Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't be Trans

History is being made today for the lesbian, gay, bi, and respective non-heterosexual communities the US Military policy Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) officially is repealed. Everyone is celebrating, and I'm celebrating too, but I have to admit I'm more jaded than joyful. Today as the LGB military is coming out, trans* military is being left out.

As an activist rooted in the anti-war/anti-military movement, even I recognize the significance of the USA's largest employer (the federal government) removing a grossly discriminatory policy that theoretically places sexually queer people on equal footing with non-queer people. That's a big deal. And I think it is an even bigger deal that this momentously important event for the "LGBT" community completely leaves off  the T. One would like to believe that if high schools can create gender identity and expression inclusive policies then congress can too, but apparently not. An early Department of Defense report on DADT, referenced by several blogs and articles, stated: “Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the Military Services. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has no effect on these policies.”  After media attention the report was removed from the government's website. According to the US Military, trans* people are "unfit to serve" primarily (categorically) because of our good friend, Gender Identity Disorder. As mentally ill people, trans* communities are not medically fit to serve.

A common thought about DADT, or now in this case with trans* people in the military, is that the "military problem" isn't really a problem because it is better if our people don't join up - it's better to protect our precious queers. I can't help but think this sometimes... or most of the time... but I force myself to remember that there are people out there who actually like the military - (like a pre-teen Midwest GenderQueer who associated fighter pilots with a desirable yet (continually) unobtainable masculinity - thank you Top Gun).  My freshman year of college I met a guy who was determined to have a military career; he said it was his calling. He was also gay. This was years before I came out but even a "straight girl" could see how problematic the situation was. I remember asking him why he wanted a job where he would have to hide who he was his entire life. He looked very sad, yet very determined and said "It's not ideal, but I can do it." Now he doesn't have to, but no such luck if it were me.

Revisiting the "military problem," in my experience people think that it is easy to fix: If you don't like the military, then don't join. This is the number one pillar upholding the classist, global mirage that choosing to join the military is always a choice.  Speaking strictly for America, our economic system promotes dependency and servitude towards positions in power. We tell our people to succeed, but don't enable them to do it. With jobs disappearing and public funds being non-existent, we're left with a mass population of the under-educated, unsupported, and unemployed. Our trans* community is especially vulnerable because, like other oppressed groups, we are more likely to be poor, unemployed/underemployed, and more likely to lack personal and/or societal support and resources. In other words, we are a population in need and in comes the secure, sturdy military to solve all our problems. I have personally known several young trans* folks who can't pay for groceries let alone for college; who may struggle to get a job because they are gender non-conforming; sometimes they are trying to escape an unaccepting home;  maybe they are desperate to get money to transition; they are people willing to give up everything to get a better life, and that's exactly what they do by joining up. It was not a choice for them. They felt they had no other options, and perhaps they didn't. Being  trans* in the military has it's own unique issues that no one talks about. A fascinating  2008 study by Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA) showed that all military branches have trans* people, the Army being highest at 38%. If you're trans* in the military you live in fear of being outed (resulting in losing your job, your home, and/or friends and chosen family). You can't transition in any form, medical or otherwise, and rigidly sexist uniform codes forbid expressing your actual gender (you can even be court-martialed for "cross-dressing"). If you've taken hormones or had surgery before enlisting but don't report it (which you wouldn't because it would keep you from being admitted) you will be discharged when it was inevitably found out in your records.  The military has no protections against harassment over gender expression or perceived gender and if you went to complain to a higher up (that is, if it wasn't the higher up who was harassing you) their solution is to tell you that "if you aren't trans, you have nothing to worry about." You also can not confide in religious or medical personnel because, as military employees, they are not required to practice confidentiality on the subject. Quiet the opposite. In the TAVA survey, 40% of the trans*military personnel stated they were unhappy with their lives.

I also believe that repealing DADT won't change much for your average LGB (or perceived to be LGB) military employee. It's against military law to harass, beat, and rape people, but it still happens; and like everywhere in society it is extremely under-reported and often left without any reprisal. Rules changing doesn't mean that people change, and people are who you see every day. Just like any place of business (and it is a business) without an aggressive campaign of combined education and no-tolerance policies the military will never be a safe place for anyone, "gay" or not. We must continue to address the military industrial complex for what it is, as an institutional system of oppression that preys upon our poor, our young, our disenfranchised, and our communities of color. It is a presence that manipulates the global society in order to serve a small percentage, and that is the top 1% of the US elite.

What bothers me more than the issues within the military is the greater "LGB" community's reaction, or lack their of, to the exclusion of trans* communities. I'm so glad today is here so I won't be invited to another "Yay DADT! All Our Problems are Over!" facebook event; after months of it I'm fed up. Yes, we should be celebrating, but its downright lousy to rub it in trans people's faces saying "we don't have to worry anymore" and "problem solved." If you're going to go that far you might as well just call today what it is, yet another "We Forgot You, Again" day, or "We Matter More" day. And yes, I do have to remind people that our problems are not over. I'm not a downer, I'm an activist. I'm not bitter, I'm fucking furious. The LGB community knows what it's like to be ignored, passed over, discriminated against, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of  taking their rights and privileges for granted. The LGB community makes strides with the help of the trans* community, the trans* community is booted out, and what should be our joy becomes a part of our pain. But in of every disappointment there is room for action. It holds me together when people do speak out and recognize that we are not done yet. We must continue to work, continue to fight, and never be satisfied until we all are equal.

I've heard today described as "the light at the end of the tunnel." If this is your truth, I celebrate joyously for you. And as you reach that light at the end of the tunnel, I hope you remember that some of us have been left behind and we are still working in the dark.

 xposted: MidwestGenderQueer.com

The Democratic Party’s New LGBT “Equality” Agenda: Big Words, Short Arms

It’s really interesting to see how mainstream cable newsmedia is lauding the Democratically-controlled 111th Congress for getting so much done. It’s not entirely undeserved of course, but when one takes a close look at what actually did get done this past session of Congress in terms of protecting and ensuring equal civil rights for all Americans, we find that their actual results are really not quite as impressive as some would like us to believe.

The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a great example of what I’m talking about here. Long overdue to be sure, but also only actually impacting the lives of just a tiny fraction of a single percent of the American LGBT workforce, just like the rest of the “progress” made on LGBT rights by this administration thus far, mainly by Executive Order of one form or another. What about the rest of us, the majority of the American LGBT workforce who work in the private sector or for state and local governments in areas of the country without laws which protect their LGBT citizens? Well, apparently neither the mainstream news media nor the Democratic Congressional leadership felt we were worthy of their attention over the last two years, so for the vast majority of LGBT American civilian workers and jobseekers things continue to be just as rough as they’ve ever been, even rougher in fact, what with the higher-than-normal number of straight job applicants and a lower-than-normal number of available jobs out there just in general.

Despite the Democratic Party leadership’s seemingly almost continuous promises to introduce and vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act during the 111th Congress, when push came to shove left-wing pundit and politician alike wrapped themselves in the flag, focused in like a laser on the fight to protect just the miniscule fraction of LGBT Americans who work for the government, and patted themselves on the back for a job well done as the Democrats once again threw the bulk of the American LGBT workforce and our families back under the bus for at least another 2-4 years.

And so, once again a self-congratulatory Democratic Congress and Administration along with its attendant liberal mainstream media flotilla sails off into the sunset, flags flying so proudly and brass buttons shining so brightly in the sun, leaving behind the bulk of the American LGBT workforce and our families, unnoticed, uncommented upon, unprotected.

Someone remind me please: Exactly when was all that “CHANGE” stuff supposed to kick in?

I don’t know about you, but I’m having a really hard time seeing any actual differences between the way things were for the vast majority of LGBT American workers under Clinton and Bush and the way they are now, after two years of Mr. Fierce Advocate and Democratic control of both houses of Congress. I mean, sure, we’ve made some significant progress here and there at the state and local levels, but when it comes to the really big ticket federal items, the kind of legislation that can actually make a difference in people’s lives, the kind we waited nearly a generation for the Democrats to have the necessary majorities in Congress and control of the White House to finally enact into law as they promised, unless you’re one of the relative handful who’s employed by the federal government in some capacity, the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress didn’t deliver very much which will help make your life better as an LGBT American.

Yes, it’s great that LGBT Americans are now protected by a federal hate crimes law. It’s also great that for the first time in the history of our nation LGBT Americans are defined as a protected class under federal law. That happened in this Congress, and it’s worthy of both notice and commendation. Thing is, since the protections of this law only kick in once a serious violent crime has been committed and an LGBT person is likely already seriously injured or dead, it’s difficult to see this law as actually protecting anyone from anything. In the end, all the hate crimes law does is help ensure that the perpetrator of a hate crime serves a tougher, more just sentence than they would otherwise, and that those hate crimes are more accurately tracked by law enforcement officials than they had been in the past. It doesn’t actually improve anyone’s life or actually protect anyone from anything, it simply helps to balance the scales of justice once someone’s life has already been made horribly worse or taken from them entirely, not at all the same thing.

Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the Democrats don’t deserve credit for all that they did get accomplished in the 111th. At the same time, though, I also think that’s it’s important that we don’t forget that the Democrats have once again failed to deliver on their promises for the vast majority of LGBT American working families, even though they swore up and down to us a thousand times that this time it would be different with firm control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

Once again, even with the political winds at the their backs and firm control of the legislative agenda this time, the Democratic Congressional leadership and the White House still wimped out and took the easy, cowardly way out in advocating for basic civil rights for all Americans, and once again, American LGBT workers and our families will continue paying the price for their cowardice for years to come.

Have we finally had enough NOW?

Republican Candidate Paul Scott Targets Trans Folk

Paul Scott, republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state released his platform last week and was kind enough to include transfolks in his agenda. Among his desired changes of immigration restrictions and traceable RFID chips inside state IDs he has included a statement for us trans folks too:

" I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance." -Official Paul Scott Weblog

Now, the average person doesn't know a thing about trans-related issues in any scope, let alone specific ID policies. So how can such an issue be of public interest? As with all discriminatory smears it is surely a scapegoat to screen the state's real problems. But out of the potpourri of things that conservative right-wingers hate, why pick on the genderqueers? Honestly, I think that Scott wanted to pick something that would shock people in a "look what the dirty liberal government did behind your back" kind of way. By bringing trans elements to the forefront he is gaining attention via a conservative fear mongering crusade. And with abortion being way overused and therefore unexciting, he had to find something that would appall people more than dead unborn fetuses. Enter transSEXuals, cause they aren't just out to get fetuses, they're out to get everyone.

Scott has made statements about his opinions being an issue of "social values", clearly implying that if you have good values you will agree with him, and if you don't you are a horrible person contributing to the moral downfall of society. However, Scott goes further to say that his main drive behind policy change is “preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms.” What value system does this relate to other than that anyone who is not normal by specific definition is therefore a violent threat? And because gender is involved sexualization comes into play and turns a genderqueer into an automatic sexual predator. It's the age old stereotype that men are going to put on dresses just so they can sneak into women's bathrooms and rape every female in sight... cause that has totally happened before. (FYI never been one report (TransgenderLawCenter, Peeing in Peace)). Promoting this false fear of transfolk attacking women is all part of the bigger picture of society's default appeal to heterosexist, transphobic attitudes which have no actual standing scientific or otherwise in creating a safe, equal-value based society.

Another reason why Scott's position is such a great concern is that the secretary of state is the primary government official who deals with issues like document and ID changes. For this reason, among others, having an anti-trans person in that position is clearly more than just problematic. Along with being a human rights and equal treatment and access issue, in many cases a change in documents can be a huge protection from discrimination, threat, and death. Clearly Scott could care less about Midwest transfolk's right to stay alive.

I'm going to be looking into any activist movements being formed around this issue, as my no being in or from Michigan makes it difficult to head up such a project alone. Here's hoping there will be updates on progress.

xposted MidwestGenderQueer.com, AmplifyYourVoice

White House appeal is a no-go

The White House will not appeal a federal court ruling of nearly $500,000 to a Library of Congress hiree who was discriminated against for transitioning.

When Diane--then David--Schroer informed the Library of Congress that she was undergoing surgery to become a female, the Library of Congress rescinded her job offer the next day.

While the Bush Administration argued that this is not an example of illegal discrimination according to the Civil Rights Act, the Obama Administration let the opportunity to appeal expire shortly after welcoming LGBT leaders to the White House and promising more action.

While this may win Obama more favor with the LGBT community, the Daily Kos remarks how this victory has flown "under the radar" and is under-reported.

Originally posted on The Colonic

The Breeze at Dawn (don't go back to sleep)

The signs are all around us that we are in the midst of something big. A social movement that has grown out of a response to oppression and one that contains in its pedigree the battles fought by women during their suffrage movement of a hundred years ago and by racial minorities in the civil rights movement of forty years ago. The climate has changed in such a way that everyone who falls outside the gender binary can soon gain legal legitimacy if we continue to press forward and do not settle for incremental progress. Full social legitimacy will take years longer, but it will follow, except in hearts filled with hate and bigotry. Equality will not stop hate crimes but it will make them much less socially acceptable. It will by it’s very existence increase education and familiarity, and that may make the crucial difference.

Although caged at the moment as being about same-sex marriage, the current fight is for full gender equality. It is the fight to prohibit discrimination against anyone regardless of gender expression, and without regard to the gender they find attractive. This fight has been sidetracked and strung along for a decade or more by the likes of the HRC, Joe Solmonese, Barney Frank and others; politicians that made a nice living and a career off of speaking for the most mainstream of GLBT folks, those that can fully blend in. They made progress within that very limited arena and that was a good first step. One which laid the groundwork by inoffensively suggesting to primarily white collar corporate executives that they make their non-discrimination policies more inclusive. However, at some point in recent history that set of politicians not only began to outlive their usefulness but ramped up their efforts to intentionally hold everyone back by not wanting to push any limits, by taking an incremental tact that in the end would help only those most like themselves. And starting with the ENDA fiasco a year ago, large numbers of LGBTQ people started noticing that the group that proclaimed it represented them did not in fact do so. Prop 8 in California followed this same path: it wasn't until Election Day and afterward that most of us realized that we'd been duped again by the same people. It was beginning to feel like we were Charlie Brown and they were Lucy, always pulling the football away and leaving us flat on our backs. Google HRC and Joe and the rest if you want the full messy history, but suffice it to say that a small group of professional politicians have been harming the entire community for thirty years while proclaiming themselves our mouthpiece and our connection to Washington. Literally since the early gay rights movement circa-1973, they have been working within the American political system to promote the rights of white gay men, while largely holding back anyone that is different from themselves. It started with the exclusion of drag queens and lesbians and over two decades became so privileged that the Prop 8 campaign did not even realize that there was anyone to convince outside of themselves. But now people have noticed and are saying very loudly that the Good Old Boys Club does NOT represent us or our fight. That is the essence of the grassroots swell that we have been witnessing and that is the spirit that will carry us through to full equality.

California’s Prop 8 is just one little battle and will likely be decided fairly soon by the state Supreme Court, and that is probably how it should be. Cries of "the will of the people" ring hollow against the oppression of a minority by a theocratic bare majority. The larger social movement has begun, and is helped by the election of a President who has stated that he is for equal rights not just for Gays and Lesbians, but for Gender Identity as well. He has also stated publicly that he will push for a Fully Inclusive ENDA. The conditions cannot get much better for us to move forward and we must do so, without hesitation.

Trans people have largely flown under the radar in all of this, yet we keep finding ourselves included by everyone other than the "professionals". Could it be because we are less offensive somehow? You would not think so, in fact the idea seems laughable. Yet, we have recently enjoyed a greater expansion of protections than gays and lesbians. My thought on this is that it is because we do not have a huge, affluent political machine fighting for us. We have our friends and families, loved ones speaking heartfelt testimonials. We have bloggers, and the likes of Barbara Walters, attempting to gently educate the general public. Ironically, we have been incrementalists of a different sort working from the bottom up because we have had little other choice.

On Eve of the Day of Remembrance: Criminal Justice and Our Communities

This is the opening of a recent AP report on the resurgence of anti-black racism, since Obama's election:

"Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars. Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America. From California to Maine, police have documented a range of alleged crimes, from vandalism and vague threats to at least one physical attack. Insults and taunts have been delivered by adults, college students and second-graders. There have been "hundreds" of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes."

I'm writing past midnight, having just taken part in a discussion on anti-trans hate crimes for Gender Blender Radio, hosted by Jacob Andersonn-Minshall and Rebecca Nay. This morning, I finished a quick newletter piece about the criminal justice issues facing transgender people for the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Bar Association newsletter. Earlier this week I sent someone a copy of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project report on violence against trans and intersex people in prisons, It's War In Here. Apparently, every November, I spend time immersed in thinking about crime and violence.

Perhaps it's obvious, but I think it might be worth stating: even as we mourn those of us who have been killed or hurt by hate crimes, dealing with hate crimes is not enough.

Central to the transgender civil rights agenda must be a robust and multi-faceted approach to reforming the criminal justice system and reducing violence in society. As a community, we experience extraordinarily high rates of so-called "ordinary" crimes, not just hate crimes. Not surprisingly, many of us are reluctant to report crimes for fear of retaliation and police harrassment. If we are incarcerated, we are likely to be subject to horrific violence and are at high risk of being denied proper medical care.

Not surpisingly, many of our concerns are shared by non-transgender communities of color. One cannot have a society with a substantial history of complex discrimination, human exploitation, and serious disparities in wealth and life opportunities and expect otherwise.

In turn, as the racist backlash to Obama's election reminds us, we have everything to lose if we fail not only to fight transphobia, but to fight racism and other intersecting oppressions.

Forward Thinking

Of the GLB's (and T's) that are starting to blog about the post-Prop 8 world, there is a small but growing group of individuals that have come to the same conclusion, apparently independent of each other. These are D.C. lawyers and the like, political wonks, people that dig into political strategy for fun and have been blogging quietly in their own arenas.

The religious conservatives are going to keep their momentum going, they are going to build on the recent anti-gay ballot victories at the state level. Their plan is to move from state to state focusing their attention on enacting "marriage sanctity" laws in each state. They will be backed by large groups such as the Catholic Church, Evangelicals and the Mormons. And four or eight years from now, Republican neocons will use that platform to their own end as well.

They've shown us how they intend to organize and operate; that was their first mistake. Their second mistake is the decision to wage these state level battles to oppress gays. Once their political machine gets moving in a predetermined direction, it will be hard to turn. Lucky for us, they have already laid the aim and groundwork for their push. While they are focused on state level anti-gay marriage resolutions, we need to focus on the bigger prize. They are still thinking in Republican terms of States Rights over Federal, but this is a new era.

It is time to build the push for a fully inclusive ENDA.

We need to start rebuilding for a fully inclusive ENDA. Start making strong alliances, start reaching out, start laying the bare strategic groundwork for the next battle a year or so from now. Let the lawyers continue to fight to overturn Prop 8, it was in some respects a red herring primarily designed to build and test a religion-based political machine, but it did serve (hopefully) as a fertile source of lessons learned and an insight as to how we need to fight the upcoming fight for our rights.

Read the religious and neocon blogs daily. Get to know who we are up against. Start talking to and reaching out to those religious nuts you usually avoid or worse still, ridicule for their beliefs. They are the ones that will eventually need to be educated and turned, in a manner that does not put them on the defensive. Don't try to change their point of view just yet; instead learn why they think the way they do. Get inside their heads. I guarantee you'll find that their world view is *not* the mirror image of ours. Rather, it is a completely different view altogether and one that strongly affects their motivation to act. Think of why they are called Jesus' Flock and why wear that label as a matter of pride, wherein many of us would see it as mocking criticism to be called "sheep". Start thinking in terms of "group unity" and "the good of society overriding personal liberty". That is where the next battle for rights will be waged, not in the esoteric field of Constitutional Rights or Personal Liberty.

ENDA will form the foundation for our battles that lie ahead. Now is the time to build our push for Federal level legislation, while Democrats are in control. In the end, both the religious groups and we will have won our chosen battles. However, once ENDA is enacted, Federal civil unions will have something to build upon and at that point the battle over the "sanctity of marriage" will be moot and hopefully even forgotten. We will have overcome the bigotry and the hatred, we will have spoken to people's hearts in ways they understand. We will have earned our equality.

(Note: Yes, I wrote, "earned our equality". Think Barney Frank, think Joe-I'm-A Good Christian-Six Pack; to them rights are not inalienable and they are not imbued simply by Creation, they are earned by trust and union with those like yourself. It's an important distinction and one we need to learn to apply.)

It Was The Best Of Times...

A friend of mine posted this on a Yahoo! Group we both participate in:

"OK, let me state for the record that I voted for John McCain because I thought and still believe that he was better qualified. I don’t think that my vote makes me a racist (Besides, most of you who know me, know better than that)."

I don't believe for a moment that everyone who voted for McCain is a racist. I do believe though that, in general, the concept of and quest for equality for all Americans is further down McCain voters "to do" list than I am comfortable with.

I could never vote for any candidate that stood opposed to full equality for lesbian and gay Americans in committed relationships. So long as the Republican party (or any party) bases that intolerant and discriminatory aspect of it's political platform on evangelical religious doctrine, I will never understand how anyone professing commitment to human rights could vote for them.

Let me ask a question of McCain voters: If everything else about John McCain's campaign remained the same with the following exception; instead of opposing "gay marriage" the Republican party and its candidate opposed the right of an African-American to marry a Caucasian, would YOU still have voted for McCain?

I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. I believed that our nation was finally going to see someone from the majority binary gender ascend to the highest office in the land. I believed that she was imminently qualified and ready for the job. Yet, despite my dedication to Hillary, I told anyone who would listen that our nation was so very fortunate to have (in my opinion) at least two highly qualified and visionary candidates running to be President of The United States of America.

I voted proudly and enthusiastically for Barack Hussein Obama because I believe he was the most qualified candidate. I believe his steadiness, good judgment, even-temper and impressive intellect are exactly what this country and the world desperately need in order to recover from past eight disastrous years.

I've waited almost 40 years for someone to truly inspire me to believe that America is still a place where hope trumps fear, where equality overcomes discrimination and intolerance, where intellectual curiosity, scientific knowledge and competence takes precedence over ignorance, authoritarianism and arch-conservative religious doctrine. To some degree, the wait ended Tuesday night.

To paraphrase the words of Michelle Obama, I have never been more proud to be an American than I was on November 4th. I was not, however, as proud as I had hoped to be.

On the same night that millions of progressive minded Californians helped elect Barack Obama President, a majority of those same Californians voted to take away the existing rights of their lesbian and gay neighbors.

It hurts to realize that while I was casting my vote for Barack Obama in Oregon, a majority of African-American and Hispanic voters down the coast in California were saying "yes" not only to discrimination, but "yes" to the removal of existing rights from Americans like me.

70% of African-Americans voted to ban "gay marriage"
53% of Hispanics voted to ban "gay marriage"

The irony is immobilizing: The inspiration and hope that drove so many minorities (and majorities) to the polls to vote for Barack Obama also (temporarily) doomed existing marriage equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians.

An America that takes an historic step forward while simultaneously stepping on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans is standing tall on a shaky foundation. We have much work to do.

On election night Barack Obama said;

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, GAY, STRAIGHT, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America."

Cher (my partner of 26 years) and I remain proud of our vote for President-Elect Obama. We believe that America's best days lie ahead. We believe in his dedication and commitment to returning America to a place where its better angels speak louder than the demons of hate, prejudice, self-righteousness, greed and imperialism.

We believe. We believe as much as second-class citizens, in second class relationships with second class families can believe.

We shall overcome.

Yet another hater effort to rollback LGBT rights

From a right-wing rag that I won't dignify with a link:

A Christian civil-liberties organization announced on Thursday it is representing an alliance of residents, congregations and businesses against Hamtramck, Mich., to overturn a city law privileging homosexuals and cross dressers.

The Thomas More Law Center's clients are targeting an ordinance that permits males who profess to consider themselves women and wish to use women's bathrooms in businesses and public buildings. Facility owners and managers who prohibit a cross-dressing male from entering a women's lavatory can be fined $500 for each day they enforce that policy and could face civil litigation.

On Tuesday, the coalition rallied in front of Hamtramck City Hall and reported they had gotten over 1,000 city residents to sign a petition placing a measure on the November 2008 election ballot to strike down the law.

And once again, while the "virtual normal" crowd can talk themselves blue in the face about how the LGBs have nothing to do with the Ts, the haters don't bother to distinguish... This seems to be concerted tactic, since the specter of "men in women's bathrooms" is some that's raised in LGBT rights repeal efforts in Florida and elsewhere.

An open letter to today's happy newlyweds

First let me offer my congratulations on this joyous day. It's been far too long in coming.

Now I hope you'll indulge my taking a moment to note that it was a trans man who was the lead attorney in the marriage equality case, the one who made the oral arguments to the California Supreme Court that marriage won't be worth less if more can take part in it. More importantly, I'd ask you to remember Shannon and his dedication to this cause when ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) comes up for a vote in Congress again and the "virtually normal" gay and lesbian crowd claims that trans and gender variant people (who can also be LGB or even hetero) should be excluded because supposedly we haven't done jack to deserve anti-discrimination protections. In the spirit of the day let me mention:

Something old
Trans people have part of the LGBT communities – and fighting for LGBT rights – for decades. As the authors of "Gay L.A." noted:"We choose to call our book Gay L.A. because, as our older informants told us, 'gay' in the 1930s, '40s, '50s, and '60s was the term that included homosexual men, lesbians, transgenders, and even bisexuals." A few highlights:

In 1895 a group of New York "androgynes" organized The Cercle Hermaphroditos "to unite against the world's bitter persecution" – two years before the world's first gay liberation organization, nearly 30 years before the first known gay activist group in the United States and nearly six decades before the first long-lasting gay and lesbian rights groups.

In the 1960s, trans man multi-millionaire Reed Erickson was the major funder (to the tune of $2 million -- more than $1 billion in today's dollars) of ONE Inc., one of the first gay rights organizations, which won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In 1965, Dewey's Lunch Counter in Philadelphia was the target of the first LGBT sit-in, after the diner refused to serve young gay and trans patrons in what were euphemistically called "non-conformist clothing." In 1966, trans woman fed up with police harassment turned into "screaming queens" and rioted at Compton's Cafeteria in San Francisco. In 1969, trans woman and drag queen Sylvia Rivera threw one of the first bottles at Stonewall and later was a tireless advocate for queer rights.

Despite Rivera's efforts, within a few years New York's gay rights establishment dropped drag queens and trans people from its civil rights agenda and Rivera was physically prevented from speaking at the 1973 Stonewall commemoration. Sadly this was part of a larger anti-trans backlash within not only the gay communities but also among lesbians, where trans women – such as Beth Elliot, who had been vice president of the pioneering lesbian rights group, the Daughters of Bilitis – were systematically outed and purged from lesbian feminist circles, and where Janice Raymond's notoriously transphobic 1979 book, "The Transsexual Empire," became lauded reading.

Still, trans people continued to fight for the gay and lesbian communities. Connie Norman was a nationally known AIDS activist during the 1980s, who also pioneered the first commercial radio talk show programs on gay and lesbian issues.

Unfortunately, people like Norman weren't enough to change these widespread transphobic attitudes. In 1993, the gay and lesbian organizers of the "March on Washington" – one of the largest civil rights demonstrations in history – decided to include bisexuals, but refused to include "transgender" as part of the name of the protest. And when the 1999 murder of soldier Pfc. Barry Winchell was turned into a gay rights cause celeb, forcing President Bill Clinton to order a review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," gay activists and the gay press suppressed a critical, but inconvenient truth – Winchell wasn't killed for being gay, but because he was a heterosexual man in love with trans woman (which Winchell's killers assumed made him gay).

Something new
By all accounts, when ENDA is reintroduced next year it will be stripped of protections for gender identity and expression. This isn't a "trans-less" ENDA as it's often referred to – it's an ENDA without protections for anyone (even heteros) who isn't straight-acting enough. Employers may not be able to fire you if you're gay or lesbian, but they'll still be able to fire you for being too nelly or too butch. In fact, a GenderPAC survey found that a third of gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents who suffered workplace discrimination said it was due at least in part to their gender expression and another 10 percent said it was due strictly to their gender expression.

Something borrowed
From a July 1990 flier by Queer Nation: "We are Queer Nation. We are here to promote unity between all people—some of whom are like us, most of whom are not. We do not necessarily expect to understand the differences between our cultures, our desires, our beliefs, but we do seek to increase respect and acceptance for all our differences so that we may move into the twenty-first century with joy and dignity."

Whether the "virtually normally" crowd likes it or not, gender variance is, for the foreseeable future, going to be linked to sexual variance. That's the thing about being "othered," you don't get any choice in how others perceive you. No matter how straight-acting folks like Andrew Sullivan like to portray themselves, the haters are still going to invoke the specter of diesel dykes and flaming nellies. No matter how loudly a few (sadly homophobic) trans people insist they're heterosexual-I-said-heterosexual-dammit, the haters are still going to call them queers.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people are all minorities. (Just for the record, a number of trans people are also lesbian, gay or bisexual.*) We have to work together to move our causes forward. We also have to rely on allies who aren't LGBT. Just as trans people, being a minority within a minority, have to rely on the LGB communities as allies. As Ben Franklin once said, we can either hang together or we can be hanged separately.

Something blue
I know that a number of you from states without marriage equality are irate about the "go slow" request from the ACLU and a half-dozen major LGBT organizations, asking people not to file lawsuits in your home states to have your marriages recognized there. (These groups fear that losing court cases outside California will set back the cause.) I hope you'll remember those feelings of disappointment, dismay and anger when the incrementalists like Barney Frank and John Aravosis once again tell trans and gender variant people to step aside and wait patiently for anti-discrimination protections "because the public just isn't ready." Which is an odd argument really, since surveys show far more support for protecting trans and gender variant people from discrimination than for marriage equality.

I suppose that's why the other canard is that trans people haven't done enough lobbying work – ignoring the fact that we've been working for anti-discrimination protections since 1980. If we weren't part of the "official" campaign for ENDA until a few years ago, it was because we had to spend at least a decade convincing gay and lesbian lobbying groups that our rights matter too, and that we should be allowed to join their efforts. Nonetheless, we still helped the LGB communities win a number of state and local anti-discrimination measures that included not only protections for sexual orientation, but also gender identity and expression.

Anyway, I don't mean to be the ghost at the wedding banquet. This is your day, savor it in the fabulicious style that I know you will.

Best wishes, and may you have long and happy marriages,
Lena


Note: Thanks to historian Susan Stryker whose research provided many of the historical examples.

* It's often easier to talk about whether trans people are attracted to men or women (or both), because their perceived sexual orientation changes with their perceived gender. Those who transition from male-to-female early in life typically are attracted to men and most female-to-male transitioners are attracted to women, so they go from being seen as gays and lesbians to being seen as hetero women and men. Transsexuals who transition from male-to-female late in life typically are attracted to women and female-to-male transitioners who are attracted to men go from being seen as hetero men and women to being seen as lesbians and gay men. So the vast majority of transitioners find themselves seen as homosexual at some point in their lives.

Who exactly is seeking "special rights"?

It seems like whenever LGBT people try to get anti-discrimination laws passed, the religious bigots invariably trot out the argument that we're somehow seeking "special rights." So my hypocrisy alarm went off when I heard that a conservative legal-advocacy group is looking for a church willing to be a test case to challenge IRS tax laws against using the pulpit to endorse political candidates. Now the thing is, churches are perfectly free to engage in pulpit partisanship -- as long as they're willing to give up the exemptions from taxes that the rest of us pay. (A principle even Reagan-appointee courts have upheld.) So who exactly is seeking "special rights"?

While we're on the subject... It's not uncommon for religious bigots posing as "reasonable people" to argue that protections for LGBT people are "different" (i.e. less legitimate) than those against racial protections because LGBT people supposedly chose their "lifestyle," as the bigots usually put it. Sadly it's too-often an argument put forth by bigoted people of color.

Sadly too, the "it's not choice" argument we in the LGBT communities too often buy into ourselves, sometimes invoking contorted personal histories to reassure ourselves and others that "it's not my fault" that I'm [insert descriptor here]." Now before everyone starts firing up the flamethrowers, I do think both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation can -- and usually do have -- a biological component; and I recognize that the "born that way" argument is in part driven by the way U.S. civil rights law is written -- since it generally (and I'll come back to that point in a minute) holds that innate characteristics are protected and personal choices aren't. But the thing is, both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation are spectrums -- even though our society generally views them as binaries -- and while there's a hard-wired aspect about where one falls on that spectrum, biology isn't destiny. Which is why the "it's not a choice" argument always has an Achilles Heel: there's just too many examples of people choosing to act in ways contrary to their "nature" -- from "political lesbians" (some of whom weren't necessarily sexually attracted to women) to men who engage is same-sex act when they aren't women available (in prison, among immigrant populations, etc.) to people who choose to remain closeted about their sex/gender identity and/or sexual orientation (even if they pay a heavy emotional cost for doing so).

So we'd be a lot more honest if we acknowledge that choice can play a role in how one's sex/gender identity and sexual orientation gets expressed. But religion is a choice too and we still see fit to protect people from religious discrimination. Now the religious bigots in the United States would point out that's because those protections are written into the Constitution. And they're right. In fact protections against religious discrimination predate by decades (if not centuries) protections against discrimination based on race, sex, pregnancy, national origins, disability or age. But the common thread among all of these is that they involve aspects that are so central to who someone is that we consider them worthy of protection.

If the Framers were willing to protect a "chosen" part of one's core identity, why shouldn't we?

ENDA loopholes

Today two more legal groups that are in the trenches fighting discriminatory firings added their critiques of ENDA-lite, being the latest to say it's only likely to protect those who are straight-acting. "[It's] a bill no competent attorney representing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community would ever support" said the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders said: "As GLAD knows from the calls we get on our InfoLine, the discrimination experienced by many gay men, lesbians and bisexuals is based not directly on their sexual orientation, but on their presentation — their gender identity or expression. They are "too feminine" or "too masculine" and they make employers uncomfortable — and they're fired."

The butch who was thrown out of the Caliente Cab Co. restaurant in NYC (on Pride Day no less) because a bouncer thought she was too butch to pee in the women's restroom is an example of how gender expression affects gays and lesbians without "passing privilege." BTW, it's notable that the main thrust of the lawsuit she filed is that the restaurant violated NYC's protections on gender expression. While the lawsuit also alleged violations of sexual orientation, want to bet the restaurants lawyers will argue they didn't because (and admittedly I'm assuming here) there were other lesbians in the bar. Which is, as GLAD noted, the same argument employers can and do make today.

Employment law professor Jillian Todd Weiss has a detailed look on her blog at the case law on this issue, as do the ACLU, GLAD (PDF link), NCLR and Lambda Legal (PDF link) on their sites. If you don't want the legalese, this post illustrates how ENDA vs. ENDA-lite would play out in real-life scenarios.

To those critics who've challenged these legal groups to point to case law that's problematic is states that only have sexual orientation protections, NCLR points out that: "We know from our own firsthand experience that LGB employees who have experienced discrimination that might be characterized as based on gender nonconformity have a very difficult time finding a lawyer to represent them in those states because of the uncertainty as to whether the law prohibits this type of discrimination. Moreover, even if an LGBT employee finds a lawyer to file such a case, most employment discrimination cases settle and never result in an appeal that establishes precedent. Experienced lawyers thus have to read the case law not just for what it expressly states, but for what it shows is likely to happen in other litigation. What has happened in the federal courts under other anti-discrimination laws shows why we, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, GLAD, and the Transgender Law Center are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of a sexual orientation-only bill."

Bottom line, gender identity/expression protections protect everyone, not just trans people.

A reminder why gender expression protects gays and lesbians too

The butch who was ejected -- on the same day as New York City's Pride Parade -- from the women's restroom of a restaurant for looking too masculine sued the Caliente Cab Company today on the grounds that it violated the city's gender expression protections, and New York state's protections against sex stereotyping.

Yes, the lawsuit also argues CCC violated sexual orientation protections -- but wanna bet the restaurant's lawyers will argue that it didn't because (I'm assuming here) there were other lesbians in the bar. This is exactly the sort of "we're not firing you because you're gay/lesbian, we're firing you because nelly/butch" loophole that Lambda Legal has warned about (PDF link) if ENDA lacks gender identity protections.

You Can't Push Someone Off a Cliff, "Incrementally"

Barney Frank's statement that trans people have to respect "incremental" changes, "just as the civil rights movement did" makes me wonder what his understanding of civil rights is...

The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color religion, sex, or national origin. It does not 'incrementally' prohibit employment discrimination based on these categories 'unless the person's skin is really really dark, or if you just can't tell what race the person is, or because the religion has more than one diety, or when that country is really really small and far away...'

This is what I imagine an 'incrementalist' ENDA for non-transgender gay and lesbian people would look like. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, 'unless the person was not straight-acting, really faggy, swishy, femmy, or oh, god help us, occassionally flamboyant, or just too butch, too macho, or just isn't like those cute L-Word gals, or just not enough like Will in Will and Grace.'

Letting someone kick you in the head with only the right boot, instead of both, doesn't count as incremental reform.