News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



More on the ENDA 'family fight'

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:30:00 PM EDT


 [The Bilerico Project features a statement from Barney Frank on his view on ENDA.]

 5:30 PM ET. I'm sitting in the airport here in DC. I've been offline most of Friday because I was, ironically and appropriately, at the Out and Equal Workplace Summit, where there is major buzz over the issue of trans-inclusive vs. non-trans-inclusive ENDA debate going on behind closed doors on the Hill is a hot topic.

A large portion of the panel I was on, Workplace Equality in the American Spotlight,  involved discussion of ENDA's fate. This was all spurred by the great coverage of Kevin Naff and the Blade, which broke the story of the brewing split over trans inclusion on the Hill. Just taking a temperature of the room, moderator Bob Witeck asked the audience to display a show of hands over whether they were members of Congress, would they support ENDA as is, or in a trans-free version.

It was split about 50/50 - that tells you how contentious this is in the community. It was clear, even on the panel, which included Sean Bugg, Jonathan Capehart, Neil Giuliano, Marc Gunther, Gary Lee, and Kevin Naff, that there was a variety of personal and professional views on the politics and principle at play. Of course I made it clear where I stood on the issue (something you all read in my earlier post) -- the battle will be bruising and ugly no matter when ENDA comes to the floor (and Bush would veto either version even if it cleared the Senate), so we might as well use the defeat of a trans-inclusive ENDA to 1) continue educating lawmakers on trans issues, and 2) challenge the ridiculous, amoral tactics of the right ("she-males", drag queens transvestites, etc.)  that has clearly scared Dems in conservative districts.

The one thing we have on our side in the battle for a trans-inclusive ENDA is the fact that corporations have already dealt with this -- and it was clearly in evidence at this conference, where the large vendor hall featured a ton of Fortune 500 companies in just about every sector you could imagine - defense contractors (Raytheon, Boeing), banking and finance (Capital One, ING, Wachovia, HSBC, Merril Lynch, Wells Fargo), retail (Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, McDonalds), Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Motorola, Sun, the list goes on and on. For most of them, LGBT anti-discrimination policies are a no-brainer, a done deal -- it's good for business, recruitment and retention, and a source of pride.  That level of inclusion and commitment to equality makes this internal debate and debacle on the Hill about stripping down ENDA look petty -- and cowardly.

In a timely bit of business, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who has been on the inside fighting for trans-inclusion during this turmoil, was a speaker at the session I attended just before leaving, "On the Hill: Discussing the Current Status of LGBT Legislation" (Sen. Gordon Smith was unable to attend). She wryly referred to the thrashing debate going on right now as a "family fight" and was cautious about assigning blame, but was frank that the core issue of concern for those who are ready to either dump the T or submit a separate bill with T by itself with the stripped ENDA bill, as we've discussed is about risk -- political risk and cover for the blue dog Dems who are from districts where they are receiving thousands of letters generated opposing T-inclusion, while receiving few letters of support for ENDA as is. Again, the right is clearly more vocal effective at making their elected officials feel the heat.

Big kudos to activist and former executive director of HRC, Elizabeth Birch, who attended the session and aptly raised the question on my mind -- whether the apparent folding of Dem leadership on trans-inclusion is motivated based on actual long-term strategic thinking about the advancement of LGBT rights or fear. Baldwin replied that it's hard to separate the two in this instance, but really, this issue has been worked hard on the Hill for years.

It's almost as if no one expected trans-inclusion to be controversial or used as a political football by the right. Please, where is the news here? Remember, the Dems said they were ready to act on ENDA once they gained control of Congress. If they are getting cold feet now, it means they hadn't given this issue dealing with the potential political blowback of trans-inclusion too much thought in the first place. That's seriously not ready for prime time.  

Birch also suggested rather than pushing ENDA off the cliff in this heated moment, to have a cooling off period, not move on it and work to gain solid support from these waffling Dems rather than create a fractured mess to clean up. Baldwin said that it was a suggestion worth looking at, given the internal war going on.

As I remarked in my other post, Speaker Pelosi and Barney Frank are the ones to take major  heat for this situation. Regarded by his colleagues as the "sage" on the Hill on LGBT issues, Frank's abrupt move to accept a trans-gutted ENDA is a hard pill to swallow, and this was something more than one attendee said when they came up to me after my panel. Unintended or not, it's a bat to the knees that makes it all the more difficult to convince under-informed but supportive members of Congress to be on board. These fence-sitting members want to know who's going to have their back when they go back to their communities to face re-election.

In the end, it's about the education needed to bring legislators to a place of comfort where American companies are now. They, and the public at large need to see the faces and hear the stories of transgendered Americans and why ENDA as written is not a threat, but a fulfillment of a promise of equal treatment under the law that many take for granted.

HRC's statement is below the fold:

Pam Spaulding :: More on the ENDA 'family fight'

Joe Solmonese:

    We know that everyone has been waiting to hear from HRC about the status of ENDA.  A lot has changed since Wednesday.

    Besides trying to ensure that the Senate beat the filibuster on Hate Crimes--an achievement which can not get lost in this controversy--we've spent the last 48 hours gathering information and using all of our resources to stay on top of very fast-moving developments on ENDA. Rather than issue public statements and alerts while there was still a chance to make the situation better, HRC chose instead to engage directly with allies on Capitol Hill in an effort to save an inclusive ENDA.

    During this entire campaign to win an inclusive ENDA, we have been guided by the principle of trying to achieve the end result the fastest way possible.  Without question, that result has been--and continues to be--an inclusive ENDA that covers the entire GLBT community.  We will continue to use that as our benchmark as we move forward in this process.

    Unfortunately, we now know what we're facing.  The decision has been made, according to statements from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Frank issued this afternoon--the House will consider a version of ENDA that does not include gender identity.

    This is not what any of us wanted, and certainly not what we've been fighting for.   But, it has been made clear that the House leadership and bill sponsors are moving forward with a non-inclusive ENDA even without the full support of our community.  They view this as the best opportunity they will have this year to help the largest number of people--and have stated that they do not intend to miss this opportunity.

    Passing an inclusive ENDA is the right thing to do for our community, our economy and our country.  However, we're facing a stark reality.   

    House leadership and the bill's sponsors very firmly believe that if the House votes on an employment non-discrimination bill without gender identity, that legislation will pass--again, it will pass even without the support of the GLBT organizations.

    After trying everything at our disposal to change this outcome, we are just beginning to come to terms with what that means.

    Since 2004, the Human Rights Campaign's policy has been to only support civil rights legislation that is inclusive of gender identity. That's why we fought tirelessly for and won Congressional approval for a fully inclusive hate crimes bill.  We've been fighting to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for more than a decade.  The breaking news that the House has decided to move forward on a non-discrimination bill that is not inclusive of gender identity is devastating. The Human Rights Campaign remains dedicated to the fight for full equality for our entire community and, in light of this new reality, continues to consult with members of Congress and our lobbyists to determine how we can achieve that goal.

    This has been a long battle.  HRC first started the quest for ENDA in 1994.  We've been pushing for an inclusive bill since 2004.  Within two weeks, ENDA could pass the House for the first time in history, but not as an inclusive bill. 
One point that Birch made is that HRC has been continuously directly working on the Hill with the principal characters since this fracture broke, but it has been getting slagged for the lack of a public response so far. So there's the statement. As you know, I've been both complimentary of HRC and doled out the demerits when warranted. HRC's position to date has been support of a trans-inclusive ENDA --  there are serious ramifications if the rug is pulled out by Dems who want to make it easier on themselves for re-election rather than doing the right thing on a bill that would face a veto anyway. The Dems have created a mess.

 

 All that said, HRC is going to take blasts from all sides on this because there's no clear win to be had in any position taken.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
HRC's silence was too painful for me
  I will stick with my belief that they were trying to figure a way to sugar coat a message.

  A short message, informing those that have supported HRC would have scored many points, and derailed the blastings they will be recieving.

  As for the Dems creating a mess, yeah, they did. And it is one that I can not take lightly.

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


Thank You to all that have been on the correct side of this issue.
  Pam, Thank You for your support, and all you do.

  And to all the Equality Orginizations that were quick to speak out against removing gender identity from ENDA.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


If the HRC supports a non-inclusive ENDA, then the HRC are liars.

Pam and company,

The transcommunity was told in 2004 that the HRC was only going to support a trans inclusive ENDA.

They've solicited transgender money in their call for donations.  They've said they are an LGBT Civil Rights organization.

If they support a non-trans inclusive ENDA, then they've been lying to the transcommunity for three years.  For God sakes, Joe Solmonese came and spoke to 871 people at Southern Comfort about how ENDA was going to be trans inclusive.  Did he lie to a transgender defined audience just this month about the HRC supporting trans inclusion?

I can't believe the HRC has never discussed this possibility of Congress balking at including transfolk in their back rooms, and I can't belive that they haven't thought about how to respond before now.  Their delay in saying exactly how they're going to come down on this is unconscionable.  Even in their current statement, they haven't said how they are going to come down on supporting or not supporting a non-trans inclusive ENDA.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin is withholding her name from the ENDA stripped of trans protections.  My opinion is that the HRC should follow her lead.

If not, then take the T out of their mission statement.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


maybe we need another statement from HRC
because I read the one above to mean that they stand behind the inclusive bill, and are in damage control mode.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
Read it carefully.

My friend Ethan told me you need to read these HRC press releases like you're an attorney. 

Where exactly does it say in the press release that the HRC is only going to support a trans inclusive ENDA?

The statement said that's what the HRC said it supported in a previous statement.  The statement didn't say that a trans inclusive ENDA is the only thing they are going to support now.  They may come out Monday and say that they support both ENDA and GENDA, knowing full well GENDA isn't even going to get a Congressional hearing, let alone a vote.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
HRC = Fraud

HRC has for some time now been conning people out of money based on explicit and implicit assertions that they would only support a trans-inclusive ENDA.

Its time to hit 'em where it hurts: A class-action fraud suit.

Kat



>^..^<

[ Parent ]
"If not, then take the T out of their mission statement."

Agreed.  The HRC and the T community have only in the last three years come to a reconciliation.  Stand with us, or stop accepting our money and support.  We've been on our own before. 



[ Parent ]
2 things
1.  good for HRC for sticking to the all-inclusive policy, even if they were slow to comment.

2.  "They view [the non-T bill] as the best opportunity they will have this year to help the largest number of people"
I really wonder who they are kidding here.  they know as well as we that bush WILL VETO any ENDA bill to cross his desk, Ts or no Ts.  so who do they the think they will help?  no, i think that the national dems are thinking about what is good for dems.  that means getting a token vote for LGBs who will then support them in upcoming elections.  what's good for dems is not always good for LGBTs.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


What is Frank Smoking?..

ABOUT THE ENDA BETRAYAL; do the Democrats think no one is paying attention and we just won't notice their latest dismal treachery? Bargaining away our rights is nothing new for Barney Frank; he took the same backward position on samesex marriage to provide cover for fellow Democrats scrambling for votes in the presidential follies. Now he's going to throw transgendered people under the bus.

The Democrats are willing to pass bills that slosh a cosmetic whitewash over the harmful effects of bigotry but precious little else. If they were serious they’d start by repealing the Clintons DADT and DOMA. Then they’d change ENDA and the Matthew Shepard act to give them real teeth. It ‘s a step forward to put more thugs in jail for hate crimes but the worst criminals are the political and religious bigots who promote violence. Until the heavy hand of the law begins to flush them out of their churches and offices and into cells their bigotry will embolden a fresh supply of thugs who’ll keep coming at us.  As it stands, the Democrats and liberal Republicans will just continue their duplicity; they’ll tell anyone silly enough to believe them that, “God knows, we tried, really we did, but our hands are tied.’’ They’ll wheel and deal about whether or not transgendered people are worthy or being treated as equal citizens. They’ll attach the hate crimes bill to a war appropriations measure and if it gets lost in the House/Senate conference committee or vetoed by Bush they can claim they fought the good fight. These stage managed dramas are put on create the illusion that these cynical sell outs are on our side but a rapidly growing number of GLBT people know it’s  a lie.  ABOUT THE ELECTION; when you get fed up with the war and being sold out consider not squandering your vote on the twin parties of war and bigotry. Use it positively by voting for antiwar anti-bigot leftwing parties or best of all for the union led US Labor Party. Beyond that, we need to begin seriously questioning our allegiance to a social and political system that requires imperial wars of aggression to sustain itself and bigotry to divide and rule at home. 

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

And that's why I, for one, didn't bother reading it. (n/t)


[ Parent ]
Typeface
I agree with Lurleen. Putting your entire post in large bolded typeface is the same as putting it in all capitals -- it comes across as shouting.

Not only is it hard to read, it is rude and annoying.


[ Parent ]
Lurleen

Lurleen, sorry about the typeface and size of the post. As i explained to the blog  editor (?) when I first singed up i have cataracts and my Medicare just kicked in. It will be a few weeks before I can get an an operation for a  new lens. I usually compose on Word with 28pt, reduce, copy and paste. I'll use a typeface that's easier on the eye.  As for raj and Stephanie they probably wouldn't like my posts under any circumstances. My politics and ideology aren't for teh tea and crumpet set. 



The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

[ Parent ]
Oh, sorry about yelling at you earlier then
When I saw the big, bold text I just passed you off as a ranting troll. I guess it turns out that you aren't and your post was actually pretty good.

So anyways, in the future why don't you try setting the format to "No_Format." Hopefully that will remove the formatting that you have placed on the text when you composed it.

Also, both macs and PC's have a zoom function that you will probably find pretty helpful.

<3 Sam


[ Parent ]
donal
I also apologize for jumping to conclusions about the reasons for your posting in large text. Samie's suggestion is a good one. I look forward to reading your future posts.

[ Parent ]
Odd...

...You could read my comment at normal font levels.

 Hint: construct and edit your comments in another text processor, such as Notepad, adjusting the fonts and bolding as you may need.  After you are satisfied with your comment, cut and paste it without the formatting into the comment box on the web page.  Don't construct and edit your comments in the comment box if you need special--and annoying--formatting in order to be able to read them.



[ Parent ]
What I'm down to:
Either HRC really didn't predict this, or they did.

If they really are as rocked as they seem, taken by surprise, then I'm firing them. They're not competent to represent my family's interests in Congress if they didn't predict this crisis.

If HRC planned this, as their response to the problem of an offer to throw the trans community under the bus from the Dems they lobby, then I'm firing them. HRC has taken money from the trans community on the pretext of representing their interests alongside mine.

Either way, I hope I'm not the only one sending this message to Joe: You're fired. For incompetence or lack of ethics.

Tammy is right that this is a family fight, but I'm sending our only federal lobbying organization to their rooms until they can come up with a decent explanation.

Pam, as always, thanks for the firsthand report. If it weren't for you I'd have to count on my state equality org to make up my mind for me :)

But wait, there's more!


Education!

Pam says "it's about the education needed to bring legislators to a place of comfort where American companies are now. They, and the public at large need to see the faces and hear the stories of transgendered Americans"

The bill will be vetoed in either form. Therefore, use the bill to educate legislators about T  issues. Do local work. Do media work.



absolutely!
there is no doubt in my mind that marriage equality would not have been preserved in MA had married LGBTs (& their allies) not had personal meetings with legislators.  legis after legis said that this made the difference to them.

transfolk need to do the same thing.  of course, it is harder to meet with your member of congress, but they do come home and have office hours.  set something up ahead of time with them or even an aide.  also, meet with as much of your state delegation as possible.  they can't vote on enda, but they are an important link in the chain and can become great advocates.

and how about letters to the editor?  transfolk need to be writing letters this weekend to their local papers saying why the inclusive legislation needs to pass.  same goes for we non-t people.  i have to sit on an airplane tomorrow.  i pledge to write a letter about why it is important to me, a non-t person, that t-folk are included in the bill and debate.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
The education Level is already there, according to what Joe Solmonese...

...Joe Solmonese told the 871 strong, transgender defined audience at Southern Comfort as a keynote speaker.  He credited Mara Keisling of NCTE for having done the necessary background education work on Capitol Hill.

Adding that to a quote from Pam, from the original post above:

Big kudos to activist and former executive director of HRC, Elizabeth Birch, who attended the session and aptly raised the question on my mind -- whether the apparent folding of Dem leadership on trans-inclusion is motivated based on actual long-term strategic thinking about the advancement of LGBT rights or fear...

If one was to believe Mr. Solmonese from Southern Comfort that the background education was done and that they were behind a tran-inclusive ENDA, then this is all about Democratic Party Housemember fear, and not about Housemember education, or even strategy.  This too is about Democratic Party Leadership spinleessness, not Democratic party ideals.

Again, I'm going to rail on the substantive silence from the HRC.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
--Martin Luther King Jr.

And, the HRC should just try to have a black tie gala honoring Speaker Polosi's work for LGBT people without seeing the anger in transgender people and their allies' faces -- on the outside protesting, and on the inside booing.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
with all the reading I have done, on september 5,2007
They was a lot of educating happening, along with the right religious bs that was answered quite well and foot noted as well.  I don't have the speech logged up, but pelosi even said they were ready, things good to go full on the floor. the questions asked were answered.  I believe now it was a plan long ago to drop the Ts.  The school teacher changing genders and how to tell the kids scared them shitless.  but i do believe it was a plan that they thought we would handle ok, and not get bent.

  they were wrong in my view.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
On the bill itself:
Hate to be the cynic, but I'm thinking Barney is probably right about the political realities of this situation.

He's been in that job for a long time, since I was in diapers in fact, and my guess is that he knows exactly what he's doing when he suggests that the partial loaf is what he can get.

While I respect Pam's purist approach, I'm a pragmatist. (I'm a lobbyist, not a blogger, and that's just the difference between apples and watermelons.)

Despite the fact that it may take (another) generation to get a trans-inclusive bill--the first version of ENDA was introduced by Bella Abzug and Paul Tsongas, neither of whom is alive to see today's crisis--I think it's better to get protection from arbitrary firings for some than nothing for all.

Also, I'm pragmatic about the fact that even if it goes through next week, it won't pass with two-thirds in the House either way AFAIK.

Once the half-loaf has passed and been vetoed, we have to go back and pass it again anyway. There may be political leverage to be gained from having put the bill through once and having Bush stop it. So there's a potential upside, plus the stripped bill isn't going to become law.

The fact is, not everything that's right can be accomplished by legislation. The Voting Rights Act was a consequence of the civil rights movement's pricking the conscience of this country for ten hard years, and a consequence of a unique historical moment. If we don't have the votes to get job protections for trans people, then we have more to do to educate this country.

/pragmatism>

And, this is a fucking travesty. If Barney and the HRC aren't willing to lay down in the road for trans inclusion, all they need to do is say so and trans folks will know what they're dealing with.

But wait, there's more!


Letter template
Here is the e-letter that Equal Rights Washington has made available to their members.  If anyone was thinking of writing a letter but didn;t know where to start, you might consider pulling some stuff from this.  Remember, however, that personal letters are the most effective.  Therefore, consider editing this to include your story and to reflect your voice.
Subject:  Support Basic Human Rights for Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Americans

The Senate just joined the House in moving forward important legislation aimed at reducing hate crimes--the Matthew Shepard Act. We applaud this progress in the ongoing struggle to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Today, I am writing to ask you to support HR 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), as it is currently written - including BOTH gender identity and sexual orientation.

Taking gender identity language out of the bill would leave millions of Americans vulnerable to losing their jobs. Removing gender identity from the bill would suggest that it is okay to compromise on basic civil rights. While politics is the art of compromise, compromise on basic civil rights should not be acceptable.

As Americans, we believe it is a basic right of all our citizens to be judged in the workplace by our qualifications and our job performance - not by the color of our skin, our religion, the country of our birth, our sexual orientation, or our gender identity.

I believe that the passage of ENDA is necessary to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.



Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


letter to your congressperson, that is
this is not meant as a template for a letter to the editor.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
E-mailing them is not all to do,
  print it, sign it, and use snail mail.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

[ Parent ]
ugh, discouraging
All of this is so discouraging.  When the right to put food on the table is turned into calculating vote margins in a future election, I get sick to my stomach.

Also discouraging are Aravosis (Does he even mean his not-too-veiled digs at transpeople, or are they designed to make long comment lengths in his threads?), the comments in his threads, and the comments at Joe.My.God's threads, although Joe is in full support of an LGBT ENDA.


Electricity's for light bulbs!


Just a note of thanks...

To Pam for fearlessly and consistently pushing for a trans-inclusive ENDA, and for the rights and dignity of trans people in general. And to TerranceDC, for your work in bringing the stories of LGBT victims of homophobic and transphobic violence to public exposure.  You are both valuable allies.

To Autumn, for your informative posts and your fearlessness as an out trans woman.

To the many supportive commenters, trans and non-trans alike.

It's a sad day, even more so knowing that Shrub will certainly veto ENDA, regardless of trans inclusivity, so the Dems have no excuse for being spineless.



Social outrage is power protecting itself; it is not morality. -- Andrea Dworkin

a comment
 The "trans community" should fight its own battles!  It's not just the same as being gay and to equate it like we're all one big happy family couldn't be farther from the truth. 

How true

"like we're all one big happy family couldn't be farther from the truth"

===================================

I'll remember that advice the next time someone asks me to support gay mens health issues. They should just fight their own battles.

 



[ Parent ]
I guess I will have to quit supporting gays,
  You know, start preaching to my daughters that the bible is right.  tell my oldest daughter who is 16 to stop trying to start a GSA at her high school as well. As you know, GSA, Gay Straight Alliance has nothing to do with Transgenders, so by her trying to start one isn't my battle!!!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

[ Parent ]
Without The T, There IS No Movement
If it weren't for a bunch of pissed off trannies in San Francisco and New York, you Mattachine gays that were cowering in your closets in 1967 and 1969 wouldn't even have a GLB movement.

In the case of Stonewall (NYC), that is highly debateable.

If it weren't for a bunch of pissed off trannies in San Francisco and New York...

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26644.html">The Myth of a Transgender Stonewall



[ Parent ]
Something as known September 5, 2007
Testimony was given before the committee by Lawrence Z. Lorber.  Where he goes right to the point of gender identity.  From the Testimony;

  For the first time, a new protected category, Gender Identity, has been introduced into the legislation.

  Full testimony 5 pages (pdf)

http://edworkforce.h...

  He also goes on to the religious views.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


whoa, whoa here peeps.

Yea, sorry to say, but I think Frank is right. Yes, things come at you fast on the hill. Read what he said and stop making everyone on our side out to be the bad guys. geeze. Yea, it sucks.... However, our experience on a local level has been going back and adding T protections has been relativley easy. Once all the dust settles, we go back and add those protections.

Geeze, see how quickly they turn on you. cripes!



http://EQFL.org

See how quickly Frank turned -- AGAIN -- on transpeople.

Read some history.  He's taken the anti-transgender position before, prior to the 2004 position of the LGBT 501(c)'s and civil rights organization coming out in support of only supporting a transgender inclusive ENDA.  Rep. Frank is falling back to an old position to try and win passage of ENDA prior to an HRC black tie gala honoring Speaker Pelosi on October 6th -- he, along with Speaker Pelosi, are the ones who broke principle, apparently for the sake of an HRC fundraiser.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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


[ Parent ]
To be fair

To be fair, up until a few days ago we weren't THEY - we were US.

Who turned on who?



[ Parent ]
Define Easy

"our experience on a local level has been going back and adding T protections has been relativley easy"

Define easy.  Is it easy for those who are already protected by the gay-only law? Or easy for those who have to live knowing that the very people who excluded us from the law can use the law for fire us and refuse to hire us?

Define easy - in terms of time.

The very first was: Minneapolis took about a year and a half.

As for elsewhere....

Wisconsin?  Gay-only, 1982.  T-added?  NEVER

Massachusetts?  Gay-only, 1989.  Gay marriage, 2004.  T-added to civil rights? NEVER 

Maryland?  Gay-only, 2001.  T-added to civil rights? NEVER 

New York?  Gay-only, 2002.  T-added to civil rights? NEVER 

NYC?  Gay-only, 1986.  T-added? 2002

Chicago?  Gay-only, 198(7?).  T-added?  200(1?)  (Sorry about the inexact dates on Chicago; I don't have them at my fingertips, but they do roughly parallel NYC).

New Jersey?  Gay-only, 1991.  T-added?  2006.

Vermont?  Gay-only, 1991.  Civil Unions, 2000.  T-added to civil rights?  2007.

Incremental progress is a LIE!

Kat



>^..^<

[ Parent ]
impatient and ahistorical

1896: Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal is fine)

1954: Brown v Board of Education (separate but equal is inherently unequal

1964: Federal Civil Rights Act (race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex)

1975: First Gay Rights Bill Introduced

1991: American With Disabilities Act enacted

1991: Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act enacted [first federal legislation to include the term "sexual orientation"]

1996: Defense of Marriage Act enacted

2004: Massachusetts legalizes gay marriages

2007: Federal Hate Crimes Act (including sexual orientation amd  gender identity) passes both houses of Congress

It really appears to me as if transgender activists are failing to acknowledge how much progress has been made in a short time, especially recently (i.e, last 5-10 years) and instead heaping vituperation on their GLB allies.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm just dense
but I'm completely at a loss as to how your chronology is supposed to refute Kat's.

[ Parent ]
Me 2

Me 2.

Kat



>^..^<

[ Parent ]
Reality

1955: First state law positively recognizing gender transition (Illinois)

1961: First state legislative repeal of a sodomy law (also Illinois)

1967: Loving v. Virginia; also, second state law positively recognizing gender transition (Arizona)

1968: Third state law positively recognizing gender transition, but first in which legislators clearly acknowledge post-transition marital rights (Louisiana)

1971: Baker v. Nelson (Minnesota and U.S. Supreme Courts say: no same-sex marriage)

1975: North Carolina legislatively recognizes gender transition

1976: Richmond v. Com. Atty. (US Supreme Court: anti-sodomy laws are okay)

1976: M.T. v. J.T. (NJ COA and Supreme Court say: transsexual marriage is okay)

1977: California says no to same-sex marriage

1977: California says yes to recognition of gender transition

1981: Massachusetts enacts statute positively recognizing gender transition

1989: When Massachusetts enacts a gay rights law, there's no T to be found

1992: Colorado's Amendment 2 (only addressed "sexual orientation"; had it stood, there still could have been "gender identity" laws)

1996: Federal DOMA

1999: Federal DOMA first used against transsexuals (Littleton v. Prange, Texas COA)

2006: Lewis v. Harris (CU, but still no SSM)

 

You want us to wait?

We were approved of before anyone even considered de-criminalizing gays and lesbians.  It is your progress that has encroached on our success. 

No trans person owes any gay 'incrementalist' any patience. 

You owe us.

You owe us the ENDA we have been promised.

You owe us the ENDA we have earned.

 



>^..^<

[ Parent ]
Exactly what I have been thinking
And if you want to put it in a global perspective, consider Iran. In Iran a transwoman is not only protected but can get a sex change con gratis from the government. In fact, when she's done with that she can get another con gratis grant from the government so that she can start her own business.

If you're homosexual in Iran. Well, they cut your head off.

So don't tell me that I need you to get my rights.

<3 Sam


[ Parent ]
GOP Codependence
"The one thing we have on our side in the battle for a trans-inclusive ENDA is the fact that corporations have already dealt with this -- and it was clearly in evidence at this conference, where the large vendor hall featured a ton of Fortune 500 companies in just about every sector you could imagine - defense contractors (Raytheon, Boeing), banking and finance (Capital One, ING, Wachovia, HSBC, Merril Lynch, Wells Fargo), retail (Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, McDonalds), Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Motorola, Sun, the list goes on and on. For most of them, LGBT anti-discrimination policies are a no-brainer, a done deal -- it's good for business, recruitment and retention, and a source of pride.  That level of inclusion and commitment to equality makes this internal debate and debacle on the Hill about stripping down ENDA look petty -- and cowardly."

Is it just me, or does the relationship between the GOP and the "Base" look strikingly similar to a codependent, abusive relationship?

Each election cycle, the GOP whips up the base with promises of outlawing abortion, cleansing the world of anything gay, etc.  Each year, they do nothing more than window dressing to accomplish these "goals".  I suspect it is because they want to keep the wedge-whack handy for the next go 'round.

Their relationship with business isn't any better.  The GOP courts biz, but then refuses to follow their lead on something like this.  This relationship is almost like the affair the wife (right wing christians) knows about but everyone pretends like it isn't really happening.  Toeing the line with the fortune 5's on this one would likely end the 'marriage', so it will never willingly happen.

I just wonder which will get sick of it first.  I'm doubting either ever will.  They obviously get something out of it, I just can't figure out what.

Dump Gay Men?
Every study I've seen seems to show that gay men are far more threatening to the mainstream than lesbians. Would any of these organizations agree to dump gay men so a lesbian rights bill could get passed?

It's highly unlikely that...

...the number of lesbians, as a percentage of the population, is high enough to make much of an impact.  Studies have shown that the percentage of women who are lesbian is about half the percentage who are gay men.

Irrespective of that, sexual orientation is different than gender identity, and gay men and lesbians have worked to have some success in getting the larger polity to have some comfort with homosexuals over a number of decades (starting at least as early as the 1950s in the US. 

Ts have not done the legwork necessary to get the larger polity to have similar comfort level, certainly not at the national level, to get something through Congress.  And that is why I keep suggesting to work at the state and local level.  And--as someone mentioned here, at the corporate employer level.

I seriously do not know why so many large companies have T protection in their anti-discrimination policies, but I would almost be willing to bet that it is largely due to behind the scenes work by organizations like HRC.  It probably would be a mistake to wrrite them off altogether just because they might be willing to settle for a non-T ENDA.



[ Parent ]
Why large companies have T protections.
  IMHO,  When a T comes out of the closet, one of the main concerns besides losing family members is employment.  Many trans people working in a company take the time to educate their supervisors, managers, etc. before transitioning on the job.  So at their place of employment there is not that shock that trembles through.  Many have been successful at transitioning on the job, but way to many get the door slammed on them, me for example. My old boss was a very religious man, and there was no talking to him.

  Another thing to consider, is after a person transitions, the past is pretty much gone, as many try to leave any aspects behind. 

  Again, all of this is my opinion.  One thing that has linked Ts to the gay and lesbian community, is when we come out to others, the first thoughts people have is, "oh, he is a reaaly sick gay person, that wants his penis cut off." which is far from the truth, but we (Ts) have had to fight and educate as well that being gay is the same as being trans as we are born that way, as well to explain the differences.

  Just as gays have to deal with books written by nut jobs like Paul Cameron using junk science, we Ts have Bailey, which kat has been posting about here.

  Also, IMHO, I don't think HRC has done alot of the legwork for getting T protections in companies, as HRC didn't have the educational materials that many Ts used when talking with their employers, I know they didn't have squat when I came out in March 2005.



If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
this indicates a complete ignorance of constitutional and civil rights law
How would you propose to legislate protecting lesbians while not protecting gay men when they are both included in the term "sexual orientation" (as heterosexuals are, also).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


[ Parent ]
"Sexual orientation of females"
That's how

<3 Sam

[ Parent ]
You apparently do not understand what...
...the comment refers to.  Including only females who are lesbians, but not males who are gay men would be a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--which covers discrimination based on sex.

[ Parent ]
What makes you think you can't override it?
It's really easy to override legislation, you just write a new bill that contradicts it.

Besides, my lesbian-only ENDA prohibits discrimination based on "female homosexuality," people who have "male homosexuality" need not apply. If you want to get really picky you could word the bill to protect people who "are homosexuals attracted to women" because the 1964 protections are based on the sex of the plaintiff and not on the sex of the plaintiff's spouse. That way, you are protecting homosexuals but only if said person's lover is female!

<3 Sam


[ Parent ]
A Reminder: Frank's Original Statement on Trans-inclusion
Just in case anyone's forgotten Frank's original position on transgender inclusion, this is the clown who's "counting the votes" as quoted in Bay Windows. It's virulently transphobic, so much so that its widely quoted by the anti-gay lobby. Also note the demonization of "transgender activists" and that they are clearly identified as "they"

"There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress. I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women."

You might be well advised to consider that...
...if you don't have the votes, nothing will be passed.  Do you want that?

[ Parent ]
The thing is...

Bush will veto ENDA with or without trans protection, and there's not enough votes for an over-ride. So it's always been a symbolic vote. Not to say symbolism isn't important -- being willing to toss aside the most vulnerable members of the LBGT communities without even an attempt to line up more support sure sends a signal to the pro-bigotry side: we're willing to cave even before things get serious. Rather than cutting loose trans people without warning, Frank and company could have said, "hey folks we need more votes, go lobby your representatives."

This isn't "half a loaf is better than none," this is "You can starve as long as I get mine." 

As far as waiting politely...

Did gays and lesbians "wait their turn" when they pushed for inclusion in civil rights legislation in the '70s, when they were told doing so might harm efforts by racial minorities?

Did they "wait their turn" when they demanded funding for HIV/AIDS research and finding a cure for it get higher priority in the '80s, when established groups felt that doing so would take badly-needed money away from other fatal diseases?

Did they "wait their turn" when they demanded that their rights be acknowledged and respected in the '90s?

Did they "wait their turn" in 2003 when they pushed for marriage equality in the face of warnings that it could have a disastrous impact before a critical presidential election? 

And color me cynical, but "we'll come back for you later" hasn't had a particularly good track record.

In New York and Maryland, trans people helped pass LBG anti-discrimination laws even though they themselves were told to wait. Six years later they're still waiting -- and left to fend for themselves while LGB-supposedly-T organizations focus on marriage equality.

In Barney Frank's home state, LGB anti-discrimination laws were passed 17 years ago. Trans people there are still waiting for the same protections.

Trans people have been in this fight a long time -- if you haven't heard about it, it's because but it took 10 years before, in 2004, the LGB organizations would even agree to let us take part in ENDA.

But if any of this doesn't convince you, think about this: omitting gender identity leaves a huge loophole to be exploited by careful bigots, e.g. "We didn't fire you because you're gay/lesbian, we fired you because you're nelly/butch." 

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, in the long run it would be the arguments of our enemies, but rather the silence of our friends, that will be remembered. 



[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox