Why HRC, GLAAD and TLC’s advocacy hurts the transgender community

Today I got an email from the Human Rights Campaign saying, "Tell ABC: Your new comedy is no laughing matter." It's about this new television show called "Work It." HRC says,

As part of their winter line-up, ABC is releasing a new comedy called "Work It," featuring two men who dress as women in order to get jobs. The problem is that the premise reinforces false, hurtful stereotypes about transgender people. This kind of programming only mocks those who don't adhere to society's gender norms. Tell ABC's president to can "Work It" now.

The link in HRC's email goes to a petition asking ABC "not to air a show that reinforces negative and damaging stereotypes about transgender people." On their website, HRC says that their president Joe Solomonese "contacted ABC Entertainment Group President Paul Lee today to request a meeting to discuss the very real challenges transgender Americans face in the work place – with the goal of ensuring “Work It” can be a light-hearted comedy that doesn’t belittle or mock these obstacles; or reinforce negative and potentially damaging stereotypes."

With a little googling, I found a trailer for the new series, and articles at The Wrap and the Hollywood Reporter. These both said that not only HRC, but the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination were up in arms about the new show.

On GLAAD's website, I found a blog post attempting to explain "Why ABC's New Sitcom Work It Hurts the Transgender Community." That blog post linked to a Huffington Post article by Mark Daniel Snyder of the Transgender Law Center saying, "We owe it to our constituents to speak out anywhere we see an injustice, no matter how big or how small."

I don't particularly feel that this show is harmful to transgender people. I'll explain my reaction in more detail later, but for now I want to focus on the advocacy messages.

Note that in the HRC website and email, and the statements in the media, we do not hear from a single trans person. HRC president Joe Solomonese is not transgender, and I'm pretty sure that neither is GLAAD Acting President Mike Thompson or Matt Kane, their Associate Director of Entertainment Media. The transgender Huffington Post bloggers who've discussed this issue, Emerson Whitney and Mark Daniel Snyder, are both female-to-male, as is Transgender Law Center Executive Director Masen Davis, quoted in the Advocate.

It took a lot of digging to find any public statements by male-to-female transgender people, and there was a negative one by Kelli Busey and one withholding judgment by Jillian Page. The only expert on transgender workplace diversity I know of, Jillian Weiss, has produced a single tweet, "@kellibusey I like your guest post on care2."

What I find a lot more disturbing than yet another crappy sitcom is reading pronouncements by a bunch of gay men and FTMs about what MTF transgender people feel and think and want, at best referencing yet another problematic convenience-sample survey, without a single MTF voice to be heard. Do Joe Solomonese and Matt Kane and Mark Daniel Snyder know any MTFs? Emerson Whitney at least quoted Kelli Busey; why couldn't Mike Thompson or Mason Davis?

I'll tell you what hurts the transgender community. It's the pretense that we are united by anything other than the hatred we get from outside. It's the idea that we all care about the same things, feel the same way, react the same way. It's the constant stream of shoddy convenience-sample survey reports that allow some gay guy who read The Celluloid Closet or some FTM who read Marjorie Garber to set themselves up as authorities about What Hurts the Community. It's the idea that this is a problem ABC can solve by meeting with Joe Solomonese instead of, say, an actual transgender person, maybe even an actor or producer.

I'm thinking of starting a petition.

The Rebecca Juro Show Is Live Tonight At 7pm Eastern With Guest HRC Press Secretary Michael Cole-Schwartz

On this week’s Rebecca Juro Show we welcome Human Rights Campaign Press Secretary Michael Cole-Schwartz. We’ll talk with Michael about HRC’s advocacy of LGBT rights, where they are now and where they’re going. There’s been a lot of discussion about HRC’s past and their history with the trans and grassroots communities, but on this show we’re going to talk about the future. Can HRC and the trans and grassroots activist communities ever work together effectively or is that no longer possible? Where is HRC on ENDA now and what can we expect to see from them on the effort in the future? What’s the most urgent goal now in the post-DADT era? ENDA? DOMA? Something else? We’ll explore those questions and more tonight!

It’s the Rebecca Juro Show, 7-9pm eastern! Be there or you’ll miss good stuff!

Live Show Feed: http://loudcaster.com/channels/560-q1-fm

Studio Call-In Line: 928-277-4921

Podcast Homepage: http://beckyjuro.podomatic.com
Podcast RSS Feed: http://beckyjuro.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml

HRC and the lessons from the Cold War

The other day I was listening to a "Fresh Air" interview with an author of book on Cold War politics and I think there's a number of lessons to be learned from that in the current tensions between much of the trans communities and the Human Rights Campaign. Especially in light of discussions about a potential meeting between HRC senior staff and director and trans activists.

The author talked about how through the Cold War there was an on-going tension between some conservatives, whose POV was that the Soviet Union was inherently evil, so any negotiations with them were pointless (Barry Goldwater even opposed negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis!); vs. other conservatives who thought that while the Soviets were untrustworthy adversaries with goals that differed and even conflicted with ours, engagement still made sense, as well as negotiations in areas where there were shared interests.

In a related vein, American diplomacy has had a weakness in assuming that one is either fighting or talking, whereas other countries have no problem with simultaneously fighting and talking.

What does this have to do with HRC and a possible meeting? I don't think HRC is an axis of evil, though I do think they've got their own agenda and proven that they're promises can be broken. Nonetheless, I think is still makes sense to engage them.

The meeting is a bit of a no-win situation. Refusing to meet only plays into HRC's hand because they can say that they tried to bridge things and the trans communities refused. OTOH, HRC wants to meet privately with only a handful of people, leading to concerns that they'll stack the deck with the few trans activists who are supporting HRC, which isn't ideal either.

But given the Hobson's choice, the former is the worse outcome. If trans leaders do meet with HRC they can make the list of attendees an issue, i.e. meeting with friendlies isn't exactly getting feedback from the people who are pissed off. They can also make clear that any discussions will be on the record and they will share publicly what's discussed.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable for trans activists to demand moving the purposed date of the meeting -- which is in the middle of the Southern Comfort Conference, one of the largest trans conferences in the country, which many trans leaders will be attending. After all we wouldn't expect Joe and company to meet during one of their fundraising dinners. If HRC refuses, then raise hell about that. Frankly, flexibility about the date is no different that the sort of "trust building" over minor points that's a routine step in many difficult negotiation settings. I.e. if HRC isn't willing move the date out of respect to the trans community, then that casts into doubt sincerity of the whole meeting itself.

As far as any promises HRC might make this meeting, I'll refer to one of the few points where I agree with Ronald Reagan: "trust but verify." I.e. hold HRC's feet to the fire to provide detailed criteria about how they plan to fulfill those promises -- criteria that is specific enough that they can be held accountable. (FWIW, I think it's only fair for HRC to ask the same of the trans communities.)

On a related note, we shouldn't demonize people who choose to attend this meeting, nor folks like Diego Sanchez who cross the picket lines to address HRC events, merely for doing so. Diplomacy means meeting with your enemies as well as your friends. Talking to one's enemies may not convince them to change their positions, but not talking to them is almost certain to fail to do so. That said, we can certainly hold these individuals accountable for the positions they espouse. If we don't feel like they're representing our POV, we should let them and others know.

None of this precludes the trans communities from also continuing to urge boycotts of HRC's fundraisers etc. until HRC's actions demonstrate that they've changed in ways that are satisfactory. But as part of that, I think it's important for trans activists not just say "don't support HRC" but also to provide alternatives. The "Left Out Party" protest outside HRC's recent fundraising dinner in San Francisco did a good job of this. Sure there was a protest, including the traditional picket line, but we also presented Human Rights Hero awards and had our own party -- which we pointedly noted was inclusive of everyone, including any HRC members who choose to cross the street. That said, there's been some criticism about the protest hurting fundraising efforts to fight Prop. 8. Which could have easily been countered by the "Left Out" organizers pointing out where else people could donate money that they would've otherwise given at the dinner.

We also need to be able to present a clear, concise story to the vast majority of LGB people who aren't familiar with the ENDA debacle. As well as why gender identity/expression affects everyone, not just trans people. When I've done so, I've generally found people understand why we're pissed off and are supportive. Likewise, being about to provide the 60-second education about how T people have been involved in LGBT activism for decades. My quickest version of that is pointing out that California gays and lesbians are enjoying marriage equality thanks to the efforts of trans man Shannon Minter, the lead attorney in the case -- and what if he'd decided not to get involved because of the LG (OK mostly gay men) activists who argue T issues have nothing to do with LGB issues?

(FWIW, I think there's also a story to be presented about how HRC's attitude and actions on ENDA are reflective of similar issues with the larger LGB communities, i.e. their treatment of local LGBT organizations, their focus on presenting LGB people as "virtually normal" and shying away from LGB people who aren't straight-acting, etc. Again, it's a matter of making people realize our fight has things in common as their fight.)

The fact of the matter is that the PR war does matter. HRC has proven itself to be pretty inept at it -- at least among those who know the full story (and what does that suggest about the effectiveness of their lobbying efforts?) -- we don't want to be equally inept.

HRC hires its first trans woman

The trans blogosphere has been buzzing the last few days over the Human Rights Campaign's hiring on ordained Baptist minister Allyson Robinson as their Associate Director of Diversity.

I personally know Allyson from the My Husband Betty forum and I'd agree with Mercedes Allen's characterization of it being a case of "optimistic, hopeful transfolk trying to step into a situation to make a positive difference." Is she being naive? Quite possibly, but she won't find out unless she tries -- although I and others have cautioned her to be wary of being used as the token trans woman. To be honest, it's not a job I'd wish on my worst enemy and Allyson has already taken heat from some trans activists for being a supposed quisling.

That said, while I've got no love for HRC, painting every move in terms of evil intent is counter-productive. It's important to give adversaries carrots as well as sticks. Otherwise if they think you'll never be satisfied, what incentive is there to change their behavior? Likewise, it can alienate potential allies, as Bil has noted. And praising things like this hire doesn't mean that we can't also note our anger at their current position on ENDA, which would exclude protections for gender identity and expression (for not only trans people, but anyone (gay or hetero) who's not straight-acting enough).

It may be that Allyson's hiring is a simply defensive move on HRC's part. Even true, that's not entirely a bad thing, in that it shows HRC is feeling the heat. Regardless, I think we ought to be applauding the appointment -- and simultaneously challenging HRC to demonstrate that Allyson won't be just a figurehead.

I think it's important to provide kudos/carrots as well as sticks, even to someone as intensively disliked as HRC is by much of the trans communities due to their broken promise on ENDA. If nothing else, it's just good strategy -- if your adversary thinks you'll never be satisfied no matter what, then what incentive do they have for doing what you'd like them do?

Likewise, I agree with Donna Rose that the knee-jerk vitriol toward HRC on the part of some trans activist is becoming counter-productive. In a variety of activist arenas, I've seen folks who are "infatuated with anger" and who seem to assume that rage equals commitment to the cause. Now don't get me wrong, there is often plenty to be angry about -- but one has to channel that anger effectively. Part of that is knowing when to rage and when to be diplomatic. To be able to disagree violently, but but yet civilly. Part of it is remembering that adversaries are people too. As a friend of mine said: "Be fierce, but be loving too." Constant vilification may be emotionally satisfying, but it also tends to alienate potential allies -- and the small size of the trans communities inherently means we'll need allies. There are LGB folks who do think HRC's actions on ENDA were shameful, and others who, when the story is told, are willing to support us. But unrelenting, undiscriminating rage is off-putting to say the least and just plays into HRC's hands by allowing them to write us off as a bunch bitter cranks.

In Response To Meghan Stabler

Yesterday the Human Rights Campaign's Backstory blog published the full unedited text of a letter to the editor of the Bay Area Reporter in support of HRC written by transgender activist and HRC Business Council member Meghan Stabler. Unfortunately, Backstory doesn't allow comments (gee, I wonder why?), so I thought I'd just turn mine into a blog post.

I've never met or spoken to Ms. Stabler and so I would not presume to pass judgment on her or her motives, but I believe this letter gives one an insight into the way the HRC faithful see the rift between HRC and the transgender community. For example:

"We must work together for the best strategy to secure employment protections that cover our entire community. To separate our community via a continuance of anger and in-fighting will not move our inclusive need forward. I fear that it will only add more fuel to those so-called "citizens" groups that are doing all in their power and in their coffers to hold equality back, and in some cases put back and down, ALL LGBT people."

Right off the bat, I take issue with Meghan Stabler's entire premise. WE did not separate our community. WE did not break our promises. WE did not endorse leaving the poorest and most victimized behind to gain advantage for the wealthier and less different-seeming segments of our community.

WE didn't start this...but we're sure as hell going to finish it.

"My involvement with HRC is part of my personal commitment to do all I can. I don't like "sides;" I never have. I hate injustice and inequality. Most of all I hate conflict, especially now that I see conflict within our community. In my opinion we must move forward and show cohesively that we are one community that is equal to the rest of America, at home and in the workplace."

Again Stabler seems to be relying on this faulty premise, that the conflict is a result of the actions of the trans community rather than the actions and choices of the Human Rights Campaign leadership which precipitated those actions in the first place. Stabler is essentially labeling the trans community and our allies divisive for getting upset about the HRC leadership's despicable behavior and speaking out against it. The closest she even comes to acknowledging that HRC has some responsibility here is when she says:

"I, too, was disappointed by the separation of Gender and Sexual Orientation from an inclusive-ENDA, and I was dismayed about how the leadership and board of HRC handled it."

Not exactly what you'd call a strong condemnation, is it? Maybe it's the US vs. UK English thing, but I'm "disappointed" and "dismayed" when there's an hour wait for a table at my favorite restaurant. When I'm lied to and have my community's interests betrayed by an organization that claims to speak for me and others like me, I feel something entirely different. For a long time, far too many in this community have been "disappointed" and "dismayed" but not enough have been genuinely pissed off and angry enough to do something about it. Things are different now, though. For once, maybe even for the first time, the numbers are finally on our side.

I don't say all this to attack Meghan Stabler personally. Again, I don't know her. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is sincere in her opinions. I also think, however, that she has fully bought into the HRC leadership's view of things and we are seeing that viewpoint clearly depicted in her letter. If I am correct here it would explain a lot about why we have yet to see an apology from these people: They really don't believe they've done anything wrong. That, of course, right there is the problem, and the crux upon which this entire conflict rests:

HRC's leadership sees their position on ENDA as smart politics, but most of the politically-conscious American LGBT community sees it as unjust, immoral, and bad behavior.

When you strip away all the politics and political posturing, it's really no more complicated than that. It isn't the trans community that's being divisive here. The true voice of the greater American LGBT community is demanding transgender inclusion in an ever-increasing chorus, but it's the Human Rights Campaign leadership that stands alone here, apart from the vast majority, endorsing legislation that offers protections only to the straight-appearing Queer elite, taking the very same position on transgender inclusion as the Log Cabin Republicans. It's not the trans community, but rather the Human Rights Campaign leadership which has chosen to separate itself from the will and political agenda of the greater community. HRC is isolated because it chose to isolate itself. If it wishes to rejoin this movement and perhaps someday be seen as a leader again then it must move to where the rest of us are. This community has moved on, past the divisive "ivory tower" politics of HRC, to a truly progressive agenda which demands that no American's right to be protected against discrimination ever be considered negotiable.

It all comes down to the simple reality that HRC's leadership knows perfectly well that its position on ENDA is in direct opposition to the one held by most of our community. They simply don't care. They are not qualified to represent us and they need to step aside and let a credible organization that truly reflects the will and the interests of the American LGBT community like NGLTF take the reins of this movement.

Of course, HRC doesn't want to step aside, but I think as time goes on this organization will find itself with less and less of a choice in that regard. That decision has already been made by the people, and the politicians are dutifully following suit. It's only a matter of time now before HRC finds itself disempowered in Congress, perhaps even left out of the loop on major LGBT political issues as the politicians increasingly look to our chosen leaders for guidance on where our community actually is on the important issues of the day. And y'know, I really don't think that time is all that far off.

Karma can be such a bitch.

Transgender Inclusion Goes Mainstream

If there’s anything you can count on the city of San Francisco for when it comes to LGBT rights and community support, it’s that even when they’re not on the very leading edge of something, they’ll still do it bigger, better, and more fabulously than anywhere else. New York, Philadelphia, and several other major cities have had protests and demonstrations against the Human Rights Campaign at their local fundraising events, but what’s waiting for HRC in San Francisco on July 26th, when they hold their next fundraising dinner in that city, is likely to make the rest look like a warmup act.

The “Left Out” protest/counter-party, organized by Pride at Work and local area organizations, will take place outside the hotel where the HRC dinner is being held and is expected to draw more attendance than the HRC event itself, featuring appearances by celebrities and political figures who are loudly and publicly shunning the HRC event.

When the most popular and well-respected political leaders in the city considered to be the Queer Mecca of the US are describing the largest “LGBT” civil rights organization in the country as “human rights cowards” and promising not only not to support them or attend their functions, but also to support those who oppose the Human Rights Campaign and their agenda, you know that the tide has indeed finally turned, that treating gender-variant people as equals and as an inextricable part of the LGBT community both socially and politically is an ideal that has evolved over the last couple of decades and especially over the last few years from merely wishful thinking and the rare attempt at inclusion to now being popularly considered a basic tenet of modern Queer activism. Transgender inclusion has gone mainstream in Queer America, and is now an integral part of the cultural and political identity of this community.

Where once most of the gay men and lesbians leading this movement acted selfishly, preferring to seek advantage only for those like themselves, and the community passively supported whatever path they chose, HRC’s behavior in regards to ENDA now has enraged so many in the greater LGBT community across the board that another faction in our community has begun to assert itself for the first time, one made up of staunch progressives who believe in not only tolerance and acceptance, but also in proactive and aggressive social and political action, in concert with an unshakable belief in full inclusion and in acting inclusively.

When we step back and look at this situation with a little perspective, it seems likely that the biggest mistake HRC and the Democratic House leadership made in dealing with transgender inclusion in ENDA wasn’t made behind a podium at Southern Comfort or even when Barney and Friends stripped us from the bill. Chances are, their real mistake was that these folks made a bet and they lost, bigtime.

In 2004, Transgender-Americans were, politically speaking, a joke. I can say this because I was there, I saw and heard it firsthand. I heard representatives of the LGBT outreach team of the Kerry campaign tell me and a team of transgender activists and supporters I’d assembled to meet with the campaign to discuss how we could help Kerry become President that even though they considered us part of the team and wanted us to do all we could to help get Kerry elected, neither the campaign nor the candidate would even do as little as publicly recognize the existence of Transgender-Americans, much less subscribe to the idea that civil rights are for all of us.

We were similarly ignored in the media. Virtually all of the Queer community media of the time, both in and out of the mainstream, was almost exclusively geared toward the interests of gay men and lesbians, usually with only a passing nod at best to transgender people and the issues relevant in our lives. The protests leading up to HRC’s original promise in August of 2004 only to support inclusive federal legislation from then on garnered only a smattering of mainstream community media attention. In fact, really the only places to find reliable and up-to-date news and information on topics and issues relating to transgender and gender-variant people then was in media specifically targeted toward us.

Given these realities, it wasn’t very surprising when most of the greater LGBT community responded to the events of 2004 with little more than a collective yawn. I suspect that HRC and the House leadership were betting that going with a non-inclusive ENDA would elicit much the same response from the community in 2007 and, because upcoming elections are always a consideration in politics, 2008. They gambled on being able to just slip it by most of the community with nary a ripple of complaint from the mainstream, where HRC and the Democrats are most concerned about protecting their public images and reputations. Fortunately for transgender and gender-variant Americans, the vast majority of the LGBT community and our allies would have absolutely none of it.

In a lot of ways, politicians, at least the good ones, can be like telltales on a ship, indicating through their actions and behavior exactly where their constituency is on a given issue. The choice of many of these pols to stand with those opposing the HRC and, by extension, the Democratic House leadership, in regards to the way they’ve dealt with ENDA is a powerful and courageous statement, but also one that seems to become easier and easier for politicians to make as time goes on. This suggests that transgender and gender-variance inclusion and support are currently making quantum gains in popular and political support, probably in large part because this drama is now being played out on so large, loud, and public a stage.

The irony here is almost palpable. In a very real way, it’s HRC and the House Dems themselves who created this monster. Through their actions, by acting in a way that they apparently didn’t realize would be seen as arrogant and morally reprehensible by the vast majority of the American LGBT and progressive communities, the issue of equal rights and treatment for transgender and gender-variant people has gone from a barely-mentioned side issue in many Queer and progressive spaces to a cause célèbre in cities across this country. If you’d told me in 2004 we’d be seeing politicians forgoing HRC dinners and publicly speaking out against the organization in support of transgender rights and inclusion in 2008, I’d have thought you insane. I don’t think we could have ever accomplished all this so quickly on our own.

I also believe that the real game-changer here in the minds of many has been not simply what these people did to us in regards to ENDA, but also the blatant disrespect and arrogance exhibited by the Human Rights Campaign and their friends in Congress in doing so. I think that resonated with many LGBT’s, friends, allies, and supporters, inspiring many in this community to examine whether or not they who may have been persecuted themselves or had witnessed anti-LGBT discrimination directed at a friend or loved one, were comfortable with seeking to escape that injustice at the expense of others who are even more harshly oppressed.

Of course, this is a very good thing. Equally obvious, however, is that we currently have no idea at all if this will have any relevance whatsoever as to whether or not we’ll see an inclusive ENDA (or ENDA replacement) in the next Congress. We can speculate all we want, but the real truth is that there’s just no way to even have a clue as to what might actually happen until those votes are all counted in November. If the Dems do win in a landslide, that which was once considered possible and then impossible may suddenly become possible once again. If this past week’s hearing is any indication, there are at least some members of Congress who are actively hoping to take advantage of that potential scenario.

As more progressives come to understand the discrimination faced by transgender and gender-variant people, more decide to help and declare their support for treating us fairly. We all thought it would take years, maybe even decades longer for it to happen, but it’s not, it’s happening right now. Support for transgender rights is rapidly becoming every bit as much a mainstream issue in some quarters now as support for gay and lesbian rights is or ever has been, particularly in places where gays and lesbians are already relatively well-protected from discrimination. We may not have completely caught up yet, but we’re covering the ground between us far more quickly than anyone could ever have reasonably predicted. We’re still racing forward at breakneck speed in terms of increasing understanding and acceptance, and we’ve been consistently doing so even during times when the American political climate has been its most aggressively anti-gay in modern memory.

I’m no less cynical today about the motives of politicians and selfish political advocacy organizations than I’ve ever been, but I also acknowledge that a smart politician is one who knows when it’s time to get on the popular side of an issue, and when it’s time to stand up and speak out on what they really believe. It’s become pretty clear what most of the LGBT community, and therefore many of the politicians seeking to court the Queer vote, believe the right side of this particular issue is and they’re moving toward it faster than a superdelegate on June 4th. I believe that we can take the lack of attendance at these HRC events and last week’s Congressional hearing as signs that the politicians are not only ready to listen, but also that an ever-increasing number of them are finally ready to act.

It’s also important to remember that there’s another reason why this particular event is significant as well. San Francisco contains the home district of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In the past, Pelosi has been able to depend on the LGBT community to rally behind her in support of her candidacy at election time. Call it a hunch, but I don’t think that same level of LGBT community support will be forthcoming for Pelosi and her campaign this time around.

This was a huge gamble for HRC and the Dems, and so, just as correspondingly huge a loss. The Human Rights Campaign is now a community pariah, their brand and their reputation all but completely discredited in much of the community and obviously in many political circles as well, especially in the major cities where most of the Queer money is. House Democrats have been coming under relentless fire from LGBT media and activists for passing a non-inclusive ENDA. It has quite literally become cool, hip, and cutting edge in LGBT and progressive circles to support transgender rights and to speak out against HRC and those in Congress who support non-inclusive civil rights legislation. Suddenly, we’re the new Black.

I strongly suspect that part of the motivation for holding last week’s hearing in Congress was to signal to the transgender community and our allies that we haven’t been forgotten. No doubt many Congressional Democrats are well aware of the public flogging HRC has been receiving from the LGBT community over ENDA, and at least some of them have experienced a taste of it themselves. With the election looming ever closer, the Democrats would like nothing better than to unite us all as one big happy Queer nation, under Obama, with liberty and justice for…well, nobody really.

It’s not going to happen. Not this year. There’s a new Queer Agenda© in effect now, one that doesn’t compromise on fighting bigotry and discrimination in the workplace, and most especially one that reflects the will of the vast majority of politically-conscious LGBT Americans and not that of just a handful of mainly ultra-wealthy white gay men. Congress knows it, and HRC knows it too, whether they want to admit it or not. The days when you could treat transpeople like crap and not have it be seen as a reprehensible thing by most Americans are over. It seems we’ve crossed that line for the virtually all of the LGB community and probably for most of modern America, and we can thank HRC, Barney Frank, and all the rest of the Democrats who went ahead with a non-inclusive ENDA despite the community outcry not to do it for pushing progressive public opinion over the line by highlighting and modeling the kind of unjust exclusion and discrimination transgender and gender-variant people face every day.

That’s right, you heard me. We have HRC and the incrementalist Dems in Congress who voted for the crippled, non-inclusive ENDA to thank for the surging support for transgender rights in our community and probably in our country overall, at least in part. Ain’t that a kick in the ass? Stranger still is the fact that we have to thank them for modeling bad behavior, thus rallying the community to our cause in droves to organize and fight against them and their elitist agenda.

Regardless of how we got here though, we’re here. We’ve made it. Transgender and gender-variant people are a bonafide American minority now, recognized as such not only by progressive Democrats like Barack Obama, but also by the United States Congress. If there’s any true sense of actual progress made to be had from last week’s hearing, perhaps it’s that. It’s what we asked from Kerry and the Democrats in ‘04 and were basically told to piss off.

So what does it all mean in the long term? The first thing it means is that we need to do everything we can to make damned certain that Barack Obama is elected President. The second thing it means is that it’s highly likely that what we’re seeing now is damage control. Congressional Democrats are wondering how they should respond, both when they get their own HRC dinner invitation and when (if) the question of transgender inclusion is called next year. They are, to be blunt, coming to terms with the fact that they misjudged the situation so completely and fucked this up so badly that it’s a tactical blunder worthy of the Bush Administration, and they’re trying to fix it after the fact as best they can.

What I’m hoping is that this hearing was a set up for an inclusive “reboot” of the whole ENDA legislation next year, be it a revamping of the bill itself or the introduction of a completely new piece of legislation. It would probably be the best way to put the past behind us as quickly as possible and bring the battle for transgender inclusion and its attendant political fallout to an end, or, at least a quieting, until the next battle lines are drawn.

It’s working. This is how we’ll all win together. Slowly. Steadily. Definitely. It may take a little longer and require a little more work to get there, but more people than ever before think it’s worth the effort. I’m still not yet convinced that anything has changed in any real way as far as ENDA is concerned, but at the same time, I’m more convinced than ever that the possibilities of something, maybe even a lot of things, changing for the better in the relatively near future is both real and worth fighting for.

For years we complained that no one was listening.

They’re listening now.

Let’s give ‘em an earful.

HRC once again tries to put ENDA down the memory hole

At Sunday's Pride I was hit up for donations by the inevitable swarm of HRC (Human Rights Campaign) supporters. With the first one I was angry, but polite -- pointing out I'd support HRC when they've proven they actually mean it when they say they support trans rights and won't sell us out again, like they did with ENDA last year. The second one tried to sooth me by saying that HRC wouldn't stop working for an inclusive ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act). And that's when I lost it.

Hell hath no fury like a pissed-off drag queen. While I made clear to the volunteer that I wasn't angry at her personally, I let her know loudly and in no uncertain terms that HRC's president, Joe Solmonese, made a promise at the nation's largest trans conference that HRC would only back ENDA with protections for gender identity and expression (which I might add also protects anyone -- gay or hetero -- who's not straight-acting) just a few weeks before HRC broke its word and backed a version of ENDA without these protections. So after being lied to like that, why exactly should I believe them now?

Both supporters looked embarrassed and couldn't really give me a good answer, other than asking to "express my concerns" to the folks at the main HRC booth. HRC apparently must have anticipated folks like me -- their recent beatdown by local LGBT groups and the nationwide boycotts of their annual fundraising dinner by many local LGBT (and non-LGBT) leaders and the fact that San Francisco Pride nominated HRC for a Pink Brick (for people or institutions that have "done significant harm to the interests of LGBT people") might have clued them in that a lot of other people are still furious with them. In fact, the volunteers had been given special fliers to hand out to folks like me.

It's really good thing for the folks at the HRC booth that because I was volunteering to work the gates to the Pride Celebration (collecting donations for various LGBT groups) that I didn't get a chance to read the flier until I got home. Because once again, HRC is rewriting history. The letter from Solmonese and two HRC board members says they're sorry, oh so sorry, that political expediencies exigencies left them no choice to support an neutered ENDA because the House was going to vote on it anyway and that "all of the LGBT groups involved agreed that a losing vote on gender identity would set back progress for the future."

The problem is the letter fails to mention a few teensy, tiny little things:

• Like Solomon's promise. (Watch the speech yourself and see if he "misspoke" as Solmonese claimed only last month.)
• Like the fact that there was no chance that ENDA was going to get signed by Bush anyway, so it was strictly a symbolic vote, and had HRC asked that it be postponed it would have been.
• Like the fact that while other LGBT groups did agree a losing vote would be a set-back, HRC was the only one of nearly 400 LGBT organization who wanted to move ahead with a vote for a non-inclusive ENDA regardless of what HRC clearly seems to be trying to imply in its letter.

The thing is, I'd actually had some hope that HRC was beginning to learn from their debacle. I was heartened that they were quick to speak in the case of Duanna Johnson (a trans woman who's beating by police in custody was captured on video) and that they provided extensive coverage on their website of the first-ever Congressional hearing on trans employment rights. It's really no different than if you've felt betrayed by a friend or lover. Actions speak louder than words. But part of those actions is owning what you did. HRC's fend-mending tour has been a series of a non-apology apologies. In its letter, HRC insisted that "our time to unite as community is long since overdue." I agree. But continuing to spin the issue to look blameless and hope people forget what actually happens only flames that divisiveness.

That's not say I won't work along side HRC when our interests overlap. The point of alliances is that you're joining forces toward a common goal with folks that you may not like, nor may not agree with on other issues. Protecting marriage equality is an important issue -- one that affects trans people too -- so I'll be putting my time and money into fighting California's marriage discrimination initiative this fall. Plus the reality is that HRC is the 800-pound gorilla of LGBT lobbying groups on Capitol Hill (and seemingly works just as hard at crowding out other LGBT groups as it does lobbying Congress). So any future lobbying efforts on ENDA or hate crime protections will have to take them into account.

But as long as HRC continues to piss on me and then tell me that it's raining lemonade, they shouldn't expect me to trust them -- let alone donate time or money to them.

The Incrementalists Dirty Little "Secret"

The Human Rights Campaign hopes you're not paying attention. Barney Frank hopes you'll look the other way. John Aravosis is crossing his fingers that you won't draw the only logical conclusion. These folks and those who think about basic civil rights protections like they do don't want you to know the truth, a truth that has been obvious for years now, proven accurate in every state in this country that has enacted anti-discrimination protections for their LGBT citizens except for one:

Protecting the transgendered and gender-variant from discrimination enjoys substantially more support among American voters nationwide than same-sex marriage does, or probably ever will.

We saw that reality played out yet again this week in New York. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the bill that would protect transgender and gender-variant New Yorkers from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accomodations statewide, was passed by the New York State Assembly yesterday by an overwhelming vote of 103-33. Same sex-marriage was passed by this same legislative body last year by a vote of 85-61. Doing the math, we discover that a little more than 56% of the 150-member Assembly voted in favor of the bill. Comparing the numbers on GENDA, however, we see that a whopping 68% of these same legislators chose to vote in favor of protecting transgender and gender-variant New Yorkers from discrimination, about 12% higher than voted in favor of the marriage bill.

Many similar stories can be told as well. Here in my home state of New Jersey, for example, state legislators fell all over themselves to pass civil unions in order to comply with the state's high court ruling that gay and lesbian New Jerseyans must be guaranteed the same rights as heterosexuals, but not actually grant the real equality the court intended to ensure for all state residents by legalizing same-sex marriage. Shortly thereafter, however, New Jersey's State Senate voted unanimously, 35-0, and the state Assembly voted by an almost equally overwhelming margin, 65-10, to add protections for transgender and gender-variant citizens to the state's existing anti-discrimination law.

Even back in 2002, over 60% polled in the conservative state of North Carolina supported protecting transgender people from employment discrimination, according to an HRC survey conducted that year, and support for these protections has only grown over that time, even as state after state passed laws and constitutional amendments preventing their states from recognizing same-sex unions. To my knowledge, while some states have chosen not to enact protections for transgender and gender-variant citizens when they were voted on, no state has ever voted to enact a law or amend their constitution to prevent such protections from being enacted in the future.

The conclusion here is inescapable to anyone really paying attention: There's far more support in this country for protecting transgender and gender-variant Americans from discrimination than there is or ever has been for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Yet, what we see and hear coming from HRC, Barney Frank, and so many others is the opposite of what has been conclusively proven over and over to be reality, that rights for transgender and gender-variant Americans is somehow less palatable to the American public at large than the right of same-sex couples to be married.

I'm not trying to make value comparisons here. Both goals are supremely worthy, both deserve to become the law of the land as soon as is humanly possible. My issue is with the hypocrisy of those like HRC and Barney Frank especially who continue pounding the drum for same-sex marriage while at the same time advocating for the exclusion of transgender and gender-variant Americans from basic civil rights legislation, claiming that there's not enough support for it to pass. Were they truly honest and consistant in their advocacy for LGBT equality, they'd acknowledge that it's far more likely to be able to pass anti-discrimination laws in the near future which would protect all LGBT Americans than it is that we'll see same-sex marriage become legalized at the federal level.

The numbers don't lie, only those who are willing to sacrifice the truth in the pursuit of personal and political gain are doing that here. It's time for us to focus on these realities, speak truth to power, and make sure everyone knows and understands what is true, what has always been true, that more Americans support basic anti-discrimination protections for transgender and gender-variant Americans, the goal these people refuse to fight for fairly and honestly, than support same-sex marriage, the goal they continue to advocate for with every erg of effort, energy and political clout they can possibly muster.

If these people truly believe in the kind of incrementalism they claim is the only way to advocate these issues, let's see them bow to the reality we all know to be true because the numbers prove it to be. Let's see them get in line and wait patiently their turn to attain their goals as they'd have us do. If they really do believe their own rhetoric, that incrementalism is the only way to achieve these goals, let's see Barney Frank, HRC, and all the rest of the same-sex marriage advocates adhere to the political logic they try to impose upon us and willingly accept their proper place in the incrementalism line, behind us.

As if we weren't clear where we stood with HRC...

Yesterday Donna Rose and Jamison Green, the last two trans folk on HRC's Business Council -- which compiles the group's Corporate Equality Index. -- resigned in protest. (Rose had previously resigned her seat on HRC's board over it's support for an ENDA that excluded gender identity protections.) As Rose and Green explain:

Recent HRC policy decisions – to actively support a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that excludes our transgender brothers and sisters as well as gender-variant lesbian, gay, and bisexual people – have placed us in an untenable position. On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC’s strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.

If you're on an advisory council and you can't get the time of day with the organization you're advising for three weeks, then it's clear they don't give a shit about you or those you represent. It's time for HRC to drop the pretense that they represent transgender interests.

That said, I'm not one of those folks screaming "put HRC out of business." While it might be emotionally satisfying, it's a waste of effort better spent elsewhere. Fact is, HRC isn't going away. We'll probably have to work with them -- I ran across the wonderful phrase "antagonistic cooperation" that describes my approach to future dealings with them -- but we don't have to support them. Sometimes they might even do things that benefit us -- like the video messages they produced for the Transgender Day of Remembrance. But we'll sure as hell should watch our backs when allied with them.

The only silver lining is that we found this out now -- when the stakes were only symbolic. Which gives us time build other alliances -- not to mention getting better about our own lobbying efforts.

The Blue and Yellow Stepchild

Every year around this time I start seeing the GLBT media get in a feeding frenzy about the HRC's Corporate Equality Index (CEI). Story after story is told of how American corporations are getting better and better for GLBT Americans.

That may be true for GLB Americans, but the transgender part of the index is fatally flawed. The transgender wellness benefits defined in the 2c component include:

1. counseling by a mental health professional

2. pharmacy benefits covering hormone therapy

3. medical visits to monitor the effects of hormone therapy and other associated lab procedures.

4. medically necessary surgical procedures such as hysterectomy or short-term disability leave for surgical procedures

A company only needs to give ONE of these benefits to get the five points. What does that mean in a practical way? Nick Gorton MD explains it this way:

"Let's say you are Dominos Pizza and you get the HRC CEI index survey to fill out. One question asks you if provide "medically necessary surgical procedures (i.e. hysterectomy)". Then it asks you if you exclude transgender employees from this benefit. If you state that you don't exclude transgender employees then you get 5 points on item 2.c (#4) on the CEI. So lets say your policy is that if a transgender man has invasive cervical cancer that your insurance will actually (shock and horror!) pay for his hysterectomy rather than condemning him to death for an untreated cancer. Well then heeeeeey! All of a sudden you are hella transgender friendly, Dominos. (And yes, Dominos got that.... Christian-Fundamentalist funding Dominos offers transgender benefits.)

Since last year HRC has modified the question to:

Do insurance plans available to your general work force cover the following treatments and, if so, is there at least one company-sponsored insurance plan that does not exclude coverage for medically-necessary treatment related to gender dysphoria or gender reassignment?

While that is a slight improvement, if the company only gives time off for the employee for surgery, they still get the full five points. Companies like Microsoft, General Motors, IBM, and Eastman Kodak will get the same grade as Dominos, even though they comprehensively cover (they cover parts a, b, and c, including sex reassignment surgery).

Why won't HRC change this policy? Most likely, it's because they don't want to see lower scores for corporations that received a 100 percent rating. It also could be that with that new criteria HRC, NGLTF, and other national GLBT organizations wouldn't get a 100% in their own index! The excuse used to be that it was too expensive to cover transgender surgery, but the city of San Francisco has proven that to be false. If they are going to use that excuse, I wish they'd explain how that's any different than the cost of domestic partner benefits?

Whatever the reason, I think it's time that the CEI is revamped. If you're going to include us in your mission statement, then include us in your activism and advocacy (and your own insurance policies). The Human Rights Campaign (and any other GLBT organization that includes us in their mission statement) needs to stop treating us like their stepchild.

cross posted from Transadvocate.com