It's MzMartiPants to you!

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

During the HRC/LOGO Presidential Forum John Edwards was asked:

MR. SOLOMONESE: Susan Stanton is in our audience tonight. She was, for 17 years, the city manager in Largo , Florida . She did her job well; she was respected and admired. And when it was revealed that she was transgender, she was fired. So my question for you is if a member of your staff came to you and told you that they were transgender and that they were thinking of transitioning, how would you react to that? And who in your life has influenced what your reaction might be? MR. EDWARDS: I would — I would support them in every possible way, including on a personal and an emotional level, provide every bit of help and support that I possibly could in going through what they were going through.

And, by the way, can I say about the first point you made in your question, it’s the reason we need powerful employment nondiscrimination laws in the United States of America so that people cannot be fired.

Yet, as I look at the list of John Edward’s GLBT supporters 1, 2 it doesn’t seem to include anyone that is transgender. Both Hilary Clinton and John Edwards have formal GLBT committees that include transgender people. Maybe Joe should have asked him if he’d hire someone that’s transgender (or announce transgender supporters).

In other news on the forum, Hillary Rosen recently stated that:

Despite some advice that the only issue worth discussing at the forum was marriage because it was the only issue the major candidates didn’t agree with us on, we quickly decided that we wanted a broader focus. These candidates were unlikely, in our view, to come to this forum and be blown away by the cogent arguments of our panelists and change their position in favor of same sex marriage. “

She went on to say:

“We wanted a discussion of transgender issues since we knew it was unlikely to come up anywhere else.”

Who’s fault was it that only one transgender question was asked (for that matter, a lack of questions on HIV/AIDS, DADT, and other important GLBT issues)?

“As we saw in their responses, whether deliberate or not, the candidates often tried to run out the clock on their answers. Each interview went by so fast that we found our selves in the control booth cursing as we gave Margaret her time signals.In the end, the only thing I can really regret is that we didn’t have more time. There was so much more to ask about and so much more to hear.”

Can you really put all the blame on the candidates? It’s not the candidates fault that only one transgender question (and a softball question at that) was asked. The moderator of the forum is there to MODERATE when the candidates are trying to run out the clock. The moderator gets her cues from the “control booth.” If Hillary wants someone to blame, she need only look in the nearest mirror.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Typically, when reading about radical feminists on various blogs, it’s an “us verses them” type of debate. I’ve been thinking a lot about that, as witnessed by my last post, Michfest Music Melodrama

I’ve been thinking a lot about the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival

lately. So much anger and divisiveness occurs between radical feminist and transgender bloggers, it really turns my stomach. Very few posts on either side attempt to understand each other. so much so, it ends up being like the Hatfields vs the McCoys. Every time I studied that feud in high school, I could never understand why two groups of people could be so idiotic.

Now I do. A few days ago I happened upon this entry over at Cassandra Says that really smacked me in the face. She mentioned that she had looked at pictures of a well known radical feminist blogger, Heart, on a road trip. She said:

“… and you know what jumped out at me? Other than Heart herself almost every woman pictured falls into a certain stereotype, and that stereotype is intimately tied up with how we conceptualize gender as an issue.

This is a tricky area, discussing people’s sexual personae. What I’m trying to say is that there’s a certain type of woman that I encounter over and over again in feminist circles, and that that type of woman has a very distinct gender identity. It’s sort of butch, but there’s more to it than that, I think. I’m not even sure what descriptive term to use for that particular gender identity, but I’m willing to bet that everyone who has any familiarity with feminism knows the “type” I mean. It’s probably the most common “type” of woman that you meet at feminist events, along with the hippy earth mother “type” (ie. Heart, or our buddy Daisy). I’m going to call this “type” radfembutch, for lack of a better term, although if there already IS a better term let me know and I’ll use it instead.

The fact that the English language doesn’t seem to have a word for that “type” is interesting to me, and I think that it’s significant. It’s a basic principle of linguistics that anything a culture considers worth thinking or talking about, it has a word for. So why don’t we have a word for that particular female gender identity? It’s not like that identity is all that uncommon. I’m willing to bet that everyone here can point to a woman they know, even if only peripherally, who has that identity. So why the gap in the language?

I think it’s because our culture doesn’t much like those women. It doesn’t know what to do with them, how to classify them. They confuse a lot of people, because most people see gender as a binary and so they don’t tend to deal very well with people who don’t fit easily into the categories “masculine” and “feminine”.

Neither do transpeople, and I think this may be where the grudge match comes from. I looked at those pictures from Heart’s road-trip, and I remembered Qgrrl’s comments a while back about how the language used by transpeople made her uncomfortable because it made her feel erased. From what I can tell, she very much of the radfembutch type – not at all comfortable with being “feminine” but not identifying with “masculine” either. Not quite sure where she fits, feels as if she had to figure it all out on her own.

That has to be a scary position to be in. I’m not sure that those of us who have always felt more or less comfortable with our gender identity can really understand just how unsettling that might be, to feel like society was determined to slot everyone into neat little gender categories and not feel like you fit into any of those available. For a teenager that could be terrifying.

So, I started thinking about that, and wondering how many women involved in radical feminism had to go through something like that. And then something clicked in my mind, and I finally saw WHY those women are so protective of their “space” and why so many of them are so very hostile to anyone they see as an interloper. If you’d spent most of your life feeling like you didn’t belong, and then you found a place where you DID feel like you belonged, wouldn’t you be protective of that? Wouldn’t you want to hold on to it?”

I have to admit, if this is the case, then I can understand why they are so angry and defensive. I’ve always thought that there was just something ingrained in radical feminism that was anti trans. I’ve never considered that that these women could be considered “gender variant” as well, and feel like Michfest is a place of unity for them. I remember the first time I found a virtual space that dealt with transgender issues online. I went from feeling totally alone, isolated, and odd, to feeling like there were others that understood and lived my plight.

She continues:

“Qgrrl’s point seemed to be that trans language, particularly the word ‘cisgender’, left her feeling discomfited because she felt like it excluded her experience (and I’m not her, so if she happens to come across this and I’m misunderstanding what she mean then please, jump in and correct me). I’m guessing she’s not the only one. It seems to me that there are TONS of women who fit that mold, and that many of them feel like they found a home within feminism. I wonder to what extent that may be what’s really going on with the trans issue. The way that I see some radical feminists reacting looks as if they feel threatened in some way, and other than Heart most of those women do seem to be kind of on the butch side. How does that play into this whole issue? Is that where the root of the conflict lies, with one group feeling like their home and their identity that they worked hard to create is under attack, and the other group (transwomen) feeling like those women are attempting to exclude them from places that SHOULD feel like home purely out of spite? In some cases it does look like spite, but in others it honestly looks more like fear, or confusion, and in an odd way that’s kind of encouraging. Spite or malice are hard things to get around, but fear and confusion?”

This does make sense to me. I see the same type of thing in the “crossdresser verses transsexual” wars. One side wants to be included because of their similarities to a group, the other side wants to exclude them because of their differences.

She ends this line of thought by saying:

“In some cases it does look like spite, but in others it honestly looks more like fear, or confusion, and in an odd way that’s kind of encouraging. Spite or malice are hard things to get around, but fear and confusion? Those can be addressed. Compromises can be made. People can become more comfortable with things that once disturbed them.”

I hope so. I hope it is fear. I’ve overcome so much fear in my life, I know that’s doable. It gives me hope for tomorrow, that we may be able to turn an enemy into an ally. The Christian right hates us both and regularly lumps us in together. I hope at some point we can learn to understand each other and fight together, instead of fighting each other.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Chris Crain has repeatedly suggested 1, 2, 3, 4 that transgender people don’t need to be included in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act because “existing federal civil rights laws have already been interpreted by some judges to protect trans workers.”

A recent EEOC informal discussion letter would suggest otherwise.

Historically, courts and the EEOC have held that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against an individual because of transgendered status. See, e.g., Ulane v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984); EEOC Dec. 75-030, ¶ 6499 (CCH) (1974). In the past few years, however, some courts have determined that discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute unlawful gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. See Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm Inc., 2006 WL 456173 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2006); Tronetti v. TLC Healthnet Lakeshore Hosp., 2003 WL 22757935 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2003); cf. Schroer v. Billington, 424 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D.D.C. 2006) (disagreeing with Ulane and holding that discrimination based on sexual identity may be discrimination based on sex). Other courts, however, have adhered to the view that discrimination based on transgendered status does not violate Title VII. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Auth., 2005 WL 1505610 (D. Utah June 24, 2005); Oiler v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 2002 WL 31098541 (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2002). Whether discrimination against a transgendered individual may constitute discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII is a factual question that cannot be determined outside the context of specific charges of discrimination and a complete investigation. - Title VII: Sex Discrimination/Coverage of Transgendered

Reading Jen Burke’s “Breaking the Binary: Sex, Gender Identity, and Gender Presentation (Volume 1: Employment)” was key in my understanding of the rulings of the United States concerning gender and sex. Title VII only covers transgender people if their employer “sex stereotyped” them. Sex stereotyping is a form of harassment directed at a person because that person does not conform to traditional sex stereotypes.” Sex stereotyping is just as illegal against a gay people as it is against transgender or heterosexual persons. Regardless of what you’re told, it’s still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

I’ve been over at Feministing all day, writing responses to “You learn something new every day.” The post is a response to The BBC’s recent coverage of a debate with Julie Bindel. Julie believes that sex reassignment surgery is a “mutilation.”

The debate over there is one of the best I’ve ever encountered. There’s a whole lot of cross talk and listening, and very few personal attacks. This is the first time I’ve ever posted about this in a forum where I didn’t feel like I was talking to a wall.

I’ve included some of the comments, and my responses, under the cut.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

It was striking seeing a blurb by a spokesperson in the Iowa Republican Party responding to the prospect of former-President Bill Clinton lobbying for his wife Hillary’s presidential campaign: “After Bill Clinton tarnished the name of the president of the United States, the Republican Party restored hope, respect and morality within the Oval Office by bringing positive ideas and conservative values back to the White House.”

Reading this caused me to respond with one of those GEICO© caveman moments: “Yeah, I’d like to respond to that. Uh … WHAT?!?”

As if that reality-disconnected soundbite weren’t enough of a head spinner in the era of the three-man destruction crew of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, we get more reinforcement of Republican morals a couple weeks ago. Credence, increasingly a rare commodity among the R-suffixed folk, was suspended fully when our President the Decider decided to commute the sentence of Irving Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, former chief of staff of Dick Cheney.

Basically, there will be no sentence, no punishment, no fallout from the outing of a CIA agent. An outing during war, no less! And who was CIA agent, Valerie Plame’s body of work specializing in? Iran. Bush/Cheney’s wet dream of a new conquest: Iran. But hey, America went into Iraq fairly blindly, and look how well that turned out, eh?

After news of the commutation of Libby’s sentence, Bill and Hillary Clinton did themselves no favors by criticizing the decision. Pres. Clinton pardoned some 140 odd folks at the final hour of his presidency, something no Republican would ever forget. Just pointing that out only appeared as cynical hypocrisy on the Dems side. But, not to be outdone, the hypocrisy was quickly by the GOPpers in criticizing the Clintons’ criticism. Why I can hear the Straw-man singing now … “If I Only Had a Brain”.

The message of all this? Outing CIA agents apparently isn’t treason any more. Hey, why not just write treason out of the constitution entirely with one of the President’s signing statements? In fact, who needs that? Just have the Vice President in his unitary executive powers call it unconstitutional and have it excised. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales will sign off on it, loyal man that he is. Treason is AOK … until a Democrat, or any other non-conservative commits the act.

The last scene in this episode shows the President this past week finally admitting that someone in his Administration may have outed Valerie Plame, but that this whole affair has “run its course” and he doesn’t expect any further investigation or charges. In fact, he hasn’t ruled out a full pardon for Libby. All that money spent, all that time investigating, and absolutely nothing was accomplished.

Yep, you’ve gotta love the justice system in the U.S. of A.

Meanwhile in West Palm Beach, Florida, a trial was taking place to prosecute a 17-year old who severely beat a transwoman he’d picked up outside of a bar. Later that evening, he discovered she still had male anatomy, he “beat the transsexual until his hand was sore,” according to an officer who took the statement. After the assailant went back to his car, he returned and, according to a witness who was seated atop a lifeguard stand, “forced her to kneel in the sand while he punched her and slammed her head into [the] lifeguard stand. The impact of the head-slam shook the lifeguard stand.

Once the case came to the judge’s decision, Judge Peter Blanc said Monday that he does not believe the boy was guilty of a first-degree felony hate crime. The judge opined in court “Your anger, from your perspective and from many other people’s perspective, may be justifiable anger.”

“In many ways it appears from the testimony that was presented here that there are two victims in the case,” the judge added. Unique concept: if you’re trans in America, and someone attacks you, the attackers are the victims. But this is typical of justice in America. We’ve seen it play out more times than we care to recount when the victim was transgender. If you commit treason, you’re much better off than being a trans person who is attacked for “victimizing” someone by … being out in public!

To the attackers’ credit, he said the victim threatened his life. The witness testified that the trans victim did not fight back, but as he described during the initial investigation, he had a “couple of sissy scratches” to show for his “attack.” Certainly sissy scratches are serious – considered life threatening in Florida’s justice system.

The judge added that teen did not seem to beat the victim “because of sexual orientation,” Blanc said, but because of his anger and desire for retribution. Retribution for what?!? Realizing he was making out with someone who was anatomically male??? Certainly nothing about sexual orientation, and the hate derived from that, eh?

At the least, I suppose the trans community can take solace in that their arguments made and dismissed over the years by gay and lesbian leadership, and legislators as well, have specifically been proven as inadequate. So much for gender or sexual orientation covering transgenders.

Small consolation that is.

But such is justice in America. If you want to avoid punishment most severe, don’t be transsexual. Even if you’re attacked or victimized, you’re culpable for making your attacker the victim. If you do want to avoid punishment, even treason, simply be a connected Republican, like Libby.

Knowing what kind of Democracy and system of justice our President is exporting to the rest of the world really gives you a warm spot in your heart, doesn’t it? Kinda like … heartburn.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

Pride Party this year was fun, and probably left most of us a little fuzzy-minded. Like all parties where we partake a bit too much, there’s always the obligatory hangover.

This year I made good on a promise and attended a friend’s Pride party at THE Pride Parade in New York City. Yes, my hometown Houston’s Pride Parade is unique in that it’s at night, with lit up floats – the only night Pride Parade in the northern hemisphere. Even with that, nothing tops the sheer size of the Pride Parade in New York. It’s befitting. After all, this is the catalyst point and the anniversary date that the GLBT community points to as beginning this “movement.”

Just last week I was in New York enjoying the Pride Parade with some trans friends I’ll call Ann and Melissa. Neither of them is out at work due to concerns for their careers, and I don’t blame them. But once a year they throw a blast and open their apartment to the community. The building they reside in is right on the parade route and has numerous Pride parties on Pride day. Their party is the hit of Trans NYC, and they extend invitations to their friends from all walks of society: straight, gay, lesbian and trans in fairly equal numbers.

One of the neat aspects of this one-day blast is that neighboring parties tend to migrate to each other’s parties on the other floors of the building. At one point, a group of the trans girls and I (admittedly in pursuit of a hunky NYPD officer making the scene) decided to go crash the party two floors below.

Arriving downstairs, it was a lively and typically (for New York) crowded affair. We were very welcomed to the party, no problems there. One thing struck me shortly after arriving. This was a very homogenous affair. Before we arrived, it was a 100% gay male event – most all seemingly coupled. It was in sharp contrast to the party I’d just left.

After a bit, I wandered back upstairs to Ann’s party and watched the entry for Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) walk by. The ESPA marchers all held up signs that had “Marriage Equality” on one side, and “GENDA Now” on the other. For those of you not familiar, New York passed a non-discrimination bill in 2002 called SONDA – Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act. GENDA is the Gender Expression counterpart to that as, obviously, coverage for transgenders was left off.

The reason I knew of this and became involved was that the push for this began at a time of internecine struggle within the state’s transgender organization (NYAGRA), and followed immediately on the heels of Sylvia Rivera’s funeral. The timing was exquisite for ESPA, but callously calculating from a trans perspective.

Back to the parade, the ESPA group marched with their signs held high … and to a person, all but one of them held it with the Marriage Equality side out to the crowd. Only one bothered to hold the GENDA side out.

Flashback to 2003, at the signing of SONDA, ESPA and their executive director, Matt Foreman, promised that GENDA would now become the group’s top priority. Well, other things got in the way … things change … people forget. It didn’t happen. Malicious intent probably wasn’t the culprit. More likely, we just didn’t cross their mind.

Back to the parade, ESPA only got a lukewarm reception that paled in comparison to who followed them: AVER – the American Veterans for Equal Rights. It also didn’t help much that many of them chose to wear those infernal equal signs on their chest or sleeve.

A while later, HRC’s entry rolled up. Cheering ceased, and not just at our party. The entire building went mute. No boos or raspberries, just silence. It was mildly amusing to watch some of their marchers peer up at the building in bewilderment. Then again, I also felt a bit sad for them. It’s likely their marchers were volunteers who couldn’t understand why the cool reception or the history behind it. All they knew was what was marketed to them, and the possibility they saw in that vision.

From the trans community and beyond, we’re all just likely folks who never really crossed their mind.

And truly, why would we? They’ve got their own laundry list of wishes on their agenda. Their organization staffs are very homogenous because, hey, those are the people they know. It’s kind of like the party two floors down from Ann and Melissa: they invite the people they know, and those are the people they know.

Regarding GLBT organizations, transgenders and other disparate segments of the greater queer community don’t readily come to mind for hiring, leadership or other considerations. Why would we pop to mind when it comes to political agendas – especially if they don’t have to dig their asses out of the fire for some exclusionist faux pas? It’s a case of out of sight, out of mind.

So why do we refer to these organizations as GLBT anyway? True, we worked hard over the years in the 90’s to be recognized as a part of the community, but that didn’t mean our entire fight boiled down to being nothing more than a T at the end of an acronym. It’s like saying our entire goal was to be the butt on a pig, with all the significance. Dandy! So why don’t they just advertise just GL or GLB? Sure, it’s not PC. But what the hell good is being PC if all it requires is just saying “I’m GLBT” and never giving it another thought (at least not until those screaming trannies throw their asses in the fire when they’re forgotten again)?

If these organizations were all trans staffed, trans funded and led, chances are that we would be accused of equally focusing only on our own issues and not having theirs come naturally to mind. It’s possible we could be just as guilty … of course, we’ll never know.

Meanwhile, back at Ann and Melissa’s party, I reveled in what was the vision of true equality at their party. Not just trans, and really not even overwhelmingly trans … just a bunch of G and L and B and T and straight folks enjoying a great Pride Party. At least in some corners of the world, we can all be kept in mind.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

With the ongoing battles between radical feminists and transgender bloggers, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what it means to be transgender. Radical feminists, in the vein of Andrea Dworkin’s dream of an “androgynous society,” hope to demolish gender roles.

Recently i read an article written by Susan Cole of Now magazine. She discussed her gender fluidity and how she’s beginning to enjoy it.

“Does this mean I’ve lost my feminist edge? I know I still believe that women have the right to female-only spaces and I’m still super-proud of my dykedom and my lesbian motherhood. But at the same time, I’m warming to the idea of my gender fluidity.”

She continues to analyze her gender identity by saying:

“The truth is, the more experience I have, the more I see myself as ever-morphing. I change depending on who I’m with. In the company of an über-butch I become a little more femmy, but give me a high femme and I can do butch with the best of them.”

The constraints of the male heterosexual gender identity are tightly guarded. The fluidity that Susan Cole enjoys is tolerated by a society to a higher extent than a “sissy” or “prissy” male bodied person that is going the opposite way.

Female bodied people in this culture are allowed to be more fluid with their gender presentation from birth. From clothing choices, to hair styles, the dichotomy is clear. Many times when a male bodied person first flirts with gender fluidity, it’s the first time in their life they’ve been allowed to do so. You’ll notice that many who are early in their experimentation (through gender change or cross dressing) go way over the top dress and demeanor. Their ultra feminine dress may border on campy and at times is down right clownish. But in a heterosexual world, femininity is looked at as a weakness. When that wall of masculinity is toppled, a waterfall of extreme femininity often is the result.

“While I’m feeling liberated by my softening edges, some trans people feel they’re liberated by their transition to a specific gender.”

I can’t really comment on other transgender people, but for me this has been about finding what works for me. Think about the clothes you wear every day. The clothes that you choose are like drawing a picture of how you want to present yourself to the world. There are fashion cliques even in butch lesbian circles. From the way you wear your hair, to the shoes you wear, everything about your presentation tells the world something about how you see yourself. Your gender identity really is a mirror to who you see yourself to be.

“It’s left me wondering what it feels like for a person contemplating a sex change to know with such confidence who they really are. Given the ridiculous male-female dichotomy we’re forced to live with, do any of us know what our real gender potential is ?”

She continues by saying

“many trans people embrace the idea of fluidity, still identify as queer, and some choose a sex change precisely because their pre-transition gender ambiguity makes them more vulnerable in a world that tolerates nothing but extremes.”

The reality that Susan lives is one that even at its most oppressive moments won’t end up in her being jailed and convicted of a crime. If she is mistaken for a man in a restroom, she can prove otherwise. Having a penis in a women only space (restroom or locker room), no matter it’s size or ability to function sexually, is enough to get you thrown in jail. But presenting in a feminine manner in any form and using male only space can and has ended in murder.

The fact that her masculine appearance actually might aid her in other facets of her life. Honestly, I think “male privilege” is a misnomer. Masculine privilege is a more appropriate name.

A common question, even among people in the GLB community is why have surgery. She asks:

“I have to wonder (though I know I’ll catch flak here) whether trans people who are taking hormones and making surgical changes to their bodies are causing pain to themselves? When I raise this with folks who have transitioned, they say absolutely not. It feels, they say, like something’s finally being made right. Which is why anyone passionate about sexual liberation has to respect these decisions and support full funding for medical treatments.”

There’s a difference between gender identity and body image. It took me a long time to pry the two apart. Growing up I always felt a disdain for my body. As a young child when I got out of the shower, I’d always position myself so that I didn’t have to see my body. It felt wrong. I had this underlying confusion about why I felt so “wrong.” I can’t say I felt like a girl. I didn’t feel like I was “born in the wrong body.” I just felt like a stranger in a strange land, that was my own skin. My body dysphoria may rub up against my gender dysphoria, but it’s not the same thing. Taking hormones did kill two birds with one stone. It cured my body dysphoria and centered me emotionally in a way that I’d never felt before.

She ends her article by say saying

“in the spirit of Pride I celebrate their courage, honour sexual pluralism and invite everyone on the planet to challenge the tyranny of assumptions that prevent us from being who we really are.”

My hope is that those in the radical feminist camp come to the same conclusion. I don’t think Andrea Dworkin’s vision of an androgynous society is the answer. A “one size fit’s all” gender identity would be stale and boring. Gender identity needs to be unlinked from biological sex. Gender is only oppressive when it is something that is hoisted upon you without your consent. If everyone were able to pick and choose their gender presentation, be it masculine or feminine, the oppressiveness of gender would be forever destroyed.

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.

Until someone puts actual empirical data along side radical feminist doctrine, I refuse to call it a theory. It  isn’t a theory, it’s a religion. And it’s about as believable as there being a man named Jesus Christ that rose from the dead after three days.

If your wondering, THIS is the genesis of my reason to post.

Now, let us pray.

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

When I hear “This is my friend _____ , she’s transgendered”, I cringe. It may seem innocuous, but using the word “transgendered” indicates that being transgender is something you have done to you. Imagine someone saying “this is my friend Andy, he’s gayed” or “this is my best friend Betty,  she’s lesbianed.” Like being gay and lesbian, being transgender isn’t something that you have done to you, it’s part of who you are. I’m proud to be of Irish, Scot, German, and native American descent. But I’d never say I’m “Irished and Proud.”

But don’t feel bad, even folks at the National Center for Trangender Equality have made the same mistake:

If you make the mistake it’s not too big of a deal, but please try and remember to say transgender? There’s a rumor that if you say “transgendered” too many times, the transgender fairy will visit you in the night and transgender you! It’s just a rumor, but better safe than sorry.

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.

Like a herpes sore, certain arguments pop up continually in the transcommunity and never seem to go away. Recently Gwen Smith wrote the editorial “What’s In a Name?” that discussed the term “women born transsexual (WBT)” or “Harry Benjamin Syndrome.”

Suzanne Cooke responded to Gwen’s editorial with “Good-Bye to Transgender and All That.” In it she announcing her “divorce” from the community. She claims that Gwen Smith

“castigates post-sex reassignment women who identify with the term “WBT” or ‘women born transsexual,’ a term coined by my life partner and me in 2001 as a reaction to our sense of disappearing, being erased by the all-enveloping cult of “transgender as umbrella.”

She does? I’ll let you read it for yourself…keep in mind that castigate means “to punish.”

“In this I agree – to a point. Really, there should be no stigma attached to being transsexual, no matter what you choose to call it. Nor should there be a stigma to wherever you happen to fall under the umbrella term called transgender. We simply are what we are, and there should be no shame placed upon us for simply being ourselves.Where I part ways, however, is when we choose terms as a way to divide, and try to gain some legitimacy by saying “I’m OK, you’re a freak.” By trying to legitimize under the banner of Harry Benjamin Syndrome, how many are actually showing their own internalized shame and simply trying to pass their own discomfort onto those they want to exclude?

Ultimately, too, no amount of terminology tweaking will change one important fact: You can call yourself a victim of Harry Benjamin Syndrome all you want, or call yourself transsexual, or Woman Born Transsexual. Call yourself a blue spruce, if you wish. No term matters when those who will have a problem with your gender orientation or expression see you and apply their own crude labels.”

What a smear queen, that Gwen Smith. How dare Gwen make such a statement! Can you believe the audacity of what she said? *smirk*

Suzanne Cooke’s arguments in the editorial are:

1. Self appointed community leaders decided to use the moniker “transgender.”

“Self appointed leaders” are there because they’ve taken it on themselves to change things. Most of us have sacrificed to the point of putting our safety and security on the line to change things. We are “self appointed” because the work is there in front of us and it isn’t being done by anyone else. There is a vacuum, and the need for that vacuum gets filled by whoever steps up.

2. The political entity called the transcommunity is composed of groups of quite
different people.

The reality in politics is that numbers are POWER. Regardless of position in the gender spectrum, the reality is that we either advocate together, or suffer alone. Someone that discriminates against you, or physically harms you isn’t going to make a distinction between a transsexual, a drag queen, or a transgenderist. Hector Arturo Diaz, Willie Houston, Fred C. Martinez, Jr, Chanelle Pickett, and Kent Perry are all dead. Their murderers didn’t stop to ask them if they’d had surgery, or if they had a syndrome. Peter Oiler, Steve Stanton, Jimmie L. Smith, and Diane Schroer were all fired. Their employers didn’t ask them if they had an intersex condition before they were let go.

3. Virginia Prince was a hateful bitch that coined the term transgender. She hated those who had surgery, especially those that are lesbian identified.

The reality is that the world isn’t interested in these battles. They will define us together, whether or not you like it.

I find it very ironic that Cooke choses Harry Benjamin Syndrome to name her “condition.”

“If these attempts to define and classify the transvestite and the transsexual appear vague and unsatisfactory, it is because a sharp and scientific separation of the two syndromes is not possible. We have as yet no objective diagnostic methods at our disposal to differentiate between the two. We - often - have to take the statement of an emotionally disturbed individual, whose attitude may change like a mood or who is inclined to tell the doctor what he believes the doctor wants to hear. Furthermore, nature does not abide by rigid systems. The vicissitudes of life and love cause ebbs and flows in the emotions so that fixed boundaries cannot be drawn.” - The Transsexual Phenomenon - Harry Benjamin, M.D.

4. Leaders in the community are forcing the term transgender on me. Sex reassignment surgery (SRS) made me a female.

I’ve never seen Riki Wilchins, Mara Keisling, Ethan St. Pierre, or Denise Leclair out policing labels. I DO see them working for legislation that protects everyone under the transgender umbrella.

As far as surgery making you “female,” while Michael Kantaras, J’Noel Gardiner, and Kristie Littleton might agree with you, but the courts didn’t agree with them. “Leaders” in the community are simply dealing with the reality of how the society views us.

I am a bit sensitive about this subject. I’m very tired of people taking pot shots at those that are actually in the trenches working for the the equality for all people under the transgender umbrella, even “women born transsexuals.”

You want a divorce? You want to leave? THEN GO. All I can say as you leave is see ya, bye-bye, cheerio, sayonara, so long, adieu, adios, au revoir, auf wiedersehen, later!

Originally published at Transadvocate. Please leave any comments there.

So we’ve got a trans-inclusive ENDA, time to celebrate!

Or so I thought, till I actually looked at the language.

Section 8(a)(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.

So even if you’ve had sex reassignment surgery, you’re still a tranny. As a friend of mine said, “I didn’t transition so I could identify as a transsexual.”

I thought separate wasn’t equal?

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.

In the past I’ve written posts supporting the “All My Children” transgender character Zoey/Zarf (here and here). Recently, Zoey (the soap character) took part in a support group with real transgender people. Simply amazing. I’m so glad to see this. There’s a good representation of sex and race in the scene. Typically in the media you only hear or see white m2f trangender people.

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

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

The Journal of Lesbian Studies is calling for submissions to the upcoming “Lesbians and Body Image” issue. One of the questions really caught my eye:

” What differentiates body image situations where it is seen as desirable to change your attitude (i.e., “accept your body”) vs. where it is seen as desirable to change your body (i.e., transsexual surgery)? What determines whether someone identifies as a butch lesbian or a FTM transsexual?”

Is it possible to ever “accept your body?” There’s a huge difference between wanting to “shed a few pounds” and abhorring your body configuration. Body image is different than gender identity. Body image is how I feel and see myself in my own skin. Gender identity is how the world perceives me. These two things can overlap, but they are distinctly different.

If you’re going to ask if a lesbian could just “accept their body,” then you must ask “could lesbians just accept their heterosexuality”?

I was going to write a long explanation about the difference in sexual orientation, gender identity, but I’d rather ask a question.

What are the differences between:

“sissy”

“nelly queen”

“masculine”

“feminine”

“diesel dyke”

“femme”

“girly”

Discuss.

(this post was inspired by Angry Brown Butch)

(H/T) Plain(s) Feminist

I have heard many transies refer to thier penis as that "cancerous thing." Personally, I dont hate my penis, but I'm not in love with it either. Like my appendix, it exists. Since I've been on HRT for almost 2 years, my erectile function is minimal, and my libido is non-existant. Yet, I want to have SRS....which to many makes little sense. Most important to me is that I present as female. FFS for me is more important than GRS. I wouldnt trade the mental aspects of HRT for anything! Testosterone , by itself, would cause a war in my body. Mind VS Body......and it literally drove me crazy! Ive read that long term pre-op dosages arent healthy over like 6 years. Also, I see my odds of finding a life partner are slim if I dont have GRS. I certainly dont want a "tranny chaser" for a LTR. A gay man wouldnt want to be with me because of my blossoming breasts, and I wouldnt appeal to a lesbian, because of the wrong equipment. In any relational situation, a transperson is seen almost as a novelty. Something to have, to aquire. I want someone to want and love ME..for my heart, my soul, and my body...not because im a living breathing sideshow.

So in a nutshell (bad pun), I want GRS because it will be healthier for me long term, and I will be able to function in socially and sexually as a female. Anyone have any comments?

Here I sit at work, and its almost 8am. Last night bit ass bad! I walked to work. It rained so bad, I was soaked by the time I got here. My hormones were raging as I was walking in. It was funny..the male side of me wanted to angrily destroy my piece of shit umbrella...the female side wanted to cry. The male side lost...as usual :) I hate not having a car. It makes me feel like a bum....but I dont need it. Thats what the move back was about, along with giving the ex'es a chance to work things out so I can see the kids... Anyway....I miss driving a car. Im learning though to plan way ahead and listen to the weather broadcasts :) I want to buy my airfare to San Francisco next paycheck. Seeing Dr O is really getting me psyched! I am a bit scared hes gonna tell me that he cant do much for me. That would be a nightmare. I can look femme with the right lighting...and the right makeup...but GD it! I want to wake up fishy! Right now, im deep queer stealth..not because I try..but I look very hetro...whatever that means. I actually had a fag out in a bar tell me that I didnt look gay. IM NOT...im bisexual :) but I just want to live my life by my rules..and not get stuck on someone elses probs. It's really odd but the last couple of days I really want to connect with others with my journal.