Colbert Report on "Stonewalling"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Stonewalling
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Mark Sanford

Brilliant...

Obama wishy-washy on LGBT issues

A few days ago, the Obama Justice Department, in dismissing the first same-sex marriage case filed in federal court, upheld the Defense of Marriage Act--although he opposed DOMA as a presidential candidate.

The dismissal came shortly after June 1st, when President Obama declared June Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month. While the religious right is outraged, evangelicals are not Obama voters to begin with. No political loss.

Although I am not a fan of marriage, it is clear to me that a marriage license is a tangible item, and dedicating a month is abstract, symbolic and not particularly productive. I am not impressed by the dog and pony show.

Originally posted on The Colonic

Freedom To...Starve?

I don't know about you, but I'm long past sick of the elitist tunnelvision of these so-called marriage equality advocates.

America is in the beginnings of a massive recession. Americans are losing their jobs by the millions. LGB and especially Transgender-Americans, often the last hired and first fired even in good times, are hurting and hurting badly economically. An inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is due to be introduced in Congress later this year. And what do we see from our so-called activist elite? This nonsense.

Let's be clear: LGBT Americans, like the rest of the country, need jobs, we need them right now, and a lot of us need those jobs right now a hell of a lot more than we need the ability to file joint tax returns.

Anyone who pays attention to national politics, or even anyone who subscribes to the most basic common-sense American political realities, knows that same-sex marriage is going nowhere federally for a long time at best. Even if all of our realistic wishes in that regard come true and SSM becomes legal in New Jersey, Vermont, and again in California, it will then be legal in just 10% of American states.

Compare that to the potential impact of the passage of a fully inclusive ENDA. With an inclusive ENDA as the law of the land, it would be illegal to discriminate against LGBT Americans in the workplace in all 50 states, not only directly affecting a far greater number of LGBT Americans, but also directly impacting far more basic needs for most of us then the ability to get married.

After all, of what use is the ability to become legally married when you can't afford to clothe, feed, and house yourself and your family? How does the ability to get married help those who can't afford health insurance or even a single prescription or visit to the doctor when they become sick? Obviously, the ability to get legally married is of most value to those who already have nice homes and well-paying jobs, those who don't go to work each day wondering when their own pink slip is coming or those in even more desperate straits, already unemployed and increasingly unable to provide the basic necessities of life for themselves and their families.

Yet here come the Queer elites once again, touting same-sex marriage, potentially generating a renewed surge of religion-based anti-LGBT bigotry at a time we can least afford it, getting the right-wing worked up against us all over again just before the matter of our right to work is due to be taken on in Congress. I mean really, just how selfish and shortsighted can these people be? Have they learned nothing from the last time they tried this? What, 45 states banning same-sex marriage and a nearly-passed Federal Marriage Amendment as a result of their last attempt wasn't enough of a clue, they need to risk our chance to finally be protected from discrimination on the job too?

It makes just about as much sense as when Republicans promote failed Reagan-era theories of massive tax cuts, rather than targeted government spending, as viable economic stimulus. Everyone knows, even if they refuse to admit it, that same-sex marriage is overall a loser issue politically in this country right now and that will probably continue to be the case for decades to come. To promote this proven loser issue and risk riling up the right-wing at a time when what we need most right now is for Congress to be able to muster the political will to protect LGBT workers and their families who depend on their incomes to survive from discrimination is beyond simply irresponsible, it's downright unconscionable.

Isn't it interesting how we don't see this kind of effort and these kinds of online events directed toward getting an inclusive ENDA passed (until we get fed up with the selfishness of the elites and do it ourselves, as with UnitedENDA)? Where are the blogging contests and cash prizes offered for speaking out on LGBT Americans right to work? You won't see them coming from us, of course. Most of us are just too busy saving every dime we can scrounge just to get through the week.

Perhaps if these self-involved Queer elites put 1/10 the effort they do in promoting their (currently) lost cause into something that can make a real difference in people's lives like protecting the right of LGBT Americans to make a living, we'd be better able to advocate for same-sex marriage in the future when it's more politically palatable and when people have more money to donate and more time to give to such a cause. Unfortunately, what we see is these elitists emulating the GOP, continuing to push an issue which is not only guaranteed to fail to draw popular support politically but carries with it the very real risk of diluting hard-won and long-awaited political support for a more basic need of far greater and far more immediate importance to a far larger number of people.

As unfair as it is, no one's going to die because they can't get married. Tragically, the same can't be said of those LGBT's who can't get work or provide basic needs for themselves and their loved ones. It's time these elitists took their heads out of the sand and realized their own narrow and selfish agenda is not what our community or our country needs right now.

There are people dying out here, right now, right in our backyards. LGBT Americans are losing jobs, homes, families, and yes, even lives, to legally-sanctioned hate, discrimination, and bigotry. Real LGBT lives are being lost, real LGBT families are suffering in poverty and homelessness. It's all happening right now and it's been happening for generations. Even more importantly, there's now a real chance of fixing the problem or at least of starting the process of fixing it, hopefully this year.

Lives are quite literally on the line here. We need jobs and we need them now, just like the rest of America's workforce. We need our ability to provide for ourselves and our families protected from discrimination under the law. Most importantly, this is a basic, fundamental need shared by all LGBT Americans, one which we can have a real and lasting positive impact on if we act right now. I'll put those priorities above anyone's joint tax return any day of the week.

People of color are not to blame for California passing Prop 8

First, let me just say this: This is a little ranty, and the ranting is not directed, as far as I know, at anyone on this blog or anyone I know personally. A good bit of frustration about the anti-gay amendments is spilling out in all kinds of different directions in all kinds of different communities. Some of it's been spilling over into blame-slinging racism from white queers. Now some of it's spilling over into blame-slinging at our not entirely effective marriage equality campaign, which didn't really do half a bad job considering what we were up against... but clearly we needed to do better, and we needed to do better in one specific area in particular: Involving people of color.

Okay, folks, there's been a good bit of noise in the blagosphere that if Black and Latino voters only hadn't turned up to the polls in record numbers to vote for Barack Obama, Prop 8 wouldn't have gotten passed and (presumably white) queers would have nothing to do but celebrate on November 5th.

But Dan Savage can bite me.

If you really think that statistically speaking, Black and Latino homophobia is to blame for Prop 8's passage, first go here and read this, then get back to me.

Here? Okay, good. To recap, there are insufficient numbers of Black and Latino voters in California to have ensured Prop 8's passage all by themselves. If they voted for Prop 8 only in the same proportions as white voters (which, one exit poll suggests, they didn't), the Proposition still would have passed by a narrow margin. If every Black and Latino voter in the country stayed home, maybe Prop 8 wouldn't have passed... but we'd definitely be looking to John McCain and Sarah Palin to uphold our rights on the federal level, which, let's face it, is an unlikely prospect at best.

Need more numbers? Maybe simpler ones? You're excused for another few minutes to look here.

Okay, but the exit poll says that Black and Latino voters voted for Prop 8 in greater proportion than white voters did. Leaving aside the notorious unreliability of exit polls, why might that have been? I'm hearing from the Dan Savage quadrant that it's because Black people are homophobic. Chil', please, as any number of white gay men might say.

Proportionally more people of color supported Prop 8 because Yes on 8 did a better job asking for their votes. No on 8 didn't bother. We tailored our message to straight white women. We didn't do any coalition building with communities of color. It was a reasonable course of action from a political standpoint. After all, Hilary Clinton was a foregone conclusion for the democratic nominee. And when it turned out she wasn't after all, we still knew white women were going to be the decisive factor in the election; all the media said so. It was all about whether white women would vote for Obama because he's young and good looking, or whether they would vote for McCain because they were disillusioned and angry with the Democrats and the Obama campaign, or whether they were for Palin or against Palin. Why, we had no way of knowing people of color would get to the polls and actually vote. You know, after fighting so long and hard for that right, a fight that continued during the elections this year, given (as it happens, ineffective) voter suppression attempts aimed at people of color.

Still and all, many Black and Latino people, gay and straight, found a way to support marriage equality. The NAACP came out opposing Prop 8, without much fanfare from the No on 8 campaign. President-Elect Obama officially opposed 8, even though he did cave and make the obligatory "marriage etc etc" statement that the Yes on 8 people twisted in their dirty robocalls. And many more regular people would have if the Yes on 8 campaign didn't get to their families and churches first. Because believe it or not, Black civil rights leaders have a history of supporting gay rights. Jesse Jackson and the NAACP were there at the 1987 march on Washington for gay and lesbian rights. Gay rights leaders don't have the same history of supporting Black civil rights. And in the gap between what white queers owe the Black community and what they owe us, it's just possible that marriage fell.

So if anyone would like to continue to pin the responsibility for Prop 8's passage to Black people, go right ahead, but only if we actually learn something productive from it instead of just slinging blame—and that's that we can't win our rights without the help of people who've had many years more experience at it, and we've got to earn that help by lending a hand unasked in the continuing fight against racism. (And no doubt about it, it is a continuing fight: just because Barack Obama was elected President doesn't mean there aren't millions of young Black men, maybe some just as smart and talented, behind bars for no crime or for a crime a white man would have got off for.) If you won't acknowledge the context so we can learn from our mistakes, then you'd better chalk up those extra few votes to bad luck and start organizing for the next four years. Just don't make the same mistake.

Here's my suggestion for a plan of action for the marriage equality movement for the next four years:
1) Reach out to LGBT of color organizations first. Cop to the mistakes we made in organizing against Prop 8, eat some crow, and ask them what they need to be involved.
2) Having done that, offer help to queer-positive anti-racist organizations. Acknowledge that in the past, mainstream gay organizations haven't been doing all we could in the fight against racism. Follow through on commitments we make at this time.
3) At the same time, build inroads in mainstream communities by lending a hand in community projects. Go out with teams of VolunQueers to work on explicitly non-gay related projects that affect the lives of Black people, Latin@s, Asians, Native people, and poor straight white people. Volunteer at their churches' food banks. Be hard working, open hearted, and humble.
4) Ask moderate church and community leaders what it would take to make a counter-amendment palatable to them and their constituents. WHAT?!? Yes. Not every demand could possibly be met without failing in our aim of equality—but you might be surprised, for several groups to get on board, it might take as little as the addition of a line that explicitly states that no church will be required to marry same sex couples, just to counteract the lies Prop 8 supporters have been telling. Perhaps the next marriage amendment will state that religious organizations are responsible for defining the meaning of the word marriage for themselves, and the state is required to recognize every religious marriage and civil union equally—but that would still work for me.
5) Value people of color's work. Give thanks and reciprocate. Follow up and maintain the coalition. Call every so often and ask if there's anything they need, find out what they're working on and volunteer to help.

We're in the equality caucus together.

Mean Times

So, the election is over and like so many in our community I'm still not sure whether to be happy, sad, both, or neither.

Not only did our guy win, but the Democrats took virtually complete control of Congress, reducing the Republican influence of the political agenda of our federal government to its smallest in decades. In New York, Democrats took control of their state Senate for the first time in forty years, clearing the way for transgender rights and probably same-sex marriage as well. Barney Frank told us we'd need at least a 15 seat Democratic pickup to make an inclusive ENDA passable, and latest estimates indicate that gain was at least 20. More openly LGBT and pro-LGBT officials were elected all over the country than ever before in our history. All great news to be sure, all reasons to hope.

And then, there's the other stuff. Three more states have now banned same-sex marriage, including California, which not only wrote a ban into its state constitution but defied it's own high court ruling that banning such marriages was not constitutionally permissible, thus taking away rights gay and lesbian Californians already enjoyed. I guess what gets me most about this is that two of the three states that voted to discriminate against gay and lesbians also voted for Barack Obama. It's not a coincidence that mailers that went out to Californians in support of Prop8 included pictures of Obama and his statement that he did not support same-sex marriage. While of course the lion's share of responsibility here lies at the feet of those who supported this hateful legislation, there's also one thing we must not forget, no matter how happy we are to have Barack Obama instead of John McCain as our incoming President: They couldn't have used it if he hadn't said it in the first place.

No matter where the blame is to be properly cast, however, there's one thing that's undeniable: Voting for Obama (and his inclusive agenda) but against treating gay and lesbian people equally under the law is hypocrisy of the first order. At the same time, not only is it hypocritical and wrong, it's just plain mean.

As anyone who lives in a state where either same-sex marriage or civil unions are or have been legal knows well, the legal status of committed homosexual relationships has zero impact on those who are not in committed homosexual relationships. Zero, nil, nada, none whatsoever. Californians know this because they had same-sex marriage for six months before the election. California did not break off and fall into the Pacific Ocean during this time, nor did an angry divine being smite the west coast (or New England, for that matter). Children didn't begin being indoctrinated into homosexuality (as if such a thing were possible) in California schools. Preachers were not jailed for speaking against homosexuality. No church was forced to perform any marriage ceremonies they didn't wish to. While I'm certainly willing to be corrected should I be wrong, I'm also not aware of a single heterosexual marriage or family unit disintegrating as a result of gay people having the ability to get married during this time.

So, if we logically assume that the ability of gays and lesbians to get married has no real impact on the lives and families of those not inclined to enter into such relationships and that Californians know this because they have experienced it for themselves, we must also therefore assume that the true motivations for voters to strip this right from gay and lesbian Californians isn't about concern for their own families but rather nothing more valid than expressing their personal distaste for gays and lesbians in general and a desire to punish them for being different from themselves. You'd think racial and ethnic minority groups like African-Americans and Latinos which voted for Prop 8 in significant majorities would know better, wouldn't you? Apparently they don't, or at the very least, they don't care to.

I feel like I should have the right to be happy about what happened on Tuesday. Looking at the results strictly from a transgender perspective, I'd have to say we did pretty well. The prospects for an inclusive ENDA appear to be significantly improved, hate crimes is even more of a slam dunk then it was before, and it's reasonable to expect New York's legislature will move to protect its transgender citizens in fairly short order. If that was all I cared about I wouldn't be able to help but see Tuesday as a massive win for our community and the clearest indication yet that our futures as Americans are brighter than ever.

I just can't do it, though. I can't cheer with a full heart for myself and those like myself while others are being persecuted and excluded from fair and equal treatment under the law for no good reason at the same time. I can't take joy in victory when in order to do so I'd have to ignore the very real plight of others who are no less entitled to the full rights and benefits of American citizenship than I am.

And yet, despite it all, I cannot help but have hope. In just 74 days we'll have a Congress that can (hopefully) actually get something done on our issues and a President who will be a help instead of a hindrance in that effort. We can look forward to the appointment of US Supreme Court justices who will be more rather than less inclined to make decisions that help to guarantee equality and fairness for all Americans under our laws. We can also look forward to the issue of same-sex marriage eventually making it to the USSC (hopefully after Obama has had the chance to appoint at least one or two justices).

In the meantime, I know what I'm going to do. Like so many insisted on doing when gay rights used to be perceived as more politically palatable than transgender rights, I'm going to fight for what is possible, fully inclusive LGBT workplace protections and hate crimes laws, and prepare for the day when same-sex marriage is more politically palatable. I won't be a hypocrite and celebrate our victories in moving the cause of transgender rights forward when so many others have been forced to take a step backward, but I'm certainly not going to let the get in the way of getting what we can.

While I know it may sound to some like this rationale is something one would find in an HRC press release, there's one key difference: When an inclusive ENDA finally does pass, it will protect all of us. When the hate crimes bill becomes law, all LGBT Americans will be covered by it. When New York passes GENDA all LGBT New Yorkers will enjoy protection from discrimination. No one will be left behind. I can fight for these things with a full heart because I know it's fighting to protect all of us. Just as I and so many other transpeople demand inclusion for ourselves so too must we demand it for all of us or it isn't inclusion at all but rather the exclusion of those left behind.

Now is our time. We must take advantage of what is now possible because we don't know if we'll ever see such an opportunity again in our lifetimes. If there was ever a time for all of us to put aside our differences and work toward our common achievable goals, it's upon us now and we must rise to meet it, swiftly and enthusiastically.

There will be a day for same-sex marriage in America, a day when all loving and committed human relationships will be recognized as equal to those of heterosexuals across our nation. Sadly, we know, even if we are loathe to admit it, that day is still far in the future. Fully inclusive protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, hate crimes protections, the repeals of DOMA and DADT, these are the things we now have a real chance of seeing become reality soon, but only if we band together and work in concert to make it happen. In doing so, not only do we serve our own immediate goals, but we also continue the work of creating a country where same-sex marriage will be a reality nationwide someday, a country where discrimination against LGBT people will be as looked down upon by American society as discrimination based upon race and ethnicity is now.

Perhaps for the first time ever, I find myself offering a quote from an unexpected source, but one that hits the nail right on the head:

"...But make no mistake: I do not think we have to audition for equality. Rather, I believe that each and every one of us who has been hurt by this hateful ballot measure, and each and every one of us who is still fighting to be equal, has to confront the neighbors who hurt us. We have to say to the man with the Yes on 8 sign--you disrespected my humanity, and I am not giving you a pass. I am not giving you a pass for explaining that you tolerate me, while at the same time denying that my family has a right to exist. I do not give you permission to say you have me as a "gay friend" when you cast a vote against my family, and my rights."

-HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese on the passage of California's Proposition 8

That goes for all of us, Joe, in all of the ways we fight against hate and intolerance, in all of the ways we work toward a more fair and just America.

All of us, all the time, with no one ever left behind.

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.

Is it safe yet?

Geez, you'd think finishing a MA degree, working almost but not quite full-time, and doing an internship would leave a guy some time to write regularly for a group blog, wouldn't you?

My degree is finished, and the full impact of the ridiculous amount of student loan debt I have is starting to hit home, so now I have the leisure and the desire to distract myself from my financial woes by writing here and introducing myself. My name is Kerrick, and I live in the SF Bay Area. I grew up and started my transition in Florida. I am fortunate enough to have fewer horror stories than allies to be grateful for, which is possibly why you will too often see me morph into Wrath of Khan over the many slights trans people are subject to—I've never become inured to it.

In the SF Bay Area there's a lot of celebration right now. Pride this weekend is expected to be big—bigger than big—downright huge—and that's not just the assessment of the baskets of goodies those attracted to men expect to see strutting down the street. Last year when I was doing my safety monitor training, if I am remembering it correctly, I was told that SF Pride is the largest event in California—bigger than the Rose Bowl. For a weekend, the city I live in (well, near) is going to absorb a quantity of visitors approximately the population of Disneyland, if everyone in California decided to go to Disneyland at once*. It feels like everyone in the area is going to be forced to don rainbow and force-marched out to the parade site. I'm a resister. I'm definitely gay enough, I just get panicked in crowds. I had planned to go to the relatively small and well-behaved Trans March at least, but my classmate is having a low-key farewell party and alas, I feel I must attend. My partner will have to represent me; he has marched in Trans March every year for the past mumble, while I've only been involved every year for the past year.

Trans March, unlike Dyke March, welcomes all who want to march. I've never heard of anyone drummed out of TM for not being Trans Enough. That's important to me as someone who's never quiiiite felt trans enough to prove that yes, I do actually deserve to have my gender acknowledged as legitimate as everyone else's gender, no matter how I described it in the past. "Trans Enough" boundaries among trans people fragment us and keep some of us from accessing health care and social support. Further, it's been a source of strength for many trans people to see non-trans allies marching with them, when so often we receive the message from the media, from the legal system, and from our supposed lobbyist friends in Washington that everyone is against us. I wish for Dyke March participants to have their space free of domination by non-dykes and also the security to erase Dyke Enough boundaries so that all dyke-identified people feel welcome, so they can see that their numbers are even greater than they thought, their diversity even richer—not only in terms of gender history, but in terms of race and ethnicity, ability, class, and sexual persuasion. I would always self-exclude from the Dyke March so long as they ask non-dykes not to take part; unlike many of my fellow trans men I have never been dyke-identified.

At any rate, it seems like the hype is even huger this year because of the marriages. About which I am very excited. It's not about being happy for my non-trans gay allies. I identify as a gay man. Same-gender marriage is for me, too.

Or at least it could be... if there weren't a presumption of monogamy and normativity that I'm not drawn to. I've been a little taken off guard when some of my coworkers, classmates, and casual acquaintances have asked me "Are you getting married?" We've been together two years (Brucha at Yah); were you ready to marry your boyfriend/girlfriend after two years? We weren't going to let the state tell us when we couldn't get married, and we sure aren't letting the state tell us when we should. Besides, if we'd felt that strongly about it we'd have taken advantage of my legal document procrastination and gotten married already. Instead, I participated in this historic occasion by helping with the celebration this past Friday when three couples, one men, one women, and one mixed, together received the seven blessings of marriage from the rabbi of my synagogue (oops, "Jewish spiritual community") in full view of G-d and everyone. We are really lucky; some people's faith of their childhood won't even let them walk in the door. I'm new to Judaism, but have been around long enough to realize that my Woo-Jew community is by no means representative (some local Jews call us the ashram, referring to the fact that we started out as a meditation center). It's just one of the many things that makes me feel holy, along with evolution, the expanse of the universe, pagan seasonal festivals, and the complexity of the living earth—how about you?



(*all figures brought to you courtesy of Hyperbole.)

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.

I know this is supposed to be a blog for serious issues...

...you know, deep heavy posts, scientific discussions, well-reasoned critical thinking and all that.

But I just have to say that I have been reading about the marriages being performed, legally, in California right now, and I am just so happy for our friends, brothers, sisters in that state who are getting the chance to truly and legally commit their lives to one another.

Every now and then, the good guys win one. That is what keeps us coming back to the fight! For now, let's just share the joy of relationships being bound in law as they are in spirit.

Legal Marriage, Queer Relationship

The NYT did an article about the legal issues when you're a heterosexual couple and one of you legally changes gender. I've been talking about the ramifications of this stuff for so long that I failed to notice for others it might be quite a surprise, and revelatory, but it is.

Interesting comments have come in from Cara at Feministe and a young trans woman who calls herself Critical Thinking Girl. As CTG points out, it is pretty tawdry - the usual before & after photos, etc. - and when she notes:

The tone of this article is clear - Fran is a put-upon woman, with an eccentric husband. The picture they chose is also curious as it has the trans woman in the relationship holding back her wife.

As many of my regular readers already know, one of the things that drives me batshit about the media in general is the way they choose rubes to write about, instead of speaking to activists or advocates who are prepared to deal with media, or who have become allied with LGBTQ people on the issue. For those of you who are interested, here's a talk I gave at the Law School of Penn State Dickinson last year.

Because honestly, same sex marriage recognition would make life easier for all trans people in relationships - including CTG.

Oh - and to The Times - and everyone else: it's "transition" not "sex change."

Trans Partner Advocacy

Recently on the mHB message boards, the partner of someone who was transitioning posted about her very last day with her male husband. She was sad, she was mourning, and she was feeling both loss & resentment.

Sometimes the larger trans community seems to view feelings like that as anti-trans; that a partner isn’t throwing the big coming out party for her transitioning companion is seen as less than enthusiastic, and the difficult feelings are interpreted as saying ‘trans is bad.’

But the thing is, it’s part of the gig. There’s a lot of change involved in transition, which every trans person with half a brain admits. I mean, that’s the point. Change is a difficult thing for most people - all people, really - and it is stressful even when the change is a good thing, like getting a better job or getting married or having a baby that you’ve long wanted.

But to miss the old, worse job, or thinking fondly about the time when you were single or childfree, doesn’t mean you don’t want the new change in your life. You do. But you can’t just tell your mind not to think about how it once was, either.

& Sometimes I think that’s what’s expected of partners, that we never have a time to say, “I did love him as a man.” We can’t admit that we liked the cocky or shy guy we first fell in love with, & the partners of FTMs aren’t supposed to mourn the loss of breasts and smooth cheeks that they loved to touch.

But the thing is, as any trans person should know, repressing a feeling of loss or sadness is really bad all around; repression poisons the groundwater, in effect, and everyone feels it. So while I don’t advise partners make themselves miserable longing for the past (just as I wouldn’t advise trans people to think the future will definitely be rosy simply because they’ll transition), expressing the more difficult feelings associated with transition is healthier, in my opinion, in the long run. Not easy to hear as the trans person, for sure, but from what I hear from same trans people, they too may need some time to mourn the loss of their own former self.

Are We Transitioning Simply To Marry?

This week there’s an article ( scroll down and follow link to read ) about Diane and I (and our Blind Eye Mystery series) in the Sydney Express News by Katrina Fox, who is, coincidently, the editor of Trans People in Love, a new anthology from Haworth that I have a piece in.

Katrina’ article is nice, nothing like the Catholic Daily News piece last month that seems think I transitioned to get around the rules against same sex marriage. The funny thing is that I’ve had lesbians ask me this too: will lesbians transition so they can gain access to legal marriages.

I can’t really see lesbians rush to become men, even if it would give them the legal privileges of marriage. Most lesbians I know aren’t interested in undergoing the counseling, legally changing their names and years of injecting hormones—and all the side effects like hair and clitoris growth, let alone undergoing surgery to have their breast removed and genitalia altered.

Considering the many couples that break up during transition, it hardly seems like the thing to do in order to commit your lives to each other!

I'd like to know what you think