To Me, It's Become Too Much About Joe

Joe Solmonese (0.00 / 0)

Autumn -
You nailed it!  Joe might as well have "666" on his forehead these days.  After his disgraceful act at Southern Comfort, knowing full well he was lying to 1000 people, he shouldn't have ANY credibility in any part of the community.  And he didn't think what he and HRC did to the trans community would cause the problems it did?  Time for new leadership.  Toss him out with the bath water.  

---

Inclusion is not just a trans issue (0.00 / 0)

What they did they did as well to much of the Lesbian community.

Reach out to your allies, don't let this become just a "T" issue...

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

this weekend (0.00 / 0)

He should have a lovely weekend in California.  Thursday in SD and Sat in SF, all full of unhappy people. Some even boycotting the SF event with loud chants and probably some wicked signs.  

Lucky guy, maybe he can stay in a very nice hotel in all these cities and have a big burly guy in front of his door, protecting him from all these people seeking inclusiveness and the truth.

---

Be proud of speaking truth to power, however uncomfortable (0.00 / 0)

Joe's the only one with nothing to be proud of. You have everything to be proud of.

Confronting our evil enemies takes guts. It takes another kind of bravery entirely to confront the evil within our own community. Good for you!

---

the lightning rod factor (4.00 / 1)

Once the face of any organization becomes a lightning rod for the real (or perceived) slight of a portion of its base or constituency that it serves, it's a serious problem to deal with, internally and externally.

In trying to stay out of flame-baiting territory of specifically pointing to HRC and ENDA damage control, I think it's more helpful to draw discussion toward the strategic problem at hand in the abstract -- the issue of an institutional PR nightmare and how to deal with it.

Not having any inside dope on this (these are just my musings from an armchair organizational psychology POV, and my professional experience as a manager) a bunker mentality can set in. An institution's public stance can vacillate between what looks like a logical, pragmatic attempt to get back into the public good graces of the aggrieved group or faction and to the desire to say "screw it, we were right to do X this way." That's human nature, and groups and organizations can suffer from the same problem. The most urgent desire is to remove the obvious PR "thorn in its side" (deserved or not).

Backing out to overall damage control, well, that's why they have consultants who specialize in handling this sort of crisis management. It's a discipline to figure out whether the public face/lightning rod is the problem, or whether there is something internally flawed with the organization's mission, approach or strategies. It's about analyzing how an institution project manages its initiatives, how it seeks collaboration with or support from the audience it serves.

For non-profits it's a complicated matter rife with land mines -- they serve more than one master. In the public eye, they speak to and purportedly for whatever group/entity it represents (in this case, LGBTs), however in reality and in semi-private, they are also dependent on and accountable to large donors who may or may not have the same agenda as the group at large. People on the outside have little or no information with which to know how policy or execution of strategy is affected by that donor base.  

However, the group served by the organization, is keenly aware of the end result -- both when it is successful, and when it blows up in the organization's face. What the general public served by the organization is lacking is relevant context. Not that knowing the context fixes anything -- because one may not like the answer -- but not knowing anything adds an element of secrecy to the process that leads to mistrust.

How transparent any organization should be is almost wholly dependent on leadership style and approach to management. Not knowing anything more than most of you about the internal workings of HRC, I can't analyze with any degree of accuracy what the strategy is to repair the damage done.  Any strategy to do so requires a keen ability to engage in self-reflection and high level of emotional intelligence (EI) in management to rectify this kind of problem. That's  because it involves outreach to a part of its base that is aggrieved and may be resistant or reject that outreach because of the damage to the relationship. Without it, mistakes will be repeated.

The bottom line is that if you remove the specific personalities from this situation it's clear that these are problems that are not unique; in fact they occur all the time in organizations large and small.

Sorry for the rambling, but when I think of situations like this, I go into my day-job problem-solving mode.

---

And of course we're talking about a couple of constituencies too... (0.00 / 0)

...their donor base and their stakeholders being two.

I'm just a stakeholder -- I wouldn't donate to the HRC at this point. It's not a boycott -- it's just that there's lots of other orgs that have agenda's that better line up better to my agenda.  

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

[ Parent ]

Grass Roots is where it's at (1.40 / 5)

( A general response on the ENDA flap .. not directed at Autumn)

With all due respect, I wish people would not focus so much time or energy on HRC anymore. I have been critical of HRC myself, but not because of their ENDA decision. I support a trans-inclusive ENDA and wrote my congressman saying so. But I also said that if the votes were not there, then to support sexual orientation only.

I've been an activist since the late 1980's. I never agreed with fusing the gay and lesbian movement with the transgender movement. In the early 1990's HRC and even PFLAG got pressured (although I often use the word "strong-armed") into combining the two movements. Back then, the trans movement essentially said if you don't include us, we'll be your worst nightmare. The same happened here in Illinois too, but we passed a fully inclusive civil rights bill by including gender identity within sexual orientation. It bent the rules, but hey, it worked!

The reason I opposed merging is precisely what happened. Sexual orientation and gender ID are different and you don't hold one movement back because of the other.  And in the early 1990's we were already dealing with Colorado Amendment 2 and gays in the military.

This will ruffle feathers, but yes, fusing the two was done out of political expedience. The non-profits thought they could get 2 for the price of 1. But Congress saw it differently. That's Washington.

Gays and lesbians in states with no protections were thrown under the bus with this latest selfish all-or-nothing strategy.

Killing federal civil rights legislation when you have the votes to protect  millions of people is unheard of, and the consequences would have been measured on the Richter scale.

The all-or-nothing mindset demonstrates an unbelievable lack of understanding of how Washington works. Or just arrogance.

I've done the Out and Equal Conferences, the black-tie galas, staffed the booths, marched in pride parades, got the coffee mugs, rainbow bracelets and all the other promotional clutter. I also served on a gay and lesbian employee resource group for almost a decade. With all that, you network considerably and get to know the dirty little secrets.

Bottom Line:

The votes for a trans-inclusive ENDA were not there. Well? Whose fault was that? Not HRC's. The fact is that most lawmakers did not hear from their constituents-- except for that mad, panicked rush before the vote. Oops. Too late.

What happened? People relied on the national non-profits to do the lobbying for them. Big mistake. I believe that the trans movement relied too much on the gay movement without educating lawmakers on their own.

People can support each other as allies, but nothing changes hearts and minds like telling your own story. One group cannot carry the other's water for them. It enables complacency.

That means doing one's civic duty as an American, by knowing who your elected representative is, contacting them directly and engaging them in dialog. Don't take direction from the non-profits.

You learn how to fight by learning how to take a punch. Don't play victim.

Let this toughen you and make you stronger, rather than wallowing in anger or self-pity. Know how Washington works so the next vote for gender identity will have more 'ayes' than 'nays'. It will take a several iterations but eventually you will prevail.

Peace.

---

lobbying (0.00 / 0)

Part of lobbying is making sure that the votes were there. I kept expecting to hear from the various organizations, particularly HRC who are the insiders with Frank as their pet congresscritter. But we never did. Everything was fine until it wasn't.

---

[ Parent ]

Gender expression and sexual orientation are very linked issues (4.00 / 1)

for a large part of the LGBT community. As a Lesbian activist, my stake in this is that Butch Lesbians, our Les-bois and others in our community will be excluded. That is the read of those great and gifted individuals who staff Lambda Legal, who, as an attorney myself, I have enormous respect for.

"Gays and lesbians...thrown under the bus" by this "latest, selfish all or none strategy" are in the same position as butches, bois, trans-people and many gay males

Plus, the trans people did not kill ENDA.
Congress did.
It is disingenuous to saddle the trans community and their allies with the failure of ENDA.

It died because of politics, just as the Hate Crimes Act died for the same reason.

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

GI or GE or other definitions (0.00 / 0)

Maybe this is a question for another thread, but ever since the ENDA situation, I've wondered why it was it was always assumed to be acceptable not to have "gender expression" in either federal ENDA (HR 2015 or HR 3865).  

It was only a matter of "gender identity" but "gender expression" didn't seem to be a big part of the discussion from either side in the ENDA debate.

Are there federal definitions or federal court decisions that defines the term inclusively?

As I try to impart my limited, but ever-evolving Trans 101 learning curve to non-LGBT inclined legislators and opinion makers, I often find that this language is a stumbling block.  They all grasp what "sexual orientation" means, but "gender expression" and sometimes "gender identity" often is confusing even to sympathetic ears.

I've read many of the threads here about defining T or not-defining T or what offends some but not others.  However, I'm most interested in the legal language in the US and various US states.

Is using "actual or perceived" before some list of categories also generally acceptable as fully inclusive from a legal/legislative POV?

Is using GI without GE accepted by some states as legally inclusive?  Or is GE without GI more inclusive in some legal venues?

Trying to define anything (tax, real estate, interest, reasonable) in a legal/legislative perspective is often difficult, and this is no different in my experience.

I guess what I'm asking is does the ENDA argument say that "gender expression" is legally irrelevant if "gender identity" is in the bill/case?

---

[ Parent ]

We're doomed to make the same mistakes when we forget history (4.00 / 2)

I couldn't disagree with JJ in Chicago more.  

First, the gay movement and the trans movement came from the same origins - Remember Stonewall?  At that time, the trans population and gay population were deeply intertwined.  The reality is that many people outside the LGBT community see trans people as the "gayest of the gay".  Protections are needed, not because of how we view ourselves within the community, but how those outside of it do.

Secondly, protecting gender identity expression isn't just about the trans population.  It protects those with any non-stereotypical gender presentation which includes a large number of the gay and lesbian population.

In addition, the trans community had repeatedly lobbied Congress, but without much help from the lobbyists of the large civil rights organizations, like the HRC.  Congress just didn't want to open their doors or their ears to listen.  

JJ fails to consider that our trans voices are very small in comparison to the larger gay and lesbian community because the decibels increase in a direct ratio with the wealth of the speakers, and transfolks just don't have the dollars to be heard.  The trans community is, without a doubt and by far, the most significant group who needs the protections of ENDA.  If we can't get support from our LGB sisters and brothers, who does he (or she) think will stand by us?  The comment about "toughen you and make you stronger" makes me very angry - the trans people I know have been toughened by brutality, economic hardship, and isolation more than JJ can or will ever imagine.

Finally, the bill had absolutely and unequivocally no chance of being signed into law under the Bush Administration.  It was always a paper tiger meant only to make those you-can't-tell-I'm-gays feel better and to pour more cash into the HRC coffers.

It sounds to me like JJ is lining up for Joe's job...

---

[ Parent ]

The standard talking points (0.00 / 0)

First I have no connection with HRC or the Washington establishment. In fact, I'm quite anti-establishment because of the concern that it creates a dependency. (Groups like the Family Research Council and FOF are perfect examples on the other side. Their followers are a bunch of brain dead lemmings.)

What you stated was exactly what I expected: the standard set of talking points.

Second, the Stonewall Riots of 1969 hardly make the point. We are not one "LGBT" community. Never have been. We are two distinct communities with different life experiences and journeys through life. And it's OK to say that. It's not "hatred".

Once again, the term "LGBT" was borne out of political expedience. There was no LGBT before the early 1990's. That's the point.

And if you believe in one "LGBT" community, then why were so many trans folk (and national non-profits) so willing to throw their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters under the bus with an all-or-nothing mindset? Sounds more like a knife in the back to me. Explain to me how NO protection is better than some protection. Let's see your math.

Third, you say the trans community recently lobbied Congress. Really? So, trans folks have been lobbying on their own since the early 1990's? You sure?

Fourth, you are correct that the trans community is small in comparison. I'm well aware of that. That's all the more reason to organize and get active and not rely on others. It's called personal responsibility. Don't wallow in victimhood. You're not the first to fail at passing legislation. (And it's not condescending to say that.) Look at the anti-abortion crowd. Thirty years and still trying.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the trans community was complacent and expected to coast to victory on ENDA while riding the shoulders of the national non-profits? The same can be said of the gay community, and we've been trying to pass legislation for 30 years.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, if articulate, sensible folks like Donna Rose, Jamison Green and others had started a mainstream trans specific organization in the early 1990's (rather than fusing the two movements and creating a dependency), the trans movement would be farther than it is now?  (And GenderPAC doesn't count.)

Comprehensive legislation started in the 1970's. ENDA is a shaved down version and is fairly recent. It started out as sexual orientation only.  Overconfident activists, who are based in San Francisco, New York and Washington started adding other categories. And guess what? It blew up in their faces. They were out of touch with middle America. Congressmen and women in swing districts said, "hey I get the gay thing, but I don't understand the trans thing yet". That's reality.

Finally, to reiterate: I support a trans-inclusive ENDA, but civil rights come in increments. That's reality. HRC may be a good whipping boy to you, but it was Barney Frank who helped steer it through to a vote. And he was right for doing it.

---

[ Parent ]

Ugghhhh (0.00 / 0)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Incremental Progress Digest Version of the First Quarter Century After Stonewall:

Read Susan Stryker's Transgender History before you start declaring what has and has not actually happened and why.

Of course, I will agree with you that Stonewall, by itself, doesn't justify anything.  However, the legacy of the assimilationists who seized control of the movement by the mid-1970s, ejecting trans people and erasing trans issues - and, most relevantly, reserving their vilest venom for transsexuals for committing the unpardonable crime of, you guessed it, wanting to assimilate - does explain why there wasn't any T until the mid-90s and removes any justification on the part of those who currently exclude us (not to mention their apologists) for any reliance on 'politics.'  They created the problem; they have no moral (or legal, when the issue is soliciting money based on lies) right to point to it as an excuse for not doing what is right today.

Kat

>^..^<

---

[ Parent ]

The Gay Borg? "You will be assimmilated, resistance is futile" (4.00 / 1)

If you are referring to the "Cube Hive" HRC, anyone who was around when it was created knows that HRC has always been a conservative "mainstream" gay and lesbian organization. Their 1989 Statement of Purpose should clue you in:

"For the promotion of the social welfare of the gay and lesbian community by drafting, supporting and influencing legislation and policy at the federal, state and local level."

They didn't mention the Bisexuals, like Transgender would cross their mind? Get Real.

Looking at their present day website, I do agree that is more than disingenuous to add transgender to their marque when we all know that the leadership and majority of lay members could care less. If I were you, I would organize a group to pressure them to remove that. What I don't understand is why everyone is beating them up, it's like getting pissed at a dog for barking. Why suddenly, has HRC become the only vehicle the Transgender Community wants to promote their agenda? Why not create an organization to flex some political muscle? I've been around and in politics a long time and I personally feel that the reason that is not happening is because in the terms of sheer numbers, there's not enough of you to supply votes that would influence policy or legislation.

Believe me when I say I am NO fan of HRC. I think as a political organization they are worthless and inept. Their black tie dinners are nothing than debutante balls for the who's who of the local gay and lesbian community to show off how much money they can spend on their table and name placement on the program. There are so many more useful groups that are actively making difference, the Victory Fund actually has the rightwingers scared and the Point Foundation is educating the next generation.

So, I would quit complaining about HRC and put that wasted energy to use elsewhere.

Let me tell you that I am the only child of a very rough-talking father. So don't be embarrassed about your language. I've either heard it or I can top it. - Ann Richards

---

[ Parent ]

The Lesbians deal with incrementalism (0.00 / 0)

Both my daughter and I are active in Women's and Lesbian Healthcare issues.

The LGBT leadership by and large gives lipservice to Lesbian issues in general, particularly healthcare issues.

Since the late 70's LGBT healthcare issues have by and large meant one thing. If the trans-people have to wait like the Lesbians have, then they probably will have to wait for a few more decades for protections.

Mind you, I am aware that by and large it is the trans-people who are doing the dying in our community.

Yes. One community.

And, by the way: When the Christian Right attacks the LGBT community, it is generally not about the risks of Sex Change Surgery. It is about barebacking, bug chasing, gift-giving, meth use, promiscuity, bathhouses, highlighting of porn stars at events, all by the gay male community.

Hyperbolic on their part?
Of course.

But to say that America gets the gay and not the trans is a bit specious.
"The gay" just has a more effective lobby.

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

I'm not trying to pick a fight but.... (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to take you to task..

Please cite specific Lesbian healthcare issues and don't use breast cancer because several heterosexual female family members of mine would argue otherwise.

Really? Exactly how, war, diease, pestilence, murder, vehicular, suicide? Give me stats to back that up not hyperbole.

What I really sense from this comment is your problem is with men in general. But it does in a round about way answer the questions I posed to your statements. Those are serious health issues in the community and it's killing gay men probably at a higher rate than lesbians or transgendered persons.

Let me tell you that I am the only child of a very rough-talking father. So don't be embarrassed about your language. I've either heard it or I can top it. - Ann Richards

---

[ Parent ]

Breast Cancer and Cervical Cancer (0.00 / 0)

are huge healthcare issues in the Lesbian community. Yes, they exist in the het community too, but because of a perceived disdain in the medical community for Lesbians, plus frequent ignorance about HPV in Lesbian women, and the lack of medical outreach, these are two of our major killers.

T's dying? By murder. Ask them, Let them speak on that. They are by and large singled out. I cannot quote or cite the figures from memory, I am sure that someone in the T community can. I do know that of the first 8 LGBT deaths from murder in 2008, 6 transgressed gender.

No, I've not a problem with men in general. I've a problem with people tarring the T community at the same time that Elaine Donnelly is spoputing off about sodomy and pretending that America is fine with gays.

I am unsure of the rate of HIV amongst T's but they could probably access those figures for you. I don't think that they are negligable.

I don't consider it picking a fight, tx.
It will have the positive effect of inspiring the T posters to contribute the figures and events to this discourse between us.

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

To the Trans Posters (0.00 / 0)

Can any of you supply instances or stats on Trans deaths and HIV in trans?

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

I don't have stats (0.00 / 0)

But of the first 7 friends I lost to AIDS in Minneapolis (apx. 1983), 5 performed in drag. It would depend how broad your definition of trans is, whether these gay men who did drag were trans.

*****COUNTDOWN*****
Cheney/Bush gone in 143 days

---

[ Parent ]

The national non-profits (0.00 / 0)

People relied on the national non-profits to do the lobbying for them. Big mistake.

That's true, and it's a problem for all of us, not just for people interested in protecting the rights of transgender folks.  The strategy for LGBT equality of mailing dollars to Washington and letting the "professionals" handle it has been a failure.  That's why it doesn't seem worth it to defend or support HRC.

So I think you have the right prescription, but maybe you're not giving enough credit to the grass roots trans activism that has been taking place.  From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me the T community has made amazing progress in visibility over the last decade or so and now has a number of really capable and inspiring activists.  (Cultivating their relationship to the LGB political community and pressuring us to the point where we all have to think about and talk about issues important to them is one sign of their success, no?  And T people are definitely also making their case to politicians and to the general public directly.)

Regardless of whether or not there is actually a cohesive LGB and T community in the broad sense, I strongly support a cohesive political movement because of the principles involved.  No one should be fired or evicted because they don't conform to someone else's gender expectations.  It's wrong and it hurts people, and the attitude behind it bolsters discrimination against GLBs and women as well.  Seems to me like just a slightly different flavor of what we've been fighting all along.

It's good to emphasize the pragmatic, as you do, but I cringe when you use the word "selfish".  It doesn't seem fair to make that charge while also essentially telling people that, as far as you're concerned, they're on their own.

McCain/Palin 2008: Unstable/Unable

---

[ Parent ]

Case in point (4.00 / 1)

Autumn's post mentions an example of T activists doing exactly the kind of local, grass roots work that is so important.  (A Transgender Inclusive Democratic Platform - Make It Happen!)

I see a fair amount of frustration--because people feel strongly and don't know how to make change happen as fast as we would all like it to--but I don't perceive an attitude of complacency.

McCain/Palin 2008: Unstable/Unable

---

[ Parent ]

Clarification on "selfish" (0.00 / 0)

You bring up good points.

Let me clarify my reference to "selfish":

It had everything to do with the all-or-nothing strategy when it appeared that ENDA did not have enough votes to include gender identity.

All of the news reports I read, both online (including blogs) and in print, including letters to the editor in local gay papers here, all had one thing in common:

Not one of them, NOT ONE, ever mentioned gay men and lesbians in the reddest of red states who have no protection whatsoever. They were completely forgotten. Nobody thought about their needs. I was disgusted and appalled beyond description.

The focus was on this obsessed, misguided visceral hatred of HRC-- much of it instigated by rival non-profits stirring the pot. Of course they stirred the pot! They want your money. They're competing for your donations. They want to create a sense of dependency.

I have plenty of complaints about HRC, not about ENDA, but more that I think of it as a big bloated organization that is more "brass and glass" than grass roots.

The term "thrown under the bus" was used in reference to trans folks, and in my opinion, a complete and total fabrication of the real facts.

In truth, the real people who were "thrown under the bus", were gays and lesbians in states with no protections.

People need to keep in mind: The votes for a trans-inclusive ENDA weren't there anyway. It's not as if Congress had the votes for gender identity and stripped them from the bill.

Trans folks wouldn't be covered in any case: a) pulling the bill from a floor vote to wait for gender identity support,  b) having it lose a floor vote from lack of support for gender identity, or c) moving forward with sexual orientation, which had the votes to pass.

What made me chafe the most (and I'm a liberal Democrat) is much of this was instigated by left-wing, tone-deaf activists and non-profits based in New York, Washington and San Francisco, who have absolutely no idea what life is like in the Deep South or rural Midwest. Their arrogance and yes, selfishness, made me livid.

They couldn't have cared less about gay men or lesbians in places like Tupelo, Mississippi or Huntsville, Alabama. We didn't hear those folks say, "Oh yeah, we'll wait. We don't mind. We've been waiting for 30+ years, I guess we'll wait some more."

Worse yet, these same non-profits had the audacity to call ENDA "watered down" if it didn't include gender identity or gender non-conformity.

Again, a complete distortion. ENDA was sexual orientation protections in employment, shaved down from a comprehensive civil rights bill first introduced around 1974.

The truth is, people got overconfident and added other categories, again at the behest of non-profits in the big cities.

The national non-profits failed their first true test: They had the opportunity be part of a watershed moment in history: To support the first ever federal gay civil rights legislation (that had the votes to pass!) which protected millions of people and they stabbed every one of them in the back-- all in the name of an all-or-nothing United ENDA strategy that rightfully blew up in their faces.

I'll never give them another dollar. Ever. My money goes to local organizations. That's what I meant when I used the word selfish.

---

[ Parent ]

The legitimate concern... (0.00 / 0)

...of T people is that if this bill goes through without them, they'll have a much more difficult time on their own.  They'll have to start over from scratch, essentially, and they'll have a lot fewer human activist and lobbyist resources since many GLB people will presumably lose interest in the issue.

Here's something from NGLTF that has influenced my thinking on the ENDA question--a graph showing the advance of LGBT legislation over time.  The T movement goes back to the beginning, and though it's lagged behind, it's been gaining rapidly over the past decade.  The 50% mark is when it becomes realistically possible to achieve national legislation, so LGBs are just about there, and Ts are closing fast.

Can Alabamian gays wait for a couple more years so that Alabamian transpeople don't have to wait for a generation or more?  When nobody knows how long we're talking about in either case and nothing is a sure thing?  When it's a given that nobody should have to wait for such basic protections?

McCain/Palin 2008: Unstable/Unable

---

[ Parent ]

"Fuzzy math" on no protection? (0.00 / 0)

How is no protection for anyone better than some protection for millions?

---

[ Parent ]

HRC, with Joe at the helm lied. (0.00 / 0)

  I will not give a dime to HRC with Joe still there.  The silence at the beginning of the ENDA debacle, and than the say nothing statements in the following days to the complete reversal on ENDA.  

 Trust is one thing that is hard to get back once it is lost.  HRC has to realize that every move they make will be questioned.  Sure I think HRC did alot of good work prior to Dark Wednesday.  They also did some shady things that made a few people skepticle of them.

 Joe needs to go, and I am proud to say it.  He was at the helm when the ship ran a ground.  

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

I'm proud of you (4.00 / 1)

"There. I said it. I'm not proud of myself for saying it"

I'm proud of you for saying it.

So-called decorum perpetuates so much evil - much of which would be destroyed simply by all people speaking their minds about said evil in a collective voice that cannot be ignored.

Even if I had had any tolerance for HRC before St. Joe, I'd have discarded it.  He comes across as a cross between Pee Wee Herman and Eddie Haskell.

Appletini!

Kat

>^..^<

---

Kudos to JJ's comment (0.00 / 2)

JJ hit the nail on the head.

In my opinion, Salmonese's mistake, (and it was a big one), was not being honest when he spoke to the Transgender audience.

That being said, the lobbying audience is NOT changing the minds of those in HRC, or those in the GLBT community about T - but the lobbying audience is congress - those are the people who can vote.  People are running now, and it's important to get their commitment on this issue during the campaign - I'd advise asking the questions at public events.    

I still think it was a divisive strategy to expect opposition to ENDA if trans wasn't included.  

In Minnesota there are several candidates running who support an inclusive ENDA:  

Elwyn Tinklenberg (http://www.tinklenberg08.org) - running against Michele Bachmann
Tinklenberg has also said he would co-sponsor legislation to repeal DADT.  

Ashwin Madia (http://www.madiaforcongress.com/)

---

Moving on. (2.50 / 2)

It is not in our interests to obstruct the marriage fight in California...regardless of anyone's opinion about the person speaking.  That can alienate allies in the gay community.  It can hurts us with straight allies.  Additionally, same sex marriage often becomes a trans issue (see Littleton, Gardiner, Kantaras...).    

---

For as often as I see (4.00 / 1)

usually gay male conservative posters eslewhere and sometimes here who have a knee jerk reaction to all things trans say that "trans get married even though gay people cannot and don't wait for them," the truth is quite the contrary.

Apparently, many states do not recognise the gender that you transition to. A post op woman attracted to a male cannot marry because she is legally regarded as a male.

In the states that do recognise the gender change, the same problem exists for post-op women attrcted to women. Only after the Monroe decision could my friend of operative history marry her partner in Canada, mind you, and then have it recognised in New York.By transitioning to female, she had acquired all of the legal discomfiture of being a Lesbian.

Also, no one waited in Massachusetts for New York and California to catch up...nor should they have..

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

How many is many? (0.00 / 0)

Because only 3 states (Idaho, Tennessee, Ohio)refuse to change sex and 1 is case by case, county by county, Texas. That's 12.5%.
Your quote: is misleading.
I always try to check my facts before posting. Here is one website I got mine:
http://www.amsa.org/lgbt/state...

Let me tell you that I am the only child of a very rough-talking father. So don't be embarrassed about your language. I've either heard it or I can top it. - Ann Richards

---

[ Parent ]

Not all TG's have SRS (0.00 / 0)

Most cannot afford it.

Your statement is misleading.
I always try to check my facts before posting.

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

Que? (0.00 / 0)

Where did I say SRS? If you are referring to:
I was referring to those states as the only ones that by law refuse reassignment. That means ALL but those states allow gender change. Birth gender is a person's gender. Your post is the one talking about surgery. Are you trying to say that few states allow you legal status to be in between? Well yeah, all fifty states and territories have two choices, Male, Female, there's no Undecided, Not Sure or Flexible. You can annouce, act and feel as a different gender all day but until the state issues a document your not. It's kinda like marriage.

Speaking of Massachusetts:

There is no explicit protection in the law for transgendered persons in Massachusetts state law, although Cambridge has a local law that creates some protections there.  However, even absent explicit protection, in some cases an individual's gender identity may be regarded as "a gay issue" by the person or entity perpetrating the discrimination and therefore allow a person to bring a sexual orientation claim.
That's from GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders website,  http://www.glad.org/rights/mas...

And:

(e) If a person has completed sex reassignment surgery, so-called, and has had his name legally changed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the birth record of said person shall be amended to reflect the newly acquired sex and name, provided that an affidavit is received by the town clerk, executed by the person to whom the record relates, and accompanied by a physician's notarized statement that the person named on the birth record has completed sex reassignment surgery, so-called, and is not of the sex recorded on said record. Said affidavit shall also be accompanied by a certified copy of the legal change of name aforementioned above.
THE GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS, PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 46. RETURN AND REGISTRY OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS
Chapter 46: Section 13. Correction of records

The website: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws...

So yeah, I check my facts before posting but at least I read other's comments first.

Let me tell you that I am the only child of a very rough-talking father. So don't be embarrassed about your language. I've either heard it or I can top it. - Ann Richards

---

[ Parent ]

Apologies then (0.00 / 0)

We are on the same side

"operare non meno l'ongiegno che la forza" Exercise intellect, as much as force-Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio

---

[ Parent ]

yes and no (0.00 / 0)

just because you can get a birth certificate, its validity in terms of marriage is dependent upon whether or not the statute authorizing the administrator to amend birth certificates was general or specific to sex reassignment. In cases where this was done on a general power of amendment, the state courts have sometimes not upheld the "new" status of the transsexual. In short, where the state legislatures have explicitly authorized amendment in the event of sex reassignment, it will be recognized in those states.  For other states, it is dependent on what the courts will accept and they have generally not been receptive to the arguments.

---

[ Parent ]

Let me clarify (0.00 / 0)

I referred to marriage in my post to illustrate a point of a state's lone authority to determine a person's life situation with certifying documents, ie. states with no common law marriage do not recognize two people shacked up as hitched, just as someone who enjoys the breezy feel a sarong gives does not make them female for wearing it everyday. It was not to give validity to marriage at all.

But minus marriage, you are correct about jurisdiction. The Littleton case in Texas is why I said case by case and county by county here in the Lone Star State.

Let me tell you that I am the only child of a very rough-talking father. So don't be embarrassed about your language. I've either heard it or I can top it. - Ann Richards

---

[ Parent ]

Extra motivation (0.00 / 0)

"If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost," says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. "I've never said that publicly until now -- but that's just the reality of the fact."

He's right.  Everybody will wake up in a world of new and better possibility on Nov. 5 if we beat this thing.  It will still take plenty of work to get politicians to do the right thing, but the era of professional 501(c) hate crime will be over.

McCain/Palin 2008: Unstable/Unable

---

[ Parent ]

Losing on the other hand... (0.00 / 0)

Would be a blow it would be difficult to recover from quickly.

It may even give efforts to repeal some existing GLB-friendly  legislation additional momentum.  

There is no situation so complex it can't get even worse

---

[ Parent ]

"I wish Joe Solmonese would just go away." (4.00 / 1)

Yes Autumn, me too.  

As soon as he finally, thankfully, leaves then I will reconsider once again supporting the HRC.

The truth seems to be that Mr. Solmonese has turned it into the Gay Male Rights Campaign and forgot about the LB and especially the T in LGBT.

Besser ein ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne ende

---

You aren't alone (0.00 / 0)

when the HRC sent me their yearly "re-enlist" form letter, I scrawled that they wouldn't get a dime from me as long as Joe was president.

Luckily I have found plenty of other worthy organizations to support

---

I wonder... (0.00 / 0)

Can anyone give me an example of any legislation that has passed because of HRC and the buckets-full of our cash that they've received over the years? I mean, really, what have we got to show for it? (Besides self-congratulatory black-tie dinners, that is.)

If nobody can give some examples, then maybe it's time to kiss HRC goodbye altogether -- Joe or no Joe -- and st