“ 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!
Showing posts with label Pres. Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pres. Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, January 10, 2010
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
"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
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
Thursday, July 9, 2009
It's Marriage Mania In Maniacal America
"I'm goin' coconuts but least I'm goin' my way.
I'll probably be here when that sun goes down.
Goin' crazy, ooh, from the heat!" — Goin' Crazy, David Lee Roth
Maybe it's just the unending heatwave in Texas, where any day below triple digits actually feels slightly chilly, but it seems to my overcooked brain that both sides on this same-sex marriage tug-of-war are coming down with a chronic case of the wackies. Or maybe it's just a sizzling hot summer everywhere and it's not just me – everyone's losing it.
Marriage mania is in full bloom, and Pennsylvania joined the litany of states pushing for marriage recognition for same-sex couples. Amazingly marriage didn't get forced down the throat of President Barack Obama when the 300 some-odd LGBT leaders and their partners were invited to the White House for a private reception. However, just this week both Massachusetts and Oregon filed suit claiming the Feds violate their federalist states' rights by DOMA's effect on their states' ability to make independent decisions on marriage rights.
Meanwhile the California suit against the Feds has gotten interesting. Initially when this was filed (including one attorney who offered to press the issue who was also part of the Bush legal team who filed suit successfully to place Bush in the presidency post-Florida 2000 election results!) it was thought that things were looking rather rosy. Even LGBT organization heads from groups such as Lambda Legal, the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project and the National Center for Lesbian Rights all stepped up and encouraged all other groups to take a back seat in order not to complicate or jeopardize the pending suit. "Ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back."
Well that was then. This is now. It seems these same three groups are now filing amicus briefs to intervene to allow PFLAG, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay and Our Family Coalition to file suit with the Supreme Court as well. (And they all thought we Trans folk couldn't get on the same page or being politically "realistic"!
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), who was leading the charge in Federal Court, wrote a pointed letter back to the three above mentioned groups, noting how they had all initially worked collaboratively on the project and anguishing over actions and quotes in the media from these other players that they felt "undermine" the case and the goal which they were all working towards.
Not only were they there first on this suit, AFER worries that this case "could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while and gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing." I've attached a photocopy of the full letter from AFER to the parties below. It's, um, interesting:
So what are they trying to do here – out-compete each other for top attention and ego strokes? Or maybe bog it down in order to slow the process (and maybe milk more donations while it continues?) No matter! At least everyone's on the same page and it's all in the firm capable hands of our professionals in leadership of the gay and lesbian community! Lord knows if Trans people got a hold of it, it'd be a confusing mess, hmmm? Yeah, that's what they say ....
"What is important in life is life, and not the result of life." — German playwright, Johann von Goethe
Of course, not to be outdone on trying to conspicuously blunder and lose, the opposition is also working hard to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory! It was bad enough that a FOX commentator compared the same-sex marriage issue to bestiality a la Pat Robertson and so many others. That's actually old-hat stuff now! Get the latest on the intra-species marriage issue from FOX (again)!
This was actually reporting on a story of a Swedish study that found that marriage was good for couples in that it kept them from dementia and Alzheimer's disease with absolutely not connotations on same-sex couplings at all. Yet their own Freudian mentality just keeps slipping out as on FOX & Friends morning show, we heard this from one of their triad of morning hosts, Brian Kilmeade:
And marrying "other species"? Really? Are they buying that Georgia freak's Obama-as-Curious-George-the-Chimp T-shirt fetish as scientific fact? What a serious media outlet FOX has turned out to be, huh? It sure sorta hearkens back to the old miscenegation days from what I can see, all this concern about America's "intra-species" marriage and breeding! Wow.
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it with faulty arguments." — Friedrich Nietzsche
But if that's not wacky enough, it gets crazier! From no less than Washington DC, home of Marion Barry who supports everything EXCEPT for his staunch disapproval of same-sex marriage (and subsequent arrest this week for stalking – way to drive home the point of morals, Mr. Ex-Mayor!), we have testimony on the DC consideration of accepting same-sex marriage as law of the district from Rev. Leroy Swailes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFYYjWjVuE
This one has to be seen to be believed. I can't make this stuff up, folks! Some of the reverend's philosophical proferrings are:
"You have human rights and you have inhuman rights. When a man dealing with a man and a woman dealing with another man, that's inhuman." Make sense of that logic!
Discrimination's a negative and a postive. ... I came out of my mama's womb like I didn't have a choice. That was a negative discrimination." Yeah, I guess you didn't have a choice ... unless you managed to self-abort! Is this an advertisement for abortion?
"If you discriminate against a homosexual that's a positive. Why? Because of children. You've got people they call pedophiles.... When you look in the eyes of a child and tell them "sex is between Adam and Adam, and Eve and Eve," that's a pedophile." Wow, it's that simple? And all this time I thought it was about something physical, like molestation or at least child nudity. What was I thinking!
"This book here talk [sic] about 'All Families Are Different' has to do with what? You have God's family, which is a natural family, and you have Antichrist's family." Yeah, all Godly families have to "be like us." That's exactly what the racist white families used to think during the days of Jim Crow, too, and they believed that the Bible told them where everyone else's family fell. It must be said that Rev. Swailes is African-American though his logic is eerily familiar, harkening back to those bad old days.
One child grows up to be
Somebody that just loves to learn.
And another child grows up to be
Somebody you'd just love to burn.
Mom loves the both of them.
You see it's in the blood.
Both kids are good to Mom:
'Blood's thicker than mud'
It's a family affair...." — Family Affair, Sly & The Family Stone
"Everybody should have human rights, but you have to be human! Human means you deal with the opposite sex...." Meaning that, what? All Trans people have tails? All gays are sick little monkeys? And I'm sure he meant it in the best way possible, no offense and all!
"Homosexuality destroys (life), it'll be the extinction of the human race.... Eighty-six civilized cultures, it was the death of their cultures why? Because they gave into ... strange flesh: the same sex, which is a form of bestiality. Why is that a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender! If you put two men together, you have four legs and two penises. That's one gender. That's a form of bestiality." Ah! Well that explains it! Four legs and one gender is animal! So if there's a three-legged dog, or a couple who are same-sex, but one partner only has one leg, then they'd be semi-bestial, right? Or if both partners are one-legged, then same-sex marriage would be okay because they'd be human! I recalled a show on Oprah once that showed a dog born with no front legs, and it literally taught itself to walk on it's hind legs, upright! That would make him human, not animal! So then a woman could then marry that dog and not be engaging in bestiality per Swailesian logic! But what about "eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb?" Vexing! Or for that matter, how about "eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men?" Hmm ... clear as mud!
"When you separate something, you have discrimination. When I put a glass of water here and a glass of poison, which one are you going to choose? You're going to choose a glass of water. That's a form of discrimination!" Ah! I'm getting it! We discriminate against poison every time there's a glass of it on the table and we avoid drinking it! Shame on us anti-poison bigots!
"I cannot look into the eyes of a child and tell them "you have a choice to be heterosexual or homosexual." That would make me a sadist! So what is a sadist? A sadist is the one who destroyed sex! ... and I don't practice Satanism." Not sure where the satanism thing came into play – a Freudian slip? And all this time I thought sadism, named after the Marquis De Sade, was all about inflicting physical or mental cruelty! Then again, I can see how some would get confused and think it cruel to tell kids they have choices in life. Better to eliminate all choices and just pre-destine everyone's life for them from inception! It eliminates all the guesswork! Just hand them an assignment sheet saying "here is your life – don't think, just live what we tell you." Hey look, I'm supposed to be a garbageman ...!
It's a wonderful world out there, kiddies. Yes indeed, batshit crazy.
Meanwhile, halfway across the globe, Iranians are protesting and taking to the streets, risking incarceration and even their lives for defying the Ahmadinejad Administration! And here in the U.S, that saga sure fell off of the radar screen fast! What's a country got to do to get a little media time over life-and-death issues like marriage? Iran's free people need a strong advocate here – someone like Mary Cheney: she who couldn't be bothered to bring up same-sex marriage or gay rights issues in her dad & Bush's campaign, and supported her daddy and the GOP (even with the antagonistic approach the Bush Admin took on her issues) because "there are terrorists who will stop at nothing to hurt this country ... I had to support the candidate who was going to do the best job to protect this country. And no offense to John Kerry, but it wasn't him."
So now that the people of Iran are trying to oust one of the heads of Bush's Axis of Evil, and folks in America are focusing on that less important stuff like same-sex marriage, where is Mary Cheney these days?
"...things get confused out there: power, ideals, the old morality...." — G. D. Spradlin as Gen. Corman from "Apocalypse Now."
I'll probably be here when that sun goes down.
Goin' crazy, ooh, from the heat!" — Goin' Crazy, David Lee Roth
Maybe it's just the unending heatwave in Texas, where any day below triple digits actually feels slightly chilly, but it seems to my overcooked brain that both sides on this same-sex marriage tug-of-war are coming down with a chronic case of the wackies. Or maybe it's just a sizzling hot summer everywhere and it's not just me – everyone's losing it.
Marriage mania is in full bloom, and Pennsylvania joined the litany of states pushing for marriage recognition for same-sex couples. Amazingly marriage didn't get forced down the throat of President Barack Obama when the 300 some-odd LGBT leaders and their partners were invited to the White House for a private reception. However, just this week both Massachusetts and Oregon filed suit claiming the Feds violate their federalist states' rights by DOMA's effect on their states' ability to make independent decisions on marriage rights.
Meanwhile the California suit against the Feds has gotten interesting. Initially when this was filed (including one attorney who offered to press the issue who was also part of the Bush legal team who filed suit successfully to place Bush in the presidency post-Florida 2000 election results!) it was thought that things were looking rather rosy. Even LGBT organization heads from groups such as Lambda Legal, the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project and the National Center for Lesbian Rights all stepped up and encouraged all other groups to take a back seat in order not to complicate or jeopardize the pending suit. "Ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back."
Well that was then. This is now. It seems these same three groups are now filing amicus briefs to intervene to allow PFLAG, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay and Our Family Coalition to file suit with the Supreme Court as well. (And they all thought we Trans folk couldn't get on the same page or being politically "realistic"!
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), who was leading the charge in Federal Court, wrote a pointed letter back to the three above mentioned groups, noting how they had all initially worked collaboratively on the project and anguishing over actions and quotes in the media from these other players that they felt "undermine" the case and the goal which they were all working towards.
Not only were they there first on this suit, AFER worries that this case "could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while and gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing." I've attached a photocopy of the full letter from AFER to the parties below. It's, um, interesting:
So what are they trying to do here – out-compete each other for top attention and ego strokes? Or maybe bog it down in order to slow the process (and maybe milk more donations while it continues?) No matter! At least everyone's on the same page and it's all in the firm capable hands of our professionals in leadership of the gay and lesbian community! Lord knows if Trans people got a hold of it, it'd be a confusing mess, hmmm? Yeah, that's what they say ....
"What is important in life is life, and not the result of life." — German playwright, Johann von Goethe
Of course, not to be outdone on trying to conspicuously blunder and lose, the opposition is also working hard to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory! It was bad enough that a FOX commentator compared the same-sex marriage issue to bestiality a la Pat Robertson and so many others. That's actually old-hat stuff now! Get the latest on the intra-species marriage issue from FOX (again)!
This was actually reporting on a story of a Swedish study that found that marriage was good for couples in that it kept them from dementia and Alzheimer's disease with absolutely not connotations on same-sex couplings at all. Yet their own Freudian mentality just keeps slipping out as on FOX & Friends morning show, we heard this from one of their triad of morning hosts, Brian Kilmeade:
BRIAN KILMEADE: I'm just amazed that they thought about doing this study in the – by interviewing people in the 1970s and the 1980s.That's right folks! Intra-species marriage is already here in America! As Kilmeade noted: "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics ... the problem is the Swedes have pure genes (ah! gotta watch them! the Master Race people!) ... Because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland – Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody." This is rife with alarmist xenophobia!
DAVE BRIGGS: A little dated, you think?
KILMEADE: The average is 50, and they see that they keep it together. I find this – I find this somewhat ....
BRIGGS: Go ahead.
KILMEADE: Different. Leave it to the Finns and Swedes to some up with something. They literally –
GRETCHEN CARLSON: Don't look at me, pal.
KILMEADE: Because that's a – we are – we're – we're a – we're – we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other....
CARLSON: Are you sure they're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?
KILMEADE: I mean, the Swedes ....
BRIGGS: What are you getting at?
KILMEADE: See, the problem is, the Swedes have pure genes.
BRIGGS: OK.
KILMEADE: Because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland – Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody.
And marrying "other species"? Really? Are they buying that Georgia freak's Obama-as-Curious-George-the-Chimp T-shirt fetish as scientific fact? What a serious media outlet FOX has turned out to be, huh? It sure sorta hearkens back to the old miscenegation days from what I can see, all this concern about America's "intra-species" marriage and breeding! Wow.
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it with faulty arguments." — Friedrich Nietzsche
But if that's not wacky enough, it gets crazier! From no less than Washington DC, home of Marion Barry who supports everything EXCEPT for his staunch disapproval of same-sex marriage (and subsequent arrest this week for stalking – way to drive home the point of morals, Mr. Ex-Mayor!), we have testimony on the DC consideration of accepting same-sex marriage as law of the district from Rev. Leroy Swailes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFYYjWjVuE
This one has to be seen to be believed. I can't make this stuff up, folks! Some of the reverend's philosophical proferrings are:
"You have human rights and you have inhuman rights. When a man dealing with a man and a woman dealing with another man, that's inhuman." Make sense of that logic!
Discrimination's a negative and a postive. ... I came out of my mama's womb like I didn't have a choice. That was a negative discrimination." Yeah, I guess you didn't have a choice ... unless you managed to self-abort! Is this an advertisement for abortion?
"If you discriminate against a homosexual that's a positive. Why? Because of children. You've got people they call pedophiles.... When you look in the eyes of a child and tell them "sex is between Adam and Adam, and Eve and Eve," that's a pedophile." Wow, it's that simple? And all this time I thought it was about something physical, like molestation or at least child nudity. What was I thinking!
"This book here talk [sic] about 'All Families Are Different' has to do with what? You have God's family, which is a natural family, and you have Antichrist's family." Yeah, all Godly families have to "be like us." That's exactly what the racist white families used to think during the days of Jim Crow, too, and they believed that the Bible told them where everyone else's family fell. It must be said that Rev. Swailes is African-American though his logic is eerily familiar, harkening back to those bad old days.
One child grows up to be
Somebody that just loves to learn.
And another child grows up to be
Somebody you'd just love to burn.
Mom loves the both of them.
You see it's in the blood.
Both kids are good to Mom:
'Blood's thicker than mud'
It's a family affair...." — Family Affair, Sly & The Family Stone
"Everybody should have human rights, but you have to be human! Human means you deal with the opposite sex...." Meaning that, what? All Trans people have tails? All gays are sick little monkeys? And I'm sure he meant it in the best way possible, no offense and all!
"Homosexuality destroys (life), it'll be the extinction of the human race.... Eighty-six civilized cultures, it was the death of their cultures why? Because they gave into ... strange flesh: the same sex, which is a form of bestiality. Why is that a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender! If you put two men together, you have four legs and two penises. That's one gender. That's a form of bestiality." Ah! Well that explains it! Four legs and one gender is animal! So if there's a three-legged dog, or a couple who are same-sex, but one partner only has one leg, then they'd be semi-bestial, right? Or if both partners are one-legged, then same-sex marriage would be okay because they'd be human! I recalled a show on Oprah once that showed a dog born with no front legs, and it literally taught itself to walk on it's hind legs, upright! That would make him human, not animal! So then a woman could then marry that dog and not be engaging in bestiality per Swailesian logic! But what about "eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb?" Vexing! Or for that matter, how about "eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men?" Hmm ... clear as mud!
"When you separate something, you have discrimination. When I put a glass of water here and a glass of poison, which one are you going to choose? You're going to choose a glass of water. That's a form of discrimination!" Ah! I'm getting it! We discriminate against poison every time there's a glass of it on the table and we avoid drinking it! Shame on us anti-poison bigots!
"I cannot look into the eyes of a child and tell them "you have a choice to be heterosexual or homosexual." That would make me a sadist! So what is a sadist? A sadist is the one who destroyed sex! ... and I don't practice Satanism." Not sure where the satanism thing came into play – a Freudian slip? And all this time I thought sadism, named after the Marquis De Sade, was all about inflicting physical or mental cruelty! Then again, I can see how some would get confused and think it cruel to tell kids they have choices in life. Better to eliminate all choices and just pre-destine everyone's life for them from inception! It eliminates all the guesswork! Just hand them an assignment sheet saying "here is your life – don't think, just live what we tell you." Hey look, I'm supposed to be a garbageman ...!
It's a wonderful world out there, kiddies. Yes indeed, batshit crazy.
Meanwhile, halfway across the globe, Iranians are protesting and taking to the streets, risking incarceration and even their lives for defying the Ahmadinejad Administration! And here in the U.S, that saga sure fell off of the radar screen fast! What's a country got to do to get a little media time over life-and-death issues like marriage? Iran's free people need a strong advocate here – someone like Mary Cheney: she who couldn't be bothered to bring up same-sex marriage or gay rights issues in her dad & Bush's campaign, and supported her daddy and the GOP (even with the antagonistic approach the Bush Admin took on her issues) because "there are terrorists who will stop at nothing to hurt this country ... I had to support the candidate who was going to do the best job to protect this country. And no offense to John Kerry, but it wasn't him."
So now that the people of Iran are trying to oust one of the heads of Bush's Axis of Evil, and folks in America are focusing on that less important stuff like same-sex marriage, where is Mary Cheney these days?
"...things get confused out there: power, ideals, the old morality...." — G. D. Spradlin as Gen. Corman from "Apocalypse Now."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Pride 2009: We Yelled, They Screamed. But Did Anyone 'Hear' Us?
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream.” — John Lennon
It was one for the ages. Forty years after Stonewall, to the day (with an additional 12 hours added) ... we found ourselves marching down Fifth Avenue through downtown New York and cutting a path directly through Greenwich Village and right down Christopher Street in front of the Stonewall Inn where the riots – the flashpoint for the organized Gay Rights Movement around the world – began.
.jpg)
Marching through this parade, in the very same New York, with a banner for the contingent noting "Sons and Daughters of Sylvia Rivera" on this anniversary was inspiring. The roar of the crowd as we passed, especially throughout Greenwich Village, was absolutely deafening! My ears were literally ringing afterwards.
In so many ways this was an event to remember! As Sylvia Rivera recalled saying that night of the riots, "I'm not missing this for the world!"
Privately, it was also a trying and disappointing result. I knew it would be a logistical task coordinating something in a locale hundreds or thousands of miles away. But this one was a bit more "Murphy's Law"-like than most others. Everything that could go wrong ....
The banner people were nothing but a mass of confusion, and the banner had to be sent to Mona Rae's house in Yonkers NY as I was afraid I wouldn't receive it until after my flight to NYC. I literally picked up the banner at a drop off point on Friday in Manhattan just a few minutes before the Trans Day of Action after criss-crossing the town to pick up poster boards (which were shipped late) after a speech out in far East New York, and dropping those off in Hoboken where I was staying! Between that, crossed wires, lost items, help arriving too late to be of any good, a subway weekly pass that arbitrarily stopped working and family and personal issues to deal with long-distance while in New York, it was, um, interesting!
Coordinating things in your back yard is simply stressful. Coordinating things 1500 miles away tends to border on madness.
We were also unsuccessful in getting the Stonewall Girls to the 40th anniversary. One showed interest but the other two didn't. As one noted, there was far too much bad blood over how she and the other trans folk were treated to gloss over it. For a lot of old-line trans members, there's nothing to really celebrate and much more to mourn or stew over.
We had participants cancelling due to health reasons (theirs and their spouses), even a group cancelling while en route due to a communter train's power outage! We had a number of confirmed attendees who simply didn't make it; no idea why, just no-shows. Locally, even though I made the circuit to promote, we didn't draw any from those, save for five from Mid-Hudson Valley Trans Assn. up in the Kingston / Poughkeepsie region.
That said, we did get Alyssa Harley (who's taken pains to remember Sylvia Rivera every year by attaching red roses to the lamppost at Sylvia Rivera Way.) Both she and Breanna Smith helped lead our contingent and worked their asses off to stir the crowd. Jamie Dailey who made it down from Connecticut also gets props for working the crowd and for her help on the banner preparation on Pride day.
We also brought in a couple of the old Transy House crew: Rusty Mae Moore and Jamie Hunter. It was great seeing them again and especially marching as the Sons & Daughters of Sylvia Rivera. In fact, Jamie even brought her boyfriend Michael Gredowski, a brand new straight ally. Rusty originally wasn't sure that she could make it through the entire length of the parade route, but I noted admirably that she was just as energetic, holding her sign high above her head and stirring the crowd even at the very end of Christopher Street! Meanwhile Jamie did her own tribute to Sylvia Rivera by marching the entire route in heels (amazingly!) and was leading our contingent running and stirring the crowd herself. Michael, who stood in as our "Son" portion of the "Sons & Daughters" absolutely kicked butt and really got into the march himself.
Special thanks go out to both Jamie Hunter and Michael for all their help during and especially before and after the parade. They were indefatigable assistants that really helped make this succeed. In fact, with all the complications and potential to fall flat on our face, our team made it look effortless and successful!
We later had another older latino man (not even sure that he was gay) who joined us from the sidelines on the banner as our second "adopted" son of Sylvia, ha! We even had a couple other latinas join us as well! We were pulling people in from the crowd – it seemed everyone wanted to be part of the Sons & Daughters of Sylvia Rivera!
The Sons & Daughters of Sylvia Rivera garnered a lot of attention from photo journalists and the crowd itself! However, I believe I overestimated its importance to the Trans Community. While Sylvia herself was around and had her voice, people listened. However, she's been gone for over seven years now. Most of the newer trans community members either don't know of her or the history, or they are busy making their own individual history and doing and participating in their own ventures. Rather than one group, we're now spreading out into hundreds of groups and individually expressing our own perspectives.
"I just can't do what I done before,
I just can't beg you any more.
I'm gonna let you pass and I'll go last.
Then time will tell just who fell
And who's been left behind,
When you go your way and I go mine." — Most Likely You'll Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine, Bob Dylan
This is a good thing. However there is also a downside to that dispersal. As we all know after hearing it from Barney Frank or other gay and lesbian critics of the Trans movement, people "don't know" us, and we're "a very small segment" of the community. The message has always been that Trans people are an infinitesimally small portion of the greater Queer (originally Gay) movement. Between the stigma of Trans and being out about it, and the compulsion to do our own thing, it's tough to gather trans folks in numbers adequate enough to make a statement to gay and lesbian leaders and the world that we're not tiny, insignificant and doomed to utter obscurity.
At the risk of sounding like a skipping record, I can't stress the need for quantifying numbers of us. We need to establish our population and our income (especially lack thereof). Its needed not just for demographics for political attention, but even afterwards to establish our market share (the key to corporate funding for things Trans the way even the gay and lesbian and all other segments are able to draw.)
And again, these numbers will help us actually steal back our own voice (which is incresingly being co-opted and capitalized on of late). It's about the only thing we ever really had in the Trans community was our voice and it appears others think we've abdicated it. When you sit back and let anyone represent you, you end up with the type of governance or oversight you deserve.
Even while I was up in New York, there was an apparent dust up between trans folks and others on Pam's House Blend which ended up resulting in a number of people being censored or banned (I'm not sure which). There was a noticeable hue and cry over it all with folks complaining about the list's owner and the uneven treatment. But a reminder: it's Pam Spaulding's list, she's not a trans person and she can do whatever the hell she feels like with her blog (emphasis on "her blog"). If she wishes to ban trans people, it's her blog! She has the autonomy to do so.
If we trans readers disagree, well then, start your own. Nobody should think that anything trans that's valid must come from an entity that is always led and/or created by a gay or lesbian. Similarly anything that was created and that provides autonomy to trans people should not be quashed simply because it isn't led or created by gay or lesbian leaders who then choose the agenda and represent the de facto face of the trans community. TransAdvocate is attempting to do that right now.
Yet too many of us end up contributing to building up gay and lesbian-led institutions as "they're our allies" and end up watering down or thwarting our own voice in order for some perceived considerations or reward. Maybe that worked adequately for Mara Keisling or a few select folks from the NCTE ilk. For the rest of us there is absolutely nothing gained — it's an absolute net loss. All we do is water down our own numbers, our own voice and our own efficacy. We must get out there and actively take control of our own fate, lest we end up not even being the face of our own community.
"You know, with all the press releases you do, people think that it's just NTAC — or just you – drawing attention to yourself." — Mara Keisling of NCTE in a conversation to me in August 2004
Taking back the Trans community's voice is a must. It is more than needed, it's urgent. The original hope was that this would hopefully serve as a catalyst to begin earnestly to re-seize our destiny and our voice.
Is it possible? Well, after seeing the response on the march in New York and how easily separable we are from our own community, it's not likely. Far too many of us have no desire for the involvement (much less the work getting it done). The few of us with such desire for involvement or working to make things happen will be going our individual directions in things such as Pride parades. The solution to this still needs some rethinking.
We've got to find a way to take a Trans movement that's dying on the vine and get it spurred in the ass into some forward motion. We have people dropping out of the movement in frustration, fatigue and dreams of wanting to have a "real life" away from being "the tranny" or "the activist" and on point constantly. I've even had numerous others ask me how I'm doing this still after 14 years with the obvious burn-out and the high, high cost that it's come with. Certainly it would seem better to just admit it's fruitless and walk away. But that only makes certain defeat.
We need to bear in mind trans history, with all our forebearers efforts ending in absolutely nothing for those who gave all. We need to recognize there's nothing ever to gain from relinquishing our destiny to the trust of others who have no full understanding of our needs, much less the urgency. And I fully keep in mind that with no future or hope, I certainly have nothing to gain by giving in, and in fact nothing to lose (save for my life, which we all lose in the end) by anything I do. As I noted to the most recent activist stepping away asking how I continue this, I just put myself on auto-pilot – or more precisely auto-battle mode. As I had on one side, "when hope is gone, fight like Sylvia! (fiercely and to the very end!)"
In years down the road, Trans folks will realize we must re-seize our movement. Until then, I'll just be the crazy, quixotic old tranny, screaming in the wind about our need to own our voice, our movement and our destiny. Sylvia said the same thing years ago, and nobody much listened to her while she was around either. They may not hear, but we should continue speaking truth to power and never stop screaming it.
Maybe it's the roar of the crowd drowning us all out.
"Lift every voice and sing,
'Til earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of liberty." — Lift Every Voice And Sing, James Weldon Johnson
"Ain't no one gonna listen if you haven't made a sound." — Filthy Gorgeous, the Scissor Sisters
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.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.
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.
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
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Who Cares About The Stonewall Girls (And Guys)?
"The crowd began to get out of hand, eye witnesses said. Then, without warning, Queen Power exploded with all the fury of a gay atomic bomb. Queens, princesses and ladies-in-waiting began hurling anything they could get their polished, manicured fingernails on. Bobby pins, compacts, curlers, lipstick tubes and other femme fatale missiles were flying in the direction of the cops. The war was on. The lilies of the valley had become carnivorous jungle plants." — Jerry Lisker, from the New York Daily News, July 6, 1969
As the LGBT community been enrapt in Pride celebrations in numerous cities across the globe this month, there's been plenty of news that's hit the wires. Most all of it in America has centered around Don't Ask, Don't Tell (a campaign promise by President Barack Obama that has yet to be addressed) and marriage issues or the Dept. of Justice's recent amicus curiae brief filed regarding DOMA (the Defense Of Marriage Act of 1996).
Individual organizers in the GLBT community are using this anniversary and devoting media to capitalize on the event to address the recent outrages in the gay and lesbian community.
It's a notable anniversary for Pride celebrations and marches this month as it is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. That occasion was also about outrage. The folks that night had had enough of being treated like crap. No más!
"If the police came in, they were going to check your ID, rough-up some people. The drag queens always seemed to get roughed-up first." — Larry Stansbury of Capital Pride.
Today, of course, those surviving veterans of Stonewall are all near, or in their sixties or above. They still remember that night well. And though this is a milestone anniversary, there appears to be a collective yawn in this country at least in recalling our history and having these pioneers of Queer history around for the retelling.
Odd. We want to revel in this special anniversary with parades and parties and such. Yet the organizers and perhaps a sizable portion of at least the gay and lesbian community would rather just forget what this date memorializes or the people who created the flashpoint on June 28, 1969.
"We've had all we can take from the Gestapo," the spokesman, or spokeswoman, continued. "We're putting our foot down once and for all." The foot wore a spiked heel. — excerpted from the New York Daily News, July 6, 1969
"[Stonewall Inn] catered largely to a group of people who are not welcome in, or cannot afford, other places of homosexual social gathering.... The Stonewall became home to these kids. When it was raided, they fought for it. That, and the fact that they had nothing to lose other than the most tolerant and broadminded gay place in town, explains why [riots occurred]." — Mattachine Society Newsletter, Aug. 1969
We currently have two or three trans members of the Stonewall Girls, those who began the protests that night, that live out in California. I've been in touch with one of them, Miss Major, and in touch with mutual friends with the others about marching with the trans community in the Sons & Daughters of Sylvia Rivera entry in New York. She was definitely interested in attending, but finances was the prime obstacle. At one point in frustration, she wrote:
I am hoping against the reality that the gay community will get off it's ass & do the right thing by the girls that are still here from the 1969! The shit stops here. (The) riot at Stonewall – when you think about it – that was 40 years ago. If you can add, that makes us elders, ones that need the respect for what we began and for living with the bullshit they throw at at us.... WE ARE STILL HERE, DAMNIT!!!I had to remind her that this wasn't being organized by the Pride or any gay/lesbian orgs, but was being done by trans folks, thus the lack of funding, etc. It wasn't without inquiring though. When the issue was brought to the Heritage of Pride organization in New York, they stated they had no money and added they weren't so keen on inviting more Stonewall rioters in. The Stonewall Veterans Association they already had marching tended to be "demanding" and generally a pain to deal with.
We are not going to disappear or fade away. I have no closet to hide in – I burned the house to the ground. NO HIDING PLACES.
For Miss Major it was all for naught as she ended up twisting her ankle. But at least one of the other girls in Los Angeles that she had spoken with wanted nothing to do with Pride, the March, Stonewall or any of it. As Miss Major related it, she said "she was tired of us being shit on. All (Pride, Stonewall) did was bring back bad memories of how we got screwed over and shoved to the back of the bus."
We've got a gay Stonewall vet here in Houston, whose interview I reprinted in a recent blog. There's been a little interest on Big Roy McCarthy again, mostly from out of the country – the article will be translated into Danish and reprinted there on the anniversary of the beginning of the Stonewall Riots. Not only is he not getting interest in New York, even Houston's giving a collective yawn. Big Roy's not their idea of an attractive spokesmodel.
"Screaming queens forming chorus lines and kicking went against everything that I wanted people to think about homosexuals ... that we were a bunch of drag queens in the Village acting disorderly and tacky and cheap." — gay activist, Randolfe Wicker
In another ten years we'll see the fiftieth anniversary of Stonewall. Perhaps that will draw more interest in the folks who were there that night inciting the one catalytic moment in our community's history which is remembered around the world. Or perhaps, since these instigators were trans, drag queens, street hustlers, mostly people of color, and also those white trash rioters too. Perhaps that memory's one that the modern-day movement of the HRCs and the NGLTFs and the like doesn't want to face. Perhaps that's been the plan since shortly after the riots finished.
The Stonewall Girls and Guys? They virtually all feel they've been co-opted and tossed away by the modern day movement like a used condom.
Bob Kohler & Sylvia Rivera circa 1970We march in the Parade and point to the history of Stonewall. But simultaneously there's no sense that anyone wants to know or to remember the community's warriors or even know the history of that night.
People want to mouth the words "Stonewall" as it's become only an occasion in which to party. Unfortunately there will be no lessons learned from it. In Twitter-ese, time to bring out the Fail Whale.
"I had been in enough riots to know the fun was over. The cops were totally humiliated. This never, ever happened. They were angrier than I guess they had ever been, because everybody else had rioted, but the fairies were not supposed to riot, no group had ever forced cops to retreat before, so the anger was just enormous. I mean, they wanted to kill.” — gay activist and "father" of the Stonewall movement, Bob Kohler
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
June Is Pride Month, But Trans Folk Just Don't Feel Much....
"When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities." — Matt Groening, creator of the Simpsons
Yesterday began the month of June: Pride Month in America and other countries around the world. It's, as the name indicates, a source of pride for many in the greater LGBT community. For some of us, it's a reminder of how little we have to take pride in at all.
While not in all cities, a sizable number of them hold their Gay Pride celebrations and parades in this month. Of course as many know already, this was the month chosen as it was the month of the Stonewall Inn Riots in New York City's Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969.
There have been a lot of gains made in the movement over the past forty years. Indeed, even same-sex marriage is gaining momentum, winning passage in numerous states on an issue that just over six years ago was merely a pipe dream. Gays and lesbians are winning acceptance and even popular support in media and even in politics for being considered "equal" citizens. Even one of the most arch-conservative voices around, ex-Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, just came out in a story reported in AP to support states granting rights for same-sex marriage.
"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. And I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, that is, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that,"
However you rarely see anyone saying the same thing about employment, and specifically about trans people in the workplace. About the extent we're treated to is Rep. Barney Frank: "“Efforts to include transgender people have failed in New York, Massachusetts and Maryland,” he said. “It doesn’t get easier when you throw in South Carolina and Utah.” Ol' Barn' said he's “more optimistic” that an inclusive ENDA would pass, but stopped short of saying he was certain the bill would pass with the gender identity provisions.
“There’s no certainty in politics,” he said. “People got to lobby hard."
"trans inclusion will be a legislative priority over my dead body" — Elizabeth Birch, then Exec. Dir. of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
There is one bright spot in President Barack Obama's proclamation on LGBT Pride Month, which began: "Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community." Did you get that? The President of the United States has actually uttered the word "transgender" (at least in writing)!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/
While this has long ago become a fait accompli with gay and lesbian America, we're just now getting our first taste of even this small gesture: mere mention, acknowledgement that we even exist to the outside world! At times, we don't even get this from gay or lesbian leadership even in 2009. The President noticed!
It's not a panacea. We still have precious few rights, and even fewer opportunities for even the basics such as employment. In this increasingly anemic economy, trans peoples' lives are currently being devastated.
But at least in declaration, Pres. Obama has done what no other president has. "I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.... During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
There is a faint glimmer of some promise for Trans people.
Meanwhile we find ourselves in the midst of the auspicious anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, 40 years after. We have out federal congressmembers, out Administration staff and hundreds if not more than a thousand out state and local elected officials. Trans people have one mayor recently elected in Silverton, Oregon and a state school board member in Hawaii.
As has been the case for decades, there are gay and lesbians working on staff at even the highest levels on Capitol Hill. This year saw the first trans person ever hired by Congress in Rep. Barney Frank's office.
Americans are long ago familiar with the need for equality for gays and lesbians, and most of the country is already there in support. Trans people's issues get scant attention when it's our call. Our attempts to educate, when not closely guided by gay and lesbian leadership, are criticized and privately discredited at the same time the Barney Franks of the world chide us for "not doing the needed education" in this Catch-22 exercise.
Media and popular support are rallying around gay and lesbian leaders pushing for marriage rights and fighting for equality. When we do manage to get trans people's own independent thoughts out in media, we are reprimanded, and undermined and blackballed out of eyesight in order to ensure we don't get media's ear again. The message: we can't be trusted to speak from our own perspective or to articulate our own issues.
Yes it is Pride Month, and there's certainly something to note after forty years, especially after the President's proclamation.
But for trans people who've been pushing for well over a decade at great personal expense, losing jobs and income, going bankrupt, into foreclosure, going homeless ... pride is not what we're feeling right now. Desperation and the survival instinct are.
"I am sick of the disparity between things as they are and as they should be. I'm tired.I'm tired of the truth and I'm tired of lying about the truth." — from the play "The Death of Bessie Smith" by Edward Franklin Albee III
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Hip, Hip, Hypocrisy!
"People of double standards never experience happiness." — author, Sam Veda
The headline blared: "Where's Barack Obama, the 'Fierce Advocate' for LGBT Rights?" It was a recent post on Pam's House Blend, the highly popular LGBT blog, that got a number of peoples' attention in the community [http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10757/wheres-barack-obama-the-fierce-advocate-for-lgbt-rights] Originally I was thinking Pam Spaulding, the blog owner, published a tongue-in-cheek title on a pan of a column in the Washington Post by Richard Socarides [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050103401_pf.html]. Socarides, a former aide to Pres. Bill Clinton, rather shrilly taking the Obama Administration to task after they surpassed his 100-day mark.
It's interesting in that, for years, the trans community has had more than mere silence but a complete lack of folks we in Trans America trust to stick by us no matter what. Oddly, we're always the ones called upon to trust "yet again" the very same folks who do us wrong time and again. And when we balk? Well, Marti Abernathey responded to that on this blog post:
Apparently they didn't bother touching base with the folks from NGLTF or HRC recently about a meeting that about 30 of the LGB and maybe T organizations had with President Barack Obama himself recently. Columnist Deb Price had this to say [http://www.creators.com/opinion/deb-price/obama-puts-out-rainbow-colored-welcome-mat.html]:
Apparently, though, that's not good enough. Socarides (whose dad, oddly enough, is a psychiatrist Charles Socarides, the very one of the opponents to removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM), had the following agenda to demand:
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." — Yogi Berra
First, Obama talking to gay people – visits with 30 of them, including Rea Carey & Joe Solmonese – check! Move the hate crimes bill through quickly – just passed the House, and on to the Senate – check! Don't Ask Don't Tell – not much movement in Congress, so I guess that's the President's fault then, huh? Appointing high-ranking, respected openly gay policy advocate? We can't even get a trans policy advocate anywhere, even in gay and lesbian organizations, and they demand one from the White House! Hmmm.
And omnibus civil rights legislation! That's actually a good idea, and something I've thought about. Typically civil rights has three criteria to be filled before congress acts on it: a demonstrated widespread disenfranchisement or systemic discrimination, proven economic hardship and a lack of elected representation to address this. Both gay/lesbian and transgender can easily prove the discrimination, but economic hardship tends to be transgender almost exclusively. Elected representation has some for gay/lesbian, but absolutely zero for transgender. We can fulfill all three criteria if we only have documented proof of our economic duress.
Yet note which community Socarides is asking for civil rights for? Sexual orientation. Start talking about "gay rights" and "anti-gay hate crimes." However he does note "transgender" equality ... but only when talking about appointing a "respected, openly gay policy advocate" to oversee this.
Speaking of liaisons, there have already been 30 out gay and lesbian hirees in the Admin, including high level folks like Vic Basile and Brian Bond. We in the community even know a couple well-rumored folks already in those high level appointments, though there's no reason to out them (so I won't). It's not much of a secret amongst ourselves, though. How many trans people does anyone know of who've been in Admin, ambassador or staff positions? If you guessed zero, like all the other Administrations through history, you'd be right!
Now imagine trans people raising the issues with the same intensity! In fact, just imagine trans people raising commensurate requests from gay or lesbian organizations or administrations! I can easily imagine the howls from the David Smiths of HRC to the Chris Crains who own media outlets to the Jim Fouratts stirring the muck in columns and blogs to the apoplectic response from the Barney Franks on Capitol Hill. Do ya really think we're all judged and awarded by the same standard?
"He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides!" — President Harry S. Truman
And speaking of Ol' Barn', he recently issued a statement on the decision to award Diane Schroer, a former Army Special Offices commander who had been offered a job with the Library of Congress as a terrorism research analyst and when notifying the Library of plans to undergo sex-reassignment surgery to transition from male to female, had the job offer rescinded:
What actually would've been nicer would've been to have not had the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) use Diane Schroer (exploit?) for some really beneficial public relations and to underscore the need for passing the Federal Employment Protections Act (FEPA) [HR 3128 in the 109th, HR 2232 in the 110th Congress) that was submitted a few weeks after her case hit the media with HRC. And as the legislation was submitted, it "protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
Notice anything there? Yep, use the trans person's abject discrimination to further a bill to benefit gays and lesbians only. Even though it didn't ever draw any more than 37 co-sponsors and did nothing but bottle up in committee, they weren't about to listen to trans complaints about adding gender identity in FEPA. How dare us!?!
Meanwhile, if Ol' Barn' was so concerned about this case and its outcome, why didn't he – as one of the lead co-sponsors – bother pointing the obvious glaring discrimination just suffered mere weeks before the bill dropped the first time? He certainly knew what gender identity was. Of course, the "official line" from HRC and NCTE was that it was "(Rep. Henry) Waxman's bill, and they couldn't get him to budge."
Now that's a steaming cowpie of mammoth proportion! Having visited Waxman's office in 2004 before the Schroer incident, the legislative director noted to me and my co-lobbyist on an unrelated bill that for their support of inclusive legislation, we "needed to get HRC on board first. If they aren't on board, it's going nowhere in this office." Yet it didn't stop HRC and NGLTF and others to push for passage of FEPA, with Diane's story of discrimination prominently helpful in giving the initial nudge.
But Barney? Well if he were so "deeply distressed" at the "blatant discrimination" of Ms. Schroer, he sure had a funny way of exhibiting it before now. In a nutshell, Ol' Barn' hadn't uttered a peep before now while the more exploitative folks used her story to further their cause while leaving her the rest of us trans folk behind.
These double standards coming from the gay and lesbian leaders are bigger than all outdoors. How they've determined that if we're not screaming about it then it's unnoticed really escapes me. They're determined to play trans people as brain-dead fools.
This author has determined that attitude is offensive as hell.
"People, who rise above their petty individual selfishness and work for the welfare of society are considered patriots." — author, Sam Veda
The headline blared: "Where's Barack Obama, the 'Fierce Advocate' for LGBT Rights?" It was a recent post on Pam's House Blend, the highly popular LGBT blog, that got a number of peoples' attention in the community [http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10757/wheres-barack-obama-the-fierce-advocate-for-lgbt-rights] Originally I was thinking Pam Spaulding, the blog owner, published a tongue-in-cheek title on a pan of a column in the Washington Post by Richard Socarides [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050103401_pf.html]. Socarides, a former aide to Pres. Bill Clinton, rather shrilly taking the Obama Administration to task after they surpassed his 100-day mark.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.Keeping in mind it was only 100 days into a brand new presidency with the largest amount of inherited urgencies of any presidency in modern times, I thought surely this was really going to get a slap-down for being rather immaturely impatient (not to mention self-centered). But no!
I think a good question to ask about the situation is where are the gays in the Obama White House? Is their presence merely tokenism -- that their existence is supposed to represent a salve to the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration? Another question -- do any of the gay White House aides and appointees have any influence on Obama? Clearly not much, based on the silence about LGBT issues.Even with the two closeted high-profile appointments, and numerous other
It's interesting in that, for years, the trans community has had more than mere silence but a complete lack of folks we in Trans America trust to stick by us no matter what. Oddly, we're always the ones called upon to trust "yet again" the very same folks who do us wrong time and again. And when we balk? Well, Marti Abernathey responded to that on this blog post:
You and people like you, who bitch about Obama, in THE MIDST OF PASSAGE OF THE HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION, really bother me. If you hadn't noticed, the economy is in the shitter, there are two wars going on, and there's a possible pandemic on the horizon. As far as Iowa, Obama has NEVER said he supported gay marriage.Apparently the hysterical "crazy tranny" disease was infectious, and gays and lesbians are just as susceptible. No wonder they were keeping their distance from us, eh? Actually, I don't even recall us getting that riled that immediately ... maybe our disease mutated?
If we come to the end of his term and he hasn't repealed DADT, passed civil unions, hate crimes, and ENDA legislation, then complain.
It's kind of amusing, after many folks in the trans community have been accused of being hysterical "crazy" trannies that just don't understand how the legislative process works, to have complainers repeatedly bitch about things that Obama didn't promise.
Apparently they didn't bother touching base with the folks from NGLTF or HRC recently about a meeting that about 30 of the LGB and maybe T organizations had with President Barack Obama himself recently. Columnist Deb Price had this to say [http://www.creators.com/opinion/deb-price/obama-puts-out-rainbow-colored-welcome-mat.html]:
To their happy astonishment, the president didn't just quickly shake their hands on his way to greet the 30 or so other guests that night.Yes, the President actually stopped and chatted with the gay and lesbian leadership personally, listening to their concerns on passing ENDA quickly, and even taking initiative to ask them when he would see the Hate Crimes bill crossing his desk with gender identity included in it! So far, it's already passed out of the House, and the President issued a cursory statement urging Senate to likewise pass it quickly.
Instead, he asked when hate crimes legislation will reach his desk so he can sign it. And he listened as they stressed the need for a federal ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — legislation he supports.
"It was such a sharp contrast to the Bush administration — to have a president that recognizes the issues that our community has been working on for a long time," says Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
[...]
"I was able to bring to light a number of economic inequalities that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people face in the absence of marriage equality," Solmonese says. "I can't tell you how important it was to have that conversation."
Apparently, though, that's not good enough. Socarides (whose dad, oddly enough, is a psychiatrist Charles Socarides, the very one of the opponents to removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM), had the following agenda to demand:
First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.No big ask, huh?
Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.
Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.
"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious." — Yogi Berra
First, Obama talking to gay people – visits with 30 of them, including Rea Carey & Joe Solmonese – check! Move the hate crimes bill through quickly – just passed the House, and on to the Senate – check! Don't Ask Don't Tell – not much movement in Congress, so I guess that's the President's fault then, huh? Appointing high-ranking, respected openly gay policy advocate? We can't even get a trans policy advocate anywhere, even in gay and lesbian organizations, and they demand one from the White House! Hmmm.
And omnibus civil rights legislation! That's actually a good idea, and something I've thought about. Typically civil rights has three criteria to be filled before congress acts on it: a demonstrated widespread disenfranchisement or systemic discrimination, proven economic hardship and a lack of elected representation to address this. Both gay/lesbian and transgender can easily prove the discrimination, but economic hardship tends to be transgender almost exclusively. Elected representation has some for gay/lesbian, but absolutely zero for transgender. We can fulfill all three criteria if we only have documented proof of our economic duress.
Yet note which community Socarides is asking for civil rights for? Sexual orientation. Start talking about "gay rights" and "anti-gay hate crimes." However he does note "transgender" equality ... but only when talking about appointing a "respected, openly gay policy advocate" to oversee this.
Speaking of liaisons, there have already been 30 out gay and lesbian hirees in the Admin, including high level folks like Vic Basile and Brian Bond. We in the community even know a couple well-rumored folks already in those high level appointments, though there's no reason to out them (so I won't). It's not much of a secret amongst ourselves, though. How many trans people does anyone know of who've been in Admin, ambassador or staff positions? If you guessed zero, like all the other Administrations through history, you'd be right!
Now imagine trans people raising the issues with the same intensity! In fact, just imagine trans people raising commensurate requests from gay or lesbian organizations or administrations! I can easily imagine the howls from the David Smiths of HRC to the Chris Crains who own media outlets to the Jim Fouratts stirring the muck in columns and blogs to the apoplectic response from the Barney Franks on Capitol Hill. Do ya really think we're all judged and awarded by the same standard?
"He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides!" — President Harry S. Truman
And speaking of Ol' Barn', he recently issued a statement on the decision to award Diane Schroer, a former Army Special Offices commander who had been offered a job with the Library of Congress as a terrorism research analyst and when notifying the Library of plans to undergo sex-reassignment surgery to transition from male to female, had the job offer rescinded:
The decision by United States District Court Judge James Robinson to award $491,000 to Diane Schroer because of the blatant discrimination she suffered at the hands of James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, is entirely justified, and is a strong indictment of Mr. Billington’s tenure. When this case first arose, I personally called Mr. Billington to urge him to reverse the decision to deny Diane Schroer the job she had been promised, primarily as a matter of fairness. Sad ly, Mr. Billington refused, and the consequence of this is that the government will have to pay a half a million dollar judgment, in addition to the legal fees that it incurred.That's nice....
At the very least, Mr. Billington owes the taxpayers a prompt decision to reverse the discriminatory policy he enforced so that we are not again faced with a situation in which an individual is so unfairly treated, or that the taxpayers are forced to pay for the results that follow. Given the harm that has already been done to Ms. Schroer, I strongly urge that no appeal be taken of this decision and that payment to Ms. Schroer be made promptly.
When I spoke with Mr. Billington, he claimed, wholly implausibly, that he could not intervene in the decision to rescind a job offer to someone solely on the basis of her having undergone a change in gender, on the grounds that this was a personnel decision. Of course, the head of an agency has the prerogative to intervene in a policy matter such as this, and I regret the fact that because Mr. Billington refused to do so we are now forced to pay for his mistake. It is my hope that in this Congress, we will act to provide needed legal protection for people like Diane Schroer who suffer acts of discrimination, and in the interim, Mr. Billington will change the policy of the Library of Congress. As a Member of Congress, I am deeply distressed that the Library of Congress practiced discrimination in the name of the institution in which I serve.
What actually would've been nicer would've been to have not had the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) use Diane Schroer (exploit?) for some really beneficial public relations and to underscore the need for passing the Federal Employment Protections Act (FEPA) [HR 3128 in the 109th, HR 2232 in the 110th Congress) that was submitted a few weeks after her case hit the media with HRC. And as the legislation was submitted, it "protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
Notice anything there? Yep, use the trans person's abject discrimination to further a bill to benefit gays and lesbians only. Even though it didn't ever draw any more than 37 co-sponsors and did nothing but bottle up in committee, they weren't about to listen to trans complaints about adding gender identity in FEPA. How dare us!?!
Meanwhile, if Ol' Barn' was so concerned about this case and its outcome, why didn't he – as one of the lead co-sponsors – bother pointing the obvious glaring discrimination just suffered mere weeks before the bill dropped the first time? He certainly knew what gender identity was. Of course, the "official line" from HRC and NCTE was that it was "(Rep. Henry) Waxman's bill, and they couldn't get him to budge."
Now that's a steaming cowpie of mammoth proportion! Having visited Waxman's office in 2004 before the Schroer incident, the legislative director noted to me and my co-lobbyist on an unrelated bill that for their support of inclusive legislation, we "needed to get HRC on board first. If they aren't on board, it's going nowhere in this office." Yet it didn't stop HRC and NGLTF and others to push for passage of FEPA, with Diane's story of discrimination prominently helpful in giving the initial nudge.
But Barney? Well if he were so "deeply distressed" at the "blatant discrimination" of Ms. Schroer, he sure had a funny way of exhibiting it before now. In a nutshell, Ol' Barn' hadn't uttered a peep before now while the more exploitative folks used her story to further their cause while leaving her the rest of us trans folk behind.
These double standards coming from the gay and lesbian leaders are bigger than all outdoors. How they've determined that if we're not screaming about it then it's unnoticed really escapes me. They're determined to play trans people as brain-dead fools.
This author has determined that attitude is offensive as hell.
"People, who rise above their petty individual selfishness and work for the welfare of society are considered patriots." — author, Sam Veda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)