And, no, this is not the Bilerico Project.  But, this (New Riders Of The Purple Sage) is dedicated to Facebook, which sent me (Stephanie Stevens) that queer e-mail today which suggested I “might know Stephanie Stevens” … ’cause, frankly, no, I really don’t …

This morning’s Raleigh News & Observer has a feature on blogger Pam Spaulding who will be covering (along with Autumn) the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August for Pam’s House Blend …

Spaulding, a Durham native, is a bit of a local celebrity these days, recognized in supermarkets and airports by her dirty-blond dreadlocks. And it’s all because of her blog, Pam’s House Blend, which turns four years old this month. The progressive, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issue-centered blog is also one of the first to acquire press credentials to this year’s Democratic National Convention, which is granting access to bloggers for the first time.

It’s a responsibility Spaulding takes seriously — even if some politicians and mainstream media don’t think a blogger deserves to have it.

“Sometimes, yes, it’s profane, sometimes it’s rude, sometimes it’s not grammatically correct, but the medium is different. It’s fast and loose,” she says. “But that does not mean that the ideas are bankrupt, that the criticism isn’t legitimate.”

Pam’s House Blend has won a number of awards, including the Distinguished Achievement Award from The Monette-Horwitz Trust, for making strides toward the eradication of homophobia; Best LGBT Blog in the 2005 and 2006 Weblog Awards; and accolades from the likes of gay activist Mandy Carter and former Democratic Senate candidate Jim Neal.

…

The rest of “Blogger gets respect” may be found here.

The U.S. House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions has scheduled a hearing for June 26th on discrimination against transgender employees in the workplace. Early tomorrow, I’m taking flight to DC to cover the hearing for Pam’s House Blend.

My roundtrip airline ticket has been arranged by the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA), and my housing has been arranged by the National Center For Transgender Equality (NCTE). Besides TAVA and NCTE, the Transgender Law Center (TLC) and some individuals within the transgender community also offered to contribute to financing this trip — I directed TLC and these individuals to coordinate donations for the trip with NCTE, as originally they were going to be the single organization to cover my trip related expenses.

My personal agenda issue of civil rights and protections for transgender people –as well as others for whom society deems as not conforming to societal gender norms — is shared by TAVA, NCTE, and TLC, as well as many, many individuals within the broader LGBT community, and of course within the more narrowly defined transgender community. Frankly, I’m very concerned about what the future will look like for transyouth, as well as for transgender adults who haven’t yet come out of the closet — these hearings really do need to be covered by someone from the transgender community that has a personal perspective — a personal stake — regarding transgender legislative issues. Apparently, TAVA, NCTE, and TLC, as well as a number of individual, trans identified folk feel strongly enough about this that they’re sponsoring my trip to DC.

I’m going to be sticking to the GLAAD, NLGJA, and Associated Press guidelines for covering transgender people — as well as for transgender terminology — as much as possible. I stick to these guidelines most of the time, actually, but am pointing this out for the blog readership who want to know whether I’m referring to a person’s natal sex or to a person’s target sex when I use terms like transwoman or transman (always by target sex of the individual referenced, by the way), and for those who think I’m blurring gender lines in inappropriate or unacceptable ways in the choice of terms I use to refer to people of trans experience.

Anywho, I expect I’ll have a lot to write about from DC. I’m hoping to get in some interviews with DC based activists and “non-profiteers” this week too — my guess is that it’ll take me a few weeks to post all of the stories I gather during this trip.

Following up on Pam’s Obama sits down with The Advocate and addresses LGBT issues, I asked myself the question Which Democratic Presidential Candidate Would Fight Harder For A Trans-Inclusive ENDA?

Here is Sen. Obama’s comment in The Advocate:

Advocate: If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community — what can you reasonably get done?

Sen. Obama: I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.

Advocate: You think it’s transgender-inclusive?

Sen. Obama: I think that’s going to be tough, and I’ve said this before. I have been clear about my interest in including gender identity in legislation, but I’ve also been honest with the groups that I’ve met with that it is a heavy lift through Congress. We’ve got some Democrats who are willing to vote for a non-inclusive bill but we lose them on an inclusive bill, and we just may not be able to generate the votes. I don’t know. And obviously, my goal would be to get the strongest possible bill — that’s what I’ll be working for.

Here’s what Sen. Clinton was quoted previously as saying in the New York Blade in October, 2006:

Transgender activist Melissa Sklarz asked Sen. Clinton to keep an eye on one of the few federal measures that could help transgender individuals, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

“The way it is written now, it does not include gender identity and gender expression,” Sklarz said. “It would mean so much to transgender people, if we could count on some kind of federal protection if ENDA ever gets out of the cave it’s been sitting in.”

Sen. Clinton noted that trans-inclusion was also a problem in the federal hate-crimes legislation.

“We are aware of that,” she said. “Hopefully, the light will come, and we’ll see what we can do.”

So the answer to my self-asked question of who would fight harder for a trans-inclusive ENDA, from the candidates statements I’d conclude “neither would.”

If you’re looking for strong statements from the two Democratic presidential candidates indicating that they’re ready to stake some of their presidential prestige on a trans-inclusive ENDA, I don’t we’ve seen that to date. If their stands on marriage equality are an indicator of how willing the candidates are to take a firm stand in support of an LGBT issue where they see some contoversy, then I don’t think we’re going to see either of these candidates stake presidential prestige on trans-inclusion in ENDA once in office.

From an activism perspective, that makes it incumbent on those of us in the LGBT community who do support a trans-inclusive ENDA to communicate to our congresspeople and senators about only supporting a transgender inclusive ENDA.

~~~~~
Related:
* Obama sits down with The Advocate and addresses LGBT issues
* Q Of The Day - What’s Your “Deal Breaker” Issue?
* With Regards To LGBT’s T, Trying To Define “Change” This Election Year
* Clinton’s pre-Super Tuesday message for the LGBT community
* Sen. Clinton Today Wrote The Words “Fully Inclusive” With Regards To ENDA

I’ve been reporting for a few months on the Democratic presidential candidates LGBT statements and positions — and especially relating to transgender inclusion in civil rights legislation like ENDA.

There are clear statements now on the record for Senators Clinton and Obama on gender identity inclusive ENDA and hate crime legislation, written under their own bylines:

Sen. Barack Obama:

I will also place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sen. Hillary Clinton:

We’re going to expand our federal hate crimes legislation and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and assure that they are both fully inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

My transgender peers, my transgender allies, and I are putting the candidates on notice: Lip service to transgender inclusion in ENDA and hate crimes legislation will not be sufficient past January 20th of 2009. It will not acceptable to just sign any ENDA that passes their desks. I expect whichever of these two becomes president to put the full weight of the Oval Office — including the pressuring reluctant Congresspeople — to pass a fully inclusive ENDA.

My peers, my allies, and I will accept no less from them than a vigorous push by them for fully inclusive, LGBT equality under the law. We will not accept the excuse “I’m signing the non-inclusive ENDA bill because that’s what Congress sent to my desk to sign.”

No lip service. No weaseling out of his or her statement once he or she takes office. In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., we demand equality under the law:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

If no where else but here at PHB and Stephanie Stevens’ and my pee-wee blog The View From (Ab)Normal Heights, I will personnaly hold our current candidates accountable for ensuring gender identity or expression is in all federal LGBT civil rights and hate crime legislation. Nothing less than a Democratic President’s signature on fully inclusive versions of ENDA and hate crimes legislation will be acceptable.

~~~~~
Related:
* Q Of The Day - What’s Your “Deal Breaker” Issue?
* Do They Mean What They Say? Do They Say What They Mean?
* With Regards To LGBT’s T, Trying To Define “Change” This Election Year
* Donna Rose Comments On The LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee
* Sen. Clinton Today Wrote The Words “Fully Inclusive” With Regards To ENDA

I wrote this post to educate LGB people about transgender people going into surgery over at PHB, but am crossposting here to a more transgender audience as I wrote it for the broader LGBT community.
~~Autumn~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tuesday is the day I go in for my gastric bypass surgery. I needed to be at or below 262 pounds to be eligible for the surgery (that’s an arbitrary weight set by my surgeon, based on me losing ten pounds between my last appointment and the surgery date). On my friend’s electronic scale yesterday, I weighed 260 pounds. I’m guessing by the way I feel and the way I look, and my continued liquid diet and continued rigorous exercise plan, I’ll be adequately below the 262 pound mark.

The reason one has to lose 10 pounds right before surgery has to do with shrinking the liver. The plan is to do this surgery laparoscopicly, so a shrunken liver facilitates easier access to the stomach and intestines. There is a chance I may need to be opened up fully for the bypass, but it’s not the norm.

The gravity of this surgery is really hitting me. This past two weeks while I’ve been on a full liquid diet, I’ve been craving KFC and In and Out Double-Doubles (double cheeseburgers), the reality is that these foods won’t be part of my diet for a long time to come, and even then only in very infrequent doses — my reduced stomach and my long term health plans aren’t going to stomach junk food. My life is forever changing, pretty much as my life changed when I began transitioning to Autumn on February 6, 2003.

These days, I don’t usually talk about the shape of my genitalia or about my secondary sex characteristics because, frankly, my gender isn’t determined by these. I know I’m female just because I just know — as actually how most people know what their gender is. But, per my birth state’s laws, my legal sex is determined pretty much by the shape of my genitalia. There are some commenters here at PHB, as well as a lot of the religious right community, that are genitalia essentialists — they see me as a man because of the current shape of my genitalia (in the case of commenters here at PHB) now, or see me always as a man because of the shape of my genitalia at birth/because they believe my genetics will indicate I’m male.

[More about going into surgery as a pre-operative transsexual after the fold]

Read the rest of this entry »

Some of the gender and transgender-related items we’ve been reading on our daily blog run, all of which may also be found here …

At hiding in plain sight …

Instead, there is only Grannan’s exploitation of her subjects’ confusion and unhappiness. The extent of that exploitation is best illustrated by reference to another woman who photographed outsiders and was accused, in her day, of exploiting them. In fact, Diane Arbus’s freaks are paragons of dignity in comparison. Some of them are even joyful. That’s because Arbus knew all along that she was one of them. Grannan is just a tourist.

Katy Grannan

At dented blue mercedes …

Don’t you just love that phrase, “used to be a man?”

Can You Ever Leave Behind the Evil Twin?

At Righteous Anger …

Now sure I’m all for individual rights, but really why can’t these sissies stop complaining about what genetics cursed themselves with and learn to cope with the reality of the world they were born into.

A TransNational Geographic Outlook

At Bilerico Project …

If progressives want to choose the lesser evil, that’s a position to take, but to claim that an insider politician backed by every establishment figure he can get his hands on is going to heal anything besides his own hemorrhoids is dangerous and embarrassing.

Barack Obama: a transcendent person of color

At Trans Universe …

In the spring of this year, Haworth Press will be releasing a new book called “Trans People in Love,” edited by Tracie O’Keefe and Katrina Fox from Sydney, Australia. This book has 25 chapters, all written by different authors from around the world about their experiences with love. I am one of the contributing writers for this book and my chapter is called, “Sex and the Single Trannie.” In my chapter, I speak about libido and how I vowed not to lose it when I started hormones.

Sex, Love and Transsexuals

Some of the gender and transgender-related blogs we’re reading today (Super Tuesday - please vote!), all of which may be found here too …

At BEING “T” …

Border Patrol

At Bi Girl Friday …

EQCA to honor transgender and marriage equality leaders

At author interviews …

Jennifer Finney Boylan

At Transsexual Road Map Notes …

Protest vigil outside HRC Annual Dinner 2/9 Philadelphia

At The View From (Ab)Normal Heights …

Sen. Clinton Today Wrote The Words “Fully Inclusive” With Regards To ENDA

At ATRANS.PT (a video from The Center in NYC) …

Transgender Basics

At Crossing the T …

Transgender Religious Summit themes … part 2

At Bilerico Project …

Sex(ism) and gender and everything that comes next

Some of the gender and transgender-related writings we’re reading today …

At Towleroad …

Hillary Clinton on ENDA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, McCain, and Coulter

At (Ab)Normal Heights …

Donna Rose Comments On The LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee

At Gender and Life’s Paths …

Transgender: Why Don’t We Matter

At Phred’s Blog …

Human hatred on display in Gainesville

At Bilerico Project …

The Gender Anarchist

What Man and What Woman?

And at Intersex Pride …

Elizabeth Reis defames and trivializes intersex people

DSD: North American Medical fascism and manufacturing consent

~~~~~Update~~~~~
Sen. Clinton used the word transgender today in a response to a question posed in the San Francisco Chronicle:

I saw you on the Logo Channel debate and was disappointed with the way you answered the question about marriage equality. To my ears, your emphasis on “state-level solutions” was merely a reworking of the same “states rights” arguments used by the South to defend segregation and laws that prohibited people of different races from marrying. As a candidate who claims to want to bring America back to our best traditions of democracy and equality, why won’t you come out in support of full marriage equality for all our citizens?
- Brad Colby, 42, Millbrae

Sen. Clinton: Today, gay couples cannot grow old together, share life decisions, jointly own property, and take care of one another within a legal framework that provides them the peace of mind knowing that what they’ve worked for and built together cannot be taken away.

Civil unions give gay and lesbian couples the stability and security they need without interfering in any way with the tradition of marriage. I support full equality of benefits, rights, and responsibilities for individuals in loving, stable, same sex relationships, and believe that civil unions are the way to achieve that goal. I do not think that civil unions should be less than marriage - there needs to be equality of benefits.

I also think we have to be vigilant in protecting the rights of all Americans - and in extending equal opportunity and equal justice to all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. No one should be barred from getting a job, from renting a home, from contributing to our society and making the most of their talents simply because of their sexual orientation. We also must strengthen law enforcement and prosecution against discriminatory acts of violence against gays, lesbians and transgender Americans. Hate crimes undermine the fundamental principal of our country - that all men and women are created equal - and I will fight to pass federal hate crimes legislation to ensure that for the LGBT community.

I don’t like the answer because the term transgender is used only is reference to hate crimes legislation, and is conspicuously left out of her comments on employment anti-discrimination. But that said, at least she publicly used the word “transgender” in an answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Bellini interviewed Hillary Clinton for Logo, and the video is up on 365Gay. Check out Hillary Clinton’s evasive answer to transgender inclusion on ENDA at about 1:45 into the video. First of all, Bellini poses the question as a “personal position” question vice a question of what her “public policy” is going to be transgender inclusion in ENDA. But even when phrased that way, Sen. Clinton uses the words “hopefully” and “eventually” with regards to transgender inclusion…in hate crime legislation. In other words, she didn’t answer even the poorly worded initial question before pivoting to “hopeful” and “eventual” inclusion of transgender protections in a hate crime bill. Perhaps even more telling is that in her entire answer, she again never utters the words “transgender” or “gender identity.”

Then note that reporter Bellini doesn’t press Sen. Clinton any further on the issue. It appears obvious to me that Sen. Clinton didn’t want to go on the record as supporting legislation that would protect transgender people in the workplace. Watch the video yourself, and see if you come to the same conclusions I did.

Although I care about other issues than transgender civil rights and protections within the framework of broad, LGBT civil rights and protections, by far transgender issues are the most important issues to me. In my opinion, Sen. Clinton’s answer was completely unsatisfactory on the issue — because of her evasive answer, I definitely won’t be voting for her when my state’s Super Duper Tuesday primary occurs next week.

It’s apparent to me that during this “change” election cycle, transgender civil rights and protections on the federal level wouldn’t likely be part of any “change” a Clinton presidency would bring. To Hillary Clinton’s LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee (list of names found in two press releases: here and here) — especially the four transgender women found in that list of Steering Committee members — is this the kind of position on transgender issues you all steered her to do? If that isn’t the way you’ve steered her, do you find the answer she gave to the question acceptable?

Donna Rose’s blog (rss feed here) is always interesting for her insider/outsider take on LGBT issues, especially when related to the T issues and people. For reference, Rose was the only T on the HRC’s Board of Directors until late last year when she quit the board — quitting specifically over the HRC’s position flip-flopping on gender identity and expression inclusion in ENDA.

Her February 2nd entry references her question for Mike Signiorile’s GLBT Caucus event on Sirius radio. Donna’s question goes straight to how the Democratic LGBT Steering Committees are steering Sen. Obama’s and Sen. Clinton’s campaigns with regards to transgender issues:

In light of recent events with ENDA the transgender community is understandably skeptical of promises or commitments made to us in Washington. Everyone says they’re supportive in principal until they have to actually do something, so my question is more about action than about words.

The presidential candidates have surrounded themselves with LGBT advisory teams to provide guidance on LGBT issues. Unfortunately, I have seen little or not recognition that either of the current candidates recognizes the transgender community, or gender variant people, as anything other than “Gay”. The words we’re hearing continue to be non-inclusive and I would expect that the steering committees would be working with the candidates to improve recognition of the unique challenges and concerns faced by transgender and gender-variant people. I don’t see that happening.

That said, here is my question. Two of the themes being used quite often by both candidates are “Leadership” and “Change” What would you say to a transgender employee about to transition at work who is concerned about losing his or her job, or a gender variant teen facing abuse at school simply for being different, or a street worker who can’t find a job to get her life back on track, or the parent of a victim of a transgender-based hate crime - what would you tell them that your candidate has substantively done to demonstrate that they recognize their needs? And as a follow-up, what will your candidate do if elected in terms of Leadership and Change to raise awareness, to be more inclusive, to engage qualified transgender people in positions of leadership, to ensure that GLBT legislation does not leave anyone behind, and to make the day-to-day lives of transgender and gender-variant people in this country better?

She wrote of the answers she received on air from the surrogates:

Representatives from both campaigns responded that their candidate supported inclusive legislation in their state. And that was all they had to say.

[More from Donna Rose's blog on "Change" this election season.]

Read the rest of this entry »

This is crossposted from one of my favorite bloggers, Monica Roberts, with her permission.  (She posts over on her own blog, TransGriot, and over at Bilerico).

The email by Sue is a little irritating because Sue didn’t do research on Monica — heck, Monica was IGFE’s Trinity Award winner for 2006. (IGFE’s description of the award: “Trinity Awards honor our heroes and heroines, people who have performed extraordinary acts of courage and love in service to the Transgender Community.”) I know how much civil rights work Monica has done over the years to benefit multiple communities — I know Monica meets the ultimate measure of a woman by where she stands in at times of challenge and controversy. And, from what I’ve seen, Monica understands that life’s most urgent question is “What are you doing for others?”

Frankly, Sue doesn’t know enough about Monica’s past decade of civil rights and community work make the statement “You really should stick to what you know best and keep out of the bigger picture.” I would dare say Monica has a much, much better “big picture” understanding of federal level civil rights issues than Sue does.

Let me add here that I’ve known Sue personally, as she, like me, is a San Diego resident. She has a history of working with transgender people in support groups/support organizations, worked with others at Family Health Services of San Diego to get a transgender needs assessment published, and worked with others in support of ammending San Diego’s Human Dignity Ordinance to add transgender employment protections. Frankly, I can’t figure what happened to her perspective on trangender people between late 2003 and now — I know she’s no longer in the mainstream of transgender activism here in our hometown.

The comments are turned off here, but if you want to comment on this article by Monica, please go to the original post at TransGriot.
~~Autumn~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hateraid From A WBT

One of the things that’s part of being an activist, especially one who has writing talents and an ever increasing media profile is critcism.

I’m a big girl and I expect it, nor do I presume that ‘errbody’ agrees with what I have to say. I welcome constructive criticism if it is done in a loving way that helps me become a better person and a better activist.

But this is what was sitting in my e-mail inbox when I checked it early on the morning of January 25 after doing 15 hours at work.

From: “Sue Robins”
To:
Subject: I owe you thanks
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:35:25 -0800

Minica;

I wanted to thank you for showing your true colors up on Bilerico today. You really should stick to what you know best and keep out of the bigger picture. What you and others are demonstrating is the inability of the transgender community to function in a polite environment without saying disrespectful thing. I have heard it from more then a few of my post-transition friends that you and your ilk are making a mockery of the transgender rights cause. This is the very reason people have been leaving the TG movement in droves.

You don’t seem to understand you have to work with straight middle class men and women if you want to insure progress in transgender rights. You have to play the game by their rules not Barney Frank’s. One of those rules is there is only two sexes Men and Women fortunately a large part of the transgender community understands that. You just keep posting your disrespectful comments you are showing the world that transgenders are nothing more then freaks to be seen on Jerry Springer; thankfully my transgender friends don’t act that way.

Have a nice day

Hugs
Sue Robins

————–

(Cue Papi Boulevardez laugh)

FYI TransGriot readers. I didn’t put my first post on the Bilerico Project blog until 6:48 PM Friday evening. So at the time I read this e-mail I didn’t know what the hell she was talking about.

I’ve since discovered that Sue Robins is one of those white transsexual separatists that I’ve been tangling with in various online transgender groups since the late 90’s.

Before I start the fun and festivities taking this e-mail apart and rebutting her WBT azz (and in this case the WBT stands for weak-minded belligerent transsexual) enjoy this music video from Jill Scott for her hit song ‘Hate on Me’.

I wanted to thank you for showing your true colors up on Bilerico today. You really should stick to what you know best and keep out of the bigger picture.

Why? What is it about lil old me that ’scurrs’ you and your ilk so much? And as for keeping out of the bigger picture, too late. While you were cowering in your closet, I was lobbying congressmembers in 1998. I was sitting at a table at Task Force HQ in DC back in 2000 during their National Transgender Policy meeting. I’ve been in this effort for ten years now and I ain’t going away.

What you and others are demonstrating is the inability of the transgender community to function in a polite environment without saying disrespectful thing.

There you go again with that BS ‘horizontal hostility’ crap. The interesting thing is that every time this shade gets thrown by nekulturny people like you, y’all jump off crap, then you wanna whine and holler ‘horizontal hostility’ when people call you on it.

I have heard it from more then a few of my post-transition friends that you and your ilk are making a mockery of the transgender rights cause. This is the very reason people have been leaving the TG movement in droves.

Oh really? The one thing that’s making a mockery of the transgender rights cause is the inept way that it’s been handled for the last ten years by some peeps that share your ethnic background.

As for your assertion that people are leaving the movement in droves, got any facts to back that statement up? Methinks you’re just counting your whiny clueless ‘WBT’ peeps who have repeatedly demonstrated breathtaking ignorance on a vast array of subjects and the inability to work and play well with others.

You don’t seem to understand you have to work with straight middle class men and women if you want to insure progress in transgender rights. You have to play the game by their rules not Barney Frank’s.

This is priceless. White male privilege in action, folks. You are not only discounting and disrespecting my intelligence and abilities, but have the nerve to try to lecture me about how to pass rights legislation when I’ve been to Capitol Hill, two state legislatures, and recently the Jefferson County school board to do precisely that.

One of those rules is there is only two sexes Men and Women fortunately a large part of the transgender community understands that.

Umm, medical science and biology says otherwise. I think our intersex friends would have a bone to pick with you about your narrow assessment as well. Fortunately a larger section of the transgender community and our allies understand that gender is a continuum, and everybody fits somewhere along that line. The only peeps that share your gender=genitalia dogma besides some of your WBT friends are the Religious Right, the Catholic Church and Barney Frank.

You just keep posting your disrespectful comments you are showing the world that transgenders are nothing more then freaks to be seen on Jerry Springer; thankfully my transgender friends don’t act that way.

FYI, Jerry Springer’s peeps called me and asked me to come on their show in 1997. I told them hell no and lose my phone number.

Funny, media professionals over the years seem to like my comments enough to continue to ask me to do interviews such as my local newspaper or the Colorlines magazine one I just did. Go pick it up at a bookseller near you.

The 600 hits per day I get on this blog seems to indicate that peeps like what I have to say. I wrote a newspaper column in a GLBT paper for three years and co-hosted a radio show for two.

So what have you done to uplift transgender peeps today or over the last ten years besides sit behind your computer all day and rant?

By the way Sue, I have a fresh batch of Hater tots prepared for you that y’all can munch on to go with that Vanilla Ice flavored Hateraid you and your friends are drinking by the 55 gallon drum.

You have a blessed day.

In the last week or so there has been some interesting commentary coming from the religious right, as well as an editorial in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, regarding transgender folk. There’s been a few interesting stories too. So, instead of writing up a bevy of individual posts on a variety of transgender stories, here’s a “This And That” post to catch y’all up on the news and commentary relating to gender identity and expression.

~~~~~~~~~~

○ The Phoenix Arizona LGBT publication Echo Magazine picked their woman of the year: Regina Gazelle.

Almira Enos had used meth since she was 13 years old. To get drugs, she would often prostitute herself. She was born a man, but always knew she was supposed to be a woman. Her own mother told her so. Her confused gender state fueled the chronic drug use. She often felt lost and suicidal. Enter Regina Gazelle, Echo’s Woman of the Year.

In April, Enos met Gazelle, who helped the now 26-year-old clean up and learn how to live in her own skin. Enos enrolled in Gazelle’s halfway house for transgender girls, “This Is H.O.W. (Honesty, Openmindedness, Willingness),” and today is sober and even has a job.

She credits Gazelle with her remarkable transformation.

Editor Patrick Roland wrote in his commentary on the article:

So it is with great pride I announce Echo’s first transgender woman of the year, the fabulous Regina Gazelle.

We know there may be some controversy in making this decision. We thought about having “people of the year” because Regina’s accomplishments were so amazing we knew she had to get the much-needed recognition she’s earned.

But at the end of the day, Regina is a woman, period. And she’s been through a hell of a lot more and created so much with what little she had to work with, she’s made our community a far better place for having her in it.

~~~~~~~~~~

○ And, the first thing you should know is you should be afraid of me and my kind because we are a bunch of bullies — so says the Catholic Online in their editorial Beware of the ‘Gender Identity’ Bullies. The article begins by framing San Francisco’s plan to begin issuing some municipal identification cards without gender markers for undocumented workers and transgender people. Some choice excerpts from the piece:

● Rather than seeing our gender as a gift and a given, this movement is a part of a growing effort to place some perceived power over sexual identity in the hands of individuals so that they can make their own decision as to whether they are men or women; or to change their mind regularly.

These new municipal identification cards will contain birthdates and photos. However, they will not indicate whether the holder is male or female. Why? Because the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco have determined that to do so is somehow “discriminatory’.

So called “transgender” activists added this provision to the ordinance.

● In the USA TODAY article, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council was quoted as the only voice which even questioned the ordinance. He told the paper that he was concerned that the use of such cards would encourage the idea that gender identity is flexible. “It gives support to the philosophy that says gender is a social construct,” Sprigg said “I think that philosophy is harmful to society at large.”

● No longer content to keep their lifestyle choices private, these activists have decided that the police power of the State must now enforce their vision of a brave new world on everyone else. They have also decided that anyone who sees things differently is “intolerant” or bigoted, and must be stopped.

Oh, I know some may consider that my even commenting on this issue is somehow “insensitive”. Well, when a group goes beyond the pale by forcing a change in the law to accommodate their own lifestyle choice, and, in so doing, risks the safety of others, I will not remain silent.

They are the ‘Gender Identity Bullies’ and they may be coming to a City or town near you.

So apparently, since San Francisco is going to issue ID’s without gender markers, the terrorists win. I probably should tell the Department of Defense that, since my Military Retiree ID card is sans a gender marker.

~~~~~~~~~~

○ Keeping with the Catholic Church, a Catholic hospital has denied a post-operative, transsexual woman breast enlargement surgery because was born male. (The California Catholic Daily has a piece up on the story too in their piece God made you a man.) Quoting from the PinkNews‘ article on the story:

A trans woman is suing a Catholic hospital, claiming medical officials blocked her from getting breast enlargement surgery there because she had a sex-change operation.

Charlene Hastings, 57, told The [San Jose] Mercury News that when she called Seton Medical Centre, a Catholic hospital in Daly City, California, to inquire about breast enlargement surgery, an official told her it wasn’t “God’s will” for her to have such a treatment, because “God made you a man.”

The Catholic League’s Bill Donahue has commented on this story:

…Significantly, the IRS ruled in 2005 that a woman’s transsexual sex reassignment surgery is not allowed as a deductible medical expense. Moreover, consider what Johns Hopkins professor of psychiatry Paul McHugh has concluded: ‘I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment.’ In other words, the government sees the requested surgery as elective in nature and experts like McHugh see it as destructive. Why, then, should Catholic hospitals be forced to cooperate with this objectionable venture?

○ One of my hero’s, Monica Roberts, has a piece up (from November) entitled Why Is The Catholic Church Hatin’ On Transpeople? It’s a pretty good summary piece on the history of the Catholic Church with transsexuals.

~~~~~~~~~~

[Articles not related to Catholics on Gender Identity And Expression after the fold]
Read the rest of this entry »

How quickly the lessons regarding how the Democratic Congressional Leadership managed to publicly divide the LGBT community over ENDA — how much energy and resources were wasted by LGBT civil rights and other LGBT non-profit organizations battling over the “real or perceived gender” language that was first in, then out of ENDA — have been apparently lost on Sen. Kennedy.

The Washington Blade reported this morning in their article Kennedy favors ’08 Senate vote on ENDA; Leaked HRC memo suggests putting measure on hold until next year:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) is expected to push for a Senate vote in 2008 on the same gay-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that the House of Representatives passed in 2007, a Kennedy spokesperson said this week.

Kennedy stated on the Senate floor on Nov. 8, one day after the House passed ENDA by a vote of 235 to 184, that he hoped the Senate would follow suit by passing the employment protection bill in the current Congress, which lasts through 2008.

But until this week, Kennedy’s office had not stated publicly where Kennedy stood on the demands by many gay and transgender organizations that Congress should withhold any action on ENDA unless it includes protection for transgender persons.

“Although Sen. Kennedy strongly supports protections against job discrimination for transgender workers, inaction won’t advance justice for anyone, and will just make it harder to pass any version of ENDA in 2009,” said Kennedy spokesperson Melissa Wagoner.

“We will most likely work to move the House-passed bill, rather than introducing a separate Senate bill,” Wagoner told the Blade by e-mail. “Because the same legislation must pass both the House and Senate, now that the House has acted, the only realistic way to get a bill to the president’s desk this Congress is to have the Senate pass the House bill.”

Further into the Blade piece, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’s in favor of an ENDA vote in 2008 — he’s looking for a bipartisan “super majority” to protect the gay-only ENDA from a filibuster.

Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Frank, and Rep. Miller were surprised by how grassroots LGBT activists organized and fought against the sexual orientation only version of ENDA. Senators Kennedy and Reid should be under no such illusion — what Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Reid are contemplating is a prescription for dividing the LGBT base for a second time in the same presidential election cycle. A sexual orientation-only Senate ENDA bill will also likely expose Democratic Senators to preexisting backlash on this controversial issue; it will expose Senators Obama and Clinton in particular to either voting for a civil rights bill that intentionally leaves parts of the LGBT community behind, or vote against a bill that would increase the protections of most LGB people — a no win vote. Secondly, presenting a gay-only ENDA for will provide a fairly significant distraction for LGBT activists at a time when the community is trying to focus on the 2008 presidential election.

[More on Senate sexual orientation-only ENDA, and the Gov. Huckabee/Evangelical/Social Conservative Christian factor]

Read the rest of this entry »

For every Melissa Etheridge you get a George Michael; For every Sylvia Guerrero (Gwen Araujo’s mother), you get a Renee Richards.

When people become spokesmodels for components of the broader LGBT community because of circumstances instead of experience or talent, you never know what you’re going to get — sometimes these icons turn out to be particularly ill-fated for the role of community spokesperson.

Apparently — at least at this point — the transgender community has more of a “Renee Richards” in Susan Stanton than a Judy Shepard.

Per the St. Petersburg Times: Susan Stanton’s lonely transformation:

Susan [Stanton] has said all along that she’s not like other transgender people. She feels uncomfortable even looking at some, “like I’m seeing a bunch of men in dresses.”

Eventually, she decided it was too early for transgender people to be federally protected. People need more time, more education, she says. “The transgender groups boo me, now, when I speak. Isn’t that ironic?

No, it’s not ironic. If a publicly transgender woman uses the transphobic language of the religious right to denigrate the less than photogenic members of her transgender community, it’s community chagrin that’s being evidenced — not irony. If a publicly transgender woman speaks in terms of accommodating those who would discriminate against her and her peers, it’s a feeling of betrayal that her community is feeling — it’s not irony.

I suppose the lesson to be learned here is that there are a wide range of opinions within the LGBT community. Stanton has valuable narrative — an important role in T history — but this historical importance shouldn’t be mistaken for personal expertise in political lobbying, activism, and especially civil rights. There are plenty of those on the front lines who are well aware of the how each word spoken by “out” Ts like Stanton can be twisted for their own use. Stanton’s clearly not politically savvy, and clearly still dealing with self-image and self-identification issues.

Susan Stanton shouldn’t be faulted for not being politically savvy, or with struggling with her personal issues. What is sometimes difficult for communities to grasp is how icons aren’t always the best spokespeople for causes, yet somehow, they frequently get anointed as our spokespeople. And as an icon turned spokesperson, Stanton’s comments were particularly unfortunate — both for her and the rest of the transgender community.

For every Melissa Etheridge you get a George Michael; for every Sylvia Guerrero you get a Renee Richards; for every Judy Shepard you get a Susan Stanton. I can only hope that Stanton’s comments represent temporary viewpoints rather than permanent notions.

~~~~~
Pam Spaulding contributed to this post.

~~~~~
Related:
* Largo City Manager Plans Public Transition From Male To Female
* Largo Commissioner Mary Black: Fire City Manager Stanton
* Largo, FL officials vote to dismiss trans city manager
* Largo fires Stanton

The Oregonian is reporting that Judge blocks law allowing civil unions.

A federal judge Friday blocked Oregon’s new domestic partnership law for gays and lesbians from taking effect next week, allowing opponents to continue their efforts to try to get voters to overturn the law.

The surprise ruling comes four days before the law would allow gay couples to gain most of the same legal benefits of marriage. Couples across Oregon were planning to show up at county offices Wednesday to register as partners.

But U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman ruled that they will have to wait. He set a Feb. 1 hearing to decide a lawsuit challenging the state’s methods for verifying signatures on a November 2008 referendum.

Mosman said attorneys for opponents showed that the rights of voters may have been violated if their signatures were wrongly rejected. Setting the next hearing in a month reduces the harm to people who would be affected by the new law, he said.

Supporters of the new law were stunned at the judge’s decision.

Per the article, this ruling won’t affect the Oregon Equality Act from going into effect next week — that’s the act which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

(There’s more in the article here.)

There’s more in the Willamette Week’s More Details On The Temporary Injunction to Domestic Partnership:

The Alliance successfully sought a temporary injunction against the implementation startng Jan. 2 of House Bill 2007, a law providing over 500 rights and benefits through state-sanctioned domestic partnerships to same-sex couples in Oregon (see Been There, Done That in this week’s paper).

[More details after the break]

“I think this case stands or falls on whether I view this activity [the signing of a petition or referendum] as a fundamental right,” Judge Mosman stated early in the hearing. “The right to vote has been held up as a fundamental right, but no where have I seen this applied to petitions or referendums.”

To that, the Alliance Defense Fund — which fell just short earlier this year in its effort to gather enough signatures to put a repeal of domestic partnership on the 2008 state ballot — produced a 9th Circuit case from Idaho.

In that case, a federal judge equated a voter’s rights with those who sign a referendum/ballot measure. After a brief recess, Mosman asked pointed questions as to the approval process for petition signatures, and what opportunity signers have for defending themselves when signatures are deemed invalid or false.

“The state action being challenged is the one that says a state agent can make a unilateral decision that those signatures don’t match,” Mosman said.

———–
Related:
* Oregon DP Law Prevented From Going Into Effect January 1 By Federal Judge
* Oregon anti-gays lose another round - fail to block domestic partnerships
* Oregon Senate Sends LGBT Rights Bill to Gov. for Promised Signature
* Oregon House passes anti-discrimination, domestic partnership bills