TransAdvocate

Remember how folks said there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans in the 2000 election? I think the past 7 years has repudiated that theory.

Yeah, and now those who are still singing that tune are voting Paul or Huck, not Nader. Liberals learned their lesson.

There’s a lot of anger coming out of dropping Gender ID, and I hope people use that anger in a way that’s productive. I hope that not many people are talking about opposing Frank (in the primary, I’m guessing), since unseating a high-ranking multi-term incumbent in the House is near impossible, it seems like a bad place to waste money and energy. I can understand anger towards him after some of his jerk statements, but I’m sure there are better uses of scarce resources.

HRC, like most corporations, gets its power from money, and most of that money comes from people who don’t and won’t ever care about dropping Gender ID/expression. They want their marriage, their Coming Out Project, their chance to give back to the “community” as they understand it, not to get bogged down in the big picture, thinking about the specifics of tactics outside of the gross oversimplification and misrepresentation that is “incrementalists vs. all-or-nothingists”, or challenging the system. Protesting the HRC isn’t going to change those folks’ minds.

HRC needed some sort of victory to show those folks, and it got it. So I’m wondering about the possibility to change HRC into something different without changing politics itself into something different. HRC is a product of politics as usual, as is its much wealthier opposition (AFA, FOTF, TVC, etc.), in that people donate, it uses that money to gain access and power, develops a self-justifying narrative (it even adopted that narrative as its name) that uses more money to develop, some small things change, and it starts the cycle all over again, lather, rinse, repeat.

My point is that HRC isn’t a stable actor that, once eliminated or disempowered, will disappear and a good actor will take its place. HRC is a product of our current political, cultural, and economic climate and any organization that takes its place is going to either have to do the same things HRC does (maybe it’ll put a prom dress on it) or it won’t survive. (Can you tell I was a bio major who specified in population dynamics in college? lol) What are we going to do not just to change HRC, but to change the context that created HRC-style politics in the first place?

That question is much bigger than I am, but it seems to me that it will involve one or more of the following: 1) separating money and politics (political change); 2)strengthening a societal and community narrative that affirms gender/sex/sexual transgression (cultural change); and 3)developing economic equality (economic change).

OK, now who has some specific ideas? LOL!

Marti, you make a valid point. We can not waste time and effort hacking at the giant. We need to intergrate and assimilate. Tough job. I voluntered at the Black Tie in dallas so a percentage of the procceds would go to Equality Texas. During the set up the speakers were praticing on stage. I had to leave untill they were done. To their credit they did not include Trans people in the list of hollow victories. I was approached by a young gay man at the event, who told me he loved to wear womans clothing but was embarrassed should his friends know. I invited him to a gender group where he can express Him/Her/Inter/andro self freely. He was very thankfull to know this was a option.
My point is this. Our battle must be won on the grass roots level. We must find ways to open peoples minds and hearts. We can do this in part by open dialogue and interaction. We would gain nothing by punishing hrc, but we will prosper by acquiring power.

It is very obvious to me that we cannot ever rely upon HRC and they will not ever receive a kind word from me. They have sacrificed all trust and are not deserving of our support, there are still other organizations to deal with and I would just assume give them my support. Honestly I think it is a little early to be letting them off the hook. They have a long road to earning any semblance of trust.

We can’t rely on them, but we do have to deal with them. They are the gatekeepers to access. It’s not about trust or letting them off the hook…but about dealing with the political reality of it all.

So i have to wonder, then… was Donna Rose wrong to resign?

Or does Mara Keisling still “have a lot to answer for,” for trying to deal with HRC in good faith?

Linux? Fantastic! Let freedom ring.

I agree with the main thrust of your post; my comment has to do with a specific use of language that I find interesting– not a criticism.

“They’re acting as if they’ve had an orchiectomy.” On the one hand this made me laugh, but on the other hand it reinforces the patriarchal assumption that male genitals = courage (and by extension, that female genitals = cowardice). I’m sure this isn’t what you intended; the whole “you’ve got balls” thing is so ingrained into our culture that people rarely think about the implications. Just food for thought.

Ask Matt if HRC’s an enemy.

There are no shades of grey. The work ahead is clear. We need to change hearts and minds in a short time frame. Hating on HRC won’t make that happen any sooner.

“HRC is not our enemy”

HRC has proven itself to be nothing but our enemy.

Case closed.

HRC is always for the people, so I’m happy it exists. Byt the way, Nice to know you’re still around.

HRC is going to have to be pulled along. I don’t advocate working WITH them, as much as I do AROUND them.

Throwing HRC to the curb, is like throwing the Democratic presidential candidates to the curb. One of them will be president, and no amount of wishing away will change that.

Funny how all these folks come out of the woodwork to bash HRC now, but when Mara Keisling was nuzzling up to them, it was great and wonderful.

I agree that it is a mess. Problem is, we’re short on time. 2009 is right around the corner.

> I don’t advocate working WITH them, as much as I do AROUND them.

That’s fair. It seems to me that it’s even in our best interests, since mainstream gay strategies - whether or not they actually work against our own interests - are essentially a failure.

> Funny how all these folks come out of the woodwork to bash HRC now, but when Mara Keisling was nuzzling up to them, it was great and wonderful.

Was there really any great groundswell of trans support for HRC in what we might now call “the Keisling era”?

Bad blood goes back to 1995 between HRC and the trans community. Some of us “ol fogies”
never bought into the “HRC supports us” claptrap that NCTE has promulgated in the
past 5 years. And, after the Solmonese LIE at SCC, plus their behavior in October and November, I don’t understand how I, or any T person with a knowledge of the history, could sit across a table and pretend that any business conducted by any employee or representative of HRC could be counted on to be honest or straight. At this point, if I sat at a table at a coffee house across from Solmonese, I’d see red skin and horns growing out of his head, a pitchfork in his hand - and I haven’t dropped acid since 1977.

That stated, Marti is right: HRC does have to be reckoned with on the Hill.
How that reckoning happens and what process it takes, I can’t envision or imagine. I’ve been wrestling with the idea of how to approach citizen-lobbying for the T community in preparation for 2009. Do not assume that HRC is the only voice on the Hill. I believe very strongly in the need for and importance of citizen-lobbyists. Ordinary people can and do speak daily to Congressmen and Senators and make a huge difference in passing - or not - legislation - it’s just that, as we all know, particularly HRC, money makes the world go round, and T people don’t have any. Rather than gripe about that, we’ll just have to use
what we do have - the fact that we can speak out.