Current ENDA Language Regarding Transgender Workers Revealed, Concerns Mount

During his show Sunday night, TransFM founder and host Ethan St. Pierre received a call-in from International Foundation for Gender Education (IFGE) Executive Director Denise LeClair, who revealed for the first time what the current language regarding transgender workers and bathroom usage currently being considered by the Congress may mean in a practical, everyday sense.

Among the key points:

* Employers will not be permitted to force a transgender employee to use a bathroom that is opposite of their gender identity, but they also will not be obligated to allow that employee to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, as long as (currently undefined) reasonable accommodations are made. In other words, employers will be allowed to segregate transgender employees and create the modern equivalent of "Whites Only" and "Negro" bathroom facilities specifically intended to exclude Transgender-Americans from the rest of the workforce.

* These rules may only be applied to transsexual employees who are currently transitioning, and those who have already completed the transition process will not be affected. What we don't yet know here is what will be the requirements to be considered as fully transitioned. There is concern that if Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) is required in order to be considered fully transitioned this will create a situation where those who are healthy enough and can afford SRS will enjoy at least some protections in the workplace, while those transpeople who cannot afford SRS, don't want it, or are not eligible candidates for SRS for medical or other reasons will continue to be denied full civil rights as Americans in perpetuity.

Right now, this is really all we know and it should be pointed out that none of this is carved in stone, all of it is negotiable and probably is being negotiated right now in Congress. This is just a read on what they're currently talking about.

For more of my take on this, check out my new podcast, #13.

Response to the APA's New GID

Callen-Lorde and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center, both of New York, have written a response to the APA's revised DSM diagnosis for Gender Identity Disorder -- which is now being re-named Gender Incongruence. They make a few important and valid points in a statement which is tidy, well-written, and well-argued. I'm impressed & will be added as a signatory.

Re: Comment on the proposed "Gender Incongruence" in the draft revision of the of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, version 5
(DSM-5)

American Psychiatric Association:

The undersigned providers of and advocates for medical and mental health services to transgender and gender non-conforming communities welcome this opportunity to offer feedback and comment on the American Psychiatric Association's draft revision diagnosis for Gender Identity Disorders (GID), "Gender Incongruence" (GI).

The lead organizations facilitating this response are Callen-Lorde Community Health Center and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of New York City. Each of these organizations started providing community services in 1983 and together serve over 2,000 people of transgender experience with primary health care and hormone care as well as substance abuse, mental health, and community building services. Our organizations, as well as the other signatories to this letter, represent the largest settings providing health and social services to transgender and gender non-conforming people and their families in the United States.

We appreciate the APA's proposed "Gender Incongruence"(GI) diagnosis is an effort intended to de-stigmatize gender non-conformity and improve transgender-identified people's access to mental health care. We agree with the intention behind this effort; however, we endorse an alternative viewpoint, based on our years of collective practice knowledge. We believe GI will continue to inappropriately pathologize gender non-conformity, maintain barriers to medically necessary health care, and lend justification to gender based stigmatization and discrimination.

Prior to addressing the reasons behind our recommendation, we would like to respectfully address the process by which the APA undertook this effort.
From the vantage point of LGBT health and community centers, the conceptualization of "Gender Incongruence" occurred without valuable and necessary input from community providers who serve and are accountable to significant numbers of people affected by this diagnosis. The November 2008 Report of the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group indicates that the "sub-work group has addressed feedback from interested advocacy groups and other stakeholders. Surveys were sent to more than 60 organizations." While other agencies have provided feedback in this process, we are concerned that the institutions that provide the bulk of medical and mental health services to transgender people nationwide were not asked for input. We have reached out to LGBT community health centers and LGBT community centers; none of these key, high-volume, client-centered, community-driven stakeholders seem to have been included in the research or vetting process. Without input from a representative sample of such organizations and their clients, the conclusions of the sub-work group regarding GI cannot be considered generalizable.

Our specific concerns regarding the validity and utility of the proposed inclusion of GI are as follows:
- Gender non-conformity is not a mental disorder: The proposed definition of a mental disorder in the DSM-V expressly prohibits the inclusion of diagnoses that are "primarily the result of social deviance or conflicts with society" (APA, 2010). The "Gender Incongruence" diagnosis inherently contradicts this tenet. Whereas the criteria for other psychiatric diagnoses are lists of symptoms that impair functioning, the proposed criteria for GI are a list of characteristics of gender non-conformity. There is no evidence or need for treatment that decreases gender non-conformity or crossdressing, as noted in "Transvestic Fetishism." The GI diagnosis obfuscates the root cause of the distress many transgender people experience - pervasive discrimination. It is commonly acknowledged among mental health providers that being gay, bisexual or lesbian is not a disorder, but that the social impact of stigma, discrimination and homophobia can cause the individual great distress. GI falsely assigns dysfunction to the gender non-conforming person, rather than within the social environment.

- An inappropriate pathway to transgender-specific medical care: There is legitimate community concern that removal of a mental health diagnosis would limit access to transgender-specific medical care. While a minority has succeeded in using the legal system or in fulfilling their insurer's requirements for coverage to access care, the majority of people needing transgender-specific medical care are denied coverage. GI maintains these barriers to care. Medical interventions are better substantiated by the use of medical diagnoses, not psychiatric diagnoses. Access to transgender-specific, medically necessary care can be directly and more effectively addressed by utilization of a revised medical diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The psychiatric needs of transgender people are better addressed by existing psychiatric diagnoses.

- GI lays the groundwork for unethical and harmful reparative therapy: A GID diagnosis has historically been misused to justify treatment of "pre-homosexual" children in the hope of preventing or delaying the development of a positive and healthy gay or lesbian identity. With adults, transgender-specific medical intervention is often offered only if reparative therapy fails to relieve distress and improve social functioning.
The GI diagnosis will continue to lend false credence to interventions that foster shame, encourage children and adults to betray their true selves, and delay healthy identity development. This practice is harmful and unethical.

In summary, we propose all diagnoses addressing gender non-conformity and identity be eliminated from the DSM-5. The mental health needs - when present - of gender non-conforming people are addressed by existing diagnoses. We ask the APA to formally renounce reparative therapy addressing gender non-conformity in children, adolescents and adults. We acknowledge that a diagnosis must exist for those who require medically necessary transgender-specific care, and ask the APA to advocate for a viable transgender-specific medical diagnosis in the ICD. Finally, we respectfully request that the APA include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender healthcare institutions and community centers in these processes.

Sincerely,

Callen-Lorde Community Health Center
The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of New York City

Co-signing Institutions:

• CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers, New York, NY


• Brainpower Research and Development Services Inc


• Brooklyn Community Pride Center, Brooklyn, NY


• Capital District Gay and Lesbian Community Council, Albany, NY


• Center on Halsted, Chicago, IL


• The DC Center for the LGBT Community


• Equality Ohio, Columbus, OH


• The Gay Alliance in Rochester NY


• Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado, Denver, CO


• L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Los Angeles, CA


• Legacy Community Health Services, Houston, TX


• LGBT Community Center Coalition of Central Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA


• The LOFT LGBT Community Services Center, White Plains, NY


• Malecare, New York, NY


• Mazzoni Center, Philadelphia, PA


• Milwaukee LGBT Community Center, Milwaukee, WI


• National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), New York, NY


• National LGBT Cancer Network, New York, NY


• New Mexico GLBTQ Centers, Las Cruces, NM


• New York City Anti-Violence Project, New York, NY


• New York Trans Rights Organization (NYTRO), White Plains, New York


• Out With Cancer – The LGBT Cancer Project, New York, NY


• Pride in Practice, Silver School of Social Work, New York University, New York, NY


• Rainbow Heights Club and Heights-Hill Mental Health Service South Beach, Psychiatric Center Community Advisory Board, Inc, New York, NY


• Sacramento Gay & Lesbian Center, Sacramento, CA


• San Francisco LGBT Community Center, San Francisco, CA


• Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE), New York, NY


• Spectrum LGBT Center, San Rafael, CA


• Third Root Community Health Center, Brooklyn, NY


• YouthPride, Inc., Atlanta, GA

Petition Pelosi to Move ENDA

I know this whole TOTWK controversy is fascinating, but ENDA isn't on the floor yet, & no matter how you feel about the term "trannies" or about exploitation films, or about gay men, trans women, & hate crimes, we all really need ENDA.

Just saying.

More than 16,000 people have signed the petition to get Nancy Pelosi to move ENDA to the House floor for a vote.

There are growing indications that ENDA will move to a markup and a vote in the next two weeks. It is important that we have as strong a showing as possible on the petition in order to demonstrate to wavering members of Congress that there is support.

Please add your name before the petition is delivered by hand next week:

Dear Speaker Nancy Pelosi --

With health care legislation passing, now is the time to institute workplace protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Rep. Tammy Baldwin says she believes that we have the votes to pass ENDA, and Rep. George Miller has said the bill is ready to come out of committee now that the health care bill has passed. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, we call on you to act boldly and decisively and bring ENDA to the floor for a vote now.

*First Name

*Last Name

*Zip

*Email

Cell Phone**

** You may receive text messages or calls from GetEQUAL.org. Standard text messaging charges will apply.

Like Horsradish and Hot Fudge: "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" Fails, as a Movie and as a Concept

It's rare that a three-and-a-half-minute trailer tells you just about everything you need to know about a movie, but in the case of "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" the movie is everything you see in those few minutes but more...and worse.

First and foremost, this is a really bad movie, but clearly intentionally so. The film is artificially "aged" and made to have a look similar to the "blaxploitation" films of the early 70's, complete with low-budget production, film imperfections, and missing reel notices.The overplayed transgender stereotypes are blatant and ludicrous, but it's the titling and the marketing of this film where the biggest mistakes have been made.

Anyone who sees this movie understands something about it in very short order: This isn't a movie about transgender women, it's a movie about drag queens. Not that any confirmation is needed once Pinky La'Trimm, Emma Grashun, Bubbles Cliquot, Tipper Sommore, and Rachel Slur (no, I'm not kidding) are introduced to the viewer, but there's even a scene in the movie where one of the characters defines herself and the other queens with her as "gay men in dresses".

Immediately after seeing this movie I remarked to someone who'd already seen it that if they'd titled this movie "Ticked-Off Drag Queens With Knives" probably no one would have batted an eye, but thinking about it now I'm not so sure. The biggest problem with this movie is that the concept just doesn't work, no matter what perspective you view it from. You can make a campy movie about drag queens or you can make a film about hate crimes, but you can't do both in the same film and expect it to be seen as credible on any level.

Director Israel Luna's attempt to meld these completely and utterly disparate elements into the same film results in nothing short of disaster, with the campy, comedic scenes undercutting and perhaps even completely discrediting whatever anti-hate crimes message he may have been hoping to convey. At the same time, the graphic and gory hate-motivated violence ruins whatever comedic value the film might otherwise have had. Hate crimes, after all, just aren't funny, not ever. For all too many, that bloody baseball bat has been real. Including graphic depictions of anti-transgender hate violence in a movie that's clearly being played for camp and comedy comes off as complete ignorance of the reality of anti-transgender hate violence at best and outright mockery and denigration of transpeople and the hate violence perpetrated against us at worst.

The transgender community's reaction to this film is understandable. This low-budget hackfest employs just about every tired transgender stereotype out there and doesn't even do a decent job of mocking itself as you'd expect a film like this to do. Despite the mostly generic hairstyles and clothes that are presumably supposed to reflect the styles of the early 70's, the queens are seen in a late-model convertible that couldn't have been built more than than a few years ago. This film fails even the most basic tests of consistency and good writing.

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is so bad on so many different levels that it's even schlock when compared to other schlock. It's almost like Israel Luna set out to do an early John Waters film (right down to the Divine-like "mama queen") but just didn't have the chops to pull it off. The hate crime element, while perhaps well-intentioned, seems more like a written-in afterthought than anything else, just an excuse for the drag queens to comically kick some ass rather than an attempt at any sort of truly serious statement about hate crimes. This aspect of the film comes through clearly even when watching the trailer so it's not surprising that many transpeople and allies find it disparaging and offensive.

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" tries to succeed as a comedy while making a statement about something as deadly serious and unfunny as anti-transgender hate crimes, and therefore fails miserably at both. Honestly, I wonder what the folks at the Tribeca Film Festival saw in this disjointed, poorly-made mess of a movie. Fortunately, real transwomen can take heart that this film is such an unremitting and unadulterated piece of shit that once the Tribeca festival ends it's highly likely that this film and its director will quickly fade back into the obscurity they so richly deserve.

AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF "TICKED-OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES" IN THE TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL

Two weeks ago, a campaign to boycott Israel Luna's film "Ticked Off Trannies With Knives" began, and within days GLAAD had joined the cause with a call to action on the GLAAD blog. The facebook group currently boasts over 1,700 members. I have seen this film and I am writing this letter today to support it, and to encourage people to stop protesting it. As a transsexual, and as a filmmaker, this boycott saddens me deeply and I hope that this letter encourages folks to disengage from what I believe to be an attempt at self-promotion by a group of professional transgender activisits, not artists, not concerned members of the community.

First, and really the letter should end with this statement as well, censorship is never the answer. Ever. And if you believe that pulling a small, low-budget independent film, that features trans people as main characters, does not constitute censorship, you have never tried to make art about trans people in America in the 21st century. Activists succeeded in removing a film called "The Gendercator" from the line-up at the Frameline Film Festival in 2007 after it was deemed by "community leaders" to be transphobic. Who elected these trans community leaders? Not me, not you--but whoever they were, they had no qualms about speaking on our behalf. This pattern is sincerely troubling to me, as it brews a climate of fear among trans film and video artists and people looking to make work about trans people. Censoring these films is a step in the wrong direction.

Ok, assuming that you agree with me about censorship, but that you think maybe sometimes people SHOULD be afraid to make work about trans people, let me tell you, I agree with you. There are actually many trans characters in mainstream film and television--they often appear in gay and lesbian films to help the gay or lesbian protagonist out of a sticky situation, for instance. On television, transsexual characters are overwhelmingly the victims of violence (usually sexual) and/or they are perverted perpetrators, such as on Law & Order SVU, which received a GLAAD media award in 2009. The other trans character you're likely to find on TV or in a movie is what I like to call the "liarsexual"--that is to say, their "lie" about their gender usually propels the plot in some way. "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is not in that genre.

All of those types of trans characters appear all the time and (a) they suck and (b) no one is protesting them. In fact, when L&O SVU puts out a casting call for trans people for an upcoming episode, my friends stampede to the studio, eager to claim their $100 check and a chance to see what Chris Meloni is like in real life.

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" has none of these characters. Not the secondary characters who exists to help a non-trans protagonist (Better Than Chocolate), not a victim of violence (Boys Don't Cry), not a perverted perpetrator (Silence of the Lambs) and not a liar-sexual, who propels the plot of the film by concealing his/her "true" identity/gender until a dramatic reveal causes another, more important character, to change and/or grow (The Crying Game). Even the (GLAAD-award-winning) Transamerica, which has a trans character as a protagonist, situates the trans character completely alone and in a thoroughly heterosexual context (reconnecting with her son). "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" has three main characters--all transwomen--who have their own character arcs and their own motivations.

The boycott organizers, and GLAAD, cite a main issue with the content of film--that it fails to represent the lives of "real" transgender women. This argument disturbs me because that means that either #1 GLAAD and the boycott organizers believe that there are a limited number of ways to express being a "real" trans person or #2 trans character can only appear in dramatic works that are in the "realism" realm. Without getting into a history of filmmaking, it is safe to say that this particular stylistic complaint is severely misguided and limiting to trans artists. Non-trans filmmakers are allowed a wide-range of cinematic styles with which to portray their lives, and filmmakers working with "authentic" trans characters should be allowed the same. "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is satire and camp and action/adventure all rolled into one feature film. Within these genres, the protagonists are a commanding prescence and an inspiration to the audience. No viewer of this film would mistake this for being a "real" movie--the film is highly stylized to invoke the experience of watching a B-movie from the 70s--from 16mm film artifacts added in post production to a placard reading "We're sorry but some of the reels of this film may have been lost."

Which brings us to the other reading of that argument--that there is one way of being a "real" transwoman. The feministing article about the film complained about the transwomen's use of the word "balls"--which apparently rings as insulting and inauthentic. Maybe some transwomen bristle at this, but I can assure you that this feels "real" to some people. If you're wondering how this can be true, think of how many times you've heard a trans guy talk about pussy (his own or someone else's). It's true, that this is a particularly difficult joke to make in front of non-trans people. I don't walk into a room of straight people and start talking about my vagina, for instance. But I might, if the room were filled with my trans friends. And that's the remarkable thing about this film: it features transwomen (five of them at one point!) talking to each other about their lives in an informal (and let's just say it) "real" way. And viewers have very few examples of this peek into (what I consider to be) my world. Trans people with trans friends, who talk about their real lives openly and stick up for each other when the shit hits the fan.

What seems to be at the heart of this argument is that the organizers feel comfortable only with the narrative films that include trans characters as victims (GLAAD cites "Boys Don't Cry" as a "good" film as opposed to this "bad" film) or documentaries about trans people that feature their "changes." I don't hate most of those movies, but any trans artist will tell you, this is a very limiting rubric if you're looking to make work about trans people. Eventually, being a transsexual gets very boring. The sex change operation is over, your body stops changing and you have to just get on with the rest of your life. Limiting trans work to the sex change operation is the equivalent of telling gay filmmakers that they should only make movies about "coming out" stories. "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is the ACT/UP Fight Back response to the transgender victim of all those other films--what if every gay movie was (that terrible Oscar-winning trash) "Philadelphia"? What if every gay character was an asexual "AIDS victim"? That would be depressing, right?

"Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives" is a film that I would have been proud to make, and that I connected to because it is what it says it is--a revenge fantasy. Every time a trans woman (and let's be honest, most of the violence towards trans people is directed at trans women) is murdered, I want to pick up a knife and kill the guy who did it, and then set his body on fire, and then hang it in City Hall park to warn the rest of them that if they fuck with trans people, they will pay. But that doesn't happen. Because that would be wrong, and counterproductive and violence (like censorship) is never the answer. But am I glad that in this movie, for a couple hours, I finally do have the opportunity to get revenge? To stand up against the people who brutalize trans people? Absolutely.

So how do you evaluate a film for its transgender content? First, seeing the film can be especially helpful (the great majority of the people trashing TOTWK have only seen the trailer). After that, it's really a personal decision. Here's the rubric I use:

#1 Is there just ONE(1) trans character? If there is only one, the trans person is probably just there to serve some purpose for the protagonist/screenwriter. If there are two or more, there is a better chance that they are "real" characters. (Are you a trans person? Do you have at least one trans friend? Yeah, me too.)

#2 Do you see before and after pictures of the trans character? If there are before/after pictures, or a mention of their old or "real"/"legal" name you are watching a BAD movie or TV show. Start the facebook group and trash the producers, pronto.

#3 Is the dramatic question "Will s/he get the sex change operation that they desperately want?" and/or does the trans person die at the end of the film? If the plot is about getting "the operation" you're probably watching the product of a filmmaker/screenwriter/producers's fantasy about fascinating transsexual people. There ARE brutal murders of trans people in "Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives," but this event propels the revenge action, and the other characters fulfill their arcs as mighty warriors rather than as pitiful victims.

Essentially, the boycott was proposed by people who have very little experience with reading and comprehension of media and representations of trans people in film, perpetuated by GLAAD, an organization that is no friend to trans people who is seeking to jump on what it sees as an opportunity to curry favor with what it sees as a grassroots movement because it is too lazy to do any real work on trans issues. The "movement" is actually mostly a facebook group that has grown in size because of the lack of effort required to "join" a movement online (what I call single-click activism) and I predict very low turn out for tonight's "protest."

I encourage you all to take your friends, see the film, and write and share your own thoughts.

Transgender and Transgender-Like Veterans - Part 1

By Monica F. Helms

This is my most ambitious video project yet. It's called: "Transgender and Transgender-Like Veterans - Part 1." Besides doing it in widescreen, I used several techniques I have only experimented with in the past.

This is a documentary of those individuals who crossed gender lines to serve their country, from the Revolutionary War to the Spanish American War. The video has stories of interesting people, like Deborah Sampson, Albert Cashier and Cathy Williams. It didn't turn out too bad for what I had to work with.

I wanted to do a tribute to all of those transgender and transgender -like people who served this country proudly. It was amazing what I found when researching the information for this video. I hope you like it.

GLAAD's "Ineffective" Campaign And Doing The Right Thing Even If It Isn't Easy

Some time ago, I received an email in my inbox asking for people to get involved in a survey about HIV risks for men who have sex with men (MSM). It was very specifically about penile-anal intercourse (PAI) and very specific about the kinds of participants that were wanted. While there are are some transmen in our community who have male partners, it was clear that they weren't who the survey was about, so I forwarded it to a couple crossdresser group lists but otherwise ignored it.

A week or so later, the survey request arrived in my inbox again. Also ignored.

A few days later, the sender followed up with an email asking me why I hadn't forwarded the MSM survey information on to the trans networks I'm involved in. I replied (in nicer words) that if they were interested in transwomen participating, they could have at least bothered to make the effort to word the request more inclusively. To me, the heavy emphasis on MSM and PAI terminology made it clear how participants would be regarded and treated. At this, the sender flipped out, accusing me of being homophobic and saying I'd be guilty of the genocide of every transsexual woman (which was not the terminology he used, but by this time that was obviously who he meant) who contracted HIV as a result of my "knowingly suppressing" information about it.

In the Alberta communities, I've kept myself at an arm's length from mainstream LGB(T) groups, participating somewhat, but not getting enveloped in LGBT culture. I do believe in an inclusive community (and am a bisexual in a lesbian relationship, so am affected by and do get involved with LGB issues), but I also believe that trans-specific advocacy needs to be first driven by trans people, regardless of where we come to in the "should we include the T" debate. And while I've found the vast majority of LGB advocates to "get it" about us at least enough to respect trans identities -- many very earnestly wanting to help despite the occasional fumble in doing so (yes, including Bil Browning) -- every so often the patronizing "you're just deluded, I know who you *really* are" attitude bubbles up from someone, and the arm's length is useful to keeping it from blowing up into a fight that leaves everybody bitter over trans inclusion. Aside from when I'm "knowingly suppressing" information for MSM, that is.

I don't bring this up to drive a wedge between groups, but to make a point. There has been a growing sentiment in the online community, as people in the US started realizing that even with a Democrat congress, senate and "fierce advocate" President, an inclusive ENDA was going to be a difficult sell, and it was our fault. I saw it in comments around the web as people complained about the potential liability we were via the growing bathroom debates, in the complaints that we saw ENDA as more important than same-sex marriage, in the drop-off of trans writers in LGBT arenas (some who've made similar observations), and even as far back as the protests about being tired of angry trannies venting about the HRC. Trans people are being increasingly resented because the greater community signaled with UnitedENDA that a bill that dropped transfolk wholesale was no longer acceptable. By the time a blog controversy hit that my readers will probably be familiar with, it seemed more like an editorial sea change to embrace this growing readership than anything that was just out of the blue (which may not have been the case, but at any rate, it's done). In the context of all this, the rumours of a caveat being written into ENDA to... well, we don't know just yet, but it has something to do with concessionary language about transwomen and restrooms... is unsurprising, and worries me that some of our own "fierce advocates" will ultimately embrace the same roll-over-and-take-it approach they perceive in a legislator they are now decrying.

It's time to call for, support and thank those who continue to do the right thing, even if it isn't easy or a guaranteed win.

And that includes GLAAD, who campaigned against the Tribeca Film Festival's inclusion of a transploitative film that would have probably been simply another badly-acted bit of visually caricaturish B-grade schlock masquerading as "camp" if it hadn't tried to co-opt some very real tragedies in the murders of Angie Zapata and other trans-identified or trans-affected (i.e. apparently in the case of Jorge Mercado) people, and then pass itself off as the voice of our community's anger.

GLAAD which is now being criticized and called "right up there with the Human Rights Campaign in its irrelevance" for speaking out against the film.

In reply to Queerty's 8 points:

"1) TRIBECA'S ALREADY DECIDED TO RUN THE FILM NO MATTER WHAT"

So? If we focused only on easy targets and ran away at the first sign of difficulty, we'd still be fighting to decriminalize sodomy. We don't advocate for people because it's easy.

"2) THE GLAAD CAMPAIGN AGAINST TOTWK HAS HELPED GUARANTEE ITS SUCCESS"

And also guaranteed that it will be accompanied with the knowledge that the community it's allegedly supposed to be about are protesting it as an inaccurate representation of who we are. Silence is tacit approval.

Maybe next year, Tribeca will remember this and seek to be inclusive by choosing a film from a now better-educated standpoint. I'd call that an eventual win, if it happens.

"3) GLAAD HAS PROVED ITSELF TO BE A POOR ARBITER OF TASTE"

While exploitation of real tragedies could be considered a matter of "taste," blatant misrepresentation of a community that is then dismissed with indifference when it protests goes a little deeper. Sure, GLAAD fell for the FoF Superbowl ruse -- we all did -- but drumming up the mistakes when someone does something right isn't exactly the best kind of encouragement to stay focused on the objective.

"4) TOTWK COULD URGE THE TRANS-COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT A TRANS-DIRECTOR TO TELL THEIR STORY"

I have a story I'd love to turn into a potentially powerful film. Is there anyone willing to produce and fund it?

This attitude is all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that if one community makes an exploitive film that claims to tell the story of another, the latter has the right to be angry if it's misrepresented.

"5) HOWEVER, FILMS "FOR US BY US" WON'T SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF TRANS-REPRESENTATION"

Neither will defending a film whose portrayal is just really bad.

"6) TOTWK IS A REVENGE FANTASY, NOT A REALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF TRANS-VIOLENCE"

Tell that to Traditional Values Coalition and their flock. This might hold water if there weren't large swaths of people who already really believed it.

"7) BRINGS ISSUES ABOUT TRANS-VIOLENCE AND REPRESENTATION INTO THE MAINSTREAM"

Such as the tragedy of running mascara during fight scenes? It's obvious that the film didn't take anti-trans violence seriously if it turned it into the vehicle for comedy, so why should anyone else?

"8) THE ENTIRE TRANS COMMUNITY ISN'T AGAINST THE FILM"

Trotting up someone who doesn't realize how she's being exploited (sorry Krystal, but it's true, and it's disappointing to have to point it out) isn't representative of large swaths of the community.

Thank you to GLAAD for doing something right, even if it wasn't an easy win.

I hope many of our inclusive organizations will be ready to do the same when the new ENDA wording is unveiled.

(crossposted to DentedBlueMercedes)

GLAAD Petition to Remove Trannies With Knives

GLAAD has now seen Ticked Off Trannies with Knives and is asking that Tribeca Film Fest remove it. You can sign a petition.

Start a Petition »

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Looks like the movement for LGBT equality is finally getting interesting again.

Last Thursday, we saw two gay soldiers chain themselves to the White House fence to protest DADT, dual sit-ins staged at both the DC and San Francisco offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to protest the lack of action on an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and a massive blogswarm which produced not only dozens of blog posts on the topic of ENDA, but also enough calls to the Speaker's office to jam up her office phone lines for at least part of the day. All that in just one day, along with all of the ensuing fallout of these actions, but that's not all.

It seems the balance of power in American LGBT advocacy is finally shifting back to where it should have been all along. Apparently, the Human Rights Campaign actually locked down their headquarters last Thursday afternoon, fearing protesters...LGBT protesters. Why? No doubt at least in part because of the refusal of HRC President Joe Solmonese (documented in both video and print) to join DADT activist and spokesperson Lt. Dan Choi on his march to the White House after indicating he would earlier. It illustrates where the vast majority of our community is now culturally and politically, and how very far outside of that mainstream HRC has drifted. Most importantly, it demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that HRC knows it too.

Remember how it used to be? We transfolks would be screaming bloody murder about HRC and their self-serving political games, but none of the LGB media really paid us much attention, did they? Now it's even the monied elites who once ignored us who are screaming for HRC's collective head, as loudly and insistently as we ever have.

Note to non-trans LGBs: I hate to say "We told you so.", but...

Let's not forget that aside from the initial rally Lt. Choi appeared at, no major organization, not HRC or any other, had any formal sponsorship or participation in any of the actions that took place on Thursday. We did all of it ourselves, and while it can't be said that it went off without a hitch, I think it certainly can be said that it proved that we can stage significant, impactful, coordinated actions on and offline that don't require the financial support or the sponsorship of a major civil rights organization in order to be effective.

If we really want to change the way LGBT advocacy is done in this country and by whom, this is our chance.

If there's anything it seems that HRC is just completely unwilling to do in the service of LGBT rights it's getting their hands dirty with real face-to-face street-level activism, the kind that involves civil disobedience, police, media attention, arrests, and press conferences. On Thursday, the LGBT activist community clearly demonstrated that there's plenty of us who don't have that problem, and that we're a much larger and more active group than anything HRC can muster.

To me, this pretty much says it all, everything we've been saying all along, everything that needs to be said, about the Human Rights Campaign:

When the call went out to the LGBT activist community for real street-level action instead of merely words in the fight for LGBT equality, instead of joining with their LGBT sisters and brothers on the front lines the Human Rights Campaign leadership ran away and hid, locking the door behind them.

It's probably fair to say that I'm at least a little biased as a political analyst, but even from the most centrist perspective I can muster this one fact stands out above all others: When the community called, HRC ran the other way. Real leaders, if they truly wish to be considered as such, just don't do that. HRC, by their behavior, has acknowledged their new lesser status within the movement, and the reality that it is now the collective community of politically-active LGBT's, connecting for the most part online without the sponsorship or oversight of any major civil rights organization, who are now beginning to take the lead in our movement's major political actions and demonstrations.

The reins of this movement's advocacy efforts are ours for the taking, and take them we should. We have to make it clear to the politicians from Obama on down that speaking at an HRC event doesn't count as speaking to the politically-active LGBT community anymore, no more than speaking at a meeting of rich business owners counts as speaking to America's union members.

The Human Rights Campaign has had thirty years of continually leading this movement into a ditch politically with quiet and polite pleading and negotiation. They've failed us, plain and simple. Money, after all, can only take you just so far. It's time for a different way, a way that says to people "Hey, we're not kidding around here, this is life and death for us, particularly in this economy. We need our basic civil rights and we need them right now, not next year, next month, or even next week, but right now and we're not going to shut up about it until we get them.".

If we really want change, we have an opportunity to make some ourselves, for ourselves, right now. Last Thursday's actions proved we can do it, and they showed us who we can depend on to be there for us and who we can't. Now, we have to prove we can do it well.

I don't know about you, but personally I can't wait to see what happens next.

Why The Transgender Community Had To Take Out Susan Stanton

It's something you hope you'll never have to do, but you do it when you have to.

I watched "Her Name Was Steven" on CNN Saturday night, and it's taken me until now to decide how I want to discuss this documentary and revisit this story. I found myself somewhat closer to this story than most when it happened, in part because I'd actually met Susan Stanton at an event here in New Jersey, and because when she did an interview with the St. Petersburg Times she said some pretty awful and disparaging things about her transgender sisters and brothers and I'd blogged about it.

Not surprisingly, the reaction to the interview was swift and direct from myself, Marti Abernathey, and many others. What may have seemed to some like a "pile-on" or an aggressive attack against Susan Stanton was really, in essence, self-defense. Stanton, a transwoman, had just told the world that transgender people weren't worthy of being protected against discrimination in the workplace. Many of us felt compelled to say just as loudly that she was wrong, that Stanton's own story, not to mention so many others like it, is crystal-clear evidence of why transgender and gender-variant Americans need to be legally protected against discrimination.

Some knew or suspected what was going on right from the start, and many more figured it out as this story played out over time. The Human Rights Campaign and certain members of Congress wanted to see the passage of a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 2007 and they apparently felt that a celebrity transwoman like Susan Stanton could be persuasive in advocating for that bill, presumably demonstrating support for it among transgender people.

When I saw that interview, I knew I couldn't stay silent, even though I also knew that speaking out would entail directing some rather sharp words toward a fellow transwoman. When the choice is to either bash a fellow transperson or increase the chance of incalculable damage to the movement for transgender equality as whole by not doing so, there's only one reasonable choice I and so many others could make. When push comes to shove, I value the ongoing movement for transgender equality and its potential success far more than I value the personal comfort of any one individual, and I think that's true for a lot of us.

Citizen lobbyists from NCTE and Garden State Equality (yay, home team!) have been visiting offices of members of Congress this week to lobby for ENDA. Even now, two years later, we're still struggling to get this bill passed, even just for it to remain on the agenda. Now, just imagine if we'd simply allowed Susan Stanton disseminate her views in the media without challenge or comment. What might that have done to the chances of an inclusive ENDA ever seeing the light of day? On the other hand, what we did see was quick and direct public condemnation of Susan Stanton's political positions from the transgender community, coupled with the ongoing protests against HRC's support of the non-inclusive bill throughout that year. This freight train was already rolling down the tracks at full speed when Susan Stanton made the mistake of stepping in front of it...but perhaps she was pushed?

HRC, and surely the Dems as well, had to know that we'd never let Susan Stanton's public statements on transgender rights go unanswered. As much as we may not like some of the things they do, we also know that these people are just not that clueless. Therefore, it's fair to conclude that it was known going in at least by some that they were setting up Susan Stanton as a sacrificial lamb. The apparent plan seemed to be that they'd put her out there, use her statements as evidence that a significant portion of the transgender community supports the passage of a non-inclusive ENDA, and then hope that Stanton's notoriety and status as a transwoman would shield them from the brunt of the negative backlash from the trans community and the allied progressive left which they had to know was sure to follow.

The problem for these folks was that virtually none of the politically-conscious transgender and allied community bought it. We've been doing this for far too long not to recognize a cheap political parlor trick when we see one. Susan Stanton has no credibility as an activist leader in our community, yet she was being promoted as one by HRC and the straight media. We called her out and publicly discredited her because we had to, before her fifteen minutes of fame gave her words and opinions a veneer of credibility and of representing the viewpoints of a persecuted minority group with whom she apparently sees herself as sharing little in common with save the physical experience of transitioning.

Is there a better idea? Well yes actually, and more than one in fact. First and foremost, there's what's going on right now, directly lobbying members of Congress. Second, there's the Internet and other trans-inclusive media. While there's often much success to be had by meeting with your member of Congress face-to face, there's even more potential success waiting for those who can extend their reach through the media outside their own circles. In order to accomplish that, we need good media messengers. What we don't need and can't tolerate is someone like Susan Stanton blundering in and shooting her mouth off without taking the time and effort to understand the players and playing field, particularly when there's so much at stake.

Celebrity, even "Z-list" celebrity, can go a long way toward opening doors that may be closed to others, but it can also paint a target when public opinion turns negative. Susan Stanton reveled in her minor celebrity status, but she didn't understand that simple notoriety can only get people to listen, it takes a lot more than just having been featured in the media a few times to get people to actually rally behind you. Just being well-known isn't enough, especially when you're speaking out against treating a minority group you ostensibly represent fairly and equally.

The transgender community rejected and disempowered Susan Stanton as a community spokesperson because Stanton herself left us with no other choice. She used her notoriety to promote the idea that transgender people are unworthy of equal rights and treatment under the law, that we aren't ready for equality, as she put it. Leaving aside the obvious question of how any persecuted minority group can not be ready to be treated fairly and equally under the law, Stanton's clear disdain for her fellow transpeople and her elitism in separating herself from the rest of the community, "men in dresses" as she sees us (I wonder what she thinks of FTMs? Is she even aware there is such a thing?), set the stage for both an angry personal response from many transpeople as well as a necessary public refutation of her statements in the media.

I'm disappointed that we had to take down Susan Stanton, but not at all apologetic. We have nothing to be sorry for. Our movement was attacked and we defended it. The fact that the attacker came from within our community is irrelevant. We used the very same weapons she did, only ours were sharper and cut deeper. We did what had to be done to defend our movement and the progress we've made, what we will no doubt do again and again, when and as the need arises. The price of doing nothing is just too high.

The passage of an inclusive ENDA will hardly solve all of our problems, but with non-discrimination as the law of the land, things cannot help but get better immediately in the short term as workers who are unjustly discriminated against finally have recourse to the law, and over the long term, as the standards of the law become the cultural norm, much as has happened for racial and ethnic minorities. Failing to speak out against Susan Stanton could have potentially threatened transgender inclusion in ENDA by offering political cover, thin though it might have been, to skittish Democrats who hadn't yet worked up the political will to protect the basic civil rights of all American citizens to take the easy way out and vote for the non-inclusive bill.

The lesson to be learned here is that we can and should be speaking for ourselves. We can and should be choosing our own leaders and our own spokespeople. We can and should be promoting our own agenda, in our own way, and in our own voices. We can and should include among those voices not only military heroes and business leaders, but also parking lot attendants and grocery clerks. We can and should be doing a much better job of showing America and the rest of the world the true depth and diversity of who and what we are. We can and should be using the media, all forms of media, to tell our stories and present our perspectives much more effectively than we have been until now.

The rise and fall of Susan Stanton teaches us that you can't be accepted as a credible transgender spokesperson or leader unless you've actually got the goods, no matter how much media buzz you generate. The community just won't allow it. It also proves we've got some more slots we need to fill in that regard.

In a community where it's common to shun the spotlight, it seems we're running a bit short on people willing or able to step into it right now. Here's hoping that changes as time goes on. Mara Keisling and a relative handful of transgender activists and online mediamakers can't and shouldn't be doing it all.

In Defense of the Town Tranny

From my friend Susan:

There is an implied attitude that "real" transsexuals are stealth, or make every effort to be so.

Not all women are from a cookie cutter mold, neither are all men, but some how nobody is telling super butch women that they should be acting more like the cookie cutter variety of women, and the same is true for the varieties of men, i.e. drag queens, CDs, and effeminate straight men, etc. Yes, I know, straight assholes, who are threatened by gender diversity, do like to make a lot of noise. But when it comes to the transsexual community, why is diversity in transsexual expression ridiculed.

Not every transsexual person is capable of going stealth. So, does that mean that s/he should not bother. Perhaps it is better for them to stay in the closet so the rest of us don't get embarrassed by their existence.

My neighbors and friends are always telling me about the television show they watched about transsexuals. Often the same shows have caused us to get plastered because of the "tranny drinking game." I see nothing wrong with the fun and humor of the tranny drinking game, if it is understood that it is an "in house" joke, and that in reality we have compassion for those who are doing what they feel they need to do.

Anyway, my neighbors and friends tell me how much they learned from the different shows, and I have never heard anything negative from them about any of the shows. Of course, I don't know anybody that watches Jerry Springer or that ilk. I'm thinking more of shows put on by Oprah and Barbara Walters.

If it were not for these transsexual people willing to step forward, many of us would still be in the dark thinking that we were the only ones. These people that talk to the media, write the books, make the movies, and live daily lives being open about their transsexual history are the ones that are making it easier for the rest of us.

Now days, most people have heard of transsexuals, but only about 20 years ago, nobody had heard of them. There are many historical parallels that can be drawn when comparing transgender people with gays, blacks, and other minorities. Some of us remember how the straight looking gays shunned and put down drag queens, but it was the drag queens, by their being open and out, launched the gay pride movement.

When I hear about people like Dr. Deborah Bershel, Jenny Boylan, and others, that are willing to step forward, and not keep their transsexual history in the closet, I, for one, am really grateful.

Because of many circumstances that are often beyond a person's control, many people transition late in their lives. For some this makes going stealth virtually impossible. But, this does not mean they are "failures" at being trans women. They are simply a different variety of trans women. It is this attitude that "true" transsexuals want to be seen only as women, and that to choose otherwise makes them suspect of not being truly trans.

I am a transsexual female person. Whether I am a woman or not, that is something others may decide. I know that I am female to the core of my being. I make no pretense about trying to pass. Sometimes I get startled when I realize that I have been passing, but to be perfectly honest, I really don't care whether I pass or not, as long as I'm not seen as a man. Being seen so would be an anathema to me. That may seem like a contradiction, but it is not. If I am seen as a transsexual woman, I am not being seen as a man. I may not be being seen as a woman, but being seen as a woman was never my goal. My goal is to be me. My goal is to live my life as who I am. For us late transitioners, that may be the only goal that is attainable.

Many late transitioners are never going to achieve stealth, but we can still enjoy being who we are. I get to wear what I want; I get to express my femininity, and I never get treated as a man. I honestly think men just don't see me as the same "species," which is fine with me. So, why the "failure" label, or why make snide remarks that we go around showing our surgery photos. I don't feel like a failure in the least bit, and I have never shown any surgery photos. I have given several talks on transgender 101 for various classes and for several different diversity weeks, and plus I have spoke several times in church. None of these times did I feel a need to talk about any details of vaginoplasty--mine or anybody elses. I am not defined by my genitals any more than anybody else is. I am a unique person, and if my existence does not fit in somebodies worldview, then I know where they can stick their worldview.

One of these things is not like the others

I can definitely understand why L.A. School Superintendent Ramon Cortines was upset that students were carrying pictures of O.J. Simpson at a Black History Month parade. The man is widely believed to be a brutal murderer, and is currently in prison for robbery and kidnapping. I can also understand why Mayor Villaraigosa was upset that the children were wearing pictures of Dennis Rodman, who was recently in rehab for alcohol addiction and has been convicted of spousal abuse. However good they were as athletes, they are not good role models like the other choices, who included President Obama and Dr. King.

Like Calpernia Addams, I'm very disturbed, however, by the fact that Cortines, Villaraigosa and NAACP branch president Leon Jenkins seem to be just as upset that the students were looking up to RuPaul Charles. A school district spokesperson implied that the administration believes RuPaul, like Simpson and Rodman, is not "appropriate for Black History Month." Jenkins is quoted as saying, "These are not the people we want our young people to emulate or believe these people represent the best of the African-American community."

I honestly haven't seen too many other Black drag queens, but RuPaul is one of the best I know of any ethnic group. More importantly, aside from his talent, he has a reputation for being professional, hardworking and an all-around decent human being. I've never heard about him being involved in any instances of drug abuse or violence. Children of any race could do a lot worse than to emulate him. In that regard, he's a much better role model than Michael Jackson, who died of a drug overdose and was accused of pedophilia.

RuPaul has been something of a role model for me, too, over the years. He can look glamorous in a dress, but is comfortable being seen in men's clothes. He doesn't sweat the pronouns. His presentation is wild, sexy and provocative without being clownish or degrading. And for a guy who's pushing fifty, he still looks damn good, even without the airbrushing.

It remains to be seen whether this was a deliberate racist joke on the part of three white teachers, or a fumbled attempt to appeal to things that impress kids. But I know that if I were a kid at that school grappling with transvestite or homosexual feelings, and I heard people like Leon Jenkins lumping RuPaul in with O.J. and Dennis Rodman, I'd be pretty crushed. No wonder the suicide rate is so high.

I would like to see Cortines, Villaraigosa and Jenkins retract their condemnations of RuPaul. I hope that TBLG leaders will let them know that this kind of homophobia and transphobia is not okay. I hope that some national Black and Hispanic leaders will also come out in support of RuPaul, and of cross-dressers everywhere. We can be good role models.

Update: the World of Wonder blog has more on RuPaul and the homophobic Ramon Cortines. I should also point out that Rodman has done drag too, much more clownishly than RuPaul.