But when I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I’m hearing from the groups. I’m clearly hearing three things. Well, four:
1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for
civil rights.
2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can’t include transgendered
people.
3. I don’t understand when transgendered people became part of the gay
community?
And then there’s always #4: Please don’t tell anyone I told you this.
What I’m hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they’d be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.
In many ways, he’s right. Breaking up ENDA to make it easier to pass, which is the short-term pragmatic thing to do, would certainly be followed up on by the more hardcore people. However, many more glb people just aren’t going to immerse themselves in a battle for GENDA, even if they sympathize with transgendered people.
We have to admit the facts: there are differences between “glb” and “t,” and I’m not just talking about Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Certainly, those differences and misunderstandings prevent a lot of people who are glb from truly embracing the needs of transgendered and transsexual people. As I’ve stated a few times, the glbt movement has asked trans people to sacrifice before and didn’t follow up on it. Part of that is because we haven’t been as successful with glb rights as we’d like – and the movement’s been busy. Yet, no one can really deny that trans rights have been slowed at times because of “glb” indifference, at least by some people and organizations.
Given all the transgendered people I’ve been close to in the past, I’d like to say I’m not ‘some of those people,’ but knowing everything I know I’ve still advocated for pragmatic solutions, at least during the Bush Administration. I may be willing to work hard for a GENDA too, but I know there’s hundreds of thousands of gay and bisexual people that won’t. I know that if ENDA would pass, it’s very unlikely for GENDA to follow it for at least 2-3 years, if not a decade. So, given that, am I still urging for the pragmatic solution?
Maybe, maybe not. It’s tough to say to millions of gay people that they should suffer too, all because the American people have an even more ignorant attitude toward transgendered people than they do gays and lesbians. Haven’t gay people already suffered enough? Then again, if glb people don’t embrace the transgendered community, who will?
I don’t know what’s the right solution in the long term battle. I don’t know how successful current glbt advocates can be in the future on transgendered rights if we don’t completely link our fates with the trans community now. It’s just too damn hard to predict. Will continuous progress eventually mean continual transgendered progress, as I’d like to think? Unfortunately, blogger.com doesn’t come equipped with a crystal ball. More importantly, the decision isn’t up to me, bloggers, writers or even the major players at HRC and other organizations. As Avarosis illustrates, it’ll come from whatever argument compels at least a majority of glb people.
However, I’ve been right all along in saying there’s a schism in the glbt community; that people are looking out for their own interests – and, sadly, are quite willing to tear down our supposed allies in order to protect self interests. Should we expect anything more from human beings? Well, history says it’s quite possible, but only under certain conditions. John Avarosis makes the great point that no revolution will be successful unless it’s embraced by the people within it. Has the gay community – as a whole – truly accepted the transgendered community as a part of the same struggle? Not according to Avarosis.
If the GLBT movement is going to succeed as a wide-spread movement, instead of splintering apart, it’s clear that GLB and T people need to have a meeting of the minds – before we can ever address the differences between when something’s pragmatic and when it’s downright selfish. Unfortunately, that’s a very slow, grassroots process. In this current climate of tearing each other apart, do we have the patience to go through it?
-Cross-Posted at Ryan’s Take–
sabutai says
The most recent group who makes it to respectability wants to shut the door on the next group’s face in the name of “convenience”. As soon as the Irish got in, they tried to keep the Italians out, who tried to keep out Eastern Europeans. African Americans haven’t been as supportive as one might hope of Hispanics’ efforts to achieve equality. And now the gay rights activists are freezing out trans* folk.
<
p>
It’s the American way.
laurel says
what you claim does apply to some, but by no means many or perhaps not even the majority. not by a long shot. aravosis has a history of anti-trans viewpoint. so, as i’ve said over at Ryan’s blog, by all means read his stuff, but understand what bias he is writing from and therefore how he will frame the issue.
<
p>
many of we lgb’s (and in fact, the majority of lgbt advocacy orgs) feel that dropping the t’s on this would be like cutting off our own foot. it is unthinkable. it would set a terrible precedent. and, since bush would veto any flavor of enda that might pass anyway, we would be missing a perfect opportunity to begin open debate that will set the stage for passage when a real human being sits in the white house.
sabutai says
I never claimed that every lgb activist — well, lg activist (never saw an activist lobbying for any kind of bisexual agenda. Seen lg activists assailing bisexuals for being gays in denial) — ignores t* rights. However the great majority of them do in my opinion. Ask anybody in the t* community, and they know better than to expect great things from those folks.
<
p>
Strange that the only person you could cite actually backs up my point.
<
p>
Agreed on enda which is similar to so many things in Washington right now. The Democrats move to a half-hearted compromise that will get thrown back in their face. I realize that it makes Bush seem petulent and unreasonable (which he is), but I’d like to see an occasional substantive proposal.
laurel says
i’m afraid i’m not following you there. i didn’t cite anyone. i’m responding to Ryan’s use of Aravosis’s talking points. please elaborate if you want further discussion on that.
<
p>
on the bi stuff, yes, some LGs have a poor history there. i think it is often linked to LGs feeling abandoned (whether legitimately or not) by and/or being jealous of bi people when bi people enter into hetero relationships and can take advantage of the hetero-privileged world. imo bis need to speak up more on the unique difficulties they face in either realm. as you note, coming out as bi isn’t taken as seriously as coming out as LG. that may not change much until more bis come out as bi. i know several bis who came out as gay to avoid the bi stigma that exists i some areas w/in the lgbt community. i can understand that, but ultimately it doesn’t help their plight.
ryepower12 says
I’m glad you obviously care deeply about this Sabutai, but before you go accusing me of being a George Bush Republican or something, let’s point out that going on the attack isn’t going to help in any way on this issue.
<
p>
I’m trying to have a serious conversation here. Whether you like it or not, I haven’t recieved as many emails applauding one of my posts in private since I wrote that big blog about my thoughts on BMG, right after the election. There are a LOT of people who would say it’s a two way street and their rights have been held back by the community, too.
<
p>
Personally, what I’ve taken out of Avarosis’s piece is that many glb people haven’t quite decided that they’re in the same struggle as transgendered people. Most of these people are probably sympathetic to their cause. It isn’t going to be good policy to start saying to all those glb people that they’re wrong, or stupid, or George Bush Republicans or transphobic or anything of the like. What would be far more intelligent would be to stress why it’s so important for them to embrace the “t” and “glbt.”
<
p>
Furthermore, it’s hard to discount the fact that stalling ENDA will result in millions of people having to live in a system where they can be fired for being gay. Quitting on this bill now could, for all intents and purposes, prevent any form of ENDA from coming to any President’s desk for years and years to come. Is that leaving someone under the bus? It’s hard to think in those terms when your job is on the line.
<
p>
This is a far more complicated subject than you just gave credit for. I honestly have absolutely no idea where I ultimately stand, now, on things like ENDA. I see both arguments and NONE of us has a crystal ball to say which is the better one. Hopefully, you’ll embrace the fact that the glbt community – including allies – need to seriously talk about this at the community level, not just take the decrees of HRC and other organizations, etc. Without taking those steps, the “glbt community” is hollow and may not even exist.
laurel says
Ryan, here’s a point I’m not sure I agree with, and so I’m hoping you can elaborate in a persuasive manner.
The reason I disagree is this is:
<
p>
I raise this point because it is an assumption behind a lot of peoples decision making, and I’m not sure it is a sound one. If you see something I’m missing, I want to hear it.
ryepower12 says
The first is the fact that I still hold a Bush veto on any sort of bill as a long-term victory for us. If he vetoes a weak, watered-down one, to boot, that would be a whole part of the story line on how inept he is. I seriously think this will catch on in the MSM if he does anything but sign it; if it gets on his desk, it’s a lose, lose for the Republicans.
<
p>
The second is the fact that if this bill dies a death without even being passed by the House – and if the House Dems get pissy because we were whining about them trying to actually help us – I’m not sure how willing they’ll be to put their necks on the line for this issue any time soon.
<
p>
Furthermore, while they may pick this up after ’08, with a Democratic President, it’s not going to be anywhere near first thing on their agenda. It probably wouldn’t be picked up until at least ’09, if we’re lucky. So, like I said, putting this bill down without as much as a vote could prevent another ENDA bill, of any kind, from coming up for years.
<
p>
<
p>
Also, I’m not going to put this as a reason – because I fully expect a veto – but, as I’ve said before, the Bush administration hasn’t committed to vetoing ENDA. They’ve committed to vetoing upwards of a dozen other Democratic bills, but not ENDA. They committed to vetoing the Hate Crime bill, but not ENDA. So, while I fully expect him to veto it, he knows doing so would be unpopular even in many conservative circles.
sabutai says
Ryan, I never said the first thing about you personally, and have no idea how somebody could confuse you with a Bush Republican. I have no idea where you’re getting that from. Furthermore, I never brought up Avorosis. Nor did I say anything about quitting on this bill. Nor did I say this was a simple subject.
<
p>
What I said, and will say is that on many levels, in many instances, glb groups have decided that putting an effort into expanding and protecting rights for t* folk would be a burden and a distraction from their ends. And it’s true — the strangeness and out-of-mainstream reality of trans* life is a severe political impediment. Heck, the only t* celebrity of real status in this country, Eddie Izzard, is only allowed on television when dressed and acting conventionally (which also takes away a lot of his best talents).
<
p>
Putting t* rights into ENDA costs you some votes. And the equation in this instance is simple — is abandoning a commitment to full equality worth the votes on a bill that will be vetoed anyway? I say no.
<
p>
If lgb groups want to openly say “listen, our job is hard enough without bringing in the groups that really weird out America. We’ll get to you when we can.” I could respect that. But instead, it’s the same old line. We’re all for achievable rights, some sooner than others! Why should I put by job on the line just because someone else’s rights are threatened, too? Your rights can wait, your equality will come, but for now wait your turn. I call that cowardly whenever it’s said.
<
p>
I don’t see how one can deny that t* rights have been a sacrifice on the altar of gay/lesbian equality. It’s not pretty. It may even be necessary, but it is reality.
<
p>
As a far greater man than I said:
<
p>
laurel says
it’s true that there aren’t many, but heck, how could you overlook RuPaul?!
sabutai says
Though the attention due to their orientation helped, but I don’t think being homosexual is the entire cause of the success of Barney Frank, Greg Louganis, Sara Gilbert, and Rosie O’Donnell.
<
p>
RuPaul only gets press because he’ll put on a dress.
laurel says
you’ve got it completely wrong.
Would you say that to Barbara Streisand? RuPaul is a gifted artist. If you think that anyone can just throw on a dress and get press, you’re dead wrong. Hell, I’ll send you my brother’s wedding pictures to prove it (look for the dyke standing in the bridesmaid’s dress. you’ll know the one).
<
p>
As for the first part of your comment, did anyone say being homo was the entire cause of anyone’s success? where in the world did that comment come from?
sabutai says
RuPaul’s celebrity is largely based on the fact that she is a man who dresses en femme. She does it well, but I believe her celebrity is based on her being a drag queen. That’s why male guests on her short-lived show were encouraged to dress as women, why her only recorded songs of note are over-the-top stereotypes of female attitudes.
<
p>
I am saying the opposite of what you are asking, Laurel, and perhaps I was unclear. Etheridge, Frank, and O’Donnell built careers independent of their orientation. I have a hard time believing RuPaul would have gotten anywhere without the drag queen shtick.
<
p>
I’d love to see a trans who was a celebrity despite/in addition to being a trans, not because they are one.
laurel says
hear your slam.
<
p>
i know or know of numerous transfolk who are well respected in their careers because they are brilliant in their careers. and their careers have nothing to do with being trans. they are out there. i’m not sure why we’re on this celebrity kick. why is this important? you know, trans people are not that common. it doesn’t surprise me that in the tiny subset of people that is hollywood we don’t yet have a trans actor (that we know about). you’re looking for rare time rare = quite unlikely. so what does it prove that transfolk don’t abound on screen (that you know of)?
sabutai says
This is all started way back in thread when I was pointing out how far from American mainstream consciousness is the reality of the cd/t* lifestyle. And this unfamiliarity explains the reluctance of the lgb lobby to really go to bat for those rights. I certainly didn’t mean to turn this into a comparison of RuPaul and Rose O’Donnell in the eyes of the American public.
<
p>
To short-circuit this E!News fodder, I have three contentions:
<
p>
<
p>
I realize some of those contentions may violate the sacred cow that the gay rights lobby is uniformly heroic and downtrodden, but they are true from where I sit.
laurel says
for boiling it down for me. i think your points have a good chance of being correct. in my corner of the world, however, i see no friction between t’s and other lgb’s. i just don’t. so my take is that yes, america at large is lagging, and some lgbs are too, but many of we lgb’s are farther along than might be guessed. the question is, of course, how many of there are us? i guess we all agree that no one knows.
<
p>
i would quibble with some terminology you keep using, and that is referring to t lifestyle. i really hate that word lifestyle. playing tennis at noon followed by martinis by the pool is a lifestyle. knowing that the sex of your body does not match the gender of your soul is not a lifestyle. i am particularly sensitive to this, because “lifestyle” has been used for ages as a code word for accusing lgbt people of choosing to act lgbt, not that we intrinsically are lgbt. it is not constructive when one of our own or an ally uses the term. i hope you’ll give that some consideration.
sabutai says
I do hate getting marginal, but you raise some good points. I don’t think there’s necessarily hostility between cd/t* and lgb, however I do think that lgb have not done nearly what they could for cd/t* rights.
<
p>
As for the word lifestyle, this is where it gets tricky. However, the description you provide of dysphoria — that one’s gender and sex do not match — is a description of transsexuality, not crossdressing or transvestitism. I don’t like the word lifestyle in some ways, but I haven’t found a better one yet. The whole issue is one to grapple, trying to segment out psychological/self-image strands with sexual strands.
ryepower12 says
I was about to write to Laurel that I was also confused where the discussion was going because a drag queen isn’t necessarily transgendered. I have a few friends that used to dress in drag a lot, but quite readily identify as gay men. They just enjoyed dressing in drag… which was why I didn’t get all the celebrity talk about drag queens.
ryepower12 says
But I’ve never seen one minority held responsible for linking their fates to other minorities. That’s the central issue many glb people have that would allow them to stand for it. Until the majority of glb people embrace linking their fate with transgendered and transexual people, it’s an unfortunate fact that things like ENDA will be likely to be split into two, at least with a Bush-like social conservative in the oval office.
<
p>
In the end, if we can get that sort of grassroots effort and true sense of community, then I’m all for it. However, I don’t see any of the organizations who keep sending out decrees and taking charge, etc. even trying to make that happen. There’s a real schism that exists and I hope that changes. I’m willing to do my part to make that happen, because I think it’s important and, in general, I think along the same lines as you illustrated above. Yet, I have to recognize that there’s a dialogue that never took place and must if we’re going to start winning these battles at the federal level.
raj says
…to the situation regarding a T non-inclusive ENDA
<
p>
Preliminarily, this is a tempest in a teapot. The federal ENDA is not going to be passed by Congress AND signed into law any time soon. As I’ve mentioned over at Pam’s House Blend, the best strategy is to continue working at the state and local level, to get companies to write anti-discrimination provisions into their corporate manuals, and to boycott those companies who refuse to do so.
<
p>
I doubt very seriously that many homosexuals (G&Ls) would work actively to deny transgendered persons equal rights under an ENDA, which are analogous to what you described.. But they don’t want the Ts to actively work to delay passage of a law that might benefit G&Ls but that might not benefit Ts. As far as I can tell (and I mentioned this over at Pam’s) Ts have, by and large, not laid the groundwork to make the larger community (i.e. by and large straight people who vote) sufficiently comfortable with them to get a T-inclusive federal ENDA passed. G&L’s have achieved some modicum of success, but just barely. You might respond, it’s not right to not include Ts, but that’s not the issue.
<
p>
I’ll give you an example of my point about Ts attempts to delay passage of a law that might benefit G&Ls but not Ts. It happened in NYS only a couple of years ago. In exchange for an endorsement from a NYS gay organization, gubernatorial candidate (for re-election) Pataki promised to twist some arms–most notably the arms of anti-gay state senate president Bruno–to add “sexual orientation” to the state’s existing anti-discrimination law which the gay groups had been trying to add to the state law since 1971 without success.
<
p>
Pataki did twist Bruno’s arms after he won the election, and Bruno relented. At the last minute, though, T groups hopped into the fray, objecting to the bill because it did not include “gender identity.” We can discuss what that means (some T groups define “T” so broadly as to include G&L, which is ridiculous), but that threatened to derail the bill. Fortunately, the T groups were unsuccessful at that point in time and the NYS legislature passed the bill adding “sexual orientation” to the state’s antidiscrimination law.
<
p>
If and when the T advocates have laid the groundwork for “gender identity,” it will be added, too. One point. A couple of years ago, on the now-extinct NYTimes gay rights message board, we were discussing the T issue. The issue of rest-rooms came up. A very G&L (and T) friendly straight person (a woman) mentioned that there are some very real issues that women have regarding people who are physically male making use of womens’ rest-rooms. You might pooh-pooh the issue, but it is a real one. And that’s one reason that I raise the issue that T groups have not laid the necessary groundwork.
laurel says
Ryan, you gave us a lot to digest up there, so let me please just nibble on one small corner of the issue right now.
<
p>
It is important for everyone to remember that some transgendered people are straight, some are bi and some are gay. So it is a false dichotomy to say there is an lgb community over here, and a t community over there. In actuality, we are like two overlapping circles. Sometimes this point is missed in the shorthand used in social & political discourse.
<
p>
The problem then become setting up a false sens of us vs. them. There is no us and them. There is only us- all of us. Some people make have a hard time accepting that, but that is no excuse to cast aside part of ourselves.
<
p>
One thing is for sure, whether a person is l,g,b,t or some combination, the professional haters out there gladly lump us together into one unseemly pile of sinners. Whether we all stick together or not, they will continue to stick us together as long as it makes them money or brings them votes or power.
ryepower12 says
If all civil rights battles could be fought by one army of activists, because there isn’t really two overlapping circles… but as many as could possibly exist. There are gay, handicapped, buddhist, African American transgendered people out there, I’m sure.
<
p>
Yet, all that said, there is a dichotomy in the glbt camp, whether we like it or not. Some people are in the community because of their sexuality, some people because of their gender identity, others for both… and, of course, neither (after all, we have tens of millions of hard-core allies running around).
<
p>
As I’ve said a few times now, I’m at the point where I don’t know if splitting ENDA is even the pragmatic thing to do anymore, or not. Given all the different circumstances and realities, I don’t think it’s even possible to see up from down.
<
p>
That said, it isn’t going to be a HRC decree that will decide how the actual glbt community moves on this. It’s going to take the all glbt people and everyone in between or surrounding it. It’s going to take the entire community being committed to talk about these issues and how they should be played out (not HRC deciding for us).
<
p>
It could slow the movement down at first, but ultimately it has to happen one way or the other… or else, we risk the eventual splitting of the entire movement in terms that aren’t exactly amicable to everyone involved, except those who want to keep us all down.
laurel says
I’m glad you mentioned that idea of an HRC decree, because I really don’t know who has the influence with the decision-making legislators at this point. I know HRC is powerful, but they are now up against 90+ other LGBT orgs very active on this issue. I’m pretty sure some of those orgs have lobbyists on the hill, and its seems they all have tapped into the “send an email to your rep” system. And then there’s the frustration factor clearly heard in Frank’s voice when he was interviewed on Michelangelo Signorile’s show the other day. What’s to say he won’t just do what he personally believes is the best thing at this point, because he is getting mixed messages from the electorate (and he no doubt has political concerns beyond this bill)?
<
p>
So, I’m not arguing any point here, I’m just wondering if anyone knows the layout of the power/decision making structure on this bill at this point? My instinct is that whatever monolith HRC might be, it is being overtaken at the moment by a swarm of smaller orgs and of individuals such as ourselves. So will and HRC decree be effective at this point, and does that matter in the long and short run?
ryepower12 says
How the dynamics work, but my point extends beyond HRC. Lambda Legal, GLAAD and all the other major glbt organizations can’t decide by decree how the community will feel, think or act. They can help set up the dialogue, which would be nice, but that’s about it.
<
p>
That said, usually these kinds of groups are controlled by the decision-making of just a few people at the top, like Solomon, etc. So, I can’t tell you for sure who runs the show in HRC and others, but it’s certainly likely to be a be a top-heavy organization (hence why I say that they don’t really have the ability to control the community, as a whole).
raj says
sometimes l, g or b people are t
<
p>
…there are GLBT people who are Italo-Americans. Catholic. Or even blacks. The reason that a person is discriminated against (race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc.) will come out if someone files a complaint.
laurel says
Send the message to your U.S. Rep that the only acceptable ENDA is t-inclusive. You can do that here at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s site.
<
p>
Out of a sense of fairness, I thought about also posting a link to a site that lets you send a hoo-ra for the non-t version of ENDA. Interestingly, I couldn’t find one. However, there are plenty like this that politely refer to us as “homosexual-drag queen/she-males” and call for the defeat of any form of ENDA.