Equality California Just Doesn't Get It - You Have To Say The Words

Disagree

With respect.  Addressing the issue globally without addressing each offended minority individually makes sense.  The letter looks fine.

---

by: mammab @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM CST

I think the email is fine.

It says right at the top that it is about same-sex marriage.  Whether a same-sex couple is composed of heterosexuals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders people is beside the point of the email.

Also, this is an email to the EQCA membership who is already quite well educated on "us".  It is not an ad to change the mind of the public.  I think it is going too far to expect every communication to explicitly run down the acronym list and be a sales instrument for the acceptance of lgbt families.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM CST

We're not always dealing with BT or even Q

Forgive me if I break the rules of poltical correctness.  Sometimes it's just appropriate to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".  If I'm speaking to a Christian and I'm a Christian, do I really need to mince words and say "Happy Holidays" lest I appear exclusionary?

When we are talking about rights denied to same-sex couples, aka homosexuals, then do we really need to include bisexuals or transgenders in heterosexual relationships?  Last time I checked, men and women could marry each other and same-sex couples couldn't.

When I speak about the "community", I always include bisexuals and transgenders.  But when I need to talk about issues that affect the homo community, I don't need to include another subclass of folks who fall outside of the immediate topic of discussion.

Whenever I've fought for transgender rights in the past, I've never called what I was doing "lesbian and gay" activism, as the issues TG/TS folks have has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  As for bisexuals, no one is sponsoring legislation to take away their foster children unless they are in homosexual relationships.

Political correctness erases our diversity, rather than promotes it.  Including Bs and Ts when we talk about the community as a whole is not PC (such as an inclusive ENDA that includes B and T), but including everyone when we are addressing a topic that affects only one detracts from the issue at hand.

---

by: kevin @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 12:27:27 PM CST

bisexual/transgender invisibility

As a bisexual woman and an ally to transgender people, I would definitely like to see more inclusive language used in the LGBT community, especially from organizations. So thank you, Autumn, for bringing up this issue. And Kevin, please remember that bisexual people can be in many kinds of relationships. I am not a "homosexual" just because I'm in a relationship with another woman. In fact both of us are bisexual, so one could say we're in a bisexual relationship. But since both of us are women, we are a same-sex couple, so yes, denying rights to same-sex couples affects bisexual people. The kind of legislation like the anti-adoption law recently passed in Arkansas can certainly affect bisexual people.

If you take a look at a lot of the language used by homophobic politicians and activists, you'll see that they make sure to use inclusive language. These days I feel as if I see the term "bisexual" used more by the anti-queer contingent than by gay and lesbian members of the community. (The historical alliances between bi and trans people have meant that transgender folks tend to be more inclusive of bisexual people in their language, and vice versa, in my experience.)

Ultimately, not using inclusive language leads to people arguing for things like the non-inclusive version of ENDA. More invisibility = less progress for our community.

---

by: Beth Wright @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 14:38:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

None of these words were in either version of ENDA

Is this a marketing, legislative, or legal terminology discussion?  Where do they intersect?

Neither HR 2015 (the so-called inclusive ENDA) nor HR 3685 (the so-called exclusive ENDA) use the phrase "LGBT" or "LGBTQ" or whatever.

Go to www.thomas.gov and search by bill number.

The definitions sections of each bill define sexual orientation using "homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality" in exactly the same way in both bills.

In HR 2015 (the "inclusive" one), gender identity is defined in a separate subsection that is surely considered less than inclusive in some venues.

From the perspectives read on countless threads here, one could argue (from a legal perspective - though perhaps not a personal/spiritual perspective) that trans folks identify as anything from homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual and are included in the definitions in either such legislative terminology.  

But a word like "queer" isn't in the legislation.  So are both bills and similar model language at state levels necessarily exclusive of some other sub-group(s) like butch females or effeminate males - gay or straight?

To return to the premise, how is EQCA (or any organization supposed to advocate for same-sex marriage if not to say "same-sex marraige?"

In the same breath, how are other advocacy groups (state and federal) to define the L G B T Q... except to use phrases to define them?

I mean the question earnestly as groups try to find words and phrases that meet both the legislative and inclusive PR needs of "the community/ies" they attempt to serve.

---

by: HunterC @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:07:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Beth

I think we both agree that using inclusive language is the best when we talk about the whole community and the various issues within it.  

For the record, I identify as gay and my partner of 13 years identifies as bisexual.  But for all intents and purposes, we are in a homosexual/gay/same-sex relationship and it's our perceived homosexuality that's really the issue when it comes to anti-gay legislation and prejudice.  People like the Dobsons and Sheldons aren't attacking my partner because he's been with both men and women, but are attacking our relationship because we are both men who identify as men.

I appreciate your opinion that we need to strive to be more inclusive and I will take it to heart and try to be more inclusive in areas of speech and practice where I feel I'm negligent.  However, I still feel that on the issue of same-sex marriage, it is an issue that affects primarily lesbians and gays and often the language is geared towards that community.  I don't think by saying this we are discounting the support, hard-work, and personal experiences of those who are bisexual and transgender, nor do we wish to.  Straight people have also been involved in our struggle and are personally affected by this issue as well.  

I understand - or try to- how bisexuals often feel invisible whether they are in same-sex relationships or opposite sex ones.  But what's at stake here is not the right of bisexuals to live as free human beings, as many bisexuals are able to participate in heterosexual privilege and many of them do.  For those of us who are a Kinsey 5 or 6, we don't have this luxury and the same-sex marriage fight basically begins and ends with those of us who live on that end of the scale.  So, when the term "lesbian and gay" by itself is used to describe an issue of discrimination against same-sex couples, it's not only appropriate but accurate.

---

by: kevin @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:02:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not so helpful

I don't think it's helpful to our struggle to get into the "I'm more oppressed than you are" thing. We are ALL oppressed by the passage of Proposition 8, and all the other anti-queer initiatives.

I really wish we could do away with the initials altogether and just use "queer" to identify those of us who are outside of the biological, heterosexual, gender-normative spectrum. As someone who came out in the 1990s, "queer" feels really comfortable to me, particularly since I am bisexual AND my life partner is a lesbian woman. Queer is just the right label. But I also recognize that queer still feels pejorative to some folks in our community.

The bottom line is that ANYONE--regardless of gender identity, pre- or post-op status, or self-identification--that is in a "same-sex" relationship, as defined by the state, is being hurt by these amendments. And it would help if the organizations that are supposedly fighting to overturn them would say that explicitly, and not leave anyone out. Because I'm bi and thus have the "luxury" being with a man if I decided to, does that mean my same-sex relationship is any less unrecognized? I don't think so.

---

by: elizabethws @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 18:19:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Many Ts are affected by same-sex marriage.

Gay and lesbian trans people are obviously affected, but some straight trans people are as well. Across the country, there is a patchwork of inconsistent laws affecting trans people's ability to get legal gender changes on our identity documents, and different jurisdictions use different criteria for determining whether someone is male or female. Some states don't recognize sex change at all. Some require certain surgeries that some trans people don't want or can't afford. Sometimes applications can take years to process. Many trans people wind up with mismatched identity documents for extended periods.

Some straight couples that include a trans person have experienced having their marriages voided by the state on account of legal questioning of regarding the trans person's sex. A gay couple wherein one of the people is trans can marry before that person transitions, but their marriage is often voided as soon as the legal changes are completed.

So same-sex marriage is a trans issue too.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:45:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe I'm way off here

but I have always seen these examples, of how marriage equality might affect straight Ts, as examples of the breadth of oppressions trans people face.

It's not that Ts aren't affected by exclusion from marriage, it's that I would think a lot of other things would be more pressing issues if your frigging government issued documents don't match your presenting gender.

For example, you'd be unable to travel by plane, cross international borders, or legally drive. We've become a country in which having no ID is somewhere between a major inconvenience and a crime.

So yes, this issue affects straights who happen to be trans--but by that logic, so does immigration enforcement and traffic stops and...I could go on. Any activity that requires identifying docs is a trans issue.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:59:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually it affects gay trans people too

Phoenix I assume you're referring to sexual-orientation based on someone's birth sex and who they're attracted to -- i.e you're referring to a MTF who's attracted to women as "straight."

Using that frame of reference,* I'd note that I personally know both MTF trans people who are attracted to men and FTM trans people who are attracted to women who are affected by marriage equality. Not everyone can afford genital reassignment surgery (which can run $10,000+) and a number of FTMs don't opt for it because the results aren't seen as being worth the cost (GRS is far more expensive for FTMs). And since genitals unfortunately are the deciding factor of someone's gender in many jurisdictions, they usually aren't allowed to marry.

For that matter, MTFs who are attracted to women and FTMs who are attracted to men also get excluded post-surgery -- even though they were seen as straight men and women before transitioning.

* Talking about the sexual orientation of trans people in terms of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" gets a bit problematic because it depends on whether one is referring to the trans person's birth sex or their desired/transitioned sex. So I generally find it clearer to talk in terms of "attracted to men" and "attracted to women." Yeah, it's a mouthful.

FWIW, yeah things like ENDA and ID card issues are probably more important to most trans people than marriage equality. (For example, Homeland Security's ReadID plan requiring employers to resolve Social Security number mismatches has the unintended side-effect of potentially outing a number transsexuals who've gone deep stealth for years (but who weren't able to get their SS# changed.)

OTOH, it doesn't mean that they're uninterested in marriage equality.

---

by: LenaD @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 20:20:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They said the words

"The proponents of Prop 8 usurped the role of the Legislature by putting the right for same-sex couples to marry directly on the ballot. "

Context matters.  This isn't an action alert for non-discrimination language or other such legislative items.

CA has legally recognized opposite-sex marriage.  They are seeking legally recognized same-sex marriage.

They are saying exactly what they seek to accomplish in this context.

---

by: HunterC @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 13:23:10 PM CST

California had already legally recognised

same sex marriage. Prop 8 took that right, which the supreme court of Calif based upon their constitution, out of that document

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 13:46:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree...we are working for EQUALITY FOR ALL

We don't have to parse who the ALL are....

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 14:13:23 PM CST

LGBT

I don't mind the email. I understand that EQCA was extremely timid in their response to Prop 8 and bears some responsibility for a poor campaign against the Christianists but I also understand the politics of the decision to use poll tested wording in this email. I get that even though my fury at the results of Prop 8 make me want to take to the streets.

A couple of things -- not every lesbian or gay man thinks of bisexuals or transsexuals as being their partner in issues around discrimination. I think the big tent LGBT banner was a mistake -- it was a royal battle in some quarters to attach B and T to L and G -- but political correctness won out. Transsexuals go through extraordinary personal and public ordeals, including taking potent drugs and undergoing surgery, to feel like a whole human being. Their path is decidedly different than lesbians and gay men. In fact, they face barriers I can't fathom.  I believe transsexuals should have had their own powerful advocacy group and we would have been an ally -- probably a much better one than we are now.

In any event, the terms "freedom to marry" and "equal protections for a minority" are aimed at desexualizing the issue. It wasn't that long ago that Sam Nunn and John Warner were measuring the distance between bunks on a sub as a way to defeat DADT.  It wasn't that long ago that the right coined the term "pedophile Priests."  When the right raises the spectre of LBGTs going into the classroom to recruit kids with our "agenda"  they are talking about sex. when I came out in the 70s we were called lovers.  We desexualized that by calling ourselves partners.  Now we want to get married.  The email is spot on.  

---

by: Kate Stone @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 14:54:08 PM CST

a note on the phrases

"freedom to marry", etc.  a lot of us use and have used for a long time those phrases because they are meaningful to us, not because some focus group somewhere also liked them.  to attribute their use in every case (like this eqca email) to the results of focus group analysis during the NO on Prop 8 campaign is making a HUGE assumption about why the terms are being used.

btw, this wasn't in response to you per se, Kate, just taht your comment made me think of this point.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:26:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did anyone see Milk??

I did.

It's a bit hard to miss right in the middle of the film when Milk meets with community "leaders" to discuss strategy around opposing Prop 6, the Briggs Initiative.

Milk made a point about how ineffective it is to avoid acknowledging the citizens that are affected by bigoted legislation.  

Because of his advocacy and courage and foresight, Prop 6 (which was ahead in polls by 20 points) ended up losing.

When Prop 22 was on the ballot in 2000, cautious/focus group language was used to oppose the measure and it passed.

When Prop 8 was on the ballot in 2008, timid/closeted language was used to oppose the amendment and it passed.

It's time to stop trying to be smart and hiding ourselves in a closet in hopes of confusing voters and stand up for ourselves and each other by demanding what is ours.

Right on Autumn - you should be offended.  We all should be.  Enough of this assimilationist crap.  

IT DOESN'T WORK.  Face it.  Milk was right.

---

by: Patrick @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 16:46:52 PM CST

I was frustrated before regarding Prop 8...

...and then I saw Milk on T-day last week.

A meeting shown in the film -- where the assimilationist LGBT folk made up a flier against the Briggs Initiative (Prop 6) that didn't mention the words gay and lesbian in the text saw Sup. Milk infuriated. He demanded community visibility.

At this point Patrick, I'm in agreement with those like you who believe it's wrongheaded and ineffective to leave LGBT language out of LGBT civil rights battles and movement; at this point Patrick, I most strongly believe that those of us who are LGBT need to forcefully and consistantly demand full visibility within our own (and very current) civil rights movement.

-----
~~Autumn~~

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

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 22:13:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same results by another path here.

One of the assets that trans activists bring to the table is that awareness of how language can be accurate but not inclusive, and that's a reasonable objection to this email.

My objection to it was less articulate and went something like this: Okay, you just spent 40 million dollars to fail. The central choice of that failure was to never say lesbian, as Kate Clinton used to say, if you had a mouth full of one.

Whether that choice caused the failure directly, we can't know. But what we can know is that our struggle to present ourselves in the ways we need to to achieve equality--as fully human, as families, as sons and nieces and mothers and uncles--was not advanced a damn bit. In exchange for all that effort, we got nothin'.

And then you follow it by sending out a call to action that: fails to include who you're calling? While also failing to accurately describe who the action will help?

continuous learning FAIL.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 17:11:31 PM CST

GLBT LGBT WHATEVER

A couple years ago I was at San Diego's Spirit of Stonewall rally which has since been renamed the Human Rights Rally...i guess putting the name of the event pride is supposed to remember is a bad thing now?

Not one person who spoke said the words Gay Lesbian Transgender or Bisexual it was LGBT LGBT LGBT LGBT. Not Dr Jacobs, Mr Kors or any other speaker had the ability to say the vial and evil and disgusting words gay lesbian biseuxal or transgender.

How can we express to the mainstream that we are proud of who we are when we can't even state it to ourselves?  Last I checked when I came out I didn't go mom dad I'm LGBT...

sometimes i just say gay people or queer people as way to save time.  to me we're all the same... sorry if that offends some, i'd rather say that than ramable of an endless meaningless number of letters that only people who know what they mean are us.  

---

by: SisterIona @ Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 13:55:17 PM CST