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.



The difficult discussions people don't want to have

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 06:00:00 AM EDT


I started out intending to do a short piece on this ridiculous incident in Louisiana about college students who thought it was knee-slapping funny to roll in the mud and play blackface on video depicting the Jena 6.

As I typed this out (again another wee hours of the AM post), it occurred to me the there are some interesting parallels that can be drawn about our difficulties discussing race and in the case of ENDA, transgender issues. Read on and see if you can make the connection.

***

White Louisiana students re-enact 'Jena 6' in blackface

From The Smoking Gun. The fact that these people thought it was hysterically funny to do this is all the evidence one needs to confirm that an honest discussion about the third rail topic of race is sorely needed.



A group of white Louisiana college students dressed in blackface and reenacted the "Jena 6" assault while a friend snapped photos and videotaped the staged attack, images that were later posted to a participant's Facebook page. The photos, which you'll find on the following pages, were taken late last month on the bank of the Red River, where students from the University of Louisiana at Monroe giddily acted out the racial attack. The photos (and the short video clip at right) were posted to the Facebook page of Kristy Smith, a freshman nursing student. The album of images was entitled "The Jena 6 on the River." In the video, three students with mud smeared across their bodies stomp on a fourth student, while two of the participants are heard to say, "Jena 6." One man can also be heard saying, "Niggers put the noose on."
The images were taken down, but not before other students snared the video. In subsequent Facebook postings, Smith said:
"We were just playin n the mud and it got out of hand. I promise i'm not racist. i have just as many black friends as i do white. And i love them to death," she wrote. She added in a later message that her friends "were drinking" and things "got a lil out of hand."
The Smoking Gun also points to similar racially charged images placed on Facebook by college students in Texas, Connecticut, and South Carolina.

***

The bottom line is that the first order of business was for Smith to declare she's not racist. That label is clearly radioactive to most people, so much so that they can simply cannot own the fact that they engaged in racist behavior. In their minds they rationalize away such incidents because a real racist burns a cross on someone's lawn, or ties a black man to the back of a truck and drags him until his limbs fall off.

The matter isn't helped when professional self-appointed Leaders of the Black CommunityTM (Jesse Jackson comes to mind first) tosses out the "racist" card way too often, explicitly because they know the label is radioactive.

Generally speaking, we can't get very far if people cannot even admit that racism is still part of our culture, and that one can engage in negative race-based thinking or behavior without putting a Klan hood on. Look at Michael Richards. One of the striking things about his unhinged apology on Letterman last year, after appearing onstate at a comedy club and going on an unhinged rant because of black heckler in the audience was that he felt compelled to say he wasn't racist.

"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.
How is this not racist:
"Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f------ fork up your a--...Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!"
Those comments obviously indicate that Richards either must have been possessed by a racist demon or he was just "playing one" onstage that night, right?

The real problem is that Richards was more concerned about being labeled racist because contemporary society has deemed that label the sign of a fringe element, a social pariah.

Had he been more self-reflective he might have something more sane, such as "I realize that I am a product of a culture steeped in a toxic history regarding race, and my outburst -- and the response to it -- is a teachable moment. It's important to think about how we feel about race and how our internal views about race play out in our daily lives. I intend to do so, because there was no excuse for what I said on stage."

Instead, his advisers felt it was necessary for him to ring up Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to beg for mercy. That isn't productive.

***

This whole mess about ENDA, particularly the dialogue that has resulted in perceived anti-trans opinion to bubble up to the surface is quite similar to discussing race.

It appears some people are reluctant to publicly broach the subject of transfolk in LGBT movement and the effect on or strategy of the passage of anti-discrimination legislation lest they be labeled with the equally radioactive word "bigot." Nothing shuts down the conversation or draws a line in the sand faster.

If people want to make the case that Ts shouldn't be attached to LGB, then that's a discussion that reveals a serious difference in opinion and philosophy about the definition of our movement. It needs to be aired out honestly and openly. It's relevant to know how many hold this view and why. It's the first step toward admitting a problem we all must face to move forward.

It's one matter to make a case that the trans protections should be dropped from ENDA as a matter of strategy and pragmatism, it's a completely different matter to hold the view that Ts aren't really part of the movement at all and use the former as PC cover for belief in the latter.

Is this view due to lack of direct engagement with transfolk on the issue, a lack of education on the history of the movement, or is it because of some other factor that is worthy of open discussion that may inform those on the other side of the issue that may shed new light on the topic?

It really is identical to the problem our country has with race -- we'll never know if people aren't willing to express their fears without getting their heads bitten off. By the same token, no rational discussion about sensitive topics can take place if that expression is not really about engaging tactfully or diplomatically, but unloading frustrations in a way that is hurtful and shuts down conversation. That's what happens when people leave these discussions buried -- they come out in all the wrong ways, resulting flashpoints at the completely wrong time.

I don't have a solution, of course, it's a matter of observing human nature and how difficult we often make things for one another when we talk all around the real problem -- the lack of ability to communicate effectively.

Pam Spaulding :: The difficult discussions people don't want to have
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What's in a name?

Married family man Ted Haggard was visiting a male prostitute, but after intensive counseling, his Christian counselors conclude he was just acting out - he's not gay.

Married family man and US Senator Larry Craig (R, Idaho) pleads guilty in a Minneapolis bathroom gay sex sting, but proclaims that he's not gay.

Michael Richards proclaims he's not racist

Kristy Smith proclaims she's not racist.

There are many examples of people admitting the behavior, but eschewing the label. To me, this is backward.

Christian conservatives have often said homosexual orientation is not sinful, but the behavior is. Yet the behavior is forgiven and the label is avoided.

Most people agree racist behavior is sinful, yet people try to gloss over the behavior by rejecting the label.

Now, I don't want to say that being gay is anything like being a bigot. But the point I want to make is this: We're afraid of identities. We can explain away what we do, but not who we are.

Yet it is not our identities that affect others - it is our actions. Though I (clearly) have no problem with being gay, I do have a problem with the action of cheating on a spouse and placing her (or him) at risk for STDs. I do have a problem with racist attitudes, but it is the actions that matter - that harm others. 

St. Francis of Assisi said "preach the Gospel always, and when necessary, use words". If we lived the identities we wanted to have - if our actions were aligned with how we wanted to be seen - we would not have to protest that "we are not [fil in your label]".

 






Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted


This reminds me of something...

When a University group was considering whether or not to add "T" to their name, they had a lot of questions for me that suggested they really didn't understand what the "T" meant.  I remember telling them (back in the mid 1990s) that it's a great idea to include transgendered people in the title, but that it's useless unless they did some serious self-educating and that while it's nice to consider including a "T" in a group's name, it's a really bad idea to just throw it into the mix and assume that the education will follow.

 I suspect this happened with many groups who, with well-meaning intent, included the "T" in their names, but didn't do any of the self-education necessary to understand what that meant.  In a lot of ways, it's like white liberals (like me, but hopefully I'm not so ignorant as this) who think that just because a company says "equal opportunity employer" that racism won't happen there. 



I'm only a click away.

[ Parent ]
communication
I do agree that there should always be room for dialog.

My question on this topic is always, "what responsibilities, or maybe pre-requisites is a better word, need to be met for open dialog to happen?"

Expressing transphobia or racism are acts. Should the targets of those acts shoulder the responsibility of keeping the lines of communication open?  Maybe in the sense of staying open to an explanation and trying to be receptive to discussion, yes. But that seems especially tough when the person committing the acts is more concerned with asserting that they're not a bigot. I don't see how useful discussion can happen without everyone involved being open about the elephant in the living room. I think you've written a great post pointing out the need to turn our attention to that elephant.

It's one matter to make a case that the trans protections should be dropped from ENDA as a matter of strategy and pragmatism, it's a completely different matter to hold the view that Ts aren't really part of the movement at all and use the former as PC cover for belief in the latter.
What to do here? When someone is focused on arguing that they aren't transphobic yet trying to forward a clearly discriminatory piece of legislation, it's a big hurdle to get over. It's an even larger hurdle when they're framing their argument as a call to open discussion. I don't have an answer on how to help someone see their transphobia or racism when they don't want to see it.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

"i have just as many black friends as i do white..."

"...And i love them to death."

 

Yeah, I can only imagine... 



You make me think.

That is why I make this blog part of my daily life.  I much prefer being inspired to being provoked...ok, I still like to be provoked, too, but not all the time.

This is a great post and coincidentally very relevant to a class (Modern Criticism) I am enrolled in at SFSU.  Just yesterday we watched two clips of interviews conducted in the early 90's on the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour about free speech on college campuses.  The first interview was with Dinesh D'Souza and the second was with Stanley Fish.  It was an excellent contrast beween two ideologicals.  

At the end of the Fish interview he makes a claim (that I hope to be stating correctly.  We had 5 minutes after the video tape before class was over, so I'm processing this all on my own.) that as a culture struggling with integration - of races, religions, genders and sexes - we (gradually and reluctantly) allow others to sit at the big tabe with the white, christian, straight, men, but the cost of that seat is that you must now ignore all of your identifying characteristics and adopt White, Christian, Straight (acting), Male features or the deal is off.

Insistance upon recognition of what you bring and resistance to our hegemony is evidence of your prejudice to our way of life - you are being intolerant of our intolerance.  The power holders, even though they deign to invite your participation, are not the ones that must adapt - it is the outsider. 

If I want to hang a noose from a tree you should take a hint and not retalliate.  At least you aren't hanging from it like you would have been 50 years ago.  If I need to erase any connection with transgenderism (in all its definitions and applications to sexual identity and expression) in order to be invited to sit at the adult table, then you need to understand that this is the very definition of progress.  At least your eistence is being acknowledged enough to allow you to sit at the kids table until we can get around to setting a place for you here with the rest of us. 

In the meantime, practice your assimilation.   



it's good that I have class today

I just made some conections while in the shower and I'm adding them here before I leave for the day.  Lucky you!

Peter Pace last week:  Its ok for homos to serve in the military, as long as you don't do what homos do.  (aka - you can join us, but you must act like us)

ENDA:  We will pass legislation to make it harder to discriminate against you for being a homo at the workplace, as long as you perform your assigned gender role appropriately.  (aka - you can work here, but you must act/look like a man or a woman according to our rules)

Jena:  We will pretend to have an integrationist social policy, as long as you do not presume to incorporate yourselves in places that belong to us.  (aka - its up to us to determine when/where we are welcoming) 

Meanwhile the privileged white idiot children are playing in the mud...one can only hope the mud is loaded with parasites.

 

 



[ Parent ]
I'm one of those who have been...

...kvetching and moaning for the past couple days about transfolk blocking gay rights advances, and inviting themselves to a party which they then ruin for others. 

Fact is, my opinions of transfolk are no more "enlightened" the the average straight person off the street--and probably less enlightened than many straights in the urban centers.  I feel no kinship with them whatsoever.  And today, I'm not even eager to dialog.  Talk to me again when you *haven't* killed my legislation.

Here's one basis of fact we really don't want to talk about: Like many others, I am *not* ready to support trans equality in the way I support (and push for) gay equality.  I will fight to improve their lot, to reduce their discrimination.  But philosophically, socially, I'm not willing to say blanketly that believing yourself to be a different sex is mentally healthy or value-neutral, or that sex change operations are an appropriate response to gender confusion.  Every exposure I've ever had to transfolk has had an incredibly high ICK factor.  I'm not convinced that transsexuality, transgender-whatever, transvestitism, etc, belong as civil rights protected classes. 

 If other gay men feel as I do, then either a hell of a lot more education needs to be done, or we should stop pretending we belong in the same tent.  As it stands, they are not part of my community--more like angry pit bulls clamped onto my leg, causing me injury, that I'm ready to shake off.  I'm quite angry, much like they were when Barney first pared down the bill.



Pam for president.

"Talk to me again when you *haven't* killed my legislation." reminds me of Bush when he talks about "my government."



[ Parent ]
Can't speak for other gay men
but I'll happily speak for the minority I married into, older lesbian-feminists of many races: My wife and her friends don't get why they should support gender as a category of the patriarchy by fighting for people who don't like the gender they have to get another one. You can't transition your gender without having one, and you wouldn't want to if we had succeeded at making gender irrelevant.

More specifically, and I think they have a point here: Having spent three decades working on rubbing out the lines demarking 'male' and 'female', what's the point in turning around and fighting to make life easier for those who are inking those lines back in for the purpose of crossing them?

Boys wearing makeup and dresses are blurring those lines, as are girls who act entitled to male privilege. But embracing the stereotypes of 'male'and 'female' at such an intimate level that you are behaving as the other stereotype feels like a slap to women who gave up their kids, husbands and comfortable lives to live out the pirnciple that gender doesn't matter.

That's not bigotry, that's a genuine political and experiential difference. And I fully expect to be called a bunch of names for expressing it, but I'm pseudonymous for a reason.

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
PhoenixRising wrote:

"...what's the point in turning around and fighting to make life easier for those who are inking those lines back in for the purpose of crossing them?"

For you, there is no point.  You have your turf and you've plowed decades into your ideological ground. 

Being compassionate at this point might have you reconsidering, "Did I waste those decades?"

Instead, you choose to calcify, but what do you do about all the lesbians who prefer "he" as descriptors, regardless of what they do or don't do to their bodies?  Are they icky to you?  Are they your Jews?



[ Parent ]
I don't think it's about icky
As much as it's about those who put decades into staking out a position that frees today's lesbians to call themselves whatever they want to, feeling disrespected.

This political chasm is one of the side canyons of 'choice feminism' stuff, IMHO. I think since the older generation has contributed so much to the range of choices I have today, I owe it to them to listen with open heart to their worries. I don't have to agree, but I can't change anyone's mind until I understand what they feel that is influencing what they think.

As to your response: How much more loaded could you be than 'are they your Jews?'--I don't even know what that means, although I'm guessing that it has something to do with assimilation.

I do know that suggesting those who hold that view are simply old-fashioned and prejudiced, rather than using reason and compassion to call them to a compassionate response, is useless.

I don't even agree with that view, and you've successfully put me on the defensive. So, good example of the problem.

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
I was referencing an Arthur Miller quote:

"Everyman needs a Jew," which I interpret as, "Every group loves an outsider."

In Russia, there were the Whites and the Reds and the Reds were pretty comfy as long as they had the Whites.  Post-Whites, the Reds devolved into Czars, who lived in palaces, but as long as they'd had the Whites, they could misbelieve that they were ideologically pure.  I believe that many groups define themselves by what they AREN'T, since discovering what the members of a group have in common will uncover deep dissent, contradictions, and very little in common.

I also believe that the sacrifices of the elders means little.  They didn't sacrifice for themselves.  If they suffered, they suffered for themselves.  Nearly all of us are deeply selfish.  Pam seems the rare exception: she's a black woman who struggles to talk to white people about race and a lesbian who cares for who are considered queer by the Right.  Whether you or the elders you admire don't consider T's to be queer doesn't really matter.  The Right considers all of us to be queer and will kill us occasionally to remind us of our place.  They'll also whisper and rail about us often to maintain their community, for we are their behated Other.   

Listen to the elders at your peril.  Like all people, they shape their stories to their advantage and since few people want to admit that they're selfish and lived a selfish life, they'll insist that they lived a pure life, but they were as pure as the Reds once seemed, that purity being a mirage of circumstances.



[ Parent ]
Jiminy Cricket on a kebab skewer -
- that being an oath - how on earth do you manage to be so consistently profound?

[ Parent ]
cus she's Holly
and she rocks :)

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
Thanks, guys.

Really.  I thought I might be bopped for disrobing the elders.  Actually, they're already disrobed and strutting down the street trying to convince everyone that they're wearing the most amazing robes, as befits their purity.

And I'm an elder, so I personally know that we're 50-gallon drums of steaming shit.



[ Parent ]
I share your philosophy with regard to gender
I think a lot of gay and lesbian people have grown up experiencing at least some gender dissonance, and it's very important to our view of ourselves to see that dissonance as a problem not intrinsic to ourselves, but one imposed on us by the society in which we live.  And we want to change society accordingly.  Transgender people seem to have come to an opposite conclusion, and to have determined that their experience of gender dissonance represents an intrinsic condition.  And some of them decide to change themselves.

That's oversimplified, but I think it does represent one of the submerged tensions exploding to the surface because of this conflict.

...

However, here's what the original ENDA bill said:

The term "gender identity" means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.
Doesn't civil rights protection for gender identity, in that sense, correspond exactly with the ideals you articulate and which so many of us share?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

[ Parent ]
have you
looked at why you feel the "ick?"  There's probably stuff there very worth examining (and hopefully working through).

You've stated that you know as much about transgender issues as the average person on the street. Are you really ready to dismiss transfolk without learning anything about them?  Why would you be willing choose condemnation without any investigation? 

Also, where are you getting that transfolk aren't part of your community?  What defines your community?  Where are those definitions from?  Are you accepting the definitions blindly, or have you examined their merits?

Self-examination and curiosity about other people can be really healthy things.

I'm a gay man and I definitely don't feel the way you do.  I love the blend because it's well written and a great place to hear opinions from a diverse set of people.  I've learned so much since I've started reading hear.

Electricity's for light bulbs!


[ Parent ]
It's not the trans folks killing it
Talk to me again when you *haven't* killed my legislation.

If the trans-folks had the power to kill this legislation, believe me, they wouldn't mind not being included in it because they would have some real political clout to push for a Trans-inclusive ENDA.

No, it's the Gay and Lesbian leaders of our national organizations that are derailing ENDA in their quest for purity. I had the same issue with these idiots when they were trying to OPPOSE civil unions in New Jersey because it wasn't marriage - wtf?? They sit in their lush offices thinking up ways to sabotage the good in their pursuit of the perfect while the average homo would grab whatever rights we could to make our everyday lives easier.

Screw it, I'm not gonna give them another dime when they pull stupid stunts like this. 


[ Parent ]
Very discerning of you.
This person gets it.

[ Parent ]
Lush offices?
Are people getting rich and living the high life riding the bull market of gay activism?  I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Garden State Equality has played it exactly right, in my opinion.  I don't think any state has seen so much progress in so short of time on the issue.  CUs are the law there now, but they've used their passage to build momentum for something better rather than sitting on them with satisfaction.  That's not sabotage, that's smart politics.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Garden State Equality
  I fully agree they are doing it right, and have done so much since 2004.

  And they have it right on ENDA as well.

The email and postal mail that Garden State Equality is receiving is running 20 to 1 in favor of Garden State Equality's position to oppose any form of ENDA that excludes the transgender community.  Our position, to be clear, is to work for an ENDA that includes transgender people, and against an ENDA that excludes transgender people.

  They go on to list why,

1.  You cannot separate discrimination against transgender people from discrimination against the rest of the LGBT community.  Many LGBT people who are gay, as gay boys growing up, were taunted for "acting like a girl."  Many LGBT people who are lesbian, as lesbian girls growing up, were taunted for "acting like a boy."  Tragically, those taunts continue against too many LGBT people into adulthood.

No doubt the majority of us who are LGBT, even if we're not transgender, even if we've never identified with a gender other than the one we were born with, have faced anti-transgender discrimination at some point in our lives, and will continue to. 

2.  Transgender people have been there selflessly for the rest of the LGBT community time and time again.  How could the rest of us not be there for them?

Friends, when the fight began for marriage equality in New Jersey years ago, when no one thought we had a prayer -- unlike today, when New Jersey is so well-positioned to enact marriage equality through legislation -- who were the vast majority of our volunteers?  Transgender people.  At our initial town meetings and rallies for marriage equality years ago, when all the volunteers gathered on site a couple of hours beforehand, I was often the only non-transgender person there.

In 2003, when politicians cut transgender protections from a domestic partnership bill (before Garden State Equality existed), the transgender community still helped to lead the way in fighting for the bill.  That was as selfless an act as many of us have ever seen in politics.

And today, with LGBT activism in New Jersey having grown beyond what we ever dreamed, who are still among the most devoted activists in fighting for the rest of us?  Who are still among our most reliable volunteers for every LGBT cause under the sun?  Our transgender sisters and brothers. 

For too many years, the transgender community nationally has been told to wait, be patient, your turn will come.  How could we ever live with ourselves, considering how much the transgender community has given to the rest of the LGBT community, by telling our transgender sisters and brothers to wait any longer?

The fact is, our transgender sisters and brothers have been waiting and waiting and waiting since the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, a rebellion they led for us all.

3.  President Bush is going to veto ENDA anyway.  So if the bill won't become law until the next President, why not stand for the correct principle in opposing any transgender-exclusionary ENDA?  Besides, the next Congress will have a substantially increased number of progressive members who support a fully inclusive ENDA. 

4.  The moral test of any civil rights movement is how that movement fights for the minorities within the movement itself.  And a moral test for any of us, of whatever walk of life, whether we are LGBT or not, whether we belong to any minority group or not, is whether we fight for civil rights that may not affect us personally. 

You don't have to be a parent to fight against the bullying of children in our schools.  You don't have to be a person of color to fight against hate crimes that are ravaging communities of color.  And you don't have to be a transgender person to fight against the discrimination destroying transgender people all across our nation. 

Injustice against one of us is injustice against us all.  To whom much is given -- and much has been given to all of us in New Jersey, ahead of most places on the planet in the struggle for civil rights -- much is expected.

We are one community. 

Again, on behalf of all of us at Garden State Equality, we thank you for standing with all your brothers and sisters, and children and parents and friends and neighbors, as one community strong.

Please accept our deepest gratitude. 

Yours,
Steven Goldstein
Chair, Garden State Equality
Cell (917) 449-8918

  This is why I will continue to support orginizations like this

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
Quest for purity?
I had the same issue with these idiots when they were trying to OPPOSE civil unions in New Jersey because it wasn't marriage - wtf??

Did you realize that NJ's highest court had ruled that marriage and civil unions were the only choices for the legislature to pick among? That 'no soup for you' was not on the menu?

So under those circumstances, the idiot would be anyone who wanted to settle for less than equality without asking for it.

However, I agree with your contention that the leaders of HRC are so far beyond screwed that, in the immortal words of Roseanne Barr, the light from screwed will take 2.3 years to reach [them].

Because I'm done with them, you're done with them, and the Ts are done with them. Who is going to be uninformed enough to pay these bozos to run legislative strategy after this? Ah, well, I guess new people become gay every...night.

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
Or dragging feet
iirc, there was no wording on the NJ court opinion that failure of the legislature to act would result in all homos getting marriage by default like the court indicated in MA. Which of course, meant that the legislature could drag its feet, the religious right could get a foothold and start a petition drive and we'd have to go to court all over again.

The nice thing now is that we can start the push for marriage equality in other New England states with our feet firmly planted in some protections in the form of civil unions - which means the bigots are fighting defensively; especially after we kicked their asses in MA.

As much as I feel sometimes that I have very little in common with others in the LGBT community, it is the presence of the religious right that forces me to be active in the gay community and give money to all these groups. We are united not so much by our friendship as by our enmities, and as a result, this no compromise position plays right into the hands of the RR in that it forces us to continue to fight defensively against them without moving forward and making them fight the defensive battle.


[ Parent ]
I'm one of those who have been...
   

...kvetching and moaning for the past couple days about gay folk blocking human rights advances, and inviting themselves to a party which they then ruin for others. 

Fact is, my opinions of gay folk are no more "enlightened" the the average straight person off the street--and probably less enlightened than many straights in the urban centers.  I feel no kinship with them whatsoever.  And today, I'm not even eager to dialog.  Talk to me again when you *haven't* killed my legislation.

Here's one basis of fact we really don't want to talk about: Like many others, I am *not* ready to support gay equality in the way I support (and push for) racial equality.  I will fight to improve their lot, to reduce their discrimination.  But philosophically, socially, I'm not willing to say blanketly that believing yourself to attracted to people of the same sex is mentally healthy or value-neutral, or that sodomy is an appropriate response to sexual confusion.  Every exposure I've ever had to gay folk has had an incredibly high ICK factor.  I'm not convinced that homosexuality, queer-whatever, gayness, etc, belong as civil rights protected classes. 

 If other white people feel as I do, then either a hell of a lot more education needs to be done, or we should stop pretending we belong in the same tent.  As it stands, they are not part of my community--more like angry pit bulls clamped onto my leg, causing me injury, that I'm ready to shake off. 



[ Parent ]
Right, and...

...if someone's Catholic or Methodist, I can't really say I'm willing to supoprt their rights whole-heartedly because, really, they're not part of my community.  And since I can't say categorically that being Catholic is "value-neutral..." really, why should I give a damn whether or not it's legal to discriminate on the basis of religion.  After all, it's not my religion.  

 After all, why should I bother supporting the rights of people who aren't like me?



I'm only a click away.

[ Parent ]
I just finished a book, 'Covering: The Hidden Assault on Civil Rights'
I'm going to post a short review as a diary and request that we set up a book club because it's got a lot to say about these problems, both separately and together. Broadly, he talks about how prejudice and civil rights laws like ENDA are tied to the reflex to deny our differences from the mainstream.

So how does this tie in? First, the question I think a lot of L/G folks are afraid to be caught asking is, Why should I go without the protection of the law for my status, which a majority agrees is neutral, until the lawmakers agree that those who refuse to cover by looking 'normal' deserve to be protected too?

This dialogue proceeds: I'm not in the closet, I'm just not weird. I resent being treated like I'm in the wrong for being like my neighbors, mowing my suburban lawn and paying my taxes. I want marriage rights because I'm just like everyone else. And why should I wait another however many years to be able to come out to my boss without fearing the loss of my job?

Then the queer edge part of our movement responds, Of course you want to be like everyone else, but you're not, you're a despired minority too. You have no moral right to get equal treatment from your employer at my expense. If I weren't out here at the fringe being radical, no one on Capitol Hill would meet with you. I've been making you look like the reasonable suit for 15 years and this is how you thank me? You must be a bigot.

And so the exchange doesn't get anywhere because we're calling one another names. In this case the name-calling didn't even hold off because the topic is name-calling, it's just more detailed in the justifications.

It's unfortunate that John A is giving rational debate about this such a bad taste by adding to his users' comments and deleting some. There's a place for having a conversation in which it's just not permitted for anyone to respond with 'Because you're a bigot, you don't understand and agree with my point of view'. Or at least there should be.

Because we are not going to get to the bottom of our differences and emerge with the strong, effective, united movement we all deserve, as long as anyone who is willing to move an imperfect bill ahead is 'bigoted' and that is an effective tactic to silence that disagreement.

But wait, there's more!


Well said
There's a place for having a conversation in which it's just not permitted for anyone to respond with 'Because you're a bigot, you don't understand and agree with my point of view'. Or at least there should be.

I heartily agree with this sentiment.

Regarding the "queer edge," et cetera: in another post you mentioned the reaction of radical lesbians to transpeople redrawing the gender lines that they fought to erase. Now, it seems to me that a more circumspect response might be to wonder just how thoroughly they managed to erase those lines; but anyway, in this case, is it the transpeople or the lesbians who get to wear the "queer edge" mantle? Because it looks like they both have reason to lay claim to it, and in fact each group has cause to view the other as being "regressive." Neither is exactly mainstream; which do you think is closer to being at the ideological vanguard of the LGBT "community" as a whole, as it stands today?



[ Parent ]
Exactly my point, which somehow got lost
I'm apparently not as articulate as they tell me :)

Yeah, I think that a lot of the pushback from lesbians inside the movement for political equality are pissed and embarrassed. To support Holly's statement that our elders are full of shit, I have observed that older dykes tend to be somewhat defensive about the inclusion of Ts into our political goals.

Because a lot of them know that they DIDN'T succeed in making a world in which gender is irrelevant. So they're stuck in a reality where despite sometimes pulling in the same direction, there are two versions of the past (the herstory-feminist and the trans-at-Stonewall) which are somewhat incompatible. And what we think has happened usually determines how we feel about what is happening and what will happen.

So the struggle there is within our community and the question is, who is 'pure enough', to borrow Holly's terminology, to decide who's inside and who's outside?

What I see when I look at the movement for political equality, which is specifically what I spend a lot of my time working at, is a big hole where this conversation needs to be.

The Mardarin character for 'crisis' can also mean 'opportunity'. The yelling and storming about that have followed the ENDA markup/whoops/notsomuch are a great crisis and opportunity. Hope it all works out as well as possible.

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
Calling a bigot a bigot.

I'm sorry but when someone says transgendered people are using GLB people as "human shields" and that they don't even belong in the movement anyway, I have a right to call them a bigot. I just posted a comment and I restrained myself, but I would have been perfectly justified not to.

Now there is a jerk posting comments comparing transgenders to NAMBLA and saying people have sex change operations for "sexual gratification". Enough is enough. Even Michelangelo Signorile, who has had John on his show many times, is saying he was deeply disturbed and upset by John's comments.

This has gone way beyond honest differences about strategy and tactics. It has opened the door for all the Trans hating GLB people (mostly white gay men) to come out of the woodwork.



[ Parent ]
That is not bigotry.
I'm sorry but when someone says transgendered people are using GLB people as "human shields" and that they don't even belong in the movement anyway, I have a right to call them a bigot.

That is not bigotry. Maybe it's ahistorical. Maybe the guy who said it was being a jerk. But, per se, it's not bigotry.



[ Parent ]
It's like pornography, I know it when I see it

Now John snidely says, "Maybe we can add Larry Craig to ENDA".  



[ Parent ]
Hung Up and Missing the Point

PhoenixRising, it seems to me that you are hung up on issues of gender philosophy. This isn't about gender philosophy, this is about legal rights.

I don't care whether you think transgender people are philosophically retrograde or not, and you shouldn't either. Transenders' being philosophically retrograde, if that is what they are, should have no bearing whatsoever on their legal rights.

Let's use an analogy about skin color. Let's say you are an ardent integrationist. You think everyone should live together, school together, and marry one another. Cool. One happy world.

Does that mean you believe that black people who would prefer to live in communities of other black people should be denied equal justice under the law?

Do you really believe people should be allowed to be fired from their jobs because they don't happen to comport with your notion of enlightenment?


[ Parent ]
Hello...never commented here before...

but have been a reader/lurker for a long time. You do good work here. I rarely comment on blogs but I had to respond to this:

 "Is this view due to lack of direct engagement with transfolk on the issue, a lack of education on the history of the movement, or is it because of some other factor that is worthy of open discussion that may inform those on the other side of the issue that may shed new light on the topic?"

For whatever my opinion is worth, education on the history of the movement isn't as good as it could be; there should be greater effort made to spread awareness ...too many people lack a solid grounding in civil rights history, myself included. That said, I don't think it's due to a lack of engagment on the part of transfolk, but more to a resistance on the part of movement "leaders" like Aravosis and Frank. 

The division brought to light by the ENDA implosion isn't new, just newly exposed. A close friend of mine has been trying to educate and engage Aravosis and others on trans issues for years and has met brickwall resistance every step of the way. I know from her experiences with him that Aravosis didn't suddenly throw the Ts under the bus; he's never truly accepted them onboard to begin with. 

He resents their inclusion in GLB and his resentment isn't new--he only brings it out now because he feels that Ts are "holding a gun to his head" over "his" rights. This GLB and T division is a discussion he could have had at his blog at any time since the day it was created but he hasn't because, resentful as he may be of their inclusion without his personal approval, they've been fighting on his side and that was good enough until now. NOW they want him to fight for them, too, and he's not willing to do that and is having a huge public hissy fit over being asked to reciprocate their support. The hypocrisy and political cynicsm of his arguments are truly sickening.

It's not a lack of engagement, it's that "some other factor" you mentioned; namely, transphobia, resentment, and in some cases outright bigotry.  I suspect, from reading the responses to the ENDA controversy here and other places online, that most of the movement does not feel the way Aravosis and Frank do...most seem to be very much against the attempts to divide and sow discord.  

Thank you for the forum and for the great work you've done on this and many other important issues.

tfc 

 

 



on the word "bigot"

I don't understand the reluctance to use the word bigot.

How is a problem solved when it cannot be named? When bigotry and prejudice are encountered, ignoring it doesn't make it go away--the effects of it must still be dealt with. Uwillingness to honestly assess an uncomfortable situation is how the ENDA dustup came into being; those who were unwilling to fully accept Ts into the GLB community didn't speak up and when gender identity was dropped from ENDA, long-held resentments boiled over. Had they aired their concerns openly and honestly a long time ago, this "Who Let The Ts Into MY Movement" discussion could be a settled issue by now.

I have seen a great many bigoted statements since all this happened and refusing to call them bigoted doesn't make them any less so. I don't know if it helps the conversation to point out when someone is making bigoted comments--usually while claiming "I'm no bigot"--but I don't think it helps to let it pass simply to continue the conversation...maybe "that sounds bigoted to me and here is why" would be a better approach but I can't just let it go when encountered.  

How do address bigotry without naming it?  

 



I'm an effective organizer on issues I care about
because I first find common ground, then expand my prospect's understanding of my position from there.

I've had herds of straight couples and their kids lobbying for marriage equality in my state, and I didn't get them dressed and in the game by saying, You're ignorant.

I got them engaged by starting with what we have in common: we all want our kids to be taken care of. Then I talk through some of the concerns I have for my child's future that connect to her parents being shut out of family law. What if something happened to me? How would my wife and kid be treated by the state? And when I honestly share those worries, 99% of the time I get a compassionate response such as, How can I help?

So how do you have a conversation with someone you think is a bigot? Start by asking them to explain what's behind the expression that you think reflects prejudice. If you approach that conversation with openness, vulnerability and the willingness to listen, you'll get surprising results.

Also, while I deeply appreciate Pam's ongoing commitment to pushing this dialogue forward, I think the intertubes are a lousy medium for connecting. This is a great environment to engage arguments, but a crappy one for engaging emotions. And this whole crisis is about emotions coming to the fore when rational people have pragmatic goals that happen to conflict.

But wait, there's more!


[ Parent ]
Perhaps we need a more light hearted approach to the issue

Maybe 'Avenue Q' got it right.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA

 After all, what is life without musical comedy?

 Kisses,

 MNM



Thank a T-person for YOUR Movement

If if weren't for a bunch of pissed off transpeople and drag queens in San Francisco and New York who got tired of being harassed by the cops, you Mattachine wannabees woiuldn't HAVE a movement.

What's the reason gay and lesbian people get ostracized for being that way?  It's not because of who you sleep with, it's because like transgender people, you are at variance with the prevailing binary gender system.   

As far as the race problem goes, if people are serious about solving it, the first step to take is for a US president to go on national TV and issue a formal apology to African- Americans for being put the hell of slavery. 

Until that is done, we don't feel that white people in this country are serious about  soving the problem they created and understanding the pain we still feel over that period.  We are only 150 years removed from slavery and African-Americans are STILL feeling the post traumatic effects of it.

We can't begin to 'get over it' until white Americans come clean on the fact that whether their families owned slaves or not, they STILL benefited  from getting 246 years of free labor to build the wealth they passed down to their families and locking my ancestors out of certain careers for another 100 years after that. 

   

 

 

 

 

 



Drag = Trans?

I have read this kind of argument before - how Stonewall and other early movement moments were led by alleged trans people, but I think that is a difficult argument to make. Not only does it completely ignore the groundwork laid by the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, but it is assigning identities to a lot of people who have been lost to history. Stonewall is now sort of like Woodstock, everyone of a specific age seems to claim to be there, but the histories I've read don't necessarily point to huge numbers of transgendered people (i.e. those living predominantly or exclusively as the "other" gender) leading the early movement or even the riots. However, it is very clear that at Stonewall it was the gender-disparate people who were the first to react, and the larger community joined in as the week went on.

That being said, I am really not a bigot [sarcasm], and don't think we solve anything by claiming the movement is for only GLB or T communities. In reality the movement must be for all, including straights. Personnally, I see the human species as a continuum from pure heteros to the Intersexed, with pitstops on the way for Bis. Gays and Lesbians and Transgendered. If one looks at the biology of fetal development and the development of sexual characteristics (separate from societally-induced gender roles), the way all non-heteros are made naturally seems to be pretty clear.

I also think we throw the word "bigot" around too much. Certainly our friends like PornoPete are true bigots - they clearly believe that those of us who are GLBT (or for that matter who are not of their religious faith) are inferior creatures who do not deserve the same level of rights as "normal" people - just like the white supremecists of modern or recent historical times. But someone like Michael Richards, or these Louisiana idiots, can perform racist acts without buying into the whole racist ideology. In fact, I think it would have been more honest for Richards to have said "I got mad at a group of African-Americans and in my anger went after them in the way that would hurt the most - by attacking their race. It was cowardly and pathetic, but we all have moments in life when we act well below the standards of behavior we were taught." It is the equivalent of me claiming to be a feminist, which I am, but still feeling free to call Ann Coulter a b*tch or a c*nt, because I am trying to insult her specifically and am going for the "low blow" (of course, for Coulter to be offended, she'd have to have a soul, which is doubtful) 

 So I don't think it is necessarily bigoted (i.e., believing trans people are inferior) to argue for the non-trans inclusive ENDA (as it existed in the past, of course, not the weaker version Frank is supporting) as a matter of political pragmatism. I look upon it the same way I look upon Civil Unions - I don't think it sufficient, but I think it puts us further on the road to a truly equal and open society. Like with Civil Unions in NJ, for instance, where the acceptance of a "separate-but-equal" status ended up looking like a shrewd political decision, getting employment and public accommodation protections for the GLB community can be seen as one step toward adding the T. I understand why many people don't buy that, but am simply stating that to embrace that strategy is not equal to believing the trans folks don't belong in the movement.

I also don't think the "ick" factor is a sign of bigotry, because I know I have it, but it is the same "ick" factor I feel about straights. I am a gay man, and am finally comfortable that way. I no more want to be a woman than I want to be straight, but I can still intellectually understand why my preferences have nothing to do with anyone elses.

Finally, aren't we all getting hot and bothered over a hypothetical anyway? There is no way King George II will sign ANY version of ENDA, so why are we wasting time on it now?



[ Parent ]
The Point

Look, the whole point of ENDA is to make gender irrelevant to how someone is treated under the law.

When PheonixRising says that it should be allowable to discriminate against transgenders because they are basing their identity on notions of gender that she has fought hard to discard, she, ironically, is making gender relevant again.

Gender is either relevant or it is not. If it is not, than transgenders should not be discriminated against for having one. If it is, then PheonixRising should not be surprised when she is discriminated against by someone who is offended by hers.

And as far as why we should fight for transgenders' inclusion in an anti-discrimination bill, there is one reason that trumps all the historical, strategic, and political reasons: It is the right thing to do. Transgenders should not be discriminated against because gender ought not be relevant to anything having to do with the law.

And I am perfectly willing to delay my rights' being given to me to have their rights given to them.


I'm a newbie to this blog and hope this is in line with the discussion
Hi.

New person to the blog. This is so interesting.

For context, I am a white cisgendered lesbian.

What I perceive about how racism in particular is operating is: the white concern with not being labeled "racist" is not white people acting out of general human nature (though we certainly love it when people believe that because it lets us off the hook for acting in culturally specific ways).

Anyway, in my view, it is white people acting from a deeply rooted white/European culture of pervasive and central hypocrisy in a context where overt -- not subtle, but overt -- racism is located as "bad." Seems like it is located as bad because at this point in time it makes us and this country "look bad" to be racist.

In this cultural system, actions and words do not need to match up. What matters is how you are perceived and not what you do. There is no accountablity to the actual truth. It's not about acknowledging what you actually do, it's about shaping others perceptions. Image and image management is crucial. So I perceive the white response about "I'm not racist!" in that context.

I wonder if nyc8's comments about identities vs actions is linked in somehow. I feel like that same white/European cultural system I mention above has a deep thing about identity.

There in this system is a void of actual self in relation to others/community/larger cosmos. So there is this disconnected hostile insecure culturally constructed white "self" that tries to fill the void. How that self is perceived internally and externally is deathly important in the values of this culture. But it's like standing on quicksand or shifting sand, always undermined for many reasons -- often including actual behavior. So there is this cultural process of "damage control" or something when the dissonance between claim and action is under scrutiny. The goal is reduce the dissonance but not by changing action -- instead by "repairing" the image.

On the queer stuff, I love that PhoenixRising brought in the insights from Covering, which I thought was a great book. I see that "we are normal but for, so accept us!" approach all over the place where I live.

The local "LGBT" organization where I live did send out an action alert re: ENDA (on the side of transfolk) which is in character with their external politics, and which I totally appreciate. At the same time, in other ways that organization really does tend to get into the focus on how "normal" we all are -- and pushes on that normality being the basis for our acceptance into mainstream society. It doesn't tend to challenge the sanity of what passes for "normal" in this society in the first place. I don't know how this does or doesn't play out inside the organization in relation to trans people and issues, because I am not involved with it directly, I only hear things because of other activism I have been involved with.

I feel some connection between the first part and this last paragraph, but I don't have the words for it at this point. And this comment is long enough anyway.

Oh wait, except: and, Monica R's comments made a lot of sense to me.

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