It's MzMartiPants to you!

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

“A Town hall meeting is an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials, although attendees rarely vote on an issue. In today’s heterogeneous communities with large populations, more often, town hall meetings are held so that people can influence elected officials in their decision making or to give them a chance to feel that their voices are being heard.” Wikipedia - Town Hall Meeting</p>

Tonight I attended a Transgender Rights Town hall Meeting hosted by the Indiana Transgender Rights Advocacy Alliance (INTRAA), but I’m sorry to report that I can’t tell you what was said. I can’t tell you what names were mentioned. I can’t tell you what the National Center For Transgender Equality (NCTE) and INTRAA are doing to advance transgender rights in Indiana and across the United States. The reason I can’t tell you these things is because I was prohibited from video taping the event by the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, Mara Keisling.

This is a direct attack on my journalistic integrity. I would NEVER jeopardize my community’s advancement over “getting a scoop.” When Mara objected to filming of the event, I explained that I would give Mara 100% editorial control on ANYTHING I posted online, but she still refused. I’ve had multiple “off the record” discussions with a variety of GLBT activists and leaders, including Mara. I’ve never broken that trust with any of them. I protect those conversations as if they were top secret government discussions.

I’m really stumped as to why there was a gag order put into effect. It’s not as if someone couldn’t walk in with a pad of paper or a voice recorder and covertly transcribe the event. The “Targeted States Conference” hosted by NGLTF and NCTE was filmed in its entirety, and it’s a conference ABOUT STRATEGY!

So if you want to know whats going on in transactivism, you better ask James Bond or Tula. While I won’t stop trying to bring you the latest news, events, and commentary in transactivism, I can’t tell you what happened tonight.

Because if I told you… I’d have to kill you.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Transexual Menace protested HRC for lack of inclusion in their advocacy back in 2005, I think maybe it’s time to protest GLAAD for the same thing.

In a post entitled : GLAAD About Hate Speech, I discussed the viciousness of Michael Savage’s most remarks concerning the murder of Ruby Ordenana.

GLAAD’s response consisted of a paragraph, released ONLY to me.

So what do I get in my email box today?

GLAAD Call to Action: “The O’Reilly Factor” - “Lesbian Gang Epidemic?”

Problem: popular talk show host overstates the facts on Lesbian Gangs
Action: action alert.

Problem: popular talk show host says:

“The wages of sin are death. You’re gonna cut off your willy, you’re gonna walk around in women’s clothes, you’re gonna hook, you’re gonna wind up dead under a freeway, Johnson”

“But you know what? You’re never gonna make me respect the freak. I don’t want to respect the freak. The freak ought to be glad that they’re allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.”

Action: write a paragraph to a small blog.

Shockingly, another supposed GLB”T” group plays fast and loose on who they advocate for. If you include us in your mission statement, how about you follow through with it? Is that too much to ask?

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States and look at all the trans friendly people who are endorsing her campaign.

Can you imagine endorsing a candidate that doesn’t support gays and lesbians?

Why not? They don’t have a problem supporting Presidential candidates that don’t support transgender people, and why would you be surprised at that?

Take a look at what’s happening in NY with GENDA or Massachusetts where transgender people can still be fired from their jobs, harassed, beat up and murdered with no hate crime law to help with investigations or prosecutions.

MASS Equality is having trouble trying to figure out what to do with their left over 3 million dollar budget. Their job is done, same sex marriage is legal, gays and lesbians have a non-discrimination law and a hate crimes law. Look out NY, same sex marriage will be next in your state too. Don’t worry, they’ll be back for ya…just ask Jeff Soref to help ya out, perhaps he’ll even put in a good word for us so Hillary will support a trans-inclusive ENDA.

I do believe there are a few members of Mass Equality on Hillary’s support list too, let’s all remember to thank them.

While we’re at it, we can thank Peter Rosenstein (another name on the “list”) for his stellar support for trans-inclusion in ENDA and the Hate Crimes Prevention act. You can read about it here in his opinion piece: Should we support pro-gay legislation that does not include trans protections?

Do I really need to mention Joe Solmonese’s co-hostess on XM satellite radio? She gets the double whammy award for support.

The list of undying support goes on and on and on but don’t take my word for it, you have Google.

Hold the phone! There is one transgender person on this list, go get ‘em Melissa Sklarz!

We like to try and change the world, one tranny at a time.

Here’s Hillary’s support list:

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

“I know some of my transgender sisters question my commitment to their equality, but let me be the first (I think) to point out where the top-three Democrats on in inclusion of gender identiy in federal hate crimes legislation (where I support it) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (where I support in principle adding it at some later date, but oppose its inclusion now).” - Chris Crain

First of all, it’s not just the sisters that question you “commitment” to our equality rights. There are trans-brothers in this fight too, ya know (Ethan St. Pierre is the Chair of the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition).

This question at hand isn’t hard, Chris. Either it’s the GLBT community, or it’s not.

Secondly, the transgender people from the previous generations have paid just as for their rights as gays and lesbians. They were out on the street cashing in their skin for advocacy. I’d remind you of the work done by done by the likes of Sylvia Rivera, Marsha “P” Washington, and the “screaming queens” of the Compton Cafeteria Riots. Transgender people have stood hand in hand with gays and lesbians in the fight for equality. Now you’d like to throw us under the bus?

“Even Edwards, it should be noted, stopped short of the strategically suicidal position backed by the Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign, which is to actually oppose workplace rights and hate crime protections for gay Americans unless transgender protections can be adopted at the same time.”

Why not remove gay men from the bill? Leave lesbians in because they’re super popular right now (Can you say L Word!? Rosie!? Ellen!?) Not even heterosexuals can say no to lesbian protections! The bill woud sail right through both houses and President Bush would most certainly sign it! Everyone loves lesbians!

Of course it’s an absurd propisition to remove gay men from the legislation for expediencies sake. Removal of gender identity from either bill is just as absurd. The firm stand taken by HRC and NGLTF (and PFLAG) is a great step forward in the rights for equality of ALL GLBT citizens.

*update*

Some folks got the impression with the first image that I am attacking HRC. It’s supposed to be under the context of Chris Crain’s  “dream.” I’m thankful that most of the community (including HRC) don’t buy the incremental rights crap anymore.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

If nothing else, last week was historic in that the three major transgender advocacy organizations (National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition) brought in citizen lobbyists to Washington D.C. from across the United States for a week of direct congressional advocacy.
Rolling in to DC on Tuesday, I had the chance to see the lobbyists for the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) in action. Tuesday night NTAC sponsored a plenary session or “lobbying 101,” instructing those new to lobbying on the importance of presentation and lobbying “do’s and dont’s.”

On Wednesday morning I set out to visit my Representative, Julia Carson. I had other business to attend to while in DC, but at the very least I wanted to make sure that I’d talked to my own Senators and Representative. I’ve headed many a protest in my day, but this was actually the first time I lobbied a public office holder. For me, anger is much easier to emotion to project publicly than one on one interaction. But like the Byrds song says

“To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven”

This was the time to lobby.

One thing I was shocked by was how friendly even the most conservative offices were. Actually, I got more time to explain why we were there in Richard Lugar’s office than I did in Evan Bayh’s office.

NTAC uses the buddy system, pairing up veteran lobbyists with the newbies (me, for example). I was amazed at the professionalism and polish of those who went along with me. As I learned later, NTAC and GPAC (who lobbied on Friday) have been lobbying Congress for many years (I did contact NCTE for this post, but they did not return my call).

It was a powerful experience, to see the wheels of power turning. To connect with the people in power that make critical life effecting legislative decisions is very important. It’s empowered me to lobby on a local level and I’ll be returning to Washington D.C. on a routine basis. If you ever get the chance to go, do it.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

It’s coming up on two years ago that I wrote an “Open Letter to Cheryl Jacques.” A month after I posted my open letter, Jacques greeted transgender protesters outside of Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) offices with the news that HRC would not support any version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that didn’t include transgender protections. She later wrote:

“passing ENDA without gender identity and expression is like passing a copyright law that covers books and television shows but doesn’t cover digital music or videos.But ENDA is about people’s lives, not MP3s or DVDs. That’s why it’s so important that we have the strongest and most comprehensive bill possible.”

Last Friday I asked whether or not we are one community. I’ve been told more than once that a GLB”T” community just isn’t a reality. Maybe I’ve just been spoiled by living in Indianapolis (I never thought I’d ever utter those words), but our community has been strongly united. During the battle for the Human Rights Ordinance there was NEVER any serious talk of removing gender identity from the list of those protected.

Why do I bring this up again? Another voice is calling for the removal of gender identity from the Senate version of the hate crimes bill. And according to anonymous sources, HRC is flatly refusing to ONLY support a hate crimes bill that has gender inclusive language.

The transgender lobbyists I spoke to on the Hill on Wednesday said that they are being told by Senate offices that the ENDA bill in the Senate will NOT include gender identity.

Even more worrisome is the chatter among many of the other leading GLBT organizations that gender identity will be removed from the hate crimes bill that is currently in committee in the Senate.

Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), and the National Organization for Women (NOW) have stated publicly that they will only support legislation that is trans-inclusive. So again I ask, are we unified in this fight for GLBT Americans? It’s a good question to ask, and has been asked many times this week. Unfortunately, HRC isn’t talking.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Off to lobby Congress! I’m not sure how much I’ll blog, but I plan on having audio and video to put up at some point, depending on where I can connect and upload from

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

When Chris Crain left his position at Window Media, I thought the voice of “transjack” was dead. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Today the Washington Blade published an op-ed by a long time Democratic gay activist and Washington D.C. mayoral adviser, Peter Rosenstein. He writes:

“On the eve of the House taking up the Hate Crimes Prevention Act it appeared that passage was not assured in this form. Republicans thought they figured out a way to strip the bill of the term “gender identity” and just the possibility of this appeared to leave our national gay organizations in a tizzy.”

In a tizzy? If the Human Rights Campaign was in a “tizzy,” it would seem that there is some question of whether or not they would support a bill without transgender protections. Peter rightfully asks:

“Could all of our national organizations — HRC, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (although they seem to have disappeared from the national scene in the last few years) — that have been fighting for this bill for nearly 10 years actually say no to hate crimes protections for 30 million gays and lesbians in the nation, if we use the 10 percent figure, because transgender individuals were not in the bill? Will we see ENDA defeated for the same reason?”

Unlike the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (which HRC has already publicly stated it would only support a transinclusive version of), HRC hasn’t ever publicly stated whether or not they would support a hate crimes bill that is not trans-inclusive. I think it’s a very good question to ask… are we one community or not?

“I can’t imagine telling staunch supporters like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and others to vote against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill, as the Senate has named it, or potentially ENDA, if they only have protections for 30 million gays and lesbians. Again, what have we been fighting for these last 10 years? Why have we been giving money to these organizations if not to make headway in gaining us rights and protections?”

Can YOU imagine any GLBT organization supporting a bill that doesn’t support the ENTIRE community?

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

I pulled a couple of well versed legal minds in to shed more light on the shared space concerns:

“It’s problematic for employees who have transitioned prior to employment.

As I read it, it means that shower or locker rooms without private stalls are exempt, so long as employees get a shower or locker room ‘not inconsistent with’ their self-identified gender. Thus, a transgender person, regardless of surgical status, can be singled out for placement in a single-person shower room, though everyone else uses a multi-person gendered shower room. However, this would only happen, according to the text, if the rooms involved ‘unavoidable nudity.’ Many shower and locker rooms these days have some stalls for private use.

ENDA does not require employers to segregate transgender employees. Rather, it specifically notes that when the locker/shower room has private spaces, ENDA applies to permit the transgender person to use the room appropriate to their gender identity. But when there is no private space in the locker/shower room, then ENDA leaves it up to the employer to segregate or not to segregate - it is up to them to do the right thing, and I hope they would.” - Dr. Jillian Weiss ( Dr. Jillian T. Weiss, has a J.D., Ph.D (Law), 20 years of experience in the corporate world, and is experienced in working with large companies and public agencies. She blogs at http://transworkplace.blogspot.com)

Katrina Rose:

I think I’m going to have to plead guilty to having briefly fallen victim to long-term slave mentality. My initial reaction was ‘Perhaps there could be better language, but this language certainly could be worse. It probably won’t completely foreclose a Goins v. West
situation, but I will say that it is better than I’d expected to see.’

I’d grown so accustomed to seeing either double-talk or blatant ‘penis panic’ histrionics from Barney Frank and his worshipers that I was initially happy to see something that at least seems to be better than a full shower/bathroom exclusion.

Yes, it is better than I expected to see. Yes, it could be worse. However, the ‘certain shared facilities’ clause of the newly-introduced ENDA gives the employer total control over de facto identity determination for transsexuals (I’m sorry if this ruffles the political correctness feathers of the Wilchins-wonks and other radical gender libertines, but transsexuals are who this provision impacts; presumably this version of ENDA would also alleviate Oiler v. Winn-Dixie situations, but mere crossdressing at work is not something
that should be enforced by law and if the concept in any way becomes associated with this bill it is DOA) subject to work-site use of “shower or dressing facilities.”

A hyper-technical concern is: While “shower facilities” should have an obvious meaning, but how far will the creative employer who truly does not want to have a transsexual employee be able to stretch the term “dressing facilities”? I’m hoping that perhaps an existing OSHA regulation defining the latter would plug this loophole, but I’m not optimistic.

This hyper-technical concern is something of a predicate to the broader problem: the provision is a de facto evisceration of legitimate legal protection for the transitioned transsexual by allowing the employer to do something critical and ever so basic: it
gives the employer a free pass to ask up front - and at any time - about the person’s gender status and/or HISTORY.

West’s position in the Goins v. West Group case (a bathroom usage case involving an MTF for those who have forgotten already; though she personally identifies as ‘transgender’ rather than ‘transsexual,’ the realities of her situation are contiguous with those of one who does identify as ‘transsexual’) implied to the court - and to the public - that everything would have been okay with Juli Goins’ use of the women’s restroom if she had a vagina AND (and this would be even more critical for someone who is not out) was willing to submit to the employer’s questions about that issue and prove vaginal presence to
the employer’s satisfaction.

This cannot be accepted as how reality would have played out, however.

The alleged complaints came from women (who were never identified, but that’s a different problematic aspect of the case) who saw her enter the restroom fully-clothed. The desire of these never-identified female co-workers to prevent her from doing so further - and the immediately-thereafter-asserted right of the employer to ask her about her gender status in spite of trans-inclusive state employment anti-discrimination law - was based on these never-identified female co-workers’ personal perceptions of how she looked fully-clothed.

I see no reason to believe that this will not be the scenario that lays out regarding any potential dispute regarding “shower or dressing facilities” pursuant to the 2007 ENDA. And, can anyone envision any federal judge NOT looking to Goins v. West Group (and the
subsequent Doe v. City of Minneapolis, which DID involve shower facilities) for guidance on who to interpret our rights under this language?

Sadly, I’m left with the following ultimate assessment: Meet the new
ENDA, same as the old Goins v. West Group.

- Katrina C. Rose, Attorney at Law (with apologies to both Pete Townsend and Juli Goins)

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

“Harrah’s Casino says it fired Jespersen, a bartender, in August 2000 because she did not conform to the company’s new ‘Personal Best’ program, which required female employees to wear make-up, style their hair, and dress in high heels and skirts. During Jesperson’s 21 years at the casino, her supervisors consistently rated her work ‘highly effective.’ -</p>

‘The country has moved a long way from 1950’s stereotypes that all female employees must wear make-up, high heels, and dresses,’ said GenderPAC Executive Director Riki Wilchins. ‘We hope the court agrees with us that this is a clear case of gender discrimination.‘ - GenderPac press release 2003

Section 8(a)(4) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning. - 2007 Employment Non-Discrimination Act

“GenderPAC is proud to have been a part of drafting this legislation. This is an important step toward workplace equality for all employees. The federal government is beginning to catch up to the many state and local governments, and individual corporations that protect employees, regardless of whether they fit expectations for masculinity or femininity,” said Riki Wilchins, Executive Director of GenderPAC. “We urge Congress to take notes on the progress being made across the country and support this bill.” - Gender PAC press release April 25th, 2007.

Does 1+1=3? I’m confused.

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

In my post, “Just Wondering” I asked where the outrage was concerning Michael Savage’s attack on on transgender people. It’s two weeks later, and I’m still asking myself the same question.

Ann Coulter - Called one man a faggot.

Don Imus - Called a team “nappy headed hoes.”

Michael Savage - Called a murdered transwoman a psycho freak. “Yeah, process of becoming a woman — psychopath. [She] should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication.” “But you know what? You’re never gonna make me respect the freak. I don’t want to respect the freak. The freak ought to be glad that they’re allowed to walk around without begging for something.“

Ann Coulter’s punishment - Net Bank, Verizon, Washington Mutual, AT&T/Cingular, Dollar Rent-A-Car, SmileTrain.org, University of Phoenix, Sallie Mae, LasikPlus, Power Chord Academy, Gulf Shores.com/Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ulta.com, and Yellow Pages.com  all stopped advertising at Coulter’s web site. The Oakland Press , The Mountain Press, The Times of Shreveport, La, The American Press, and  the Lancaster New Era have stopped publishing her columns.  HRC started a letter writing campaign to other papers that carry her. 

Don Imus - Staples Inc., Bigelow Tea, and Procter & Gamble pulled advertising.  MSNBC removed Imus in the Morning completely. CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks. There was even a protest on the campus of  Rutgers University.

Michael Savage-

That’s right, not one repercussion. No press release. No protest. No outrage. Nothing.

GLAAD? HRC? NGLTF? NCTE? GPAC? ANYONE?

Hello?

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

I found this picture on TransgenderAsia:

It’s of Tonette Lopez, a Filipino/Asian transactivist. It’s is full of so much strength and resolve it makes me want to stand up and scream HELL YES. Read more about her here.

Rest in peace Tonette. Even a year after your death you still inspire people.

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

HR 1592 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1592

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and
Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 20, 2007

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

Why did GLAAD make such a big deal about Ann Coulter’s slur of John Edwards and the superbowl candy bar commercial, but has been silent on Michael Savage’s rampage against transgender men and women.

Their front page features this:

But where is the same call to action against those stations that carry Savage? His comments are MUCH WORSE than anything that has come out of the mouth of Coulter.

savage-20070323.mp3

SAVAGE: The wages of sin are death. You’re gonna cut off your willy, you’re gonna walk around in women’s clothes, you’re gonna hook — you’re gonna wind up dead under a freeway, Johnson. It’s not gonna be an HBO special about your travails, and how surgery made you a happy woman.

I never understand these people. Guy is 55 years old, he had three children, he discovers there was a woman within, and he goes — shots and hormones, three years of hormones, and live like a woman. And then you gotta dress like a woman for two years. And then they go to a psychopathic, sadistic doctor who does the thing for them. No more in Denmark — I mean, the capital of it is somewhere in Colorado, of course, near Columbine. You wonder why the kids shoot each other there with black raincoats. But that’s the sex change capital of the world — in America, rather — is somewhere in Colorado; they cut off the willies and they put on the willies, depending on whether you’re a Johnny or a Jane.

And apparently it costs more to put a willy on than it does to take a willy off. I’ve always said if a city’s gonna pay for this kind of insane self-mutilation, the least they could do is put a willy on ice. I mean, if they’re taking a perfectly good willy off a guy, why throw it in the garbage? Put it on ice, save it for the next time one of these psycho women in the city wants to be willied, I mean wants to be a John when she’s a Jane. Because it costs like 40 grand to put one on and 20 grand to take one off. I would say you can do a mean price of 30 grand if they could start saving the willies from these psychos. But that’s a separate story. I’m into cost saving at all costs. - transcript and audio via Media Matters here

or this:

savage-20070321.mp3

SAVAGE: And then they go into “she said transgender victims” going on and on “extremely violent” going on and on “are frequently left partially clothed or completely nude, it’s making a statement and humiliating the victim,” blah-blah-blah. I am so beyond fed up with freaks. I live in freak city. You know, I don’t mind freaks. I used to go to Ringling Brothers when I was a little kid, and the freak show was my favorite part of the circus. I didn’t go there to mock them. I liked to see the one-breasted man. I liked to see the mustached woman. But when I wake up as an adult and I find out that they’re actually all Democrats today, passing themselves off as normal, I’m sorry, someone’s gotta say this is a freak show, time out. And what’s this sympathy, constant sympathy for sexually confused people? Why should we have constant sympathy for people who are freaks in every society? I didn’t say hurt the freaks. I didn’t say do anything to the freaks.

But you know what? You’re never gonna make me respect the freak. I don’t want to respect the freak. The freak ought to be glad that they’re allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I’m sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.

This goes beyond transphobia, into the realm of hate speech. “The wages of sin is death” = “The killing of a transgender people is OK because they’re psychopathic freaks.”

Where’s the outrage?

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

In my recent post, Rose Colored Glasses, I had quite a few people respond here and on livejournal. Anyone familiar with the history of the trans-community and HRC (Human Rights Campaign) will know how contentious that relationship has been over the years.

In March of 2001 the board of directors changed their mission statement to include transgender people. In the six years since our inclusion it’s been an uphill battle to get HRC to actually include transgender people in their legislative efforts. It took HRC three years to only support a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). That inclusion didn’t come easily. It had become such an issue in the summer of 2004, that number or organizations (NCTE, NTAC, Pride at Work, Transsexual Menace, and many others) planned the “Unity Rally for Transgender Rights.” (photo by debra kate)

The protest climaxed with Cheryl Jaques announcing the the HRC board of directors had decided to only support inclusive ENDA legislation. She said:

“we are strongest as a community when we are united and that’s why we need the strongest and most unifying protections.”

Many transactivists assumed that this proclamation meant HRC was making a commitment to only support transgender inclusive legislation. This assumption was proven incorrect with the introduction of the hate crimes bill into the US Senate in 2005. HRC stood by this version and actively lobbied for its passage.

In researching my post for “Rose Colored Glasses” I found a post by HRC Donna Rose, entitled “Trans-formed.” She said

“I specifically know of one “trans-activist” who is angry about this news. Like a one-trick pony, this person is angry at everyone and everything supportive of the Human Rights Campaign.” She continued “These people don’t speak for me. Their anger is not my anger. Their outdated style of in-your-face, flame-throwing, loudmouth activism is not my style. In my opinion they do more damage than good and are proof that the notion of any activism is better than NO activism is not true. The fact that much of this positive movement is happening isn’t because of their efforts, it’s despite them.”

The comments to “Rose Colored Glasses” from HRC employees made me very hopeful. I was assured that the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (LLEHCPA - H.R. 1592) would be trans-inclusive. It was also relayed to me that the same language is going to be used in the Senate version of the bill. Since then, I’ve been in contact with David Stacy, HRC’s Senior Public Policy Advocate. He promised to forward me the language of the bill. Friday evening I received the language… of the 2005 bill. I’ve asked him if the language of the bill was exactly the same as the 2005 bill, and he’s said the language is “the same” and “identical.”

I’m curious as to why the language that has already been introduced can’t be shown to the media (mainstream or not). If it’s trans-inclusive and there is interest within the community to see the language, I don’t really understand why releasing the language before it comes out on Thomas is such a big deal.

I’d say to Donna Rose that we don’t hate HRC. We are just very suspicious of a group that’s been very reluctant to carry out its mission statement concerning us. I hope that in the future she’s able to look past her own issues and see that we are not the enemy. I hope that she’ll see that her HRC cheerleading is just as much of a “one trick pony” as” HRC hating.” I hope that she’ll realize that we are all working toward the same thing. I hope she’ll realize it’s ok to use female pronouns when referring to me in the future. I’m cautiously optimistic, about HRC and Donna Rose.
Oh, and I have one last hope; I hope Charlie Brown finally gets to kick that damn ball.

Originally published at Transadvocate Blog. Please leave any comments there.

According to a Reuters report:

“As Renee Richards, the world’s most famous transsexual athlete, looks back on her life, she has one regret — the fame she attained.”

Dearest Renee, your 15 minutes of fame are WAY past. If you’re so against the fame you received, why are you writing another book?

“In the mid-1970s and when her memoir, “Second Serve: The Renee Richards Story,” came out in 1983, was treated as an curiosity and besieged by television chat shows. But with the release this month of her second memoir, “No Way Renee, The Second Half of My Notorious Life,” few came knocking and television showed no interest. ‘It is annoying to me,’ said Richards. ‘I’m so ordinary now; they’re not interested. There’s lots about transsexuals now.’”

If you are serious about having a normal life, shut up and you’ll have one.

*edit*

My friend just responded with one of the best lines EVER.

‘’She doesn’t want her fame but she’s annoyed that no one is interested in her second book? Isn’t that like Dietrich saying she’s annoyed no one is coming over?”

Share This

Originally published at Marti Abernathey.com. You can comment here but Marti feels more love if you comment there. Registration is no longer required.

Mark Angelo Cummings

[kml_flashembed movie=”http://www.youtube.com/v/tb1Pgjtuo4E” width=”425″ height=”350″/]