Season Of Weird For HRC-Siders

The Human Rights Campaign is getting panicky … they’re starting to thrash around a bit.

It’s been hitting the blogosphere about their gala in the Capital of Gay America, San Francisco which didn’t go exactly as they would’ve dreamt. To be sure, they sold tons of tickets to their faithful, and their well-heeled attendees flush with cash donated in numbers unsurprising in wealthy America. They also had a notable number of no-shows, including the whole of the San Francisco politicos – both city and statewide levels – and the keynote speaker (the mayor of LA) cancelled. Protesters were numerous, loud, drew a lot of attention from passersby and media alike. Worst of all, one protester who bought a ticket and made it inside to pass out flyers was manhandled and unceremoniously booted. Fall-out’s not been the best PR in the world.

So lately they’ve been trying to shore their image up a bit more vigorously. I noted their trans members are suddenly stepping up marketing-like posts and submitting them to the community on some of the public net venues. Yeah, we can’t see through that ….

As the post-gala debate continued, this time on Bilerico Project, my friend Ethan St. Pierre pointed out, from among the blog comments to the HRC protest story, a response from Dana Beyer, the trans member from the HRC Board of Governors.

“The National Capital Area Steering Committee of HRC had a very productive meeting this evening with the local trans community. Contacts have been made, issues prioritized and the trans community has been put in touch with the HRC legal team to deal with personal legal issues as well as the problems with trans prisoners in the DC jails.”

No surprise … after a bit of bad PR in Trans America, HRC does a quickie “benevolent conservator” routine to remind the little trannies how awesome they are. Then I saw the end of that paragraph:

“… and to support the work of Basic Rights Montgomery in the fight to defend the Montgomery County trans civil rights law against the right wing referendum drive. Btw, HRC has already contributed $30,000 to this cause, along with the Task Force, Lambda Legal and other organizations who are devoting money and time.”

Interesting. That had to be a slip up. Besides being on HRC’s board of governors, Dana also happens to be one of the higher-profile board members of NCTE. Yes, Mara Keisling’s NCTE … the same one that has Mara going around the country recently doing (as one respondent referred to it) the “I Hate HRC” routine. But there’s more!

“I have offered to set up a meeting for the HRC Senior staff (including Joe) and Directors with the national transactivists who are particularly angry at HRC. Right now it looks like October 2nd will be doable, but it is still a work in progress.”

Well, isn’t that nice and patronizing? We “angry” transactivists will be deigned with a meeting with JoeSo and Co. And it appears October 2 will be doable for them, so we should clear our schedules and truck our happy asses up there! For what? More of the same? Some of us “angry” transactivists have actually been around for a decade or so – long enough to have gone through this process for an iteration or two. So, why in this time of tight economic conditions will we consider heading up to HRC HQ again? Honestly ….

The back-and-forth on the Bilerico comments continued, with one person noting that October 2 was not doable due to it conflicting with Southern Comfort Conference, to which Beyer had to match tit for tat:

“No offense, but HRC is not trying to screw trans persons by scheduling the meeting on October 2nd, I am. And why am I? Because I didn't know that was the weekend of Southern Comfort. Why didn't I know? Because SCC has always been on a Jewish holiday.

So, I ask you, is the trans community trying to screw the Jewish community?

Or, more succinctly, why does the trans community hate America?”

Why are we trying to screw the Jewish community?!? Or why does the trans community hate America?!? Wow. You can't make this kinda stuff up, folks.

But there’s more still ….

“No one is afraid. The Co-chair of the Board of Directors was not afraid last night; she was engaged and interested. She just doesn't know enough, even though we're friends, because she has a life and a whole lot of other things on her plate.

This is how it is with many people. They don't know, because they don't know us. The only way they're going to get to know us, to accept us as friends and family, is for us to spend time together, to engage. We need to help them so they will want to help us. We need to ask them to work with us.

Per Dana “they just don’t know … because she has a life and … a lot of things on her plate.” Gotcha. So if she’s got a life and all those things on her plate, what’s she doing at HRC?

“They don’t know us … the only way they’re going to get to know us … is for us to spend time together.” This from the organization that arbitrarily decided to seize defacto control and in charge of advocacy for us … people who don’t know us, have lives with lots on their plate, etc. And we need to spend time together! Since we don’t run in the same circles. We don’t have their level of income, thus no co-vacations or hanging out at tony restaurants or chi-chi events. And you don’t see people of their means coming down and “slumming with the trannies.”

So extrapolating from that, we’ll never meet, they’ll never know us (even though they’ll raise funds, publicize and claim to represent us) and we can only hope to engage by seeking them out to help them. Then maybe they’ll help us. (Huge maybe. I’ve done the “help them” routine on a number of other G&L related efforts over the years. Hard work has always been its own reward … there is no “help” on our side unless we do it.)

“HRC doesn't have a PR problem. We in the trans community believe they do, but the larger LGBT community does not believe so.”

Fair enough. The protests and the folks deciding not to attend, politicos and even gay community icons and the like are always dropping out of their banquets – typical stuff. And of course the recent flow of pro-HRC propaganda from their lonely trans supporters is pretty much steady. Of course, getting involved in peeing matches on blogs with HRC-bashers is an everyday thing too. Dana continues ….

“The meeting last night was about creating community, not rehashing ENDA. When we have community we will have an inclusive ENDA by definition.”

Nice thought. We had “community” with everyone working together in Texas in 1999 and again in 2001. And when the Hate Crimes Bill passed here in the state, guess what? No inclusion.

“You should be careful about speaking for "we, the transgender community." It's a lot more varied and diverse than just you…. “

Sage advice indeed. It leads to the next question: is HRC really seeking all the varied and diverse trans voices to participate there? How many trans folks have they had in their employ who’ve recently lived below the poverty level, for instance? Somehow I get the impression this statement is easier to swing around and back people off with, than to put into actuality.

“The gay community will help us if we ask, and ask constructively. Many of them have been for years and will continue to do so. We are just asking HRC now.”

Say what?!? They may help her because they know they can raise serious funds from her as well. What about the overwhelming remainder of the community? I know better than this from experience: Spring 2000. Ask Tony Varona, Kevin Layton or Nancy Buermeyer. They agreed, said it was reasonable and then eventually did just the opposite.

Ms. Beyer’s final thoughts bear a bit of attention as well:

“What HRC ultimately does next year or the following year will be up to the Directors, and yes, there are no trans persons on the Board which is appalling but it is what it is right now. Trans persons should be reaching out to those Directors through their local steering committees, however uncomfortable that makes you feel, just as we need to be reaching out to our Congresspersons …”

And we’ve come back full circle to rehash the same things Mara Keisling was selling the community back in 2002: we may not like it, it may be uncomfortable, but we need to be reaching out to HRC. I’d prefer working with Congress-critters instead, NTAC-style. Mara and NCTE had every opportunity afforded to them to do the “reaching out” and working with them. As I remember correctly, didn’t that fail to turn out so well?

“Leave the history alone for now. Let's use what we've learned over the years and put it to work here.”

Leave the history alone … no need to learn from it. Instead, we’ll use what we’ve learned over the years … even though we should leave that history alone. What does that mean? Just what we need, a bit of John McCain "Straight Talk" styled logic!

"You know you talk too much, you even scare my friends ...." — How Are You?, Cheap Trick

ENDA & HRC Protests Burn Up The Blogosphere

The Human Rights Campaign gala took place in San Francisco as expected: plenty of folks outside drawing attention to HRC’s inequality, and plenty of folks on the inside – including a couple of trans folks (to keep things PC and blunt criticism) who took turns speaking. I’ve got some thoughts on all of that. But one thing occurred that was a bit of a headline:

A 63-year old lesbian protester purchased a ticket and went into HRC’s SF soiree with the intent of passing out flyers during Joe Solmonese’s speech. She sat at a table and visited with the other table-mates until the lights went down and the dramatic build-up before JoeSo’s special speech. When she rose and walked toward the front of the gathering, HRC’s contracted security team nabbed her, began escorting her out. At one point when she attempted to pass out a flyer while they were marching her out, she was suddenly arm-twisted, taken to the ground and then dragged out of the gathering screaming in pain. She also reported a frogmarch through the hotel lobby and an undiginified tossing out of the hotel after.



That incident hit the blogosphere: not so favorable news for HRC. Predictably the elitist set was compelled to respond and help cover the HRC point of view. Below is one from Boston Paul’s blog on Daily Kos yesterday, and below the back and forth commentary. It’s long. But attached within are some very telling gems of the tenor of this rights debate, noting exactly how a segment of the gay and lesbian community feel on trans rights. The priceless item was Pastor Martin Niemoller’s poem about the Nazi societal cleansing … replete with snores from blogger Shane Hensinger. Apparently history and recalling and trying to learn not to repeat atrocious behavior are snoozefests to some.

Some of the posters are heroic, others not-so ... you decide. First the blog … and below the various responses:

:: BostonPaul's diary ::
I had hoped this was a one time anomaly of clouded judgment brought on by strong emotion, but unfortunately I've begun to notice a pattern.

Let me start from the beginning: It began last year over the ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act) debate. Congressman Barney Frank introduced a GLBT version of ENDA, but it was realized that the votes were not there to pass it with the T's included. So a GLB bill was introduced and Tammy Baldwin submitted a Trans-bill amendment which was later pulled because of the lack of support.

And just fyi, a GLB version of ENDA has repeatedly been introduced in Congress since 1974 and only ever had a vote once in the Senate, where it failed on a 49-50 vote during the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) discussion.

It's a sad fact, but reality is that the trans movement is much further behind the gay rights movement. While we were trying to pass a trans-inclusive bill on the national level, we don't even have trans protections here in Massachusetts or in New York.

HRC, and 70% of LGBT people, supported the pragmatic bill that could have given protections to tens of millions of Americans. And there were others, represented by United ENDA (a group of 300+ GLBT rights organizations), that supported only a trans-inclusive ENDA at any expense.

So the two options were to have a GLB bill possibly pass on the national level for the first time in history (it did pass the House by a vote of 235-184 and is currently before the Senate) or have a GLBT ENDA fail.

It was a rather historic vote. I've included a video of Congressman Barney Frank speaking on the bill. The 2nd half is especially touching as he almost comes to tears and had this to say:

"I feel an obligation, to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people they’ll lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get, to help them. And I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please don’t fall for this sham. Don’t send me out of here having failed to help those people."

We really get a sense of how historic this passage was.

What happened during this ENDA controversy is what shocked and angered me. Rather than simply putting all that energy towards educating our Congressmen and women and advocating for the GENDA amendment, United ENDA actually worked against the ENDA bill. Frankly (no pun intended), it’s a rather childish "If I can’t have it, no one can" mentality.

United ENDA made a statement on the day of the passage and it included this:
Equality Federation remains steadfast in its opposition to this bill – not because of what it purports to do, but because of what it fails to do.
Now fast forward to 2008 and our allies strike again.
Many gay and straight local leaders have declined to attend this year’s July 26 HRC gala at the Westin St. Francis in Union Square. They are doing so in order to voice their objection to the Washington D.C.-based organization’s backing a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act last fall that was stripped of gender identity protections.
The bill passed the House and is now before the Senate; should it be sent to President Bush, he is expected to veto it.
In addition to not attending this year’s gala, many people are refusing to support HRC until it unequivocally signs on to support only a fully inclusive ENDA. Backers of the boycott expressed disappointment with Speier’s stance and hope to speak with her directly about the ENDA controversy.
That's fine and dandy if you don't want to support HRC. However, this HRC gala was not a fundraiser for HRC. 100% of their proceeds were going to fighting Proposition 8 which is a ballot initiative to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. So once again they are actively working against gay rights. It's rather sad to see such regressive actions being taken rather than progressive action to educate and lobby on the issues.

Rome wasn't built in a day. This is politics and the history of civil rights shows that it has always been incremental. Don't let good be the enemy of evil. Oh, and stop working against gay rights!

· I don't think so. (6+ / 0-)
No one who opposed the passage of a non-inclusive ENDA was working against gay rights.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM PDT

· How is that? (2+ / 0-)
They actively told congressmen and women to vote against the ENDA bill.
I see that as very regressive when they could have put all that effort into educating and lobbying for the Baldwin Amendment.
Furthermore, people who are angry about the ENDA debate now boycotted an HRC gala of which all their proceeds were going to fighting the Ballot 8 Initiative.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM PDT

· They actively told people to vote against... (1+ / 0-)
...a bill which had no chance whatsoever of becoming law and had a significant number of loopholes. See Lambda Legal's analysis of the revised bill that was up for a vote. It was a mess and didn't do anything to promote gay rights even if it weren't due for a veto.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM PDT

· I highly doubt that. (2+ / 0-)
It was a mess and didn't do anything to promote gay rights
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM PDT

· Go ahead and doubt it (0 / 0)
your doubting it does not make it false.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM PDT

· Nor does your shrillness make it true n/t (0 / 0)
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM PDT

· That is so incredulous (0 / 0)
that you actually make the argument that ENDA would have done nothing to protect gay people.
That is just sad what you're resorting to there.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM PDT

· You're right but the Purity Progressives here (3+ / 0-)
will beat you senseless, quote from concentration camp survivors and generally use every ad-hominem from their arsenal to prove you wrong.
The facts show that GLB people want this bill passed with or without the protections for transsexuals added into it.
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM PDT

· I can see that (2+ / 0-)
I asked Juliewolf to reply with some reasoning as to her accusations of me, but she replied with no such thing.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM PDT

· Because she has no political leg to stand on (2+ / 0-)
Just a lot of emotion and non-sequitors.
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM PDT

· Oh goody (0 / 0)
the personal attack.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM PDT

· You yourself said (2+ / 0-)
that you wouldn't give me reasoning as to your accusations of me.
I'm still waiting.
Now that someone else says that you have no argument (since you won't give any rationale), you surely can't be surprised.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM PDT

· When you make such comments as... (0 / 0)
What happened during this ENDA controversy is what shocked and angered me. Rather than simply putting all that energy towards educating our Congressmen and women and advocating for the GENDA amendment, United ENDA actually worked against the ENDA bill. Frankly (no pun intended), it’s a rather childish "If I can’t have it, no one can" mentality.
...it tells me that you would prefer to marginalize the people who disagree with you than have a conversation with them. Accusing people who are acting in good faith of being "childish" is not the way to begin a conversation. It's the way to convince your readers that you are on the attack.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

· Well I've given reasons (1+ / 0-)
as to why I think those are childish acts. Please explain to me how it is not a "If I can't have it, no one can" mentality? It's exactly that.
The end result is that United ENDA is working against gay rights rather than putting all the effort into obtaining the votes necessary to pass an inclusive ENDA or a Baldwin type amendment that would include trans-folk.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM PDT

· Actually, I was quite specific... (1+ / 0-)
...in why I objected to that bill. It had nothing to do with the reasoning you suggested and everything to do with not wanting to support legislation which was functionally useless.
We can't have an ENDA bill right now. We won't have one until at least the next congress. But instead of working to get a good one, people are showing interest in getting a symbolic one that's functionally useless and would leave a great many of our population unprotected even if it were signed by the President.
But you can continue to advance your argument in a fashion which frames things in terms of a personal attack on a segment of the community, and you can continue to work in a fashion which opposes the seeking of consensus and relies on mob majority rule to dictate our direction if you like.
I, personally, find your approach to be counterproductive and useless. I find the us-vs-them mentality which you so passionately promote to be problematic and best and openly antagonistic at worst.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM PDT

· Ding Ding Ding!! "Marginalize!!!!!" (0 / 0)
I was waiting for the first word of the deconstructionist era to appear and unsurprisingly Jules used it first!!
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM PDT

· What a weird thing to say (2+ / 0-)
"GLB people"....as if trans people are different from us?
In the world I live in, all us queers are bundled up together in a conveniently hateable group. The exclusion of trans folks from our legislative "victories" says more about us, I think, than about the people we struggle against.
I, for one, thankfully live in a community where all the gay men, lesbians, and bi folks lamented the exclusion of our trans brothers and sisters, who are not different from us in their search for equality under the law.
It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.
by el ganador on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM PDT

· The "world you live in" is quite different from (2+ / 0-)
mine. I don't buy into the Foucault-inspired "Queer identity" you so lustily embrace. And neither do the vast majority of gay and lesbian people.
What community was it where 100% of the people "lamented the exclusion of our trans brothers and sisters"? Because I live in San Francisco and I can tell you that even here no one was goose-stepping in time to the statements of NGLTF.
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

· seriously? (0 / 0)
I didn't say that I embraced some bundled queer identity, rather that most of the rest of society perceives us bundled together. Ask a conservative voter what the differences are between gay, lesbian, and trans and I doubt you'll get the nuance you're looking for.
It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.
by el ganador on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM PDT

· Well I'll give you that much (2+ / 0-)
Conservatives prolly do view us all as freaks. But since when did we have to tailor ourselves to what conservatives view?
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM PDT

· Stop making me agree with you, dammit! (1+ / 0-)
LOL
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM PDT

· FWIW, I'm in Seattle (0 / 0)
and while I can't say 100% of Seattle felt as I do, the community of people I hang out with - a sizable chunk GLBT, and a good representative sample of Seattle writ large, was aware that the T had been dropped and were muted in our celebration because that left out people we know and care about.
It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.
by el ganador on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:26:42 PM PDT

· I'm waiting for those quotes... (0 / 0)
...from concentration camp survivors you promised.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM PDT

· Come on Jules - don't make it so easy (0 / 0)
You've been dying to post the overused and entirely non-relevant-to-this-discussion poem of Pastor Martin Niemöller:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:34:34 PM PDT

· My name is not "Jules" (0 / 0)
If you want to address me by name, please refer to me as "Julie."
I also accept "your highness."
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM PDT

· Hey, I use "your highness" too! (0 / 0)
This place isn't big enough for the both of us, although you can call me "His Royal Highness" if you want. OK - Julia :-)
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM PDT

· Once Non-inclusive ENDA passes (4+ / 0-)
all the righteous fired up little GLB'ers, will have what they want. And they will never quite get back the passion they once held... in other words, they will forget all about that little ol' "T".
If everyone can't be safe from discrimination, let's keep the exposure as large as possible. That way it will pass, eventually... and for everyone.
To those who would sell their brothers and sisters out for their own protection... I say...
Well, you have a pretty good idea what I would say.
"The world is a mess, and I just need... to rule it" - Dr. Horrible
by Niniane on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM PDT

· Bullshit. (3+ / 0-)
This ignores the historical reality. Most trans rights bills came after GLB rights had passed. But GLB people and their hetero supporters still supported trans rights.
Furthermore, nobody is saying that no bill anywhere anytime should be trans inclusive, we just wanted to get this one passed even though Bush would veto it.
I have heard very few GLB people say they don't support trans rights or that they want to leave trans people behind.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."

· It's pretty clear from this thread alone... (1+ / 0-)
I have heard very few GLB people say they don't support trans rights or that they want to leave trans people behind.
...that we've got at least one commenter who thinks that it's wrong to be including the T in GLBT and that it's a worthless cause:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM PDT

· What's your point? (1+ / 0-)
Mine is that this divide has opened up a deep fissure in the GLBT movement that is going to take time to heal. And trannies do themselves no favors by actively seeking to wreck federal GLB protections because they're not included in the final version - that's a Pyrrhic victory they'll come to lament before this is all over.
I've noticed that you never addressed the diarist's main point about 70% of the GLBT community supporting the "Pass Now" stance of HRC. Why is that?
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM PDT

· I want *equal* rights (8+ / 0-)
I don't want to have more rights than my trans friends. Equal is equal.
The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan
by BoiseBlue on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM PDT

· Amen n/t (4+ / 0-)
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM PDT

· Opposite World (10+ / 0-)
Your views are totally opposite of mine.
No civil rights coalition can ever be "too big."
Excluding such a vital partner in the push for ENDA meant that we gave up our moral high ground. It also meant that we had a smaller, weaker coalition of people pushing for the legislation.
Finally, change starts at the margins and works its way to the center.
If you exclude the margins, you block change.
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM PDT

· *nods* (5+ / 0-)
There was also a whole trend to marginalize transfolk during that debate that was just nasty. This diary is a more subtle version of that sort of marginalization.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM PDT

· Totally (4+ / 0-)
Agreed ...
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM PDT

And how is that? (2+ / 0-)
Please don't just throw around accusations, but back it up with some reasoning.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM PDT

· I don't work for you... (0 / 0)
...and you're not in the position to hand me instructions.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM PDT

· Careful there. (2+ / 0-)
That chip on your shoulder can give you a hernia.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM PDT

· And (6+ / 0-)
HRC opposed it because all those fancy Georgetown lawyers in their expensive suits and million-dollar townhouses did not want to be lumped in "with a bunch of freaks."
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM PDT

· HRC is conservative (4+ / 0-)
They always have been. They're one step away from log cabin republicans. For twenty years, they've been actively trying to marginalize transfolk and now they want to make it sound like this is something new and they're ready to take care of an inclusive ENDA as soon as the non-inclusive one is passed. The minute they get what they want, they won't give a damn about anything else.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:42:08 PM PDT

· precisely why (1+ / 0-)
They no longer get donations from me.
The vote is "Basic Democracy #1". YOU must preserve it. -edscan
by BoiseBlue on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:43:33 PM PDT

· sadly, I agree (1+ / 0-)
I used to be a big Human Rights Campaign fan. But sadly, they've been more willing to make compromises than to stand for principles.
It would be one thing for them to support a watered-down EDNA if they were out there aggressively lobbying for protection of trans people on other grounds. But they aren't. In fact, they're deathly silent on such matters. It's an embarrassment to the queer community writ large.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

· I Want to Change Society (4+ / 0-)
So that it is more accepting of GLBT people.
HRC wants to change GLBT people so that we act in ways that are not as threatening to those that they perceive as "normal people."
I always feel like HRC wants to push me and make sure that I am obeying the norms set by straight people.
I want to change the norms so that more people can fit into them.
Big, big philosophical difference.
"Truck Stop Women," a New Film By Phil Gramm and John McCain.
by bink on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM PDT

· I think that oversimplifies. (2+ / 0-)
I'm not real thrilled with what HRC has become. But the whole assimilationist argument happens in every disadvantaged community. As a leg amputee, I don't care if my walk is undetectable when I'm wearing long pants (which is almost never) and I don't want a cosmetic cover for my hi-tech fake leg--but to some people those things are extremely important. I support them in doing what works for them, but I expect the same courtesy. I've learned from my Jewish friends that there are centuries of arguments about this in Judaiism. So this is nothing new.
But there's a time and place for everything. My saying is that "In every movement, for every Martin Luther King there is a Malcolm X". One of the best examples of this was on Nightline many years ago in a program on the Ryan White Act funding measure. A prominent AIDS activist (Martin Duberman?) was on all freshly scrubbed and buttoned down. But he freely admitted that there were pharma execs who would more readily speak to him when they knew the alternative was Larry Kramer peeing on their desk!
There's a time and place to display our least-threatening countenance and there's a place to show up in all our fabulousness. I think it's called being smart.
But I wouldn't dismiss HRC as being that completely assimilationist. Maybe mostly. But not absolutely.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:47:45 PM PDT

· How are transsexuals such a "vital partner?" (0 / 0)
They're like less than 1% of the total GLB population.
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM PDT

Well, for starters... (2+ / 0-)
The same people hate them that hate us!
Personally, I think we're all in this together and I'm committed to nothing less than full LGBT equality at the end of the day. I just have little patience for the kind of political naivete being put on display in this fracas.
Here's the argument that I think Trans people and their supporters should be making--it's affirmative and expansive, not negative and limiting.
1. They need our help precisely because they are small in number.
2. We have much in common as "sexual minorities" and not just the same enemies. The same arguments are used against us and the same moralistic justifications.
3. We're stronger together than we are separately.
4. Our fight is similar at the bottom line--we want the right to live our lives free of discrimination for be being "different" and much of that is rooted in gender norms.
I just reject the divisiveness, the immaturity, and the emotional blackmail.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM PDT

· They share commonalities but they're certainly (0 / 0)
not "vital" in any way - whether it be votes to count on or money to contribute. They're a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall GLB population.That's the meme they want to become CW but we know it's really bunk.
Still, I support their rights but when it comes down to it I want mine and I don't much care how they're gotten. We've all had to wait a long time - they can surely wait a little longer?
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:21:27 PM PDT

· Is that the argument you want to make? (0 / 0)
You certainly can. And I think you'll find many people to agree with you.
Personally, I don't think we'll be done with equal rights until trans people are protected. On a philosophical level, I think we're fighting the same demons.
I think it's the right thing to do, and I think it makes us better as a movement just as I think we should continue to fight for equality for all people and groups. I'm against the "I got mine" mentality from anyone--republicans, trans people, sub-groups in the disability rights movement, and GLB folks.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM PDT

· I don't buy it (3+ / 0-)
Quite frankly, I think it's horrible that some GLB rights advocates have seen fit to throw trans people under the bus. As a gay man, I won't stand for it. It's a good thing that no HRC fundraising shills approached me at the Capital Pride street festival this year, because I would have given them a piece of my mind if they had.
President Bush has made clear that he would have vetoed any form of EDNA. So I don't see what passing a purely symbolic compromise EDNA would have accomplished.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM PDT

· I disagree, (1+ / 0-)
So I don't see what passing a purely symbolic compromise EDNA would have accomplished.
I think passing a national GLB rights bill for the first time ever is a huge deal. It's very historic and it provides a lot of momentum.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM PDT

· momentum for what? (2+ / 0-)
Honestly, Paul, I've tried to listen to the arguments of the HRC and their supporters. You say that it would be "historic" and that it provides "momentum," but for what? Suppose for a minute that it passes Congress and Bush vetoes it. What's the next step after that? How does it create momentum? With whom does it create momentum? I'm not following the logical links here.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM PDT

· Then you don't understand politics. (3+ / 0-)
Our cause benefits with every win. Here in CA we have benefitted by passing AB-1, which Gov. Wilson vetoed, and twice passing marriage equality, which Ahnold vetoed. Those were huge wins and helped us grow stronger politically.
We gain strength and momentum with every win, including the ones that are vetoed. We win every time we get further than the last time. We build support by office holders, we build awareness, we educate more people, we build support.
Every time we pass an employment bill, it makes it easier to go after housing, public accomodation, adoption, and marriage equality.
Every inch counts. But you would have us throw away any gain that doesn't get us all the way in one move. That's just pathetic.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:13:55 PM PDT

· your damn right I would (0 / 0)
N/T
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM PDT

· Well said! (2+ / 0-)
I was going to reply, but then saw your comment.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

· THERE. IS. NO. FUCKING. BUS. (4+ / 0-)
Enough with the "under the bus" bullshit.
I agree with the diarist. This is a huge mistake on the part of transgender activists. It will cost support rather than add more.
This is a very difficult situation, but nothing is gained by trying to paint it in simplistic, absolute terms.
The only realistic way to look at the ongoing effort for LGBT equality is to consider the full picture over time. The vote last fall was only one battle in the overall war. I believe it is extremely shortsighted and counter-productive for Trans activists and supporters to take the position they are--including and especially boycotting the HRC fundraiser against Prop. 8.This is the stupidest thing they could have done. I have dated trans men, I have participated in trans workshops, I am committed to trans equality. But this is a long fight.
1. We have been fighting for GLB rights longer than trans rights--we need to invest the time developing political support and educating voters and office holders about trans issues and the need for equality.
2. You NEVER build more support by trying to take away benefits for others. Our movement has been strengthened by the efforts of people who worked tirelessly for things they would not benefit from--fairminded heteros who supported and worked for equality, lesbians who fought for AIDS treatment and prevention, gay men who fought for womens' health issues. We will grow stronger as a movement by supporting and committing to trans equality. But trans people will not benefit by issuing demands or threats.
3. Putting all our efforts on hold until we bring trans rights up to the same level as GLB rights around the country will set the entire movement back. Every victory in every city, county, and state advances our agenda. Every time a bill advances further than it did before helps us (including ENDA last fall). Contrary to what some shrill voices would have us believe, there are multiple jurisdictions where trans rights were added after GLB protections had already passed and many GLB people and organizations supported the effort.
Frankly, I'm tired of amateurs. I agree with Barney Frank. We have to be smart about this and we have to work the system. That's politics.
Trying to guilt us into putting GLB rights on hold until we do it according to what some trans activists say is bullshit. I'm ready to help and even fight when asked. But start making demands and I say go to hell.
Politics is for grown-ups--not whiney children. Passing a non-inclusive ENDA would not have been a "purely symbolic compromise"--that's incredibly naive. It would have advanced and benefitted our cause, including the fight for trans rights. We would have moved the ball farther forward than we ever have before. It will take many more small moves to get us where we want to be.
But oh no, the purists say we're throwing trans people under the bus. It's all or nothing! So guess what that gets us--NOTHING!
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM PDT

· I thought like you once (4+ / 0-)
and then became friends, best friends, with a trans woman. She is one of the bravest, smartest, most wonderful people I know - and her coming out story makes mine look like a cakewalk.
I won't abandon her for my convenience. I'll happily take nothing until she has the same rights and protections I do.
If you think that's self defeating, well...*shrugs*. I think it's love.
I wonder if you have any trans friends you can talk about this with?
It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.
by el ganador on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

· I don't think it's up to you though (1+ / 0-)
to make the decision for tens of millions of Americans.
Do trans-people deserve protections? Absolutely!
Do we have the support right now at the federal level? No.
That's nice that you're willing to wait, but there are millions of gay Americans who need those protections of which 70% of GLBT people support the pragmatic route.
I don't think it's fair for people to work against gay rights simply because the support isn't there for trans rights.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM PDT

· Did you even read what I wrote? (0 / 0)
I've dated trans men. I've done "show and tell" in workshops for trans men just beginning transition to acquaint them with the original factory equipment. I've argued endlessly with short-sighted gay men who couldn't be bothered to see trans people as anything more than "just a bunch of drag queens" (and who says we can't be as ignorant as heteros).
Where did I ever say I was in favor of abandoning trans people? That's the exact opposite of what I have written. But I'm against the all or nothing approach because I believe it's counter-productive.
You say "I'll happily take nothing until she has the same rights and protections I do." That's a perfectly valid choice. But why are you demanding all the other unprotected GLB people do the same? I support trans rights, even though it doesn't help me. I support GLB rights outside my little gay-friendly coccoon of San Francisco. I support marriage equality, even though I'm not likely to ever need it.
Put another way, I don't think we should repeal equal rights here in CA until the rest of the country has them. I don't think we should reject employment rights in some states because we don't have adoption or marriage equality.
This is politics. It's not easy. It requires relentless effort over the long haul. I'm against the short-sightedness implicit in the all-or-nothing mindset.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM PDT

· how would it have done this? (0 / 0)
Politics is for grown-ups--not whiney children. Passing a non-inclusive ENDA would not have been a "purely symbolic compromise"--that's incredibly naive. It would have advanced and benefitted our cause, including the fight for trans rights. We would have moved the ball farther forward than we ever have before. It will take many more small moves to get us where we want to be.
How exactly would it have "advanced and benefited our cause?" after the president vetoed it?
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM PDT

· Are you really making the argument (1+ / 0-)
that passing a bill on the federal level for the very first time in history does nothing? Seriously?
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:42:31 PM PDT

· Not to mention that if (1+ / 0-)
you wanted to go down the bus route, then an argument could be made that GLB people are being "thrown under the bus" (as many like to use that phrase when it comes to ENDA) by having United ENDA trying to kill the ENDA legislation that would benefits tens of millions of Americans.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM PDT

· defending HRC (the group, not the senator) (5+ / 0-)
good gods.
the "pragmatic" bill was about the worst they could have done!
and I will echo everyone else---this diary reads like the subtle BS that went on during the ENDA controversy, BS that is the reason I won't ever give to HRC and won't ever read AmericaBlog again. And believe me, I'm glad (for him) I was having too good a time at NN '08 to give John Aravosis a piece of my mind when he was pointed out to me.
Central PA Kossacks no matter where you go, there you are! (-0.12, -3.33)
by terrypinder on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM PDT

· For the thousandth time, (5+ / 0-)
all or nothing usually gets nothing.
No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM PDT

· expediency vs. purity (2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
juliewolf, Nightprowlkitty
I think this comes down to an expediency vs. ideological purity argument. Those who support the watered down EDNA bill claim that it's better than nothing and a step in the right direction. Those who favor trans inclusion believe that it's necessary to ideologically preserve the unity of the GLBT movement.
I would find the expediency argument much easier to swallow if its advocates at the HRC and grassroots level had committed to themselves to transgendered equality in other areas. But instead, I hear barely a whimper from them.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM PDT

· I don't support either (6+ / 0-)
I don't believe in coming up with bad law for expediency's sake and I don't believe in ideological purity.
I support the trans inclusive ENDA partially because without it, the ENDA bill is useless. You can't fire a man for being gay, but you can fire him for not coming across as masculine enough? That's sure to be effective.Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:55:02 PM PDT

· bingo (3+ / 0-)
Central PA Kossacks no matter where you go, there you are! (-0.12, -3.33)
by terrypinder on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM PDT

· I didn't think about it that way (1+ / 0-)
But you're right, Julie. Thanks for the perspective.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM PDT

· Do you have a case to back up that assertion? (1+ / 0-)
You can't fire a man for being gay, but you can fire him for not coming across as masculine enough? That's sure to be effective.
As I already posted that blog post on the subject, do you have some examples of that actually happening?
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM PDT

· Actually, yes (1+ / 0-)
I was once fired from a job for coming across as too androgynous.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

· How do you know (0 / 0)
that was the reason? Please don't take that question as anything but curiosity. I'm just interested in how you would know that was the reason you were fired. Did you file a report against them?
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM PDT

· bush wouldn't have signed either bill (4+ / 0-)
so spare me the historic moment. it was a hollow, empty moment because nothing happened and the 'community' got split at the expense of people who need the protections far more then I do.
a Democratic President would have signed the inclusive bill.
Central PA Kossacks no matter where you go, there you are! (-0.12, -3.33)
by terrypinder on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:53:41 PM PDT

· The trans community will get there (1+ / 0-)
I am sure. Clearly the gay and lesbian community has been working on equality issues for decades, and are only now beginning to see some crumbs falling from the table. The transgender community will come along, but they are going to have to do the work over time necessary to get a seat under the table with the rest of us unworthies. Americans are just barely tolerant with the concept of homosexuality in two thousand frigging eight (and I mean concept, not reality). The idea of transgender identity is still a bridge too far, but hey, we got this far, we will get the rest of the way in the end...
No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM PDT

· That's not enough. (2+ / 0-)
I agree with your earlier comment, but diverge here. I unequivocally disagree with the "all-or-nothing" position taken by some here. But I am personally committed to bringing trans people with us, not leaving them to fend for themselves. They need our help. They deserve our support. As far as I'm concerned, the T belongs in LGBT. But I differentiate between tactical steps and the overall objective.
What I reject is trans people and their supporters tying our hands and preventing any progress that doesn't live up to their standards. Let's have a dialog about how we advance trans equality. But calling a halt to all GLB equality is not the way to do it.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM PDT

· Here, Here! (1+ / 0-)
That was exactly my point.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM PDT

· In all honesty (5+ / 0-)
I think trans people need this just as much as LGB and there've been many, many times where the LGB groups have conveniently forgot the T in LGBT.
If you can be descriminated against based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then gender should be included.
Sarcasm: It beats killing people...
by Dreggas on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM PDT

· Please don't misunderstand me (2+ / 0-)
I completely agree that trans people need protections, very badly!
My issue however is with the fact that people are working against gay rights because they "aren't getting theirs".
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM PDT

· When you put those words in quotes... (0 / 0)
are you actually quoting anyone or are you just making that up?
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM PDT

· I believe the quotes indicate an expression. (3+ / 0-)
eom
by burrow owl on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM PDT

· Precisely, (2+ / 0-)
but then again I'm not surprised at her comment.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM PDT

· Lots of GLB people wonder how the T got in (1+ / 0-)
in the first place. Unelected leaders of GLB organizations, usually hard-line leftists to a "T" (no pun intended) forced through this issue and then were a bit shocked when it came down to nuts and bolts. The "no one if free unless everyone is free" attitude is absurd in politics - it's better suited to a religious pulpit than the voting booth.
And please don't quote that laughable list that's floating around of all those "GLBT" orgs which supported the no-trans-free-ENDA position.
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM PDT

· Yes and no. (0 / 0)
The "no one is free..." attitude is perfectly valid when speaking of long-term objectives. But it's completely insane when determining individual tactics.
"Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" comes to mind.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM PDT

· Every GLBT organization I'm familiar with... (1+ / 0-)
...has had the "T" included for more than a decade. It's a little late to be whining about it.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:22:27 PM PDT

· Never to late to undo a mistake Jules :-) n/t (0 / 0)
the shane life
by Shane Hensinger on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

· How very inclusive of you... (0 / 0)
Sarcasm: It beats killing people...
by Dreggas on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM PDT

· I don't care about the list (0 / 0)
quite frankly I find it pretty sad that so many want to exclude the "T" part of "LGBT" part of the equasion. Of course it should be no surprise given how some feel about the B parts and the general attitude expressed by quite a few that if someone has gender reassignment (say MTF) and still loves women they are somehow not gay but "Straight".
Sarcasm: It beats killing people...
by Dreggas on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM PDT

· by the way, the Prop 8 argument is a red herring (1+ / 0-)
I've donated money to No on Proposition 8 groups that are directly based in California. I/we don't need the HRC to act as an intermediary.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM PDT

· I'm donating to Equality California (2+ / 0-)
and registered my recent wedding with EQCA. They have been on the front lines working for marriage equality in California. HRC? Not so much.
I donate to Obama Kos it's the right thing to do.
by abrauer on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:05:56 PM PDT

· How is the Prop 8 argument a red herring? (2+ / 0-)
People were working against the HRC gala because they had personal qualms against HRC (of which none of that money they fund-raised went to them just fyi).
I think those actions are ludicrous. As I've already said, be progressive; not regressive.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:16:54 PM PDT

· Sorry. (3+ / 0-)
The GLBT community does this to itself time after time after time. Purity above all else, is that it? I hate to inform you that this is not the way politics is done in the modern era (you know, art of the POSSIBLE and all that?). If the choice comes down to GLB or nothing, then I choose GLB. If it was a choice between T or nothing I would choose T.
Voting on extending civil rights in America has somewhat of a crappy history. With a few notable exceptions (women's suffrage for instance), it is the COURTS, not the legislatures, that have dragged us forward, kicking and screaming the entire way. It is too much to expect a popular vote on moving civil rights forward to succeed, because we pretty much suck at that.
No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM PDT

· Meh. (7+ / 0-)
As far as I'm concerned, HRC has outlived its usefulness. They were wrong on the bus-underthrowing of Ts to get this legislation passed.
I'm a gay man who has a trans woman as a best friend. I know for a fact that she is braver, stronger, more courageous, and more challenged in her daily life than I am. Would I choose not to get rights until she gets them with me? Damn right I would.
We should be working to make this world a better safer place for all of us - not figuring out who we can throw off the train to make sure we get our little piece.
It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.
by el ganador on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM PDT

· amen (2+ / 0-)
I know only a handful of trans people, and none well, but I don't envy them at all. It's much harder for them to "pass" in daily life.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:47 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

· this diary is a misnomer (2+ / 0-)
Come to think of it, the title of this diary is a misnomer. By definition, if we don't support trans rights, than the GLB movement would not be an ally of trans organizations. Or at least that's the way trans people would see it.
I remain open to persuasion here. If advocates of the watered down EDNA can convince me that they have some brilliant plan to protect the rights of trans people through other means, I'm open to revising my position. But so far, all I hear are crickets chirping.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:00 PM PDT

· So in a nutshell... (6+ / 0-)
"Be a good little "T" and throw yourself on that grenade and save the rest of us... or be labeled as selfish and ungrateful".
Gotcha.
Thanks for clearing that up, I wondered what the thought process was.
"The world is a mess, and I just need... to rule it" - Dr. Horrible
by Niniane on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM PDT

· agreed (2+ / 0-)
I'm pleased to see most Kossacks opposed to the exclusion of trans people, but I'm also shocked to see a few posters who have insinuated that trans people are somehow inferior to other sexual minorities.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

· Just because someone supports a pragmatic (1+ / 0-)
route doesn't mean they think of trans people as inferior.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

· I'm really surprised. (0 / 0)
I usually respect your thinking. But this sucks.
The problem here is the inability to differentiate between individual battles and the overall war. The whole "if we don't get it now, we're never going to get it" frame is extremely immature. So is "if we can't have ours, then you can't have yours"."Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:20 PM PDT

· I don't think you and I are as far apart... (1+ / 0-)
...as it might seem, but this is a fairly tense and personal subject so it can get complicated.
Bear with me for a moment: I'm going to try to explain something that's just my perspective on what happened during the original ENDA debate. It's completely subjective, and I don't expect anyone to fully agree with the perspective I present. I just think it might clarify things a little
Okay so... we had this piece of legislation up for a vote, and it was a good, solid, fully inclusive, piece of legislation. But everyone knew it wouldn't become law, even if it did pass.
However... talk about pulling the gender identity aspects of it came partially from pressure from the more conservative elements of the activist groups, such as HRC, and they came before anyone ever had a vote on it, or even before a roll call was taken.This started the strategic part of the argument: is it better to be incremental or to be more assertive from the beginning. I understand both arguments, but my point of view, and this partially comes from being a union activist, is that you don't give things up before you're forced to. Seeing HRC and Barney Frank talking about giving up gender identity before even getting into the battle really disturbed me. It suggested to me that they were not serious at all about including gender identity, whether or not it would pass.
So originally my argument was strategic, that to give up so easily and to fracture ourselves so easily was just dangerous. I even wrote about this at the time, over at Pam's House Blend but I can't seem to find the original.
But I digress... so this was the first thing, that started out as a strategic question: which is going to be more effective.
And I'm fine with that argument; it's a good argument to have, even if it can be complicating.
But what happened after that just turned into something really ugly. It moved from a strategic discussion to a very personal one, where some people were not saying we'll get gay rights and then we'll take care of everyone else but they were saying why the hell are we even caring about what happens to T* people? They're not like me. They don't represent me. They're not part of this.
Then came the really nasty insults and slurs and the references to transfolk as "it" and other such things. It was just horrible to watch. I could get specific quotes for this, but I am personally so disgusted by those threads that I really don't want to wade through them again to find the examples. I have actual physical revulsion in response to some of those discussions.
I think some of that response was reactive. Like this diary, it was coming from the perception that people in favor of trans inclusion were betraying the gay rights movement. But regardless of the original cause behind it all, it turned very bad, very fast.
But for me, this was never about the attitude as you express it. It started off being a strategic difference, but turned into a deeply personal sense of betrayal on the part of supposed allies, such as John Aravosis and Rex Wockner, people whom I'd always respected in the past, but were willing to, at the drop of a hat, turn against people who'd been extremely supportive of equal rights for all GLBT people.
So, at risk of being mocked for the words I use, I will once again say that what I saw on (for example) Americablog at the time, was just so far beyond the pale that it turned into not just a strategic battle, but an attempt to resist active marginalization of a segment of our population. There was enough transphobic attitude out there that I didn't see any reason to believe that there was serious interest in building any momentum past getting a non-inclusive ENDA passed.
Then, once we started to see the stripped-down version of the bill, I realized it was actually far worse than I'd imagined. It went beyond strategic differences. It was just, well, sort of pathetic.
So, that's where I'm coming from with this. It's not simplistic. It's not us or them. It's not if I can't have it no one can. It's me thinking that this was a clusterfuck of monumental proportions that included some first-class bigotry and some major idiocy to boot.Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM PDT

· Don't get me started on Aravosis. (0 / 0)
But what do you expect from someone who used to staff for Sen. Ted Stevens?
I don't disagree with many of your observations. But I'm looking at it outside of the personalities. I'm not excusing the assholes--I completely disagree with them.
But I mainly agree with Barney Frank's assessment. We didn't have the votes to pass inclusive ENDA and we had an historic opportunity to advance the cause. Reasonable people can debate whether or not this is true and whether or not trans rights would have benefitted. I think they would have.
I look at this from the perspective of the overall fight for LGBT equality.
1. I think many gays and lesbians need to be more supportive towards bi/undeclared/questioning people.
2. I think many GLB people and we as a movement need to be far more committed to trans inclusion and equality.
3. I believe we need to do more to demonstrate to trans people and their supporters that we are committed to fighting for them.
4. I think we need to map out how we're going to accomplish that.
BUT...
We have to be smart about this. We need to remember who the real enemies are (hint: not each other). We need to listen to each other. I have listened to trans people recount the unbelievable challenges they have faced. I have heard the pain, despair, determination, and triumph. I would rather die than go through high school again--I absolutely do not know how many of them survived.
I don't believe that we are doing enough to advance trans rights. I am committed to keeping the T in LGBT. But I refuse to be blackmailed into strategies I believe to be counter-productive.
Most people who favor a pragmatic approach are not against trans rights. I think it's important to differentiate between individual tactics and the overall fight for equality.
I don't mean to sound condescending to trans people--their need is great. Their concerns are real. But I'm against the kind of guilt tactics I'm seeing. I think it does more harm than good in the end.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM PDT

· "Pragmatic" is a funny word. (0 / 0)
It has vastly different connotations depending on which side of a divide one is sitting on.
For instance, to your typical upper-middle class, white male, anglo-saxon protestant... racial profiling seems "pragmatic" too. After all, they have nothing to worry about. It's not their rights being violated, and they will likely be "safer" in the long run... or so the Neocons would have them believe.
I don't buy that one either.
"The world is a mess, and I just need... to rule it" - Dr. Horrible
by Niniane on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:31:42 PM PDT

· Does your strawman have a name? (1+ / 0-)
Because there was nothing remotely similar in your example to the subject at hand.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM PDT

· And what would be the reasoning (1+ / 0-)
for actively working against such gay rights bills? (As opposed to trying to build the support to pass a trans-inclusive bill)
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM PDT

· Guilt tactics (0 / 0)
I don't mean to sound condescending to trans people--their need is great. Their concerns are real. But I'm against the kind of guilt tactics I'm seeing. I think it does more harm than good in the end.
I'm not a fan of guilt tactics, but I've seen them used by people in every political campaign on all sides. I see this diary as primarily about guilt tactics-- the diarist blaming people with whom he disagrees for being anti-gay rights?
I don't see why you're only referencing guilt tactics from one position in this. There's plenty of it to go around on both sides.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:16:14 PM PDT

· At least you finally admit they're working against (1+ / 0-)
gay rights (as opposed to your very first comment on this post which says the exact opposite).
And I'm not blaming, I'm saying stop the regressive tactics and start being progressive. It really is a disgrace.
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM PDT

· if it was a LBT non-discrimination bill (0 / 0)
that could pass if only we left those "G"'s out, I think the reaction might be somewhat different.
The simple fact is as a whole, we have a whole lot more power than we do as seperate groups.
I fear that the majority of non T people will no longer be quite as eager to fight the continued fight, once their own protections are assured.
I'm sure that you, and many others here, like myself, will keep up the fight. But the vast majority of the Lesbian and Gay community simply will call it a win and lose interest.
There are a few warriors among us, but there are a whole lot of narcissistic drama-mongers too.
Sadly, if it isn't about them, it just isn't important.
"The world is a mess, and I just need... to rule it" - Dr. Horrible
by Niniane on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM PDT

· I'm going to excuse myself now (0 / 0)
I'm going to excuse myself from this diary now. It's become clear to me that the two positions in this debate are intractable and can't be resolved through civil discussion.
by pine on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM PDT

· Lots of people are talking about ENDA. (0 / 0)
This post wasn't specifically about the route taken on ENDA, but more so the aftermath.
United ENDA and some ENDA supporters are actively working against gay rights because the support isn't there for full inclusion of trans-people.
What are people's thoughts on that?
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM PDT

· My thoughts are that... (0 / 0)
United ENDA and some ENDA supporters are actively working against gay rights because the support isn't there for full inclusion of trans-people.
...this is a lie.
Birding in New England: advocacy for birds and birders.
by juliewolf on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
My thoughts are that... by juliewolf, Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM PDT (0 / 0)
· Saying it's a lie doesn't make it so. (2+ / 0-)
I have provided evidence and rationale as to why that is so.
United ENDA actively told congressmen and women to vote AGAINST ENDA because it wasn't the bill they wanted. They worked against a gay rights bill because it didn't include trans people.
They also boycotted an HRC gala of which all the proceeds were going to defeating Proposition 8. That is also working against gay rights.
So how about a little more than a one liner?
by BostonPaul on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM PDT

· Woah (3+ / 0-)
And woah again.
First of all hello everyone.
It is always good to see that when we get a group of gay/bi/lesbian/trans men and women together we can all agree in a calm and dignified manner.
Ok...to be serious.
How long have we been fighting for gay rights? Too long to count. Do we have equality now? Of course not. With the passage of this bill or any other bill will we have sudden equality? No, of course not. However each step moves us one step closer to equality and one step further away from inequality.
No this act is not perfect. Yes we can and we will do better. But should we shoot it down because it is not perfect? No. We need to take it and use it as a stone to the next level. We don't make change overnight. We make leaps and bounds. We cannot forget those who have helped us. But we cannot at the same time turn down positions when we have them offered to us, even when they might not be perfect. We take them, move up, dust ourselves off, and reach out and up again.
Homer: The lesson is: Our God is vengeful! O spiteful one, show me who to smite and they shall be smoten.
by BFSkinner on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM PDT

· In these sorts of discussions, the assumption (3+ / 0-)
seems to be that "GLB" and "T" are two mutually exclusive groups. I'd be curious to know what percentage of trans men and women also identify as gay, lesbian, or bi.
I Got The News Today: Remembering our fallen soldiers
by a girl in MI on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM PDT

Roughly the same as the general population. (1+ / 0-)
Perhaps more that identify as Bi than hetero, but I don't have data to support that--it's purely subjective.
One of the prejudices that trans people have faced is if they are GLB in their new gender. IIRC, Stanford wouldn't even treat people who weren't hetero in their new gender identity.
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM PDT

· A few themes I see at work here (1+ / 0-)
1. The different constraints and demands of politics vs. activism. The latter is always going to be pushing the edge of the former. Politics requires compromises in areas where activism doesn't (which is why, for example, I think Al Gore can do far more to counter global warming where he is than if he were VP; the latter would subject him to political constraints that don't currently encumber him).
2. The (almost completely incorrect) expectation that an abstract category of people (e.g. "people who in some ways transgress gender roles") is automatically a "community." In reality, people don't tend to form identities based on abstract categories, and therefore coalitions don't form on their own; they take a lot of hard work to create. The "universal solidarity of the oppressed" is a romantic notion that has in my opinion done a lot to impede progressive movements by promoting mental laziness.
3. In this particular battle, the questions of what kinds of tactics have or haven't worked in past civil rights struggles seem to be treated as unimportant.
I do like conducting hearings in an actual hearing room -- John Conyers
by ebohlman on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:00:06 PM PDT

A Tale Of Two Communities: The HRC SF Gala

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness….” — Charles Dickens, A Tale Of Two Cities

The Haves. The Have-Nots. Sexual Orientation. Gender Identity. Gay and Lesbian. Transgender. Distinct, disparate, disengaged and mutually distrustful. It was likely not intended to be this way, shouldn’t be this way, but such is how we find it in this period of social and economic malaise.

San Francisco, the capital of Gay America, is set to host a banquet for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who (despite the generic, non-descriptive sounding name) is the largest and most widely known and press-worthy gay and lesbian organization in the nation. While they advertise themselves as “transgender” as well, it’s not a sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority of the trans community. It’s gotten so bad that even former transgender allies of theirs have taken to joining the ranks of the disenchanted, calling them “liars” and “immoral.”

This San Francisco visit is different, though. Nowadays, many of the gay and lesbian community’s movers and shakers, and a large swath of the long-since unified and enlightened within the gay and lesbian community are also in league with the trans protesters. Indeed, HRC’s store in the Castro has been protested and the organization was nominated for a Pink Brick Award, the gay and lesbian community’s equivalent of a “Razzy Award” from the Bay Area Reporter. That’s not good news, especially coming from HRC’s primary constituency.

However, HRC is doing their best to spin it, and put on the good face. In an attempt to blunt the criticism, they’ll bring a trans man – Diego Sanchez, fresh from testifying before Congress last month – to speak to the gather. For his efforts, HRC will use him as their shield to take the brunt of the vitriolic barrage. Knowing Diego as I do, I know his intentions are true. That said, he will nevertheless be savaged by those of his own who don’t know better and used by JoeSo and company to keep themselves safe and sound as much as possible.

So tonight, it’ll be another splashy, high-profile (and high-dollar) soiree replete with haute cuisine and couture and a few star-studded special guests to speak (beyond the now begrudgingly obligatory trans speaker). They’ll dine, rub elbows and party fabulously, as is customary. Nary a thought will be given of the protesters who, this time, will be a bonafide, clamoring throng.

http://cbs5.com/video/?id=37048@kpix.dayport.com

“I have had unformed ideas of striving afresh, beginning anew, shaking off sloth and sensuality, and fighting out the abandoned fight. A dream, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it." — Charles Dickens, A Tale Of Two Cities

Meanwhile, the transgender community has lost patience and any faith in the national political leaders of the gay and lesbian personified by HRC. The protesters will then repair, along with more egalitarian local gay community leaders such as State Rep. Mark Leno, and City Council members Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty to their own private dinner away from, and absent of the glitz and glamour.

It is fitting symbolism. For many years, whether outwardly spoken or guardedly unspoken, HRC and their ilk have established a separatism and classism between the ranks of the connected and disenfranchised elements within the gay and lesbian community. There was no coordinated hue and cry to the public as by doing so against the connected gay and lesbian leadership would by extension work against themselves.

As transgenders finally came to visibility, these power brokers broadly did likewise with the whole of the trans community. About this time, more of those previously disenfranchised factions began remaking themselves during “nelly-and-butchophobia,” and worked in some cases to lift themselves out of the morass into newly becoming part of the connected. Meanwhile he “khaki crowd” had a new, more alien these in these upstart trans people.

One thing HRC did not count on the trans community’s refusal to be squelched and muzzled. We were never included in the early years, and had nothing – thus, nothing to lose! The socioeconomic disparities are extreme between the two overall communities, and the violence, systemic harassment and lack of redress are notably more severe and hard to ignore once the spotlight fixes on it.

As time went on, HRC took a notion of finding the few more fortunate individuals in the trans community and bringing them into the inner circle, hoping to placate the trans community as a whole. As an added bonus, they would take for themselves the de facto ownership of PR on trans issues in the media, and work to beef up their fundraising now with their adopted cause of “trans advocacy” – with neither trans guidance nor approval, mind you.

That venture failed miserably.

HRC, in essence, stole the voice and left behind a still impoverished and even more infrastructure-deprived trans community with even less ability to get the message, the true impact and the sense of urgency out to the world. Not only did conditions not improve, the violence and lack of opportunity (in this Bush Economic Recovery) remained and even increased. As a result, and after the most egregious of manipulations last year with the ENDA support reversal immediately on the heels of their “promise” to those at Southern Comfort, even the enlightened among the gay and lesbian community were seeing the ruse. While HRC still plies its message to the dark corners that haven’t seen the light, as more of the community – trans as well as gay and lesbian – see the light, their finding fewer sanctuaries for themselves.

For now, after tonight’s banquet HRC will continue as is and will still work to rope in more Barnum-babies from the trans community to replace their previous (now-disillusioned) trans leaders. In contrast, their actions will continue driving away more of their own gay and lesbian members who are sick (and even a bit ashamed) of their own community leaders’ hypocrisy and casual heartlessness.

As for the trans community’s rank and file? Jobs and opportunities will continue being scarce-to-non-existent. The violence and anguish and fear that go along with it will remain in place, along with the sense of near-helplessness and mounting frustration. There will be no vacations, no high-dollar dinners, no political appointees or electees, no circuit parties … and really not much fear about marriage rights as the primary concern is merely surviving. Yes, even in the 21st century, that’s a tenuous proposition still – especially for transgenders. To wit: Angie Zapata in Greeley, CO just a week ago.

We may not have allowance to be heard, but we still have the voice with which to scream. And so it goes ….

................... In Memory of Angie Zapata

Donning The Rose-Colored Glasses

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." — Chinese Proverb
The rumors have been flying for some time, and even recently Donna Rose noted on her blog about meeting with Joe Solmonese with HRC. One might think she’s going there to give them a piece of her mind (or another piece as she’s already made public her opinions post-ENDA).

As it turns out, that’s not the case. A friend of mine there locally reported of the upcoming San Francisco HRC Banquet and its accompanying protest from the bay area’s GLBT community in a show of strength. Of course, we recently received a press release of HRC holding up their current Business Council trans person, Diego Sanchez as speaker (fresh from testimony on Capitol Hill.) It wasn’t the press blurb over Diego that really got my attention, but the report that another trans person was working hard to be the trans keynote there: Donna Rose. Per the note, she was trying to be “the bridge between the two parties” by addressing the banquet.

Needless to say, this is not what I expected from Donna after her departure last fall.

Noting the recent comments on her own blog about speaking with HRC’s JoeSo, I began wondering what this was about. Ethan St. Pierre apparently had similar concerns and asked her outright: to which she confirmed she was to meet with him. It doesn’t make sense to travel to DC to give JoeSo another piece of her mind in these days of high-dollar travel, so something else is afoot. Didn’t sound good.

So the news I received today, coupled with the blog where Donna indeed noted being in DC, and even attending an HRC hosted event, piqued the curiosity. According to my well-placed source (I can’t divulge, unfortunately), Donna is intending to meet with JoeSo to try to seek forging a new working relationship with them (what that is wasn’t elaborated). This development is troubling.

First off, it’s inconsistent. After all of the high profile quotes from Ms. Rose after her and James Green’s co-departures from HRC, and then rhetoric level, I’m at a loss on what she hopes to gain. Just recently Donna even published a blog post on July 20, 2008 quoting James Green’s own sentiments on HRC:

“As for HRC and Diego [Sanchez], I’m afraid that inside the Westin St. Francis Hotel it’s going to be a lot of everyone patting themselves on the back for all the fabulous things HRC has done to move forward in the “Race for Equality” - and they have done some good things, as well as bad. In the long run, it’s just a fundraiser, it’s all about money. I was appalled at their recent press release claiming that ENDA was introduced 13 years ago to achieve LGBT equality in the workplace. 13 years ago, ENDA was not any more trans-inclusive than it is today. They’re trying to reposition themselves as champions for us when they can’t even look us in the eye. I wish Diego luck, and I woudn’t want to be in his shoes. They’ll probably give him lots of love and support and hold him up as the model of a well-behaved transguy (not like those ingrates and rabblerousers outside who don’t have $300 and a tuxedo to attend the dinner and who obviously don’t understand politics!! - that was meant to be sarcastic, by the way.) I think HRC is also a tool, not the goal, not the saviour, not the answer. We don’t have a grip on this tool, so we can’t rely on it. I still believe HRC needs to own its mistake on ENDA and apologize publicly to the entire community, not just to a few of us behind closed doors. But I also think that we must not let HRC consume our energy or resources as we move forward to address our issues. They don’t own the world, not even the LGBT world; and we must play in a bigger arena than just the LGBT world.”

Strong sentiments from James, and (at least to me) pretty unequivocal – though maybe I’m not spotting any nuanced politic-speak. Since Green and Rose departed, the two began a well-publicized venture between them to do workplace education as a business (instead of non-profit) to help subsidize their income a bit. So if they’re in business, actually even competing against HRC’s business council (which they used to sit on) for some of the educational needs in the workplace, what would they want to be visiting with JoeSo for?

Secondly, there’s nothing to be gained from HRC. One thing I’ve noted with particular consistency over the years is that HRC is – in a word – vindictive. Once slighted, they will grind that axe down to the axhandle, and then some. It was something I thought Donna and James would’ve known. If not, I’m surprised. At best, HRC may allow them in under the guise of “letting bygones be bygones” and all that. But make no mistake, there will be no quarter given on their side after this – most especially if Donna is going to them! They will be getting all of the benefits they once got out of them and then some – meanwhile they will do so at a bargain rate. If she’s actually intending to beseech JoeSo for favor of some type, she’s about to get schooled by very seasoned and cunning pros – whether sublimely or whether in open bitch-slap fashion.

Lastly, this whole display just adds to the already existent image of the trans community: we are completely irresolute. If the going gets tough for us, HRC is fully aware we won’t all hang together. Someone will collapse like a cheap tent (always under the guise that they individually are the chosen trans-ones, and the only ones who can “reach” HRC and convince them to accept transgenders as equal.) To be sure, HRC will smile and give them the impression they truly buy that crap, bedazzling them afterwards with their newfound press visibility talking up their “heroic” work. Then once the signal is given, HRC will pull the rug out, declare that they don’t give a crap about any “bridges” to the trans community, can’t risk inclusive legislation, and will leave these latest “heroes” on the ground broken, betrayed and blue. It’s business, baby.

Most of us learn these things the first time. What gets me is how some actually go back for a second round to see it happens again. Why? Maybe they miss the old spotlight, have attention withdrawals, or feel if they had just “one more chance,” they could set the history they knew in their minds were destined just for them. Unfortunately HRC has other plans, and paramount is achieving their bottom line (and keeping us around for some indefinite future time is what they believe will help keep them in fundraising in keeping their jobs in the decades to come as they then need to work on trans rights for we hapless ones -- or so they believe).

So Donna will go to DC to visit with JoeSo in his home stadium in hopes of a win. Instead, JoeSo is going to summarily hand her back her ass and figuratively ride her out of town. Maybe this lesson will stick.

What bothers me most is how naïve and ineffectual that paints the rest of us as in the Trans community. We really need to know better.

"You, you really should have known
Oh you, I think you really should've known ...." — Just Because, Jane's Addiction

South Carolina Is So Gay?: Picking At Scabs Just To See Blood Flow

For a while I’ve been privately fretting over the political implications of the same-sex marriage victory in California and whether we could see a replay of 2004 in the election process. One item that escaped most of the media that year was something we discovered here in Houston while I was still on the board of the Montrose Counseling Center which primarily served Houston’s gayborhood.

During that election 2004 cycle (and immediately after the initial court victory in Massachusetts giving gay and lesbian residents the right to marry) there was a study to gauge hate violence in a selection of cities around the country which also included Houston. As typical, after the high profile news regarding the queer community (especially anything in a positive manner) drew an unsurprising backlash from the queer-haters. There was a noted uptick in reports of anti-queer violence.

For the most part, I’m hopeful there are other more pressing issues on voters’ and the general public’s plates besides “gay rights” issues (a call to arms for the religiopolitical set in typical years).

However, a couple of headlines have grabbed my eye recently. The first dealt with Sasha Baron Cohen, he of Borat, his erstwhile Kazakhstanian alter-ego doing his reality TV version of documentary-as-movie comedy. The latest effort from Mr. Cohen deals with his Ashton Kutcher-styled “punking” of redneck America as “Bruno”: as best I can tell, a gay male wrestler out to take on, fit in with and simultaneously lampoon the LCD Bubbas in the hinterlands between the two liberal, socially-enlightened coasts.

This movie will likely make a lot of its viewers laugh. This movie will likely try to humanize disparate stereotypes on the opposite poles of American society, and may even get a few redneck types to admit to not really having much problem with us “queers.” The downside is that some of those who’ve been played simply for the movie-going audience’s entertainment aren’t going to take this slight with a grain of salt.

As described in the new release on the “cage wrestling match” in Fort Smith, Arkansas against another actor named Straight Dave [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/arkansas-cage-fight-turns_n_111425.html], their scripted “spontaneous” man-love fling in the wrestling ring drew nothing positive (other than good movie fodder). All it tended to do was piss off the attendees who threw beer and just about anything else they could grab, and issued verbal threats to the actors who slipped out a tunnel after the impromptu reality-movie scene.

For Cohen and the film’s producers it was great theater with lots of raw emotion. They go back to the safety of their homes after, their production becomes a critical success with a bit of a box-office take to boot and all is good in their lives.

So how about the folks – especially the GLBT residents – who live and remain in Fort Smith?

Coincidentally, I happened to have in old South Fort Smith in 1966-67, less than a mile from the airport and about a quarter-mile from the coffin factory and other manufacturing interests in our little corner of the world. Things may have changed in the past 40 years, but I do recall that it was certainly not an enlightened nor a forgiving environment back then.

There will likely be at least a few pissed off Arkies who aren’t at all happy about being punked by Messrs. Cohen & Co. I worry about the people, especially GLBT citizens, who end up in harm’s way by these folks who feel need to vindicate their pride, manhood or lack of understanding and frustration thereof.

Just this afternoon I noticed another headline reporting of the controversy over South Carolina’s tourism marketing efforts during London’s Gay Pride week [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25677373/from/ET/]. In one of the major publications in London’s GLBT community, the Palmetto State took out an ad with the slogan:
“South Carolina is so gay.”

Even though it’s still the epithet du jour of the straight, adolescent set, it was an attempt to seize the phrase and neuter it with gay-positive intent and cutting-edge marketing. Whether or not it was taken that way in America’s GLB community remains to be seen.

However, the straight faction of South Carolina’s State Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism had other thoughts … basically “what the hell are we doing being advertised as a vacation spot for gays and lesbians?!?” The decision was blamed on a lower level employee who authorized the $5000 expenditure to advertise South Carolina to the gay and lesbian event in London. The scapegoat employee, no doubt, saw this as an easy return on the money as gay and lesbian tourism is a lucrative $64 billion a year business catering primarily to double-income, no-kids couples who love to spend money and don’t tear the place up in anywhere near a rowdy fashion as would, say, spring breakers.

Well, apparently the employee in the tourism department was a victim of hopeful naïveté.

“South Carolinians will be irate when they learn their hard earned tax dollars are being spent to advertise our state as ‘so gay,’” according to GOP State Sen. David Thomas of Greenville, home to the controversially conservative Bob Jones University.

“From where we sit, and for all our many customers, being described as ‘so gay’ is not a negative thing at all. We think it is just great to be so gay,” said Andrew Roberts, chief executive of Amro Worldwide, the travel agency that commissioned the ads. And where Amro sits is in the middle of jolly old England – not the middle of arch-conservative America. It doesn’t take much of a stretch to venture they probably don’t know the breathtaking levels of bigotry and intolerance in George Bush’s America.

State tourism officials insisted that they had known nothing about the campaign. But when the promotion was first announced last month, the tourism board said in a statement that “it sends a powerful positive message.”

“For our gay visitors, it is actually quite wonderful for them to discover just how much South Carolina has to offer — from stunning plantation homes to miles of wide sandy beaches,” the statement said. Indeed the Amro website displays many of the states tourism gems: Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head ….

While I can see how Amro wouldn’t know the environs, the tourism folks in SC should’ve known their own state – and its sentiments. It’s almost like advertising to clueless folk in a Klan publication to “discover the wonder and history of New York City’s Harlem.” While folks may well visit without incident, alerting the subject destinations of their future controversial visitors can’t be a good idea.

Said Ventphis Stafford of Charleston: “We’re so gay? Nah. Wrong state. Go to California.”

“I wish the folks at the tourism board had done a little more of their homework,” said Warren Redman-Gress executive director of the South Carolina Alliance for Full Acceptance, a gay/lesbian advocacy group. “I get calls regularly, people want to know before I come and spend my hard-earned money, my souvenir dollars in South Carolina, is it a place where it is OK for me to be gay?

“The answer is yes and no,” he said. “You live on the edge with the simple fact that you can come to South Carolina, spend your money getting here, and someone can come in and say, ‘I’m sorry; you can’t stay here because you’re gay.’”

It’s a sentiment I can understand. Being raised in South Texas and living in the comparatively progressive environs of Houston, I fully appreciate realistic hopefulness. Between the Northeastern states, the southern reaches of Florida and the Pacific Coast is what we refer to as the howling hinterlands. Unlike our more openly progressive corners of the country, it’s still not okay to be openly gay, trans, queer or whatever. It still carries its repercussions.

Many years ago, about a year or so after making my first pilgrimage to Provincetown, MA, I vividly recall a crude cartoon one of the truck drivers at work showed me. It depicted a caricaturish trans or gay drag queen replete with purse and a tied at the midriff blouse and skirt and muscular legs with hair talking to a flint-eyed cowboy sitting in a wooden chair with a boot up on a barrel and leaned back against a wall. The dialogue was as follows:

Flaming Queen: “Where do all the gay people hang around at here?”
Sneering Cowboy: “Offa trees ….” (as he dangles his lasso next to him)

The guy who passed around the cartoon was a friend of mine, and actually was a decent happy-go-lucky fellow. He was the type that, if I’d have informed him of my being trans, he wouldn’t have let it affect his view of me much. But it points out the blithe ease and even humor of such attitudes that, by extension, end up being expressed in physical hatred. Such was Corpus Christi in the mid 80’s, where our main export at the time was top-10 ranked professional welterweight boxers. This was not a place to even attempt to transition – not if you wanted to survive.

This certainly influenced my worldview in numerous ways, especially on my own approach to the greater Queer community. Our view of life in the howling hinterlands tends to be geared more towards self-preservation and pragmatism than the heady, in-your-face idealism in DC or Boston or San Francisco or New York.

While the Sasha Baron Cohens and the Amro Worldwides or our national leaders in pushing the envelope on gay rights in the progressive enclaves can be bold and provocative, they also get to go home to the relative safety of their retreats. Meanwhile the GLBT folks in those hardcore conservative bastions remain in a festering, bubbling stew of mean spirit – a stew that will dish out its vindication if the opportunity presents.

There’s a perennial disconnect between the perceptions of our bold leaders in the progressive society and those hopeful survivors out here in a more vulnerable, less-tolerant world. Hopefully someday they’ll make the connection and recognize the risks they indirectly convey upon those of us they’ve never seen nor heard.

Until then, it’s time to gird ourselves out here in the hinterlands.