New England: Leading The Way On LGBT Rights

From what I understand in Maine

It is not easy to get an issue on the ballot because "The process by which an idea becomes a law is a complicated one, involving many steps. It is designed to prevent hasty or uninformed decisions on matters that can affect the lives of every Maine citizen. Although the process may seem confusing at first, rules and procedures clearly define the steps that apply to every bill."
From Maine's Path of Legislation:  http://www.maine.gov/legis/law...

Too bad California didn't think of that......

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." - Andy Warhol



"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

---

by: TruthandLove @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 21:27:59 PM CDT

This is only half right...

if you only look at marriage. However, if you look at anti-discrimination laws, only Rhode Island, Maine and Vermont have fully LGBT inclusive anti-discrimination laws.

---

by: Diana CT @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 08:20:51 AM CDT

?

How is any of this leading the way on T-anything?  Especially since the title of the Edge piece (which appears to have been an AP piece) was "New England states lead the charge for gay marriage."

Once again - the T doesn't really exist. And, even worse, we get inserted where we don't belong.

And BTW - if NJ is being counted as in New England, then it actually did lead the way on trans marriage 33 years ago.  Of course, as usual, a history in which we were viewed as more legally palatable earlier than gays and lesbians is simply disregarded.  

When I think 'New England', I think Massachusetts and 20 years of being legally unequal to the people who decided for themselves that they were good enough to be protected by the law but that we weren't.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:05:35 AM CDT

You're absolutely right, KatRose

My bad for using that phrasing without citations, then not addressing the change between EdgeBoston's original article title and this one.

Got this post title from one of my Maine online media sources and am now looking back to see where the hell I cut and pasted it from...

Not enough attention paid to my final draft. My fault and I am very sorry.

Certainly after this week's news, this has NOT been the case...

And no, New England is a simple 6 state block- CT, RI, VT, MA, NH and ME.

Off to search and will update.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 10:58:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

While I share your irritation...

While I share your irritation at the lack of progress on formal transgender rights, the MCAD has recognize discrimination against transgender people as a form of gender discrimination and it has been back by the SJC. So we do have rights in Mass.

Mass also has very progressive ID policies including changing drivers license without surgery and accepting foreign surgery without notaries if the country does not have notaries for changing birth certificates. I have a friend in RI, where we supposedly have rights, who's in a notary catch 22.

---

by: kathygnome @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:12:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

!

(NJ is not part of New England. If you counted Wisconsin as part of New England, then we'd have been the first region to -- but you don't, because Wisconsin is not part of New England.)

I've long said, and will continue to say, that marriage equality is a key battle for trans folk. A lot of the LGB community misses that point, and it looks like KatRose and Diana overlooked it too:

Without marriage equality, trans people are always at risk of having their marriages challenged or denied. Are you FTM, married to a natal woman? Bzzzzt! That's a same-sex marriage -- because we don't recognize your transition. Were you married before you transitioned and remain married? Bzzzt! That's also a same-sex marriage -- because we DO recognize your transition.

Trans folks can't win on marriage at all without marriage equality, and same-sex couples can look to married trans folk (in whatever gender pairing you like) as examples that marriage equality is needed and works.

We need to be allies.

I won't tolerate gay men and lesbians belittling trans folks as part of the LGBT community, and I won't tolerate it in reverse.

Your unfair and unprovoked attack on Massachusetts LGB (and yes, T's as well) community denies the YEARS of hard work that everyone (including our T allies) have put into making our state a better place.

Picking a fight because someone used a T where you don't think there should be one doesn't help.

Massachusetts has long been absent any explicit legal protections for gender identity or expression in our nondiscrimination laws, but we're making good progress this year with more than 50% of each chamber of the legislature cosponsoring the trans rights bill. Yes, it's taken far too long, so let's work TOGETHER.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:23:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Define "marriage equality" and the limit of the fight

marriage equality is a key battle for trans folk

Trans people as trans people won nothing in Massachusetts via Goodridge.  Recognition of our identities came in 1975 via an attorney general's opinion (codified in 1981.)  If Goodridge was all we had, then trans women could marry men in Massachuestts - as men.  As victories go, That's equivalent to having the statutorily-prescribed sentence for a crime you didn't commit, but are in jail for, be reduced from ten years to five.  A victory?  Perhaps, but in a contest in which you weren't supposed to be a participant.

Pointing out history is not an unprovoked attack. "Marriage equality" is subterfuge for trans erasure - and 'New England,' Massachusetts in particular, is the proof of that.  


>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:52:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

whatever

If you're looking to pick a fight, look elsewhere. You win. You're obviously smarter and more clever than I am.

But you've lost my respect.

Enjoy your battles.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 13:24:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clearly you're missing the point

I'm not trying to pick any fight.  I'm trying to stop a meme that kills our rights as collateral damage in fights that we had no input in starting.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 14:51:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahem.

Hi Lane :)

Questions for you -- and I will ask many.

Were you aware that in 1994, transfolk could get married in every state in the union?

Were you aware that it is the fight for gay marriage that has caused our marriage rights to be eroded?

Why is marriage a crucial battle for transfolk?

What makes you think that a transwoman married to a ciswoman (using the term natal, btw, is saying that transwomen are not women, but something else) is gay?

What is the difference between "homosexual" and "gay"?

What is the difference between scientific terminology and an identity class?

Why do you not tolerate gay folks belittling us yet do it yourself?

Why do you think transition is critical to the "T"?

Is not the T merely a larger term that includes people who do not transition?

And, Lastly:

Which is more important: housing and medical care (two things not on any agenda) or marriage rights?

Now, understand a few things please:

I am not attacking you.  I am asking you questions that are pointed, so that I can understand your viewpoint more. Ask around -- when I attack, I get much more impolite, lol.

I am legally married, in a way that is recognized at the federal and state levels, to another woman, and I am legally female for all those cases. This is in a state that has a specific exclusion against same sex marriages. The state does not recognize me for the purpose of marriage as a male.  Indeed, when I divorce, I am only allowed to remarry a male.

This state has no protections, no rules, none of that stuff.

I'm not doing this as a friend of Kat's.  I'm doing this as a very differently sighted advocate specifically for transcauses.

Care to engage?

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 14:38:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hesitated in my response

I've written and rewritten this reply because I feel as if I'm going to get attacked here no matter what I say.

I've enjoyed reading about trans issues here on the Blend for a long while now. I'm more than happy to talk trans rights and trans politics with anyone, friend or foe.

But I will not answer a series of pointed "gotcha" questions along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife" (like most of the questions you asked above). Nor will I engage with someone whose intention is derision rather than enlightenment. I don't know if that's your intention or not -- the questions you asked imply it, though.

I offer a few thoughts in response to your inquiry:

- I used the term "natal" because I saw it in postings by Autumn, so I took it to be a legitimate, non-offensive term:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/...
Frankly, I don't care for the pure dichotomy implied by the use of the term "cis" relative to "trans" for the same reason (only two choices, no variation) I no longer say "opposite sex" couples and instead say "different sex couples." I thought "natal" clarified the situation, but I'll gladly learn new words.

- Where did I belittle trans folk in my postings? You read it in there somewhere, since you wrote "Why do you ... belittle us yourself?"
I'm genuinely curious, because I tried very hard to be respectful.

- Where did I say that full transitioning is required for the "T" status? You asked "Why do you think..." rather than "Do you think..." so again, you must have read it in there somewhere. I'm kinda curious on that one too, since it's totally beyond me how that could have been inferred.

- Why do you consider this a zero-sum game (situation) with regards to rights and benefits? You ask me "which [one] is more important" and use the loaded term "agenda."  Why can't housing, marriage, and health care all be important?  

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 16:35:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A well thought out response

However, it still fails.  You are allowing your own concern about your viewpoints possible being annoying preventing you from answering.

They are not "gotcha" questions. Each and every one of them is derived from your own statements -- and a rather specific set of them, as well.

Asking a wife beater when he stopped is not a gotcha question. Its only a gotcha when they aren't a wife beater.

That said, I repeat -- I am not attacking you, nor will I.  I am asking because I am trying to understand your mindset -- if I don't ask, I will not be able to communicate more effectively with you.  I need to understand you just as much as you need to understand me.

So if you won't answer them, that leaves me with questions unanswered, and is essentially informing me all manner of things, few of them positive -- please take the opportunity to stop that.

I, on the other hand, do answer questions -- yes, even gotcha ones (my answer to the one you used an example is "I haven't since I never started".) So here goes:

You belittled transfolk by using natal.  The fact that Autumn has used it does not remove that basic underlying truth -- Autumn is not a linguist and does not always represent a majority of trans experience (let alone trans experience of color), nor has Autumn had the opportunity I've had to examine much of the language surrounding trans issues and seen the inherent self referential insults in all of them. Thinking that Autumn hods the keys to the trans kingdom is foolish -- no single transperson does.

Note that the dichotomy twixt cis and trans is pretty basic -- cis are folks who are not trans, and trans are folks who are not cis. Not liking it is about the same as not liking the difference between 1 and 2. I won't deny you your ability to choose to do so, but I will question you on it.

I believe you were trying to be respectful -- just a Autumn wasn't trying to make transwomen not women.   This is the limitation of using inaccurate language (another reason for the cis and trans).

You said transition is critical to the T hen you said :

Are you FTM, married to a natal woman? Bzzzzt! That's a same-sex marriage -- because we don't recognize your transition. Were you married before you transitioned and remain married? Bzzzt! That's also a same-sex marriage -- because we DO recognize your transition.

Indeed, the subtextual context of prior arguments along the same lines in the same thread say exactly the same thing (subtextual meaning what yo had to form conceptually in order to say what you said).

So either your argument about it only applies to transitioners (and therefore genderquer or transsexual members of the T, at the cost of the other types of T) or some other reason.  Hence why asked the questions.

I could leap to conclusions, as you have done thus far with some of the thing Kat has said, but I prefer to ask you about things you've said rather than hold you accountable for something that I've up and decided for you.

That you missed such (totally beyond me how that could be inferred), indicates you are not aware of your privilege --which isn't something to worry about since you actively seek to work on it, even if you don't desire to answer legitimate questions because you are leaping to conclusions about me and my motivations.

IT is not a zero sum game, nor do I consider it such, therefore the answer to your question is "Apparently because you choose to see it that way".  You stated that gay marriage rights are important to transfolk, and have been arguing with someone who is telling you that such is inaccurate.

As a result, I created a question to check your understanding of needs hierarchy.  That is not a zero sum game for most people -- although one can point out that the daily lives of transfolk are zero sum games, since we either live today or die today.

There is nothing that says we cannot have all of them -- however, marriage will do jack shit for transfolk since it will not change extant court rulings that already limit us that were derived from losses in the fight (that is, win or lose, we are still screwed) although it will make some things easier for us.

Your conflation of social with legal concepts probably doesn't help either.

All of that said, I should point out that being married, but homeless and dying from a lack of proper medical care does one about as much good as having a candy bar at the same time.  Oh wow.

Hence the reason I asked the question "Which is most important", allowing you to specifically and contextually understand that I am asking for your opinion, not a flat out fact, especially since I didn't give my personal thoughts at that point.

You are trying -- and for that I commend you.  Indeed, I had hoped that after your answers I could help you more in that realm, but apparently you want to try only so long as it doesn't make you uncomfortable (now see  there I go starting into those guesses.  Really should answer the questions.)

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 17:36:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I give up

You also win. Woo-hoo! Congratulations -- you had an opportunity to work with someone who was genuinely interested in your cause.

Forget it. Go back to pissing on each other -- see if I care.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 19:01:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The same applies, though

I gave you an honest set of questions, and in return you gave me grief and made all sorts of suggestions about my motivations.

Better yet -- I'm generally unaffected by the internal politics of trans stuff -- because I make no bones about not caring. So I can till be someone you can turn to to give you a better idea.

You asked questions -- I answered all of them.  I asked questions, and you evaded or outright stepped away.

If you were genuinely interested, you would have realized that it isn't about winning.

Its about communicating.

I did.  You didn't.

Apparently it was easier to just give up trying.


http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 19:22:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lane didn't try

Look, I have a reputation for conciliation, for not demonising opponents. Most of those who are opposed to us on this are genuinely of goodwill.

Not here though. Lane's playing passive-aggressive games.

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

---

by: ZoeB @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 21:49:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Zoe

That level of defensiveness always startles me, even now, after all the crap at that news aggregator that I popped in for a tenth of a second at the other day, lol


http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 23:33:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction on my site

that I just put up:

UPDATE FROM LOUISE:

I posted this yesterday not with the original article title as seen on the EdgeBoston site, but using the title as given on the one Maine MSM source I could find even covering the story.

It bothered me that so little attention was paid locally, especially as Mike Heath was quoted within the piece.

But as been pointed out to me (and correctly so), New England's various marriage debates are hardly translating into establishing legislation protecting or granting equality to our transgender community. And certainly this past week has been discouraging, to say the least.

My sincere apologies for using an incorrect and misleading headline, as well as thanks to Blender KatRose, for pointing out my egregious error. I am searching for the original source so that I can send them an email to point this mistake out to them as well...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:18:18 AM CDT

egregious?

I don't think your error was "egregious," and I do think that the marriage debates ARE translating into increased awareness of the issues surrounding discrimination against the transgender community.

While there is sincere and legitimate disappointment in the lack of advancement of trans protections in NH, the fact is that it was discussed and considered. I think the conversation progressed as far as it did because the discussion of marriage equality has brought the issues facing the LGBT community to a broader audience.

The discussions about marriage equality allow people to talk about job discrimination, immigration issues, and hate crimes with more awareness and thoughtfulness.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:34:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe so

but it sure as hell was lazy/careless work on my part, not to cite the source and Kat was absolutely right to point it out. And she did it a helluva lot nicer than I would have done, were the situation reversed.

I'm about 95% sure of what my source was, btw- but can't access the article in question.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:44:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that was nice???

Wow.

Well, I guess you didn't say "nice" -- you said "nicer than [you] would have done".

But I don't think it was nice -- I think it was an excellent example of infighting. And from what I've read, I don't think you'd respond in kind under similar circumstances.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:49:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

but I don't see it that way at all. I like KatRose very much and appreciate a friend telling me when I have screwed up or put both feet in my mouth.

Hey, it's better than my husband's response- he's been calling me "Anita Bryant" for the last half-hour! ;)

 

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:05:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see you as wrong...

... I see her as wrong.

KatRose: Once again - the T doesn't really exist. And, even worse, we get inserted where we don't belong.

I disagree. Yes, the gist of the article was not T-focused, but the T's are a vital part of the community and the marriage fight. T's belong in the marriage equality battle, equally as much as the L's, the G's, and the B's.

But it's your posting and she was responding to you, so I'll accept your admission of culpability, but I still feel the reaction was overboard in this forum.

---

by: Lane @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:29:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its this type of logic that gets our existing rights swept away by DOMAs

Yes - we are part of the community and the movement.  But the definition of 'sex' and the definition of 'marriage' are different issues - and those who are addicted to the 'once we get marriage everything else will be fine' mentality don't get that (1) being allowed to marry who we want has no effect on whether we are subject to arrest upon entering a particular restroom; and (2) where the efforts of the gay marriage industry have provoked states to enact anti-marriage amendments, transsexuals stand poised to have our existing marital and identity rights wiped out by them.

I won't mention Wisconsin - where gays and lesbians, however you want to spin it, have had the special right to discriminate against trans people since 1982, yet transsexuals have been able to secure transition recognition since 1985.  If Wisconsin's anti-marriage amendment is interpreted to wipe out those existing trans marriage/identity rights there, do you think that the push for gay marriage will have been worth it?  

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 13:02:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stuff happens

Don't fret, Louise.  As I posted over at ENDABlog,  I'm happy to know where the conflation actually occurred.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 13:04:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This seems appropriate

Yes, that is Anita Bryant...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:06:51 PM CDT

This

...those who are addicted to the 'once we get marriage everything else will be fine' mentality don't get that (1) being allowed to marry who we want has no effect on whether we are subject to arrest upon entering a particular restroom...

That's why the news about HB 415 was SO bad this week. One would HOPE that the legislators would not make this mistake and yet...

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 13:28:30 PM CDT

Sullivan says don't forget Iowa.

As a life long New Englander, I confess that i am a little myopic about our role in our civil rights struggle.  That said, Andrew Sullivan pointed out yesterday on Chris Matthews that, while we focus on Vermont, we should not lose sight of the good state of Iowa.  They have a marriage case at the Supreme Court that was heard back in December.

http://twoladiesinwaiting.com/...

www.twoladiesinwaiting.com

---

by: twoladiesinwaiting @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 06:36:07 AM CDT