Media Matters For America and Shakesville have highlighted Imus’s first group aspersion since getting back on the air eight days ago — and it was a gay one.

From the December 12 edition of ABC Radio Networks’ Imus in the Morning:

IMUS: What do you like on the other side. Well, Huckabee, is he for real?

[WTKK radio host Jay] SEVERIN: I don’t think so. First of all, full disclosure, I’m for Mitt Romney, always have been. I believe he’d be a great president of the United States, also a great candidate against the Democrats, and I believe Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. That having been said, certainly Huckabee is making mischief, and he could make serious mischief such that he could throw the Republican thing back out into the, you know, completely up in the air.

The Huckabee surge in Iowa is attributable to a singe factor, and that is Iowa is unique in that the largest group of Republican voters, the largest discernible group of Republican voters in Iowa are self-described evangelical Christians.

IMUS: Why don’t you like Huckabee? Because you’re gay, or what?

Per the Media Matters’ transcript, show co-host Charles McCord stated right after the Imus comment “Oh, come on, what the hell was that?”

Kathy Times, vice president of broadcast for the National Association of Black Journalists, was quoted in the Associated Press last week as stating:

Will he emerge as someone who has learned his lesson, or choose to continue the actions of his past? I certainly hope it’s the former, and the airwaves will be a respectful representation of the owners – the American public.

Well, respectful unless you’re an LGBT American — we, apparently, are still fair game for Imus.

In Early October, Donna Rose resigned from the Human Rights Campaign’s Board of Directors. That was bad news; the HRC’s commitment to transgender inclusion and transgender equality were put into question when their only transgender board member resigned.

Well, if that was bad, today’s news is probably worse news for transgender people and allies. Jamison Green and Donna Rose submitted a new resignation letter today — the only two members of the HRC’s Business Council are resigning.

For those who don’t know how the HRC Business Council impacts workplaces in the U.S., the HRC Business Council is the group in charge of developing the Corporate Equality Index (CEI). There now will be no quality transgender voices in the group that supervises the creation of an in-depth analysis and rating of large U.S. employers and their policies and practices pertinent to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors.

Rather than quote from the resignation letter, I’ll provide the whole text of it after the break. Needless to say though, the only words I can use to describe this development is this is bad — this is a real shame.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been known to make mistakes. This week, I made a king sized one at Pam’s House Blend.

A few days ago in a post on Pam’s House Blend, I tongue-in-cheek implied that Chris Crain might have got an article idea from me without giving me credit (my article: The Hypocrites’ Exposed Closets And The ‘Flinch Factor’; his article: Cross-Dressing And Blogger Hypocrisy). Call it what it was — I didn’t know if Chris Crain had plagiarized from me, but I implied in a piece on Pam’s House Blend that he likely did, due to the timeline of me posting my piece 8 days before he did.

Except, I was wrong. Dead wrong.

Crain actually first posted his piece here, a day before I posted my piece. So, he wrote my editor at Pam’s House Blend – Pam – and said I libeled him. 

I was gently, but firmly, chewed out by my editor.

(Ouch on getting my facts wrong, and ouch on getting chewed out.)

When Pam and I saw he was correct in saying that he posted his piece before mine, meaning everything I implied in my piece was proven incorrect, we both posted apologies on top of my Pam’s House Blend post. Here’s a copy of mine:

[UPDATE (from Autumn, November 14): I need to eat some crow, and apologize to Chris Crain personally. Apparently, made similar conclusions about the Washington State Senator Curtis story, and came to our similar conclusions independently -- he actually posted his piece here a day before I posted my piece. As Pam said, "...the charge of plagiarism, tongue-in-cheek or not, was false" -- I apologize for implying it. I was completely off-track and wrong.]

Eating crow — it doesn’t feel good. But Crain was right, and I was completely wrong in my assumptions.  Sometimes one has to admit one’s failings, and then move on.

Well, Chris Crain has now posted a piece on his blog entitled Trans character assassination. He states:

The latest attempt at attacking my character by a transgender activist comes from Autumn Sandeen, who submitted a false and libelous post about me on Pam’s House Blend. With the smug sarcasm we’ve come to know and love from so many of our trans activist sisters, Ms. Sandeen accuses me of plagiarizing her on the Richard Curtis cross-dressing blackmail scandal:

I really liked Chris Crain’s New York Blade article Cross-dressing and blogger hypocrisy. As well I should: It sounded a lot like The Hypocrites’ Exposed Closets And The ‘Flinch Factor’.

After a few choice excerpts of Sandeen’s earlier PHB post and my Blade column — which was actually in both the Washington Blade and the New York Blade — she concludes…

Well, he goes on. Bottom line is I did do an article search to see if his original story came out before mine, but I didn’t do a blog search to see if he’d posted it on his blog first. If I had done the blog search, I would have come to the conclusion that we had similar ideas that we developed independently — which is apparently exactly what happened.

It hurts a bit to be called “smug,” and to hear that he believes I engaged in character assassination. And, honestly, I don’t believe I have a right to complain about the name-calling — I did write my piece with a holier-than-thou tone after doing an incomplete search to background check my facts.

As I said in my Pam’s House Blend note, I owe Chris Crain a personal, public apology. I was wrong; I was responsible for getting my facts wrong; I’m personally and publicly sorry about every thing wrong about my piece — from my sarcastic tone to what turned out to be a completely unfair swipe at the man.

I usually am more thoughtful and careful in what I write, but this time I wasn’t nearly thoughtful or careful enough. I’m sorry about that too.

I apologized to Chris Crain at Pam’s House Blend.  But here on my own blog, where I have more space availabe to make a fuller apology, I’m making it. 

In my regular, weekend “This And That” post at Pam’s, I’ll probably be linking to this post. When one makes a public mistake, one should be as public admitting it as one was when making the original mistake — And I made a huge, public mistake.

As part of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Networks’ (SLDN’s) Veteran’s Day focus, their blog has been featuring essays of LGBT veterans.  I was honored to be asked to write an essay for the SLDN’s blog Frontlines.  My essay posted today.  Below is the post, crossposted from Frontlines.
~~A~~

~~~~~

When most lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people think about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or the Solomon Amendment, they think about how these impact gay and lesbian service members.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Solomon Amendment impact more than just gays and lesbians: There are many who don’t see differences between effeminate gay men, drag queens, cross-dressers, and transsexuals — these groups are seen by many as all just gay men, identified as gay by their gender non-conformity.  And, it’s equally true that natal women are perceived as lesbian when the look or behave “too masculinely.”

This past week, the Gay & Lesbian Times highlighted my Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell story in their magazine.  How I experienced Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was that to a subordinate and my Executive Officer (XO) on the ship I was serving, I was someone who was likely gay — identified as such due to my inability to present as a masculine enough man. 

I wasn’t gay, but I was perceived as gay. 

When I experienced male-on-male sexual harassment in the last eight months in the Navy, in a way that was directly related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rules, I was a closeted transgender person trying to make it through the last few months of service so that I could retire at 20-years.

I love America.  I served my country for 20-years in large part because I love my country.

And yet, America does herself great disservice by not embracing the idea of letting her LGBT citizens to openly serve their country in the military — as we are, and not closeted.  LGBT servicemembers shouldn’t be required to live in fear of discharge due to real or perceived sexual orientation, or due to real or perceived gender non-conformity.

Last Saturday night, I met a transgender, active duty servicemember at a fundraiser for the upcoming Transgender Day Of Remembrance memorial service.  This Petty Officer serves country honorably, but should the Petty Officer be discovered to be transgender, my nation would “honor” this closeted servicemember’s decade plus of sacrifice with a discharge indicating a “personality disorder.”  This isn’t a way to honor every servicemember; a way to honor every veteran.

Our nation would best honor our LGBT servicemembers and veterans by allowing our active duty, LGBT servicemembers to serve openly, as they are.  Honoring every veteran is an ideal worth embracing.

-Retired Navy Petty Officer Autumn Sandeen

You may have missed:

Monday – Former Marine Sergeant Brian Fricke
Tuesday – Prior US Army Major Jeff McGowan
Wednesday – Former Army First Lieutenant Steve Boeckels
Thursday – Former Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall
Friday – Former Navy Petty Officer Jason Knight
Saturday – Former Navy Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin
Sunday – Sharon Alexander, Prior US Army Captain

Thank you to all of those that have contributed to this blog series and in helping to salute all of our Veterans and their service to our country.
-Jason Knight

For those who aren’t aware, this coming Sunday is Veterans Day. On the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network‘s Blog The Frontlines, they have been running a series Honor Every Veteran, where LGBT bloggers are talking about their military service. Some of the veterans who’ve written so far have included:

- Former Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall

- Former Army First Lieutenant Steve Boeckels

- Jeff McGowan, prior US Army Major

- Former Marine Sergeant Brian Fricke

I’m grateful the SLDN has given these veterans a voice on their blog.

My own military Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell story is profiled in the Gay & Lesbian Times’ current issue, in Joseph Peña’s piece Transgender Veterans: Beyond ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ transgender vets face different discriminations in the armed services.

Besides my personal story, the article focuses on a study by the Micheal D. Palm Center (University of California, Santa Barbara), entitled Gender Identity and the Military – Transgender, Transsexual, and Intersex Identified Individuals in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Quoting the Gay & Lesbian Times’ article regarding the Palm Center study:

With very little research done on transgender members of the military, Brown and Witten, along with Aaron Belkin at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Palm Center, are anticipating issues transgender servicemembers may face.

Witten’s study is part one of a two-part study commissioned by the Palm Center, which studies sexual minorities in the military. She was asked to review and compile information on demographics and history for part one of the report. Part two will include testimonies of transgender veterans or active-duty servicemembers.

Brown has worked on voice-therapy studies and continues to work with transgender veterans. Both spoke at a forum during a World Professional Association for Transgender Health conference in Chicago in September.

Of the issues transgender veterans face, Brown and Witten said that access to medical benefits after retirement or discharge is one of the most important. There are medical issues unique to the transgender community. Often, transition requires therapy, hormone treatment and can include sexual reassignment surgery – all costly endeavors if the person does not have medical coverage. VAs, as is the case with all federal agencies, cannot provide sexual reassignment surgery, and treatment for transgender patients is limited.

Brown operated a clinic in Johnson City, Tenn. that worked with transgender veterans, but it was closed by federal officials who did not agree that the clinic served a purpose. Brown was cleared of any wrongdoing for serving the transgender patients. A similar clinic in New Orleans was also closed.

A VA-approved facility in Boston is fairly comprehensive in its treatment of transgender veterans, Brown said. The hospital has set standard operating procedures for how to manage veterans that are transgender, but within the VA system, it’s difficult to find allies.

Brown said VA doctors hesitate to treat transgender patients out of fear that it will affect their careers.

“Now people who do want to treat transgender vets are scared of the potential negative impact on their careers or the stigma,” he said.

Within the concept of honoring every veteran, we need to consider honoring every disabled veteran — whether they be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersex — with appropriate medical care. As a transgender veteran, let me espouse that we should be treating disabled transgender veterans within the VA medical system as the transgender people we are, and not how the religious right or others believe we should be.

Honoring every veteran — it’s something to think about this coming weekend, and something to think about in the weeks, months, and perhaps years to come.

~~~~~
Further Reading:
SLDN: Survival Guide [Section I. is on Transgender Individuals, page 16 of the document (page 24 of the PDF)]

Jim Burroway over at Box Turtle Bulletin has awarded yet another LaBarbera Award, this time to PFOX President Reginna Grigg’s right hand woman (and PFOX webmistress) Gabriel Espinosa.

From the Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Montgomery County (Maryland) Council is considering a new gender identity nondiscrimination bill, which has generated a lot of heated debate. JimK at TeachTheFacts.org has published a couple of letters from the far-right fringe in opposition to the proposed measure. The sticking point is over men’s and women’s restrooms — who should be allowed to go into which one. Gabriel joined in with her charming little note, reportedly done up in about a 40-point font. Please excuse the French:

Bill 23-07

Allowing men who think they’re women into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms?

ARE YOU PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MINDS?

Hopefully, it will be one of your daughters who gets raped first!

Sincerely Yours,
Gabriel Espinosa
President
Furryllama Media Productions

Congratulations to PFOX’s Gabriel Espinosa, today’s LaBarbera Award winner!

By the way, in five some years of news archiving on transgender issues — both the good and the bad stories on transgender issues — my peers and I have documented zero cases of rape by a man dressed as a woman.

Any man who’s dressed as a woman on Halloween should know how difficult it is to pass as female just by putting on clothing usually associated with females; one sure way to draw a lot of attention to yourself is to look like a man in a dress and enter a public women’s restroom. It not a workable disguise for would be rapists, and rapists pretty much don’t use the disguise.

But let’s not let reality invade Gabriel Espinosa’s thought processes.

Between the Southern Comfort Conference last September and today, the HRC’s public position on ENDA has gone from opposing any version of ENDA wasn’t fully inclusive with transgender/real or perceived gender protections, to fully supporting ENDA without transgender/real or perceived gender protections.

Here’s how the position as changed:

1. Here is where Executive Director Joe Solmonese states at the Southern Comfort Conference this past September that the HRC will oppose any version of ENDA that doesn’t include protection for transgender people:

a href=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_GhTiBO8Cw”>the HRC will oppose any version of ENDA that doesn’t include protection for transgender people:

2. Here is the press release where the HRC said:

“Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position,” Solmonese continued.  “Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.”

3. The HRC, in a letter out this morning, stated that they now support H.R. 3685, without transgender/perceived gender protections.

[Full text of the letter sent to congressional representatives after the break]
Read the rest of this entry »

Hypocrisy. It’s detestable in elected officials, it’s detestable in religious right organizations, and it’s particularly detestable in any of our LGBT non-profits and civil rights organizations. So, seeing the HRC caught late last week supporting a non-inclusive ENDA on their website after saying the organization wouldn’t — it leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. But worse yet, after being discovered supporting a non-inclusive ENDA on their website, it appears they attempted to cover up their bad behavior.

Let me digress a bit. Monica Roberts spelled out in a clear and cogent Pam’s House Blend diary why many transgender people are no fans of the HRC; I previously wrote in a Pam’s House Blend diary that I wanted a divorce from the HRC; Monica and I don’t like the apparent anti-transgender behavior and public duplicity that has, with regards to transgender people, colorfully checkered the HRC’s past.

Well, more recently, the HRC recently stated that it wouldn’t support ENDA without “perceived gender” protections:

On Monday [October 2, 2007], the HRC Board of Directors voted to affirm its 2004 decision not to support a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that does not explicitly include protections based on gender identity. We do not support the current version of ENDA that is being considered by the House, and are not advocating for it on the Hill.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if that were completely true.

Marti Abernathey at TransAdvocate.com wrote a piece entitled HRC’s Bait and Switch. She highlighted that the HRC was as recently as November 1st was…

…passing off HR. 3685 as transgender inclusive (it’s not, gender identity has NEVER been included in 3685) , and asking people to support it! So much for their claim of not supporting 3685, but not opposing it. This is FULL FRONTAL SUPPORT.

If one follow the links in TransAdvocate.com’s article; however, one would find that the webpages Marti referenced have been taken down — apparently, the HRC noted that their webpages indicate hypocritical behavior, and noted that their hypocrisy had been exposed.

Unfortunately for the HRC, Google and MSN caches of the ENDA Take Action and passendanow.org pages were still available (passendanow.org comparison: October 29th cache; November 1st cache).

So much for damage control.

So here’s what the HRC said on the now downed pages. On the ENDA Take Action Page, the HRC said:

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in a matter of days. Now is the time to call your Member of Congress and tell them to vote for H.R. 2015. The capitol switchboard number is 202-225-3121.

Watch this video to learn more about why ending workplace discrimination is so important.

That’s right. In 31 states, it’s still legal to fire someone because they’re gay; and in 39 states it is legal to fire someone for being transgender.

Thousands of hardworking GLBT Americans have lost their livelihoods simply because of who they are. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a federal bill that would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

This historic legislation will be up for a vote soon in the U.S. House. But the radical right is flooding lawmakers with misinformation about ENDA.

You can set the facts straight. Call your lawmakers at 202-225-3131 and make sure they know passing ENDA is the American thing to do.

In a link at the bottom of that statement — a link that took one to passendanow.org — the HRC’s letter read on November 1st as follows:

Dear [Decision Maker],

As your constituent, and a Human Rights Campaign Supporter, I’m writing you to share my strong support for HR 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that protects GLBT Americans against discrimination in the workplace.

(Edit Letter Below)
I know you share my belief in the right of all American workers to be judged by their qualifications, and their job performance – not by the color of their skin, the name of their religion, or the country of their birth.

But, in 31 states, it’s still legal to fire someone because they’re gay – and in 39 states, it’s legal to fire someone for being transgender.

In a country founded upon the principle of equal opportunity, it’s time to put an end to this injustice. Corporate America has already taken significant steps toward this goal, with almost 90% of Fortune 500 Companies now including sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies.

Please support equal employment rights for all Americans.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

This post isn’t about playing “Gotcha.” It also isn’t about taking the eyes off the goal of a fully inclusive ENDA. However, it is about holding the HRC accountable for saying one thing and doing another — and then engaging in what a first glance appears to be a cover up their untenable actions by deleting pages after the bad behavior was pointed out on TransAdvocate.com.

Is it any wonder that transgender people hold the HRC in such low regard?

The broad LGBT community — and not just the transgender community — deserve more straightforward behavior from the HRC than they’ve been demonstrating.

~~
I requested a statement from the HRC for this story prior to posting, but didn’t receive a response.

~~
Crossposted to/from Pam’s House Blend.

Perhaps a person can be transgender and Christian, at least per the United Methodists … at least this week. Per the United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council, the highest judicial body of the denomination whose motto is Open hearts, open minds, open doors, ruled that Rev. Drew Phoenix may remain as pastor of the St. John’s United Methodist Church:

The highest judicial body of the United Methodist Church announced Tuesday that a transgender man can remain pastor of a congregation in Charles Village.

The ruling by the Judicial Council affirms last spring’s decision by Bishop John R. Schol to reappoint the Rev. Drew Phoenix — formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon — to St. John’s United Methodist Church.

…Tuesday’s ruling concluded that “a clergyperson’s good standing cannot be terminated without administrative or judicial action having occurred and all fair process being accorded.”

The Methodists’ Book of Discipline bars noncelibate gays and lesbians from serving as clergy but does not include any commentary about transgender people. In addition, Tuesday’s decision by the nine-member council, made up of laypeople and clergy, did not specifically address “whether gender change is a chargeable offense or violates minimum standards” of United Methodism.

The Judicial Council “ruled that the Baltimore-Washington Conference is operating within the laws of the church,” Schol said. “I’m pleased that the conference continues to abide by the discipline.”

National Public Radio’s article Methodists Vote to Keep Transgender Pastor added:

The United Methodist Church, or UMC, bans gay people from serving as clergy, but its Book of Discipline makes no mention of transsexual people. “Essentially, they said that I’m a pastor in good standing and therefore I’m appointable,” says Phoenix, who leads St. John’s in Baltimore.

Of course, there are those who won’t abide by the decision:

Conservatives have already promised to pass a ban on transgendered pastors at the Methodists’ next General Conference in 2008.

“Most church people instinctively recognize there are problems with the church affirming a gender change but haven’t really thought through all the implications,” said Mark Tooley of UMAction, a branch of the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy.

…Emory’s Jordan said it’s not surprising many churches haven’t drawn up rules to deal with transgender pastors.

“Why did it take so long to get explicit rules against ordaining lesbian and gay people?” he said. “Churches expected these kinds of people just to disappear and go away. They expected the same with transsexuals — that if you went that way you were going to leave the ministry or leave the church.”

Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to pass a resolution banning transgender pastors at the church’s last General Conference in 2004, said Diane DeLapp, a transsexual from Massachusetts who heads Affirmation, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Methodists.

“We seem to be the target now,” DeLapp said.

But, apparently a person can be transgender and Christian … at least per the United Methodists … at least this week.  We have the United Methodist Church’s General Conference in 2008 that may change things yet again.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* Judicial Council Decisions: Decision No. 1074

~~~~~
Related:
* Does Everyone Get A God-Given Male Or Female Sex? — United Methodists To Decide
* Surgeon General Nominee And FTM Transgender Minister Stories Collide
* Playing It Safe Or Being A Chicken?

I hate it when a member of the LGBT community, known to have engaged in anti-trans inclusion in ENDA activities in the past, speaks about the removal of perceived gender/gender identity and expression/transgender people as if she is a voice of reason. Given that model, Winnie Stachelberg should absolutely in no way be considered a voice of reason on transgender inclusion in ENDA.

She recently wrote a piece for The Center For American Progress entitled One Inch at a Time, where she argues:

…The House bill is not as inclusive as policies in many major companies and a growing number of states. But history may inform us that while passing legislation that only prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation may not be the perfect strategy, it may hasten, and be a critical predicate for, legislation that protects the entire LGBT community over time.

…And the transgender community isn’t the only group that will likely be left out of this narrower version of the legislation, including employees of small businesses, employees of religious institutions, and gay and lesbian individuals in the armed forces. But this bill was built on compromise; it was never intended to be the whole package, and should therefore be seen as a first step.

This kind of discrimination is wrong and has no place in our country. None. And it is wrong to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But right now the votes to pass an inclusive bill are just not there.

…Promoting a firm understanding of the need for legislation is the critical first step toward moving legislation through Congress. Groups have also begun educating Congress and the public in recent years about the need to protect the transgender community, and these efforts must continue with increased vigor. Going forward, we need to harness the energy of all of our progressive allies and redouble our collective efforts to educate policy makers and the rest of America on the importance of protecting the entire LGBT community from bias and harm.

…Since the first introduction of LGBT non-discrimination legislation in Congress by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY) in the 1970s, a tremendous amount of effort and time have been spent educating federal policy makers about the need to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from workplace discrimination.

I believe we can and should make progress—one step, and one inch, at a time.

Of course, Ms. Stachelberg’s statements on educating congresspeople might carry more Lose Weight Exercise if her own actions in the 1990′s weren’t 180 degrees out of phase with that “education” position. If it takes education, it should be noted that she, as an HRC lobbyist in the late 1990′s, “educated” congresspeople against transgender inclusion in ENDA:

Elizabeth Birch for a while eclipsed Janice Raymond as Transgender Public Enemy Number One when she was quoted at a Chicago GLBT event as stating that transinclusion in ENDA (the Employment and Non Discrimination Act) a top legislative priority of transgender leaders would happen ‘over her dead body’.

That sowed the seeds to the growing perception amongst transpeople that HRC was ‘The Enemy’. It got worse when transgender lobbyists were told by sitting senators, congressmembers and various staffers that HRC Capitol Hill lobbyists Nancy Buermeyer and Winnie Stachelberg showed up on the Hill accompanied by GenderPac’s Riki Wilchins before transgender lobby events in 1997, 1998, and 1999. They asked those members and staffers to tell the transpeople coming to Washington that inclusion in ENDA wasn’t possible, but hate crimes was. That revelation so enraged the transgender community that a group of activists that included yours truly founded NTAC in 1999.

So is Winnie Stachelberg a known transphobe arguing against transgender inclusion in ENDA, or is she just a person who because of her previous anti-transgender congressional “educating” should in no way be considered “a voice of reason” when it comes to perceived gender/gender identity and expression/transgender inclusion in ENDA?

I tend to believe she’s a known transphobe now trying to sound like a voice of reason on ENDA.  Her commentary is an irritating distraction in the process of trying to pass a fully inclusive ENDA.

Black Wednesday. It sure has been keeping the transgender activists busy — there are so many voices, using all the skill sets the have at their disposal to add to the complex dialog. I’d like to highlight a few transgender voices.

Christine Daniels posted a blog entry yesterday where she made a revelation about her employment that, well, shocked me. I posted back in April:

Christine Daniels’ story is an example of what a law protecting people against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity can do for LGBT employees. The Gender Nondiscrimination Act of 2003 (AB 196) changed the employment climate in California; the Los Angeles Times didn’t fire her. The Times may have accommodated her transition without legislation, but as it is they don’t really have a legal choice whether or not to accommodate her — they are required by law to accommodate her transition.

I met Christine a few months ago, and we’ve become friends. Little did I know back in April, before we’d met, how much that transgender non-discrimination employment law affected my friend Christine’s L.A. Times sportswriting gig:

You are reading this [blog] right now, in no small part, because in 2003 the state of California passed its version of ENDA, the Gender Non-Discrimination Act (AB 196). Back in early March, I scheduled a meeting with a person in The Times’ human resources department to do some exploratory research about transitioning at The Times. I was told, “Well, The Times cannot discriminate against you because California has a law in place.”

She went on to say:

Well. That was worded somewhat more bluntly than I wanted to hear. But it was also comforting. I had protection. I could be myself, and I could continue to draw a paycheck. From those crude beginnings, I was able to work with HR and my editors to formulate a transition strategy that enabled me to not only change my byline and keep my job but boost my career to an all-time personal fulfillment level. Today, I am writing 3-4 columns a week for the Times Sports section along with two blogs, including this one.

I realize I am lucky. California is one of about a dozen states with such protection for transgender employees. My friend Susan Stanton did not have that kind of backup in Florida and lost her job as Largo city manager in February despite a long and outstanding record of public service.

My friend Kelly Moyers and I were talking tonight; we both attended a community subcommittee meeting tonight discussing web issues for our community transgender group. Kelly is a programmer over at Sun Microsystems. DiversityInc is going to profile her in an article soon — I believe she said it was going to be in the magazine’s December print edition. She also transitioned within the last couple of years, and told me her transition at work has been relatively easy; we were both wondering aloud tonight if she’d have had such an easy work transition without AB 196. We both knew the answer.

The stories pretty much highlight reality: sometimes good behavior by corporate America has been because laws were what first required the good behavior.

~~~~~

Over at Left In San Francisco, guest blogger Susan Stryker wrote a piece entitled It’s Your History—Use It! Talking Points for Tran-Inclusive ENDA Activists (it’s available in PDF format over at UnitedENDA.org). To quote the bio found at the bottom of the article, Susan “earned her Ph.D. in United States History at UC Berkeley in 1992, the same year she transitioned male-to-female, helped found Transgender Nation, and got fired from her first job for being transgendered.”

There are so many key points in Susan’s history lesson, but I’ll just quote an excerpt from her item number 6:

When did organized gay activism start in the United States?
Henry Gerber founded a short-lived group in Chicago in 1924 called The Society for Human Rights, which was inspired by his contact with the homosexual emancipation movement in Europe. The first long-lasting groups were the gay male-oriented Mattachine Society, founded in 1950, and the Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian group founded in 1956. One important development in the immediate post-World War II period was that gay and lesbian people began to understand themselves to be members of a minority community that was being denied its civil rights. Part of this came from the perception of many gay and lesbian people that they had served honorably in the war (or on the home front) but were not treated as full and equal members of society.

Transgender people began to think of themselves the same way, at the same time. The first organized transgender group, The Society for Equality in Dress, was founded in Southern California in 1952. It didn’t last very long, but published two issues of a journal called Transvestia. Later, in 1960, one member of The Society for Equality in Dress, a cross-dresser who later started living fulltime as a woman, took the name of her old group’s publication and launched the first successful transgender publication the United States. This second Transvestia was published into the 1980s. The magazine’s founder, Virginia Prince, also founded national organizations for heterosexual cross-dressers, such as The Foundation for Personality Expression, and the Society of the Second Self.

Prince (still alive in her 90s as of this writing) is the classic example of a homophobic trans person, but that didn’t stop the federal government from arresting her in 1959, through the same kind of sting operations it used to arrest gay men. At the time, individuals who used the U.S. mails to send letters to prospective sex partners could be charged with using the mail for obscene purposes. Prince got caught, and charged with a felony, because one person she was corresponding with (who turned out to be another cross-dresser pretending to be a lesbian) was having his mail surveilled by the federal government.

Trans and non-trans people, gay and straight, were subjected to the same kind of paranoid McCarthyite repression of anything outside of procreative heterosexual reproduction—and you could fall outside of that for reasons having to do with your gender expression as well as your sexuality. While we may not always like being in the same boat as a GLBT community, we all wound up here together for a reason.

Susan’s piece is well worth the read.

~~~~~

Lastly, Mara Keisling over at the National Center for Transgender Equality has announced the start of a Daily Update on ENDA email. You can sign up on the mailing list here to read her daily reports, of which she says:

…Now that there are dozens of people working fulltime and thousands engaged in a lot of different ways on getting a transgender-inclusive ENDA passed, we are going to try to take a few minutes every evening for the next two weeks to explain what’s going on. It will be kind of an informal blog style.

I made a PDF of the first email, and posted it here.

Here’s a round up of some notes related to the rewritten ENDA legislation (that has been, at least for now, temporarily shelved):

~~~~~

Lambda Legal has reviewed the stripped down ENDA bill. There was something in the original Washington Blade story on the dropping of transgender protections from ENDA was that the Democratic House Leadership that was apparently really significant.  The Congressional House Leadership ”met with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to broaden the bill’s exemption for certain religious institutions that act as employers, and agreed to some changes to ENDA.” 

Some excerpts from the Lambda Legal media release — where we view see the legislative changes at least in part resulting from that meeting:

Lambda Legal’s preliminary assessment of the revised version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act shows the bill to be riddled with loopholes in addition to failing altogether to protect transgender people against discrimination.

…Preliminary Analysis Summary:

- As a point of clarity for the community: The recent version is not simply the old version with the transgender protections stripped out — but rather has modified the old version in several additional and troubling ways.

- In addition to the missing vital protections for transgender people on the job, this new bill also leaves out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to their employer’s idea of how a man or woman should look and act. This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit.

- This version of ENDA states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination. The old version at least provided that states and local governments could require that employees be provided domestic partner health insurance when such benefits are provided to spouses.

- In the previous version of ENDA the religious exemptions had some limitations. The new version has a blanket exemption under which, for example, hospitals or universities run by faith-based groups can fire or refuse to hire people they think might be gay or lesbian.

~~~~~

For those interested in the thoughts of a transgender HRC Board member, one should bookmark Donna Rose’s blog. Here’s some excerpts from her September 29th entry:

Wed Sept 26: As I drove from Rochester to Washington I got a calls alerting me that deals were being made regarding ENDA involving bill sponsor Barney Frank and HRC – that the provision protecting employees on the grounds of ‘gender identity’ in the bill was going to be removed. I immediately called to get a comment from HRC leadership. Joe called me about an hour later, and said that Democratic leadership had done a “whip count” to identify how many votes they had to pass the inclusive bill. The result was disappointing so Barney Frank would probably decide to remove the gender identity language to make it easier to pass. It was not a pleasant conversation.

I am angry at HRC leadership for what I can’t help but perceive as lying and deceiving, for betraying my trust, and for putting me in this position. Damage has been done and continues to be done that cannot be repaired. What happens next is, at best, too little too late. At a time when I should be celebrating the historic passage of Hate Crimes on Thursday, and the amazing work of the Out and Equal Workplace Summit, I’m consumed by feelings of betrayal and disappointment. The conspirist in me feels that I’ve been played, that this has been in the works for a long time, that people and organizations with a vested interest in passing ENDA at any cost believe that there will be some unhappiness but that it will be short-lived if and when ENDA passes (without trans inclusion). However, the idealist in me cares too much to give up. For now.

Although I don’t blame them for causing the current situation, I am tremendously disappointed in HRC for refusing to speak out loudly and publicly, along with the other coalition partners, in OPPOSING this wrong-minded strategy and these bills. The credibility and integrity of the organization is at stake, and I cannot and will not defend them on this in any way, shape, or form. I am disappointed in the lack of decisive direction being shown by the board leadership. I am disappointed by the delay by to board to meet to discuss this. And I am incredibly sad to see all the hard work of building bridges and repairing relationships with HRC become tatters and shreds. This isn’t just business – for me, it’s personal.

I am angry at HRC leadership for what I can’t help but perceive as lying and deceiving, for betraying my trust, and for putting me in this position. Damage has been done and continues to be done that cannot be repaired. What happens next is, at best, too little too late. At a time when I should be celebrating the historic passage of Hate Crimes on Thursday, and the amazing work of the Out and Equal Workplace Summit, I’m consumed by feelings of betrayal and disappointment. The conspirist in me feels that I’ve been played, that this has been in the works for a long time, that people and organizations with a vested interest in passing ENDA at any cost believe that there will be some unhappiness but that it will be short-lived if and when ENDA passes (without trans inclusion). However, the idealist in me cares too much to give up. For now.

The September 30th entry is pretty scathing too….

…Friendship or not, I have difficulty reconciling maintaining a relationship with an organization that I can’t trust. Depending on what happens in the next couple of days and my reaction to it, I may find myself with extra time on my hands in coming weeks.

I doubt that I’ll do it this week, though (if at all). We’ve got face-to-face board meetings in Washington DC next week. I want to see them. I want the people who are willing to give in to their own transphobia and to cut us out of ENDA to have to look me in the eye. It’s easy to do when it’s someone you don’t know, when it’s a vote over the phone, when you won’t have to face the people you’re discriminating against. I will not be chased away before having that opportunity. That’s just not my way.

~~~~~~

The San Francisco Chronicle has a new article up on ENDA that goes into some of the sorted mess:

Leading gay rights organizations, with the pointed exception of the Human Rights Campaign, withdrew their support Monday from a landmark gay civil rights bill after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., pulled transgender people from the legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination.

The intense backlash by the gay community surprised House Democratic leaders, forcing them to postpone what had been intended as a big House vote this week to include gays and lesbians in the nation’s job discrimination laws for the first time in American history.

…Pelosi and Frank, however, fear the inclusion of gender identity will kill the overall bill – again denying gays and lesbians protection against job discrimination.

Pelosi, D-San Francisco, issued conflicting statements Monday in reaction to the turmoil. The first declared her personal support for including transgender people in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act but asserted she would stick by her decision to drop them from the bill to give it a greater chance of passage.

About three hours later, the speaker issued a new statement saying, “After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage” of the bill, committee and floor votes on the bill had been postponed to “allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.”

Surprised house Democratic leaders? They checked with the HRC (per Donna Rose above), but apparently didn’t check with any of the ninety organizations that just rebelled against the Frank/Pelosi/Miller move to dump transgender folk.

It can’t just be me thinking this — this ENDA mess says something about the HRC being really, really, out of touch with the LGBT base. The LGBT world changed dramatically in the summer of 2004, and I don’t think congress or the HRC “got” that a real sea change occurred.

Realistically, I don’t think the HRC is going to be able to legitimately claim that they are the leading LGBT civil rights organization for very much longer. They just aren’t leading anyone any more– they seem to be just following pretty far behind the Task Force and its ally organizations.

I know Stephanie already got to this topic in her September 17th 5 Things You Need To Know Today post, but I wrote a post on this story for Pam’s House Blend (PHB) that I’m crossposting from PHB.
Btw, I found out about the L.A. Times article from reading Stephanie’s post here at (Ab)Normal Heights. Thanks Stephanie!
~~Autumn~~

~~~~~~~~~~

I know there have been transgender targeted job fairs in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York — just to name a few cities — but this week the Los Angeles Times is reporting the First Annual Transgender Career Expo was held in Atlanta last week at the Southern Comfort Conference (SOC).  The Times began their article:

The woman pulled her resume from a pink file folder and handed it to a recruiter.

Across the top of the page, in bold type, she had printed her name twice: first as “Mark,” then as “(Meghan).” She was not quite sure if this was appropriate.

At the nation’s first transgender Career Expo, job seekers were encouraged to use their new gender names on resumes.

But Meghan, 42, a transsexual who declined to give her last name because her current employer knows her as Mark, wanted to make sure prospective employers could find her — or him — if they ran a background check.

The etiquette of transgender resumes was just one of the myriad challenges facing job seekers who packed the Atlanta convention hall. For transgender people — at Friday’s expo, they ranged from cross-dressers to those who had changed their gender through hormone therapy or surgery — the workplace can be a minefield…

This past week I was at the Southern Comfort Conference, and spent most of the Career Expo portion of the conference sitting next to (and chatting with) Stephanie Battaglino, who was representing New York Life.  May I say, Stephanie’s just an awesome person.  She told me that when she came out at work, HR at her company let her know she was the first person to transition on the job in the 163 years of their company’s existence.  How incredible is it that a couple of years later, she was representing her company at the expo?  It speaks to how we LGBT folk can impact people, legislation, and businesses just by being out and vibrant.

And speaking of out and vibrant, I wonder if the Los Angeles Times would have covered this story without Christine Daniels being recently out and vibrant?  I met Christine at the recent NLGJA Conference where we both were speakers, and very much consider her to be a friend.  I don’t know one way or the other if the Times would have covered the story without their recently out sportswriter on their staff — I haven’t ever asked Christine about the internal workings at the Times — but my gut feeling is that folk at the L.A. Times’ receiving exposure to a very professional, talented writer (who also happens to be a wonderful person, as well as transgender) has something to do with how the Times now covers transgender stories.  Frankly, I can’t imagine that it wouldn’t.

The companies that participated at the career expo are listed here.  One of the SOC’s organizers, Kristin Reichman, more than once made mention that the First Annual Transgender Career Expo would not have occurred without the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).  Kudos to both the SOC and the HRC for putting this expo together.

Let me close with how the Times closed their story:

Some companies brought transgender employees to talk about their personal experiences to job seekers.

Breanna Speed, a database administrator for the human resources company Hewitt Associates, made her gender transition this year after working for the company for seven years. She was nervous, she said, but after the CEO sent an e-mail to the staff explaining Wendell henceforth would be Breanna, the response was positive.

“I was touched,” she said.

Dana Kern, 44, an employee with J.P. Morgan who made her transition from David a year and a half ago, said her human resources department issued her a new e-mail address before she changed her name and allowed her to use female restrooms as soon as she wanted to.

“It takes such a lot of courage,” she said, beaming as a woman handed her a resume. The woman, she said, had come back after going to a computer to alter her name to reflect her newfound confidence. “I told her right up front: We will deal with you as you are.”

Story 1: Back in late spring of this year, the story of a Methodist transitioning, female-to-male pastor was in the news. Bishop John R. Schol announced then the continued appointment of Rev. Drew Phoenix as pastor of Baltimore’s St. John’s United Methodist Church.

As the local CBS affiliate reported:

The Methodist church bans sexually active gay clergy but does not have any rules about transgender pastors.

————————

Transgender Pastor’s Reappointment Under Review
————————-

Story 2: Pam picked up on the story of the Surgeon General nominee Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. in Homophobic Surgeon General nominee’s writings picked up by MSM and other posts. From that main stream media/ABC News story:

President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., wrote a paper in 1991 that purported to make the medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic, if not downright bruising.

Holsinger, 68, presented “The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church’s committee to study homosexuality. (Read the paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn’t natural or healthy.

The two stories collide: The United Methodist Church is the denomination for Baltimore’s St. John’s United Methodist Church, where Rev. Drew Phoenix is a minister. Per the Los Angeles Times:

The denomination’s highest authority, the Judicial Council, will take up the case next month, deciding whether the church should accept transgender pastors. The decision will determine Phoenix’s future; it could also have political implications.

Presiding over the Judicial Council is Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general and a longtime lay leader of the United Methodist church. Democrats have objected to Holsinger in large part because of work he has done for his church over the years.

…The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on Holsinger [for confirmation for Surgeon General], though his confirmation hearing was two months ago. He has been asked to answer further questions in writing. In the meantime, Holsinger will handle several Judicial Council cases dealing with sexuality. Most prominent is the question of Phoenix’s right to remain in ministry.

If the United Methodist Judicial Council rules on Rev. Phoenix’s case before the Senate confirmation vote, we’ll have a fresh idea of where Dr. Holsinger stands on LGBT issues. Will he advocate for or against Rev. Phoenix, and what will be his reasoning for his position for or against?

It’ll be interesting. As the Los Angeles Times story went on to say:

The United Methodist Book of Discipline, which sets out rules for the denomination, does not address the issue of gender identity. But since it bans discrimination on the basis of gender — a point intended to ensure the equality of male and female clergy — Phoenix argues in a legal brief: “There is no basis for prohibiting my appointment . . . based on my identification as male.”

The Huffington Post: Bill O’Reilly to join crusade for LGBT equality
Excerpt:

Okay, you gotta love this. Bill O’Reilly, conservative talk show host extraordinaire, claims that a man’s sex life is a private thing.

I’m serious.

Gay, New Zealand: ‘Lady boy’ war erupts in Thailand
Excerpt:

Scores of teenage “lady boys”and male prostitutes have been involved in a three day “gay war” on the Thailand resort of Pattaya.

(En)Gender: Black Men Can’t Read?
Excerpt:

It turns out young black men have a better chance of getting made fun of for reading books than for playing sports. Not news, I know, but the commentary on how that fact intersects with gender is…

…What’s interesting to me is that the cultural forces that would discourage black men from learning – because being brainy isn’t considered “masculine” or “strong” – are exactly the opposite of the ones at play that have historically kept women from learning, who are/were told that being too brainy makes a woman “unfeminine.”

The Toronto Sun: Man performs self-castration
Excerpt:

You can find do-it-yourself makeover guides for just about anything on the web.

British construction boss Howard Shelley discovered just that when — desperate for a change in his own plumbing — he searched out directions for homemade castration.

When Shelley recently used online advice and took a common kitchen knife to his manliness — in a dangerous search for a quicker way to take a step to becoming a woman — he did what many people would consider unthinkable…

(Okay, I know Stephanie posted this same story — but not the same article — in her Headlines In Search Of A Story post, but this story is so interesting that I had to highlight it too.  )

BlogHer: Privacy: Wiretaps, cell phones, blogs, and Larry Craig
Excerpt:

We are in the midst of a critically important debate about the proper scope of the government’s surveillance authority. This debate should not take place in a vacuum.

The public has a right to know, at least in general terms, what kinds of surveillance the court authorized and what kinds of surveillance it disallowed.

AEBrain: 60 Seconds of Zoe
Excerpt:

I’m in the first day of a 3-day course on “Communicating Science to the Media”. I had to give a 60-second presentation about myself:

——
I’m Zoe Brain, and was born in 1958 not very far away from Windsor Castle in England.
How to compress 49 years of life into 60 seconds?
I could talk about how I came to Australia in 1968, and to Canberra in 1983.
I could talk about some of my achievements, projects I’ve worked on, from the Fedsat satellite to submarine combat systems. Laser eye surgical devices too.
I could talk about the places I’ve been to that shaped my life: the snow-covered Bahnhoffstrasse in Zuerich, seeing a sunset from a Destroyer in the middle of the Pacific. I could even talk about the Zeppelin Hangers in Akron Ohio.
I could talk about who I am, the parent of a 6 year old son, an SF fan, a gamer, a political blogger and more.
But there is no time. I’m me, Zoe Brain.
——

We were supposed to prepare the speech beforehand, but I didn’t get that e-mail, so I made it up impromptu.

There is so much more to life than just being TS. I shouldn’t let it define myself.