July 15, 2007
It was striking seeing a blurb by a spokesperson in the Iowa Republican Party responding to the prospect of former-President Bill Clinton lobbying for his wife Hillary’s presidential campaign: “After Bill Clinton tarnished the name of the president of the United States, the Republican Party restored hope, respect and morality within the Oval Office by bringing positive ideas and conservative values back to the White House.”
Reading this caused me to respond with one of those GEICO© caveman moments: “Yeah, I’d like to respond to that. Uh … WHAT?!?”
As if that reality-disconnected soundbite weren’t enough of a head spinner in the era of the three-man destruction crew of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, we get more reinforcement of Republican morals a couple weeks ago. Credence, increasingly a rare commodity among the R-suffixed folk, was suspended fully when our President the Decider decided to commute the sentence of Irving Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, former chief of staff of Dick Cheney.
Basically, there will be no sentence, no punishment, no fallout from the outing of a CIA agent. An outing during war, no less! And who was CIA agent, Valerie Plame’s body of work specializing in? Iran. Bush/Cheney’s wet dream of a new conquest: Iran. But hey, America went into Iraq fairly blindly, and look how well that turned out, eh?
After news of the commutation of Libby’s sentence, Bill and Hillary Clinton did themselves no favors by criticizing the decision. Pres. Clinton pardoned some 140 odd folks at the final hour of his presidency, something no Republican would ever forget. Just pointing that out only appeared as cynical hypocrisy on the Dems side. But, not to be outdone, the hypocrisy was quickly one-upped by the GOPpers in criticizing the Clintons’ criticism. Why I can hear the Straw-man singing now … “If I Only Had a Brain”.
The message of all this? Outing CIA agents apparently isn’t treason any more. Hey, why not just write treason out of the constitution entirely with one of the President’s signing statements? In fact, who needs that? Just have the Vice President in his unitary executive powers call it unconstitutional and have it excised. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales will sign off on it, loyal man that he is. Treason is AOK … until a Democrat, or any other non-conservative commits the act.
The last scene in this episode shows the President the past week finally admitting that someone in his Administration may have outed Valerie Plame, but that this whole affair has “run its course” and he doesn’t expect any further investigation or charges. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out a full pardon for Libby. All that money spent, all that time investigating, and absolutely nothing was accomplished.
Yep, you’ve gotta love the justice system in the U.S. of A.
Meanwhile in West Palm Beach, Florida, a trial was taking place to prosecute a 17-year old who severely beat a transwoman he’d picked up outside of a bar. Later that evening, he discovered she still had male anatomy, he “beat the transsexual until his hand was sore,” according to an officer who took the statement. After the assailant went back to his car, he returned and, according to a witness who was seated atop a lifeguard stand, “forced her to kneel in the sand while he punched her and slammed her head into [the] lifeguard stand. The impact of the head-slam shook the lifeguard stand.
Once the case came to the judge’s decision, Judge Peter Blanc said Monday that he does not believe the boy was guilty of a first-degree felony hate crime. The judge opined in court "Your anger, from your perspective and from many other people's perspective, may be justifiable anger."
"In many ways it appears from the testimony that was presented here that there are two victims in the case," the judge added. Unique concept: if you’re trans in America, and someone attacks you, the attackers are the victims. But this is typical of justice in America. We've seen it play out more times than we care to recount when the victim was transgender. If you commit treason, you’re much better off than being a trans person who is attacked for victimizing someone by ... being out in public!
To the attackers’ credit, he said the victim threatened his life. The witness testified that the trans victim did not fight back, but as he described during the initial investigation, he had a “couple of sissy scratches” to show for his “attack.” Certainly sissy scratches are serious -- considered life threatening in Florida’s justice system.
The judge added that teen did not seem to beat the victim “because of sexual orientation,” Blanc said, but because of his anger and desire for retribution. Retribution for what?!? Realizing he was making out with someone who was anatomically male??? Certainly nothing about sexual orientation, and the hate derived from that, eh?
At the least, I suppose the trans community can take solace in that their arguments made and dismissed over the years by gay and lesbian leadership, and legislators as well, have specifically been proven as inadequate. So much for gender or sexual orientation covering transgenders.
Small consolation that is.
But such is justice in America. If you want to avoid punishment most severe, don’t be transsexual. Even if you’re attacked or victimized, you’re culpable for making your attacker the victim. If you do want to avoid punishment, even treason, simply be a connected Republican, like Libby.
Knowing what kind of Democracy and system of justice our President is exporting to the rest of the world really gives you a warm spot in your heart, doesn’t it? Kinda like … heartburn.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Love Thy Neighbor?
July 14, 2007
As the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Funding Authorization is being debated in the Senate, it’s funny hearing some of the arguments coming from those opposed to allowing the additional protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of the callers advocating for killing the Hate Crimes amendment have taken liberty of saying it infringes on free speech.
Nothing in the Hate Crimes bill (S. 1105), nor the amendment to the defense-spending bill with the exact same wording, makes any notation of hate speech. Nothing.
Yet still, the callers and advocates – specifically from the conservative religious groups – continue to equate this with being locked up for speaking their minds! Literal calls to senate offices have beseeched senators to not let the bill pass, and “don’t let them lock up my preacher.”
Hearing these arguments, the terms “specious” and “exaggerated” come to mind, but those descriptions fall way short of accuracy. Even hyper-exaggerated is inadequate. Their arguments are nothing short of absolute fabrication, pathologically so.
There’s always the perennial argument as well: protecting people who made choices to be gay, to be transgendered. At least that argument had validity, to an extent. We could choose to repress who we are. But then, why?
Religion itself is a choice. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan railed about the “evil empire” – then known more commonly as the Soviet Union, or U.S.S.R. – religious citizens of all stripes were choosing to repress who they were. The government back then would come down on Soviet citizens who chose to express their faith openly. There were consequences for their choice. And we correctly considered that a travesty of human rights.
Indeed, people can choose to be religious or not, or even choose to change their religious faith. Why would any of the religious faithful speak with anyone outside of their own sect about their faith if it weren’t, at some level, to hope to draw others to their own religion? That’s choice, and America officially embraces that to the point of protecting those from being attacked for their choice. With the multitudes of various denominations, people should have the right to choose and not be condemned for it.
So why are so many opposed to what they see as choice of a different kind. (Yes, I’m aware of the studies on gender identity and sexuality that have pointed to biological underpinnings – that’s an article for another time. For the sake of argument let’s just agree to “choice” now and continue.)
To say that religion, or “the churches” are opposing hate crime expansion is inaccurately broad. Many progressive and humanitarian denominations support it. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard one religious denomination officially come out and categorically oppose expansion of hate crimes for sexual orientation and gender identity. They will officially state they don’t approve of the lifestyle choices. But opposing laws deterring hate violence against these expanded communities, as a denomination is a step beyond the pale. It states that that religion tacitly approves of hate-borne violence against gays, transgenders, etc. because of their choice.
Ultimately, this opposition for hate crime protection on GLBT people it has less to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ-like spirituality. It has everything to do with individuals leading congregations, or those using religious affiliation out of convenience and taking liberty to speak representatively in their behalf.
As we’ve seen, it’s a wonderful shield against reproach for these opportunists. Nobody cares to be seen as taking on a religion, which can easily be flipped into an assault on God. This built-in irreproachability gives them automatic advantage, something they never lose sight of.
It also allows these opportunists the ability to weigh in on and indirectly influence others’ choices by encouraging or protecting punitive reaction against them. Their ultimate hope is to effectively end choices made which these self-appointed arbiters deem wrong. Once they successfully deny protections against gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, what do they do for an encore?
One glaring omission from the current hate crimes bill is the homeless. Will these same folks speak out, railing against protecting these people who they feel made the wrong decisions in life? Will they feel the homeless have chose to be too slothful or incorrigible to be protected, and that free speech – or wielding bats as seen on TV in Florida – should be what is protected?
And how about religion, the other choice mentioned earlier? We live in what we advertise as a pluralistic society, and that all are free to worship howsoever. But does everyone agree with such open tolerance toward those who choose religions that may contradict our own scripture?
Just last week during Senate prayer, a Hindu priest provided the opening invocation. Shortly after beginning his prayer, jeering yells like “abomination,” “there is only one true God,” and “we are Christians and Patriots” came down from above. No – not from heaven but from the gallery of visitors over the Senate Floor. Christians upset with a Hindu prayer, upset with a man who made different religious choices then they.
If precedence is given to those who would implicitly oppose any stoppage of hate violence to those who made “choices” they didn’t agree with, then where does this leave others whose choices they don’t agree with. Even though religion is a category currently covered by hate crimes law, what about those whose religion is deemed by the prevalent faith to be what they consider “making the wrong choice?” How long before they begin turning a blind eye toward violence against them?
As the Hate Crimes amendment to the Defense Funding Authorization is being debated in the Senate, it’s funny hearing some of the arguments coming from those opposed to allowing the additional protections to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many of the callers advocating for killing the Hate Crimes amendment have taken liberty of saying it infringes on free speech.
Nothing in the Hate Crimes bill (S. 1105), nor the amendment to the defense-spending bill with the exact same wording, makes any notation of hate speech. Nothing.
Yet still, the callers and advocates – specifically from the conservative religious groups – continue to equate this with being locked up for speaking their minds! Literal calls to senate offices have beseeched senators to not let the bill pass, and “don’t let them lock up my preacher.”
Hearing these arguments, the terms “specious” and “exaggerated” come to mind, but those descriptions fall way short of accuracy. Even hyper-exaggerated is inadequate. Their arguments are nothing short of absolute fabrication, pathologically so.
There’s always the perennial argument as well: protecting people who made choices to be gay, to be transgendered. At least that argument had validity, to an extent. We could choose to repress who we are. But then, why?
Religion itself is a choice. Back in the day, when Ronald Reagan railed about the “evil empire” – then known more commonly as the Soviet Union, or U.S.S.R. – religious citizens of all stripes were choosing to repress who they were. The government back then would come down on Soviet citizens who chose to express their faith openly. There were consequences for their choice. And we correctly considered that a travesty of human rights.
Indeed, people can choose to be religious or not, or even choose to change their religious faith. Why would any of the religious faithful speak with anyone outside of their own sect about their faith if it weren’t, at some level, to hope to draw others to their own religion? That’s choice, and America officially embraces that to the point of protecting those from being attacked for their choice. With the multitudes of various denominations, people should have the right to choose and not be condemned for it.
So why are so many opposed to what they see as choice of a different kind. (Yes, I’m aware of the studies on gender identity and sexuality that have pointed to biological underpinnings – that’s an article for another time. For the sake of argument let’s just agree to “choice” now and continue.)
To say that religion, or “the churches” are opposing hate crime expansion is inaccurately broad. Many progressive and humanitarian denominations support it. To my knowledge, we haven’t heard one religious denomination officially come out and categorically oppose expansion of hate crimes for sexual orientation and gender identity. They will officially state they don’t approve of the lifestyle choices. But opposing laws deterring hate violence against these expanded communities, as a denomination is a step beyond the pale. It states that that religion tacitly approves of hate-borne violence against gays, transgenders, etc. because of their choice.
Ultimately, this opposition for hate crime protection on GLBT people it has less to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ-like spirituality. It has everything to do with individuals leading congregations, or those using religious affiliation out of convenience and taking liberty to speak representatively in their behalf.
As we’ve seen, it’s a wonderful shield against reproach for these opportunists. Nobody cares to be seen as taking on a religion, which can easily be flipped into an assault on God. This built-in irreproachability gives them automatic advantage, something they never lose sight of.
It also allows these opportunists the ability to weigh in on and indirectly influence others’ choices by encouraging or protecting punitive reaction against them. Their ultimate hope is to effectively end choices made which these self-appointed arbiters deem wrong. Once they successfully deny protections against gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans, what do they do for an encore?
One glaring omission from the current hate crimes bill is the homeless. Will these same folks speak out, railing against protecting these people who they feel made the wrong decisions in life? Will they feel the homeless have chose to be too slothful or incorrigible to be protected, and that free speech – or wielding bats as seen on TV in Florida – should be what is protected?
And how about religion, the other choice mentioned earlier? We live in what we advertise as a pluralistic society, and that all are free to worship howsoever. But does everyone agree with such open tolerance toward those who choose religions that may contradict our own scripture?
Just last week during Senate prayer, a Hindu priest provided the opening invocation. Shortly after beginning his prayer, jeering yells like “abomination,” “there is only one true God,” and “we are Christians and Patriots” came down from above. No – not from heaven but from the gallery of visitors over the Senate Floor. Christians upset with a Hindu prayer, upset with a man who made different religious choices then they.
If precedence is given to those who would implicitly oppose any stoppage of hate violence to those who made “choices” they didn’t agree with, then where does this leave others whose choices they don’t agree with. Even though religion is a category currently covered by hate crimes law, what about those whose religion is deemed by the prevalent faith to be what they consider “making the wrong choice?” How long before they begin turning a blind eye toward violence against them?
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
July 1, 2007
Pride Party this year was fun, and probably left most of us a little fuzzy-minded. Like all parties where we partake a bit too much, there’s always the obligatory hangover.
This year I made good on a promise and attended a friend’s Pride party at THE Pride Parade in New York City. Yes, my hometown Houston’s Pride Parade is unique in that it’s at night, with lit up floats – the only night Pride Parade in the northern hemisphere. Even with that, nothing tops the sheer size of the Pride Parade in New York. It’s befitting. After all, this is the catalyst point and the anniversary date that the GLBT community points to as beginning this “movement.”
Just last week I was in New York enjoying the Pride Parade with some trans friends I’ll call Ann and Melissa. Neither of them is out at work due to concerns for their careers, and I don’t blame them. But once a year they throw a blast and open their apartment to the community. The building they reside in is right on the parade route and has numerous Pride parties on Pride day. Their party is the hit of Trans NYC, and they extend invitations to their friends from all walks of society: straight, gay, lesbian and trans in fairly equal numbers.
One of the neat aspects of this one-day blast is that neighboring parties tend to migrate to each other’s parties on the other floors of the building. At one point, a group of the trans girls and I (admittedly in pursuit of a hunky NYPD officer making the scene) decided to go crash the party two floors below.
Arriving downstairs, it was a lively and typically (for New York) crowded affair. We were very welcomed to the party, no problems there. One thing struck me shortly after arriving. This was a very homogenous affair. Before we arrived, it was a 100% gay male event – most all seemingly coupled. It was in sharp contrast to the party I’d just left.
After a bit, I wandered back upstairs to Ann’s party and watched the entry for Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) walk by. The ESPA marchers all held up signs that had “Marriage Equality” on one side, and “GENDA Now” on the other. For those of you not familiar, New York passed a non-discrimination bill in 2002 called SONDA – Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act. GENDA is the Gender Expression counterpart to that as, obviously, coverage for transgenders was left off.
The reason I knew of this and became involved was that the push for this began at a time of internecine struggle within the state’s transgender organization (NYAGRA), and followed immediately on the heels of Sylvia Rivera’s funeral. The timing was exquisite for ESPA, but callously calculating from a trans perspective.
Back to the parade, the ESPA group marched with their signs held high … and to a person, all but one of them held it with the Marriage Equality side out to the crowd. Only one bothered to hold the GENDA side out.
Flashback to 2003, at the signing of SONDA, ESPA and their executive director, Matt Foreman, promised that GENDA would now become the group’s top priority. Well, other things got in the way … things change … people forget. It didn’t happen. Malicious intent probably wasn’t the culprit. More likely, we just didn’t cross their mind.
Back to the parade, ESPA only got a lukewarm reception that paled in comparison to who followed them: AVER – the American Veterans for Equal Rights. It also didn’t help much that many of them chose to wear those infernal equal signs on their chest or sleeve.
A while later, HRC’s entry rolled up. Cheering ceased, and not just at our party. The entire building went mute. No boos or raspberries, just silence. It was mildly amusing to watch some of their marchers peer up at the building in bewilderment. Then again, I also felt a bit sad for them. It’s likely their marchers were volunteers who couldn’t understand why the cool reception or the history behind it. All they knew was what was marketed to them, and the possibility they saw in that vision.
From the trans community and beyond, we’re all just likely folks who never really crossed their mind.
And truly, why would we? They’ve got their own laundry list of wishes on their agenda. Their organization staffs are very homogenous because, hey, those are the people they know. It’s kind of like the party two floors down from Ann and Melissa: they invite the people they know, and those are the people they know.
Regarding GLBT organizations, transgenders and other disparate segments of the greater queer community don’t readily come to mind for hiring, leadership or other considerations. Why would we pop to mind when it comes to political agendas – especially if they don’t have to dig their asses out of the fire for some exclusionist faux pas? It’s a case of out of sight, out of mind.
So why do we refer to these organizations as GLBT anyway? True, we worked hard over the years in the 90’s to be recognized as a part of the community, but that didn’t mean our entire fight boiled down to being nothing more than a T at the end of an acronym. It’s like saying our entire goal was to be the butt on a pig, with all the significance. Dandy! So why don’t they just advertise just GL or GLB? Sure, it’s not PC. But what the hell good is being PC if all it requires is just saying “I’m GLBT” and never giving it another thought (at least not until those screaming trannies throw their asses in the fire when they’re forgotten again)?
If these organizations were all trans staffed, trans funded and led, chances are that we would be accused of unequally focusing only on our own issues and not having theirs come naturally to mind. It’s possible we could be just as guilty of the same behavior … of course with no chance for that, we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, back at Ann and Melissa’s party, I reveled in what was the vision of true equality at their party. Not just trans, and really not even overwhelmingly trans … just a bunch of G and L and B and T and straight folks enjoying a great Pride Party. At least in some corners of the world, we can all be kept in mind.
Pride Party this year was fun, and probably left most of us a little fuzzy-minded. Like all parties where we partake a bit too much, there’s always the obligatory hangover.
This year I made good on a promise and attended a friend’s Pride party at THE Pride Parade in New York City. Yes, my hometown Houston’s Pride Parade is unique in that it’s at night, with lit up floats – the only night Pride Parade in the northern hemisphere. Even with that, nothing tops the sheer size of the Pride Parade in New York. It’s befitting. After all, this is the catalyst point and the anniversary date that the GLBT community points to as beginning this “movement.”
Just last week I was in New York enjoying the Pride Parade with some trans friends I’ll call Ann and Melissa. Neither of them is out at work due to concerns for their careers, and I don’t blame them. But once a year they throw a blast and open their apartment to the community. The building they reside in is right on the parade route and has numerous Pride parties on Pride day. Their party is the hit of Trans NYC, and they extend invitations to their friends from all walks of society: straight, gay, lesbian and trans in fairly equal numbers.
One of the neat aspects of this one-day blast is that neighboring parties tend to migrate to each other’s parties on the other floors of the building. At one point, a group of the trans girls and I (admittedly in pursuit of a hunky NYPD officer making the scene) decided to go crash the party two floors below.
Arriving downstairs, it was a lively and typically (for New York) crowded affair. We were very welcomed to the party, no problems there. One thing struck me shortly after arriving. This was a very homogenous affair. Before we arrived, it was a 100% gay male event – most all seemingly coupled. It was in sharp contrast to the party I’d just left.
After a bit, I wandered back upstairs to Ann’s party and watched the entry for Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) walk by. The ESPA marchers all held up signs that had “Marriage Equality” on one side, and “GENDA Now” on the other. For those of you not familiar, New York passed a non-discrimination bill in 2002 called SONDA – Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act. GENDA is the Gender Expression counterpart to that as, obviously, coverage for transgenders was left off.
The reason I knew of this and became involved was that the push for this began at a time of internecine struggle within the state’s transgender organization (NYAGRA), and followed immediately on the heels of Sylvia Rivera’s funeral. The timing was exquisite for ESPA, but callously calculating from a trans perspective.
Back to the parade, the ESPA group marched with their signs held high … and to a person, all but one of them held it with the Marriage Equality side out to the crowd. Only one bothered to hold the GENDA side out.
Flashback to 2003, at the signing of SONDA, ESPA and their executive director, Matt Foreman, promised that GENDA would now become the group’s top priority. Well, other things got in the way … things change … people forget. It didn’t happen. Malicious intent probably wasn’t the culprit. More likely, we just didn’t cross their mind.
Back to the parade, ESPA only got a lukewarm reception that paled in comparison to who followed them: AVER – the American Veterans for Equal Rights. It also didn’t help much that many of them chose to wear those infernal equal signs on their chest or sleeve.
A while later, HRC’s entry rolled up. Cheering ceased, and not just at our party. The entire building went mute. No boos or raspberries, just silence. It was mildly amusing to watch some of their marchers peer up at the building in bewilderment. Then again, I also felt a bit sad for them. It’s likely their marchers were volunteers who couldn’t understand why the cool reception or the history behind it. All they knew was what was marketed to them, and the possibility they saw in that vision.
From the trans community and beyond, we’re all just likely folks who never really crossed their mind.
And truly, why would we? They’ve got their own laundry list of wishes on their agenda. Their organization staffs are very homogenous because, hey, those are the people they know. It’s kind of like the party two floors down from Ann and Melissa: they invite the people they know, and those are the people they know.
Regarding GLBT organizations, transgenders and other disparate segments of the greater queer community don’t readily come to mind for hiring, leadership or other considerations. Why would we pop to mind when it comes to political agendas – especially if they don’t have to dig their asses out of the fire for some exclusionist faux pas? It’s a case of out of sight, out of mind.
So why do we refer to these organizations as GLBT anyway? True, we worked hard over the years in the 90’s to be recognized as a part of the community, but that didn’t mean our entire fight boiled down to being nothing more than a T at the end of an acronym. It’s like saying our entire goal was to be the butt on a pig, with all the significance. Dandy! So why don’t they just advertise just GL or GLB? Sure, it’s not PC. But what the hell good is being PC if all it requires is just saying “I’m GLBT” and never giving it another thought (at least not until those screaming trannies throw their asses in the fire when they’re forgotten again)?
If these organizations were all trans staffed, trans funded and led, chances are that we would be accused of unequally focusing only on our own issues and not having theirs come naturally to mind. It’s possible we could be just as guilty of the same behavior … of course with no chance for that, we’ll never know.
Meanwhile, back at Ann and Melissa’s party, I reveled in what was the vision of true equality at their party. Not just trans, and really not even overwhelmingly trans … just a bunch of G and L and B and T and straight folks enjoying a great Pride Party. At least in some corners of the world, we can all be kept in mind.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
So Who Feels Pride?
June 10, 2007
It’s June. Pride Month is in full swing with parades across the country and indeed the globe, and festivals and parties of all stripe heralding the one time of year when it’s hip to be gay. It’s a celebration of self, a celebration of the gains made, and a remembrance of where the catalyst symbolically began, Stonewall. New York City.
For the trans community, news came in of Jenny Bailey, the first out trans person elected mayor in Cambridge, UK. This is truly good news, and certainly a boost for trans morale in Great Britain, and an inspiration to the rest of the world.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the transgender community’s lot in the US as well. But compared to more progressive nations to our north or across the pond, we’re moving at a more glacial pace. It’s safe to say that the United States is arguably the most prudish nation in the civilized world.
America’s answer to Jenny Bailey? Susan Stanton, City Manager of Largo, Florida being forced out the minute “Steve” was outed to the city council as imminently preparing to transition to Susan. After seventeen years on the job, Largo’s authority figures decided Stanton was no longer qualified to be their city manager. Simply because of transition. Oddly enough, Largo has a non-discrimination ordinance. American progress vs. British progress: no contest. Later, when Susan went up the road to Sarasota, Florida to apply for a city manager vacancy, the attitude was “it’s just not the right time” to hire a trans city official. “No trannies in authority,” appears to be the common message.
There was a recent editorial highlighting the reluctance on behalf of the major candidates to stand firm on an all-inclusive ENDA. Chris Crain, former publisher of Window Media started off, noting John Edwards’ unequivocal support for trans, but also noting how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton cunningly sidestepped any mention of trans in ENDA. He did note Obama’s previous support of trans inclusion in the 2004 campaign.
As for Sen. Clinton, it was less positive – dredging up her history on trans. Sen. Clinton is most noted in the trans community for her response to transgender inclusion in legislation – being “unaware” of any issue as “no one in the gay and lesbian community” had approached her on it. She noted in an interview in 2000 how ENDA would broaden rights, freedoms and responsibilities in her focus to try to get the bill passed. She also expressed how adding gender identity would not be “in the best interest of moving the agenda forward.”
Peter Rosenstein, in an editorial for Window Media, even went so far as to vilify organizations that were not willing to ditch trans-inclusive language from any sexual orientation inclusive bills. He called standing firm on trans-inclusion “suicidal.”
So the message is: broadening rights and responsibilities is great, but not really a good idea for trans people. And while straight America may be where we’ve received most all of the breathtaking gains trans people have achieved to date, not just Hillary, but many in straight America still take their cue from the gay and lesbian community on transgender issues.
And when you look at gay and lesbian America, well … you won’t see any prominent trans people in their fold either. They’ve been, and still are, very antsy about having trans people with any responsibility or visibility in their own environs. Whether public or not, that communicates to the outside world. It’s the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one acknowledges: trans people are not trusted there. We most often can’t even be trusted to speak for our own issues – much less anything non-trans – nor be seen capable of choosing our own leadership without outside “assistance” or guidance.
Transgenders have never written or endorsed proposed legislation that left out gays or lesbians. To my knowledge, no trans person has lobbied against inclusion of sexual orientation in active bills. And yet we’re not seen as anything considered responsible lo these many years later. Maybe they fear we’ll be irresponsible, like … oh, say the marriage debacle during the campaign of 2004?
So how did T folk as a community become so suspect? Rhetoric alone? When you listen to the Crains, Rosensteins, or for that matter the Winnie Stachelbergs, or David Smiths, et. al, that loses plausibility. Worry about us being too trans-centric? How about these same ostensibly GLBT orgs with folks like Jeff Soref, who chaired the Task Force board, and previously chaired and was the stalwart of the passage of a trans-exclusive SONDA in New York, and then later taking chair of the GLBT caucus of the Dem. National Committee and pushing for sexual orientation only on both terms of his tenure?
No, the message from the national level folks is you can’t trust trans people in positions of authority, visibility, responsibility. That comes through loudly and clearly. And so far, straight America is mostly following suit.
Yes there’s pride to be found here in America. As for trans pride here in Pride Month? Perhaps that can best be found overseas. I’ll leave you with the quotes of Mayor Jenny Bailey’s ex-wife, pre-transition.
"I am incredibly proud of Jenny and the achievements she has made over the last few years. She is a totally selfless person who wants to help others and make a positive impact on our community. I think she will make an excellent mayor and has major contributions to make. I hope this will be the focus which people concentrate on.”
Hear, hear!
It’s June. Pride Month is in full swing with parades across the country and indeed the globe, and festivals and parties of all stripe heralding the one time of year when it’s hip to be gay. It’s a celebration of self, a celebration of the gains made, and a remembrance of where the catalyst symbolically began, Stonewall. New York City.
For the trans community, news came in of Jenny Bailey, the first out trans person elected mayor in Cambridge, UK. This is truly good news, and certainly a boost for trans morale in Great Britain, and an inspiration to the rest of the world.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the transgender community’s lot in the US as well. But compared to more progressive nations to our north or across the pond, we’re moving at a more glacial pace. It’s safe to say that the United States is arguably the most prudish nation in the civilized world.
America’s answer to Jenny Bailey? Susan Stanton, City Manager of Largo, Florida being forced out the minute “Steve” was outed to the city council as imminently preparing to transition to Susan. After seventeen years on the job, Largo’s authority figures decided Stanton was no longer qualified to be their city manager. Simply because of transition. Oddly enough, Largo has a non-discrimination ordinance. American progress vs. British progress: no contest. Later, when Susan went up the road to Sarasota, Florida to apply for a city manager vacancy, the attitude was “it’s just not the right time” to hire a trans city official. “No trannies in authority,” appears to be the common message.
There was a recent editorial highlighting the reluctance on behalf of the major candidates to stand firm on an all-inclusive ENDA. Chris Crain, former publisher of Window Media started off, noting John Edwards’ unequivocal support for trans, but also noting how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton cunningly sidestepped any mention of trans in ENDA. He did note Obama’s previous support of trans inclusion in the 2004 campaign.
As for Sen. Clinton, it was less positive – dredging up her history on trans. Sen. Clinton is most noted in the trans community for her response to transgender inclusion in legislation – being “unaware” of any issue as “no one in the gay and lesbian community” had approached her on it. She noted in an interview in 2000 how ENDA would broaden rights, freedoms and responsibilities in her focus to try to get the bill passed. She also expressed how adding gender identity would not be “in the best interest of moving the agenda forward.”
Peter Rosenstein, in an editorial for Window Media, even went so far as to vilify organizations that were not willing to ditch trans-inclusive language from any sexual orientation inclusive bills. He called standing firm on trans-inclusion “suicidal.”
So the message is: broadening rights and responsibilities is great, but not really a good idea for trans people. And while straight America may be where we’ve received most all of the breathtaking gains trans people have achieved to date, not just Hillary, but many in straight America still take their cue from the gay and lesbian community on transgender issues.
And when you look at gay and lesbian America, well … you won’t see any prominent trans people in their fold either. They’ve been, and still are, very antsy about having trans people with any responsibility or visibility in their own environs. Whether public or not, that communicates to the outside world. It’s the elephant in the room everyone sees, but no one acknowledges: trans people are not trusted there. We most often can’t even be trusted to speak for our own issues – much less anything non-trans – nor be seen capable of choosing our own leadership without outside “assistance” or guidance.
Transgenders have never written or endorsed proposed legislation that left out gays or lesbians. To my knowledge, no trans person has lobbied against inclusion of sexual orientation in active bills. And yet we’re not seen as anything considered responsible lo these many years later. Maybe they fear we’ll be irresponsible, like … oh, say the marriage debacle during the campaign of 2004?
So how did T folk as a community become so suspect? Rhetoric alone? When you listen to the Crains, Rosensteins, or for that matter the Winnie Stachelbergs, or David Smiths, et. al, that loses plausibility. Worry about us being too trans-centric? How about these same ostensibly GLBT orgs with folks like Jeff Soref, who chaired the Task Force board, and previously chaired and was the stalwart of the passage of a trans-exclusive SONDA in New York, and then later taking chair of the GLBT caucus of the Dem. National Committee and pushing for sexual orientation only on both terms of his tenure?
No, the message from the national level folks is you can’t trust trans people in positions of authority, visibility, responsibility. That comes through loudly and clearly. And so far, straight America is mostly following suit.
Yes there’s pride to be found here in America. As for trans pride here in Pride Month? Perhaps that can best be found overseas. I’ll leave you with the quotes of Mayor Jenny Bailey’s ex-wife, pre-transition.
"I am incredibly proud of Jenny and the achievements she has made over the last few years. She is a totally selfless person who wants to help others and make a positive impact on our community. I think she will make an excellent mayor and has major contributions to make. I hope this will be the focus which people concentrate on.”
Hear, hear!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Remembering War: Iraq, Iran, Vietnam ....
April 23, 2007 (third time, first two attempts crashed)
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- George Santayana
This past week Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) engaged in a bit of controversy. In addressing a news conference on the administration’s policy in Iraq, Sen. Reid appeared to ramble a bit, and during it, uttered the four words that stopped clocks on both sides of the Congressional aisle: “this war is lost.” Yeah, that was about as sorely welcomed as a freshly laid, steaming cow-pie next to the dinner table.
Personally, I have no real disagreement with Sen. Reid’s sentiment. It was actually an unusually gutsy, king-has-no-clothes moment. But uttering this, no matter how valid, is practically like begging conservative screaming heads to a noise contest. You might as well call out a bunch of bull-riding rednecks and tell them they’re sissy punks while you stand peeing on the Alamo. What reaction was the senator expecting?
Yes, those four words will be played over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, during election time. You can hear Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee salivating already.
A bit earlier, Republican pundits and pols alike were in a dither over house Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria. When you consider the foreign policy success this administration has had in the Middle East, Speaker Pelosi certainly couldn’t do any worse.
But conservative critics lobbed accusations about her talks with Syrian President Bashir Assad in which she tried to bring Syria to the negotiation table. This caused Vice President Dick Cheney to act like his first name, blasting Speaker Pelosi for allegedly setting her own foreign policy agenda, taking a stand not first approved by President Bush, and undermining the president’s authority.
A question to the Veep: have you never seen any other government official circumvent a standing president? How about President George Bush 41 negotiating with the leaders of Iran while we were on the verge of outright war with a nation that held American hostages? And to think, all of it was done to exquisitely time the release of our hostages a bit later, to coincide with election day of newly-elected President Reagan.
Perhaps he doesn’t remember.
Do you suffer from long term memory loss? I don’t remember … -- Chumbawamba
Speaking after Pelosi’s trip to the middle east, the vice president spoke to the conservative Heritage Foundation about the Democrats’ policy for the Iraq war. It was a red meat crowd, so he conjured up memories of the beginnings of liberal marginalization by noting the “hard left turn” the Democrats would harken back to, mirroring their anti-war McGovern era. – certainly a crowd pleaser.
Then dilapidated Dick probably caught a case of dementia as he pull from the next memory, declaring the Iraq War as important as, and drawing parallels to the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War!!! Did he really mean to dredge up that memory?
Did he forget that it was scarcely over a year ago that he and the president were both blasting Democrats or anyone else for attempting to tie the Iraq War to the Vietnam War? Now Cheney was going to … tie Iraq to the Vietnam War? It sounds like someone else didn’t vet their speech through Karl Rove and the administration.
I can imagine George W’s response would go something like this: “Dick! Buddy, what are you doing to me? I’m tryin’ to keep this thing together, get people to thinking it’s a good war. Vietnam was not a good war! People didn’t like it. Now you’re pissing away all our marketing and tying our war to Vietnam. You’re killing us, man!”
If by some chance the administration claims this was a valid point, part of a broader strategy, how do they expect anyone to swallow that? You really have to be pretty addlepated, if not outright brain-damaged, in order not to remember something that recent. This administration obviously plays the American public as fools. The message it sends is clear: if you own the media and spin your propaganda with such conviction that you believe it and stop at nothing until others agree, who needs reality?
Who’s going to remember? That’s what history’s for.
And if you’ve got enough power and wealth consolidated, you can revise history too. If that doesn’t happen, raise tax breaks by slashing budgets and cutting educational programs. At least the extra money will help buy more revisionist's reality.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -- George Santayana
This past week Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) engaged in a bit of controversy. In addressing a news conference on the administration’s policy in Iraq, Sen. Reid appeared to ramble a bit, and during it, uttered the four words that stopped clocks on both sides of the Congressional aisle: “this war is lost.” Yeah, that was about as sorely welcomed as a freshly laid, steaming cow-pie next to the dinner table.
Personally, I have no real disagreement with Sen. Reid’s sentiment. It was actually an unusually gutsy, king-has-no-clothes moment. But uttering this, no matter how valid, is practically like begging conservative screaming heads to a noise contest. You might as well call out a bunch of bull-riding rednecks and tell them they’re sissy punks while you stand peeing on the Alamo. What reaction was the senator expecting?
Yes, those four words will be played over and over and over and over, ad nauseum, during election time. You can hear Karl Rove and the Republican National Committee salivating already.
A bit earlier, Republican pundits and pols alike were in a dither over house Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria. When you consider the foreign policy success this administration has had in the Middle East, Speaker Pelosi certainly couldn’t do any worse.
But conservative critics lobbed accusations about her talks with Syrian President Bashir Assad in which she tried to bring Syria to the negotiation table. This caused Vice President Dick Cheney to act like his first name, blasting Speaker Pelosi for allegedly setting her own foreign policy agenda, taking a stand not first approved by President Bush, and undermining the president’s authority.
A question to the Veep: have you never seen any other government official circumvent a standing president? How about President George Bush 41 negotiating with the leaders of Iran while we were on the verge of outright war with a nation that held American hostages? And to think, all of it was done to exquisitely time the release of our hostages a bit later, to coincide with election day of newly-elected President Reagan.
Perhaps he doesn’t remember.
Do you suffer from long term memory loss? I don’t remember … -- Chumbawamba
Speaking after Pelosi’s trip to the middle east, the vice president spoke to the conservative Heritage Foundation about the Democrats’ policy for the Iraq war. It was a red meat crowd, so he conjured up memories of the beginnings of liberal marginalization by noting the “hard left turn” the Democrats would harken back to, mirroring their anti-war McGovern era. – certainly a crowd pleaser.
Then dilapidated Dick probably caught a case of dementia as he pull from the next memory, declaring the Iraq War as important as, and drawing parallels to the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War!!! Did he really mean to dredge up that memory?
Did he forget that it was scarcely over a year ago that he and the president were both blasting Democrats or anyone else for attempting to tie the Iraq War to the Vietnam War? Now Cheney was going to … tie Iraq to the Vietnam War? It sounds like someone else didn’t vet their speech through Karl Rove and the administration.
I can imagine George W’s response would go something like this: “Dick! Buddy, what are you doing to me? I’m tryin’ to keep this thing together, get people to thinking it’s a good war. Vietnam was not a good war! People didn’t like it. Now you’re pissing away all our marketing and tying our war to Vietnam. You’re killing us, man!”
If by some chance the administration claims this was a valid point, part of a broader strategy, how do they expect anyone to swallow that? You really have to be pretty addlepated, if not outright brain-damaged, in order not to remember something that recent. This administration obviously plays the American public as fools. The message it sends is clear: if you own the media and spin your propaganda with such conviction that you believe it and stop at nothing until others agree, who needs reality?
Who’s going to remember? That’s what history’s for.
And if you’ve got enough power and wealth consolidated, you can revise history too. If that doesn’t happen, raise tax breaks by slashing budgets and cutting educational programs. At least the extra money will help buy more revisionist's reality.
Friday, April 20, 2007
War from All Sides
April 20, 2007
My first post's title "Time to Write" turns out to have a nice double-entendresque relevance. Not only can it be the time to write, but you must also find time to write. In workaholic America, writing on the side can be a spotty affiar unless one doesn't need sleep. That's one of those "used to's" that just "ain't" any more.
It's also frustrating as there has been no lack of material to write. Most of this week, as I get home and grab a late dinner, I've been watching the "America at the Crossroads" series on PBS. It's certainly a riveting series that's really examined the biology of the war on terrorism (especially Iraq) from numerous perspectives. Watching how this war was conceived, birthed and is being schooled schizophrenically in its adolescence is no surprise, but still compelling to see the hindsightful tying together of the various loose ends.
But even beyond that are even more surprising elements in other segments dealing with subjects as wide as Richard Perle's defense of the war in Iraq, to hopeful Muslims -- American and Iraqi -- trying to plot a future away from the radical fundamentalists of Islam, and the military's and Americans' concerns with our own government's direction. But what should be required viewing was a segment of Iraq viewed from the rank-and-file's own eyes and in their own words. The soldiers' views aren't monolithic but rather varied. Yet when candid and given the forum, these men and women who appear superficially to be simply "fighting machines" are quite adept in expressing their sentiments.
They are also very ccanny in their ability to recognize all that transpires around them, describe it in professional detachment, and yet still manage to simultaneously place themselves firmly in the midst of this harrowing warscape they describe. Perhaps it's always been this way through wars immemorial, and that what we're seeing is only now evident due to the computerized information age.
While some of the views run toward the "Hadji hating" that some might pigeonhole troop mentality into, most of those expressed actually took that stereotype and unceremoniously tossed it in a dumpster. A number of the soldiers quite solidly recognized the humanity of the Iraqis they protected and even fought at times. They noted the commonality of their desires, hopes, fears and dreams ... and yet still had to pick up their rifle and battle them at times, human contemporary or no. How they keep themselves centered in the midst of such madness and chaos and yet still manage to not only report, but artistically describe their viewpoint, is like watching Michael Jordan make one of his patented jaw-dropping moves and improbable baskets. It leaves you standing agape in amazement with only one thought: "I couldn't do that on a bet!"
In contrast to those in the war trenches with their sensibility and humanitarian concern, we share a lesser degree of that Christian grace here at home. It's far too easy to remain fixed on "enemy as object" here at the homefront. There's still folks who feel that bombing the whole landscape and "turning it into glass" -- after we pull out our own troops -- would be the best option. The folks in Bubba-ville, with can of beer in hand and propped up in a recliner, are still going to stick to their views ... and will be more than happy to cheer the war from the sidelines while imploring the troops to surge and to win. U-S-A! U-S-A! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!
Yet I can't help thinking that if more of the soldiers' views were prime-time, talk show views spilled out of the TV sets -- more shows like the soldiers' writing segment on PBS' Crossroad series, instead of the platitudes of the talking heads who've never seen a day in combat -- that we'd be in a far better place in America today. Unfortunately, we've got the neophytes talking down to the experienced and the uninformed directing the battle-schooled.
Until we recognize that all sides in this war are human, indeed the war is lost.
More on this in the next post....
My first post's title "Time to Write" turns out to have a nice double-entendresque relevance. Not only can it be the time to write, but you must also find time to write. In workaholic America, writing on the side can be a spotty affiar unless one doesn't need sleep. That's one of those "used to's" that just "ain't" any more.
It's also frustrating as there has been no lack of material to write. Most of this week, as I get home and grab a late dinner, I've been watching the "America at the Crossroads" series on PBS. It's certainly a riveting series that's really examined the biology of the war on terrorism (especially Iraq) from numerous perspectives. Watching how this war was conceived, birthed and is being schooled schizophrenically in its adolescence is no surprise, but still compelling to see the hindsightful tying together of the various loose ends.
But even beyond that are even more surprising elements in other segments dealing with subjects as wide as Richard Perle's defense of the war in Iraq, to hopeful Muslims -- American and Iraqi -- trying to plot a future away from the radical fundamentalists of Islam, and the military's and Americans' concerns with our own government's direction. But what should be required viewing was a segment of Iraq viewed from the rank-and-file's own eyes and in their own words. The soldiers' views aren't monolithic but rather varied. Yet when candid and given the forum, these men and women who appear superficially to be simply "fighting machines" are quite adept in expressing their sentiments.
They are also very ccanny in their ability to recognize all that transpires around them, describe it in professional detachment, and yet still manage to simultaneously place themselves firmly in the midst of this harrowing warscape they describe. Perhaps it's always been this way through wars immemorial, and that what we're seeing is only now evident due to the computerized information age.
While some of the views run toward the "Hadji hating" that some might pigeonhole troop mentality into, most of those expressed actually took that stereotype and unceremoniously tossed it in a dumpster. A number of the soldiers quite solidly recognized the humanity of the Iraqis they protected and even fought at times. They noted the commonality of their desires, hopes, fears and dreams ... and yet still had to pick up their rifle and battle them at times, human contemporary or no. How they keep themselves centered in the midst of such madness and chaos and yet still manage to not only report, but artistically describe their viewpoint, is like watching Michael Jordan make one of his patented jaw-dropping moves and improbable baskets. It leaves you standing agape in amazement with only one thought: "I couldn't do that on a bet!"
In contrast to those in the war trenches with their sensibility and humanitarian concern, we share a lesser degree of that Christian grace here at home. It's far too easy to remain fixed on "enemy as object" here at the homefront. There's still folks who feel that bombing the whole landscape and "turning it into glass" -- after we pull out our own troops -- would be the best option. The folks in Bubba-ville, with can of beer in hand and propped up in a recliner, are still going to stick to their views ... and will be more than happy to cheer the war from the sidelines while imploring the troops to surge and to win. U-S-A! U-S-A! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!
Yet I can't help thinking that if more of the soldiers' views were prime-time, talk show views spilled out of the TV sets -- more shows like the soldiers' writing segment on PBS' Crossroad series, instead of the platitudes of the talking heads who've never seen a day in combat -- that we'd be in a far better place in America today. Unfortunately, we've got the neophytes talking down to the experienced and the uninformed directing the battle-schooled.
Until we recognize that all sides in this war are human, indeed the war is lost.
More on this in the next post....
Friday, April 13, 2007
Measuring Yourself ... and Remembering
4/13/07
No, this isn't a post about something crude or vain. Maybe I should've chosen a better title for this post. But then again, perhaps this is good marketing: giving this a vague, almost controversial-sounding title that's a bit underwhelming and misleading after all.
Got a note today from a couple of friends I hadn't heard from in quite some time, asking how I was doing, curious they hadn't heard from or about me in a while. In talking with them, the subject briefly steered toward reminiscences. The memories briefly bathed me in those warm memories, kinda like a warm spring barefooted walk in the sand on Padre Island (or simply "the Island" as we used to refer to it). The conversation touched upon folks we used to know, our second-youth in those transition days, and a seeming sense of invincibility in those heady days ten years ago. Promise was there for the taking, we all appeared on an upward track, dreams were bearing fruit and our voices were clear and strong and making a difference.
That was only six, eight, ten years ago. Now, looking back on the Millennium era, it seems like a lifetime ago. Somebody else's lifetime, even! It's amazing how vastly different things are less than a scant decade ago. It's like waking up the morning after a bender in a cheap honky-tonk and asking yourself, "Did I really do that? Did all this really happen?"
As the reality sets in, you realize everyone drifted in different directions like branches on a live oak tree. You also begin wondering what became of not only them, but yourself and the initial directions we set out in. Just as with the live oaks, where influences or natural conditions cause the tree or branches to move, bend or twist in different directions, our lives likewise grow places we didn't see ourselves. As with nature, sometimes we can't control that portion of the outcome -- only survive it.
The flipside of memories is that they do require a visit to those headier days, and the obligatory comparisons. It's a way of measuring your "now" to the "past" and all the hopes, dreams, plans that were still vivid at that time. Sometimes measurements are reaffirming, showing the ambitions and their results based on your gameplan. Often, though, it shows what reality brought *instead* of the initial idealized desires. Kinda like hoping for Homecoming Queen and getting awarded Miss FFA Hog Farmers instead.
For most of the transsexual community, surgery and going on with a successful life was the goal, with a happy relationship being the icing on top. For a few, it came to fruition in greater or lesser degrees. For most of the rest, it became life's mocking reminder. Indeed, I started out with the intent of a life of seamless transition, surgery, job, relationship and woodworking (stealth) lifestyle. But as I mentioned to my friend Kristin last night, circumstances got in the way. Unemployment, then the retirement of a local activist pushing for name-changes sans need of legal (i.e. expensive) resolution, the creeping realization that I was part of a massive rank of similarly marginalized, acceptance of no safety nets or escapes, taking action, working hard and seeing the beginnings of change and progress.
Then the bottom fell out.
Where we once had our own voice, we later were muzzled in favor of new more equivocating voices forced upon us. Where we once saw promise, we now saw a circling of the wagons with us firmly locked out in favor of the acquiescent supplants. Where there was once a ladder for upward mobility, there's now ashes of what burned beneath our feet and the firm affirmation that privilege is for the chosen few, whether by birthright or deigned so by the power-holders.
"Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for the cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange a walk on part of the wall
for a leaf-roll in a cage?" -- Pink Floyd
We gradually awoke to a creeping awareness of how vulnerable and imperiled we trans folks really are. If you don't believe so, read closely the federal Real ID Act, for starters. The ball of clay we once held and hoped to mold our lives with morphed into a ball of feces, much to our horror. We never even realized how hypnotic our media-fed complacency is, and most of us still don't. These things only become clearest in hindsight, measuring where we once were with where we are currently -- and also where the trend points toward.
Personally I view my own history in advocacy as a lesson in punitive failure of the most severe kind. Not only did it deter me from pursuing any of my personal goals or desires, it was extremely expensive, emotionally taxing, and (thanks to Google and the information age) a career-killer. Dreams disappeared upon the awakening. The future died a few years ago. Now is the reckoning of the lesser-life and moving on to what's next, in activism and especially in personal life. The lesson in this? Don't make sacrifices to your own detriment, it will only kill you. If you're an unwavering trans activist, this only plays into the hands of the vindictive types who wish to make examples of you. Speak out any way you possibly can, stay in the fight, but play smart and do so without the personal sacrifices.
Yes, there will be a measure of progress -- but only enough to placate the restive masses. Keep in mind that used car salesmen aren't in business simply for the altruistic desire to see that every used vehicle has a loving home and doesn't spend a minute more than it should orphaned on a dirt lot somewhere. It's about making the sale, and maximizing the profit, baby. We'd be unrealistic to think that those we rely on, politicians or professional advocates, will be working themselves out of business any time soon. Perhaps that was the grassroots trans advocates' downfall: we worked to find the quickest way possible to get our community whole into jobs and businesses in order to make successes out of producing whatever in our respective professions. We didn't view advocacy as a product.
Don't curl into a ball and just die off. Keep your voice, and keep it strong. While the carcass-feeders would appreciate your silence, it does nothing for us personally nor any of the lower 90-something percentile that remain firmly and unmistakenly marginalized.
"A man saw a ball of gold on a mountaintop;
So he climbed for it, and eventually he achieved it --
And found it was only a ball of clay.
... but when the man went back down the mountain
And looked again,
Lo, there was the ball of gold." --- Hart Crane
No, this isn't a post about something crude or vain. Maybe I should've chosen a better title for this post. But then again, perhaps this is good marketing: giving this a vague, almost controversial-sounding title that's a bit underwhelming and misleading after all.
Got a note today from a couple of friends I hadn't heard from in quite some time, asking how I was doing, curious they hadn't heard from or about me in a while. In talking with them, the subject briefly steered toward reminiscences. The memories briefly bathed me in those warm memories, kinda like a warm spring barefooted walk in the sand on Padre Island (or simply "the Island" as we used to refer to it). The conversation touched upon folks we used to know, our second-youth in those transition days, and a seeming sense of invincibility in those heady days ten years ago. Promise was there for the taking, we all appeared on an upward track, dreams were bearing fruit and our voices were clear and strong and making a difference.
That was only six, eight, ten years ago. Now, looking back on the Millennium era, it seems like a lifetime ago. Somebody else's lifetime, even! It's amazing how vastly different things are less than a scant decade ago. It's like waking up the morning after a bender in a cheap honky-tonk and asking yourself, "Did I really do that? Did all this really happen?"
As the reality sets in, you realize everyone drifted in different directions like branches on a live oak tree. You also begin wondering what became of not only them, but yourself and the initial directions we set out in. Just as with the live oaks, where influences or natural conditions cause the tree or branches to move, bend or twist in different directions, our lives likewise grow places we didn't see ourselves. As with nature, sometimes we can't control that portion of the outcome -- only survive it.
The flipside of memories is that they do require a visit to those headier days, and the obligatory comparisons. It's a way of measuring your "now" to the "past" and all the hopes, dreams, plans that were still vivid at that time. Sometimes measurements are reaffirming, showing the ambitions and their results based on your gameplan. Often, though, it shows what reality brought *instead* of the initial idealized desires. Kinda like hoping for Homecoming Queen and getting awarded Miss FFA Hog Farmers instead.
For most of the transsexual community, surgery and going on with a successful life was the goal, with a happy relationship being the icing on top. For a few, it came to fruition in greater or lesser degrees. For most of the rest, it became life's mocking reminder. Indeed, I started out with the intent of a life of seamless transition, surgery, job, relationship and woodworking (stealth) lifestyle. But as I mentioned to my friend Kristin last night, circumstances got in the way. Unemployment, then the retirement of a local activist pushing for name-changes sans need of legal (i.e. expensive) resolution, the creeping realization that I was part of a massive rank of similarly marginalized, acceptance of no safety nets or escapes, taking action, working hard and seeing the beginnings of change and progress.
Then the bottom fell out.
Where we once had our own voice, we later were muzzled in favor of new more equivocating voices forced upon us. Where we once saw promise, we now saw a circling of the wagons with us firmly locked out in favor of the acquiescent supplants. Where there was once a ladder for upward mobility, there's now ashes of what burned beneath our feet and the firm affirmation that privilege is for the chosen few, whether by birthright or deigned so by the power-holders.
"Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for the cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange a walk on part of the wall
for a leaf-roll in a cage?" -- Pink Floyd
We gradually awoke to a creeping awareness of how vulnerable and imperiled we trans folks really are. If you don't believe so, read closely the federal Real ID Act, for starters. The ball of clay we once held and hoped to mold our lives with morphed into a ball of feces, much to our horror. We never even realized how hypnotic our media-fed complacency is, and most of us still don't. These things only become clearest in hindsight, measuring where we once were with where we are currently -- and also where the trend points toward.
Personally I view my own history in advocacy as a lesson in punitive failure of the most severe kind. Not only did it deter me from pursuing any of my personal goals or desires, it was extremely expensive, emotionally taxing, and (thanks to Google and the information age) a career-killer. Dreams disappeared upon the awakening. The future died a few years ago. Now is the reckoning of the lesser-life and moving on to what's next, in activism and especially in personal life. The lesson in this? Don't make sacrifices to your own detriment, it will only kill you. If you're an unwavering trans activist, this only plays into the hands of the vindictive types who wish to make examples of you. Speak out any way you possibly can, stay in the fight, but play smart and do so without the personal sacrifices.
Yes, there will be a measure of progress -- but only enough to placate the restive masses. Keep in mind that used car salesmen aren't in business simply for the altruistic desire to see that every used vehicle has a loving home and doesn't spend a minute more than it should orphaned on a dirt lot somewhere. It's about making the sale, and maximizing the profit, baby. We'd be unrealistic to think that those we rely on, politicians or professional advocates, will be working themselves out of business any time soon. Perhaps that was the grassroots trans advocates' downfall: we worked to find the quickest way possible to get our community whole into jobs and businesses in order to make successes out of producing whatever in our respective professions. We didn't view advocacy as a product.
Don't curl into a ball and just die off. Keep your voice, and keep it strong. While the carcass-feeders would appreciate your silence, it does nothing for us personally nor any of the lower 90-something percentile that remain firmly and unmistakenly marginalized.
"A man saw a ball of gold on a mountaintop;
So he climbed for it, and eventually he achieved it --
And found it was only a ball of clay.
... but when the man went back down the mountain
And looked again,
Lo, there was the ball of gold." --- Hart Crane
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Hate Crimes bill?
4/12/07
Well, it will be a short entry tonight due to a long day at work. Any overtime that comes down the pike will be taken in times like these ... make hay while the sun shines, ya know?
We got word late last night about introduction in the Senate of a Hate Crimes bill that will, for the first time, be transgender-inclusive. It sounds very promising, but we need to refrain from celebrations until we know for certain that it's trans-inclusive and get a chance to see the language. While the person who broke the news is a prominent trans activist, truth be told she's not known for the truth being told. She comes from a sales and marketing background where making the sale is paramount, regardless of how little the marketing lives up to the advertised product.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the ponies are getting restless in anticipation of heading up to DC to round up support from our Congress-critters. Surely the critters are getting restless as well, trying to figure out how to duck, dodge and weave and trying to decipher whether voting or not voting for hate crime protections for all will keep them from being unseated from their Congressional seat. And if the critters get skittish around the trannies, will the gay and lez-peradoes work in the dark to bushwhack or bolt on us, grab the herded critters and try to make a break with the entire kit and caboodle, leaving us behind to choke in the dust? Again?
Time will tell. One thing that is well-known is that DC is the treacherous Badlands, and we must go to their inhospitable environs to get this done once and for all. It is worth the fight though, if for no one other than Gwen Araujo and the Guerrero family ... for Stephanie Thomas and her mom Queen Washington ... for NTAC Chair Ethan St. Pierre and his mom Ellen, and for Ellen's sibling, Debra Forte. For all the loved ones gone due to bias violence, and their families that remain involved in the fight to live without fear of hate.
While it wasn't necessarily a hate crime, Don Imus got canned today for his bias -- albeit of the verbal variety. To be sure, his attempt at humor was both cheap and astonishingly boneheaded. However, the press surrounding this story is rivaling Anna Nicole Smith in over-importance and overkill. Note how an idiot toadie like Michael Savage can savage (what a wonderfully appropriate surname he has!) the transgender community after what is apparently another hate crime. And note the hue and cry -- or rather the lack thereof -- in response! Oh well, it's not like we're human, right?
Trans people are still viewed as objects of humor, a freebie for portraying the butt of sick or debasing jokes or comments. And it's PC -- even in a Gay Comedy Showcase I saw on cable a couple years back! To paraphrase Danielle Rosengarten, a legislative aide in Rep. Christopher Shays' (R-CT) office, "you would think they, of all people, would know better!" God's got a wonderful sense of irony. Sadly, trans people haven't progressed beyond "object" in the eyes of most of America -- even a sizable portion of Gay & Lesbian America.
Yet any attempt by us to point this up is beaten back with criticisms of "being too shrill, having no sense of humor," etc. And how free are other groups able to engage in similar shows of unified outrage? Beyond the Don Imus incident, note the public outcry over the Snickers Bar commercial series during the Super Bowl, where two mean nibbled on the same candy bar until (horror!) their lips touched. Admittedly the ad execs' concept wasn't in good taste, but it was relatively innocuous compared to Savage's savages (sorry, couldn't help it). Note that it bought gay and lesbian leadership a lot of cheap national press for the talking heads to natter about. But note how the transgender leaders who point out objectification, subjugation, or outright hateful speech are, at best, benignly ignored if not targets of whisper campaigns and malignant isolation. I suppose it's our fault for noticing.
Perhaps someday we'll all be considered equally. But for now Don Imus is out and inexplicably Michael Savage is still in. And transgenders are still "lesser than --fill in the blank" Perhaps someday we'll be equals ... Or maybe I have completely lost touch with reality.
Well, it will be a short entry tonight due to a long day at work. Any overtime that comes down the pike will be taken in times like these ... make hay while the sun shines, ya know?
We got word late last night about introduction in the Senate of a Hate Crimes bill that will, for the first time, be transgender-inclusive. It sounds very promising, but we need to refrain from celebrations until we know for certain that it's trans-inclusive and get a chance to see the language. While the person who broke the news is a prominent trans activist, truth be told she's not known for the truth being told. She comes from a sales and marketing background where making the sale is paramount, regardless of how little the marketing lives up to the advertised product.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the ponies are getting restless in anticipation of heading up to DC to round up support from our Congress-critters. Surely the critters are getting restless as well, trying to figure out how to duck, dodge and weave and trying to decipher whether voting or not voting for hate crime protections for all will keep them from being unseated from their Congressional seat. And if the critters get skittish around the trannies, will the gay and lez-peradoes work in the dark to bushwhack or bolt on us, grab the herded critters and try to make a break with the entire kit and caboodle, leaving us behind to choke in the dust? Again?
Time will tell. One thing that is well-known is that DC is the treacherous Badlands, and we must go to their inhospitable environs to get this done once and for all. It is worth the fight though, if for no one other than Gwen Araujo and the Guerrero family ... for Stephanie Thomas and her mom Queen Washington ... for NTAC Chair Ethan St. Pierre and his mom Ellen, and for Ellen's sibling, Debra Forte. For all the loved ones gone due to bias violence, and their families that remain involved in the fight to live without fear of hate.
While it wasn't necessarily a hate crime, Don Imus got canned today for his bias -- albeit of the verbal variety. To be sure, his attempt at humor was both cheap and astonishingly boneheaded. However, the press surrounding this story is rivaling Anna Nicole Smith in over-importance and overkill. Note how an idiot toadie like Michael Savage can savage (what a wonderfully appropriate surname he has!) the transgender community after what is apparently another hate crime. And note the hue and cry -- or rather the lack thereof -- in response! Oh well, it's not like we're human, right?
Trans people are still viewed as objects of humor, a freebie for portraying the butt of sick or debasing jokes or comments. And it's PC -- even in a Gay Comedy Showcase I saw on cable a couple years back! To paraphrase Danielle Rosengarten, a legislative aide in Rep. Christopher Shays' (R-CT) office, "you would think they, of all people, would know better!" God's got a wonderful sense of irony. Sadly, trans people haven't progressed beyond "object" in the eyes of most of America -- even a sizable portion of Gay & Lesbian America.
Yet any attempt by us to point this up is beaten back with criticisms of "being too shrill, having no sense of humor," etc. And how free are other groups able to engage in similar shows of unified outrage? Beyond the Don Imus incident, note the public outcry over the Snickers Bar commercial series during the Super Bowl, where two mean nibbled on the same candy bar until (horror!) their lips touched. Admittedly the ad execs' concept wasn't in good taste, but it was relatively innocuous compared to Savage's savages (sorry, couldn't help it). Note that it bought gay and lesbian leadership a lot of cheap national press for the talking heads to natter about. But note how the transgender leaders who point out objectification, subjugation, or outright hateful speech are, at best, benignly ignored if not targets of whisper campaigns and malignant isolation. I suppose it's our fault for noticing.
Perhaps someday we'll all be considered equally. But for now Don Imus is out and inexplicably Michael Savage is still in. And transgenders are still "lesser than --fill in the blank" Perhaps someday we'll be equals ... Or maybe I have completely lost touch with reality.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Time to Write: Blame Molly Ivins, Post #1
4/11/07
Guess it was beyond time to sit down and do this. For far too long I'd self-moderated or self-silenced myself from editorializing. There's certainly the argument that this is ultimately just a self-promotion of one's own self-importance. I kinda like the humility side of life, and this stuff is generally anathema to me. At least it has been. Additionally, my belief is that opinions are like a$$holes: everyone has one, virtually no one wants to see or hear anyone else's, and we all believe ours is the only one on the planet that doesn't stink!
But today was as good a day as any to start, I suppose. The date was numerically interesting -- 411. Another reason is the company I worked for -- one that was wanting to hire me permanently but was in the midst of a hiring freeze -- dropped the news today that the Houston office was being eliminated in favor of merging the tasks with the corporate office in Colorado. No great shock in this day and age, but a disconcerting moment almost begging for a response.
Ultimately, you can blame this on Molly Ivins. Or Molly Ivins' ghost ... or maybe someone who just looked like her, I don't know. At least I think it was her, but it was a dream and dreams typically don't make much literal sense. I need to call my friend Kathy and ask her some questions to verify -- she's met her and would likely shed some light. For those unfamiliar, Molly was an Austin fixture, an editorial columnist who wrote for many years for the Texas Observer, even transcending to a regular column in many major papers and even on CNN's website. She was also a no-quarter, unrepentent populist of the first order -- even throughout Texas' and the nation's most harrowing arch-conservative blitzkrieg. In a word, Molly was Courage.
And yes, the dream was odd, but compelling for some reason. In the dream I was riding / driving / floating through west Texas (or maybe Arizona -- someplace desert-ey), drifting through some desolate, dusty town in what seemed like summer. Then I suddenly find myself standing in an expansive dusty parking lot (maybe a truck or Greyhound bus stop?) looking diagonally across the lot at some stereotypical western county sheriff, replete with cowboy hat and long drooping white mustache, giving me a hard stare. He asks me "what would you say if I told you I wanted to talk to you?" I didn't have a good answer and just mumbled an okay -- even in my dream this question didn't make any sense!
Next, I'm suddenly sitting in a wooden chair in this empty sheriff's office, looking out the window, kicking myself for being in this predicament (whatever it was) and feeling like I'd just been railroaded. Then the door at the back of this empty office opens and in walks this woman -- not the sheriff. Familiar -- but from where? She appeared to know me, though. She grabs me by the arm, pulls me up out of the chair, and hollers "What are you doing here?!? Why aren't you saying something about it?!? You know what you need to say to him! Now get out there and tell them!!!"
Truth told, I didn't know what this meant nor what this was in context to. But whatever it was, it was compelling. And I kept replaying the dream trying to discern what this metaphorical message was, or who this lady in the sheriff's office was.
Finally a couple days after, it hit me: Molly Ivins! It was Molly Ivins in my dream (or at least I believe it was). What the hell was Molly Ivins doing in my dream?
Well, however little sense the rest of the dream made, the message came through loud and clear: stop silencing yourself. As the Scissor Sisters song says "Ain't no one gonna listen if you haven't made a sound." You can forever hold your tongue out of humility or courtesy or whatever, but it won't make anyone think better of you nor have them follow suit. They'll just think you're without opinion, mute or dead. And if there was ever a time in life to speak up, it's now. Whether it's GLBT politics, national politics, the increasing class warfare, or even the sorry state of the planet or life itself, it's all become an oversized batch of depression stew.
The Age of Cynicism is in full bloom, and we're in for a very long season. It'll be a rarity to find anything in this era that's not born of, or evolved into purely profit and/or self-interest motivations. If you do find it, enjoy the brief respite for the moment. Like a south Texas summer, the rest of this season will be punishing and relentless.
***********
So how does the name of this blog relate to the above post? It doesn't really. Ultimately the name will relate more to the direction of the later entries, focused mostly on Transgender issues, Political issues in Str8 (straight) America, and any combination of the two ... along with other items that just happen to fall in between the spaces and catches my attention.
Guess it was beyond time to sit down and do this. For far too long I'd self-moderated or self-silenced myself from editorializing. There's certainly the argument that this is ultimately just a self-promotion of one's own self-importance. I kinda like the humility side of life, and this stuff is generally anathema to me. At least it has been. Additionally, my belief is that opinions are like a$$holes: everyone has one, virtually no one wants to see or hear anyone else's, and we all believe ours is the only one on the planet that doesn't stink!
But today was as good a day as any to start, I suppose. The date was numerically interesting -- 411. Another reason is the company I worked for -- one that was wanting to hire me permanently but was in the midst of a hiring freeze -- dropped the news today that the Houston office was being eliminated in favor of merging the tasks with the corporate office in Colorado. No great shock in this day and age, but a disconcerting moment almost begging for a response.
Ultimately, you can blame this on Molly Ivins. Or Molly Ivins' ghost ... or maybe someone who just looked like her, I don't know. At least I think it was her, but it was a dream and dreams typically don't make much literal sense. I need to call my friend Kathy and ask her some questions to verify -- she's met her and would likely shed some light. For those unfamiliar, Molly was an Austin fixture, an editorial columnist who wrote for many years for the Texas Observer, even transcending to a regular column in many major papers and even on CNN's website. She was also a no-quarter, unrepentent populist of the first order -- even throughout Texas' and the nation's most harrowing arch-conservative blitzkrieg. In a word, Molly was Courage.
And yes, the dream was odd, but compelling for some reason. In the dream I was riding / driving / floating through west Texas (or maybe Arizona -- someplace desert-ey), drifting through some desolate, dusty town in what seemed like summer. Then I suddenly find myself standing in an expansive dusty parking lot (maybe a truck or Greyhound bus stop?) looking diagonally across the lot at some stereotypical western county sheriff, replete with cowboy hat and long drooping white mustache, giving me a hard stare. He asks me "what would you say if I told you I wanted to talk to you?" I didn't have a good answer and just mumbled an okay -- even in my dream this question didn't make any sense!
Next, I'm suddenly sitting in a wooden chair in this empty sheriff's office, looking out the window, kicking myself for being in this predicament (whatever it was) and feeling like I'd just been railroaded. Then the door at the back of this empty office opens and in walks this woman -- not the sheriff. Familiar -- but from where? She appeared to know me, though. She grabs me by the arm, pulls me up out of the chair, and hollers "What are you doing here?!? Why aren't you saying something about it?!? You know what you need to say to him! Now get out there and tell them!!!"
Truth told, I didn't know what this meant nor what this was in context to. But whatever it was, it was compelling. And I kept replaying the dream trying to discern what this metaphorical message was, or who this lady in the sheriff's office was.
Finally a couple days after, it hit me: Molly Ivins! It was Molly Ivins in my dream (or at least I believe it was). What the hell was Molly Ivins doing in my dream?
Well, however little sense the rest of the dream made, the message came through loud and clear: stop silencing yourself. As the Scissor Sisters song says "Ain't no one gonna listen if you haven't made a sound." You can forever hold your tongue out of humility or courtesy or whatever, but it won't make anyone think better of you nor have them follow suit. They'll just think you're without opinion, mute or dead. And if there was ever a time in life to speak up, it's now. Whether it's GLBT politics, national politics, the increasing class warfare, or even the sorry state of the planet or life itself, it's all become an oversized batch of depression stew.
The Age of Cynicism is in full bloom, and we're in for a very long season. It'll be a rarity to find anything in this era that's not born of, or evolved into purely profit and/or self-interest motivations. If you do find it, enjoy the brief respite for the moment. Like a south Texas summer, the rest of this season will be punishing and relentless.
***********
So how does the name of this blog relate to the above post? It doesn't really. Ultimately the name will relate more to the direction of the later entries, focused mostly on Transgender issues, Political issues in Str8 (straight) America, and any combination of the two ... along with other items that just happen to fall in between the spaces and catches my attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)