The HRC has been a conservative force in queer politics since at least the early 1990s.

The HRC were the architects of the "oh, so succesful" gays in the military movement of Clintonia and of the focus on same sex marriage which engendered a backlash when most queers would benefit from and most people support job and housing protections.

ENDA originally was for LGB, had been since its inception three decades ago. In 2004, the HRC and Democrats added T into the bill but neglected to count noses to see if it enjoyed majority support. So when push came to shove last year, 70 members of congress were not okay with an ENDA with T and the bill reverted to its previous LGB incarnation.

Is this the fault of the HRC or is it a sign that the Speaker of the House was unable to enforce party discipline on a matter of civil rights, caving to transphobes?

My read is that democrat party activists and labor activists are giving Nancy Pelosi a big fat pass on her inability to deliver the votes by changing the subject to damn the damned HRC. This obfuscates the civil rights issues at hand for likely political payback from Pelosi at a later date.

Problem being that United ENDA is a decade or so too late in its attacks on the HRC. Where were United ENDA when the HRC was lurching the queer civil rights project to the right over that time? Where was Pride at Work as this was going on? Only since their ox has been gored is it a matter of concern. United ENDA's constituent groups had no qualms about HRC elitism for years and years, sitting idly on their hands.

At the end of the day, the question is not one of who gets thrown under the bus, rather what happens when the numbers are not there for a more ambitious bill.

Do we throw everyone under the bus because we can't get what we want for all, or do we consolidate on that which is achievable and come back for the rest with trailing legislation?

Certainly that is how it worked in California, where LGB got civil rights in the 80s and 90s and trans folks had to wait until a champion like Leno came into office a few years ago.

My read is that trans folks need to go through the same process that LGB went through, to have, as it were, a "Queer Nation" moment of consolidation in their own movement so that trans folks as a movement can, through a campaign of visibility, come of age and do the prep work required to swing those 70 votes if Pelosi won't use her power to do so.

What is politically suicidal for any notion of LGBT cohesion is to throw 95% of queers under the bus who were able to win an historic first vote for civil rights in Congress because there is not sufficient support to bring along the other 5% because it was not a priority for Pelosi.

-marc

Huffington Post, NY, USA

Gabriel Rotello

If ENDA Doesn't Protect The Transgendered, It Doesn't Protect Me

Posted October 4, 2007 | 05:18 PM (EST)

The decision by the Democratic leadership in Congress to eliminate
transgendered people from ENDA, the bill to ban discrimination against
gays in the workplace, has ignited a genuine firestorm in gay
political circles.

It's heartening to see that LGBT activists are coming out of the
woodwork to insist that any meaningful bill that does not protect the
transgendered isn't worth the paper it's written on.

But criticism that the bill is a betrayal of the most vulnerable among
us, while well-intentioned, doesn't go anywhere near far enough.

A bill to protect gays from discrimination that excludes transgendered
people isn't merely a betrayal of the transgendered - it's a betrayal
of all gay people. Because (as I wrote in an Advocate column a few
years back, which I will quote from liberally here), in a very real
sense, all gay people are transgendered.

And I believe that an emerging understanding of how all gay people are
transgendered is the wave of the future, both politically and
socially.

This idea stems in large part from the growing body of research into
what sexual orientation actually is. The jury is still out on whether
the roots of sexual orientation are biological or environmental or
both or neither, but this much can be said: Researchers have found
that the heterosexual majority and gay people differ in far more than
just the most obvious sexual respect.

Most heterosexuals tend to feel and act and desire and respond and
present themselves to the world in what researchers call a fairly
"sex-typical" or "gender-typical" way: pretty much mostly male or
mostly female.

Gay people, on the other hand, exhibit a whole range of "sex-atypical"
characteristics, meaning characteristics that are commonly associated
with the opposite sex, at least among the heterosexual majority.

These traits obviously, and perhaps most importantly, include our
attraction to members of the same sex. But they also include our inner
feelings of maleness or femaleness, our outward appearance as butch or
femme, the unconscious way we speak and move, even the way we throw a
ball or change a tire.

For reason yet to be understood, most gay people exhibit sex atypical
traits most clearly when we are very young. Many gay boys - the vast
majority in some studies - report that they identified strongly with
girls when they were very small. Many even thought of themselves as
more female than male. The opposite seems true for most lesbians.

As we grow older these feelings tend to subside for many of us, so
that as adults the only major sex atypical trait that we retain is our
sexual orientation.

But not for everybody. Some of us grow up to be mannish women or femme
men. Some become occasional cross-dressers or drag kings or queens.
Some become transgenderists (people who live full-time as the opposite
gender without desiring surgery). And some become pre- or
post-operative transsexuals.

Researchers now think that this is all connected, that all gay and
transgendered people occupy places on a continuum between the two main
genders.

At one extreme are masculine gay men and feminine lesbians who could
easily pass as straight, and whose only obvious sex-atypical trait is
their sexual orientation. At the other extreme are people who are so
gender-atypical in so many ways that some choose to have an operation
to bring the body in line with the soul. But what distinguishes us is
that we all, to some degree or another, have major traits that place
us somewhere between the two primary genders.

In that sense, all LGBT people are transgendered.

Not only does this idea offer a more expansive definition of what we
really are, but it also better explains why we are oppressed.

Homophobes don't merely hate us because of how we make love. Rather,
they hate how we make love because it violates our expected gender
roles. Really, we are hated for gender transgression.

For example, when I was 10 and was taunted for throwing a ball "like a
girl," I'm quite sure those school-yard bullies did not suspect me of
actually sleeping with members of the same sex. They bashed me for not
being boy enough.

That goes for almost all of us. Whether we face prejudice for being
too butch or too femme, or for being cross-dressers or androgynes, or
for simply being perceived as gay or lesbian, we are all ultimately
disliked for the same basic reason: Transgressing our expected gender
roles. Sexual transgression in the bedroom is just one aspect of that,
although a very important one.

So just as all gays are in a basic sense transgendered, all homophobes
are first and foremost "transphobes."

This new understanding is revolutionizing researchers' conception of
sexual orientation as just one aspect of a larger kind of difference.
And I believe that if we're smart, it could revolutionize the way LGBT
people look at ourselves, both as individuals and as a movement.

The modem gay world was born out of a limited 19th-century
psychological concept, namely that some people -- "homosexuals" -- are
inherently attracted to members of the same sex.

We accepted that limited idea and built our identities and our
movement around it. We thought of sexual desire as the basis of our
identity, even though it's a basis that leads to endless fragmentation
based upon what, exactly, you desire: Lesbian. Gay. Bi. Trans.
Whatever.

Now, however, 21st-century research has produced a new concept: That
the root of our difference is not merely how we make love, but the
larger fact that we exist between the two genders in a variety of
gender-atypical ways, some sexual and some not.

This idea has immense implications, because if the ultimate cause of
our oppression is gender transgression, then shouldn't it also be the
focus of our identities and our movement? Shouldn't we stop being the
les-bi-gay-trans-whatever movement, with a new syllable added every
few years, and simply become the trans movement?

I think we should. And ultimately, I believe we will. Once we stop
thinking of ourselves as oppressed by what we do in bed and start
thinking of ourselves as oppressed because we occupy a space between
the socially-expected norms of the two genders, the sexual differences
between us will fade into unimportance, and our common humanity will
emerge into the light. If that's not a higher form of liberation. I
don't know what is.

So in light of that, the decision to remove what we currently call
transgendered people from a bill to ban anti-gay discrimination in the
workplace couldn't be more misguided.

Yes, sure, all the other arguments against the removal of
transgendered people from ENDA are valid, foremost among them that we
are sacrificing the most vulnerable among us for the political
expediency of getting a bill passed.

But if you look at LGBT people as all, in a sense, transgendered, such
a bill is not merely sacrificing the rights of one sexual minority
within our movement. It's betraying and denying the strange,
wonderful, mysterious and very human thing that makes us what we are.

For a summary of some of the evidence that Joni Christian's conclusions have a sound factual basis, see BiGender and the Brain.

This article, by a member of Sex and Gender Education(Australia), was recently deemed one of the best medical blog entries, and best neuroscience entries, in the respective peer-reviewed carnivals of blogging. It draws together strands from recent fMRI imaging studies in several nations, studies on transsexual people, studies on those exposed to cross-gender hormones in the womb, and those with the more common intersex conditions that cause a natural sex change - 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) for those interested in the gory details. Plus a healthy sized dose of personal history at the end to put it all in a human, rather than coldly clinical, context.

How many people are there out there who are supporting the incremental change that Barack Obama is offering up with the broad coalition he is building yet are standing firm against incremental change for LGB because the Democrats can't get the numbers for T?

This kind of defeatist attitude, an inability to walk in power, wallowing in perpetual victimhood and sacrifice, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, is not one that appeals to most voters and is not a posture that appeals to most LGB.

Why is LGB standing in solidarity with T in loss privileged over T standing in solidarity with LGB in victory?

-marc

And Joni's piece above is quite insightful. Human sexualilty is quite complex and does not lend itself to facile explanations. The adolescence of the piece tries to justify gender theory by casting all queers as transgendered. This ignores the notion that all sexual based oppression springs from sexism at the heart, of not conforming to male dominance. Gender presentation and sexual preference are both taboo because they challenge male supremacy. Thus, the "parent" oppression of LGB sexual preference and LGBT gender presentation is sexism, not gender oppression.

The case for this is made by the millions of lesbians and gays who don't think too much about gender roles, are just ourselves and like getting it on with the same sex. My coworkers remark that although I'm gay, I'm just another guy. Am I trying to assimilate (hardly) or is that just my gender makeup?

As I wrote earlier, just as LG had issues with including B in our community two decades ago (its just a phase they're going through, you know) we are seeing a similar adolescent posture adopted by T activists as they "come out" politically.

The upshot is that T activists are adopting the role of an adolescent and selfish Taffy Davenport in John Waters' "Female Trouble" who, when Divine had Donna and Donald Dasher over for dinner, threw the spaghetti at the wall screeching "If I can't have any than nobody can."

Nobody is free until we are all free, but civil rights is not an all or nothing deal--you get what you can when you can, consolidating and building at every opportunity. Sandbagging ENDA because the votes are not there for T inclusion only takes out rage on LGB and makes future alliances between LGB and T that much more difficult.

-marc

Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pastor Paul Turner's Response to an invitation to the Atlanta HRC Dinner

The following was an E-mail response from Pastor Paul Turner, the Senior Pastor for Gentle Spirit Church, Atlanta, GA to an invitation to the Atlanta HRC Dinner, May 3, 2008.

Subject: Atlanta Human Rights Campaign Dinner Invite

Sent to Pastor Paul Turner, Senior Pastor Gentle Spirit Church, Atlanta, GA, Monday, April 21, 2008, in regards to the HRC Atlanta Dinner, scheduled for May 3, 2008

Thank you for the invitation...However, I will not participate with anything involving HRC until the Transgender Community is really part of the LGBTQI they so often say they represent.

There are those in our community who think I am being "childish" and "foolish" about this, however, I cannot nor will I stand with an organization which uses a part of our community as a political chess piece.

I cannot nor will I stand silently by while our sisters and brothers in the Transgender community are told they must wait for protection, or "they must understand we are not there yet". Every year I stand at the State Capital to hear more names read of our sisters and brothers who have been slaughtered. Yet, HRC does not see the need to take a stand on their behalf? The HRC really thinks it is OK to have just LGB?

I will once again say:

There is no going forward if everyone is not with us.

This is not Animal Farm where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others"!

HRC has made and continues to make a horrible and tragic miscalculation...a poll of 500 people does not speak for the entire LGBTQ community.

HRC sold it's sisters and brothers down the river for a bill they knew was not going to pass or have a chance in hell of becoming law. So what better time then to take a moral and courageous stand?

Does HRC not understand the Transgender community is in real and serious danger? When a house is on fire you don't stand outside and decide whom you are going to rescue, the attempt is made for all.

Of course what HRC has forgotten is it was these folks who started the whole “gay rights” movement we know today when they stood toe to high heal with the New York City police department at Stonewall.

HRC confidently forgets the Trans community has been with us every step of this bloody fight for our rights, our self worth and our very souls.

HRC forgets or ignores that each day when a trans person gets out of bed and steps into the world it may in fact be their last day.

If the hypocrites in congress don't want transgender people in a bill of protection for LGBTQI folks, then there should be no bill for consideration...not have HRC bargaining and agreeing that a part of our community is expendable and could simply wait for another day.

By not including Transgender people in any bill sent to the floor of congress y'all send a clear message to everyone concerned that the transgender community is somehow not on equal footing with the rest of the community.

This is wrong and HRC knows it. Pastorally speaking HRC has chosen to be the Esther who didn't bother to go before the King (Esther 4 New International Version).

Shame on you. I wonder how many Transgender people will die because even HRC does not think they are worthy of protection? This was and is a time for leadership, guts and courage.

It has been said a bill couldn't get through with Trans as apart of it, that it would be defeated...well my friends you may have won the battle with the US Congress but HRC has made themselves hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.

"The Human Rights Campaign is the nations largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality" Just where does the needs of the transgender community meet HRC's definition of civil rights if not within ENDA?

I know this doesn't mean a hell of lot to you, as I am not one of the high profile pastor's for which HRC has fooled into believing they care about the total community. Yet, how does one deal with a statement from your Executive Director which as it turns out was a flat out lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw

This statement was made in front of a room full of Transgender folks. So did your Executive Director mis-speak? Although I thought his statement was pretty clear. Are we to pretend this statement of support was just to say something nice to the trans community?

I cannot express how sad and disappointed I am in this organization. HRC should know that God's people are not expendable at any price!

The recent attempts to "explain" to "sooth", to "justify". to "spin" this despicable act on the part of HRC is arrogant, shameful and not worthy of a people who want our money so they can "fight for our rights"

I am no longer a supporter of HRC, I will not honor their name or pass on their e-mails with their weekly calls for money.

They will not again receive one dime of my money or the church's and I will certainly encourage folks to find other organizations to support with their hard earned money other then HRC. I do believe there are organizations out there that still understand the meaning of community and that without all the hard work of the Trans community we would be nothing.

There is talk of a calling for a boycott of the HRC dinner in Atlanta as well as any other HRC events in this city that seek our hard earned money. I am inclined to agree with boycotting the dinner and HRC in general. It is an appropriate way to send a message from Atlanta, the cradle of the civil rights movement that if we are not all protected by the law then none of us has protection.

No, I will not be going to this dinner and I would encourage anyone who has a basic sense of fairness, compassion and a sense of community to not go either.

I would encourage Rev. Dennis Meredith not to attend and accept an award from a group of people who are not willing to stand by all who are apart of the community.

Reverend Paul M. Turner

Sr. Pastor

pastorpaul@gentlespirit.org
http://www.gentlespirit.org

Marc said: "My read is that trans folks need to go through the same process that LGB went through, to have, as it were, a "Queer Nation" moment of consolidation in their own movement so that trans folks as a movement can, through a campaign of visibility, come of age and do the prep work required to swing those 70 votes if Pelosi won't use her power to do so."

Whilst I empathise with your suggestion, a major problem with it is that many trans people simply do not wish to be visible. Many of my trans sisters and brothers live in stealth with good reason, and may lose more than they gain by following such a course of action.

It's a bit chicken-and-egg: If we don't stand up and get counted, we'll never be included. But if we're not likely to be included, why stick our heads above the parapets?

Congress holds first-ever transgender hearing
House members hear stories of discrimination, fear

JOSHUA LYNSEN
Friday, July 04, 2008

Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti doesn’t want anyone else to suffer what she’s endured.

Once a man working in aeronautics engineering, Marcus Taraboletti said she lost her job in 2003 after informing her Florida employer that she planed to change her sex from male to female.
“I cannot tell you how meaningless life feels when an event like this happens,” she said. “I was humiliated.”

In the years since, Marcus Taraboletti has been unable to secure another job in her field. She’s exhausted her savings while caring for two children. And she’s accepted that she might have to sell her home.

All this, Marcus Taraboletti said, because there’s no federal law barring employers from discriminating based on gender identity.

“People should be judged by the quality of their work, by the quality of their character,” she said. “So many of us face what I have faced. Many more are preparing to face it in the future. It needs to stop.”

Some members of Congress agree. During an unprecedented Capitol Hill hearing June 26 on transgender issues, Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) said federal laws should have been in place to protect Marcus Taraboletti’s career.

“This is a moral obligation,” he said. “The last time I saw the Constitution and read it, every person was supposed to be created equal. It didn’t cherry pick.”

Featuring speakers such as Taraboletti, the hearing was intended to give federal lawmakers an overview of transgender workplace discrimination issues. It was not held to push any specific bill, but many speakers repeatedly said new laws are needed.

“Substantively, they provide real remedies and a chance to seek justice,” said Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), a lesbian.

“Symbolically, they say to America, ‘Judge your fellow citizen by their integrity, character and talents, not their sexual orientation, or gender identity, or race or religion, for that matter.’
Symbolically, these laws also say that irrational fear, irrational hate, have no place in our workplace.”
But others who spoke at the hearing questioned the need for federal intervention.

“We have numerous federal and state laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent discriminatory practices,” said Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.). “Do we need yet another federal law?”

J.C. Miller, a Washington attorney who specializes in discrimination cases, also said federal intervention would do little to ease prejudices.

“We cannot legislate people being nice to each other,” she said. “It would be nice to do that, but we cannot. We all know that. We cannot legislate people’s internal thoughts and processes.”

Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) and other lawmakers, though, countered Miller.

“No, we can’t legislate what people’s thoughts are, but we can legislate their actions,” Sánchez said. “And where we find discrimination, we can say that is something that is unlawful.”

The hearing came seven months after House members voted 235-184 to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which bars workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure does not bar discrimination based on gender identity.

A separate bill to enact such protections is before two House subcommittees, including the one that hosted the June 26 hearing, but no major actions regarding the bill are pending in either subcommittee.

It’s unclear whether either measure will advance during this congressional session.

Consequently, advocates used the June 26 hearing to lay the groundwork for future legislative proposals and win new allies.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, also encouraged the many transgender people who attended the hearing to be tenacious in their push for protection.

“I recognize when I first got involved in politics, if I was honest about who I was, it would have made some people nervous,” he said. “But they got used to me. I just want to reassure people here, they’re going to get used to you.”

In additional comments to lawmakers, Frank said that transgender people were making a reasonable request in seeking basic workplace protections.

“Nobody’s asking anybody to have dinner with people, or take them to the movies,” he said. “No one is being given license to misbehave.”

Miller and Glen Lavy, senior counsel at the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, countered that such protections could prove problematic to businesses and trigger numerous lawsuits if not clearly written.
But their testimony did not stick with some lawmakers at the hearing.

“You know, we put people in space,” Hare said. “We can figure this out.”

Pastor Paul is not happy with HRC's dissing of transgender people in l'affaire ENDA. Here is his open letter declining an invite to Atlanta's upcoming May 3 HRC dinner.

First, the e-mail inviting him to the dinner:

Jason Lowery & Ebonee Bradford Cordially invites you to attend the 21st Annual Human Rights Campaign Dinner. Keynote speaker Kathy Nahjimy, Entertainment the incomprable crystal waters! tickets are still available for may 3, 2008

Awardees: Rev dennis meredith, Tabernacle Baptist Atl.-Dan Bradley Humunitarian Award/ Frank Bragg Metrotainment cafe/leon allen & Winston Johnson Community leadership award. www.boxofficetickets.com or www.atlantahrcdinner.org

Pastor Paul's response:

Thank you for the invitation...However, I will not participate with anything involving HRC until the Transgender Community is really part of the LGBTQI they so often say they represent.

There are those in our community who think I am being "childish" and "foolish" about this, however, I cannot nor will I stand with an organization which uses a part of our community as a political chess piece.

I cannot nor will I stand silently by while our sisters and brothers in the Transgender community are told they must wait for protection, or "they must understand we are not there yet". Every year I stand at the State Capital to hear more names read of our sisters and brothers who have been slaughtered. Yet, HRC does not see the need to take a stand on their behalf? The HRC really thinks it is OK to have just LGB?

I will once again say:

There is no going forward if everyone is not with us.

This is not Animal Farm where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others"!

HRC has made and continues to make a horrible and tragic miscalculation...a poll of 500 people does not speak for the entire LGBTQ community.

HRC sold it's sisters and brothers down the river for a bill they knew was not going to pass or have a chance in hell of becoming law. So what better time then to take a moral and courageous stand?

Does HRC not understand the Transgender community is in real and serious danger? When a house is on fire you don't stand outside and decide whom you are going to rescue, the attempt is made for all.

Of course what HRC has forgotten is it was these folks who started the whole “gay rights” movement we know today when they stood toe to high heal with the New York City police department at Stonewall.

HRC confidently forgets the Trans community has been with us every step of this bloody fight for our rights, our self worth and our very souls.

HRC forgets or ignores that each day when a trans person gets out of bed and steps into the world it may in fact be their last day.

If the hypocrites in congress don't want transgender people in a bill of protection for LGBTQI folks, then there should be no bill for consideration...not have HRC bargaining and agreeing that a part of our community is expendable and could simply wait for another day.

By not including Transgender people in any bill sent to the floor of congress y'all send a clear message to everyone concerned that the transgender community is somehow not on equal footing with the rest of the community.

This is wrong and HRC knows it. Pastorally speaking HRC has chosen to be the Esther who didn't bother to go before the King (Esther 4 New International Version).

Shame on you. I wonder how many Transgender people will die because even HRC does not think they are worthy of protection? This was and is a time for leadership, guts and courage.

It has been said a bill couldn't get through with Trans as apart of it, that it would be defeated...well my friends you may have won the battle with the US Congress but HRC has made themselves hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.

"The Human Rights Campaign is the nations largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality" Just where does the needs of the transgender community meet HRC's definition of civil rights if not within ENDA?

I know this doesn't mean a hell of lot to you, as I am not one of the high profile pastor's for which HRC has fooled into believing they care about the total community. Yet, how does one deal with a statement from your Executive Director which as it turns out was a flat out lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw

This statement was made in front of a room full of Transgender folks. So did your Executive Director mis-speak? Although I thought his statement was pretty clear. Are we to pretend this statement of support was just to say something nice to the trans community?

I cannot express how sad and disappointed I am in this organization. HRC should know that God's people are not expendable at any price!

The recent attempts to "explain" to "sooth", to "justify". to "spin" this despicable act on the part of HRC is arrogant, shameful and not worthy of a people who want our money so they can "fight for our rights"

I am no longer a supporter of HRC, I will not honor their name or pass on their e-mails with their weekly calls for money.

They will not again receive one dime of my money or the church's and I will certainly encourage folks to find other organizations to support with their hard earned money other then HRC. I do believe there are organizations out there that still understand the meaning of community and that without all the hard work of the Trans community we would be nothing.

There is talk of a calling for a boycott of the HRC dinner in Atlanta as well as any other HRC events in this city that seek our hard earned money. I am inclined to agree with boycotting the dinner and HRC in general. It is an appropriate way to send a message from Atlanta, the cradle of the civil rights movement that if we are not all protected by the law then none of us has protection.

No, I will not be going to this dinner and I would encourage anyone who has a basic sense of fairness, compassion and a sense of community to not go either.

I would encourage Rev. Dennis Meredith not to attend and accept an award from a group of people who are not willing to stand by all who are apart of the community.

Reverend Paul M. Turner
Sr. Pastor
http://www.gentlespirit.org

In politics, especially civil rights, nothing comes to the meek. Concessions must be wrested from power by organized political force.

If trans folks wish to make themselves visible only when LGB are poised to make significant political gains and to do so in the negative, yet are reluctant to become visible to the greater population, then that is not a path that has a record of success in securing political and civil rights.

When I mention the Queer Nation phase, LGB were shunned and discredited for being "in your face" by conservative LGB and the general population alike. But it took that kind of activism to create the political conditions which are legitimating LGB as equal members of society at the federal level.

I would support whatever means trans folks would use to secure their rights other than holding back LGB as a statement, as there is no historical record supporting that strategy as viable and successful.

Trans folks need to get their shit together politically on an affirmative strategy for liberation. Due to their smaller numbers, trans folks would benefit from assistance from LGB in that effort since our oppressions intersect to some extent and we are natural allies.

Just as men cannot call the shots on womens' liberation and white folks cannot call the shots on people of color issues and hets cannot call the shots on LGBT liberation because the less powerful require autonomy to chart the course of their own liberation free from suffocation by the more powerful, LGB cannot call the shots for T liberation either, that is their job. All we can do is help when asked, and that help cannot include putting our own liberation on hold.

One would imagine that attacking Barney Frank and denying congressional victory to tens of millions of LGB is not the way to fashion up a coalition that can win T rights.

-marc

Pastor Paul's response:

Thank you for the invitation...However, I will not participate with anything involving HRC until the Transgender Community is really part of the LGBTQI they so often say they represent.

There are those in our community who think I am being "childish" and "foolish" about this, however, I cannot nor will I stand with an organization which uses a part of our community as a political chess piece.

I cannot nor will I stand silently by while our sisters and brothers in the Transgender community are told they must wait for protection, or "they must understand we are not there yet". Every year I stand at the State Capital to hear more names read of our sisters and brothers who have been slaughtered. Yet, HRC does not see the need to take a stand on their behalf? The HRC really thinks it is OK to have just LGB?

I will once again say:

There is no going forward if everyone is not with us.

This is not Animal Farm where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others"!

HRC has made and continues to make a horrible and tragic miscalculation...a poll of 500 people does not speak for the entire LGBTQ community.

HRC sold it's sisters and brothers down the river for a bill they knew was not going to pass or have a chance in hell of becoming law. So what better time then to take a moral and courageous stand?

Does HRC not understand the Transgender community is in real and serious danger? When a house is on fire you don't stand outside and decide whom you are going to rescue, the attempt is made for all.

Of course what HRC has forgotten is it was these folks who started the whole “gay rights” movement we know today when they stood toe to high heal with the New York City police department at Stonewall.

HRC confidently forgets the Trans community has been with us every step of this bloody fight for our rights, our self worth and our very souls.

HRC forgets or ignores that each day when a trans person gets out of bed and steps into the world it may in fact be their last day.

If the hypocrites in congress don't want transgender people in a bill of protection for LGBTQI folks, then there should be no bill for consideration...not have HRC bargaining and agreeing that a part of our community is expendable and could simply wait for another day.

By not including Transgender people in any bill sent to the floor of congress y'all send a clear message to everyone concerned that the transgender community is somehow not on equal footing with the rest of the community.

This is wrong and HRC knows it. Pastorally speaking HRC has chosen to be the Esther who didn't bother to go before the King (Esther 4 New International Version).

Shame on you. I wonder how many Transgender people will die because even HRC does not think they are worthy of protection? This was and is a time for leadership, guts and courage.

It has been said a bill couldn't get through with Trans as apart of it, that it would be defeated...well my friends you may have won the battle with the US Congress but HRC has made themselves hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.

"The Human Rights Campaign is the nations largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality." Just where does the needs of the transgender community meet HRC's definition of civil rights if not within ENDA?

I know this doesn't mean a hell of lot to you, as I am not one of the high profile pastor's for which HRC has fooled into believing they care about the total community. Yet, how does one deal with a statement from your Executive Director which as it turns out was a flat out lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw

This statement was made in front of a room full of Transgender folks. So did your Executive Director mis-speak? Although I thought his statement was pretty clear. Are we to pretend this statement of support was just to say something nice to the trans community?

I cannot express how sad and disappointed I am in this organization. HRC should know that God's people are not expendable at any price!

The recent attempts to "explain" to "sooth", to "justify", to "spin" this despicable act on the part of HRC is arrogant, shameful and not worthy of a people who want our money so they can "fight for our rights"

I am no longer a supporter of HRC, I will not honor their name or pass on their e-mails with their weekly calls for money.

They will not again receive one dime of my money or the church's and I will certainly encourage folks to find other organizations to support with their hard earned money other then HRC. I do believe there are organizations out there that still understand the meaning of community and that without all the hard work of the Trans community we would be nothing.

There is talk of a calling for a boycott of the HRC dinner in Atlanta as well as any other HRC events in this city that seek our hard earned money. I am inclined to agree with boycotting the dinner and HRC in general. It is an appropriate way to send a message from Atlanta, the cradle of the civil rights movement that if we are not all protected by the law then none of us has protection.

No, I will not be going to this dinner and I would encourage anyone who has a basic sense of fairness, compassion and a sense of community to not go either.

I would encourage Rev. Dennis Meredith not to attend and accept an award from a group of people who are not willing to stand by all who are a part of the community.

Reverend Paul M. Turner
Sr. Pastor
http://www.gentlespirit.org/

I think it's a shame -- and a sign -- that our community is fracturing more than ever, when rather than stand up for our trans brothers and sisters and others we make them stand alone. Maybe I'm now an old-fashioned queerista (and cynical -- without bundling trans rights into ENDA I'm pretty positive that any "revisiting" that focusses specifically on trans rights will be done when we live in pods on Mars, and I bet the number of prominent gays and lesbians who take the lead in that one will equal about five) but I DO believe in all or nothing when it comes to queer civil rights.

Treating trans people like they have their heads in the sand just because they're not on your radar, Marc, is pretty blindered. There are tons of prominent trans activists and organizations. And if understandably many trans people necessarily need to live at points "below the radar" then all the more reason that those of us in the community who have the luxury of secure visibility should be standing up for them.

I really don't think losing out on this version of ENDA would be "throwing people under the bus." Sure it would be a historical landmark, but hey -- I'm totally secure in my employment even by being one of the most vocal, queeny fags in American media. Why should I care if some uptight paralegal queen in Billings has to stay closeted because they fear they'll have to flip burgers if their lisp slips?

Oh, that's right, community. And empathy. Those thing of ours that seems to be slipping away ...

I mean, if we're gonna accuse people of not sticking their own damn necks out to gain civil rights, then why exactly are we caring about whom this ENDA most affects anyway? Those are the people afraid to be who they are because they might lose or not get the job they want (or, in this economy, need). Talk about low bars. Like the homeless and the poor, why don't they just move where it's better? Or grow some cajones and tough it out?

So you see where this kind of logic leads ...

Joni,

Do you have anything original to say? I appreciate re-reading what you've post here, but I wonder if you can add some of your own individual thoughts on ENDA, HRC and the queer movement. Also, please consider posting only 2-3 paragraphs of longs articles and letters, and linking to their originating URLs. I look at the Guardian blogs as chances to converse and debate, not just re-post articles someone happens to like.

michael

Since Pelosi and Frank yanked T from ENDA, how many who complain about the HRC attended Democratic Party functions, state conventions, in the interim? How many ran for DCCC, the local governing branch of a party which yanked T from ENDA? Where is brave Mark Leno in challenging Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank on this?

Our local Democratic Party hacks are doing a yeoman's job of deflecting the responsibility of this from the Democratic Party leadership to the HRC, probably because they have become used to the feeling of the cold floor on their foreheads as they bow down before power. The same local Democratic Party hacks have made similar legislative choices to consolidate by compromising rendering this cut quite hypocritical.

To Marke B. it does not matter much what I think, as I am not a decisionmaker, I do not count votes in Congress. What matters of importance and relevance is what the swing votes if Democrats in Congress think, and what matters is how effective trans advocates are at convincing the people with power to vote for civil rights. If the votes were there for T inclusion, I'd celebrate. But since they are not, tough decisions need be made.

Trans folks are on my radar--I helped persuade central valley Greens to put aside their concerns which led to the adoption by the CA Green Party platform of a plank calling for full civil rights for trans folks, this before the CA Democrat Party had taken a similar stand.

In 2000 when the HRC called for a March on Washington that had no grassroots support, cheap airfares and a crash pad with a friend allowed me to attend that and march with a freak parade against HRC conservativism and assimilation. It was a pathetic turnout compared to the 1993 MOW, but was fun to challenge the HRC.

The truth is that there will always be common homosexuals who prefer assimilation and comfort who will fund conservative groups like the HRC and who won't fund progressive LGBT organizations. Our slogan marching in 2000 was "HRC don't speak for me." They didn't then and they don't now.

It is empirical as to whether the votes are there or not for a matter before Congress, whether the Democratic Party is capable of enforcing party discipline or not when it comes to civil rights of the most vulnerable. That the votes are not there, empirically demonstrates that trans folks have more work to do irrespective of how much work they've already done.

The time elapsed since the Mattechine Society and Daughters of Bilitis were active until we won a vote in Congress was about 50 years. Are you trying to tell me that trans folks have been that politically organized over that interval? My recollection is that the first trans activism that I'd seen is within the past 10, 15 years.

The one thing the HRC has done right is doggedly working on ENDA for the past two decades. They even tried to add T into the mix earlier this decade but did so without counting noses, noses that Pelosi could or would not deliver.

And that should follow by an objective analysis of the history of queer politics over the past 25 years. LGB were there making our case for our civil rights and we've made embarassing progress when compared to other oppressed groups, such as POC over that time.

Trans folks have, for a variety of reasons, not progressed in their liberation to that extent. I'd also point to the historical example of California again, where LGB got our rights decades ago and T were followed up on as soon as they had a Leno in office, a champion capable of moving mountains.

So this notion of either we all move forward together or trans get left behind forever is not born out by historical example. Even Tammy Baldwin, who tried in vein to rustle up the votes for T inclusion has not been able to add T to Wisconsin's anti discrimination law. Why would one expect success in Washington if one did not win in Madison?

The rub here is that the community fractures when coastal elite LGB decide to throw "flyover" LGB under the bus awaitng the 70 votes to get T inclusion, as the community fractures when ENDA moves forward absent T. A fracture is a fracture, the only difference is whose ox gets gored.

There are some who say we should fall on our swords in an effort to protect the most vulnerable first, my politics are to do the most good for the greatest number of people, to consolidate and to move forward from a position of strength.

As one who came of age as a queer in Texas in the 1970s and 1980s, I am horrified at the coastal elitism that says that the employment rights of tens of millions of LGB living in red states can be put on hold period.

One thing that we learned in ACT/UP back in the 1980s and 1990s is that our community unravels quickly once we move away from those things which we hold in common, which is same sex practices. That was a hard pill to swallow, but one of the riches of LGBT is that we encompass the full spectrum of political positions. T

he former San Francisco Sentinel, a conservative LGB publication was ACT/UP's main antagonist, even though we won victories in opening up the HIV/AIDS research and treatment process to community input, saving and extending countless lives.

What was the line I heard years ago while at a gay skinhead pub/sex party in London when I asked about how they dealt with racist gay skinheads? The bloke running the event said that the best way to keep them from spouting that shit is to keep their mouths stuffed with a big hard dick. Worked for me.

I have yet to see a scenario where going against the 70% of LGB who wanted ENDA (poll from last fall) to proceed absent T last year is going to set the stage for future gains. To my mind, this is a case of coastal activists feeling self important and ignoring the sentiments of the broad base. In politics, one alienates the majority at one's peril, as we've seen from labor and mainstream progressive democrats locally.

Legislating is disgusting, especially when hundreds of stoned cats from the flyover need be herded. Asserting anything other than that is self deception.

Again, trans folks need to run their own liberation. They've only asked for help in asking us to put our aspirations on hold until they get up to speed. That didn't work. Now it is time to try something different.

-marc

Hey Marc: Christine Jorgenson, 1952. Name me one gay or lesbian activist as visible that year. And also, what's wrong with being an elite? How fun that someone with an queer activist background such as yourself is now using conservative buzzword ideology to get your point across (as well as the whole red state/blue state false dichotomy -- have you been to any large city in the Midwest lately? Gurl, those freaks are way more flaming than SF, LA, or NYC -- they're still bleaching their hair and wearing flared jeans and freedom rings!) Why should imaginary red state straw gays throw trans people "under the bus" (whatever that means, another buzz phrase).

Anyway, whatever. No amount of HRC fancy dinner boycotting is going to stop this version of ENDA from either advancing or failing. Let the Elite Transpeople of the Coasts protest. And let the Righteous Gay Protectorate of Timid Red State Queers rent their pink tuxedos and applaud themselves over Chicken Kiev.

Hi,
I wanted to share a very inspirational essay by a leader from Florida, Nadine Smith.

http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_moment_of_truth.php

A Moment of Truth
Filed by: Nadine Smith
September 29, 2007 2:50 AM
Don't get angry, get organized.
That's an old activist slogan to remind us that in a fight we do better to get strategic than to simply lash out. Are you upset to hear that gender identy and expression has been stripped from our national ENDA bill? Well, now is not the time to perform the autopsy on how a fully inclusive bill came unraveled. The patient is still alive and we have work to do.
History shows us that we can win.
Years ago I heard Tim McFeeley, then Executive Director of HRC, tell the story of how the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was almost halted by the disability community leaders themselves.
In 1990, the landmark measure had passed the House and the Senate with bipartisan majorities and was on its way to then President George H. W. Bush who had already firmly committed to signing the bill. But disability community leaders, many of whom had spent decades fighting for this historic legislation were not happy. In the final moments, both chambers had suddenly amended the ADA to specifically exclude HIV positive waiters, cooks and anyone designated a "food-handler".

With passage utterly assured, Rep. Joe Barton and the National Restaurant Association might have thought that the last minute exclusion of HIV positive workers would be no big deal. Perhaps they thought exploiting the public's fear of AIDS and ignorance about how HIV is transmitted, would be treated as a minor issue effecting a tiny population. They were wrong.
Before the bill reached Bush's desk, Patrisha Wright, the leader of the coalition fighting for passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, asked Tim to represent HRC in a delegation of disability leaders scheduled to meet the next morning at the White House. The only purpose of the meeting was to demand that the food handler amendment be removed from the bill.
They gathered in the Roosevelt Room at the White House with C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President and Tim described his amazement as disability community leaders unwaveringly demanded that the bill cover people with HIV equally.

"One of those leaders, Bob Williams, a man afflicted with cerebral palsy and who later became Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities in the Clinton Administration, using a spell board because he could not speak, communicated the message that the disability community would rather have no ADA than an ADA that excluded people with HIV.
"I think no one would have blamed these ADA leaders if they had accepted the food handlers' exclusion. But that's not what happened. I will never forget their principled stand in solidarity with this small segment of HIV+ workers. So much was at stake for them. The White House was not responsive to their position, but we were able to reverse the House and Senate votes by stripping the amendment out in conference. As a result, HIV positive workers who handle food are covered by the ADA to this day."

Fast forward to June 1998. Texas lawmakers are considering new state hate crimes legislation in the wake of the horrific, racist murder of James Byrd. Despite political pragmatists insisting that the bill could pass easily if sexual orientation were jettisoned, the Byrd family would have none of it. Matthew Shepherd's had been murdered within months of Byrd, placing a spotlight on the epidemic of anti-gay hate violence. The Byrd family would not allow the message that gay lives were held more cheaply to be delivered by supporting bill that would have ignored his brutal death.
George W. Bush, then Governor of Texas, vetoed the measure but it became law in 2001 with sexual orientation and race included.
So here we are at a moment of truth for our community and everyone is watching to see if we will hold the line or broker away some portion of our community for the chance at achieving a "partial victory".
Would we accept a bill that protected gay men but not lesbians? Would we find it reasonable to say "Don't worry. We'll come back later for you? Absolutely not. So, the question has finally been called. Will we behave as an LGBT movement with every portion of our community intrinsically and irrevocably linked no matter what? Are we in this together?
Some say laws don't change hearts and minds but we know they do. Every law and local ordinance we pass has both a legal and symbolic value. Even when enforcement mechanisms are toothless and underfunded, they send a message about how our communities believe everyone ought to be treated. We pursue them not because we think they will punish every bigot who discriminates but because we know they will set a community standard in which discrimination is not a given, no longer legally or socially acceptable.
It is also true that stripping "gender identity/expression:" from the bill sends a symbolic message as well. And it is a dangerous one for a community already marginalized and vulnerable. The language is intrinsic to the viability of the bill and the integrity of our community. To jettison the language from the bill is to succumb to our most fearful impulses and embolden those who oppose equality for all of us.
This isn't just a question of Federal law. It is sending a message to every local and state legislature considering similar legislation. Now,the laws we pass at the local and state level routinely include gender identity and expression. Every leader in this community knows that these protections are urgently needed. We cannot pretend that we don't know this and continue to call ourselves leaders. Who do we think we are going to turn to for protection if we cannot even advocate resolutely for our right - the right of each gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender person - to live without violence, harassment and discrimination? We cannot feign solidarity while signaling simultaneously that we will settle for something less. This is our moment of truth and we cannot blink.
Like every minority group that has fought for basic rights, we will never win by the votes of our community alone. What we do have is the moral authority to call out to America to live up its ideals. We have the ability to call on our leaders and our fellow citizens to treat everyone equally under the law, to reject bigotry, prejudice and the discrimination and violence they breed.
To cut out, to throw out protection regardless of gender identity/expression is to cede that moral authority. It is to confirm for our political enemies that a dividing line within the human family is acceptable--the haggling about who is worthy and who is not is all that remains.
This is not the time to do the bigots' work for them. To make excuses. To call fear pragmatism.
Here is what we need:
Every organization and every individual who shares a commitment to equality to speak in a single voice with the clarity of disability activist Bob Williams: We are in this together. We will leave no one behind.