case.

(2) His “comparing us to incest and pedophilia” claim is overstated and does not withstand any serious, legal scrutiny.

First of all, it’s clear that his poisoning of the well most likely led to Chairman Frank’s misimpressions about the brief, which he said he had not read until today. (I’ll admit that I too was surprised that he hadn’t read it yet, but I have noted before that Frank is wholly dedicated to the financial reform package that he’s been working on for the past several months.) Frank said: “I made the mistake of relying on other people’s oral descriptions to me of what had been in the brief, rather than reading it first.”

So, then John (Aravosis) falsely concludes that “Frank now thinks the brief is just super.”

Here’s what Frank actually said:

Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.
Of course, John cites to none of that in his post, which is very similar to what I’ve been writing and what Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe and former Clinton Justice Department senior staffer Robert Raben have said as well. [...]

Then, Aravosis gets into this notion that the President regularly just “goes about telling the DOJ to oppose existing law in court.” Aravosis states that Richard Socarides’s vague statement results in a factual, final reality: “It’s not debatable, it’s what actually happens in the Oval office, and it’s not illegal – it’s a fact.” Yes, it is.

Aravosis has to turn words up-side-down to create this idea. He keeps changing statements from people, which admit of times when a law can be challenged, into statements that people haven’t said, which is that Justice can “never” fail to defend an existing law. Despite Aravosis’s false statements, Justice spokespersons never said that Justice always has to uphold laws. As I pointed out, Justice has consistently said only that it “generally” must defend laws. [...]

(2) “Comparing us to incest and pedophilia” claim is overstated and does not withstand any serious, legal scrutiny.

This claim, to which I’ve previously objected, has been Aravosis’s claim to fame on the brief, with him taking credit whenever anyone uses the claim.

Here’s the actual line — yes, only one sentence, and not really even a sentence but just a list of cases (called a “string cite”) after a sentence — from the brief:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

These were three cases about marriages, which were valid in one jurisdiction, not being allowed under the laws of another jurisdiction. There is nothing further. The brief does not ever use the words “incest” or “pedophilia.” And, by the way, the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), the standard for diagnosis, defines pedophilia as involving “sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).” Under that definition, there is not even a case involving pedophilia appearing in the brief at all — which is likely the reason that no mainstream publication has repeated that claim.

Despite all that, this is what Aravosis concluded this evening about Chairman Frank:

Barney thinks the language of the brief was great. He even, between the lines, defends the invocation of incest and pedophilia.
No, he clearly did not think the brief was great, as his statement made clear. Moreover, he never defended anything that isn’t in the brief, despite your constant claims to the contrary.

It is Aravosis’s spreading of this continued falsity — particularly to demean the smart, legitimate statements of members of Congress — that lead me to continued reporting about why it’s false.
That last point spiked my curiosity enough to pull up the brief and begin reading in search of the comparison to pedophilia (though I was still a long way from finishing before I got this post from the Lawdork blog. Hey, I'm not a legal beagle – it takes me a bit more time to read through the technical and the legalese. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see this. The claim seemed a bit more like hyperbole than fact, and apparently so.

One thing everyone needs to keep in mind is that the President cannot overturn DOMA. He can state his opinion (which he has), but ultimately it's something Congress must enact and then get the President's signature on. It's how the damn bill was enacted in the first place, and signed by Pres. Clinton! One person (one is they're George W. Bush with Dick Cheney interpreting his constitutional law) cannot simply overturn or undo a passed, signed and enacted law.

Additionally, it'd probably look a bit odd if the Dept. of Justice had sent a brief that supported overturning DOMA. Their job is to carry out the voted and enacted law of the land and interpret what's on the books. They are not in the business of defying existing law on the books (again with exceptions given to Bush-Cheney era justice opinion).

Perhaps they should've withheld any amicus, but they would've drawn howls for going against the DOMA law. If DOMA is to be overturned, even better than having the Supreme Court do so in a ruling, DOMA must be undone via legislation.

Yes, Obama could use his bully pulpit. But last I checked, we're still hemorrhaging jobs and the economy's still in the bottom of the tank. I know, I'm one of those falling through those widening economic sinkholes. Not to mention Iran, North Korea, corporate bankruptcies and fending off right-wing nutcases throwing the conjectural kitchen sink at him. Maybe priorities aren't there at the moment.

And this comes from one of those "impatient," "screaming" trannies from NTAC! Hmm ... and we're the only ones who are supposed to be histrionical, huh?

"No, I ain’t lookin’ to fight with you,
Frighten you or tighten you,
Drag you down or drain you down,
Chain you down or bring you down.
All I really want to do
Is, baby, be friends with you." — All I Really Want to Do, the Byrds

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Presto! New York State's Same-Sex Marriage Without Even Passing A Law!


"That's great, it starts with an earthquake,
Birds and snakes, and aeroplanes -
Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn,
world serves its own needs, satisfy your own greed." — It's The End Of The World As We Know It, R.E.M.


The world ended in New York State on May 26, 2009. Or it least it should have. The AFA and the FOF and the NOM and all of those right-wingy, cover-your-thingy, religiopolitical fundamentalist orgs had long worried about the fabric of society suddenly disintegrating if ever a same-sex marriage occurred in a state where it was outlawed.

Well it happened! After the state of New York went through court same-sex marriage occurred!

So, how is life in post-apocalyptic New York? Hmm ... funny thing is it's still there! And life is going on as normal (there's that *word*!) I talked with a friend up there ... no big changes ... just an ordinary June day. No big bang, no anarchy? I guess I should be disappointed, huh?

In fact, the news media didn't even pick up on it until today's New York Post broke it this morning! And still everything's functioning! That's gotta be breaking some stony little religiopolitical hearts.

Here's the real kick in the crotch! As much as it's been a major wet dream for the gay and lesbian community these past years to be able to marry ... it was a trans woman and her husband who tied the knot! That's okay, though. They'll be buried in the annals of history with nary a memory. (It's the way things work in GLBT ... history must be by G or L – they'll see to it.)

As the Post put it:

Hakim Nelson and Jason Stenson married on May 26 with nary a raised eyebrow among the oblivious city bureaucrats who not only OK'd the marriage license, but conducted the ceremony, despite gay marriage being illegal in the state.

The plucky couple filled out their marriage application online at the Apple Store on 14th Street in May. A few days later, they went to the City Clerk's Office on Worth Street to complete the form and get their marriage license. [...]

The gullible clerk didn't seem to notice that both Nelson, 18, and Stenson, 21, have male first names. They both had to present identification to obtain the license. Stenson used his state ID card, and Nelson gave a state Benefit Card, which he uses to collect food stamps.

By a fluke, Nelson's ID card has an "F" for female on it, because the official who issued it in April assumed from his appearance that he was a woman.



Government issued I.D. in the gender she presents, female. Yet the courts want to consider her male in some states. As a result of this paranoid thrashing attempt at social engineering by the religiopoliticos, they've actually created more problems. States like Texas and Kansas consider post-operative transsexuals their birth gender, and perhaps New York currently intends the same. But if this couple goes across the river with their fresh new marriage license, legally married in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, the state of New Jersey will honor her marriage to her spouse, especially post-surgically.

And beyond all the gnashing of teeth and protests and blitzkriegs on statehouses around the country, what exactly is being hurt by this marriage beyond some peoples' feelings? There have been, however one wishes to slice it, same-sex marriages per some states' opinions for decades and decades! It's only now that it's a hot-button to keep "the gay agenda" in check that it's been moved to the fore.

In these times with foreclosures and destitution rising like bread dough, jobs disappearing like moderates from the GOP, and Kim Jung Il threatening nuclear annihilation to all (and to all a good night), very few people have enough spare time in their over-stressed lives to pay much attention to a same-sex couple getting married. They don't like the overpoliticizing and street-protest whiners, but bottom line is that if it happens, 99% of Americans are going to shrug and go, "whatever! It's not my problem! I got crap of my own to deal with!"

Crap like how to survive this corporate-induced economic Chernobyl we're in!

“This is exactly what the right wing is afraid of. People have had a year of legal marriage in Massachusetts to see how ending marriage discrimination helps gay and lesbian families and hurts no one.” — Exec. Dir, Freedom To Marry Coalition, Evan Wolfson

Congratulations to the new Mr. & Mrs. Stenson! Now move across the river to Jersey, settle down, have a nice life and leave the battlers behind to fight amongst themselves. It's official: New York state has married (per its estimation) a same-sex couple, and the world didn't come to a calamitous end!

So, New York legislature ... how about take a clue here? Just pass the damn thing.

Ultimately there's no equal reason to not extend everyone the same rights. Marriage has happened in five states now (and a sixth in January), including all of your neighbors adjacent to your eastern border have it. Their world didn't come to an end. Moreover, continuing to hold up passage only sanctions unequal application of the marriage rights granted all your state's citizens. Do you really want to advertise that to the rest of the world?

Then once it's passed, maybe then – FINALLY – we can finally start employing trans people in large numbers in these so-called civil rights groups there in the Empire State and allowing them to make the connections, speak to the powers and enact legislation to where Trans people can work? Maybe even get some protections from hate violence too? Equanimity in sentencing for all victims' attackers, hmm? Hey, it's only been, like, fifteen years or so pushing for that stuff there, forty years after Stonewall and the Gay Rights movement.

One fact I forgot to mention: the newly married couple reside in Sylvia's Place at the MCCR Church in New York: a homeless shelter for Queer Youth. Yep, they married. They just can't work or make a livable wage to survive anywhere in the Big Apple. Get it?

But yeah, I know ... priorities. Survival subjects aren't sexy. They're just so hard to market ....

"Gay people want the freedom to marry for the same reasons non-gay people do.” — Exec. Dir. for Freedom To Marry Coalition, Evan Wolfson

"Transgenders already have legal same-sex marriage. Why then is the lesbian and gay community reluctant to use this as a wedge issue when lesbian and gay same-sex marriage is debated on the news, on talk shows, and in litigation? The reluctance is incomprehensible." — from the Albany Law Review, "Same-Sex Marriages Have Existed Legally In The United States For A Long Time Now by Phyllis Randolph Frye & Alyson Meiselman

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Now They Figure Out We're Getting Screwed?


“Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.” — Isaiah 2:6

"First you said you would, if you just could, yeah.
Then you said you could if you just would, yeah." — Double Talking Baby, Gene Vincent & His Blue Caps


A little over two months ago, I took the Massachusetts chapter of the Equality Federation – MassEquality – to task. After the history of their organization and others dealing with rights in the Bay State over the past couple decades plus, I found their use of a friend on one of their promotional spots on their website a bit too exploitative. My blog entry Massachusetts' Shame noted it as follows:

Just yesterday I saw an advertisement for MassEquality with a photo of my friend, Ethan St. Pierre, on it. It was a very flattering photo of him showing up link stating "get the resources to help fight transgender discrimination here." Indeed it's an important first step for Mass. Equality -- an important first step in 2009.

Many would think this a positive development.

Many would ... and would also completely gloss over the shameful history of both Massachusetts and this very organization, MassEquality, on transgender rights. Many would completely ignore the selfish agenda of this organization and the gay and lesbian community in Massachusetts – commonly referred to by no less than Rep. Barney Frank as "the most liberal state in the union."
My whole beef around this was the seeming lack of concern they had with capitalizing on a trans issue when there was already an existing trans group there working on these very issues, and here was a gay and lesbian group, with virtually every right they'd ever had on their wish list accomplished, thinking they could simply waltz in like presumed heroes and just take over like the pros from Dover!

Of course, as my posts tend to be blunt, there were reactions to my Mass In-Equality post on March 14. Two of Massachusetts's own levied severe hand-slaps for my apparent harsh views on MassEquality.

From Cong. Barney Frank's hired trans staffer on the Hill, Diego Sanchez, came this response:

Vanessa shame! ... There's too much false information in this to flag each piece. From me, someone who HAS been involved for 20 years in MA LGBT, civil rights and social justice work: Every step that MassEquality has made, since its inception (and I say that because I was there when it was a spark in an eye and not yet formed) has been strategic and with participation, collaboration, negotiation, compromise and discussion with transgender people in MA. Your thoughts about Mass are so off base, you might want to focus on the many things you actually have lived through or are working on. Mass is NOT one of them. We'll handle MA as we have. I can't imagine what compels you to talk about Mass when you know us, the people who HAVE been doing the work. This is utter nonsense.
And from Gunner Scott, Exec. Dir. of Mass. Transgender Political Coalition (a group whom I suggested should've been getting the attention instead of MassEquality on trans issues) came the following response:

MassEquality has been one of our many strong partners in the coalition that MTPC's leads in advancing transgender rights in Massachusetts. I should know as the Director and founding member of MTPC.

Vanessa your assessment is off base, additionally you don't even live here or participate in MTPC. Lashing out at organizations and partnerships that you know nothing about is not helping build coalition, move our transgender rights movement forward, or encourage other state LGBT advocacy groups to work with their local transgender political groups.

You might want to focus on your own damn state, Texas, in moving transgender rights.
Points taken. NTAC and I weren't the only group to ever get involved with locals on other state issues as NCTE and Mara Keisling do likewise rather regularly. Perhaps, I thought, I'd been given less-than-accurate information on Massachusetts, and particularly MassEquality who I'd heard was directed resources to help other adjacent states in New England win marriage equality – not toward assisting trans groups and trans individuals lift up their own within their own state. Perhaps I was wrong.

Well, during NTAC's Lobby Days early in May I read a piece of a screed on MassEquality and had to put it down and come back to it (as we were in the midst of working Capitol Hill). Recently I had the opportunity to read it en toto. It's a blog on LiveJournal from the same Gunner Scott who sniped at my blog blasting MassEquality. Here's what he had to say less than two months later in his GenderCrash blog on May 7 from http://transgender.livejournal.com:

I posted this as a response to NH not passing trans rights, but I would like more people to see this...

Transgender issues will never be a priority for LGB(t) groups. Whether that is achieving laws, changing policies, or advocating for resources. I am not just saying this because I am part of MTPC, but if we want our community to be equal then we need to do the work. LGB(t) can support this, but we need to be steering that ship and not waiting for LGB(t) groups throw us a bone.

There is more to equality/rights/liberation then just passing non-discrimination laws. I think California is a good example - even though they have non-discrimination laws many trans people are still experiencing employment/poverty issues, so they next step is services, job fairs, education etc... and that is what Transgender Law Center does and this is and will be the types of stuff MTPC will do before and after a law passes.

We need our transgender organizations to advocate for us... we cannot wait for HRC, NGLTF, or MassEquality or any other state equality group to do it for us. We need to do it ourselves which means we need to fund our trans organizations, we need to volunteer, and we need to show up.
Wow. He made that 180-degree turn look effortless! And right on the heels of saying the exact opposite so recently at that! Well, I'm glad he's finally learned now after seeing the light. Maybe ... or maybe it's something else?

Gunner's LiveJournal blog continues:

If you have a job, then start donating (if you don't already) to a transgender specific advocacy group in your area and/or NCTE - monthly, $5 a month does make a difference when we have several people doing that. If you can do more then do that. I give to several transgender specific orgs, some monthly, others once a year. Lets get more transgender people hired to work for trans rights full time - it makes a huge difference to have trans people at the table advocating for rights and resources. We are the experts on our lives... we are not some LGB(t) group.

If you don't have money then donate your time and show and do something...
... And there's the rub! Now I see what this is! Keep in mind that it was Mara Keisling that popularized the notion, and NCTE who's entire raison d'etre was about "working collegially and collaboratively with our allies." Allies like ... HRC and NGLTF, et al. We're all quite familiar with the mantra from Mara, pushing back on all those of us who tried to warn the Trans community that Barney Frank and HRC were going to ditch us, and cutting off discussion by declaring that "everyone is on board" with trans inclusion, end of story.

Shortly after Southern Comfort, notice how facile the "collegial and collaborative" Ms. Keisling was in suddenly adopting the supposed "negativity," and NCTE calling for resignations of Joe Solmonese, all second-level staff and all board, calling it "controlled by and ... dependent upon white, rich, professional gay men." Mara's a master equivocator. So is this who's knee Gunner is learning from? Is that what our movement has come down to: whoever can sell the snake oil the slickest succeeds?

“Demagogue: one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” — journalist, H.L. Mencken

"They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening." — novelist, George Orwell



Continuing on Gunner's blog:

"I know I sound like a broken record, but after doing this for over ten years and the reality is no one and I mean no one is going to fight as hard for our rights, for resources for our community then we are, trans people.

LGB people don't get us and I don't think they ever will...(and I also identify as being queer) yes they can be our ally, but our issues will never ever and I mean never be their priority. We as the larger trans community need to stop thinking that someday they will. The LGB(t) orgs are not going to save us. As long we have no power or influence in their organizations, meaning on boards and big donors, trans issues and the needs of the trans community will never be at the top of the list. There is no incentive for that. Our needs will always be pushed to the bottom.

So yes be mad at HRC or NGLTF or your state marriage group or equality group, but do something more with that anger...

We need to be our own movement, we need to make our allies and not just with LGB groups, we need to fund our own organizations, and push for our own rights.

LGB people don't get us and I don't think they ever will...(and I also identify as being queer) yes they can be our ally, but our issues will never ever and I mean never be their priority. We as the larger trans community need to stop thinking that someday they will. The LGB(t) orgs are not going to save us. As long we have no power or influence in their organizations, meaning on boards and big donors, trans issues and the needs of the trans community will never be at the top of the list. There is no incentive for that. Our needs will always be pushed to the bottom.

So yes be mad at HRC or NGLTF or your state marriage group or equality group, but do something more with that anger...

We need to be our own movement, we need to make our allies and not just with LGB groups, we need to fund our own organizations, and push for our own rights."
I'd comment on how great it was to hear the above, but it would be personally vain. It's something I've been espousing, and many others "supposed" heretics have been warning, for years now.

Nevertheless, it's good that he's come around and is now helping us get the truth out. That is, if he's truly come around. Time will tell if it's true, and those of us who've been in this independence camp will welcome the new blood if indeed they are now joining up to stay.

That said, I'm also very well aware of how many johnny-come-lately, flash-in-the-pans we've seen adopting faux anger for a time. Hell, even NCTE is back to casting furtive glances HRC's way, and NCTE's two board members who were on HRC's board of governors never left. In fact, NCTE's Dana Beyer is even helping rope in an occasional trans person to paid work for HRC. It's part of the old plan: keep talent, funding and resources away from trans people by tying them up in our "allied" organizations like HRC!

We've spent too much attention and allowed too much distraction by people claiming leadership in our community and yet have all the resolve of a flag in a hurricane. The only thing you can count on from the flag in a hurricane is that it will stand at full attention in whichever direction the wind blows, which could well be a 180 degree switch before the day's out.

We need to start holding these irresolute "leaders" accountable. We face enough obstacles with the gay and lesbian organization leaders, weak-kneed Democrats and virtually any Republican these days as they've rid themselves of nearly all moderates. Following our own leaders who zig and zag from one direction to the other doesn't lead us anywhere except to fatigue and ultimate frustration. All they've served to do is to run interference for gay and lesbian rights while keeping us directionless.

When it comes to the trans community, we need leadership who will take a firm stand and not simply adopt a posture because it's suddenly trendy.

"Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. Nothing up my sleeve ... presto!" — Bullwinkle J. Moose from the cartoon Rocky and Bullwinkle & Friends

"My friends tried to tell me, but they were too late, yeah.
What a fool I was to fall for your bait, yeah." — Double Talking Baby, Gene Vincent & His Blue Caps

“Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.” — writer, Charles Caleb Colton

Saturday, May 16, 2009

NTAC Hits Capitol Hill On Its Tenth Anniversary


The last couple weeks have been jam-packed so much that it's hard to find time to sit and write! This week has been nothing but back to back board meetings and homework for those organizations.

The prior week, though, was Transgender Lobby Days in Washington DC with NTAC – the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition. As I write, NTAC is now celebrating 10 year anniversary! A full decade of working on advocacy at the federal level, it's hard to believe we're still in it. With GenderPAC now morphed into another organization name and vision at the beginning of the year, it leaves NTAC as the longest running federal-level advocate for transgender or gender variant issues.


Anniversary aside, this was the smallest group we've had to date thanks to the crushing economy and competition from other newer interests in the game. However we still managed to pull in people from every section of the country except for the Northeast, ironically enough. We blanketed the entire Senate and hit over 100 offices in our day on the House side as well.

While we're dealing with a much friendlier congressional environ with inclusive bills (concerns with hate crimes' definitions aside), it was still a good year to make it up there for other reasons.

Due to the Obama victory, I was facing the loss of my fourth, solid staff contact on the Hill. I was starting to panic a bit! While LGB and T groups will obfuscate or keep us collectively in the dark, it's always been our staff contacts who have kept us enlightened. Certainly for NTAC, they've been a godsend. Without them, we'd have been buying into the oft-repeated Barney Frank or Human Rights Campaign-concocted story lines: e.g. "gender includes the trans community" [2003], "Christopher Shays is holding back trans inclusion" [2004], "Barney Frank and HRC have been our champions in fighting for inclusion" [2004 & 2005]. "ENDA won't be submitted this session" [2006], "Rep. George Miller is keeping trans inclusion from ENDA" [2007] and of course "HRC has promised and is committed to supporting nothing but an inclusive ENDA" [2007]. While others were encouraged to disbelieve us for what we heard from our Congress friends, we weren't wrong.


Clearly you can see why we'd not want to lose some of our contacts on the Hill!

Those contacts, plus three new ones we gained (including one of our best contacts from the past who's now on the Senate side!) proved incisive again. The only item of concern on legislation was from only one office, but did allude to the possibility of "different language" coming on ENDA regarding how they deal with gender identity. So far, it's the only one and was very basic – nothing urgent. All other offices are still in the dark on ENDA and its status.

We even managed a few face-to-face visits with our drop-in, buttonholing method – including very good meetings with both Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), as well as personal visits with both Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Rep. Anh 'Joseph' Cao (R-LA).

That said, the ENDA debacle has changed the game slightly. A number of offices in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who were opposing trans inclusion in the previous session are now back on board this time. That said, there are at least a couple like Sanford Bishop and James Clyburn who are outright opposed even still. We're not going to be able to count on a bloc vote of CBC with us in the equation, which could still prove problematic for us. This has potential to be used by the incrementalists to "fan the flames" smoldering on the lifeline we're dangling from.


Most of our information this time wasn't so much about the legislation though. This time we got quite a bit of information about how others felt about the last session. Many House offices felt they were jerked around sincerely by the various parties who were heavily involved in last session's ENDA "debacle." As one of our office visits noted, "Congressmembers don't like being played for fools. They're not likely to forget [last session.]"


There's now no uniform view of the inside and outside players in GLBT civil rights!

The primary members of the LGBT Coalition are still very much on board with HRC, and their word is still golden. To them, NTAC is still nothing but trash, and it's obvious they just want to hurry up and be done with our meeting to get us out of there. But the big surprise this session is that the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) has now lost favor with them, almost to a person. Whatever lustre they had, after what occurred earlier this session, has now disappeared.

Now the second tier supporters of GLBT rights are the big find. HRC is now persona non grata, as they have major trust issues with them (having been jerked around in the previous session). Again, Mara and NCTE are also quite out of favor, and their handout of nothing beyond two sheets of talking points was "too thin – there's nothing that those of us not familiar (with trans issues) can use beyond repeating someone's scripted soundbites." In short, they felt they were not being given info to use and learn from but rather being directed to stick to talking points.

These same folks were quite eager to work with us, and also happy with the data and specific stories to be referred to, both for counterpoints and also to help edify themselves on the full range of what "transgender" is. Many of them know us, but as one Senate staffer reminded, they don't "fully know" us yet. That was sweet sounds to sore ears!

What really surprised me was the Senate side having issues with both HRC and Mara. As one Senate office noted, they have to play with HRC (alluding that they were the only game around on GLBT), but they'd rather not. However, noting that all the hijinx on ENDA in 2007, and the Hate Crimes language early this year occurred in the House, it's important (and surprising) to note they have issues with these two parties.

As for Barney Frank, he's the Teflon Don. They know what he did, but they all have to work with him. Considering his Banking Committee position and the clout that holds, they don't want to rock the boat.


So in a nutshell, NCTE has credibility with the trans community, HRC and NTAC have very little. NTAC has credibility with the supportive, non-prime LGBT coalition congress-critters, NCTE and HRC have none. HRC has credibility with the prime LGBT Coalition critters in Congress, especially Barney Frank, NTAC and NCTE have none. It's quite an odd predicament.

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the game on the Hill too much. While the second-tier supporters feel burned by Ol' Barn' and especially HRC, they're also not going to circumvent the LGBT Coalition on an LGBT bill. It's tantamount to passing a bill on issues for the black community without the support of the CBC. They must deal with them, and as expected, HRC is in the catbird seat with the all important folks who will decide legislation, language and set the agenda on issues LGBT.

As always, we're still going to have to watch this from the outside and monitor it very closely.

But the good news is, especially with our new contacts, Ol' Barn' and HRC are officially on notice. Any funny business they pull will be discovered quickly (on both sides of the Hill). We will not take their manipulations lightly!