Barack Obama and the Compromise with Evil

I thought Barack Obama gave a pretty good speech when he accepted the Democratic nomination for President last week.

That is, I thought it was pretty good up to the point where he started to speak about "our sense of common purpose" with the enemies of freedom in the Neo-Con and Christianist right wing that represents the core of the Republican party.

Here are the dangerous words from Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech, with my comments inserted in the place of the pauses for applause:

"America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices. And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."

(APPLAUSE: The Republican party is in the thrall of Religious and other "social" conservatives who have no respect for the rights of women, particularly women’s reproductive rights, unless the sole expression of those "rights" is to "choose to have babies." The Republican party and its standardbearers in this presidential election, John S. McCain and Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, are both sufficiently "social conservative" enough to oppose the quite sensible Roe v. Wade decision, to oppose any sex education oher than "abstinence only" education that leads ignorant teens into accidental pregnancies. The "social conservatives" in Congress have passed barbaric laws that curtail women’s reproductive rights. Seeking "compromise" on this vital issue is a weakness. But now that the applause has died down, back to Senator Obama . . . )

"The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

(APPLAUSE: Hmmm. I won’t argue too much on the Second Amendment – just this year, the Supreme Court has spoken, quite unconstitutionally and somewhat irrationally, on the subject (at least IMO, but they're the ultimate arbiters of "what the Constitution really means", and I'm not), divorcing the right to bear arms from its attendant constitutional responsibility and purpose – that of providing for a well-organized militia.

I’d like to see Washington D.C. pass a law that requires those who are licensed to have guns also take mandatory militia training and help patrol the streets of the City, and see what the Supremes think about that. But that isn't presidential campaign stuff - the nation itself, as a result of the Second Amendment, really is a bit gun-crazy, unlike the civilized folks over in Europe, who don't need to see too much news to view most Americans as ignorant cowboys, anyway. So, let's see what sort of "compromise" is out there . . . and now back to Barack for the scariest "compromise" item . . . )

"I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination."

(APPLAUSE: This raised my ire just as much as the idea of compromise on women’s reproductive rights. The idea that we should play politics with basic human rights that should be beyond the "right" of the oppressive majority to impose on the oppressed minority by a so-called "democratic majority vote" sickens me, especially when it comes from the very people who should be the strongest allies of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. When will friends like Barack realize that we should be entitled to the same rights as his parents? When will friends like Barack realize that we are getting tired of beign oppressed? When will friends like Barack get ready to take us seriously?

I’d like to see Barack Obama supporting a full civil rights law for LGBT people, and not the sad caricature of an employment non-discrimination act that Rep. Barney Frank (D. Mass.)keeps watering down because he wants to pass something, anything, in the spirit of compromise on civil rights. It’s not just about repealing the Defense Against Marriage Act (something Barack Obama does support, and the one point where he had a better position than Hillary Rodham Clinton, the person who really should have been the Democrat’s presidential candidate . . . )

I’d like Barack to reverse the October 2002 change in Social Security regulations that leaves transitioning transsexuals and non-op transsexuals in limbo, without proper identification documentation.

I’d like to see Barack reverse "don’t ask, don’t tell" and I’d like to see immigration rules for gay and trans people be put on a par with the rules for straights. I’d like to see the bizarre rules banning people with AIDS from entering the country lifted. I’d like to make sure that tax dollars are not spent to support religious discrimination in the providing of social services and medical care. The applause has died down again, time to see what Barack has to say next . . . )

"You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers."

(It would have been nicer if Barack had mentioned the separation of people in same-sex relationships here, too. There wasn’t a pause for applause here – but the immigration issue is more like the Second Amendment issue – one that might well be amenable to compromise, but not with the hard-core white supremacist right wingers. It isn’t just about Mexicans "taking American Jobs" by crossing the border. American businesses these days steal American jobs by using the current version of NAFTA to exploit cheap Mexican labor.

It seems like Republicans support NAFTA so that jobs can be exported to Mexico, and Democrats (these days) seem to oppose it. I think that NAFTA needs fixing – there should be a level playing field on the issue of minimum wage (in equivalent currencies among the trade partners, which would not free-float against each other, ultimately leading to a common currency), worker’s rights, and other sisues, so that it will not be any more advantageous to locate an industrial plant in Michigan, or Tennessee, or Sonora, or Manitoba. If we were to improve NAFTA to bring the standard of living for Mexicans, Canadians and Americans to equivalent standards, maybe there wouldn’t be a need for a Metal Curtain on America’s border with Mexico.

An improved NAFTA could also bring along other friendly nations in our hemisphere, and perhaps we could encourage South American nations to form a SAFTA - with a view toward eventually entering into a hemispheric treaty and an economic union that would go beyond the borders of the United States. Such ideas aren’t forthcoming from any of the candidates – Democrat or Republican. Let's let Barack sum up this segment of his speech . . . )

"But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer, and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values.

And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters."

(APPLAUSE --- Despite these qualms and misgivings, and since Hillary Clinton isn’t running any more and she's also supporting him, I will support Obama for President. Even if he isn’t perfect, he represents the best available hope for keeping the darkness and oppression of "social conservatism" at bay.

Postscript: Listening to Sarah Palin this evening, I realize that if it weren’t for the scary "social conservatism" aspect of the McCain/Palin ticket, the part that makes them totally wrong for the country, they wouldn't seem terribly different from the Obama/Biden ticket. This explains why Americans "in the middle" often seem to have such a problem identifying the better candidate - they aren't hurt by oppressive "Social conservative" Republican policies, so they're more likely to be unaware of it, or perhaps they don't care. (Hard core Republican conservatives either don't care or they're the types who aren't terribly different from their Islamic fundamentalist jihadist counterparts - ready to stome people like me in stadiums.)

Both sides are pushing for winning against terrorism (though Obama actually understands that it’s Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda who are the enemy, not the people of Iraq), both sides want America to be energy independent (though Democrats appear to be divided on the oxymoronic "clean coal", and Republicans add more nuclear and oil drilling to the mix), both sides are "patriotic" (though the Republican version of patriotism is a scary sort of McCarthyite, jingoist, Orwellian thing, while Democrats know that one really doesn’t have to wear a flag pin to be patriotic).

The rhetoric of "Bush's Third Term" or "Hero, Not Zero" doesn't impress me. My choice is based on what's Right for America, or at the very least, to stave off the people I know are Wrong for America. I don't need scare tactics to be afraid of McCain/Palin. I already know what they think of me, and what they're likely to do to my people.

Thoughts on the Dignity for All Students Act and the School Safety Act

First, I was quoted by The Advocate (online, August 19, 2008) in an article by Kerry Eleveld discussing the Safe Schools for All Students Act that was introduced by the Republican-controlled New York State Senate Rules Committee – notable for the first time any Republican-sponsored bill in New York has sought to protect people on the basis of “gender identity or expression.”

See the full article here.

Here's the part that quotes me:

Trans activists overall are pleased by the progress that has been made in the senate. “As a signal from the Republican leadership, the inclusion of gender identity or expression in the Safe Schools bill could be a ray of hope,” said Joann Prinzivalli, state director of the New York Transgender Rights Organization.

But Prinzivalli said one “disturbing” difference in the Republican bill is that it provides protection from disciplinary action or professional misconduct for school employees who know of, but do not report, acts of bullying. “This is not a feature in the [assembly’s] Dignity bill, and it makes the Safe Schools bill much less palatable as an alternative,” she added.

From a quite different viewpoint, the following comes from the Lunatic Fringe at (Out of) Focus on the Family:

New York Considers Special Rights for 'Transgendered' Students

The Republican majority in the New York Senate has introduced a measure that would make the state among the first in the nation to grant special protections to "transgendered" students, including those who cross-dress.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-activist group, is taking credit for the so-called Safe Schools for All Students Act. Disguised as an anti-bullying effort, it would add special protections based on sexual orientation.

“While efforts need to be made to stop the bullying of any child, we believe it’s wrong for schools to have mandates pushed on them by homosexual-advocacy groups," said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "These groups have been bragging about a 'coup' in New York and have a clear agenda of promoting their sexual lifestyle to children. “It is not wise to push those types of agendas onto young kids who are still figuring out who they are. Plus, it puts teachers who have deeply held religious convictions in jeopardy.”

North Carolina lawmakers rejected a similar bill in July.

Aside from the fact that the folks at (Out Of) Focus On The Family Action are always trying to push their anti-Christian, anti-humanitarian, anti-science, anti-human rights anti-justice anti-fairness agenda, one other thing these people don’t get is that this Republican-sponsored School Safety bill would add special protections for “teachers who have deeply held religious convictions.” If they bothered to read the bill carefully, the (Out Of) Focus folks might have seen this.

Both the Dignity for All Students Act (S1571, sponsored by Democratic State Senator Thomas K. Duane, and co-sponsored by eleven Democratic Senators, the Republican Rules Committee bill (S8739, the Safe Schools for All Students Act) require that school employees report incidents of harrassment/bullying of which they are aware or have reason to suspect. Both bills protect those school employees who report harrassment/bullying in good faith. But the Republican bill goes farther, adding:

FAILURE OF AN EMPLOYEE TO MAKE A REPORT PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH MAY NOT BE THE BASIS FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CHARGE AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE; (S8739, p2 lines 34-34)

It appears to be possible that the Republican senators really are trying to protect those (Out of) Focus “teachers who have deeply held ‘religious’ convictions” whose strange version of religion involves a belief that bullying and harassment of gay, transgender, tomboy and sissy kids is somehow a good thing.

The fact that “gender identity or expression” is properly included (under the definition of gender) as a protected class, in addition to sexual orientation, race, color, religion, disability, national origin, military status, sex, gender, age or marital status is lost on the bully-protecting folks at (Out of) Focus, who seem to think that it’s just fine for a schoolyard bully to pick on that nerdy sissy kid with glasses because in their warped sense of “religion” that’s what they think Jesus would have done (though I am quite sure Jesus would differ with that viewpoint, as they’ll find out when they get judged at the Final Judgment - see Matt. 25), or because bullying the sissy kid will somehow “make a man out of him.”

I had my own painful personal experience as a child with bullying and harassment, from the 5th grade until I got out of high school. It wasn’t a “sexual orientation” thing. It wasn’t even visibly a “gender identity or expression” thing – or maybe it was.

Essentially, I transferred into a new school in the middle of the school year, and somehow, the school bumped a very popular kid from the “A track” class to the “B track” class in order to fit me in. On top of that, when it came to schoolyard activity, it became obvious that I “throw like a girl.” This caused a great deal of resentment and led to a lot of harassment. I didn’t complain about it, but apparently teachers and administrators noticed, which prompted them to set up a meeting with my parents and the principal.

The proposed solution? My father was told that he and I should play catch after school every day. This was along the lines of “it’ll make a man out of him.” Of course, this turned out to be a very frustrating exercise for both my father and myself. No matter what I did, it *hurt* my elbow when I tried to “throw like a boy.”

The problem with this picture is that the traditional solution in these cases is to blame the victim, something the (Out of) Focus folks seem to want to continue as the solution.

The (Out of) Focus folks and the New York State Senate Republican-controlled Rules committee don’t seem to understand that teachers (and other school employees) who want to hide behind their so-called “religious beliefs” to justify bullying and harassment don’t belong in the schools, just like a teacher who believes in “Young Earth Creationism” shouldn’t be protected for teaching this religious belief in a science classroom.

One thought about this disturbing language in the Republican Senate bill (language perhaps intended to pander to (Out Of) Focus and its ilk) is that it was put there intentionally as a “poison pill” with the idea being the Senate could pass this bill and then kill a compromise with the Assembly Dignity for All Students Act bill (A3496 – the same as S1571) by insisting on protecting those teachers, school officials and employees who want to continue to turn a blind eye toward harassment and bullying. In this very cynical view, the Republican senators could trumpet about how they voted for (or even supported, if the bill doesn’t come to a vote) a “school safety” bill in their bids for re-election.

Most people wouldn’t even notice that the bill has a fatal flaw that eviscerates the coverage it would only seem to provide – the folks at (Out of) Focus On The Family Action didn’t notice that their so-called “concern” on the issue was already addressed by the Republican Rules committee.

Why Governor David Paterson "gets it" (and an afterthought as to how he doesn't)

Ever since I met New York Governor David Paterson some years ago when he was the New York State Senate minority leader, I knew that he "got it" about the need for legal recognition of transgender rights under the state human rights laws.

Just yesterday (Thursday, July 17, 2008), Governor Paterson gave a speech to attendees at the national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) held in Cincinnati, Ohio. In an interview given after the speech, he indirectly explained the context of how he came to this understanding, as he is quoted in the New York Times article cited above:

Governor Paterson’s views on discrimination have been shaped by the fact that he is both black and legally blind. He said one of the most painful experiences he had with discrimination came from a black businessman who refused to hire him because of his blindness.

"That’s when I realized this is kind of a universal problem that exists, this fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference," he said.

[citation: Paterson, at N.A.A.C.P., Warns of Racism’s Power, by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, published Friday July 18, 2008]

The impact of this insight is precisely the reason Governor Paterson has embraced and supported the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) and the Dignity for All Youth Act (DAYA), as well as the bill to make New York’s Marriage laws completely gender-neutral.

People who are transgendered, or gay, experience discrimination for the same reason that African-Americans still experience discrimination – it’s this, as he put it, "fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference."

It’s the reason a major title insurance company fired me as its chief underwriting counsel in January 2000. Just before Thanksgiving 1999, on my own time and after work, I testified at a public hearing, imploring Westchester County legislators to restore language that would have better clarified coverage for transgender people to the then-proposed county human rights bill. My testimony was televised on local and regional news, some lawyer in Long Island realized exactly who I was and called the company headquarters in Texas and asked "what kind of pervert do you have working for you?"

It took two board meetings, one for the national company and one for the New York subsidiary, but despite an excellent history of job performance, I became persona non grata at that company because by being "different" I sparked that visceral and instinctual "fear of the unknown" in the hearts of the company’s management – the same management that only a few months earlier was effusively praising my work.

In the meantime, I am hoping Governor Paterson issues an Executive Order some time soon that provides employment protection to transgender people in state employment - this is something the governor can do without waiting for the legislature. It's something trans community activists and allies were working on obtaining from former governor Eliot Spitzer's administration before he resigned. Now that the legislative session is over, perhaps Governor Paterson will be able to turn his attention to this bit of work.

Afterthought: During his N.A.A.C.P. convention speech, Governor Paterson took the time to condemn the recent satirical cover illustration from The New Yorker magazine, that depicted Senator and presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, as militant radicals seeking to destroy the United States. He called it "one of the most malignant, vicious covers of a magazine I have ever seen."

I wouldn’t condemn the magazine for running the cover – I know the magazine’s purpose was to show just how malignant and vicious the lies, innuendoes and false rumors some conservative Republicans have been spreading about Senator Obama and his wife – things like how he is supposedly a Muslim extremist, or that their "fist bump" is some kind of black radical secret handshake, or that the Senator was educated in a "madrassas" school (depicted as a fundamentalist Muslim school the teaches radical Islamost "Jihad against America" propaganda as part of its interpretation of the Holy Qu’ran, its only textbook).

By printing the cover, the magazine exposed the vicious lies to the light of day as exactly how ridiculous these are – and the reaction the cover has inspired is exactly the reaction intended by The New Yorker – except I think The New Yorker editors expected more sophisticated readers to understand that the cover itself, by being so "over the top" was intended as satire.

Governor Paterson is not alone in his condemnation of the magazine cover.

The reaction to the New Yorker cover is reminiscent of the reaction of abhorrence that another famous satire, a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, entitled A Modest Proposal, once evoked.

As with the cartoon cover, Swift had the experience of having some, including some rather sophisticated and intelligent people, take his satire seriously and react with abhorrence.

So in this instance, I’ll part with Governor Paterson, but only slightly, and condemn the malicious and repugnant lies that were satirized by the magazine cover, rather than the cover itself.

Photo from NYC Pride March 2008

I got to drive a convertible as part of the contingent for The LOFT, my local LGBT Center, based in White Plains. This photo taken by a friend from the sidelines, shows me also holding up a sign calling for transgender rights.

ON THE OCCASION OF THE FOURTH OF JULY

Paraphrased (and adapted to reflect the current struggles for gay and transgender rights) from the eloquent and beautiful Independence Day Speech at Rochester, 1841, given by Frederick Douglass. This is an homage to Mr. Douglass, who was a supporter of the rights of women, as well as the rights of African-American men. There is so much in the current struggle for gay and transgender rights that is similar to the historical struggles for women's rights and the rights of America's African-American minority.

Fellow citizens, pardon me, let me ask why have I been asked to speak here today? What do I and people like me have to do with this holiday celebrating national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in the Declaration of Independence extended to us? And am I asked to bring a humble offering to the national altar, to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from the Declaration of Independence to us?

I wish I could truthfully look at you and say “yes” to these questions! That would be easy. Who would not be warmed by a nation’s sympathy? Who would be so dead to the claim of gratitude, and not be thankful in acknowledging the priceless benefit of those inalienable rights? Who would not raise up their voice in singing the America the Beautiful, or some other paen to liberty and freedom, when the rights freely granted and recognized have been recognized for us?

But I can’t do it.

I say this with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the ambit of this wonderful celebration. The celebration of freedom and liberty and justice which this holiday represents only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The rights of justice, liberty, prosperity, independence, and the right to pursue happiness, bequeathed by this nation’s forefathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brings light and healing to you brings me nothing but the taste of ashes. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may celebrate while I must mourn. To drag a third-class citizen without the same rights, into the temple of liberty and call upon her to join in the celebration, is both an inhuman mockery and a sacrilegious irony.

Is it to mock me for what I do not have, that I am here to speak today?

Above your celebration of joy, I hear the mournful wail those who are without joy, whose pain of rejection and inequality is rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. To forget them, to pass lightly over the injustice and intolerance, and to chime in with the popular theme would be a kind of treason.

My subject, then, is the matter of the human rights of my people, and the right of marriage. I shall see this day from the point of view of those who like me do not have our families recognized as legal relationships, who have not got the benefit of the level playing field of equal opportunity, who are shunted aside and called upon to live in the shadows at the edge of our society, lest children be exposed to us. I stand together with the homeless and the destitute who are forced by circumstance and the impact of societal disapprobation to the depths of despair. I stand with families denied the same rights as other families, with children denied the same rights as other children, and of individuals who are not welcome at the table of justice.

I cannot hesitate to state that the character and conduct of this nation in the past and even today, has never looked darker than on this Fourth of July. In the name of security, precious liberty is squandered, but it is often a liberty that has already been denied to me and those like me.

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing here before you as a woman, as a woman with a transsexual history, as a lesbian, in solidarity with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution which is disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate injustice and inequality - the great sin and shame of America! I will not equivocate, I will not excuse; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that anyone whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just....

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal humanity of those who are different from the majority because of gender identity or expression or because of sexual orientation. Is it not as astonishing that, while we are trying to live our lives, to care for our loved ones and families, to work to provide homes and shelter and clothing, we must attempt to do so with great handicaps not shared by the majority? That we have our very humanity denied.

Must I argue that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, gender and sexual orientation? Must I argue that a society that tolerates the bigotry and prejudice, not merely tolerates, but even institutionalizes it, is not truly a free society? That it is wrong?

No! I will not. I have better things to do.

So, what does the Fourth of July really represent to the LGBT American?

My answer is that it is a day that reveals to us, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice of which we are the constant victims. To us, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your parades and solemnity, are, to us, mere bombast, fraud, deception and hypocrisy – a thin veil to cover up behavior that would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth that claims to be free and to cherish liberty, which is guilty of practices more shocking and hypocritical than those of the people of the United States at this very hour.

Search through the entire world for every abuse in nations claiming to be free, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting bigotry linked with shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

Background relating to County Legislator "Drag Show" protest

In 1999, former County Legislator (and current State Senator) Andrea Stewart-Cousins introduced the initial version of the Westchester County Human Rights Law. There were three public hearings on the bill.

The original bill defined "gender" as "the biological or social characteristics of being female or male." This language is identical to the language adopted that same year in Suffolk County for its human rights law. The Suffolk County law is recognized as being transgender-inclusive, while the Westchester law, with its legislative history and changed language, is not.

Before the third public hearing, the then-chair of the County Board of Legislators (and current State Assemblymember) George Latimer had a meeting with the New York (Roman Catholic) Archdiocese Office of the Family, in order to address Catholic Church opposition to the bill in previous public hearings.

Among the speakers at the first public hearing, and one of the two who focused on being anti-transgender, was Dr. Catherine Hickey, the Schools Chancellor for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. Dr. Hickey is a bright woman and an excellent speaker. She lectured the legislature during her five minute talk, referring derogatorily to the proposal's definition of gender as "creative writing" and then boldly averred, "Everyone knows that there are only two genders, male and female!"

As a result of Mr. Latimer's meeting with the Archdiocesan Office of the Family, and among other things, the bill's definition of "gender" was changed to mean "the biological characteristics of being male or female." This removal of the words "or social" could be seen as an attempt to weaken the law's coverage so that it is possible that transgender people would not be covered. I als note that the Catholic office apparently also requested that "female or male" be restored to the traditional biblical patriarchal order.

I testified at the third public hearing on Tuesday of Thanksgiving week 1999. I was not fully in transition at the time, and I was "outed" by being featured prominently in news coverage, that cited my former name, on News 12, Fox 5 News and Good Day New York.

As a result of this outing, I was fired from my job as chief underwriting counsel for a major title insurance company shortly prior to the effective date of the law. After my testimony, both Mr. Latimer and Ms. Stewart-Cousins advised that they couldn't change the language again and pass the bill in 1999, but that they would get to it "next year."

The bill was enacted with the weakened "gender" definition.

In order to try to get the best interpretation possible, I wrote an article for The LOFT Community News, a publication of The LOFT: The Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, Inc. based in White Plains. In the article, I pressed an interpretation of the word "biological" to mean "both physiological and psychological" aspects of beuing male or female, in an attempt to make up for the removal of the words "or social" from the law.

I circulated the article to members of the human rights commission, who have been treating transgender people as included on that basis. In the situations where I have been advised that transgender people have sought the assistance of the human rights commission, they have been treated fairly.

However, my concern ramains that the actual statutory language is weak and while principles of Administrative Law give the agency interpreting a statute broad power of reasonable interpretation, it remains a distinct possibility that a commission ruling can be overturned by a court on the basis of the legislative history.

No bill was offered until I asked Legislator Lois Bronz to do so in 2005. At the time, Legislator Marty Rogowsky was chair of the Committee on Legislation, and when I asked him to move the bill, he said that the committee would get to it immediately after the November 2005 elections - and when I went to attend the committee meeting after the election in 2005, Legislator Rogowsky advised that he had forgotten, but that it would be taken up in February 2006.

In 2006, he was no longer chair of the committee, and no action has been taken since.

After last week's meeting, County Legislator Ken Jenkins told me privately that he believes that transgender people are already covered under the existing law, but he also indicated that if the human rights commission were to request the clarification in the law making it less vague, he would support it and do his best to have it passed.

My talk to county legislators at their June 16, 2008 meeting

The New York Transgender Rights Organization


COMMENTS MADE BY JOANN PRINZIVALLI
AT THE JUNE 16, 2008, 10:00 AM MEETING OF
THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS


Good morning to the honorable legislators and all who are present.

My name is Joann Prinzivalli. I live in White Plains and I am the state Director of the New York Transgender Rights Organization, or NYTRO.

I am speaking to you this morning to impress upon you the serious nature of the issue involving the need for an amendment to the county human rights law to correct the definition of gender to explicitly include protection for my people.

The bill was introduced by Legislator Lois Bronz in 2005 but has died in committee. I am appending a copy of the bill to my prepared remarks. Given several recent turns of events, I strongly urge you to pass this legislation immediately.

Needless to say, everything is not “coming up roses” for transgender people.

Transgender people are subjected to severe discrimination every day. I lost my job in 2000 because of being transgender, and ironically, because I testified at the 3rd public hearing on the original human rights bill in November 1999, begging you to reinstate the language that was removed by then Chair George Latimer at the request of the Catholic Archdiocese Office of the Family.

In Westchester County, homeless transgender women have been placed in men’s facilities. It has only been through efforts of people like Laura Newman, the former LGBT liaison to the County Executive, that in some cases that came to her attention, some accommodations were made.

Transgender people are sometimes refused service in eating and drinking establishments in this county. We live in fear of being arrested for using a public bathroom no matter which bathroom we use.

In the Bronx, just to the south, young Sanesha Stewart was brutally murdered. Because she was transgender, the New York Daily News portrayed her as a prostitute who was killed by a john when he found out she had the wrong genitals. This was not true at all.

On the floor of the State Assembly during the debate on the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, which ultimately passed in that chamber by a 108-33 vote, Assemblymember Peter Lopez, while acknowledging that transgender people need protection under the law, raised his opposition to the bill based on the argument that it would protect sexual predators who would lurk in public restrooms to prey on women and children. Another Assemblymember thought that young children in schools should not be exposed to a transgender teacher.

And now, we have had the experience of watching on television three heterosexual cissexual members of this august body of legislators cavorting on stage in mockery of transgender people - intentionally or unintentionally, and I am sure it was unintentionally, portraying crossdressed people as simple-minded and buffoonish, to get a laugh.

There is a very direct and insidious connection between the portrayal of transgender people as prostitutes, sexual predators and a threat to children, or parodied as buffoonish clowns, and the way a segregationist white America chose to portray African Americans not so long ago.

If I refer to motion pictures, we have the examples of the controversial 1915 DW Griffith film The Birth of A Nation, which portrayed black men as always ready to be raping white women, and the first “talkie” in 1928, The Jazz Singer, featuring white actor Al Jolson in blackface. It wasn’t just in the movies – news accounts of lurid black-on-white crime made whites fearful, while at the same time popular minstrel shows featured white people in makeup, acting in a parody of African-Americans.

Discrimination against African Americans was often seen as justified in the minds of whites, in part, because of the routine portrayal of black people as sex-crazed rapists, or as a simple-minded, shuffling, lazy lesser breed of human.

Let me put it this way. You may understand the idea of “white privilege” and how that impacts “institutionalized racism.” It’s the same thing with what I would call “cissexual privilege” and “institutionalized transphobia.”

Straight cissexuals mocking people like me in a drag show is just as much “just in good clean fun” as white people performing a minstrel show in blackface.

I hope I have illustrated the need for this technical amendment to the law. I can speak to any or all of you to amplify on this is you wish.

My response to Legislator Jenkins' apology

Hi Ken,

If it were not for the facts that the bill to amend the county human rights law to explicitly protect transgender people has not moved since 2005, and Legislators Spreckman (chair), Pinto, Alvarado and yourself are all on the Generational, Cultural and Ethnic Diversity Committee together with the bill sponsor, Lois Bronz, that is holding this up, I wouldn't have been particularly offended by your participation in the drag show at the Polish Center in Yonkers yesterday.

I saw your apology on News 12 at 5:05 PM today, and while I do appreciate your apology, I really, really would like to see the bill move and get passed eight years after George Latimer and Andrea Stewart-Cousins promised action on this amendment (right after the third public hearing on the origiunal Human Rights law in 1999).

I can discuss this with you at length on a Tuesday or a Friday, and would like to make an appoint ment to do so.

Here is the text of the 2005 bill (I can't send an attachment in this form, sorry) as I originally drafted it for Legislator Bronz:

LOCAL LAW INTRO. NO. -2005

A LOCAL LAW to Amend Chapter 700 of the Laws of Westchester County to make technical amendments in the definition of Gender as provided therein and to change the erroneous term “limited liability corporation” to “limited liability company” wheresoever in said chapter such term appears.

BE IT ENACTED by the County Board of the County of Westchester as follows:

Section 1. Section 700.02.9. of the Laws of Westchester County is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 700.02. Definitions.
. . .
9. Gender means (a) the [biological] _physiological and psychological_ characteristics of being male or female, _and (b) gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not such) gender identity, self image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth._
...
Section 2. Wheresoever the term “limited liability corporation” appears in Chapter 700 of the Laws of Westchester County, such term shall be, and hereby is, changed to “limited liability company.”

Section 3. This local law shall take effect thirty (30) days after its enactment.

NOTE: the bracketed [ ] word is deleted, and material set off between underscore characters "_" is added.

Thanks, Ken, I really do have great respect for you - but this is a situation where you experience "cissexual privilege" and I don't. (It's analogous to "white privilege," something I have come to understand from friends of color.)

I hope you understand my point of view and will be a leader in the process to get this bill passed.

Thanks.
Joann Prinzivalli, State Director,
New York Transgender Rights Organization

The Coverage of the Protest

Click here to go to a site where you can see the televised coverage of the protest.

The television coverage, on local Cablevision Newschannel 12 also includes clips from the county legislators' bad drag performance of You Gotta Have a Gimmick from the musical Gypsy.

There were three (and after the cameras left, a fourth arrived) protestors. The response was not bad for an action that was planned only 2-1/2 hours earlier.

There was also coverage in the local newspaper, The New York Journal News.

Responses on the http://www.lohud.com/ website ranged from supportive to clueless.

There has been internet coverage of the protest and the reasoning for it.

Click here for Autumn Sandeen's article that explains it all.

And for an interesting criticism by Monica Roberts of my analogy of the county legislators' performances to a "blackface minstrel show," click here.

As a note aimed at Monica Roberts commentary, I entirely agree with her about the performance of the performer "Shirley Q. Liquor" who actually combines bad blackface with bad drag, but I do think she may have missed my point - that the county legislators who were involved in the particular "dragface" show were criticized not because they are cissexual and straight, though those factors make it just a tad bit more offensive, but because they are all on the Westchester County Board of Legislators (and not only that, are on one of the committees that the bill has to get through before a vote) that has "dragged" its feet for more than eight years to get a simple technical amendment to the county human rights law passed, to clarify that the coverage afforded under the law does in fact cover transgender people.

Drag Show Protest Press Release

The New York Transgender Rights Organization

---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYTRO CONDEMNS COUNTY DRAG SHOW

White Plains, New York, June 13, 2008 – The New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO) protests the June 12, 2008 drag show organized by County legislator Bernice Spreckman, in which County legislators Ken Jenkins, Vito Pinto, and perhaps others, appeared in a mockery of transgender people to the laughs of an audience of seniors.
“The Westchester County legislature has failed for nearly eight years to amend the county human rights law to explicitly protect transgender people,” said Joann Prinzivalli, the state director of NYTRO and a White Plains resident. “It is shocking to see county legislators who have dragged their feet on this vital issue doing the equivalent of a KKK blackface show to mock my people.”

In 1999, former county legislators George Latimer and Andrea Stewart-Cousins, both now in the state legislature, promised to rectify the deficiency in the third draft of the original county human rights law enacted in December 1999. At the time, the language that would have protected transgender people was dropped from the bill as a compromise, according to Latimer, because this was requested by the New York Catholic Archdiocese Office of the Family. A bill to rectify the situation was actually introduced in 2005 by County legislator Lois Bronz, but went nowhere in committee.

A poll done by Global Strategy Group in February 2008 shows that statewide public support for legal protection of transgender people stands at 78% of registered voters. Last week, the New York State Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) by a vote of 108-33, with better than a two-thirds majority. Prinzivalli said “The public support is out there. The time has come for county government to get there ahead of the curve.”

The New York Transgender Rights Organizartion (NYTRO) is an unincorporated association with chapters around New York State. The organization is dedicated to advance the recognition of human rights of transgender and gender variant people, who are often subjected to the worst discrimination in employment, housing, insurance, medical care and public accommodations.

NYTRO State Director Joann Prinzivalli plans an unscheduled press conference at the steps to the (presently closed) main entrance to the Michaelian County Office on Martine Avenue in White Plains at 1:30 PM today, June 13, 2008.

- 30 -

The Shot Over The Bow

The New York Transgender Rights Organization

---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYTRO CHAIR JOANN PRINZIVALLI’S STATEMENT OF
NON-RESIGNATION MADE AT THE JUNE 11, 2008
LGBT ADVISORY BOARD TOWN HALL MEETING

My name is Joann Prinzivalli. While I am a member of the Advisory Board, and have been a member from its inception in 2002, I am making these comments, not in the capacity of advisor to the County Executive, but in my role as State Director of the New York Transgender Rights Organization.

Since the Advisory Board’s inception, the board has sought to provide education, guidance and advice to the County Executive on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender issues.

The board has made a good deal of progress on sexual orientation issues, but has been almost completely frustrated at every turn on issues affecting the transgender community.

Recommendations made to the County Executive that relate to getting his support for a bill in the County legislature to amend the county human rights law to provide explicit protection to transgender people in the county have been met with “we’re not ready for that yet.”

In 2007, and again this year, the Advisory board made a recommendation to the County Executive that he issue an executive order protecting transgender people in county employment. I was told that the 2007 draft was sent to the Law Department, and it wasn’t approved in time for the 2007 Town Hall meeting. When I asked in January of this year what progress was being made, and if there were any issues, I was told that no one knew about the executive order draft.

So I asked the Board to resubmit it this year. And the result is that we get the answer, “we’re not ready for that yet.”

Late in 2007 there was an incident involving the County Police arresting a transgender individual. The individual advised the arresting officer that he was still physically female, but since his hormone treatment had already lowered his voice and allowed him beard growth, the arresting officer did not believe him and did not advise the desk officer. The individual was placed in the male holding tank. I determined that this could have had bad consequences. After doing extensive research, I drafted a procedural memo for the purpose of starting a dialogue with the Commissioner of Public Safety. The Advisory Board approved the recommendation and forwarded it to the County Executive with the further recommendation that the County Executive help arrange a meeting with the commissioner to discuss appropriate procedure.

After months of being stonewalled, I was advised that county officials had determined that the County Police already have appropriate policies in place. But when I asked if the policies were in writing, there was no response. Apparently, it’s just a matter of “we’re not ready for that yet.”

Two years ago, the County Executive was ahead of the curve when he issued an executive order recognizing out-of-state gender-neutral marriages for county agency purposes. It was only this past month, nearly two years later, that Governor Paterson has done the same thing for state agencies.

But when it comes to transgender issues, we are still getting stonewalled.

This past week, the State Assembly overwhelmingly approved GENDA, a bill that would give human rights protections to transgender New Yorkers. The preliminary vote count was 102 – 33. Even the opponents who rose in debate acknowledged that it is time that transgender people in New York State must be protected under the law.

The writing on the wall – the answer “we’re not ready for that yet” is no longer acceptable.

Perhaps County Executive Spano needs just a little more time to get it.

In January, I was prepared to resign from the Advisory Board if we did not make progress on at least one trans proposal by tonight. With the passage of GENDA last week in the Assembly, I am now prepared to give the County Executive just a little more time.
So I am not resigning tonight as I originally planned. Not yet.

In wrestling with the ethical issues, I came to the conclusion that as long as I am expressly not acting in my capacity as a member of the Advisory Board, I can take action as an individual citizen, or in other capacities, to openly protest the lack of action from our county government.

I will no longer voluntarily restrict myself to quiet diplomacy behind closed doors in attempting to improve the plight of the transgender community in Westchester County.

The time has come. We are no longer willing to wait silently.

Thank you all for your time.

Race v. Gender? Some thoughts on an e-mail supporting Hillary

On February 13, 2008, I received a very interesting e-mail from Marilyn Fitterman, NOW's Northeast Regional Director, indicating her support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In trying to find it via Google, I did not see it in any NOW website, but did find two references that quote it in full (and then there are added comments, not related to my own).

The first place is on a Blogger blog called XpatriatedTexan: A blog on faith and politics, by Thurman Hart:

"More Idiocy from NOW"

Mr. Hart's blog is subtitled: A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

The other is at Message 194 on page 13 in a thread entitled Hillary for President -- Part VI, in forum on the "Big Soccer" website (the message itself is at):

Yet another e-mail from New York State NOW

So I really don't have to repeat Ms. Fitterman's entire message here.

Her message, when I received it, moved me to respond - especially because the examples she gave as her rationale for supporting Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy resonated so well with me. I have used those very same examples (and others) from the experience of the civil rights struggles of women and African-Americans in my own advocacy work for LGBT issues. I often think of these as lessons of history.

So here is the text of my response to the message:

From: Joann Prinzivalli ((EML ADDRESS REDACTED)
Sent: Wed 2/13/08 12:13 PM
To: Marilyn Fittrerman, NOW NE Regional Director & Pas (EML ADDRESS REDACTED)

Thank you, Marilyn. I have myself on numerous occasions used the same historical perspectives you so eloquently set out in your message in different contexts.

In the case of the Married Women's Property Acts (in New York, 1848 for inheritance and 1860 for wages - Ernestine Rose and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started to work on the first bill in 1836), I often point out the reaction of conservative religious leaders of the time that enacting these laws would destroy the institution of marriage, when advocating for a gender-neutral marriage law.

The 50 year gap between the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, and the fact that women had to wait so long (as well as the nearly accidental last-minute inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is something I hope doesn't get repeated in another context, though it seems to be doing so - in December 2002, when the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was enacted, the transgender community was left behind by the legislature, and by the gay and lesbian community. The analogous bill, GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) is still struggling to gain passage in the allegedly "friendly" Democratically-controlled New York Assembly. Last year's shameful theatrics in the House of Representatives over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (originally HR 2015, but severely weakened and then passed by the House as HR 3685) seemed to be a reverse of what happened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I agree that Senator Clinton is the better choice for President, despite her poorly nuanced position on the repeal of the federal Defense Against Marriage Act (one point where Senator Obama's position is superior) - she supports only the repeal of the provision of 1 USC §7, pursuant to which the federal government is prohibited from recognizing certain marriages that may be legal in any of the states, but would leave intact 28 USC §1738C, which permits each state to refuse full faith and credit to certain marriages legal in other states. In addition, she does not appear to support an affirmative federal recognition of the same-sex marriages currently prohibited from recognition.

Senator Clinton got my vote in the New York primary on February 5th - but while my support is genuine, it is less than completely enthusiastic, considering that even in Hillary's view, I am only entitled to a third class status without all the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

Joann Prinzivalli
State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO)

PS: We really need to be doing more about (New York) Governor's Program Bill #16 - the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. Like GENDA, it hasn't moved anywhere in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. I understand that Assembly leadership is the current key bottleneck (though the bill has little chance in a Republican-controlled Senate with Senator Bruno having become recalcitrant on anything progressive since former State Senator Nick Spano lost his seat.)

J.

And I received a very nice response from her.

In this primary season, I am currently supporting Senator Clinton's candidacy, despite the reservations I expressed as to her poorly-nuanced view on the repeal of the Defense Against Marriage Act.

It isn't because she is a woman, or because Senator Obama is black. It's because I really do think she would ultimately do a better job in the presidency. However, If Senator Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president, he will get my support in the general election. I may have some personal respect for Senator McCain but he would not get my vote - I have too many issues with his positions. That respect was also eroded a bit by at least one sexist-seeming statement during the campaign where he didn't properly address a reference to Senator Clinton from a questioner as "that bitch" and laughed at the reference as if it was something funny. Surely, he would have received greater condemnation had he similarly laughingly sidestepped a racist reference to Senator Obama. (And I note, the McCain gaffe is something that wasn't even mentioned in Ms. Fitterman's e-mail message.)

I do have one last thought: I always thought is was a kind of institutionalized racism to think of "white" as if it has to mean somewhat with completely caucasian ancestry, while "black" includes people of mixed-race ancestry where one not-terribly-remote ancestor is negroid, though apparently having some known "Native American" ancestry seems to trump "black." Senator Obama's mom is "white," and pro golfer Tiger Woods'" mom is "asian." Both Senator Obama and Mr. Woods are usually thought of as being "black," but that is an identity that is placed on them by the lingering residue of white supremacist institutionalized racism. On the other hand, both men appear to identify that way themselves - and I don't think it is necessarily a matter of incorporating and internalizing the racism. The strangest thing is that it seems, from mitochondrial evidence, that every person in the world is descended from a single woman who lived 75,000 years ago in Africa.

Of course, I would prefer to be race-neutral as well as gender-neutral, and even the exclusionary racism of the "purity of whiteness" might be a little better than the sort of racial hierarchy that one finds in old, unenforceable real estate restrictive covenants, which are illegal and unenforceable under New York State and federal law (and perhaps the laws of most states). It's even illegal to reprint the words of the covenants in a title insurance commitment - references to racial covenants are limited to noting that they exist but are not enforceable. A copy of an instrument with the racial covenant has to be redacted to make the racial covenant unreadable.

One covenant I once ran into, regarding a subdivision in New Rochelle, New York, from the 1930's, prohibited any "negro, mullato, quadroon or octaroon," except domestic servants, from residing in homes built at the subdivision. While I had run into mulatto before, I surmised (correctly, as it turned out) that a "quadroon" would be an individual with a single black grandparent (or maybe two mulatto grandparents?), and an octaroon would have a single black great-grandparent (though if one is counting blood percentages, perhaps two black great-great grandparents might do, even if they weren't married to each other). This sort of racial slicing and dicing is reminiscent of the way Jewish ancestry was parsed by the agents of the Third Reich's "Final Solution."

I don't see the Democratic primary season as being a matter of race v. gender. That may be the spin some sophisticated pundits have tried to impose - and their best shot at that may have come when former President Clinton made some comments, or when Senator Clinton made a reference to the need for an LBJ as well as an MLK to get the civil rights act of 1964 passed. (The attempt at seeing that latter comment as racially divisive required a real stretch of the imagination).

Ingrid E. Barnes - 1960-2008 - Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid Barnes
May 22, 1960 – February 4, 2008
Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid E. Barnes, Associate Director of Adult Services at Pace University, former co-President of The LOFT: The Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, Inc., former director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, passed away from colon cancer at age 47 on February 4, 2008. Ingrid was a friend of mine (though we were not particularly close), even though she and I didn’t agree on a lot of issues, particularly the trans community and how it relates to gays and lesbians.

In living her life, Ingrid was one of the most iconoclastic people I knew – a black lesbian Republican conservative – yet she really never “got it” when it came to transgender issues and the commonalities transpeople have with the lesbian and gay community. Here are excerpts from her Bloggger blog “Not Your Typical Negro” that relate to the trans community, and my responses to them(what I might have written had I seen them during her life) – I did not find her blog until after she passed away, and I regret not having had the opportunity to engage her in a conversation on the issues.

Friday, November 16, 2007

A Watershed Moment

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on and passed HR 3685. The final vote was 235 to 184. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA was introduced by Barney Frank in September of this year and excluded gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill was originally introduced in 1974 under a different name - the Gay Rights Bill, HR 14752. Currently, there are 13 states that prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Frank's argument for excluding gender identity was that the bill would not garner the votes necessary for passage which has created a firestorm in the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. The crux of the argument is that we should not exclude transgender folks from the bill simply to win legislation because they will be forever forgotten. On the other side are those, including myself, that believe that after all these years, we'll take the bill without gender expression. Some see this as unfair to the transgender community but others, whom I agree with, see it as an incredible win for gays and lesbians. One such group is United ENDA which includes gay, lesbian and transgender groups. One of my favorite writers says it best here.

I have always argued that the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community and I'm very happy to see that I'm not alone. Of course once you make such a statement you are automatically labeled a transphobe but as a black lesbian Republican I've heard worse. This is what the Washington Post had to say about the vote. The key lines there are: "Transgender people must channel the activism this action sparked into a long-term effort to educate the public and lawmakers about the discrimination they face." After all, gays and lesbians have been doing just that for years.

My Response: Ingrid argues that “the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community.” This is a straw man. Some trans people are gay or lesbian, and, depending on how one views how to base the definition of a sexual orientation, the idea of sexual orientation can get reversed, with some who think of themselves as straight being seen as gay, and vice versa, based on original genitals, current genitals, chromosomes, or some other factor.

But Ingrid’s error is in not realizing that real commonality is not that the T is part of LGB, but that the gay and lesbian community is a part of the same non-heteronormative, non-cissexual community as trans people. The majority in society expects everyone to be masculine male men attrected-to-women, or feminine female women attracted-to-men. Trans people, LGB people, and some intersexed people, all fall outside that heteronormative cissexual binary

The worst part of it is that most of the discrimination faced by lesbians and gays is often based on the idea of “gender identity.” Little boys perceived to be sissy, are perceived as not masculine enough. Little girls who are too butch, are perceived as not feminine enough. Adult gays who look too nelly, and lesbians who look too butch, areb’t discriminated against because of who they love or sleep with, it’s because of their gender expression.

And the opposite happens with trans people – the single most common expletive used to slur trans women is to call us “faggot.”

Like it or not, LGBs and Ts all really do belong together when it comes to human rights protections – if only because we all get associated with each other by the binary created and enforced by heteronormative cissexuals.

When it comes to “education about the discrimination we face,” trans people have been doing it as long as gays and lesbians – and the discrimination and societal marginalization faced by the trans community is often profoundly deeper and more pervasive than that experienced by LGBs.The Stonewall Riots were as much about us as it was about LGBs.

If one really looks at the conservative Republican rhetoric from the ENDA discussion on the floor of the House, the only human rights bill they were willing to consider was a “gay-only” and seriously weakened *employment* non-discrimination bill – nothing like the sort of comprehensive civil rights package that is urgently needed.


It’s inappropriate to leave out the most vulnerable members of the community to gain some temporary and hollow “vic ory” (victory without the T)

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Clock is Ticking

For some weeks now there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the impending passage of the Employment Non-discrimination Act or ENDA. The controversy, and reason for a second bill, is over the inclusion of gender identity. The inclusion of gender identity would protect members of the transgender community. The main bill, H.R. 2015 was introduced in April of this year and is very close to a vote in the House. The bill in its current form was first introduced in 1996 and under another name in 1974. The bill, if passed, would protect gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs simply because they are gay and lesbian. Currently, there are 31 states in which gays can be terminated based on their sexual orientation. The bill's main sponsors are Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays and Tammy Baldwin.

The controversy started when Representative Frank declared that the bill has a better chance of passage if it did not include gender identity. This faux pau, the opinion of many LGBT organizations, is one that they will not tolerate and according to many the LGBT community is in an uproar. Two weeks ago there were 113 groups who signed a pledge opposing the bill if it did not include gender identity. One of the most vocal has been the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman and of course members of the transgender community. The Human Rights Campaign, forever playing it safe so that they can keep the donations coming said they would not oppose the bill but they wouldn't support it either. What else could they say when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the recipient of HRC's National Equality Award.

So here is the problem as I see it. Many have said and will say that if we move ahead with H.R. 2015 without gender identity we are essentially kicking transgendered folks off the bus. Now, that would be true if: 1) trans folks were on the bus to begin with and 2) gender identity were analogous to sexual orientation. Neither of these two things are true. Gender identity is as different from sexual orientation as night is from day. Gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women who love the same sex. And for the last 30 years gays and lesbians have been doing to work to get ENDA passed. So, from a pragmatic point of view why not support the bill in its current form and do the education to include and pass another bill in the future? Of course the 113 groups and others feel that we are abandoning our trans family. Well I got news for those people, they don't consider themselves one of us. In reading the literature, a very high percentage of transgendered folks consider themselves straight. And the number that consider themselves gay and lesbian are very, very small. Am I transphobic? I guess to a lot of people I am but life goes on.

We cannot and should not stop passage of this important bill because a few people are upset. Dale Carpenter says it best when he says in this article, "Passage of ENDA is possible only because gay people have organized politically to educate Americans about homosexuality and to elect sympathetic representatives." This is the true issue surrounding this controversy. The work has been done and to simply throw it away because some feel we are dissing the transgender community is at best, stupid.

My response: The work was never done. ENDA was not only weakened by the removal of “gender identity” (which could have been used to show congressional intent to disapprove of the Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) , which involved “gender stereotyping” (which is the same as “gender expression” in different terms) – a part of the definition of “gender identity” in the HR 2015 bill that was abandoned in favor of HR 3685.

In addition, the religious exemption was broadened to the extent that any business that calls itself “Christian” can justify discrimination. If the owners want to discriminate, all they have to do is style their business a Christian” business, and they could legally bar gays and lesbians. A Christian boookstore was the primary example given by conservative Republican Congressmembers like Souder of Ohio. But why not a “Christian” car dealer, or a “Christian” suermarket? In parts of the country, putting “Christian” in front of a business name would increase business.

Gay people haven’t educated Christianist conservative Republicans, judging from the rhetoric, and the head count on transgender inclusion is only a few votes shorter than that for a “gay-only” ENDA with real teeth. Without gutting the bill for a hollow “vic ory” that wouldn’t even protect gays and lesbians, the non-inclusive bill would not have passed, either – and then where is the full civil rights bill? Where is the immigration reform? Where is marriage? Where is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? And where is the Matthew Shepard Act? There are at least 180 conservative Republicans who will not vote for anything that has “gay” in it, and most of the rest of them would not consider more than the weak bill that did get through the House.

I give Ingrid credit for having been willing to be have been a Republican. There are too many Democrats who are not really willing to push hard for justice for LGBT people – they take us for granted. At least the Republicans are honest about hating us.

August 22, 2006

My Case for Excluding the T

In 1996, I attended a Creating Change Conference in Chicago. I attended the conference as the co-president of a local gay and lesbian community center. The conference was organized and hosted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). NGLTF is a gay and lesbian advocacy group that had its beginnings in New York City in the 1970’s. In 1985, the organization changed its name from NGTF to NGLTF to include lesbians: “To make clear gender parity and lesbian issues.” It was in 1996, by my observations, that the organization was once again about to make a change. During the four day conference, as I was taking a break between sessions, I happened upon a protest of sorts. It seems that the transgender contingent was protesting the organization because they were not being heard. They wanted the "T" for transgender to be added to the acronym that was NGLTF. And by including the "T" there was an implicit request to start including transgender issues. I was rather dismayed at the protest and suggested to one of the organizers that educating gays and lesbians about transgender issues was a far more effective strategy than simply adding another letter to an already crowded acronym. My suggestion, however, was met with blank stares and annoyance at being asked to educate rather than harangue. How dare I ask for pragmatism rather than brute action? That was my introduction to the trans community. In that same year, Kerry Lobel, executive director, said the following: “NGLTF strongly supports civil rights protections and affordable health care for transgender [people]. We loathe discrimination and violence perpetuated against transgender people and stand in solidarity with transgender people in their struggle for respect, inclusion, equality and justice.” Thus began the love affair between gay and lesbian organizations with the transgender community.

Years later, I share comments about the transgender community with trepidation as they may be viewed as discriminatory by many. However, I have very strong opinions on this issue and cannot control the comments or feelings of my readers. In the Sunday New York Times styles section the following article appeared on its front cover. My take on gender reassignment is very similar to those of the lesbians interviewed for the article with some additional comments. The history of the gay movement has shown the gradual inclusion of lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people to the fold. Over the years organizations like NGLTF have broaden their definition of gay by including bisexual and transgender. But the problem is that bisexuality and transgender people cannot be automatically classified as gay. Bisexuals, in my limited experience with them, do not necessarily consider themselves gay nor do transgender people. So why are community centers, gay rights organizations etc., extending the acronym and confusing the issue? I have several reasons for this lumping of all that claim discrimination.

First, in politics and to politicians numbers play a crucil role hence the lumping of bisexuals and transgender numbers. So, show me the numbers and I'll show you my support. For this I blame the gay organizations. Second, gender identity is light years away from being the same thing as sexual orientation. As one interviewee stated in the article, “I am a lesbian because I am attracted to women and not men.” I continue to say this when groups keep insisting that the T be added to the l&g. Third, and I think this most important, gender reassignment does not mean that the person will then remain "gay or lesbian" as is obvious in the article.

When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men. And when a woman transitions from female to male "she" cannot consider herself a lesbian - simple end of story. Fourth, none of these people can consider themselves truly the opposite sex because they have not changed their x & y chromosones. Fifth, the confusion that this causes children will make the g&l struggle even harder. Sixth, the struggle for transgender rights is not my fight and I will not take it up. In 2000 when the sexual orientation non-discrimination act - SONDA was about to pass Senator Tom Duane (D-NY) almost derailed it by his 11th hour plea to include transgender rights. Thank goodness it was not included and the votes went forward to enact SONDA. So, my point here is simply this, the "T" should not be added to l&g because it is completely different than that of sexual orientation. I do not deny equality to transgender folks I just don't want gender rights lumped with my rights as a lesbian who has no wish to become a man.

My response: Where the premises are wrong in the first place, the argument fails. And in this case, just as with the later blog entries we have seen already, Ingrid does not understand that it isn’t the divisive idea that “T (or B!) people aren’t L&G” – we know we are not all the same. But the fact is that LGBT and some I (intersexed people) don’t fit into the heteronormative cissexual binary.

Ingrid also showed a remarkable lack of understanding about transgender people.

She wrote: “When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men.”

Ingrid didn’t realize that “male-to-female” (MTF) and “female-to-male” (FTM) only really relates to genital shape. Transsexual women are “women born transsexual" (WBT), and transexual men are "men born Transsexual (MBT)." We never really belonged to our originally-assigned sexes - otherwise why on earth would we feel the need for correction? Our identities belong to the sex not assigned to us at birth.

So I really am a lesbian (and not a heterosexual man, or ex-man), and my sweetie would disagree with Ingrid’s assessment that being with me would make her heterosexual. There are *some* lesbians who agree with Ingrid about “who we are” – and way too many transsexual separatists seem to think that only trans people ever read Professor Janis Raymond’s ill-conceived thesis, The Transsexual Empire. My friend Ingrid Barnes was clearly informed by Raymondite conservative lesbian feminist separatism.

Ingrid’s use of junk genetics (a blind reliance on the shape of the 23rd chromosome pair) is predictable – blind reliance on chromosome shape is as bad as blind reliance on genital shape. I wonder what Ingrid might have made of women assigned female at birth, who grow up, look like and identify as women, who, because of the way their SRY gene expresses, have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) – these women are born with XY in their 23rd chromosome pair – are these women also men? Ingrid might think so. But whatever it is that causes an individual to be trans (we only know of some effects, like the neuronal density in the central area of the basal stria terminalis in the hypothalamus, that could point to a physiological, genetic, or developmental cause for transsexuality), Ingrid’s understanding, or lack of it, seems to be much the same as the understanding of those people who still call sexual orientation “sexual preference” and believe that everyone is born straight, and intentionally choose to live sinful lives by choosing to be homosexual.

Ingrid makes other factual errors, but I am sure she was blogging "off the top of her head" and not The proposed amendment to the non-inclusive New York Sexual Onientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was made by Democratic State Senator Tom Duane in December 2002, on the floor of the New York State Senate. It was a symbolic thing, and there never was any possibility that the SONDA bill would have been derailed. Senator Duane had introduced an inclusive SONDA bill himself, but at the time, no one in the Assembly had done so - and it would ahve been surprising to have had the Republican-controlled State Senate passing an inclusive SONDA without the Democratically-controlled Assembly having passed it first. The non-inclusive SONDA bill had to be carried by a Republican in the Senate, as Democrat-sponsored bills do not get to a vote in that house of New York's sadly schizophrenic state legislature.

If we look at the non-inclusive ENDA bill that Ingrid liked, it wouldn’t have protected Ingrid herself had it become law. During the time I knew her, she always had close-cropped hair and looked rather butch. She may not have wanted to be a man, but her “gender identity” (as defined in HR 2015 – really “gender expression”) never really qualified as heteronormative.

I don’t want to paint a thoroughly negative picture of Ingrid. Readers here might wonder how I could consider this person my friend. As is the case with most people, she was more complicated than she would appear just from her writing.

She worked at Pace University - where a few years ago, she arranged to have me speak on trans isues to their diversity committee. She may not have understood trans people, and may not have wanted to work for our rights as well as her own, but ultimately, she wasn’t really against us having our rights recognized. She just wanted to make sure that L&G people came first.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Two from Column A and Three from Column B

I find it interesting that there is already a call for rights beyond same-sex marriage. Did I miss the memo that said that same-sex couples had the right to marry? So you can undertsand my surprise when I read this article.

Here I'll say it, I'm in favor of same-sex marriage but there is a caveat to that statemnet. And that is, that I would be perfectly fine with civil unions if they came with the same rights and priveledges of marriage. Now let me share my concerns after reading this article.

Number 1: Like all "movements" the gay and lesbian movemement has decided that inclusivity works better than exclusivity even though an argument could be made against such inclusivity. The inclusion of the B&T is a perfect example of such inclusivity. It is also an example of ramping up your numbers so that politicians take you more seriously and the people get to hear your story. The clout in numbers phenomena is not new and depending on you ask - can be quite beneficial.

Number 2: When the B&T were added someone forgot to ask the following questions: A) Could you share with us examples of overt discrimination based on your being bisexaul, i.e. fired from your job, refused an apartment etc.? and B) Are transgendered individuals gay? I would guess that it would have been politically incorrect to pose those questions.

Number 3: How does inlcuding all the groups presented in the article help the gay and lesbian movement?

It is my humble opinion that this group is not helping matters but hurting same-sex advocacy. My number one issue with the group is that it confuses the argument by adding all these different goups. The group's argument detracts from the important conversation surrounding same-sex equality to one of derision.
My response: This was the frst of Ingrid’s posts relating to the trans community. Including the T doesn’t add a lot of numbers. It’s more important to the T to be included, than it is for L&Gs who are much more visible and less woodworked or stealth or closeted.

So, this was Ingrid's first relevant post - and the first shall be the last discussed.

As to her Number 1, we have Ben Franklin’s adage” We must all hang together, or we will assuredly hang, separately.” Sure, there is much to be said for separatism, but most of it is negative. Ingrid never seems to have seen the commonality that we share by being non-heteronormative non-cissexual.

As to Number 2, Ingrid asked the wrong questions. Bi is a sexual orientation, so lesbians and gays really do have to include them, as well as asexual people, for “sexual orientation” to be a protected class. People who are "bi" oriented do get discriminated against for being perceived as gay, particularly if their current relationship is a same-sex one. Some people who are trans identify as gay and lesbian (and were perceived by Ingrid to be “straight”) – and the rest are either bi, or identify as straight and still get perceived by some people as being gay or lesbian.

With Number 3, I have explained in responses to later blogs abovem that lesbian and gat people often experience discrimination, not for being gay or lesbian, but because of their gender expression. And many trans people are perceived as being gay – even iof they don’t identiofy that way. It makes no sense to enact bills into law that protect only a part of the equation. Gays and lesbians are covered better when “gender identity and expression” as well as “sexual orientation” are included as protected classes in human rights laws.

--

In finis, I dedicate this post to the memory of Ingrid E. Barnes, who was always controversial in her thoughts, words, deeds, and her general comportment. She was well-educated, well-read, and while we did not often agree on abstruse philosophical issues relating to the LGBT community, she was always personally respectful – she may have intellectually thought of me as a “man” but always managed to deal with me personally with dignity and respect, and with the use of the proper pronouns.

I am sorry I never got to see her blog while she was alive - and the responses here aree intended as part of a onversation that never did take place. I would only wish I could have had the opportunity to perhaps make her think a bit about her assumptions. . .

The First Epistle to Patti

My friend Patti recently became a member of the Church of God for All People, which is a Catholic church affiliated, not with the Pope in Rome, but with the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA). Here is my epistolary response:

Hi Patti,

You mentioned the church the other day - I didn't realize from the name (The Church For All People) that it was a Catholic church (which is why I was wondering about what you were believing these days . . . ) - it's not a traditional name for a catholic church, even in the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America, though it is inspired by Isaiah 56:7:

". . . my house shall be called the house of prayer, for all nations.
(from the Douay-Rheims transalation)

Other translations are closer to the name used:

King James: ". . . mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

American Standard Version: ". . . my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."

New American Standard Version: ". . . My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."

I'll be honest with you, I have seen storefront pentacostalist churches called The Church of God For All People and I kind of thought you might have gone off in that direction.

In any event, if you've found a spiritual home, that is a really good thing. I've gotten theologically unraveled over the past few years, and my own faith has been reduced to the kind of essence that is closer to Unitarian Universalism than it is to Catholicism. The bankruptcy of Roman Catholic moral theology when it comes to LGBT issues has caused me to question every other thing I used to accept in my faith, even though it has since adolescence always been more a matter of a suspension of disbelief than a true belief.

I ask myself the question - "what must I believe?"

I think, like Thomas Jefferson, that even if the resurrection and ascension are not literally true, that does not change the essence of what Jesus taught. As I see it, Jesus did not have to be anything other than a human being to be a Son of the Father. And as Jesus was, we are all Children of God, children of a *loving* God.

Catholics tend to view the Resurrection as the central motif of the faith - that Jesus died for our sins and then conquered Death. I don't see that as the central message any more. To me the central message of Christ's teachings is summarized in the distillation of the commandments: "Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself."

This wasn't original - other Rabbis had made the same expression in their teachings even before Jesus - but that does not detract from the simplicity and beauty - and the essence that we have to actually love ourselves in order to love our neighbors, which is something often lost when religion gets distilled into the negative expressions of 'thou shalt not' and focuses on sin and damnation. Calvinists, Puritans, some Evangelicals and a lot of Conservative Catholics focus too much on religious formalism and the technicalities of 'sin' and, like the stereotypical New Testament Pharisee, their focus on the minutiae of religious observance causes them to ignore the Spirit of the Law (note: The Pharisees were the direct predecessors of modern Rabbinical Judaism - not all Pharisees were the way they are negatively described in the Gospels, either, though the most Orthodox Jewish sects today still do have the tradition of rigorous observance of every one of the 613 commandments) - this only gets to be problematical when the interpretation of what constitutes strict observance creates injustice or harm.

Jesus set the example of healing the sick on the Sabbath, a technical violation of the Law. We also see the way Jesus interprets the Law in the story of the Good Samaritan - Luke 10:29-37:

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'

30 In reply Jesus said: 'A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.

32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.

35The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

36 'Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?'

37 The expert in the law replied, 'The one who had mercy on him.' Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'

The first two (the priest and the levite) to pass the man on the road did not stop because they thought the man might be dead, and the literal understanding of the Law meant they would be 'unclean' if they were to touch the body. But the Samaritan, whose beliefs were more flexible and less legalistic, looked to the essence of the Law - and went to help this person who he didn;t know, but was his 'neighbor' nonetheless.

For me, my faith is not centered on sin and death, or on life after death - to me, that doesn't matter. What matters is what I do in this life to be love others as I love myself. Being human, this has always been difficult. It's actually easier for those who live in community than it is for those who are out in the world. But even for them, it can be difficult.

Jesus sets the bar higher than I can touch:

In Proverbs 25:22-23, King Solomon is reputed to have stated:

21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

Jesus, ever the good scripture scholar, sees the admonition to feed, clothe and comfort our neighbor very seriously (our enemy is our neighbor, too! - and the 'heap burning coals on his head' is understood by some scripture scholars to be a bad translation of a metaphor meaning more that the enemy will feel shame for being the enemy, having previously harmed someone who returns good treatment for the bad that the enemy has done.

Jesus incorporated this idea of being responsible for doing good in the face of evil. The admonition that we should turn the other cheek is an example of this understanding (Luke 6:):

27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.

33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.

34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.

35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(Also see Matthew 5:39 for a similar synoptic rendering.)

Yet, Jesus understands that those who do not take the responsibility for their neighbor's plight will be the ones who will be treated as the goats at the time of Judgment (see Matthew 25:31-46). In Romans 12, Paul the Apostle, also a scripture scholar in his own right, connects the dots between turning the other cheek and ministering to our enemy's needs:

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.

11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.

12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.

13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord.

20 On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.'

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The translation comes out the same in both places (but the sense of the phrase is still more one of making the enemy feel bad for having done bad things - a burning feeling of shame that is only metaphorically like coals burning in (rather than on) the head.

Too often, my frustration with those on the Religious Right who despise and revile me makes me feel like calling for retribution - but all I will do is point out their error and pray that they will feel that burning shame before it is too late and the Lord judges them to number among the goats.

I do try to make the world a little better place. I take the things I do seriously in that regard, whether it's trying to get human rights laws passed to protect our people, or to get the county executive to issue that executive order, or have the county police establish a policy that will insure appropriate treatment of trans prisoners. I have tried to do *something* for homeless LGBT teens - not nearly enough, though - that bar is awfully high. I can only hope that the things I can do are good and try to do better.

Anyway, I am not trying to say that you shouldn't believe in the literal Resurrection and Ascension - there is nothing at all harmful about having those beliefs, after all. I don't see how these beliefs (or the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the literal Virgin Birth, or the Ever-Virgin doctrine, etc. etc.) really matter in our every-day lives. In our daily existence, the essence of being Christian is to love God, love our neighbors (including those who hate, despise and revile us in God's name), and love ourselves.

God loves you.

God loves us all.

Peace,

Joann