A Trans Perspective On The HRC/Logo Presidential Forum

OT: regarding Cpl Matt Sanchez

If anyone doubted the psychotic insanity of Matt Sanchez, I recommend you read this exchange in the comments over at Columbia University's blog: http://www.bwog.net/articles/dirty_sanchez#comments

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 20:25:24 PM CDT

A good question

I think that a good question would have been:

Approximately 1 on 2000 children are born intersex, that is, born with ambiguous genitals.  Do you support the right of intersex children to decide for themselves, when they are old enough, whether genital surgery is appropriate for them, rather than have a sexual re-assignment surgery chosen for them?

Freshly Brewed: It's Genital Integrity Awareness Week

---

by: RealityBias @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 20:44:08 PM CDT

I second this motion.

As an intersexed person, I totally agree. We should be allowed the freedom to choose how we want to deal with our bodies when we are old enough to do so instead of having some arrogant doctors do it when we are infants. The time has come to recognize that intersexed and transgendered people are part of the human fabric too.

A society without religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.

---

by: Jen @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:12:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I third this motion,

  As I was born with both, it seemed a choice was made for me at birth, problem is that the Dr. made the decision withot asking my parents, and my parents never knew, and neither did I until I was in my late 20s.  I knew something wasn't right since I was 5 or 6.  than when I went for SRS, it was discovered by my Surgeon that I did have what appeared to be small ovaries, but nothing else. And this could be why my natura estrogen levels where at 270. And might explain why I never had body hair, very little facial hair, smooth skin, and a high pitched voice.

  And definatly agree that we are part of the human fabric.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:41:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

T? What B T? T Not Me, T Not HRC

"Donna Rose is the only transgender member of the HRC board."

"I believe having a transman or transwoman on the panel of questioners would have made a great deal of difference on how inclusive the questions would have been for this presidential forum; I think it would make a positive difference for any future presidential forum as well."

And I believe that having real, live, out trans employees at HRC would make a difference.  Donna Rose is a pawn; she pays for the privilege of being used as a tool to con trans people at large into believing that HRC is something other than the cesspool of transphobia that it has always been.

As of right now, how many real, live, out trans (not people who conveniently - and alternately, depending upon the audience - might be considered to be gender variant under a broad definition of 'transgender,' but people to whom the legal and societal matters of obtaining recognition as a sex other than that designated at birth is not an abstract lying talking point) employees are there at HRC? Last time I checked, the number was hovering around zero.

No dissent - so they can serve up legitimately confused looks when they're called on the carpet for dishing out yet another version of The Big HRC Lie: that HRC gives a damn about whether real trans people live or die.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:03:46 PM CDT

I may be wrong,

  But living very close to Largo Florida, and the Susan Stanton Ordeal, Equality Florida, along with Karen Doering and NCLR have began to make in roads to HRC regarding Trans issues.  But not to the point where most Trans man and trans woman would like them to be, but I believe they are making a commited effort to be more Trans inclusive.

  I try to keep a positive outlook towards HRC as they try to improve.  And a big visible improvement would be having more T on staff.  We will see what changes will be made in the near future. 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How long do we have to wait?

"And a big visible improvement would be having more T on staff.  We will see what changes will be made in the near future."

When is that future supposed to be?

HRC claimed to have our best interests at heart a decade ago.  Why weren't they actively recruiting trans employees?  Don't tell me that in that decade they were not able to find anyone to work for them other than the two FTMs I'm aware of who worked at different (and short) periods of time.  And don't tell me they could not have found well-qualified MTFs to work there IF THEY ACTUALLY WANTED TRANS EMPLOYEES.  (And HRC is not alone; the lack of trans employees - particularly MTFs - at GLB(allegedly T) organizations in general is disgusting, though, as with their transphobia-in-policy, HRC stands above the rest.)

They know that if we are on staff we will talk about how the backlash to same-sex marriage has destroyed existing rights of trans people - and is poinsed to contue doing so.  They know that if we are on staff we will talk about how same-sex marriage means nothing to a trans person (or a non-rich gay or lesbian) who cannot find employment.  they know that if we are on staff we will ask why, if trans people were supposed to be patient until society is ready for trans-rights legislation, why weren't the supporters of same-sex marriage required to do likewise.

They don't want trans employees because they don't believe that we are equal to them - which is why they still cannot be trusted in the slightest on trans issues.  

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:49:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will not wait long

  I just know that HRC is currently working on the issues you brought up, and that is one of the reasons Susan Stanton has been trying to work closely with them.

  But I am with you, alot in the past hasn't been done, and hoping to see a change.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:58:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trans issues on Larry King Tonight

---

by: dstavro @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 23:14:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

watching now

I missed it live.  I'm watching the re-play now.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 23:26:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure you're as aware as I am Kat that...

...the HRC has never hired a male-to-female transsexual as an employee to work in their DC offices. 

Ever. 

It's pretty notable that if one bills oneself as an LGBT civil rights organization, but has never hired a transwoman in the five or six years since one added the T to the mission statement, there's almost an empirical conclusion that one can draw about the that LGBT civil rights organization's true commitment to diversity.

The disappointment here is that an HRC boardmember raised expectations based on what she was told, but the HRC, Logo, the moderator and the three quesitioners failed to meet those expectations -- behaving pretty much as transpeople have grown to expect the HRC to behave when push comes to shove.

I didn't write an angrier piece because frankly, I expected the HRC to let transpeople down again.  I'm disappointed expectations were raised and weren't met, but honestly, I expected nothing better from the HRC -- I had a feeling there'd be little follow through on the raised expectations.

I think that says more about the HRC than me.

I saw what the blogs did to the decision on inclusion of the former Senator from Alaska in the forum.  I have hope for the future.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 23:32:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"I expected the HRC to let transpeople down again"

I never let up, because I don't want the next generation of trans folx to be conned by this criminal organization into believing that it gives even a millionth of a damn about them.  Unfortunately, younger folks are believing the crap spewed by the Donna Roses and Mara Keislings of the world.

When I transitioned, I was able to obtain ID that matched the reality of me.  For the people transitioning now, things aren't getting better, they're getting worse.  Part of that is attributable to the current ruling junta's evisceration of the constitution - but the backlash to gay marriage is as significant or more (and it is poised to be even more so), and the fact that no one employed by HRC has any personal experience to relate to the public about the very real nightmare of being as close to a non-person as one can be in any non-Gitmo part of the united States says even more about the organization than the dusgustingly bigoted policies that it has, in its history, endorsed, either directly or indirectly.

HRC not only has not gotten better over the last decade, in my opinion it has gotten worse.  It has more power and is able to craft slicker lies (such as its mission statement) and can disseminate them to a wider audience.

And I'll repeat: The other organizations aren't really any better.  How many of them sought out any trans candidates when last they head-hunted for a new leader?  How many of them have actively sought to find qualified trans employees for existing positions in their organizations?

And for those who think (and want others to believe) that I'm only yakking about my own personal employment concerns, listen up: I'm one of the few trans women I'm aware of to have ever even gotten as far as an interview with a gay rights orgnization - and it was not HRC.  I was passed over for a younger, far less experienced FTM.  But, lets say that either I had gotten that job or both of us had been hired (believe me, there would have been plenty of work to occupy more than one trans-issues-specific person).  I'm one person; me getting my dream job would have done nothing about the appalling lack of trans representation at other organizations - and it certainly would not have changed the de facto policy of trans subjugation at HRC.  My complaint is instutional - and that means more than just HRC, though HRC is by far, and despite its 'Year of Living Donna Rose-ly,' the most egregious oppressor of the dignity of trans people from within the gay rights power structure.

I am a transsexual woman and when I see these organizations claim to represent my interestes, I demand that they open the only employment opportunity that they themselves directly control - that within their own organizations - to me and my people on the same terms that they open it up to gays and lesbians (and for damn sure on the same terms that they open it up to non-trans heterosexuals; when last I checked, HRC had as many of them on staff at once as they have ever had trans people on staff.) 

Opportunity. 

Equal Opportunity. 

That's what its about.  And thats what trans people do not receive when we even think about employment with these organizations.

Yet, these corrupt, incestuous cadres of greed, self-promotion and self-perpetuation want us to believe that they care about whether or not the law respects our dignity, personhood and ability to survive economically?

Right.

Just like Bush won Florida.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 00:36:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a transyouth perspective ...

...from the queer_rage blog:

Dear HRC and LOGO,

Fuck you.

One question on trans*folk to one single candidate. Practically every other question was about fucking same-sex marriage.

Yeah, marriage is important. But probably not as important as a job or a place to sleep...

Kat, I believe there's probably a significant sized group of transyouth (in and out of cyberspace) that embrace your viewpoint.  Kristopher drakyn -- the writer of this blog entry excerpted above -- appears to already.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 01:48:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice and succinct

Nice and succinct.

Remember, though - I'm a lawyer.  I'm shooting to get paid by the word :)

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:33:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh really?

"I believe that having real, live, out trans employees at HRC would make a difference"

That's funny, we have a real live out trans employee of HRC on my message board. 

---

by: kathygnome @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 18:29:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How 'trans' is 'trans'? And how 'out' is 'out'?

The discussion of this subject occurred a few years back on a trans list and there were HRC defenders claiming vehemently that HRC had many trans employees - yet no one seemed to know who any of them were because, for whatever else they might have been 'out' about, they either weren't really trans or weren't really out about it.

Kat

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 22:04:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the questions lacked some punch

For instance, everybody over at Immigration Equality was all excited that the candidates were going to be on our playing field.  They thought that perhaps we could get one or two more cosponsors for the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act).  Nope.  HRC has really let down a lot of same sex bi-national couples.

---

by: dstavro @ Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 22:47:20 PM CDT

What are your opinions on the T-specific organizations?

think-tanks, lobbying groups, legal groups, T journalist organizations, etc. I, not being T, am aware of only a few (NCTE and whatever the name is of the legal group Kylar Broaddus works for).

 I have to say that I can't think of a local (St. Louis) T spokesperson actively involved in electoral politics - it seems that wider-community education and care of T youth are the foremost  concerns. (Highly valuable efforts, I will add - especially youth-care.) In the absence of a small number of "on-call" T spokespeople living in local districts, it is all too easy for lg to ignore the T issues as "too radical for Missouri". I have had this argument with my local stonewall dem group, which is divided between support and non-support for T inclusion in lobbying local politics. Fortunately, the state's non-partisan LGBT rights group, PROMO, has insisted on T inclusion in MO-ENDA and other bills.

FWIW, I feel that we ought to get ENDA, anti-housing discrimination, hate-crimes-bill accomplished before worrying about marriage - because of the bread-and-butter nature of those bills. 

---

by: NancyP @ Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 18:27:27 PM CDT

Yeah!

we ought to get ENDA, anti-housing discrimination, hate-crimes-bill accomplished before worrying about marriage

And get them all in place with B and T inclusion as prominent as the L and G!

---

by: Jami @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:01:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]